Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Man In Black

Uninvolved party comments
The following comments were submitted whilst this case was present at Arbitration/Requests; for ease of access, they are copied here. The originals are viewable here. AGK 17:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by MZMcBride
What forms of dispute resolution have been tried previously? The phrase "jump the gun" seems apt here. Here's my idea: we train the AbuseFilter to disallow new Arbitration filings where the "Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried" section is a paragraph trying to obfuscate that the answer is "no." --MZMcBride (talk) 06:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by hbdragon88
There has only been one form of formal dispute resolution, so far I can see: an old Requests for comment/A Man In Black that was not properly certified (thus deleted) or written in a coherent way by a user who eventually was brought before arbitration. Another (very very old) dispute resolution was a 2007 request for mediation that ended up kind of going nowhere, since the edit war died down and the parties started to talk to each other more and weren't blindly reverting each other.

I honestly don't see what the pressing need is to bring AMIB to arbitration right now; there's no emergency, there's no administrator war going on, and Jimbo Wales didn't refer the case. There may have been 12 blocks since AMIB was granted adminship, but only two blocks this year and only one in 2008. Putting AMIB on the spot for the majority of 3RR violations he incurred two years ago strikes me as being punitive. hbdragon88 (talk) 06:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by somewhat non-impartial Casliber
I will recuse on this one as I am non-impartial and on the opposite side of the notability and AfD battles. There are many editors involved in this debate who do not descend into edit warring. Furthermore, there was an incident where A Man In Black blocked Ikip for 48 hours on April 26th for alleged canvassing, where there was a rather significant questionmark over involved status:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&user=A+Man+In+Black

I think that a well-circumscribed review of his conduct as an admin is warranted. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Quick note on why RfC won't work
(1) RfC is not necessarily for review of admin conduct as arbcom review is, and (2) an RfC would lead two lines being drawn in a similar fashion to debates repeated a large number of times at AfD, MfD, DRV etc. We'd have a large page with many proposals and comments and no outcome....and alot of wasted editing, and then it would come here sooner or later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by passaby somewhat involved in earlier edit wars with AMIB Mythsearcher
AMIB some times get so involved he would simply do WP:POINT acts like this one: He is asking for a source for the source in this particular edit, even going as far fetched as asking something like who said the Gundam said in the source is this particular Gundam (While there is only ONE Gundam with the name Gundam with no prefix and suffix.)  Just look at this history page and the page before. He is purely lucky that none of these involved parties reported him in such situation. He started to add in redundent fact tags into the article right after the three reverts he made after his edit was reverted by 2 different editors and at the third editor comes in to revert his edit, he started to mess around with the article. I am not saying that he should be punished for this unreported issue, in fact I have revert over 3 times in this edit war if his actions are not considered vandalism. Yet he is surely not one that is doing well as an admin, at least most of the time he was seen abusing his admin power and acting very emotional in edit wars with other parties. MythSearchertalk 13:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Stifle
I don't see anything here that an RFC isn't the appropriate venue for. Stifle (talk) 10:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Reply to John Vandenberg
I believe that is a quirk of the FAQ template they are using. Stifle (talk) 13:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Abd
I agree with Stifle, with one reservation. AMIB is blocked, and unblock has been denied, though there is some evidence that the block is punitive and not needed to protect the project from immediate disruption. Instead of blocking, a cease-and-desist order could have been issued, with specific conditions, pending resolution. (If pushing a block button is appropriate, cease-and-desist-or-else would be just as allowable, and any admin should, absent emergency, honor such an order, the same as a block.) Because we have a blocked admin, immediate ArbComm action may be called for. I'd recommend confining ArbComm process here to a consideration of only the most immediate issue, not an overall review of AMIB's history, which may prove, if ArbComm otherwise bounces this case, to be unnecessary. --Abd (talk) 13:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I've reviewed the situation with User:MalikCarr. Almost two years ago, AMIB was in a dispute with this editor, see, , , and then blocked this editor, twice, in two successive days. No unblock template was put up because none was suggested. Now, this is clearly old, but ... has the problem ever been acknowledged? And then AMIB again blocked the same editor in November, 2008, not so long ago, see block log, see "discussion" at. No warning, apparently, no regular block notice. This block took place while AMIB's block of Jtrainor was under discussion at AN/I; in that matter, it appears that AMIB was likewise involved in a dispute. While copyvio justifies ignoring recusal policy, it should have been AMIB, then, to take the block to AN/I for review, not another editor. MalikCarr had commented in the AN/I discussion. AMIB did mention it on AN/I but only as the very last post in the prior thread about the Jtrainor block, and such a post could easily be overlooked, it attracted no comment at all even though the Jtrainer thread had heavy participation. However, in the more recent matter of blocking Ikip, AMIB had an emergency justification (canvassing is an emergency as long as !votes count, and we can assume that Ikip's behavior appeared to be canvassing to AMIB, even though the community concluded that it wasn't), and did take the matter to AN/I himself for review. The old matter with MalikCarr could be resolved in a flash if AMIB simply states, "I wouldn't do that again." (Or, because of alleged copyvio, "I'd report it immediately to AN/I in a prominent way.") And so we'd be left with the immediate matter, that AMIB is blocked for a marginal edit war without adequate warning that a block was imminent. Yes, an admin's behavior should be exemplary, but this is a better topic for an RfC or even lesser dispute resolution initially. I see AMIB as being responsive, based on the Ikip block affair. --Abd (talk) 20:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Ikip
The nominator wanted some examples of AMIB's misuse of tools before:
 * AMIB blocked me for alledged canvassing, he acknowledged that I had broken no rules, and he then repeatedly lied that he was an uninvolved admin in the ANI. "Uninvolved" AMIB had also created an attack page against me before this ANI:
 * User:A Man In Black/Let's tape Ikip up in a box and mail him to the moon


 * AMIB deleted a template unilaterally which he was arguing against.
 * AMIB also blocked two editors who he was in an edit war with which stretched over a year and a half. (AMIB left in Nov 2007 and returned in Oct 2008)AMIB had protected the page twice he was edit warring on, once reverting himself because it was the "wrong version" and he reverted other users on this page an astounding 52 times. See: User:Ikip/amib

Ikip (talk) 15:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Note by Ncmvocalist
Bad idea to accept; time to stop avoiding RfC/U - if there is a repeated problem, a history or something along those lines, then he should be given an opportunity to respond to the wider community's feedback, that is, including a larger number of users that are not deletion debate regulars (for the lack of a better term). Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC) I disagree that party lines being already drawn is, on its own, enough to justify avoiding RfC/U; however, this case involved other concerns which compels me to strike my earlier comment. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by MalikCarr
Since editing Wikipedia, a soul-crushingly large portion of my edits have been content disputes with A Man In Black, as are all but one of my blocks (I suggest the reviewing parties have a look at those for further clarification). While happily ignoring the 3RR because his position is right and the parties reverting him are wrong, he blocks other editors in content disputes - my first block on Wikipedia was over an image, no less. He claimed it was copyvio, I posited that it has all the proper fair use attributions, he said you can't have more than one fair use image in an article (a rather draconian interpretation of Wikipedia's "use as little as possible" rules, especially when I was only trying to keep two images in the article to begin with), and I get blocked for copyright violation. A Man In Black has a systemic "I know better than you" platform and doesn't hesitate to use his administrator's tools to that effect when he gets the inkling that someone disagrees, while simultaneously ignoring other policies that get in the way of his own positions. 12 3RRs is a conservative figure if my experiences with him are indicative, as I've reported him for 3RR at least six times on different articles only to have them protected instead of blocking the offending party (sometimes on his edit no less - how is that productive?). In a nutshell, he blocks you for his interpretation of policy, and disregards the very same when they're not to his benefit. I'd be happy to provide diffs and such on request; it'd be a lot of pages to pile through or else I'd stick them up here and now. MalikCarr (talk) 16:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Response to Stephen Bain
 * Is this too much? Blocked in content dispute MalikCarr (talk) 16:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Sandstein
I believe that I am uninvolved in any drama surrounding A Man In Black and I do not recall having had any substantial interactions with him. The continued administrator status of any editor with this sort of block log is patently unacceptable. I recommend that the Committee desysop A Man In Black by motion. Additional dispute resolution attempts are unlikely to be useful here: If a user (let alone an administrator) does not get the message that edit warring is prohibited after the n-th block, a RfC won't make him stop either.  Sandstein  19:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Jtrainor
I don't have much to add to what User:MalikCarr has said; we were involved in basically the same dispute over a few fiction articles. Every single one of my blocks came about as a result of that situation. Anyone who wants to see how AMIB does things as to look no further than his contrib history; he has an ongoing habit of deciding how something should be, and then edit warring to keep it that way, regardless of consensus or policy. It is worth noting that for an extended period of time while an administrator, he had a deletionism-advocating sig, as well, something which is at best disruptive when one works in fiction areas. Jtrainor (talk) 02:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by jc37
If this is being accepted solely on the count of the blocking of Ikip, then I would like to encourage the arbitrators (and others interested), to more closely examine the situation with User:Ikip. (And Ikip should probably be added to this request.)

There have been many concerns about Ikip's actions in the past several months at least. Including constant questions/concerns about inappropriate canvassing. I personally (hopefully) helped diffuse one such situation.

I'm not going to put forth here whether either Ikip or AMiB was correct or not (I'll leave that for the arbitrators), but to take the isolated diffs above at face value would be, in my opinion, a misrepresentation of the various events.

And one of the things that this RfAr may have to wade into is the ongoing actions of the WP:ARS. Including the question of whether (and/or when) onsite (and perhaps offsite) canvassing is to be considered appropriate. And perhaps an assessment of the ongoing lack of civility between their members and those opposing them (from both sides).

In my experience, this isn't as clean or nice as some of those above might wish to present it. While I suppose we could isolate a single editor and perhaps choose to apply sanctions to that single editor, there are apparently actions and activities by more than just a single editor, which could be called "disruptive". - jc37 12:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Steel
Jc37 has it right, and the wider issue here is the one really worth an arbcom case. Do not accept this case thinking it involves an evil admin and a handful of poor innocent victims. Unfortunately, some of the arb comments suggest they are going to approach the case in that way. Please clarify. – Steel 18:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by X!
I'd like to encourage the arbitrators to accept this case. While there have not been many forms of dispute resolution in the past, AMIB's conduct has been extremely unique for an admin, and is not what is expected of them. Administrators are trusted, respected members of the community, and are expected to follow policies. With an astounding 12 times that he was blocked for 3RR, he would have been blocked for more if he was a non-admin. I feel that an arbcom case would be appropriate for what is happening here, since a RfC will not yield any results. X clamation point  14:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Buster7
Support An administrator must be fair and balanced, able to put out fires rather than fan the embers of dispute. Aggresion lives at the expense of co-operation. AMIB does battle on too many fronts and, from the above comments, he does not forget those that slight him. The persitant history of problems is a sign that this editor can not, or will not, change. The administrators mop is to be used as a tool, not a weapon. Administrators are chosen because, at the time of election, they seem just and wise, impartial and considerate, knowledgeable and open-minded. Can we still say that about AMIB?--Buster7 (talk) 03:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)