Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Aitias/Evidence

Note
Please note that I won't be available for the next few days (at least until Tuesday) due to personal (religious) reasons. Thanks, — A itias  //  discussion  22:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Evidence already presented
Ottava Rima's evidence section states "Much of my evidence has been put forward already". I suspect this refers to what was said in the request for arbitration thread (though possibly it refers to the RFC). It would be appreciated if those who commented in the original thread resubmitted here what they said there (if it is evidence), or at least linked there from here. Carcharoth (talk) 03:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the evidence section above mine. If you want, I can bring up what I originally stated and surrounding evidence, but it would directly bring Coren and Malleus into the case. I am not going to presume on them, nor do I feel as if it is in the best interest of ArbCom to focus on that one instance when there are plenty of other pieces of evidence on other problems put forth elsewhere. If Coren and Malleus both send me notices that they are willing to be included in a dragged out affair that would deviate from the main topic, then I would consider it. However, I am quite content with the evidence that I have put forth. I can be contacted directly if need be. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. Put forward already by others - that's fine. I misunderstood and thought you had stated things elsewhere. Carcharoth (talk) 22:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Context of comments and policy pointers
Could evidence please be presented on the context of several points raised here? Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 07:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Last point updated following Aitias's submission of evidence that appears to correct what Ottava Rima's evidence said. 11:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Could evidence be presented on who regularly edits the 'request for rollback' page and its talk page?
 * Could the timelines please be clarified? In particular if something is months ago, or very recent, that should be made clearer.
 * Could the full context of the RFA opposes and who responded to them be given, please? I've looked at the RFAs, and there is more threaded discussion following Aitias's opposes than has been stated here so far. I'm looking in particular for evidence relating to whether the responses to Aitias's opposes (as well as Aitias's opposes) met community standards for conduct at RFA or not. Something on whether editors on wikibreak dropping in to take part in RFAs is common would also be good.
 * Could evidence be presented on how common it is for people to revert with the edit summary of "?" or similarly short edit summaries?
 * Could someone reiterate or point to the current standards for an editor reverting or removing messages left on their talk page?
 * Could someone point to current policy or standards on self-deletion or protection by admins of their own user pages and talk pages when retiring or going on a long break? How common is it and what are the reactions when this is pointed out or contested?
 * How common is it for admins to have parts of their talk page history self-deleted in the page history and not openly displayed on the archive page?


 * I believe based on WP:LOGACTIONS, User:PeterSymonds and User:Pedro are the uninvolved experts on the questions above, should I invite them to comment?  MBisanz  talk 07:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please do. Thanks for leaving the notes for Pedro and PeterSymonds (though it's not WP:RFP or WP:RFA I've asked about, but WP:RFR) - I hope both consider presenting evidence. I do note, though, that Pedro left a view at the RfC on Aitias, so that might not be completely uninvolved. What I'm looking for is some idea of who are the 'regulars' at WP:RFR, and where the line is drawn between that and the allegations of 'ownership' being made here. I've also been looking at WP:LOGACTIONS. Does the "user rights modification" bit refer just to granting and removal of rollback, or to other actions as well (I see other ones listed at WP:RFR)? What I would like to see is a listing of who is most active in granting and removing rollback permissions and participating in the rollback discussions, as that was the specific allegation of ownership made here. Carcharoth (talk) 07:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Big update 09:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It refers to any userrights change through Special:UserRights (includes sysopping, rollback, bots, and the other flags). Before he retired, User:SQL had a tool that could sort the userrights log (but I now see it is disabled due to abuse), it might be worth asking User:Bjweeks or User:X! to produce a sorted log as that is something they have skill at.  MBisanz  talk 09:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I posted a list of most prolific rollback granters/removers on the evidence page under my section. Mr.Z-man 22:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Moved to main evidence page per request. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 22:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. The above should be entered into evidence. Could a clerk notify PeterSymonds and co-ordinate or do this. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 22:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Listing related discussions
For the full background to the case, can links to related discussion please be placed into evidence. An example (once it has archived) would be this thread, plus other threads as found. This will help provide the full context to some points being raised here, as opposed to isolated comments which might be taken out of context. The RfC has been mentioned in Acalamari's section, but it should in addition be listed somewhere as part of the background, along with timings, participation and result. I think there was also a second RfC being prepared in userspace, but it was deleted. Carcharoth (talk) 07:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * To answer the RfC issues, I linked to the RfC for both transparency and access; as for the second RfC which I was creating, it is located at User:Acalamari/RFC, which I deleted because I assumed that it was no longer needed, I didn't want an "evidence page" hanging around my userspace, and because Mailer diablo said it would be okay. Any evidence listed on it has been listed here. Acalamari 19:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearing up what happened with that userspace page and confirming that it is redundant to the evidence you have provided here. What I'm hoping for is a separate "background" section with links to all the relevant discussions (along with dates). I can do that myself at some point, but I'm saying here that the parties and others working together to provide background links in a separate section makes our job easier when reviewing the evidence. Carcharoth (talk) 22:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

A process question
What is the purpose of this arbitration case? There are places for "evidence" but I don't actually see an accusation or desired result. I'm not frequently in this area of Wikipedia, although I am aware of (and have participated in) past questioning of Aitias' actions, so I'm just wondering if I'm missing something. Thanks! Frank |  talk  19:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Frank, the way I understand this case is that it is a chance for Aitias to defend himself and argue why he should get the tools back, for others to provide evidence for why he shouldn't regain adminship, and also to investigate the conduct of other users in the event that Aitias was provoked at all during the whole matter. I could be wrong, however, but that's what I interpret this case for. Acalamari 19:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Aitias removal of adminship was because he vanished when the case was about to be opened and does not mean he won't get it back unless he defends himself. The case is to investigate the complaints regarding his actions, which can be found at Requests for arbitration/Aitias and Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Aitias now. Users can and will make proposals on what should happen at Requests for arbitration/Aitias/Workshop. regards  So Why  20:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Per Requests_for_arbitration/Aitias/Proposed_decision, the purpose of this case is to consider the administrator conduct of . The Arbitration Guide recommends that interested parties submit diffs and log entries supporting or refuting if the subject of the case has complied with relevant policy. Committee members have further indicated that unless findings are made to remove Aitias' sysop userright, it will be returned at the conclusion of the case.  MBisanz  talk 20:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected, as it was clear I missed a couple of things. Thanks for the helpful reply, MBisanz. Acalamari 22:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. I had a disagreement with Aitias and commented in the previous RfC; I am going to WP:AGF at this point and decline to add anything here. If there is a specific request for me to add anything to that relatively small event (documented above), let me know. Frank |  talk  01:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Aitias continues to dismiss concerns raised
Rjd0060 has stated that Aitias continues to dismiss concerns raised and is continuing in an "argumentative state". However, a certain level of argumentation is natural at arbitration (and can be seen in the way other parties are presenting their evidence). If an editor or administrator brought to arbitration believes the statements being made about them are wrong, then this is the correct venue to present evidence of their own, and their own interpretation of what took place. There is nothing wrong with that. Possibly the issue here is the difference between calmly arguing against, and discussing something, as opposed to dismissing something out-of-hand as incorrect. What I see here is Aitias doing (or attempting to do) the former, not the latter. Or to put that another way, there is a difference between disagreeing with someone (and explaining why you disagree), and dismissing their concerns. It is possible that Aitias and others presenting evidence could do so in a different manner, but I for one would not sanction anyone for attempting to argue their case at arbitration. Carcharoth (talk) 00:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally, all I think it does is prove the point that I attempted to make in my evidence, and pointed out in my initial statement. Only in the most recent comments posted does Aitias begin to acknowledge that any of his behavior was inappropriate (though he made a similar statement on the RFC, to no effect). The "I'm right and everybody else is wrong" mentality is the reason that we're here. Mr.Z-man 00:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Then what advice would you give Aitias given that we are in the middle of an arbitration case? Carcharoth (talk) 00:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I don't agree with you, Mr.Z-man. “‘I'm right and everybody else is wrong’” is certainly not true at all: Even though this is alleged to me noteworthily often. The fact that I disagree with a particular evidence (I always try to explain the reasons why I disagree with it very, very detailed) does not exclude that in general I agree that there are valid concerns regarding, for example, my tone or, as another example, that I have made certain mistakes. I have tried to explain this point in my evidence — if anything is not clear, of course anyone is free to ask for clarification. — A itias  //  discussion  01:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You're disagreeing with almost all the evidence. Just as you did on the RFC and the initial stage of the RFAR and when concerns were raised on your talk page. From reading what you've posted so far, you only agree that one or 2 comments of yours might have been "unnecessary," many people disagree with you, perhaps listen to them? My advice would be to actually listen to the concerns. When someone who nominated you for adminship once endorses an arbitration request against you, perhaps there might possibly be an issue. Look at the comments at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Aitias - while some of them may be saying that arbitration is not necessary, how many of them are agreeing with you that your behavior is not problematic? Are any? The arbitration request was unanimously accepted. At this point though, it may be too late. After the RFC had no effect, I think people might want to see some evidence that you actually will change your behavior before they'll let you have the tools back. Mr.Z-man 01:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * My apologies for not being clear when I wrote that comment. Mr.Z-man has it perfectly.  We're still seeing (or at least I am, hence my comment) Aitias dismissing (as in, asserting that everything he has done is acceptable and people who say otherwise are simply wrong) the concerns that have been brought forward.  If the committee is going to make any successful attempt at remedying this situation (the situation of Aitias' unacceptable conduct) then his cooperation is key, and I'm not seeing it as of yet.  One must first acknowledge that there is a problem before one can honestly say that they will, at the very least, attempt to rectify the concerns of others.  I'll also note that I have not read any of his comments since my initial comment. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like my advice wasn't accepted. Mr.Z-man 01:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Z-man, Aitias is perfectly entitled to present evidence on his own behalf and to discuss the evidence presented by others. If Aitias is taking the wrong attitude towards this case, let the arbitrators decide that themselves. Carcharoth (talk) 20:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Limiting rebuttals until after arbitrator input
On a more general point, this type of case, where there is a long list of accusations, might benefit from arbitrators examining the accusations first and dismissing those that are deemed baseless or irrelevant to the use of admin tools or general admin conduct. That would save Aitias having to respond to everything, though it's a bit late for that now. Carcharoth (talk) 00:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be very greatly appreciated. :) — A itias  //  discussion  00:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. I have asked my colleagues to see if this approach is workable. Possibly it won't be, but if this approach is taken, one advantage would be for arbs to highlight areas that are of concern (such as I have done over the charge of edit warring on protected pages). Some might say, though, that admins should be able to work out which areas are of concern and which are not, without being told. I'm more sympathetic when there is a very long list of diffs to work through. Carcharoth (talk) 01:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay in getting back to this. The upshot of various discussions (not very long ones) was that
 * Conduct within the case pages could be cause for concern (in my opinion this applies to all parties)
 * The evidence will be examined as evidence in itself, rather than the way it is presented (e.g. rebuttal or long list of diffs)
 * The possibility was raised of Aitias answering questions posed by the arbitrators - would that be something Aitias (and maybe others, if they are prepared to answer questions about the evidence and what they want to see happen in this case) would be amenable to?
 * There was more, but it is not my place to summarise everything that was said. I will ask my colleagues to comment here if they have time, explaining their positions further. Carcharoth (talk) 20:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Serious misconduct of any sort is related to the admin bit, even if the tools are not directly involved. Improper behavior not only reflect poorly on an admin engaging in it, but also poorly on the project and their fellow admins. That those with a pattern of misconduct (and a likelihood to continue) should not hold the bit seems to me a basic bit of common sense and one of the few consistant points of RfA standards over the years.

On the point of scope, misconduct is misconduct. I am loathe to reject legitimate evidence as "out of scope". However, I do accept that each case has a focus and scope. An arbitration case is not an open invitation for a mud slinging contest. Typically the scope will be a particular topic area, dispute, or individual. In any such case, the actions of all directly involved editors may be scrutinized and some "indirect" information may be appropriate. For example, it is OK to add "off topic" evidence to show a larger pattern of misconduct. (To put it another way, if someone were baiting or trolling a main party, it is OK to provide additional evidence showing that this is a broader pattern of misconduct.)

It is my opinion that anything that is not properly evidence (general rebuttals, commentary, etc) should be moved to the evidence talk page. Commentary and analysis of evidence is discussion, not evidence, and therefore belongs on the discussion page (again, just my opinion). If commentary grossly overblows issues, takes things out of context, or waves off legitimate concerns, (as examples) it only reflects poorly on the contributing editor and casts more light on patterns of conduct. Of course, these are just my own thoughts and you're welcome to a grain of salt. --Vassyana (talk) 07:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)