Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Anthony DiPierro

evidence
I presume it is against protocol for Anthony to remove eveidence against himself from his page? Secretlondon 09:52, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * Even if the so called "evidence" is false? Anthony DiPierro 14:30, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Then reply why it is false - do not remove evidence from the page. Secretlondon 19:16, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * I didn't remove evidence. I removed nonsense. Anthony DiPierro 19:32, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Anthony It's looks suspicious to remove evidence. Just explain somewhere that the evidence is nonsense. it's up to the arbitrators to decide if it really is nonsense or not. theresa knott 19:59, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes: For example, post a rebuttal of that evidence which you feel is nonsense on a user sub-page. If Wikipedians have been posting nonsense masquerading as evidence, then I am very interested in discovering that fact and dealing with it appropriately. I do not appreciate people wasting my time. Martin 01:59, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I didn't think the evidence page was the place for arguments. In any case, secretlondon restored it, and I fixed it (replacing the misleading heading "Original Articles (As listed on his user page)" with "A selected list of articles which have been listed on User:Anthony DiPierro under the title "Pages I have (or haven't yet) created""  I also edited "His actual original articles are" to "His actual original articles include" and " Of the 16 pages Anthony says he has created" to "of these", and clarified that "Better Business Buereau" wasn't even created by me (it was listed on my page under that heading, and someone else created it before I even got to it).


 * In any case, should I be listing explanations and rebuttals on the evidence page, or just evidence? Anthony DiPierro 04:56, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * No not on the evidence page. Irismeister has done this and it makes the page very difficult to read. Why not create a new page at Matter of Anthony DiPierro defense and put you arguments there ? theresa knott 22:41, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * You could do it all on the evidence page if you divide the page into ==evidence against anthony== for everyone to contribute to, and then create ==evidence in favor of anthony== and present your case there. Just don't do what Irismeister did and mix your comments in with the evidence against you, it's hopelessly confusing.  :)  fabiform | talk 23:07, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's very easy to break evidence into that which is favorable and that which isn't. Evidence is evidence, it should all be factual and NPOV.  Or maybe I'm just missing the point of the evidence page.


 * Anyway, I was assuming there was going to be some sort of arguments phase after the evidence phase, but I guess I was wrong about that. Anthony DiPierro 23:39, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * See Matter of Wik evidence for an example of splitting the page. fabiform | talk 23:56, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I was going to bring that up as an example of why it's a bad idea. Anthony DiPierro 00:00, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Provocative
Is "provocative" really the word you want to use? I thought the whole point of VfD was to provoke discussion. anthony (see warning) 23:47, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * It depends what you're provoking... :) Martin 00:02, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * So what are you claiming I'm provoking? anthony (see warning) 00:09, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, I'll ask you that question back. What feelings and reactions do you think your comments provoked in those who read them? Martin 00:24, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Depends on the comment. As I've said, with regard to some of my comments, such as the "idiosyncratic" one, my intention was to point out the ridiculousness of the reason given for deletion.  Did I succeed?  I think some people understood what I was getting at.  Enough others didn't and thought that I wasn't being serious that it was a mistake, though.  With regard to "Would you rather we just list the white ones?" I've explained my statement in my replies.  My intention was to point out that we keep many other crime victims, the only difference with that one seemed to be that she was foreign.  With regard to "Person who works for CNet. Famous" my intention was to explain my vote.  As I've said, I make no apology for that one.


 * In any case, since you're the one accusing me of breaking rules, I think you should be the one answering the question. Besides, I asked first. anthony (see warning) 00:35, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I think that question is already answered - your comments "stir[red] other editors up", more than was necessary given the admittedly conflict-prone VfD process. Martin 00:40, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't see how "stir up" is any more descriptive than "provoke". No stirring up is necessary.  We could just vote and be done with it.  But I thought the purpose of VfD was to stir up discussion.  I dunno, if that's the phrasing you want to use, fine.  I find it hard to believe that a majority of arbitrators are going to agree that provoking discussion is a bad thing, though. anthony (see warning) 00:45, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Provoking discussion is good. Provoking people is bad. Seems clear to me. -- Cyan 01:04, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Depends what you're provoking them to do. And while it may be bad (I don't think that's clear), it also may be acceptable. Anything I say is going to provoke someone.  If I simply voted to Keep, that would provoke someone.  If I voted Delete, that would probably provoke someone else.  anthony (see warning) 10:20, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Regarding proposed findings and decree
As currently worded in Finding of fact #1, the committee cites State your point, don't prove it as "established Wikipedia customs and current practices". In fact, this page was only recently created on 21 Mar 2004, and to the extent that it is established policy in any sense, could only become so thereafter (perhaps based on the poll at Wikipedia talk:State your point, don't prove it). If the committee is only considering Anthony's behavior on VfD, the issue almost entirely predates the existence of this policy. Furthermore, the policy was created largely in response to the actions of Anthony (as well as others, apparently).

Since it is widely considered unfair to enforce ex post facto legislation, I believe the committee needs to reconsider the policy (rather than evidentiary) basis for all proposed findings and decrees. Right now the committee would effectively be relying on targeted retrospective legislation for any sanctions it may impose on Anthony - whether that means simply instructing him to be less provocative (proposed Decree #1), or actually prohibiting him from editing certain pages (proposed Decree #2). --Michael Snow 22:27, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Anthony's behaviour does predate the existence of the policy page. However, it does not predate the existence of the "established Wikipedia custom and current practice" - the community distaste for and avoidance of messing around on VfD has been around for a while now.


 * It may help if you consider that the policy page merely wrote down what was already a community expectation. That's good practice, in my opinion - the best policy pages simply crystalise and make explicit what is already latent in the community.


 * Some earlier examples of such distaste are Katherine Jacobson and talk:list of heterosexuals, for example, both of which predate Anthony's edits by some months. Martin 23:03, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm not arguing that there was no such custom, but I think you need to cite better examples in support of it than an after-the-fact policy page, and also say why Anthony should have been aware of it. Otherwise, the only thing you can legitimately do is tell Anthony to abide by the policy in the future. Which, of course, may be all you decide to do anyway. --Michael Snow 23:19, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I fail to see how "State your point, don't prove it" is relevant anyway. In fact, the whole finding of fact seems irrelevant, since there is no finding of fact that I have "played around" on VfD. anthony (see warning) 23:41, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Request to Re-open
I have requested that this case be re-opened, as Anthony has reverted to his sanctioned ways. RickK 00:09, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm still willing to mediate this with you, RickK. anthony (see warning) 00:24, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * What would be the point of mediation? You know what the problem is, you've been told by the ArbCom not to do it, and yet you repeatedly do so. Ambi 06:21, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * The point of mediation would be to come up with a solution which is acceptable to all parties. I don't know what the problem is, other than the fact that some people like RickK disagree with my opinion and want to censor me from expressing it.  This was not part of the ArbCom ruling, which was about the playing around I was doing on VfD, nominating articles which I didn't really want deleted, making sarcastic votes, etc.  Just look at the evidence page to see what the ArbCom ruling was about.  The ArbCom ruling specifically said that I was still allowed to participate on VfD and VfU.  There certainly was no ruling that I cannot nominate improperly deleted articles on VfU. anthony (see warning) 15:36, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Can you be a bit more specific? (IE, point to a page diff or two)? &rarr;Raul654 07:10, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC) . From Anthony's previous arbcom case -- "Anthony has over a long period of time made a number of provocative edits to VfD for no other apparent purpose than to stir other editors up... The arbitration committee instructs Anthony to refrain from playing around and making provocative edits on VfD and associated pages". One look at the nonsense on Votes for undeletion shows he has obviously violated this. &rarr;Raul654 07:21, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Look at Votes for undeletion. He's nominated about ten pages which are the most obvious garbage, and which people have almost unanimously voted to keep deleted. Ambi 07:17, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Silly and vindictive - Anthony is doing a great service in confirming some very questionable speedy deletions. The deletion summaries were sorely lacking, and he does not have access to view the deleted content. Per the purpose statement on VFU, editors can post there requests for either temporary undeletions to view content, or request that an admin post the content.  As a result of his action, some deletes were found valid, some are being discussed, and some admins have already admitted they were wrong in their actions.  The page was not disrupted by the action, since the traffic is so light there.  I would say only admins that have something to worry about would complain about this. Arbitrators - please reject this outright. -- Netoholic @ 07:36, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)

RickK, Ambi, and Raul, please stop making ad hominem attacks against people you disagree with. The arbitration committee is not a club to be wielded in this kind of disagreement. Please assume good faith on the part of other Wikipedians. The Cunctator 09:47, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Look, you don't like me, and I certainly don't like you, so why don't you butt out? RickK 22:05, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

Fred, why should we accept this instead of sending this (again) to mediation?

Because he continues to focus on the area of pages for deletion rather than simply editing. Fred Bauder 19:56, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * The vast majority of my edits are not in any way related to VFD. Maybe you should take a look at RickK's edits if you want to see someone more focussed on VFD than I am. anthony (see warning) 20:57, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

1. The arbitration committee instructs Anthony to refrain from playing around and making provocative edits on VfD and associated pages. The arbitration committee does not object to which way Anthony voted, only the manner in which he voted. Why don't you find something else to do, like editing some articles? Fred Bauder 22:27, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * I've found many other things to do, and I do them. But as long as I can't see deleted articles, my interests will continue to clash with those who wish to remove certain articles from Wikipedia.  This is especially true with regard to speedy deletions, as the approximately weekly database dumps generally do not include the text of speedy deletions.  I've said it before and I'll say it again.  Let me view deleted articles and I will never participate on VFD or VFU again. Maybe the arb committee can pass that as a ruling.  I'll even code up the patches to make it happen. anthony (see warning) 22:47, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * If a developer can confirm that Anthony could be given the ability to view deleted pages without conferring on him the other rights of an admin, I think this might save everyone a huge headache and let them go back to writing articles. I'd have to think about it before being certain, but it seems like a wise idea to me. Jwrosenzweig 22:51, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * By the way, don't even try to frame this as a matter of not objecting to the way I vote, but only the manner I vote in. RickK has listed for deletion far more articles than I've listed for undeletion, and he's listed for deletion plenty of articles which received a consensus to keep.  So if the arb committee wants to really remain neutral on this question, then if they punish me for nominating articles for undeletion they better ought to punish others for nominating articles for deletion. anthony (see warning) (message modified after reply, better -> ought to)
 * Despite several attempts to get me sysopped and several RfA's against me, all have failed. *I* am not the one who was told to stop trolling on the VfD pages.  Yes, I make a lot of postings to the VfD pages, but most are upheld, and I have changed my votes in the past when it's been clear that the original posting was incorrect.  I am certainly not TROLLING the VfD pages.  And I, unlike other people I could mention, also do some editing on Wikipedia.  RickK 23:11, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Why not mention those people? Is it because you're suggesting I'm one of them?    I've made over 5,800 article space edits.  And I'm not trolling any pages.  I've made a few nominations on VfU which you and a lot of others disagree with.  In hindsight, some of these were mistakes, and I've withdrawn those nominations.  As Jwrosenzweig said, one isolated mistake is not grounds for arbitration.  I've shown that I'm willing to back down when consensus is against me, so I find it hard to see how this request for arbitration is meant to resolve anything.  That's precisely why the mediation committee said "Anthony has demonstrated his willingness to mediate; but his adversaries have not. Until they do, we must consider Anthony a Wikipedian in good standing, and any comments to the contrary a demonstration of incivility." anthony (see warning) (message modified before reply)

Request to re-open Anthony DiPierro
Please see. Anthony has returned to his trolling ways concerning deletions. RickK 00:07, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)


 * Comments to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Anthony DiPierro

Comments and votes by arbitrators (1/3/1/0)

 * Recuse. &rarr;Raul654 07:21, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Accept Fred Bauder 13:19, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Reject. It appears that at least some of the articles were illegitimately deleted, and Anthony has been able to articulate a reasonable position on several others -- I grant that a few articles appear to be worthy of deletion, but surely one isolated edit (in which several legitimate requests were made) is insufficient evidence for an arbitration case.  There is a standing order concerning Anthony -- if admins feel he's in violation, then block him for 24 hours and be done with it.  Personally, unless Anthony makes two or three other such edits, I'd call this exactly the situation that a standing order was created for in the first place -- an isolated incident which Anthony will be temp-blocked for.  If Anthony doesn't like the standing order, according to his terms, he can request arbitration instead, and at that point I'd accept. Jwrosenzweig 22:51, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Reject; fully agree with Jwr. James F. (talk) 00:07, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Reject per Jwr the Epopt 04:29, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Reject Fred Bauder 12:15, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)