Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Anthony DiPierro 2/Evidence

I was under the understanding that argument belonged on the main hearing page (or talk pages), and that evidence belonged on the evidence page. However, we clearly now have an evidence subsection which includes no actual evidence, only argument. If I am mistaken about this part of arbitration procedure, please correct me. Otherwise, I request that participants refrain from adding non-evidence to the evidence page. - Keith D. Tyler &para; [ AMA ] 01:52, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * I think we're certainly in the realm of evidence with Raul's post - it is an account of the past history of the Anthony matter, essentially serving as a summary of two prior arbcom cases. That's certainly evidence. Snowspinner 02:18, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * If it is "evidence", Raul should have no problem formatting it per the instructions (i.e. in the form of dates and diffs). He need not give his "take" on the previous proceedings.  This is not an RfC.  -- Netoholic @ 03:03, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your "advice," though I "question" your "use" of "quotation marks." --Calton 04:43, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Being that *I* wrote the formatting instructions, I think I can speak with some authority as to *why* they are the way they are. In particular, it was to avoid the 100 kb long incoherent discussion/rants that were showing up preteneding to be evidence. On the contrary, what I gave here is a concise summary of prior disputes, which is *EXACTLY* what I was looking for when I wrote the evidence instructions. It is not desirable for people to document every diff; rather, the purpose of the evidence page is to give a coherent explanation of what is going on, for those who have not been following the disputes. When I wrote the formatting instructios, I pointed specifically to user:Raul654/Plautus as an example of how to summarize; people have taken the formatting there (with the day by day diffs) without quite understanding the whole idea of summarizing. &rarr;Raul654 05:02, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think I'd consider comments like "I think it's about time we got rid of Anthony. All he does is cause trouble." as evidence worthy of the page. State the facts, let them speak for themselves. -- Netoholic @ 05:15, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)


 * I don't argue that they are marginally evidentiary; I argue that they go way beyond the realm of evidence and largely into argument and opinion rather than into direct references of incidents or policy -- as the evidence page insists of participants:
 * Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient.
 * This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.
 * - Keith D. Tyler &para; [ AMA ] 19:43, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * - Keith D. Tyler &para; [ AMA ] 19:43, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * Quite frankly, it is not your place to question the evidence I choose to present. Notice where it says "Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent." If the arbitrators don't like what I have written, they can reshape it to their liking. &rarr;Raul654 20:19, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Why does the image of an 800-pound gorilla come to mind when I read this? In short, Raul, rather than acknowledging that he's placed a little too much inappropriate material on this page, comforts himself in the knowledge that our objections mean nothing because we cannot (legally) ourselves go in and change his "evidence".  Poor form, Mark. -- Netoholic @ 21:17, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)
 * I do not have to justify the evidence I choose to present to you, to Anthony, or to his advocate. The only opinions that matter when considering the evidence presented here are the opinions of the arbitrators. If you don't like it - tough. &rarr;Raul654 21:32, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * /me hands Mark a banana. -- Netoholic @ 00:04, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)


 * Can we please not fill this page with off-topic personal attacks. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 01:00, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, we can burn the witch without them. It all seems a bit trivial. "Anthony is a bad boy... look, he was bad back then and he's still slightly naughty." This seems entirely fired by personal animus, as so many RFCs and RFArs are. One would hope that the arbitrators would treat it accordingly but hope is often squandered in Wikipedia. Dr Zen 02:01, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I always interpreted discussion as "Don't get into an argument about the evidence." Some amount of discussion and accusation is going to be a part of evidence no matter what - "Here Person X did Y which is why you should ban him from Z" is kind of the point. Snowspinner 23:30, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Reply to objections by KeithTyler
Currently User:Anthony DiPierro/Shawn Mikula and User talk:Anthony DiPierro/Shawn Mikula are undeleted for the purpose of this case. The four diffs you need to view, then, are, , , and respectively. -- Grunt 🇪🇺

Anthony's sole piece of evidence
Guilty as charged. I had previously asked three people to remove the tag. They had done so. One user persisted in re-adding it. Noting that it had already been speedied and undeleted when the deleting admin changed their mind, noting that multiple other people had removed the tag, and noting that I without hesitation would have accepted (And in fact encouraged) a VfD debate, I decided that, rather than bothering somebody yet again, I'd remove the tag myself. I did so knowing it was against policy. I shall not have a cookie today. Snowspinner 14:43, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

(More seriously, if Anthony wishes a review of my conduct, fine - I am willing to admit that removal was wrong. The fact that I made a similar mistake to Anthony, while ironic, does not constitute a defense, and unless Anthony has other claims, I do not think it constitutes much of an offense either) Snowspinner 14:57, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, it certainly suggests that you selectively choose interpretations of policy as suits you; one to utilize in going after Anthony, another to protect your own material -- suggesting that your actions and complaints against Anthony are rooted in personal dislike rather than in policy. - Keith D. Tyler &para; [ AMA ] 18:38, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

It obviously wasn't just a mistake. You did it completely intentionally, even admitting that you were doing it in your comment summary. It is clear then that you are either being hypocritical or believe that you are above the law. Based on your previous comments suggesting that admins have more authority than the rest of us, as well as your current explanation, it seems to be the latter. It is my belief that it is perfectly acceptable in some cases to remove a speedy deletion tag from a page you created, and the fact that you knowingly did so backs up that belief.

As further evidence of your hypocrisy you specifically stated that "Deletion serves to delete article text - not subject matter" whereas you argue in this arbitration that I cannot create a page with any text on the subject matter of Mikula. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 15:10, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I've also made clear that I consider Mikula to be a special case. But if you want to pursue this, I've requested arbitration against myself - point this out as evidence there. In any case, I don't think it's material to this case. Perhaps I am a hypocrite, perhaps I broke the rules. This is an ad hominem defense, and has minimal legitimacy. Snowspinner 18:47, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not clear on what you believe to be the special circumstances of Mikula that caused you to edit war over its CSD and then bring this to arbitration while clearly feeling a different interpretation of policy applies to your own articles. You made an argument here that Mikula should not appear in Anthony's user space based on various principles, but these are not principles you follow or believe to be true, or at least equal in application. IMO, it brings considerable parts of your original argument against Anthony in doubt. Basically, if you applied that principle equally to Anthony and yourself, we wouldn't be here. - Keith D. Tyler &para; [ AMA ] 21:02, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * The extensive history of vandalism and recreation vandalism on the Mikula article renders it a special case. The truth or falsity of my claims of impropriety on Anthony's part does not change based on whether or not I, David, Raul, or somebody else raised the issue, and so the issue of my conduct is not relevent to the question of whether Anthony was within his rights to recreate the page. If you wish to make a counterclaim, that's fine, but I think it's rather inappropriate to wait until there's a motion to close to make it. Perhaps you want to add a note to the case proposed against me on the main RFAr page. Snowspinner 21:09, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * The truth or falsity of my claims of impropriety on Anthony's part does not change based on whether or not I, David, Raul, or somebody else raised the issue, and so the issue of my conduct is not relevent to the question of whether Anthony was within his rights to recreate the page. The fact that you, an admin in good standing, knowingly and intentionally engaged in the very behavior you accused me of, lends credence to the argument that it was not improper behavior, and that even if it was improper that it is not punishable.  I'm sorry this evidence was added at such a late stage.  If I had known about it sooner I would have added it at that time.  anthony &#35686;&#21578; 22:04, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * But if you want to pursue this, I've requested arbitration against myself - point this out as evidence there. You are a party to this arbitration and evidence against you is perfectly acceptable right here.  Perhaps I am a hypocrite, perhaps I broke the rules. This is an ad hominem defense, and has minimal legitimacy.  If in fact you are a hypocrite it is quite relevant to this case, as your lies about what the rules are should thus be discounted. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 21:58, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I would be shocked if the arbitration committee were determining the rules based on an argument of authority rooted in my moral integrity. Snowspinner 22:02, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the fact that you yourself appear to not consider it to be a rule is evidence that it is not in fact a rule for which there is consensus support. You are free to argue that it is a rule, and you just intentionally broke it anyway, but I don't think the arb committee will care for such games. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 22:06, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * If your objection is that I removed a CSD tag, yes. That is against the rules, and I did it anyway. If you have an objection to my justification that Steak and Blowjob Day is keepable, please note that my main objection is that it was invalidly speedied, then speedied off of VfD when it should have been given at least another full day, and then when a COMPLETE REWRITE (as opposed to the "Hey, let's add a link and call it a rewrite" lie you pulled) was submitted, it was tagged as speedy, untagged by two separate people, speedied and then unspeedied by Grunt, and then someone persisted in readding it. Snowspinner 22:19, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * If I have an objection? I'm not objecting, I'm presenting evidence.  And the page that you added a speedy tag to repeatedly was a complete rewrite.  The original page I created was allegedly the same except for the addition of links (although I don't know if this is true or not, as I have never been provided with the exact content of the VfDed page), but the page which was ultimately deleted was a complete rewrite.  Furthermore, as you yourself have said, "speedying is for unambiguous cases".  The fact that nearly half the people voted to undelete the page, that it sat with a speedy tag for days with no one willing to delete it, that you specifically requested for someone to speedy it and yet all the responses was that it should not be speedied, the fact that the original article itself was created time and time again, the fact that two people other than me removed the speedy tag, all shows that this is not an unambiguous case.  Just like you, all I wanted was a VfD debate, which would have shown that there was no consensus for deletion.  In fact, I still feel that there should be such a debate, and hopefully the arb committee will pass a resolution to undelete the page and send it through VfD. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 22:29, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I confess, I have no understanding of what this is evidence of. If it's evidence for a claim against me, I advise, for a number of reasons, not the least that this case is already nearly decided, that you add it to the case raised against me. If it is evidence of something relating to your case, what? The fact that I took the actions that I did does not, to my mind, change the validity of yours. Perhaps mine were also invalid. I am willing to entertain that notion. But I do not for a moment think that my say so or actions create policy, and so the fact that I have removed a speedy tag and argued against speedying an article in very different circumstances does not seem relevent to your case. So I suppose my question is, what claim are you trying to support with this evidence? Snowspinner 22:53, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe I've explained myself above. I'm not interested in repeating myself.  Frankly, it doesn't really matter whether or not you understand the evidence.  anthony &#35686;&#21578; 23:34, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)