Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Anthony DiPierro 2/Proposed decision

Motion/request: Roll call
Due to the high number of recusals, I request that any arbitrators who have not explicitly accepted or recused themselves verify that they are not recused from the case (and will be participating in proceedings) or are recusing themselves. Again, I only ask due to the high rate of recusal so far.

Much obliged, Keith D. Tyler &para; [ AMA ] 00:02, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

Construe?
The word is used repeatedly, but it looks like you mean constitute. --Michael Snow 07:05, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Motion/Request: Substantiation of majority rule
A note has been added to the Proposed Decision indicating the following:

''On this case, 5 Arbitrators are recused and 1 is inactive, so 4 votes are a majority.''

My reading of Arbitration policy states:


 * "If consensus can not be reached, a vote will be taken, with the view of the majority of the Arbitrators prevailing. Majority shall be defined as a decision supported by more than 50% of all Arbitrators who were active at the time the decision was made (see Arbitration Committee for the current number of active members). If no option has majority support, no decision will be made, and no action will be taken."

The policy specifically refers to the list of committee members at Arbitration Committee as the source of the definition of "active." At the start of this hearing, there were 11 active Arbitrators listed on that page: . At present, there are 10: .

In either case, "more than 50% of arbitrators who [are] active" would require a vote of 6 arbitrators to comprise a majority.

The policy referring to a majority vote of Arbitrators makes no provision regarding recusals or any affect of such on the definition of "active" or of majority.

Please present, with linked reference to a consensual mandate, the basis for this practice.

- Keith D. Tyler &para; [ AMA ] 18:21, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * Recused effectively means 'not active for this case'. --mav 20:15, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Wait a second, let me get this straight. You are saying that recused-but-active arbitrators should count towards the total number of arbitrator votes necessary for a measure to pass, but obviously because they are recused, they don't vote on anything. Which means, in effect, you are arguing that recused arbitrators automatically vote no on everything! This is madness. &rarr;Raul654 20:04, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * The alternative presents a situation where an arbitration proceeding can potentially be decided by as little as 2 arbitrators (or maybe even 1), simply by the recusal of the rest of the committee. That would be even greater madness. (As it is, this could also be done by the rest of committee moving to "away" status for the duration of a proceeding, unfortunately, but I expect that such an obvious incident would be a lot more noticeable and objectionable.) Regardless of which particular madness you find more palatable, I still expect that the stated and consented rules as written are followed, regardless of any invented convention that did not take them into account (or ever cause anyone to think to update them). - Keith D. Tyler &para; [ AMA ] 21:49, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * We need at least four accept votes to take on a case. So there will never be a majority of less than 3 votes. Nice try though, full marks for sheer cheek. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 16:13, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm chagrined at being accused of anything other than expecting the arbcom to follow the stated rules. If the printed rules at Arbitration policy haven't been updated to reflect what the ArbCom has decided to do, that's in no way my fault.


 * Besides, 3 out of 12 is still quite a small proportion of arbitrators. I apologize for any lapse of mathematical precept that caused my example to be 1 or 2 persons short of practical possibility.


 * Moreover, the ArbCom, as I understand it, is just as subject to the decisions of the Wikipedia consensual principle as anyone else. If the ArbCom is deciding its policy a) in contradiction with printed policies and b) without regard for the consensual process, than that's a pretty worrisome problem and precedent.


 * I personally don't like the suggestion that the ArbCom makes up its own rules, without consensual basis, without even so much as unilateral codification, and that's just the way it is.


 * I certainly can't help it if so many Arbs chose to recuse. Nor do I believe that these recusals are the direct or indirect fault of Anthony's. Regardless, this is irrelevant. The only apparent basis for redefining majority in contradiction to the stated policy is prior arbitration cases, ultimately stemming from one original decision to redefine majority, which likewise must have been made in contradiction with stated policy.


 * I note that my simple request for a reference to a consensual decision, or even to a stated Arbitration policy, setting forth this practice has not been fulfilled.


 * I'm asking the ArbCom to follow stated policy and nothing more. Questioning my motivation doesn't change the underlying principle, and doesn't change the problem as it relates to other cases, past and future.


 * -Keith D. Tyler &para; [ AMA ] 18:23, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well i could go through your argument point by point, but it'll be just a waste of time to be honest. I'm not going to get into an argument with you over this. Recused arbitrators dont get to vote, therefore their vote will not be counted. Thats the end of the matter. I strongly advise you to help Antony by pointing out evidence of good behaviour/ good faith editing etc or by trying to refute evidence of bad behaviour, trolling etc. You are not going to get him of on a technicality. This is not a court of law. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 21:53, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

With 10 arbitrators, 5 recused and 1 inactive, we have 4 arbitrators on the case. Those who are recused probably did so due to prejudice against your client. The remaining 4 are the arbitrators considering the matter. a majority of 4 is three. Fred Bauder 16:04, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Of the twelve current arbitrators, five are recused (one of whom is away) and another is away. This leaves six arbitrators on the case and a majority of six is four. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 16:27, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, Arbitration policy does not say "a majority of active arbitrators who have not recused themselves from the case." It says "more than 50% of all Arbitrators who were active at the time the decision was made (see Arbitration Committee for the current number of active members)." There is no precept anywhere for redefining or arbitrarily replacing this policy based on recusals, other than those cases where the convention was applied or invented. I don't agree with the sentiment that convention is enough justification for altering practice, if the convention was established with disregard for stated policy. We have to expect that judgemental and remedial proceedings are consistent and rooted in policy, not changed from case to case as befits the judges and/or parties.
 * -Keith D. Tyler &para; [ AMA ] 18:23, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well in that case, we refuse to adhere to the policy on that point. I don't care whether you agree with this or not. Our answer to your request is no. Your move. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 21:58, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Can the other non-recused arbitrators please clarify whether or not they agree with this? anthony &#35686;&#21578; 01:38, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Request denied. If a policy would prevent us from doing our job, the policy is nullified, not our job.  Wikipedia policy is not a suicide pact. &#10149;the Epopt 04:17, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it's disingenuous to say that the stated policy prevents you from doing your job. I'm saying that under the written policy you need 6 votes to form a passing majority. It's already been established by Grunt that there are 6 available arbitrators. So then it is far from impossible for you to gain the proscribed majority. Just more difficult. The fact that the stated policy is difficult for you to follow in this case is hardly my fault, or problem. But it's certainly not impossible. Anyway, there could at least be the integrity to plainly state in the arbitration policy that you will do away with any of the policy if you deem it to be too arduous. What stuns me is the lack of regard for stated policy. At least an admission of "well, we need to revisit that policy" would have been a response that communicated an interest in ensuring integrity between policy and practice, instead of the "we do whatever we like, suck it up and deal" that I've received so far. - Keith D. Tyler &para; [ AMA ] 06:34, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, 5 were recused, but this hasn't stopped one of them (Neutrality) from voting, so clearly he has unrecused himself somehow. So if this is the case, then there are 7 arbs able to vote on this case. Which certainly provides enough votes to reach the 6 vote majority of active admins as proscribed in the policy. There's no necessity whatsoever for a divergence.
 * While we're on the subject, who else has un-recused?
 * - Keith D. Tyler &para; [ AMA ] 17:40, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

---

Policy updated to reflect actual practice and the original intent of the definition (which I wrote, btw). --mav 20:25, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I have reverted. Arbitrators should not be changing the Arbitration policy.  All changes must be ratified by a vote. -- Netoholic @ 20:46, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)


 * Wrong. "The Arbitration Policy may be tweaked as the Committee gains experience and learns better ways of doing things" See Arbitration policy ratification vote. --mav 05:28, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Nothing in that sentence (or page) says anything about who gets to tweak it. It certainly doesn't say that it can be changed unilaterally by the ArbCom at whim. I have to presume then that there is still a rule of law and that the consensual process remains intact as the driver of policy. - Keith D. Tyler &para; [ AMA ] 07:23, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * Can we move this discussion to some other talk page? While I agree with the argument Keith is making I don't feel it's particularly on topic.  Most of the non-recused active members of the arb committee have made it clear that this is their interpretation.  I'd like for the rest of the members to clarify their position, but this is not the place to argue over the finer details.  anthony &#35686;&#21578; 12:19, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Given that this is a place where anybody can edit any page and given how policy is all the time tweaked to reflect newer best practice, then it the most reasonable thing to assume is that the ArbCom can tweak its own working policy. This does not include substantive changes in policy - just refinements. --mav 13:26, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

regarding User:Anthony DiPierro/Shawn Mikula
" 2.1) The recreation of the deleted content at User:Anthony DiPierro/Shawn Mikula does not construe recreation of the article Shawn Mikula."

This looks like it is going to pass, so I think the Arbitrators need to go a step further with it. If this is true, then some comment on the actions of Snowspinner is needed. Specifically, Snowspinner engaged in revert warring (repeated insertion of the CSD tag), deleted the page himself, and then blocked Anthony over this. I am not saying any sanction is called for this, but some comment would be nice since his aggressiveness seems over-the-top. -- Netoholic @ 17:19, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)

(poking my head back in for a moment) Netoholic said it well. I don't mean to endorse Anthony's behavior, but is he to be penalized for revert warring over unwanted and unjustified edits to a page in his own userspace, a page which, by current policies and by the arbcom's own interpretation of those policies, was perfectly legitimate? Are Messrs. Sandifer and Gerard to be let off without even a warning, despite picking a fight with an illegitimate revert war over a page in someone else's userspace, and despite deleting that page quite against CSD policy? This hardly seems fair. (And one unrelated comment: Neutrality, for appearance's sake, may wish to abstain from voting on FOF #3.) &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 05:37, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutrality recused emself and shouldn't be voting on anything. anthony &#35686;&#21578;
 * Assume good faith, assume good faith, assume good faith,.... -- Netoholic @ 16:09, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)
 * To my consternation, the arbitrators have not chosen to entertain or respond to any arguments on this (see "" below). I am to understand, as a result, that it is perfectly acceptable to penalize someone for doing something that was admittedly not wrong to do. This is not a court of law; nulla poena sine lege does not apply. - Keith D. Tyler &para; [ AMA ] 05:36, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Comment on the (non)-remedies
The remedies proposed here, in my opinion, fall far, far short of what the arbcom should be doing. Last August, when I filed on the basis of his continuing violating of the previous arbcom ruling and his trolling on the FAC, I was planning to ask the committee to ban Anthony from the Wikipedia and template namespaces, where he does (most of) his trolling. Now - given all that evidence, plus the mountain of evidence accumulated in the mean time - the current remedies let him off with a slap on the wrist that doesn't even pertain to his trolling (being that reverting made up only a tiny, tiny fraction of it). Common sense dictates that whatever remedies are adopted, they should be at least as strong as the standing order, which by virtually all accounts failed to stop his trolling. &rarr;Raul654 20:16, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * I've suggested a new remedy banning him from recreating articles in his own namespace for three months after they have been deleted. We'll see what the other abitrators think of this. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 21:42, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * The word "virtually" in "virtually all accounts" must be there to indicate the opinions of the mediators in the reconsideration of the standing order, in which all agreed that the agreement was somewhat effective. However, Raul continues to characterize the agreement as a complete failure as a tool to "reform" Anthony. This was not, it should be noted, the opinion of the mediators who decided whether or not to extend the agreement between Feb 15 thru 19 (see Evidence). - Keith D. Tyler &para; [ AMA ] 23:11, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * I second Raul654's request for arbitrators to broaden the scope of their ruling. User:Anthony DiPierro has a very long history of trolling, and frankly I'm mystified as to why arbitrators seem content to rule on a single issue (recreation of Shawn Mikula) and sweep the rest away. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:48, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Recreation restriction
This comes out of left field among the rest of what is on the Proposed Decision. It certainly does not follow from the findings of fact or the principles. The findings of fact, currently unopposed, establish that the recreation of deleted content in user space does not constitute "de jure" (pardon the legal term) recreation as meant in the CSD criteria.

Therefore this remedy is to punish for an act that has been established not to be outlawed by current policy or consensus.

- Keith D. Tyler &para; [ AMA ] 23:11, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

If I may add: If this practice in itself is deemed to be a problem, I say, present it as a proposed policy for general consensus. Defining an activity as abusive or problematic and then proscribing penalties for it on only one person leaves this perceived problem open for others to abuse.

Furthermore -- what this says is, Anthony can for no reason place a draft copy of an article in his user space if it has been VfD'ed -- at least not for 3 months after it's gone through VfU. But using user space for drafts is one of the uses of user space explicitly encouraged in the user space guidelines. Again, let's be clear: this isn't a practice Anthony invented -- it's explicitly included in the guidelines. And after all, he did improve upon the Shawn Mikula article while it was in his userspace. The fact that there wasn't much to improve upon (so far) shouldn't change the issue.

Also, I would like clarification on whether this is a permanent or temporary remedy. I read it to mean that he cannot put content in his user space from a deleted article until three months after it has failed VfU, and that this provision applies to any VfDed article from now until the end of time.Not that this provision is only in effect for three months from the date of first taking effect.

TIA, Keith D. Tyler &para; [ AMA ] 06:48, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Recreation of the article
If the article was repeatedly kicked off Wikipedia, then surely keeping it on his userspace is using Wikipedia as a hosting service. Which is not what userspace is for - David Gerard 20:47, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * What the Arbitrators are wisely saying is that recreating (or creating) an article for the purpose of resolving the problems that led to its deletion is acceptable. Wikipedia is not a hosting service, but then that is why his subpage should have been VfD'd to make that determination.  It was not a speedy deletion candidate. -- Netoholic @ 20:57, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)

Clarification
Grunt said "I note that Anthony has previously stated he would be willing to abide by this." wrt to "Anthony DiPierro is limited to one revert per twenty-four hour period for a period of three months." This isn't entirely accurate. I previously stated that I would be willing to abide by a one-revert rule whereby I was limited to one revert per day, a day being the period of time between my waking up and going to sleep. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 01:21, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Good lord! No one knows when you get up and when you go to sleep. Fred Bauder 13:46, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * For the basis of outside knowledge of whether I was following the rule UTC could be used. But my point was that I haven't agreed to this, not that it should be changed. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 14:24, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have a question for you. It has been suggested that we are not addressing the "real" question of you constantly voting keep on every article that shows up on VfD. Do you think we need to ban you from VfA or VfU or have you decided to not constantly agitate in those areas? Fred Bauder 13:46, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not. I haven't even been doing this in a long time, and there's nothing wrong with voting in the first place (and the arb committee has even ruled as such).  Why have a vote if voting the wrong way is a bannable offense?  I think that's how Saddam Hussein won his "election".


 * I think you're putting too much stock in Raul's "evidence". The mediation committee all felt that my behavior has improved in the last 7 months.  I got into one edit war back in December, and I got into this incident with Snowspinner now.  I think at this point the standing order is actually working against Wikipedia, as it is encouraging people to incite me into getting myself blocked (I have trouble seeing how repeatedly adding a speedy delete tag on a user subpage of mine is anything but inciting trouble, in fact I was called a troll and blocked back in August simply for placing a VFD notice on a user subpage).


 * I think your suggestion of making the blocks 1 hour long is more reasonable than 24 hours. But I also think there should be a length of time for this ruling, maybe 3 months, and I think admins should be reminded to continue to assume good faith and only block me if they feel there is no other reasonable solution.  Even then, I think just the revert restriction is enough, though.  I'd rather have admins work with me if they have a problem so we can find a solution which is acceptable to everyone.  anthony &#35686;&#21578;


 * I have to admit that I am entirely astonished at the proposition that a person can and should have action taken against them because of how they choose to vote in any proceeding.


 * In fact, the prior hearing included this (proposed) decree: The arbitration committee does not object to which way Anthony voted.


 * Coercion or outlawing of votes is neither open, free, nor Wikian.


 * - Keith D. Tyler &para; [ AMA ] 18:31, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

I was just asking Anthony if he felt it was necessary to ban him for a year from VfD and VfU. He said he didn't think so. We certainly could ban him if he kept up the pattern he has in the past. The policy consideration would be disruption. Fred Bauder 18:52, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Bans for disruption
First off, I apologize if I'm making more edits to this page and bringing up more points of argument and concern than some of the other participants are comfortable with. However, this is effectively a disciplinary hearing, and my job is to do the best I can to appropriately make points which challenge accusations, presumptions, and actions against the person I'm representing. I don't feel I should *have* to apologize, but I've certainly received the impression so far that I shouldn't argue so much (or, perhaps, to expect to be fully heard and considered), which I think is plainly and fundamentally wrong.

Anyway, to the point. This remedy is almost an exact cut and paste (by some definitions, completely identical) to the agreement (aka standing order) entered by Anthony on 24 July 2004, with the exception that it has no sunset provision.

I don't see why this is warranted given the evidence.

1. It has been established that the CSD on Anthony's userpage was unwarranted and in opposition to consensual practice. His only crime was to participate in an edit war in his user space with Snowspinner, as a result of Snowspinner's act which was not substantiated either by user space policy or deletion consensus.

2. The standing order was reconsidered by the three mediators charged with stewarding the agreement between 15 and 19 Feb (see Evidence), and the result of that reconsideration was that the order was only warranted for 3 more months (which was in itself a questionable outcome considering this was an agreement between Anthony and Raul, and not an Arbitration decree, and therefore any amendment to its provisions should have had Anthony's agreement). The implication, voiced by the third mediator (who, it should be noted, voted to close the agreement immediately due to that questionableness, rather than extend for the full 6 months as proscribed), was the acknowledgement that Anthony had, under the agreement, "reformed somewhat".

The only Finding of Fact so far indicating wrongdoing by Anthony was his involvement in an edit war in his user space, and two comments allegedly incivil (note that the reasons why these are or should be considered incivil has not been discussed).

I must assume that if these deliberations are open, that the only basis for proposing a listed remedy are the wrongdoings listed in the findings of fact. Therefore, it is this edit war (in which, of course, Anthony was not the only participant) and these two comments which are the basis for forcing the terms of the agreement onto Anthony (explicitly sidestepping the mediative process which maintained the agreement).

It's been established that user space is special. If there is any area of WP where "ownership" is generally and tacitly approved, it is in a user's user page space. Snowspinner ignored user space policy as well as deletion consensus to challenge and article in Anthony's user space with a CSD, attempting to use a policy which does not explicitly apply to user space (or to cross-namespace situations). Anthony responded in an attempt to protect his own user space, that is, to defend against distruption of that space by another party.

I have to argue that, if we agree that user space grants the user "broad leeway", then an edit war in one's own user space to defend that space from another member -- especially one that is flouting consensus to do so -- must be the least damnable class of edit warring.

I would go further to argue that anyone who continues to participate in their side of an edit war in someone else's user space and without any explicit consensual mandate to interfere in it as established in the Principles and Findings of Fact herein as well as proscribed in other previously indicated places, is the more damnable party.

- Keith D. Tyler &para; [ AMA ] 19:03, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * I have done a bunch of findings of fact which concern the background of this dispute. I question, how relevant events which occured in the first half of 2004 relate to the prospects for Anthony's behavior in the future. This is why I suggested closing of the case, but I think there is some feeling that some sort of general remedy is necessary. I am open for suggestions from Anthony or his advocate. Fred Bauder 22:00, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * I note your findings of fact, and my issue with them is that they do not take into account any of the context added by my evidence. I added to my statement today regarding this portion of the case, making a case for that context and other serious concerns I have with the current state of that order -- which was an explicit agreement and not an imposition.
 * So, the fact that Anthony withdrew from the agreement (on its face) leads to the forceful imposition of the order for a longer period, in disregard of the mediators' decision indicating that he was making progress? I don't follow. What I'd like to know is what wrongdoing(s) specifically require this particular remedy. Is it the historic complaints, which, as you point out, are becoming very dated? Is it the Snowspinner complaint, which, as has been established, was instigated by an unsupported misconstruction of policy by an admin?
 * One option may be for Anthony to return to the agreement as it was when he announced his withdrawal, and ride it out under the same terms. I would still want to see my concerns about its reconsideration on 15-19 Feb addressed (see statement).
 * Now, I guess I'd like to know if the entire history of complaints against Anthony are weighing heavily on the reasoning behind this remedy. If it is, than that history needs to be addressed and clarified down to the cruxes (cruces?) of those complaints, and we can then refine a suitable proposal.
 * -Keith D. Tyler &para; [ AMA ] 01:41, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

Previous Arbitration
And speaking of "incivility", here is the mediation committees response when I was referred to them:

"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."

BCorr & sannse, Co-chairs On behalf of the Mediation Committee

I am still willing to mediate. If Raul is also willing, then I think we should try that as a remedy first. If he isn't, then I don't think there needs to be any sort of general remedy. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 22:25, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The agreement made between Raul and myself was not the result of mediation. I proposed something similar to Raul on IRC, and we eventually agreed on what you see. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 22:27, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Events which occured during mediation are not admissible evidence, but your suggestion of further mediation seems promising, why not bring this up to Raul? Fred Bauder 01:12, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

I'll drop a note on his talk page, in case he isn't following this. I should mention that the new finding of facts are for the most part incorrect. And your reasoning for rejecting the one finding of fact seems to be based on some incomplete information which I never was able to respond to (for instance in the case of the two articles I asked to see on VfU, that may indeed have been the content, but I didn't know that when I requested to see them, since I can't see deleted content). I think it's a stretch to call these events "recent", in any case. The only part I'd consider arguably "recent" would be participating in an edit war on Clitoris, which is adequetely covered by the revert restriction (and of course the incident with Snowspinner. I'd appreciate it if the basis of these rulings were included somewhere on the evidence page, so that they can be responded to.  anthony &#35686;&#21578;

I'd also like to note that I was never made aware of the review of the standing order, and didn't know about it until it was already being voted on. I was never given a chance to defend myself, and the unsubstantiated accusations made during that review should not be taken as fact. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 02:53, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Disruption remedy
" For one year, if Anthony should, for any reason, make a provocative edit (that is, an edit which is "trolling", "disruptive", and/or "antisocial" as interpreted by an admin) or engage in an edit war, an admin, may at his discretion, block Anthony for a period of one hour."

If this passed, Raul could use it to hound Anthony out of Wikipedia.
 * Ha! What a load. Anthony has been under a *much* stricter standing order since August, and other than his clitoris-related edit warring in January, I do not recall ever blocking him because of it. &rarr;Raul654 03:37, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * The other order was to last for less than 3 more months. These are scheduled to last for a year and indefinitely.  They are much stricter than the original one because of that fact (otherwise they are essentially a copy/paste of the old order), and the fact that you hadn't blocked me much under the old one is just testament to the fact that I didn't deserve to be blocked under the old one except for that one incident back in December (not January).  You wanted me blocked from all but the article namespace 10 months ago, then I reformed, and now you want me blocked from Wikipedia entirely.  I don't know what your problem is (whenever you explain it you give hyperbole about incidents which happened nearly a year ago), but I think you need to stop assuming bad faith and that's one of the reasons I hope you will agree to mediation with me. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 12:40, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm fairly sure you were blocked at least once for adding a link to a mirror that had content that had been removed from an article because you thought that content should be included, no? Snowspinner 14:09, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * Diff? -- Netoholic @ 19:47, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)


 * No, you're very incorrect. You should know this, since you're the one who blocked me, and then admitted you had made a mistake, unblocking me with "This block was a mistake. Sorry." anthony &#35686;&#21578; 23:15, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * For the record, User:Anthony DiPierro was blocked under the agreement; I blocked him on 9 Nov 2004 for trolling vfu. See for my comments about that. Incidentally the talk page is interesting, in that his pal User:Dr Zen agrees that User:Anthony DiPierro is a troll. I don't what other occasions he was blocked -- special:log/block doesn't seem to go back very far. I'm anticipating User:Anthony DiPierro will now quibble that I didn't deserve to be blocked. Please -- spare us. Wile E. Heresiarch 22:03, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I didn't deserve to be blocked for that (making a legitimate VfU request is not trolling), and that's why Everyking unblocked me that very same day. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 23:17, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I should reiterate my point - I did not block Anthony under the agreement but one time; on the other hand, Anthony has been blocked or threatened with blocking by other admins numerous times for trolling. So saying that I would use this measure to hound him is patently absurd. Also, to what Anthony said above - calling this measure stricter is laughable. The other one provided for up-to 24 hours blocks; this one provides for a maximum of a single hour - so short that he'd probably not even notice most of the blocks because they would expire. &rarr;Raul654 01:01, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * I guess we'd both prefer a 3 month limit and 24 hour blocks then. Maybe the arb committee will oblige. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 01:59, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I would also support a longer trolling parole with a note, whether official or unofficial, that neither Raul nor I will be doing the blocking. I think, though I'm not certain, that I made up the majority of Anthony's blocks under the previous ruling, so I think this would presumably be fair. [this note was by Snowspinner]

Proposed remedy
I suggest that Anthony be banned from editing in the Wikipedia namespace, save for requests for arbitration, mediation, and RfCs that he is involved in. While Anthony's editing in the previous six months has been better than he editing before the parole, quite frankly, he has contributed nothing of value to the Wikipedia namespace, and almost all of his disruption (Save the clitoris dispute) was in the Wikipedia namespace. In fact, I'm hard pressed to think of any Wikipedia namespace edits Anthony has done that weren't provocative or disruptive. Snowspinner 19:59, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I'm not aware of any proviso or guideline called Don't be provocative. Such a notion, in fact, would fly directly in the face of Be bold, a proviso I am familiar with. - Keith D. Tyler &para; [ AMA ] 21:07, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, let me reiterate what Snowspinner was saying in more blunt words - virtually all (if not all) of Anthony's edits in the Wikipedia namespace have been trolling. &rarr;Raul654 21:17, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * Well help me out here, because I have yet to see anyone point to any definition of "trolling" or "provocative". Moreover, the lack of such a definition makes the remedies that much more of a problem as they have no provisions as to how to define them. In fact, the agreement was so blatant that it pretty much said that an admin could unilaterally decide that something Anthony said or did would qualify and therefore be grounds for a 24 hour block. The fact that Anthony willingly submitted (more to the point, proposed) such a remedy illustrates just how impossible he felt it was to ever receive unambiguous definitions and justifications for why his actions are continually regarded as "incivil", "trolling" and etc. -- and he basically willingly submitted himself to the whim of those admins who are among his opponents in order to avoid being run out on a rail.


 * Apparently, suggesting that someone should have "mind[ed] their own business" when it comes to someone else's user space is "incivil" and grounds for remedy. (Ignoring the question of whether or not persisting in an edit war in someone else's user space is "civil" or not.) And apparently that remedy is to allow all admins to define Anthony's actions however they feel and use it as justification to block him. And Anthony is just supposed to Assume good faith as reassurance that it won't ever be used inappropriately by those who simply don't like him -- irregardless of whether many such people ever Assume good faith of Anthony in return.
 * Admins are free to block Anthony just because he gets the goat of people, like who make completely illogical and meaningless justifications for their votes (they are allowed to vote how they want for whatever reason they want -- and so should he), or because he votes in the face of how people expect that he should vote, or because he calls the community on its inconsistent enforcement of standard operating principles like avoiding non-free images when it puts egg on their face. That's all baseless persecution, and embarrassed bullying, and it's just wrong. - Keith D. Tyler &para; [ AMA ] 06:27, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * Well help me out here, because I have yet to see anyone point to any definition of "trolling" or "provocative".
 * Trolling is hard to define, but to paraphrase Potter Stewart, I know it when I see it. So let's consider some of Anthony's actions: repeatedly voting keep on the VFD in order to provoke others? Yep, trolling. Removing VFD nominations because you don't like them? Yes. Repeatedly edit warring with others? Yes. Nominating a short list as a featured article candidate? Yep. Following it up the next day by nominating a stub? Yes. Edit warring on the main page? Indeed. Repeatedly making numerous frivilous requests for undeletion? Undoutedly. Violating a previous arbcom decree to stop trolling the VFD? Absolutely. To paraphrase David Gerard - 'if everyone thinks you're being a dick, you probably are'. You might also want to see What is a troll, because I think Anthony has committeed almost every misbehavior listed there.
 * The fact that Anthony willingly submitted (more to the point, proposed) such a remedy illustrates just how impossible he felt it was to ever receive unambiguous definitions and justifications for why his actions are continually regarded as "incivil", "trolling" and etc.
 * Nice try to rewrite history, too bad it's all fiction. Anthony agreed to the standing order because he was a day or two from the arbcom opening a second case against him, in which all of the actions I just named would have been used against him. He knew this as well as I; the only unknown factor would he how harsh the arbcom sactions would have been.
 * On the other hand, to balance this out, Anthony's useful contributions have been virtually nonexistant. Of his 500 most recent edits (because there are those to keep saying that he's reformed, that he's not nearly as bad has he was) that he has made since Dec 22, I counted 84 in the main name space, of which 70-80 were trivial redirects from common typos (baseballs -> baseball, for example). For comparison, I found 68 edits related to his edit warring on Clitoris, 62 on Shawn Mikula, and dozens more on requests for page protection and requests for undeletion (which, as we know from other evidence presented in this case, virtually all of which are trolling). So to summarize, Anthony is far, far more trouble than he is worth. The time put in by other good users dealing with his trolling is vastly greater than the time he has invested in improving the encyclopedia. &rarr;Raul654 08:00, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, for the arbitrators who are reading this: I'd like to voice my concern that the proposals being pass are far, far too leniet. All three mediators came back and said in effect that Anthony was still trolling (although they indicated he had reformed to an extent and disagreed on how to renew the standing order) and two of them voted to extend the old proposal. The new proposals are far, far less strict, which doesn't make sense since the older (much stricter) one failed to stop his trolling. &rarr;Raul654 08:03, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * My most recent edits have been an attempt to defend myself from this arbitration. That's why I agreed to the order last time, because arbitration over this matter is a big waste of everyone's time.  I don't think I would have been sanctioned very much at all.  I entered the agreement to avoid the arbitration process itself.  As the mediation committee said, I have demonstrated my willingness to mediate but my adversaries have not. Until they do, I must be considered a Wikipedian in good standing, and any comments to the contrary a demonstration of incivility.  There's the incivility Mark.
 * Your examples of my alleged "trolling" beg the question of what trolling is. "Violating a previous arbcom decree to stop trolling the VFD".  That's grand.  I am a troll because I violate a decree to stop trolling.  "repeatedly voting keep on the VFD in order to provoke others"?  Have you ever considered that maybe I actually want those article I voted to keep kept?  Besides the fact that you're bringing up ancient history, I have have every right to vote however I want, and the arb com specificially said so.  As for removing VFD nominations, I don't think I've even done that other than once or twice a very long time ago for reasons which were totally justified (even the VFD policies say that when a VFD fails it is supposed to be removed, and that any user, not just an admin, can do it).  I made a few nominations on the featured articles page which people didn't agree with.  That was over a year ago, and when I realized they weren't going to be accepted I removed them.  All that's left is edit warring, and even that was greatly exaggerated.  Those 68 edits "related to [my] edit warring on Clitoris"?  They were on the talk page.  So I guess according to you it's trolling to discuss something on a talk page (since "virtually all if not all" of my edits are trolling).  I got involved in two edit wars over the course of 9 months, which is probably less than you or snowspinner.  And there's already an arb com ruling focussing on that. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 12:27, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Further evidence
Just a note, I'm adding some further evidence to the evidence page. Ironically, in responding to the possibility of a ban from the Wikipedia namespace, Anthony has demonstrated once again how necessary sanction is of him. He has begun removing comments from pages in the Wikipedia namespace without explanation, and when asked, has responded with hostility instead of explanation. He has also suggested that his contributions may not be licensed under the GFDL. I ask the arbcom again to consider harsh sanction. Snowspinner 16:45, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

It's unclear to me what this is evidence of. I never refused to strike through my comments. In fact, I did so. I said on IRC that I'd prefer to remove them completely. What exactly is your evidence of? What did I do wrong? anthony &#35686;&#21578; 17:03, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A link to the stated policy or consensual decision (sigh, i'm a broken record) pointing out why this is unacceptable would be helpful. This "the accused has to prove that it wasn't wrong" thing slants cases against the accused in a rather difficult manner. The accuser ought to be the one showing what rule has been broken, not the other way around. The arbitration conventions make it far too easy for accusers to railroad the accused without having to actually establish foundation. It's enough to say you don't like what someone has done, and that seems to be enough to have them punished. I also note your added evidence consists only of discussions -- not of any of the actual acts you are insisting have happened. - Keith D. Tyler &para; [ AMA ] 19:12, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Ban from editing the Wikipedia namespace
I can't accept that it is appropriate or warranted to place Anthony in a situation where he cannot change past votes, alter or clarify past comments.

I also would like to see the evidence that any of his recent disputed (what a proper word) edits have been in the Wikipedia: namespace. This is false. The complaints listed at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Standing_orders/Anthony involved the Clitoris talk page, the CSD in his user space (which was already determined by the ArbCom to be an inappropriate CSD), and the "Users who have taken up campaigns against me," section of his user page. Out of the stated complaints covering the 6 month period of the agreement, the only issue in Wikipedia space was a disputed history only VfU for Shawn Mikula -- which hasn't been shown to have been wrong; to the contrary, the FoFs regarding recreation of deleted articles in user space would suggest that it was not wrong at all.

- Keith D. Tyler &para; [ AMA ] 18:55, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * He could be given a few days to even a week to 'clean-up' his edits in that namesapce as it were. The evidence shows a pattern of disruptive behavior in the VfD and the FAC pages. I will consider adding another remedy to deal with the clitoris issue (if that has not already been taken care of by past remedies - which I thought was the case). Thanks for reminding me about that. --mav 22:40, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * The irony stings. I point out the fallacy of the assertion that most of the relevant issues that indicate he has not reformed have taken place in WP: space, and therefore the flaw in the argument that a WP: space ban is warranted; you twist it into something else entirely. Moreover, the relevance of year-old issues has already been questioned. The fact that those issues are not the same sort as that of the recent complaints does suggest that past remedies alleviated them. - Keith D. Tyler &para; [ AMA ] 21:23, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything about the VfD and the FAC pages in the evidence, and these events took place nearly a year ago. Also, it should be noted that the vast majority of my edits are outside the Wikipedia namespace.  I'll add that statement to the evidence now (not sure how I can prove this though).  I've reformed, as the three mediators unanimously agreed, and yet there is a proposal suggesting that I be punished for this.  There is no evidence of any of this alleged wrongdoing in the Wikipedia: namespace, just accusations being made by one user.  I can't defend myself against accusations made against me which present no evidence.  anthony &#35686;&#21578; 22:46, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Thinking you've reformed is an interesting way to interpret extending the parole. I took it to mean that they didn't think you'd reformed, but that they wanted to get to consider again in three months. Snowspinner 23:02, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * And what does the fact that they said I've reformed to some extent indicate? How about the fact that none of the problems they had with my edits were from the Wikipedia: namespace?  By the way, it wasn't a parole.  anthony &#35686;&#21578; 23:13, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * As I've pointed out clearly, and as is clear from the text of the order, it was not a parole, but an explicit agreement between parties. No one has denied that, either. Misrepresenting it as an imposed parole is both false and counterproductive to these proceedings. Also, your assertion of what the mediators felt is not supported by the evidence showing what those mediators said. Cimon specifically said that "Anthony has reformed somewhat". Now how, exactly, does their seeking to prolong the agreement for a shorter term than was available to them indicate anything other than improvement in the reasons for the order? - Keith D. Tyler &para; [ AMA ] 21:23, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Does this proposed arb com ruling apply to talk pages? anthony &#35686;&#21578; 23:27, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Not as written. But that would be a reasonable thing to add to the remedy if we deem it necessary in the future (thinking of the 3 month review and possibly action before that if somebody requests us to look at that). --mav 01:15, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Since you've not pointed out to me what it is I did to get blocked from the Wikipedia: space I suppose my only hope to avoid that is to not edit at all. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 12:24, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think the point is that the game of arguing about Wikipedia is over. You are welcome to enjoy yourself editing articles. Fred Bauder 15:15, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * I think this perfectly captures the issue. Anthony is disruptive when he is advocating his views about how Wikipedia should run. He is primarily, though not exclusively, OK when he is editing articles. He should be encouraged to do the latter, and discouraged from doing the former. Snowspinner 16:59, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * I think he was talking to you, Snowspinner. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 23:45, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I can't help but agree with Anthony's sentiment. So far, no one has been able to say exactly what Anthony does wrong in WP: space, except vague and admittedly undefined terms such as "trolling" and "disruptive". All of which are highly subjective terms. The whole case is based on vagarities, but vagarity is apparently enough for the Committee to railroad someone. - Keith D. Tyler &para; [ AMA ] 21:23, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * One of the things that has long been noticed about trolling and disruption is that defining it is the best thing you can do for trolls, because it explicitly lays out what they can do while still following the rules. Snowspinner 21:28, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * Keith, it might help if you read Don't be a dick to understand why his behavior is unacceptable &rarr;Raul654 21:37, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * Here's some examples of being a dick: Punishing someone because he calls the project on its own inconsistent application of its own policies, exposes its flaws, and embarrasses it over any of the above. What's even more being a dick is continuing to inconsistently punish one person for breaking policies while not punishing others who also break policies.
 * No one has established or proven bad faith on Anthony's part. No one. All I see is vehemence from people unable to prove the evil of someone they don't like, because he has made them uncomfortable. Biased application of vagarity is the rule here. Even after a practice has been determined to not be forbidden, a person can still be sanctioned for doing it (if they are not liked). And despite the inappropriate actions taken by other parties, it is only the unliked person that is sanctioned. And this is what is going to happen, no matter what anyone does. I can't even expect a rule of law, because the ArbCom believes it can change the policies that apply to it whenever it wants. - Keith D. Tyler &para; [ AMA ] 01:01, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think any amount of rational discussion is going to change any of the arbitrators' minds, and this talk page has gotten downright mean (two personal attacks calling me a troll and a dick in the span of ten minutes). I for one am done arguing about this one, unless the arbitrators specifically ask a question or some actual evidence is added somewhere.  anthony &#35686;&#21578; 02:00, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * The burning irony is that all these old issues let forth into the discussion by Raul shouldn't even be here. Raul had no room to open arbitration against you, because the agreement under which terms he claims it was brought under was nullified before you withdrew from it. (As I've already said, and no one has responded to.) What I have learned is never to enter into any agreement in WP, because it will not be honored and does not have to be. I know of only one other entity with whom that is a safe assumption. - Keith D. Tyler &para; [ AMA ] 05:26, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, how was the agreement nullified? Snowspinner 05:30, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * This is certainly news to me, especially considering that it was renewed just prior to Anthony withdrawing from it. &rarr;Raul654 05:44, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * It shouldn't be news, if my statements and evidence were actually being read by anyone aside from myself. Anthony's opponents insist on characterising the agreement as an imposed order which they and/or the arbcom can change, modify, and interpret however they want. But it was a specific agreement, signed by Anthony, Raul, and 4 arbitrators. The first words of this agreement are "In order to avoid arbitration on the matter of Anthony DiPierro's actions". This part of the agreement simply was not upheld, and this is apparently because many people do not feel that they are obligated to honor agreements with Anthony. Upon being brought into arbitration over his actions, then, the agreement was violated. As a result, Anthony saw no reason why he would be expected to uphold his end of the agreement.
 * He, in fact, said as much on the Talk page of the agreement, hours after the arbitration case was accepted and minutes before he indicated he did not feel obliged to honor it anymore. No one ever responded to that comment.
 * Of course, this is all laid out in my statement and evidence. Would that either of those were actually being read and considered.
 * Unfortunately, some seem to think that an agreement is something that can be modified or violated by those in power whenever it suits them, not something they are obliged on principle to honor. - Keith D. Tyler &para; [ AMA ] 20:13, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Blatant misinterpritation. Let's quote the whole sentence - In order to avoid Arbitration on the matter of Anthony DiPierro's actions, Raul654 and Anthony DiPierro have come to the following agreement. Snowspinner, the one who filed the arbitration case, had no obligations under the agreement. The agreement was in full force until the day Anthony withdrew from it, at which point, the agreement specified the matter would go into arbitration. &rarr;Raul654 21:17, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * The Arbitrators should have rejected this case on the grounds that there was a Standing Order stating that Anthony was not subject arbitration. I'm sure Anthony would not have agreed to the Order if someone could game the system by submitting an Arb request.  When he saw that the Order was not being upheld by the Arbitrators, he withdrew. -- Netoholic @ 22:38, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Are you saying that a standing order renders one immune to arbitration? Snowspinner 00:44, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * That seems to have been the intent of the agreement and why it was so generous as to the blocking option available. -- Netoholic @ 02:04, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)
 * The intent of the agreement is spelled out quite clearly and explicetely - Anthony agrees to let other admins ban him if he misbehaves, and I agreed (in the first sentence) not to persue my pending arbitration case. I did not (nor would I have thought myself allowed to) sign away everyone else's right to pursue arbitration. If Anthony thought this was unclear, he should have asked for clarification before he agreed to it. In other words, Netoholic's interpretation of the agreement's 'intent' is patent nonsense. &rarr;Raul654 02:12, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * I certainly didn't think that the agreement made it so that no one would be allowed to request arbitration against me based on the agreement. At the most the agreement was binding on the parties who signed.  In any case, I certainly did assume that an arbitration against me would render the agreement no longer in effect, and I don't think anyone's arguing that the agreement is still in effect.  And not to be too nitpicky, but I agreed to let admins block me, not ban me, for the listed reasons, during the time that the agreement was in effect (admins always could and still can block me under the standard blocking policy that applies to all users, of course). anthony &#35686;&#21578; 04:30, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Before I go out looking like a complete crank, here's my point. Yes, Anthony clearly understood the agreement to mean that he was trading arbitration for voluntary persecution (I can't think of a better word, so that will have to do). His comment on the talk page of the agreement shows this.

I disagree with the sentiment that requesting and ensuring clarity in a mutual agreement rests only one one party. All signatories to an agreement should ask, receive, and have applied clarifications to any ambiguities in the agreement's text if it is important to them. I reject the notion that, when such ambiguities are discovered after the fact, one party's interpretation of ambiguities should arbitrarily and unilaterally be chosen as the correct one.

The point is, I do feel that Anthony's interpretation of the agreement is a valid one based on its wording. I feel this shows that he sincerely believed that the agreement became voided once the trade of arbitration for persecution was reversed; in other words, it would be an equal "trade back".

Otherwise, all Raul would have to do is convince someone else to arbitrate against Anthony, defeating the purpose of the trade. If that were the case, then Anthony would still be subject to the persecution, but Raul could continue to bring him into arbitration via proxy. Much like the theoretical scenario behind why a person banned from an article is also banned from that article's talk page -- to prevent him from convincing someone else to impose his edits and defeat the purpose of the page ban.

Anthony's leaving the agreement was then in good faith, or at least "neutral faith", and not bad faith.

Four members of the Arbitration Committee, representing themselves as such, also were signatories to the agreement, thereby agreeing that Anthony was trading arbitration for persecution.

I asked Anthony very early on and repeatedly throughout this case to re-enter, or offer to re-enter, the agreement, after his following up on his interpretation of its terms resulted in this case being blown far open, from a case of fighting an inappropriate CSD by Snowspinner, into one where seemingly every snake in the box is let loose on him. He rejected this idea, because he felt it would have no positive effect on the arbitrators. He was pessimistic that the ArbCom would deride such an offer as game-playing, I was optimistic that offering to re-enter, with an explanation of his interpretation showing why he did so, would show the ArbCom that his move to state he was out of the agreement was not one of bad faith but one of honest interpretation of the agreements terms.

Certainly there are plenty of things in this agreement that have made it unlike any agreement any two people could expect to have in a reasonable arena. The terms are vague, and when they are not vague, they aren't even necessarily upheld then. The mediators felt they could override the terms of the agreement; a sad precedent, because this means no two people can hope that the terms of any agreement they sign will be honored as written. One wonders -- well, for the purposes of this hearing, I certainly do -- how the mediators would have voted if all of them had really kept themselves to the options laid out for them in the agreement's terms (i.e. six months or nothing). I do know that one of those three, who did keep himself to these choices, chose termination over extension, and that to me speaks volumes.

Keith D. Tyler &para; [ AMA ] 23:48, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

one-sidedness
I note with dismay&mdash;but without surprise&mdash;that the ArbCom has completely ignored, in its remedies, the misbehavior by Snowspinner and David Gerard, though it has affirmed that:


 * A user may say whatever he/she wants on his/her user page within reason. (Which is what Anthony did.)
 * Deleting content from the user namespace or adding deletion tags to content in the User namespace without the affected user's permission is discouraged. (Which is exactly what DG and SS did.)
 * The recreation of the deleted content at User:Anthony DiPierro/Shawn Mikula does not constitute recreation of the article Shawn Mikula. (So it shouldn't have been deleted.)
 * Anthony DiPierro has engaged in an unhelpful amount of revert warring in order to promote his recreation of the content of Shawn Mikula in his userspace, among other disputes. (Ignoring the fact that Snowspinner reverted the page more than anyone else, including Anthony.)

Yet Anthony is to be barred from recreating deleted pages in his userspace, although the ArbCom has decided that he was well within the limits of acceptable behavior when he did so. Meanwhile remedies addressing the actual misbehavior in this instance, even pure formalities like "Snowspinner and David Gerard are instructed to leave other people's user pages alone" or "Snowspinner and David Gerard are reminded to follow the policy on speedy deletions as described in Criteria for speedy deletion", are absent. What is the message of this outcome? That sysops may misbehave as they please, as long as they only pick on users who have misbehaved in the past? That the popularity of the users involved is more important to the outcome of an arbitration case than are Wikipedia policies and the facts of the matter? That certain people are above the rules entirely? How disappointing. &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 22:44, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I would hope that good faith interpretations of recreation policy, even if they are not upheld by the arbcom, would not be considered actionable or worth issuing warnings about. The matter has been clarified. That is, at least, enough for me to stop doing it. Snowspinner 23:05, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * Yep, now that you're actions have persecuted anthony and driven this case forward, now you'll stop? No, you violated some very obvious policies and did so in a particularly vengeful way. -- Netoholic @ 23:20, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)


 * I was unaware that we were sanctioning for good faith interpretations of vague policies that required the arbcom to clarify. This is certainly a new direction for the arbcom. Snowspinner 23:28, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * "Good faith interpretation"&mdash;bullcrap. You made your reasons for wanting this deleted abundantly clear when you mentioned "standing injunctions against trolling" and "[lying] to people to get the information [he] wants to preserve" as reasons for wanting it deleted, when the only responses you had received were suggestions that it was doing no harm and ought to be left alone. This was bullying plain and simple, and unfortunately it looks like the arbcom is going to let it slide. Congratulations. &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 05:12, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Your psychic abilities are lacking. I believed, under the recreation rules, it to be a recreation and thus a speedy candidate. This was a legitimate interpretation of policy. That I thought and think anthony is a disruptive troll does not change the fact that, given the rules against article recreation and their lack of clarity on the issue of moving namespaces, it was a reasonable interpretation of policy to think that the article could be speedied. That I was supported by David and that the article failed undeletion suggests that a substantial number of people agreed, making the claim for deserved sanction dubious. Snowspinner 05:18, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * I actually agree with both of you to some extent. As was shown by the vote for undeletion, the community was well divided over this issue.  That's why in my opinion the arb com should have never taken the case in the first place.  When Keith asked me whether or not we should push hard to try to get a sanction against Snowspinner, I told him we shouldn't (not that he's always listened to me, I also told him not to push his overly technical arguments).  I would like to see more in the fact finding stages regarding Snowspinner, though.  "Snowspinner has engaged in an unhelpful amount of revert warring in order to speedily delete a page which was not a candidate for speedy deletion" would be an accurate statement.  Maybe even an order not to edit war over a delete tag, or not to re-add a delete tag which has been removed.  But I don't think there should be any real sanction on either side, because neither of us in my opinion were acting with the intent of harming Wikipedia (I think snowspinner's intent was to harm me, but that alone only becomes grounds for arbitration after it has passed through other stages of conflict resolution, and I'm still hopeful that Snowspinner will agree to mediate with me if it turns out this arbitration case does not ban me from any parts of Wikipedia). anthony &#35686;&#21578; 12:36, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Good faith interpretations of vague policies is exactly what I've been smacked down for in this proposed arb com decision. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 23:41, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * No, you were smacked down for the year+ you have spent trolling and proving to us that nothing you do is done in good faith. &rarr;Raul654 23:47, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm even more sorry that some of the arb com seems to agree with you.  Good luck to all of you. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 00:03, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Against the wind
The ArbCom has refused to respond to or apparently consider the majority of my arguments on this page, or my statements or evidence. I take offense, and am deeply concerned about the practice. Instead, the majority of the participating ArbCom has assumed bad faith at the insistence of an admin and a fellow arbitrator, and dismissed any suggestion, even when qualified, of the contrary.

- Keith D. Tyler &para; [ AMA ] 20:25, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, as you posted your arguments, statements, and evidence, they were announced on the arbitration mailing list so that the entire Committee might consider them. &#10149;the Epopt 23:39, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * While I thank you for your attempts at defending Anthony, you might find that you get a much better response pointing out issues and trying to reason with arbitrators, and realising that legalistic tactics just don't work - as this is not a court of law.


 * Before I became elected to the AC, I had a record of doing this stuff in an unofficial capacity (as the AMA was inactive at the time), and had a reasonable success rate - by simply pointing out issues with decisions and trying to persuade the arbitrators that a particular finding was incorrect or inadequate. If there's issues with a decision, just try being reasonable - I think you'll find that it gets you a lot further than legalistic indignance. Ambi 02:16, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * That didn't work for me. Any other suggestions? &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 02:22, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * In that case, perhaps, gasp, you might just be wrong. Ambi 07:24, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * That's always a possibility, though since the substance of my argument consisted of quotation from the arbcom's own decisions, it's possible that there was something else going on. &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 07:30, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * For the record, I am not a lawyer. I do not believe that one needs to be a lawyer to believe in a few principles, such as:
 * one should not be punished for doing something that has been shown not to be a crime,
 * one should expect a rule of law, that is, that the rules will be followed as they are displayed, and not changed at will as it suits those passing judgement
 * agreements between people should be binding, and not simply discarded when it suits one party, or interpreted in a way that suits only one interest (more to the point, that any ambiguities should be treated broadly, not narrowly)
 * I did present each of these, and defended them at length. Characterizing my exhaustive defenses and reasonings as simple legalistic motions is discouraging, dismissive, and insulting to me. But what was even more insulting was the silence that followed nearly each of them; and where there was no silence, there was dismissal, and pointed dismissal at that. - Keith D. Tyler &para; [ AMA ] 08:02, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)