Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Standing orders/Anthony

I think this goes without saying, but I'd like to add the following: "If at any time Anthony feels that this agreement is unduly restrictive of his ability to make clearly legitimate edits he may petition the arbitration committee as a whole to review the agreement and replace it or repeal it and rule on the original arbitration request." anthony (see warning) 00:56, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that seems appropriate; this is, after all, effectively an Arbitration Committee ruling (a sui generis one, but...)#
 * Any objections?
 * Also, I'd be happier if the six-monthly review period was shortened to three months, though I'll accept the wording as it is...
 * James F. (talk) 01:19, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't particularly like the idea of the Arbcom "replacing" it (an agreement is supposed to be that - both parties are supposed to agree). However, I would agree to adding: "At any time, Anthony may withdraw from the agreement and go directly to arbitration" &rarr;Raul654 01:40, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * My initial proposal was three months. I'd still prefer that time time period.  That six was put in there was the main reason I wanted to be able to opt out somehow.  Raul's suggestion is actually more generous than what I asked for (I wasn't really sure about using "replace" either), so I agree to it.  Alternatively if we want to make a qualification, as there is only one situation where I would want to withdraw from the agreement, we could use the hybrid "If at any time Anthony feels that this agreement is unduly restrictive of his ability to make clearly legitimate edits he may withdraw from the agreement and go directly to arbitration." anthony (see warning) 01:49, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I have added that statement to the agreement. Is it acceptable to you now? &rarr;Raul654 02:30, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)

Explanation
This page was listed on Requests for comment. I comment that it seems to be a fair proposal, and it's nice to see that those who are party to it can discuss it here. My only qualm is that not much context is provided. As an outsider, I am not quite clear on this proposal came about or where to find the discussion relating to it. I see the listing on Requests for arbitration as well as User:Raul654/Anthony evidence, but I don't know where this proposal came up.

Acegikmo1 07:15, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Raul
Basically, Anthony got a lot of people really pissed off at him (for, among other things, the reasons layed out in User:Raul654/Anthony evidence). It was going to the arbcom, and I think (emphasis - this is only my guess) the ruling they were going to hand down was going to be pretty harsh, given that this is the 2nd time they've had to make a ruling. I also suspect that Anthony was well aware of this too. He logged onto IRC, and here's a snippet of the convo:


 * [18:16]  anthony: you should consider that if everyone thinks you're being a fuckhead, it might be in the realms of possibilty
 * [18:16]  Anthony - at this point, I don't think anyone trusts you to reform yourself
 * [18:16]  This is the 2nd time it's had to go to the arbcom
 * [18:19] David: I am trying
 * [18:19] that's why I decided to voluntarily submit to the one revert rule
 * [18:19]  Anthony - as I said, most of us don't trust you to reform yourself
 * [18:20]  Which is why your word that you are going to voluntarily reform doesn't convience most of us
 * [18:20] but surely there is a way to force me to
 * [18:20]  Short of the arbcom?
 * [18:21] sure, I'm willing to agree to lots of things voluntarily
 * [18:21]  Like I said, if you agree not to edit anything except articles, article talk pages, or user pages, I think that would be acceptable
 * [18:21]  Your "trolling" actions occur in the Wikipedia, template, and image namespaces
 * [18:22] why not just give admins the power to block me for trolling, and let them determine if I'm trolling or not
 * [18:23]  Anthony - you want to give any admin unilateral discreation to ban you for trolling?
 * [18:23]  discretion*
 * [18:23] not to ban me but to block me for 24 hours
 * [18:23]  Hrmm...
 * [18:23] and, I don't really want it but I'd be willing to do it
 * [18:24]  That's worth considering

One thing led to another, and this is the proposal that was hammered out. I originally wrote it to be permanent, but User:Danny approached me privately to exress his objections to that part of it, so we put our heads together and came up with the idea of the mediation committee considering whether or not Anthony has reformed. &rarr;Raul654 08:07, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

Anthony
Well, I don't think the arbcom ruling would be any more harsh than this agreement. My concern, having been through arbitration before, was the amount of time I would have to spend sifting through edits to defend myself and the amount of hate and in some cases outright slander that would be done in my name. Take a look at Requests for arbitration/Anthony DiPierro. People have called me all sorts of things from a troll to mentally disturbed, and apparently the intention is to preserve this hate-fest for eternity. Rules against personal attacks tend to be lifted when dealing with arbitration.

In the wake of being blocked for 24 hours by User:Danny and no one reversing what I still consider a completely inappropriate block, I had considered leaving Wikipedia altogether. I then spoke with Jimbo via email, and like all the times I have conversed with him he brought a voice of reason to the situation. I still consider this his site, even though I guess technically it's more the site of the board, and Jimbo asked me not to engage in edit wars any longer. I agreed, and decided to impose upon myself a rule that I would not revert a page more than once in a single day. Raul still wanted me permanently banned from all pages except article pages and user talk pages. As I have no intention of engaging in edit wars I figure the compromise agreement is about the same, since any admin could easily revert any edits I made which they disagreed with anyway. If I have anything really important to say I can wait 24 hours to say it.

Still, this agreement requires me to trust that admins will act in good faith, at least the vast majority of them. I expect that borderline cases will be discussed on my talk page before going ahead and blocking me, and that any admins who block me for making edits which are clearly not disruptive in any way will eventually be admonished. Frankly, if these things aren't true, I don't want to be a member of this site anyway.

anthony (see warning) 14:44, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually, this would be rather a departure for the AC; we don't normally (or, at least, haven't yet) given such wide and sweeping powers to the sysop cabal (-)) over another user who we haven't seen fit to actually have banned (at which point, it's policy that's being harsh to the target and trusting of the, err, "upper caste".
 * James F. (talk) 15:37, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * The point is the admins already have this power. The AC doesn't have to give it to them.  I don't see the AC admonishing Danny for blocking me, or Raul for protecting the template in blatant violation of policy.  The RFC I started against Raul wasn't even certified by a single other user.  If admins can revert pages and protect them at whatever version ey wants, even blocking users who disagree with their point of view, then there's not very much advantage to my ability to edit at all.  The admins can do pretty much whatever they want already, so long as they come up with some half-assed justification for it, so I don't really see this as giving them much additional power at all.  anthony (see warning) 15:44, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Obviously we haven't censured Raul or Danny: we haven't accepted the case. However, commenting on and/or warning sysops that the AC feels have gone too far, even with the best intentions, is common, as a cursory glance at previous cases will show; please note that this should not be taken as a judgement on the actions of either Raul or Danny.
 * James F. (talk) 17:22, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * At the point where the arb committee starts holding admins to the policies they are supposed to be following I'll change my mind on the situation, maybe even back out of this agreement as I have permission to do at any time. anthony (see warning) 17:38, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Just for the record, if you do back out then agreement stipulates that your actions will go to arbitration. &rarr;Raul654 21:19, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, I realize this. anthony (see warning) 20:56, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Why is there an arbitration committee requirement on this? Fine, if you want an extra bit of legitimacy for free, I'm happy to help, but I don't think you need it. I would suggest modifying banning policy to talk about "standing orders" aka "paroles" in the "Decision to ban" section, with a note that such parole agreements may be entered into voluntarilly. Makes sense to me, certainly. I'll drop a note on wikipedia talk:banning policy Martin 22:48, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

For the record
This agreement is now officially in force. &rarr;Raul654 00:47, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)

Six month review
This agreement was meant to be reviewed after 6 months. Looking at Votes for undeletion, there have been some issues in the past six months. For example, Anthony listed two articles on VfU which had contained only the following content:
 * 1) "creator of supershadow.com. he is a star wars fanatic but he is a pathological liar."
 * 2) "...III is a child prodigy. She has many talents including acting, dancing, water rafting, sky diving, bungee jumping, skateboarding, aligator restling, singing, breathing, talking, and walking!"

I've removed the article titles since that would defeat the purpose of deleting them. These were a few months ago, but still since the start of the agreement. Are there any more recent examples that would suggest it would worthwhile keeping this agreement open.? Angela. 01:40, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)


 * I had to repeatedly block Anthony in December (as in, several times in the course of a few days), for revert warring on Clitoris in violtiong of both his promise and this agreement. &rarr;Raul654 03:12, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)


 * For a period in those six months, Anthony had a section of his userpage entitled "Users who have taken up campaigns against me," with uses who had left or been banned crossed off, checklist style. He particularly seemed to take pride in driving RickK off. is where he established the section.  is where he seems to boast about driving Rick off. Snowspinner 23:38, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)


 * Anthony has just recieved a 24 hour block for repeated listing of Shawn Mikula on VfU as a history undelete, with the associated claim that this needed no vote. The article only qualifies as a history undelete because it is currently protected as a blank article against repeated vandalism. When this was pointed out to him, he cried admin abuse and let slip the dogs of war. Snowspinner 03:30, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * That was a typically disingenuous explanation, Anthony, considering the history of this article. The article itself is a protected placeholder to pre-empt recreation and vandalism; under normal circumstances it would be deleted. You are well aware of this. Please read Snowspinner's comments directly above. Jayjg (talk) 16:04, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Since when are admins permitted to create "protected placeholders?" anthony &#35686;&#21578; 14:30, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Since when are admins forbidden to do anything not explicitly allowed? -- Cyrius|&#9998; 14:45, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Your question assumes untrue facts. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 17:39, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that this just about proves my point. Anthony has not changed in the least. He's just as offensive as ever, but he's not editing as much. &rarr;Raul654 03:39, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * He's now taken to recreating deleted articles in his userspace. I am seriously tempted to resubmit the case, because the standing order currently has a massive flaw, which is that it provides no guidance as to reversion of Anthony's trolling. The result is that I can block him every time he recreates a deleted article in his namespace, but I can't delete the pages. Snowspinner 15:35, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

I have a question: what is the appropriate page for the three members of the MC to vote on whether or not Anthony has reformed? Thanks, BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 21:54, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll create it below &rarr;Raul654 22:07, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC):

Votes by Mediation Committee members

 * Angela: Keep standing order open for another 3 months.
 * Bcorr: Keep standing order open for another 3 months.
 * Cimon: Anthony has reformed to some degree. If a new agreement is reached which would stipulate a 3 month expiry period, with what ever other adjustments to the terms the parties find useful, and to which the Arbitration Committee accedes, I see no reason to object. Since the original agreement only provides for biannual evaluation, I am unable to vote for such a measure. Hence I vote the terms of the agreement to have been fulfilled, and recommend that further disputes with Anthony be taken directly to the Arbitration committee.

Arbitration
Now that the arb committee has taken me I suppose this standing order is no longer in effect? anthony &#35686;&#21578; 16:49, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)