Revision as of 15:24, 16 March 2009

Template:Active editnotice

WP:RFAR redirects here. You may be looking for Misplaced Pages:RfA Review (WP:RREV).

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

• WP:RFAR
• WP:A/R
• WP:ARB/R
• WP:ARBREQ

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Misplaced Pages. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

• Request a new arbitration case
• Request clarification or amendment of an existing case

  This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed

• Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
• Arbitrator motions

  Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Current requests

Aitias

Initiated by Majorly talk at 02:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Majorly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Aitias (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Aitias
• Plus others found in the RFC
• Comments from various editors here

Statement by Majorly

I'm saddened to bring this here, as much as I avoid drama, but feel it is the most appropriate route. Aitias was the subject of a user RFC just under a month ago, and I agreed to its closure on the basis that Aitias had learnt from the issues raised, and that he would change his approach, and perhaps take a break from RFR. To summarise the RFC: it was becoming clear Aitias was having WP:OWN issues around the rollback page, and when someone disagreed with a decision of his, he often became hostile, rude, and often insulting to both the admin and the person applying. He often takes a high handed approach in situations, such as regarding early closures of RFAs, yet cannot handle any flack that comes with it. A big issue was Aitas's own use of rollback, which was sometimes erroneous, and yet he denied people for mistakes made months ago. He often did not seem to "get" when it was time to end the discussion, such as where I demonstrated on RFA talk. He also brought several instances of "misbehaviour" to admin noticeboard, and it was clear in the cases I presented, there was no need at all for admin intervention.

While the RFC had several minor issues in it, they gradually build up over time, and Aitias has again come to my attention. The point of the RFC closing was for him to take a break from RFR, where most of the biggest problems were. He took a total of 4 days away from the page, which was not really long enough with hindsight.

I was pointed to ") and Misplaced Pages:User_space. It's simple, you're wrong, nothing to admit on my part (but on yours), no need for further discussion]. Since this is not an isolated incident, and an ongoing pattern, I believe this is extremely problematic behaviour.

This is not the only thing I have discovered. Aitias makes a lot of edits, so it is difficult to go through them and find any potential problems, but I did see a lot of issues with the User:RMHED block. The original post contains comments from Aitias that appear to be unnecessarily goading, and begging some admin to block for longer, which was rather unnecessary considering several admins were dealing with it. He was asked on several occasions on the thread to disengage - he did not listen, instead creating a further (pointless) thread about off-wiki attacks . He then proceeded to create an RFC, despite the user being blocked, and the issue long over - an example of adding further fuel to the fire (that had burned out pretty much by then in any case). The page was deleted, but Aitias simply did not get the hint to stop it. His continued posts to the page caused MZMcBride to ask him to stop posting there. Aitias argued about it, and continued to post there anyway , fussing about an apparent COI - comments are further goading the editor whose talk it was.

There was another issue which I should bring up, though I personally did not see it as a big issue, but others did. The creation of this reconfirmation RFA was seen by many to be POINTy (though I disagreed completely) and unnecessarily rushed through against normal procedures.

A further issue I found was a block of Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) (again, I agreed with this block, but the crowd was divided). Further details can be found here, and here.

A couple of days ago, this discussion took place on Aitias's talk, with some editors concerned about his ongoing issues.

So in conclusion, while I agree with Aitias on many issues, I feel he is no longer suited to continue as an administrator. Admins ought to have full respect from the community, should act professionally, and converse with other people politely and with respect. I feel another RFC would be fruitless, as he appears to have not learnt a thing from the first one, so I come here, and he even seems to want me to, wrt his egging me on. I do not believe Aitias is a net positive any longer and think he should be desysopped, at least temporarily. Thanks for your consideration.

To Avruch: there's a little phrase that goes "the straw that broke the camel's back". This was it. As I mentioned in my statement, it's a lot of different issues over time building up and building up. The rollback was problematic, but if Aitias had simply admitted it was and accepted he could have gone about it differently, the issue would be over. Instead, he argued and argued, claiming everyone except him was wrong, and insisting he was totally in the right to revert good faith edits, despite three other users concerned with it. In short, yes, the rollback brought me here today, but it's far from the only issue. Majorly talk 03:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Protonk (talk)

I don't have a comment yet on the RfC issues (which appear substantive), but I do want to say that it isn't a stretch to accept that WP:ROLLBACK allows reversion of edits on your own talk page without an edit summary. I recommend that both sides of the debate drop their accusations of wikilawyering and move to another issue.

Statement by Acalamari

Unfortunately, I believe that this case is necessary. I was preparing a second requests for comment in my userspace, but after seeing recent events transpire, I have to agree with arbitration. I tried to talk to Aitias the other day, but it doesn't appear to have convinced Aitias to change his behavior, and neither has the comments and encouraging from other users. I've been losing confidence in Aitias' judgment for some time now, and it's not surprising that this request has been filed. I once admin coached Aitias, nominated him for adminship, and gave him lots of help in the past in addition to the coaching; I'm disappointed that it's come to me endorsing an arbitration request and his possible desysopping. His actions listed by Majorly, the main RfC and the userspace RfC do not display conduct an administrator should have. Acalamari 02:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

To Avruch: it was Aitias' incivility towards Juliancolton that made me decide to create the RfC, and yes, it was the rollback incident that pushed Majorly to filing this case. Acalamari 03:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Rjd0060

Majorly points to this recent thread that I initiated on Aitias' talk page after he reverted an edit (that I made) with the edit summary "?". I would just like to note that some of my comments on Aitias' talk page may seem short. I acknowledge this, however, I feel I should explain a bit further. Ever since the end of December when Aitias added a complaint about one of my actions to the Administrators noticeboard, I've noticed that he seemed to have an issue with controlling his behavior and conduct. There have been several discussions (on various talk pages - linked above in Majorly's statement) about Aitias and his inappropriate conduct, yet he still seems to fail to understand (or at the very least, acknowledge) that there is an issue, and continues to argue that those who disagree with him are simply wrong.

Clearly something needs to happen here as it is apparent that a number of users have tried, and failed to help and they are beginning to (and some already have) lose their patience with Aitias. As Acalamari says above, Aitias' conduct is far from acceptable, especially for an administrator. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

@Avruch — Just to echo what others have already said in reply to your comment: things can only build and build for so long before somebody decides that enough is enough. In this case, it took a few months but it has finally happened. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad — While Aitias does address a few concerns about specific actions that he has taken, he does not address (or at least does so quite poorly) his general conduct issues . Considering this case (should it be accepted) should be primarily about his conduct in general (and minimally about a few specific incidents — like using rollback on non-vandalism edits and creating reconfirmation RfA's) I don't see any indication that he has even acknowledged that his behavior is out of line. This is also stated by Mr.Z-man below. Given that a number of users have made attempts to talk with Aitias about his issues, and the fact that he has yet to change his general attitude, and based on the continued lack of acknowledgment, I would still think that this case should be accepted. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

@Aitias — You state "Also, Rjd was the one who made a mistake and I reverted it correctly — Rjd did admit that his edit was mistaken." which indicates that you're still missing the point. This (wa|i)sn't about whether or not my edit was right. It is about your inappropriate response to it and the holier-than-thou approach that you take when people attempt to discuss things with you (this is evidenced by a few comments, including , among others, as well as your general demeanor). - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

@Ncmvocalist — One could argue that the previous RfC and the number of attempted discussions with Aitias since that RfC could constitute as plenty of time to "sort issues out" (as you said). - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

@ArbCom, regarding the retirement — I'd just like to echo what others have already said with regards to Aitias' "retirement". Given that he has not requested the removal of his Sysop rights, I would still hope that the committee accepts this case. Users "retire" regularly and return and nobody knows if this is an attempt to hinder Arbitration Committee proceedings (not an accusation, but a possibility). Should he eventually chose to relinquish his Sysop rights, I would assume that doing so would be "under a cloud" and that a simple motion declaring that he must go through RfA again and/or contact the committee to regain the bit, would be voted on. As (in my opinion) this case would be about his conduct as an administrator, I don't believe the case would be needed if he were to relinquish his administrator rights as I explained in the previous sentence. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by SWATJester

The individual actions are not important here. Aitias's behavior, however, viewed as a trend, which Majorly outlines above, is extremely disturbing. The flat-refusal to admit that his actions could even SLIGHTLY be controversial, when no less than three other people have stepped in to say that they are, is a very very bad sign for an admin; especially when he has had a history of problems involving this area, and even more so when the guideline in question says (WP:ROLL) repeatedly things like "Rollback must always be used with care."; "When in doubt, manually revert to the appropriate revision and supply an edit summary to explain your reasoning"; and most obviously If there is any doubt about whether an edit should be rolled back, please do not use this feature.. "The rollback feature is available to administrators and users with the rollbacker permission on Misplaced Pages as a fast method of undoing edits that are blatantly nonproductive, such as vandalism and nonsense."

It's so blindingly obvious that Aitias' behavior is not at all in the spirit of the rollbacking rule. ESPECIALLY given the fact that there is clearly doubt, and controversy as to the appropriateness, yet he refuses to admit that his use of rollback is wrong.

Again, it doesn't matter that it is a user talk page, or that the individual subject in question is petty. What is important is the issues raised by Aitias' behavior here. It is patently dangerous for an administrator to refuse to admit any potential concept of error on his behalf in the face of several experienced users pointing out that something is wrong. It's even more dangerous for the administrator to blatantly ignore something that says "if there's any doubt about what you're doing, DONT DO IT" and go ahead and do it anyway. ⇒SWATJester 02:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

@Ncmvocalist: I'm not involved with Aitias in any way. I didn't partake in the RFC (nor did I hear about it until the dispute at his talk page). I have a long history of not getting along with Majorly either, so perhaps that somewhat clarifies the extent of the situation here that I fully endorse his (Majorly's) opinion on this.

@Ncmvocalist and others: It's a misleading statement to say that he's "improving" or taking steps to change; his carefully drafted response showed a complete lack of taking responsibility for his actions, instead shifting the blame on others, a massive unwillingness to show any signs that he might accept criticism of his actions as an admin, etc. Given the fact that this is AFTER an RFC pointing out these issues, it's probably more accurate to say that he is significantly worsening, rather than improving (or at the least, maintaining a status quo of "inappropriate". Not that that's any better). ⇒SWATJester 00:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

@Aitias: Passing this off as "other editors simply not liking you", or "some editors, are always the same" is laughable. I had no idea who you were until this started. If other editors don't like you, it's probably due to your irascible attitude on-wiki. ⇒SWATJester 00:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Juliancolton

First off, I'd like to acknowledge that I've had plenty of pleasant encounters with Aitias in the past. In general, he's hardly a bad user; however, I, like others, have serious concerns about his recent conduct, as well as his use of the admin tools. The most recent issues are listed at User:Acalamari/RFC, and I feel there's no need to repeat them in this statement. That said, I do believe Aitias has a tendency to WP:OWN certain pages such as WP:PERM/R, where he is often rather impolite with users whom he disagrees with—including myself. He often makes it difficult or impossible for other users to discuss issues with him, as evidenced by his current talk page revision, and the recent misuse of rollback on his talk page. Other users have sufficiently explained these incidents, though, so I won't continue my rant. While none of these individual issues are earth-shattering, Aitias' general behavior has been poor at times, and I'm afraid that I have doubts regarding his status as an administrator.

As an aside, I endorse the above statements, specifically those by Rjd and Acalamari. –Juliancolton 03:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

@Avruch: Not really. Several users have expressed concerns with Aitias' behavior for several weeks (months?) now, so this is more of a long-term issue. In essence, the rollback incident seems to be the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. –Juliancolton 03:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Aitias

Well, I will start with analysing all the evidence presented here by several users, especially of course by Majorly. The first thing here that seems to be noteworthy is that all the evidence presented in the various statements is mostly quoted out of context — this constitutes, at least in my opinion, a considerable problem and thus I will try to provide some context/background for each of the incidents presented.

For the beginning, as Majorly just repeats the allegations from the RfC, it seems to be the best thing to read the whole reply I provided back then, so that I do not have to repeat everything.

• “The point of the RFC closing was for him to take a break from RFR He took a total of 4 days away from the page ” Well, some context: I asked Majorly on his talk page how long he expected me to not edit the rollback page. His reply was: “I don't expect or demand anything; I haven't been looking at your edits or anything. If you think you're able to return there now, feel free.” Also, regarding the “WP:OWN issues” (in case they did exist before the RfC), I think I have worked more than well on them after the RfC (as promised): Since the RfC closed, I have made just a few edits to that page — in total, about 5% of the edits that were made in this timeframe were made by me; just in contrast: 34% of the edits were made by User:Juliancolton. I don't think one can call that “WP:OWN issues”.
• “I was pointed to [this by someone, where it shows Aitias has yet again turned to aggression, sarcasm, and rudeness when someone, quite within their rights, granted rollback to somebody Aitias disagreed with.” Firstly, none of this applies. My comments do neither constitute sarcasm nor aggression, let alone “rudeness”. Also, I did not disagree with Juliancolton's decision to grant rollback — if one reads my comments carefully they will find out that this was not at all the point I tried to make. To illustrate this point, I think it may be a good idea to simply quote an email I wrote Juliancolton:

“ Dear Julian,

thank you for your e-mail. I never disagreed with your decision to grant rollback in general - merely with the manner. I would have granted rollback here as well, however I found this one worrying revert and thus I asked this question. After the user had written this reply, I would have granted as well. I simply deemed ignoring my concern/question and granting rollback that hasty a bit disrespectful. "In hindsight, I suppose I shouldn't have been so hasty in granting the user rollback." - This was exactly the point I tried to make.

Howsoever, I hope everything is a bit more understandable now. :)

Best wishes,

Aitias.”

This is quoted from Juliancolton's e-mail, to which I did reply with my e-mail.

• “I then noticed this inappropriate revert of a good faith edit. JulianColton and SWATJester both agreed that Aitias's revert was inappropriate, and Aitias did not provide any evidence or policy based reason why he was reverting a good faith edit. He continued to insist everyone except him was wrong ”. Firstly, it was not only me who told Majorly that he was wrong. Protonk (talk · contribs) tried to do this was well: “You can roll back edits on your user or user talk page, FYI. No wikilawyering about it.” and also in his statement here. When I was told that one is entitled to use rollback in his own user space (of course including user talk page) the first time (I think I was told on AN or AN/I), I was surprised as well. However, the situation is clear, even if still disputed by Majorly. Howsoever, it was anyway the first time I did revert a good faith edit using rollback in my user space, and it will remain the last time.

• “This is not the only thing I have discovered. Aitias makes a lot of edits, so it is difficult to go through them and find any potential problems, but I did see a lot of issues with the User:RMHED block. The original post contains comments from Aitias that appear to be unnecessarily goading, and begging some admin to block for longer, which was rather unnecessary considering several admins were dealing with it.” I have to ask Majorly for clarification here, as it is not clear to me to which comment he is exactly referring to. If he is referring to “Actually, the edits on Deaths in 2009 clearly constituted Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing. Has this been taken into account while blocking?” I can not see anything wrong about this comments; it was a simple, unproblematic question that received a simple answer without any problems. Also, I don't think I have much to say to RMHED's block. I will quote a short part of an e-mail sent to me by RMHED a few days ago instead: “Aitias I just wanted you to know that I bear you no ill feelings. I called you an arsehole but I am very much aware that I acted like an arsehole. Anyways, I apologize for my rudeness ”.

• “There was another issue which I should bring up, though I personally did not see it as a big issue, but others did. The creation of this reconfirmation RFA was seen by many to be POINTy (though I disagreed completely) and unnecessarily rushed through against normal procedures.” As Majorly points out correctly, these allegations do not apply in my opinion. However, if I had known that it would be that controversial, I would never have done it. It was not intended to be pointy at all, but simply bold. Again, I would not have done it if I would have been aware that it might be that controversial.

• “A further issue I found was a block of Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) (again, I agreed with this block, but the crowd was divided). Further details can be found here, and here.” This block was clearly justified and resonable. Also, it was supported and endorsed by consensus on AN/I.

• “A couple of days ago, this discussion took place on Aitias's talk, with some editors concerned about his ongoing issues.” Some may realise that these “some editors” are always the same: Majorly, Rjd and MZM. Also, Rjd was the one who made a mistake and I reverted it correctly — Rjd did admit that his edit was mistaken.

Taking everything into account, I think it's safe to say that I did at no time misuse, let alone abuse, my administrator tools; also, I never did violate WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL. There are, simply, certain editors (mostly Majorly, MZM and Rjd) who dislike me —they are, of course, perfectly entitled to that— however, the problem is that you can provide as many strong, undeniable arguments as possible, you can be proved right, and they still will remain unreasonable. They are, of course, perfectly entitled to that as well. However, if those people come here claiming that I would be unwilling to learn anything, everyone should be aware that this basically means nothing else than I don't give my blessing to everything they say. I am perfectly willing to learn and admit mistakes, but I am not willing to agree with everyhting they want me to agree. However, disagreeing with certain viewpoints of them is not a reason for desysoping or whatsoever. In case the Committee thinks it is, I am happy with that as well; I am not at all attached to the tools, I use them to do a lot of thankless work and to help the project, not because I would get a big bang out of using them. Anyway, thank you for your consideration. — Aitias // discussion 11:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Addendum re. Rjd0060's concerns and explanation:

I agree with Rjd0060's et al. concerns, both above and below, and second that this case should go its usual way. However, I'd like to emphasise that this is not “an attempt to hinder Arbitration Committee proceedings” (as Rjd0060 called it above); I simply no longer feel like contributing here any longer. Also, please note that this is not a sign of disrespect for the Committee or the arbitration process, I am simply tired of this project.

Finally, I'd like to sincerely apologise to all persons who feel I was unfair/impolite towards them, who feel I have taken unfair/bad decisions, who feel I was an unfair/bad administrator and editor and I'd also like to truly apologise for any mistake I have made. I honestly can assure you that I have always acted with the best of intentions; I have always tried to do what I thought was the best for the project — if I have failed to do so, I am genuinely sorry.

Thanks,

— Aitias // discussion 15:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment from Avruch

I'm all for a tighter focus on standards of interaction and behavior for administrators, and I definitely thought the reconfirmation RfA for Jasonr was an example of seriously deficient judgment... But did this whole thing come about today because he used rollback instead of undo on his talkpage? Really? Avruch 03:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment from Master&Expert

I was just checking my watchlist to see if there were any discussions where I might want to offer up a third opinion. I have observed many things from Aitias over the course of a few months. While an entire RfAR is quite a surprise to me, I have to say I understand Majorly's concerns for bringing it here - and as awful as I feel about saying this, I have had serious questions regarding Aitias's judgment as an administrator for awhile, even before the Jasonr reconfirmation. Master&Expert (Talk) 03:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I recall an incident which dates back to December 2008, where Aitias revoked rollback from another editor for performing a rollback on a good-faith edit. See the user talk discussion, though the link on his talk page thread does not work properly. I recall it was a new user or IP asking for assistance on an article that ABF rolled back, which was not an inappropriate use of rollback. It barely even warranted telling him to be mindful of using edit summaries when dealing with good-faith edits - much less completely revoking it for a one-off incident. The most that should have happened was a comment to ABF's talk page advising him to leave a note on the user talk page answering their question, and while Aitias did return rollback after the discussion, it was still superfluous to remove it in the first place. Master&Expert (Talk) 03:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

@Frank: I had noticed the exchange between you and Aitias when I was looking to see if anybody else noticed the incident with rollback; I hadn't noticed that he seems to have re-evaluated his decision later on. I agree with your last point. Master&Expert (Talk) 21:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Iridescent

Although I was busy last week so only saw the drama unfold in retrospect, I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with every word Majorly says. The concerns I raised at his RFA seem to have borne themselves out; although we don't overlap much, on every occasion I've come across him lately he seems to embody all our critics stereotypes of the abusive Misplaced Pages admin. Refusing to take criticism; apparent refusal to ever admit that other peoples' concerns might be valid (his going through all 29 points on the RFC refusing to admit that any were valid concerns was a particular lowlight); a "rules-are-rules" strict application of policy with no exception or appreciation of nuances; an apparent belief that "admin" gives some kind of super-user status (, ); and a "shoot-first-and-ignore-any-questions" mentality. (I'm most familiar with this last from his block of Malleus, as I tend to work quite closely with Malleus and have his page watchlisted – I was even accused on Misplaced Pages Review of being Malleus's "obnoxious boor protector" – but one only has to skim his talkpage to see numerous other similar concerns.) – iridescent 03:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Mr.Z-man

I had a particular unpleasant experience with Aitias on the WP:PERM talk page in December and agreed with most of the points raised by Majorly on the RFC. I hoped that after Aitias' comments on the RFC that he had taken the advice of the people commenting and would try to improve how he interacts with other users; and suggest he either isn't willing or isn't able to. Whether the comment by Aitias on the RFC about "chilling out" and taking a break from RFR was a sincere statement quickly forgotten or an insincere statement to end the RFC quickly, I don't know. Mr.Z-man 04:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: I may be interpreting Aitias' statement differently, but I don't see it just as lack of an agreement to improve his attitude, but outright denial that there might be any issue at all and attempting to shift the blame onto other people because they were being "unreasonable". In any case, taking a break from RFR and cooling down a tad was exactly what Aitias agreed to in the RFC (the diff is linked earlier in my comment) and yet here we are, less than a month after the RFC closed, the exact same problems as before. Mr.Z-man 14:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Goodmorningworld

Aitias is an abusive admin who enjoys hurting editors. <refactored by clerk User:Ryan Postlethwaite> His recent block of Malleus Fatuorum, where he was first seen chomping at the bit on AN/I to institute a block, and then gloating about it afterward, is a particularly egregious example, as is his counterfactual claim, right here on this page, that "consensus" existed for that block. As most will remember, DDStretch unblocked Malleus but his unblock was undone by Coren. In response, DDStretch resigned his administrator position. Aitias then came onto the Talk page of DDStretch to gloat some more. He needs to be kicked out of the admin corps ASAP.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Ncmvocalist

I enacted the RfC closure. I am deeply disturbed by a few of the statements/replies above; it seems that RFC/U, after much effort, has become less of an attack zone than it once was, while the problem has grown worse at this venue. In any case....

Newyorkbrad has summarised my views on this, more aptly than I would have.

It's clear that a number of members of the community feel that the back on the camel has broken from this talkpage rollback incident, but I do think some clemency should be granted (and more time given) before jumping into yet another case, with guns at the ready. I think Aitias is trying to sort issues out, and subject to what was said in Newyorkbrad's comment, I think we can afford to grant a little more time before Aitias is dragged through what will essentially be an attack zone at arbitration.

At this point, more time and discussion-with-Aitias-by-editors-he-hasn't-been-involved-in-conflict-with would be helpful. At most, guidance via motions should be enough; if there is no progress being made even after that, and another incident blows up, then arbitration would be the best way forward - it would be ripe at that time as we would know the direction in which this ultimately needs to go. But I would rather suggest holding off from opening a case at this time. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Rjd0060

Indeed, that is a reasonable point (I've already read, for example, the incident described in the statement below mine). Yet, I don't think it's unreasonable if someone were to say that we may be expecting a little 'too much, too soon'. I would've advised him to go on wikibreak, but I don't think it will be useful until that discussion (I talk about above) - that needs to happen before he took/takes a break, whether it's from editing or admining. That said, I am not strongly against opening a case - but I am, by a couple of feet, suggesting we don't open the case now, in favour of a bit more time. Of course, I will emphasise this is just merely my current opinion - there will be people who strongly disagree. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Swatjester

Thank you for clarifying your (lack of) involvement status. I'd certainly support desysopping or similar measures for administrators who will not accept criticisms of their actions. And unfortunately, there are some such admins that are still around. But I was suggesting he may be trying to remedy the issue; though if he is, would clearly needs to try much harder. I haven't really used the word 'improving' at this point (perhaps I won't be able to in the future either, but that remains to be seen). That said, concerns seem to be growing.

I've asked him if he is willing and/or able to discuss some of this off-wiki within the next 48 hours. Pending his response(s), soon, I will provide an update on whether my position has changed, along with a (hopefully) brief rationale. Thanks again, Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment regarding FayssalF's vote

I'm rather amused by your comment, FayssalF. While you were an active arbitrator, on many occasions, you (among others) have ably demonstrated how much more flawed arbitration is in comparison to other avenues of dispute resolution. It's a community norm wherein multiple "requests" are made; whether it is at a talk page, a noticeboard, a WQA, for comment (aka an RfC), or even one for arbitration and clarification on arbitration. Regardless of how many occur within a certain timeframe, and whether it is appropriate, it is common practice. Your reason for accepting seems to be out of touch with what needs to be considered, and seems more like an excuse. It would've been more ideal to focus on the substantive issues, and instead, let the community worry about whether it needs to change or fix the flaws in its norms, or dispute resolution mechanisms.

If you (or any other arbitrator) found that the community was still in RfC at this venue, then it is your duty to direct them to do so in the appropriate venue, even if it is for the 2nd or 3rd time. The fact that you find that it seems to be happening on this page instead (and have thus, indirectly allowed it to be a replacement for actual 2nd RfC) is rather troubling, in my view. Practically, you have sent a message similar to this: when administrator is considered to be uncivil at WQA, and then another WQA is filed a month later, we can speedy close it it and direct them here to arbitration where they can have the second WQA, RfC, as well as arbitration - all in one central venue within hours/days of each other. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Update Aitias seems to have signalled that he has retired - see his user talk and user page history. Further, I haven't received a reply to my email. As he resigned his tools in the light of controversy, I urge arbitrators to develop a motion without wasting anymore time; given the manner in which this has occurred, he should not retain his tools for the duration of his departure. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Tznkai

My interactions with Aitias have been brief, so I cannot say whether the problem I am about to describe is a single isolated incident, or indicative of a larger pattern of bad judgment.

On Febuary 26, I ran across an ANI thread concerning RMHED on a trolling spree. The incident in summary was RMHED was suffering burn out and needed to be blocked, reported by Aecis, and Caknuck blocking. Immediately after the block, several editors (myself included) started discussing the possibility of block extensions or unblock conditions. Most of us thought it was worthwhile to find away Throughout the course of the incident Aitias continued to urge for additional administrative intervention, and block extensions. Aitias aggressively argued against unblocking, although to be fair, he was called an "arsehole" repeatedly by RMHED. It became rapidly apparent to everyone except Aitiasthat he was inflaming the situation further. I perhaps too subtly invited Aitias to disengage from the discussion, and Wehwalt did so more bluntly as well. Aitias did not in fact disengage from the ANI thread or from the related thread on RMHED's talk page. Most disturbingly, even after RMHED's block was extended and it became clear that RMHED was done with talking, Aitias created an RfC/U (admin-viewable only, see also this notification). Which User:Spartaz deleted promptly. Aitias proceeded to argue that such deletion was abusive. It is clear to me that Aitias executed terrible judgment. Admins need to know when to back down - and more than other users, they must be able to let go from situations - avoid kicking users when they are down. I'd like to think this is an isolated incident, but if it is not, I strongly urge Aitias to give up his tools until he is reconfirmed by RfA.--Tznkai (talk) 19:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Originals for cross reference:

• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive517#User:RMHED
• Old version of User talk:RMHED

E-mail from RMHED

I recieved this e-mail from RMHED via Misplaced Pages's e-mail user function. I have copied and pasted it without comment or edit.

Hello Tznkai,

I've just noticed the RFAR case filed about Aitias and see my name is frequently mentioned, so decided I'd email you. I see Aitias has quoted from an email I sent him, it would have been nice if he'd asked if it was OK beforehand, but seeing as how he never even acknowledged receipt of said email I'm not really surprised at this lack of courtesy. The full text of the email I sent Aitias is as follows;

"Aitias I just wanted you to know that I bear you no ill feelings. I called you an arsehole but I am very much aware that I acted like an arsehole.

Anyways, I apologize for my rudeness, I'm not doing this to try to get unblocked, I'm doing this because ultimately I believe you didn't act maliciously but did act in accordance with your conscience.

May peace and contentment be yours.

Regards,

RMHED"

I do indeed believe that Aitias's comments on the relevant ANI thread and on my talk page after my block weren't malicious. I do not believe that Aitias is an abusive admin I just think that he has a tendency to be intractable and inflexible. I think he basically just needs to lighten up a bit.

Please feel free to use the content of this email as you see fit, its main purpose was just to confirm that I did indeed email Aitias.

Regards,

RMHED

Comment by Frank

Reply to Master&Expert: I discussed this incident at some length with Aitias at the time. When that came up at the RfC, Aitias gave me what seemed a sincere re-evaluation of the actions after the fact, and I was content at that point to AGF. I really think that if Aitias would just relax and not be so quick to play the admin card, there would be no issue here.  Frank  |  talk  20:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Malleus Fatuorum

I believe it to be fundamentally wrong for an administrator with a history of incivility to be sitting in judgement on the alleged incivility of others, and issuing blocks for behaviour that he himself is just as guilty of. I am not much concerned about the specifics of my own recent block; clearly Aitias was not alone in believing that to be an appropriate punishment. I am making a general point which I hope will be properly considered. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Seicer

As of several minutes ago, Alias presumably retired. I undid the indefinite full protection of his talk page, as it was unwarranted and unnecessary. seicer | talk | contribs 13:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

He has wiped his talk pages, to which I am contesting and seeking consensus to do so at WP:AN#Aitias's Right to Vanish. Please comment. seicer | talk | contribs 13:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment: RTV does not mean continue editing, as he has indicated. seicer | talk | contribs 14:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Rootology

It's in the can for acceptance, standing at 8 accepts as I write this, but I urge the Arbs to not change their minds and carry through on acceptance and deciding if the admin in question should retain their tools based on their attitude and collective non-administrative actions as well, which is the key factor here in my opinion. As admins, our on-wiki actions, interactions, and attitudes should be fair game for determination by RFAR from the community if we can keep our tools, if our peers feel we have become a negative value to the community in any way.

As for the Aitias "retirement", unless he gives up the sysop bit and retires under a cloud, please continue the acceptance here. rootology (C)(T) 13:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Update: this is definitely open and should remain open until Aitias gives up the tools or the Arbitration case completes as Fritzpoll says. I asked Aitias here if he will request a desysop on Meta, and his only answer was to archive his active user talk to User talk:Aitias/archive 6 and then delete his talk page. rootology (C)(T) 13:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Fritzpoll

Without commenting on the specifics of the case at this time, Aitias' retirement doesn't mean anything in the context of this RfArb if he hasn't given up the tools. The account is still sysopped, and if a potential outcome of this request is desysopping, the Committee should not allow what may be a temporary retirement to subvert this request. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment by roux

Echoing what Fritzpoll said, in the strongest possible terms. //roux   14:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

• Comment: Aitias said he would post his statement at 20:00 UTC 3/15. Under the SOP, 24 hours after "net 4" would be 8:54 UTC 3/16 or 13 hours after Aitias is expected to post his statement. 48 hours after the case was filed will be 2:17 UTC 3/17 or 26 hours after Aitias is expected to post his statement. I think we should wait until 2:17 UTC 3/17 to open unless any of the arbs advise that the case is being fast tracked. MBisanz 09:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Unless there is an unexpected development, I don't see an issue with waiting the full time in this case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I believe some dates need to be added to MBisanz's times, as some of the times fall on different dates and are not on the same days. The 48 hours one in particular would seem to fall at 2:17 on 17 March. Unless there is an emergency, I think all arbs and interested parties should be given the time to see the request and comment. Not everyone is around when a situation "erupts" (I've only just become aware of this, for instance, and I try to check RFAR every 24 hours). I'll be reviewing the request over the next hour or so and giving my opinion. Carcharoth (talk) 23:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Whoops, I've edited my comment to add the dates. Will wait the 48 hours. MBisanz 01:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Recuse - making a statement.--Tznkai (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
• I've refactored one comment by Goodmorningworld because it was clearly a personal attack. Can all parties and commentators please remember to be civil even when directing criticism towards another editor. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
• Recuse - as I think I participated in a few of the AN/I threads. Tiptoety 20:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• Note to Clerks: Please hold opening off for now pending reevaluation in light of Aitias' apparent retirement. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (9/1/0/2)

• Accept. Based on the issues raised as well as the RfC, this seems like something to look into. Wizardman 02:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
• Accept. Kirill  02:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
• Awaiting statement by Aitias. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I have read Aitias' statement and it does not address all the concerns that have been raised, but it might be a start. For example, Aitias has stated that he will no longer use rollback to revert without explanation good-faith edits on his talkpage, which helps to moot that issue. (The discussion that has taken place regarding whether one may use rollback liberally on one's own user talkpage, as opposed to elsewhere in one's userspace, strikes me as a classic example of letting analysis of the literal wording of a policy overpower the reasons behind the policy, but never mind.) Aitias has stated or implied that he will open no more "reconfirmation" RfA's, which is also good. I would welcome a greater recognition from Aitias that there have been a series of civility issues as perceived by several people, which is a serious problem for an administrator, and that his demeanor toward other users would benefit from modification. And I think it might be best if Aitias stepped away for awhile from dealing with rollback requests; the chaos that some people expected when non-admin rollback was implemented and any admin allowed to confer it has generally not occurred, and I would like to see extra effort by all to avoid drama associated with this or any future userrights grants. I would welcome comments on whether taking a case right now is the best way forward. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • General comment: Clear and forceful advocacy of one's position on the requests for arbitration page is welcome, but excessively strident language, such as calling another editor a "sociopath," should be avoided. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
• Awaiting statement by Aitias. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Accept There seems to be sufficient cause for concern here. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
• Accept. --bainer (talk) 07:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
• Accept. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I was about to add something like what Vassyana wrote below me, but he has and I agree with him. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Accept. Other methods having been tried, ArbCom is the best chance for resolution. Cool Hand Luke 20:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
• Accept; the concerns expressed in the RfC warrant looking into. — Coren  00:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - Have reviewed the RfC and am concerned that only 14 editors commented there, mostly giving different viewpoints and several criticising Majorly's approach to the RfC. Three editors endorsed Majorly's filing of the RfC. Atias endorsed his own response. One outside view got two endorsements (plus the author), another outside view got one endorsement (plus the author), another outside view got no endorsements other than by the author, another outside view got two endorsements (plus the author), and the final outside view got one endorsement (other then by the author). Also, the RfC was barely open for 5 days. I see now that it was closed due to Aitias making a statement agreeing with the desired objectives. Might I ask why the RfC cannot simply be reopened and updated to gather more comments, and left open regardless of what Aitias says (to avoid a repeat of the RfC closing early)? I have reviewed the further concerns Majorly has raised, and there are what appear to be troubling issues here, especially the behaviour surrounding the RHMED block, but I am uneasy with the course this dispute has taken, and am uncertain that any real attempt has been made to resolve the issues at earlier stages of dispute resolution. Carcharoth (talk) 03:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  • For now, reject in favour of re-opening the RfC, or (better) starting a new one. Carcharoth (talk) 03:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I would prefer to see a second RFC, or Aitias willingly back away from RFR and a few other areas where the trouble has brewed, in order to reduce chances of it flaring up again while the points made during the first RFC sink in. John Vandenberg 04:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. I generally share the sentiments expressed by Carcharoth and Newyorkbrad. I would also note that the time and participation of the RfC was limited (albeit in large part due to Aitias' statement). However, I am inclined to accept this request. A clear pattern of behavior is being asserted as a continuing problem and we should take credible concerns about administrative misconduct very seriously. Disputes usually must exhaust the community's options before arbitration. Given the statements provided, it would be beyond my expectations to insist that the community holds another discussion. I cannot decline this request unless there are clear indications that another RfC will not simply lead to this case being heard some weeks down the road. (For example, Aitias showing that he understands the concerns and would heed the community consultation.) Vassyana (talk) 07:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
• Accept - We've long criticized RfC for being flawed. In fact, that should not be taken as granted since there are many succesful RfCs. But, for me, two RfCs in three months would mean that something is wrong and that the RfC process is really flawed (granted). Actually, we are already having a second RfC up here and it still seems that arbitration is needed. -- FayssalF - 11:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
• Accept — Roger Davies 13:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Clarifications and other requests

• WP:RFAC
• WP:RCAM

Place requests related to amendments of prior cases, appeals, and clarifications on this page. If the case is ongoing, please use the relevant talk page. Requests for enforcement of past cases should be made at Arbitration enforcement. Requests to clarify general Arbitration matters should be made on the Talk page. To create a new request for arbitration, please go to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration. Place new requests at the top. Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/How-to other requests

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Request for general clarification

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Hipocrite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Ryan_Postlethwaite (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Statement by Hipocrite

The comittee did not adress clearly enough if it was appropriate for an admin to "clarify" ArbCom rulings by stating they were taking an enforcement action and then detailing their "clarification" on the arbitration page. Is this an appropriate action in the general case, or are clarifications to ArbCom rulings which change the wording of the rulings (as opposed to interpretations, which do not change the wording of rulings) only to be made by the comittee?

I agree with Arb Coren, below. Hipocrite (talk) 13:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Ryan Postlethwaite

Hipocrite needs to stop beating a dead horse. The committee said what SirFozzie did was correct and individual arbitrators also stated that his interpretation was the correct one. It's therefore clear to just about everyone that SirFozzies "clarification" would be a good statement to look at when thinking of applying sanctions to SA in the future. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Short Brigade Harvester Boris

The ruling had bred a pushmi-pullyu: on the one hand the committee states "formal clarifications are best articulated by the Arbitration Committee and may be sought by a request for clarification," but on the other hand commends SirFozzie for issuing a "clarification" (his original term) on his own initiative. Such ambiguity tends to cause problems down the road. Arbcom could resolve this by clearly stating that SirFozzie was OK in this case because the policy was unclear, but in the future admins should not issue "clarifications" on their own initiative. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Abd

If I'm correct, SirFozzie stated his own interpretation of the existing ban. If that had changed the ban, it would have been improper. If it had been proposed as a rule that other admins must follow, likewise. But for an admin to state how he interprets a ban, and thus how he would enforce it, is simply disclosure. It's not necessary to go to ArbComm to state how one is going to interpret the ban. If someone doesn't like it, it can be discussed, and only if there isn't ready agreement does an RfAr/Clarification become necessary. SirFozzie's interpretation was not a "formal clarification" and it had no binding power.

The ban, in fact, was not unclear in substance, it was deliberately broad, and if not for the tendency of certain editors to jump to AN/I or ArbComm when they disagree with something, there would have been little disruption. I was taken to AE by the editor who filed this RfAr, and the one that ended up with a ban on SA, based on a totally bogus claim I was harassing ScienceApologist, immediately after he asked me to stop (to stop what I wasn't doing), and before I had any opportunity to respond. SA is now blocked in a way that is directly connected to the actions of this editor, and if there is anything to look at here, it would be his behavior. However, controlling point: no due process, no attempts to resolve a dispute (what dispute?) at a lower level than ArbComm, and no emergency. The request should be quickly declined, before we get even more disruption. --Abd (talk) 15:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment by GRBerry

Since everyone seems to agree that Sir Fozzie's "clarification" was actually an "interpretation", would someone just go change the word each time it appears in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science#Clarification of restriction on User:ScienceApologist (section title and two other places). I'd do it myself but that would create more useless drama given past history. GRBerry 18:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I thought the second and third motions did clarify this, but just to make things clear:
  • Administrators doing enforcement are allowed and encouraged to interpret the remedy as applicable. In particular, remedies worded to give leeway are meant to be tweaked to context (such as "construed broadly", "at discretion", etc).
  • Administrators are also expected to make that interpretation clear, and making that explanation conspicuous is a valuable tool to do so.
  • The log of enforcement is probably not the best place to do so, and in any case cannot change the wording of a committee decision without the assent of the committee. Changes that, in the opinion the the admins, should be done to the actual wording of the decision (as opposed to its interpretation) should normally be done here in a clarification request.
  • In context, then, SirFozzie did a reasonable interpretation but "published" it in such a way as to inadvertantly make it unclear that it was an interpretation and not an actual modification of the remedy. There was obviously no foul there, but the committee has reiterated the correct procedure. — Coren  13:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• I will repeat what I said in the previous request for clarification: "The decisions of the Committee will often need to be interpreted by admins acting at arbitration enforcement, or some other relevant venue. It's entirely reasonable, and indeed desirable, for admins to be making note of the way that they are interpreting decisions when they take enforcement actions under them. However, SirFozzie's posting had the potential for confusion, because of the use of the word 'clarification', which is also used by the Committee for its requests for clarification process. Stating that he was making a note of his interpretation would have avoided the confusion. As to the substance of SirFozzie's interpretation, I agree with it." To that I would merely add that interpretation is a matter for consensus among the enforcing administrators, and where consensus cannot be reached, or where there is some doubt or ambiguity, a request for clarification should be made to the Committee. As to SirFozzie's posting, it seems that the interpretation note has been removed anyway, so that issue is moot. --bainer (talk) 22:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• Not commenting on the specific case of ScienceApologist, but some thoughts in general:
  • Administrators should try to interpret our decisions reasonably, taking into account the wording of the specific remedy as well as its underlying scope and purpose;
  • Arbitration discussion on the /proposed decision page or elsewhere on the case pages may sometimes provide guidance as to what was intended, if it is unclear;
  • Where an editor may have been relying in good faith on an interpretation of the ruling that differs from that of an administrator on AE, the circumstance may call for a warning that the ruling has been misconstrued, rather than an immediate block or pageban;
  • The committee unanimously observed in the Zeq-Zero0000 case that "an administrator or other editor who takes an action in reliance on a good-faith, reasonable interpretation of an Arbitration Committee decision should not be subject to sanction for that action";
  • Where there is disagreement on how a ruling might best be interpreted, the issue can be discussed on AE or another appropriate page;
  • Where there is continued disagreement or the ruling is unclear on its face, a request for clarification can be filed on this page; Alternatively, although one arbitrator cannot speak for the committee, in certain circumstances it can be helpful to ask the arbitrator who drafted the decision for his or her view;
  • If possible, interested editors should review proposed decisions before they are finalized, and use the talkpage to alert the arbitrators to potential ambiguities at that time, thereby avoiding later disputes. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
• Was about to suggest what GRBerry said, but I see Jehochman has commented out SirFozzie's clarification (rather than remove it entirely). On reflection, that is probably for the best, as my current view is that using words like "clarification" creates potential for confusion. I also think that such interpretations should only be logged at the case pages if an actual action has been taken. Merely stating what one admin's interpretation is of a remedy, doesn't really count as an enforcement action. If an admin needs to explain a block or warning carried out under the terms of a remedy, then that is the point at which to explain their interpretation. Carcharoth (talk) 08:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages arbitration