Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Aitias

1. In the first RfC, there were concerns over Aitias' "ownership" of certain pages. Rjd0060 made an edit to Template:Unblock that was quickly reverts by Aitias with an explanation of "?", which was no help at all.
2. Rjd0060 tries to discuss the revert with Aitias, and Aitias responds with sarcasm and rudeness, and accused Rjd0060 of making personal attacks when he was backing away from the dispute.
3. In that same thread on Aitias' talk page, MZMcBride tried to talk to Aitias about recent events, but Aitias appeared to dismiss his concerns, on the basis of recent disputes surrounding MZMcBride, which do not affect the validity of MZMcBride's concerns.
4. In the previous RfC, concerns had been raised about Aitias' "owning" of Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback, and incivility on that page. This recent discussion on requests for rollback shows Aitias being rude and sarcastic to Juliancolton, who had disagreed with him.
5. Rudeness and sarcasm directed at Juliancolton when Julian discussed the issue on Aitias' talk page.
6. This and this show another user trying to talk to Aitias about the conflict with Julian, and Aitias just reverts it.
7. When Julian made an attempt to settle the dispute, Aitias responded with "If you don't want to reply, that's okay of course. I did not expect anything else anyway.:

The userspace page this was copied from is User:Acalamari/RFC, which was an RFC being created, but was not completed and moved to the project-space as it was made obsolete by this arbitration case. The above text was linked to on the main RFAR page, and it has been copied here for transparency. Acalamari 16:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Without wanting to pile-on or appearing to be "out for blood" (which I am not), I also agree with Fritzpoll, though if Aitias resigned, there would be no need to continue this. Acalamari 17:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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 [1], among others, as well as your general demeanor). - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to this comment — As you said that you are "tired of this project", will you be relinquishing your administrator rights? - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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 (

) 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 Wikipedia 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 ^{Son of the Defender} 02:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@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 ^{Son of the Defender} 00:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@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 ^{Son of the Defender} 00:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

, 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 ^{Tropical Cyclone} 03:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@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 ^{Tropical Cyclone} 03:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with Fritzpoll. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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?

]

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.

]

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.

Talk) 03:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

@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.

Talk) 21:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

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

]

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; [4] and [5] 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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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]

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]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

To some extent, it appears you've misunderstood my position, in part at least. I have not asserted that the dispute resolution processes mentioned are wholely flawed beyond repair - that was never my position, or I'd have found other ways around arbitration for many cases that did end up here. However, what I have indirectly asserted is that it is a matter of which areas each process is flawed in, what is being done to address the flaws, and more than that, my comment did dwell into the matter of proportions. To be clear, your understanding of the community view, in this case, wasn't flawed - the criticism I made was not of your vote, but of the rationale you specified in the original vote comment. That rationale dwells into issues that are not just insignificant in comparison to the issues that provoke the community view, but may also be considered, to some extent, irrelevant personal biases, that are ironically, not in line with the norms I talk about above - the very norms that the same community endorse, time and time again.

I think that the second and third sentences of my above paragraph is enough to address what you don't understand in essence, but I won't mind being more blunt. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Note Discussions have commenced between myself and Aitias (as implied from my talk page); unfortunately, I cannot put a time limit on when I can make further recommendations given that there are some clashes in our availability. I will try to leave an update tomorrow if possible. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No update still; waiting for the reply. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, a slight update as to a time limit - I intend on making my recommendations hopefully within (or slightly after) 24 hours of receiving the next reply. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Despite Lar's inability to control himself from indirectly or directly commenting about me, and adequate demonstration that he has no idea what he's on about, in line with my notes above, I've given my thoughts and recommendations off-wiki which are limited to really just 2 remedies; one which would result from a motion, or one which would result from a case. Thanks, Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was no publically viewable motion because there were questions/issues that needed answering, some of which were provided with my recommendations to the Committee (as a result of the "waste of time and effort" discussions as described by one person). Notice also the timing between the motion and the update before letting more air inflate the head.

I've asked Lar to leave me alone, and he has ably demonstrated that he is incapable of doing so and reinforced this position in his reply and edit summary that is unbecoming of his status as an administrator and checkuser. To ensure fairness in the request, I've deliberately avoided interacting with or commenting on Lar, despite the many occasions on which I was invited to by others; one of the most notable examples being the elections that were organised by ArbCom. Whether it is because he thinks I'm joking, or whether he thinks he has a God-given right to stir trouble and harass other editors or whether it's because he thinks he can ignore concerns because of the extra buttons, I really don't know.

I jointly pose 2 questions. Can any other member of the community, or even the Committee, assert that it is reasonable for an administrator/checkuser to continually refuse to comply with a simple request to leave an editor alone? Is Lar under the impression that Wikipedia will burn if he doesn't continue targetting me, and that no other editors/administrators/checkusers are willing/able to deal with what I say/do? There was nothing in my actions here that warranted comment from him, or if I want to use the most strictest application of good faith, nothing necessitated his mention of me - there were many other ways he could've commented so as to imagine/feel that he was causing/effecting something wrt a motion.

So with the community and Committee having just seen you reinforce my point, I hope that this is the last time I need to formally interact with you; I make this request in the hope I won't need to request involuntary restrictions - Lar, please back off; please leave me alone; please don't interact with me; please don't comment on me; please don't mention me; please stop harassing me. I don't think that's too much to ask when I myself am making efforts to do that much with regards to you, particularly recently. I make this request here for 2 reasons; for community/Committee awareness, and because it is at this place and at this time that you precipitated a final request to be made. Thanks! Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Originals for cross reference:

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

Comment:

I urge everyone to give Aitias some space for at least 24 hours before pressing for him to give up his tools and/or the committee to adopt a motion, continue with a case, or whatever. Remember that whole kicking when down thing being a problem?--Tznkai (talk) 15:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail from RMHED

I recieved this e-mail from RMHED via Wikipedia'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

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

]

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. --

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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

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.

]

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

]

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)[reply]

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

Regarding RTV: the right to vanish is given solely to users "in good standing." I suggest that Aitias is not such a user, and such a request should not be granted, lest we turn RTV into as much of a joke as most other WP policies and guidelines.

I agree that the committee should not hold off on opening this case because Aitias has stated that he is retiring. First off, he is still making edits, and second he has yet to give up the administrative tools that resulted in this RfAr being filed. That said, since Aitias has stated he is/has resigned I am not sure a whole case would do any good as Aitias would not be contributing to the case. That said, I feel an appropriate course of action would be to file a desyop motion now.

Any retirement would not matter in this case. Some people retire for hours or days. We have no assurance of anything that will happen on his say so. An Arb case could result in a desysopping and/or a block, a ban from certain topics or actions, or some other restriction that would last for an extended time whereas his retirement may only happen for a few days. Our first rule is prevention and it is in the best interest to prevent Aitias from working in these areas as his presence alone is a net negative and a disturbance to the system. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this hanging fire? Put up a motion to accept the apparent resignation, pass it, and go post to Meta that the AC collectively want the bit turned off, and move on. Waiting around for whatever Ncmvocalist is up to seems a waste of time and effort... if Aitias changes their mind, let them then ask for a new motion (and we can have the whole case we would have had) or whatever. ++Lar: t/c 20:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Ncmvocalist: "Despite Lar's inability to control himself from indirectly or directly commenting about me" ?? I will comment about whoever I think needs commenting about, whenever I think it appropriate. If someone wishes not to have me comment about them, they need only avoid doing things that are comment worthy. Ncmvocalist needs to focus less on me and my comments and more on the reasons for comment that are found in his own actions.

As for the rest, I note that before I said something, there was no publicly visible motion and we were hanging fire. Then I said something. Now there is a publicly visible motion, and a pretty good one at that, since it seems to be roughly along the lines I outlined, as far as they went, but with some considerable improvement. I won't necessarily claim cause and effect, but who knows? I urge swift passage of the motion. ++Lar: t/c 11:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. While this seems fair and reasonable, I think it takes a guilty unless presumed innocent approach and presents the editor with a kind of Hobson's choice (take de-sysopping or something worse could happen). To be perfectly fair to the editor, it would be better to either proceed with the arbitration case or drop the case entirely. The only reasonable middle ground, IMO, is one where the editor is offered the choice of a wikibreak in return for dropping this arbitration case. That way there is no presumption of guilt and a messy arbitration case is avoided (or postponed). --RegentsPark (Maida Hill Tunnel) 02:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I note the warning below not to edit this section unless I'm "adding myself as a party", and I don't know enough about ArbCom to know whether I'm doing that or not; I'm certainly willing to be a party, if there's some way I can help, so I'll go ahead, and I invite the clerks to strike this if I've done something improper.

As has been pointed out, Aitias recently blocked Malleus, and this did not go over well with Malleus. I became aware (and I can tell ArbCom how I became aware if asked) that there was a conversation at the time among several admins. One admin was uncomfortable that Malleus said something disparaging of admins in general, another agreed, and this conversation was probably a factor that led to Aitias's blocking Malleus. I would be eternally grateful if ArbCom would make some kind of general statement along the lines of: "Whenever there's a persistent dispute between an editor and the admin community, please refrain from blocks that might be perceived as cowboy justice and death-by-a-thousand-pinpricks." I realize it can be a very difficult call to figure out when a conflict has become "personal"; perhaps all I'm asking is that when admins think that this might be occurring, that continued friction is making a problem worse rather than better and hurting Wikipedia, that people be more willing to consider and discuss this possibility, including at ArbCom if it would help. [minor tweak] - Dan

]

Note

Please note that I won't be available for the next few days (at least until Tuesday) due to personal (religious) reasons. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 22:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive my late two cents, but I was not earlier aware of this. As the admin who reversed Aitias's initial block of RHMED, I feel that Aitias's poor handling of the whole RHMED matter cost us a valuable editor. I hope Aitias comes back (and I hope one day RHMED returns to our midst), but there is no way that Aitias should do so as an administrator. I support ArbCom's decisions so far in this matter. I'm a writer, not a politician here, and this is the (I think) second ArbCom case I've ever commented on, but the Committee, I believe, has reached sensible decisions.

I also agree with Dank55's comments. I was very uncomfortable at the way Aitias went off the reservation to block Malleus, even though the matter was still under discussion at AN/I. While administrators of course sometimes have to act alone, when a matter is being discussed, one should defer to the collective wisdom, if any, of the group.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]