Case Opened on 13:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Case Closed on 15:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

Involved parties[edit]

Alienus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Tony_Sidaway (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Nandesuka (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Will_Beback (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
jossi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

(If not, then explain why that would be fruitless)

Tony Sidaway's opinion, disputed by Alienus, ^^^James^^^ Romarin and SOPHIA, is that Alienus is an inveterate edit warrior prone to making personal attacks. See User:Tony Sidaway/Sandbox/Alienus

Requests for comment[edit]

Statement by Tony Sidaway[edit]

I feel that this case cannot be resolved by the community, and it persists in drawing in good editors and administrators, wasting their time, and reducing the civility of interactions.

In the view of many administrators and users, Alienus is an inveterate edit warrior who is prone to making personal attacks and gratuitously assuming bad faith towards anyone with whom he has a dispute. In the view of Alienus and some of his supporters (he has some), he is a fearless opponent of corrupt and lax administrators. If the former is true, a personal attack parole and revert parole might do the trick. If the latter is true (and the two claims may not be mutually exclusive) then there is a greater problem caused by corrupt (or incompetent) administrators.

Blocking does not seem to significantly improve the situation because of the acrimony that results between a growing snowball of involved administrators and editors.

As involved parties I have listed Alienus and those administrators (including myself) most prominently involved in the dispute. I am engaged in compiling a fairly complete history of Alienus' involvement with administrators at User:Tony Sidaway/Sandbox/Alienus. --Tony Sidaway 21:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nandesuka[edit]

I concur with Tony's summary of the case.

Alienus is clearly an intelligent and ardent editor who understands Wikipedia policies. From my perspective, the reason he keeps running in to trouble is that he either can not or will not refrain from framing arguments in terms of what he imagines the attitudes, beliefs, and creeds of his fellow editors to be. Numerous editors and administrators have politely requested, asked, cajoled, threatened, demanded, and begged him to address his edits and edit summaries to content instead of to the people he is engaged in disputes with. To date, he has been unable or unwilling to do this. Alienus frequently describes his interactions with Wikipedia administration in hostile terms, and generally rejects any suggestion that his behavior is at issue, instead describing most of his blocks as the result of corrupt or incompetent administrators. I urge Arbcom to accept this case, either to address what I believe is Alienus' severe and continuing misbehavior — especially his constant use of argumentum ad hominem — or to address the conspiracy of administrators that he apparently believes he is the victim of. Nandesuka 22:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jossi[edit]

I concur with Nandesuka's assessment.

I recently encountered Alienus when an editor placed a request related to the group of articles about Ayn Rand in one of WP's policy talk pages. After a few days of editing these articles I found Alienus to have a very abrasive and uncivil manner of engaging people that do not concur with his views, resorting to ad hominem attacks when his edits are challenged, thus creating a very toxic environment that is not conducive to collaboration. Requests for civility are routinely ignored by Alienus, based on his own assessment that he is not attacking editors, but stating what he considers to be facts. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alienus[edit]

At this point, an RfAr seem premature and is not likely to be at all productive. Therefore, I'm petitioning that those who filed for an RfAr allow the pending RfC to continue. Al 08:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view of jtdirl[edit]

I have experienced Alienus's behaviour on a number of the abortion pages. His claim that not all admins have been fair to him has some merit. However he is frequently his own worst enemy, constantly making presumptions as to his own innocence and other users' guilt. He criticises users in stark terms, blaming them for a bias he perceives in their edits even when other users do not spot any bias, while insisting, contrary to the analysis of others, that he is blameless, innocent and utterly neutral. The range of editors he has clashed with suggests that this is not a case of one admin attacking a blameless editor, but of an editor whose actions are the cause of the conflict that seems to follow him. He has routinely ignored appeals from users to show restaint, while perceiving his less than tactful responses and frequent attacks as merely a statement of neutrality and objective facts. I would urge the arbcom to take on this case. It can then decide whether all that is required is merely parole or more broadbased sanctions. Without intervention there appears to be little likelihood that the ungoing problems will stop. Blocks seem simply to add to his belief in his own victimhood so some outside intervention from a neutral body like the arbcom would be wise before the situation spirals out of control. (Al is new to the procedure and so some allowances need to be made for that. Nevertheless the contribution above, as usual, focuses on accusations against his critics, and allegations of bias, than on the substantive issue. Regrettably that it part of a regular pattern.) FearÉIREANN\^{^(caint) 00:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

Outside view of ^^James^^[edit]

I don't think it's appropriate to offer an opinion on the matter before Alienus has had a chance to make a statement.

I also think it is a gross mischaracterization for Will Beback to state that the various mediations listed below "all represent efforts by a variety of users to resolve problems with Alienus's editing behavior." I think it is a waste of everybodys time to level insubstantial accusations. I encourage everyone to examine these links for themselves, and not to be impressed or intimidated by the sheer number of them.

I would also like to note that Will Beback is the admin who blocked Al for three days for calling Jossi an "edit warrior". This arguably insubstantial charge and disproportionate punishment caused a heated discussion on WP:ANI which ultimately led to this RFA. The block was eventually resolved and lifted. ^^James^^ 18:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with James that Will Beback's use of participation in mediation - some of which Al actually logged - as some sort of "black mark" is a worrying mischaracterisation of both Al and the mediation process. As ^^James^^ says - please review the details - don't just go by weight of numbers. Sophia 10:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm, I haven't gotten around to commenting on it directly, but some of these RfM's involved me only peripherally and others were launched by me. Once again, the truth is not going to be found by zooming out and taking a head count. Al 10:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Will Beback[edit]

Alienus has had eleven blocks placed on his account by nine different admins. The account has been unblocked five times, three of which were to lengthen or change the blocks.

Alienus has been involved in several mediations, and requests for mediation:

In addition, two users have prepared RfCs recently regarding Alienus, although they have't posted them on the RfC page yet.

User talk:DavidBailey/RfC: Alienus
User:Jakew/Alienus RFC (though never posted, it nonetheless gained a second certifier, a response from Alienus, and input from nine users)

These represent efforts by a variety of users to resolve problems with Alienus's editing behavior [or vice versa]. -Will Beback 19:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view of SOPHIA[edit]

If Al is not being picked on then please explain where the RfC went?

If Al is not being picked on why did Tony Sidaway haunt his talk page jumping at any chance to try to flame the stuation with unacceptable comments [1]? Comments that passed without remark by any admin at all.

If Al is not being picked on why were the same "edit warrior" comments by an admin [2] not the subject of a similar block to the one given Al - infact why wasn't the admin even admonished? And since when did we get so sensitive that people get blocked for 3 days (effectively 4 now due to admin "help") for this level of comment?

If Al is not being picked on can someone please explain why an admin tried to present a new longer block as a radical point in Al's favour?[3]

If Al is not being picked on how does a subpage of selected quotes by an interested party pass as dispute resolution?

If Al is not being picked on would any of you like to be treated as he's been?

Since his last week long block by Jayjg for a disputed PA where admins were outraged that Al would not admit to his "error" - he has made great grounds in being civil. Yes he slips sometimes - but we are supposed to be mature people here and the only way this project will succeed is to cut each other some slack and stop looking for the inevitable errors in others.

Al has gone from being very incivil quite frequently to occasionaly pushing his luck. As he has no luck now and a bevy of admins waiting to jump, these minor incidents get blown out of all proportion. He should be seen as a success story for the mentoring of the community as he has improved considerably and is contributing in a positive way to articles where angels would fear to dread. Certain topics attract very strong POV's and any challenge to the cozy status quo of the incumbent editors is not going to be received well. Such intellectual conflict is absolutely necessary to ensure the article does not degrade into POV trash. It's unfortunate for Al that he picks these topics but fortunate for the integrity of the encyclopedia.

Wikipedia is a continuous learning process for us all. If it can be shown that Al has made no progress in civility and colaborative editing then a ban would be justified. However if you examine his recent treatment at the hands of some admins with whom he has previously clashed you will see a pattern of nit-picking and "supervision" that would drive the best of us to distraction.

Wikipedia has grown enormously recently and edior groups that have "owned" articles are having to make way for a broader POV base that reflects the world outside their narrow area of interest. I have been on the receiving end of the frustration of these established editors and only the training I have had as a professional has stopped me from responding in kind. Maybe Al doesn't have that background - who knows - but he is getting the hang of things - his civility has increased and his challenging approach (with help and guidance) is absolutely essential to the long term health of wikipedia. The current gut reaction seems to be to cleanse the system of this type of person but that is the route that will ultimately lead to the stagnation and extinction of this project as all the intellectual bio-diversity will be gone.

If Al is not being picked on why is this process being speeded along with indecent haste? This case has been accepted before Al is even unblocked and given the chance to respond to his accusers. Sophia 19:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about the specific situation that has led to this RfAr, but I can definitely agree with Sophia on one point: since I first encountered Alienus on Wikipedia, he has definitely shown improvement in civility. Has it been enough improvement? I don't know and I really don't want to be involved in that decision. But, improvement there has been. Kasreyn 10:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Randall Brackett[edit]

On June 16, 2006 I made a note on Alienus's behavior in comparison with his involvement with a currently banned editor:

On another note, a smilar editor, Alienus may warrent a investigation from the committee. He/she commonly engages in the boderline commentary of trolling and unwanted behavior. I've no idea if this is a result of previous history or if its justly good faith. However, I've noted this editor never fails to defend the actions of disruptive users that comprimise the well-being of the encyclopedia on discussion pages, and this has given me great case for concern (see the comment below for elaboration). This along with comments of administrators and the false accusations of policy violation is something that I did not appreciate. -Zero^Talk 17:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still endorse every word I said. This editor's abuse is quite serious. Also see the discussion on User talk:Randall Brackett. -Randall Brackett 08:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On a update, I really dispute the ideal that this editor is a consistent or indefinite block canidate. His contributions have been constructive and I note a indescriminate pattern of competent behavior. However, I would suspect that such remedies as attack parole and possibly other restrictions would assist in curbing the situation. -Randall Brackett 09:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view of Romarin[edit]

First of all, I would like to express my concern at both the direction and the speed that this is going. I quote from the top of this page:

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution. Before requesting arbitration, please review other avenues you should take. If you do not follow any of these routes, it is highly likely that your request will be rejected. If all other steps have failed, and you see no reasonable chance that the matter can be resolved in another manner, you may request that it be decided by the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom).

The fact that this case has already been accepted in spite of this statement is highly troubling, and makes me seriously question the intentions of those who will carry it out. If you are so quick to take on a case that has by no means exhausted other avenues (two RfCs were begun, but have not been allowed to come to fruition), could it be that you have already made up your minds? Could it be that you have assumed guilt where you have seen accusation? I sincerely hope that the answer to these questions is negative, and that the reasoning behind this RfA case will soon be made clear.

I have heard various admins mention, during the course of this case, that it is the editing that is important, that building Wikipedia is what we are all trying to do. Will Beback, the latest blocking admin, stated, “Here, our overarching concern is writing an encyclopedia. If we have to ignore all of the rules in order to do so, we will [4]." This is a slap in the face for Alienus, and for the rest of us who see the work that he does as just that. Alienus is concerned with writing an encyclopedia, and as he has demonstrated, he can “ignore all of the rules” when it comes to removing POV. Yes, he has been through edit wars. (How many among us haven’t?) He has broken 3RR. But if you would look closely at the instances of this, graciously presented to us by Tony Sidaway, you will see that it was not for the fun of it, it was not to be disruptive or mean-spirited: it was because he saw an opportunity to remove POV and make an article more neutral, because he saw personal biases that were interfering with the facts of a controversial topic, because he knew what he had to do to make it better. This is exactly what Will is referring to, is it not? That sometimes we have to break the rules for the good of Wikipedia. I see no difference in Alienus’ actions.

Please consider the evidence carefully, please look behind the accusations and inflammatory statements (of both parties) to examine the heart of the matter. That is where the truth lies. roma rin [talk ] 15:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Jakew[edit]

I have had a significant amount of contact with Alienus. He is, as the arbitrators will have gathered, an extremely aggressive editor who has a long history of incivility and personal attacks.

I have never seen Alienus admit that he was in the wrong. An example is the draft RfC that I put together some months ago, listing several examples of inappropriate behaviour. Though it was never filed, Alienus decided to respond. Rather than address the issues raised, he made a variety of accusations, stated that "In short, I pissed them off, and I'm proud of it," and "In the end, I invoke WP:IAR in my defense for all of my actions."

I recently raised this point at User talk:Randall Brackett#Your comment at Alienus' RfAr, asking again for Alienus to address the issues. He evaded the question. As I said to him: "... if you ignore the evidence presented the first time, what is the point in presenting it again? One has to conclude that presenting you with evidence of your inappropriate behaviour simply does not work. I'm reluctant to agree with your call for an RfC for that reason."

I have seen this time and time again - his talk page makes for interesting reading - and the pattern is the same. Alienus is almost always innocent, in his assessment. How, then, can he change? Jakew 21:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to go any further than my talk page to see me give and accept apologies gracefully. Your characterization of me is demonstrably inaccurate and borders on personal attack. Al 08:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The exception noted, and text adjusted accordingly. As for feeling attacked, please don't. It's intended to be objective criticism of what I perceive to be a real problem. Whether I'm right or wrong, please ask yourself why people (including myself) have this impression. Ask yourself what you could do differently to avoid creating it. Jakew 08:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GTBacchus[edit]

I have had numerous interactions with Alienus, both in the context of working on articles and also in discussions of Wiki-etiquette, Wikipedia policies and guidelines, etc. I think he is a dedicated and productive editor who is clearly interested in the success of this project. He has, however, become involved in certain patterns of editing behavior that generate "more heat than light". The responsibility for maintaining these patterns lies with all of us, and I believe there are specific things that Alienus can do, and that members of the community around him can do, that would significantly reduce the unproductive generation of heat in the form of edit wars, personal attacks, blocks, AN/I threads, etc.

I think the best way Alienus could respond to this RfC would be to acknowledge that he could approach content disputes more productively, both in the way that he carries out the disputes and in the way he interacts with other disputants. I suspect that a sincere and humble statement by him to that effect would be met with a very positive response by the community. An openness to try a different strategy in content disputes should be all that's needed as regards handling the actual articles, i.e., not "being drawn into" edit wars. He and I have discussed this topic in emails, and I'll be happy to get my Wikitime back soon (I'm currently between ~~ISPs~~ homes) and find Alienus ready to get to work on some articles and practice the whole non-revert-based strategy, which I'm convinced will speak for itself once he gives it a good-faith chance.

Besides this reverting habit, there's that swarm of less-than-civil interactions which seems to follow Alienus around, in which I confess I've been a participant. This isn't unrelated to the content dispute problem, except insofar as it's self-sustaining, with incivilities exchanged over warnings or blocks for incivility, which is just silly. Again, a frank acknowledgement on Alienus' part that he could employ more diplomacy, and a genuine committment to do so, would go a long way. Eventually, he'll be due an epiphany regarding the true meaning of AGF, but you can't rush these things.

A lot of the energy sustaining the acrimony I've seen around Alienus comes from other sources, though, and I think a solution would be incomplete, and somewhat undermined, without addressing the ways in which we reinforce, sustain, and exacerbate incivility by our responses to it. We admins could spend less energy "enforcing" good behavior and more exemplifying it. Many an edit war is much better addressed by jumping in with a compromise edit or a smart question or two than by handing out blocks, even if someone has passed 3RR. SOPHIA made some very good related observations above, specifically in the three paragraphs starting at "Al has gone..." I hope that we, as a community, know how to allow for someone's development and improvement, while affirming their dignity, and I encourage each of us to think about what that means.

Regarding choice of venue, I realize these remarks are more suited to a Request for comment than to a Request for arbitration, but this seems to be where people are focused, and I see no problem having a good conversation wherever we happen to be standing. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Infinity0[edit]

I agree totally with what GTBacchus and Romarin mentions above. If anyone hasn't read them, I urge them to do so. Especially to note that Alienus is firmly dedicating to writing an encyclopedia, instead of rule-obeying.

I myself have had a few dealings with Alienus and have never had trouble with him.

I see that all evidence points to Alienus' conduct AFTER HIS EDIT WARS. This is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT as he may have been provoked into such behaviour by said edit wars and behavious of admins in reaction to them. It also gives ABSOLUTELY NO INSIGHT into his intentions, whether they are good or bad. I have worked with Alienus on Objectivism-related articles and he was always dedicated to keeping a neutral POV. I shall by way of good faith extend this to his other dealings.

The only problem with Alienus is that he is too keen on improving wikipedia, that he sometimes forgets to abide by the rules, and sometimes forgets to respect opposing editors (this may or may not be provoked or justified). This may piss some of you admins off. But then again, all I see is someone who is set on one target - improving wikipedia. Don't drive him away just because he broke 3RR too much. He's contributed a lot whilst doing so.

Numerous editors have asked Alienus to address arguments to content and not people - this assertion is supported by one piece of evidence and I declare it to be false. When he an I were working on Ayn Rand a while back, he only made arguments against Ayn Rand and none of the editors.

It is frankly irrelevant whether Alienus has criticised admins for being corrupt or incompetent. Doing so is not against the rules; it is rather like criticising a bad edit. Has he made personal attacks whilst doing so? If he has, does that automatically mean that his points are invalid? I trust his judgement.

I realise my statements above are slightly incoherent but I have to go catch a plane in two minutes, so I don't have time to edit them so that they flow properly. However, I hope that I have gotten my main point across. Alienus is interested in wikipedia, not in its editors. He is not breaking 3RR to piss people off, to push POV, nor for any other reason, but only as a side-effect of his thorough editing.

Clerk notes[edit]

Tony Sidaway is a party and is thus recused from clerk activities in this case.

Preliminary decisions[edit]

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/1/0/0)[edit]

Accept. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Accept Fred Bauder 14:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]
Accept Charles Matthews 16:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. - SimonP 18:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Dmcdevit·t 04:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reject, please try an RfC Fred Bauder 20:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)[edit]

Final decision[edit]

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Principles[edit]

Edit warring[edit]

1) Edit warring is considered harmful. When disagreements arise, users are expected to discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad infinitum. The three-revert rule should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to three reverts, nor does it endorse reverts as an editing technique.