Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Alienus

Where was the request for comment?[edit]

For Wikipedia to be successful, editors need to feel that they will be treated fairly.

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).

In my opinion bypassing the request for commnet phase of the dispute resolution process significantly undermines the perception that editors will be treated fairly. -- DanBlackham 20:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alienus participated in an RfC on his behavior here: User:Jakew/Alienus RFC. -Will Beback 23:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A draft RfC in the Talk space of a user with whom Alienus has had significant differences of opinion regarding article content is not a acceptable substitute for a legitimate RfC. In my opinion it would be very disturbing if Jake's draft RfC has influenced the decision to bypass a legitimate RfC. That would only reinforce the perception that there was a rush to judgment and that Alienus has not been treated fairly. -- DanBlackham 00:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a duplicate of a thread also at user talk:Alienus. On which page would you like to disucss this? -Will Beback 01:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here would be fine. -- DanBlackham 01:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You raise several points. Let me try to respond to all of them. If you re-read the text that you posted above, it does not say that an RfC is a requirement before requesting arbitration. It only says the Arbcom is likely to refuse cases that haven't had an RfC. Arbitration is not necessarily the last stage in a linear progression. There have been numerous cases where there no previous applicable RfC. In recent cases, for example, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Infinity0, I see that the named "defendant" never had an RfC; Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Raphael1/Proposed decision, no apparent RfC; Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Saladin1970 appeal, no apparent RfC; Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Francis Schuckardt, no apparent RfC, and so on. While an RfC is a typical process, it is not a requirement before going to arbitration. The aim of arbitration, and of all the dispute resolution procedures, is to improve the editing of this encyclopedia. It is well-within the authority of the ArbCom to take cases with or without previous RfCs or mediations, and it is not uncommon for them to do so.

Based on his reaction to the RfC it does not appear that Alienus realized it was a draft. On the contrary, he complains that he was not notified of it. He posted a 784-word response, made in three installments. Despite its being a draft, a number of editors somehow managed to find it and give their input in support of him. So Alienus and his endorsers treated it as a legitimate RfC. Let's look at how Alienus responds to serious, detailed analysis of his incivility: He ignores it. Instead of explaining, defending, or denying that he'd made personal attacks he makes fresh attacks on the instigators. He relies on WP:IAR to as a blanket justificaitn for "all of [his] actions". At no point does he show any appreciation for the concerns raised about his behavior.

That is the same pattern he has shown before and since. When I warned him against making further personal attacks he just deleted my posting. When I blocked for making further personal attacks he complained that it was unfair. He's shown no greater interest in the input of others. The purpose of an RfC is to give a user input on his actions from the community so that he can be made aware of problems. Many users have come to Alienus's talk page to make him aware of their concerns, and he's even been blocked repeatedly for violating WP:NPA and related rules. Yet he's made little change. For all of those reasons I think that an RfC would not result in an alteration to Alienus's behavior. If you have evidence that he listens to criticism and acts upon it, or admits mistakes, then that would be significant. But I see no reason to have an RfC just for its own sake. No one wants Alienus to stop editing, we just want him to stop making personal attacks and edit warring. -Will Beback 04:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This RfA was not just about Alienus, but also about the allegations that he was being treated unfairly by certain admins. Considering Al's editing habits had actually been improving and not deteriorating, and considering the number of recent questionable blocks, the fact that an RfC was skipped in this particular case makes it all the more troubling.

I note that arbitration had already been accepted before Will brought the above mentioned RfC to attention. [1] Will, you suggest Al did not realize the RfC was a draft. Do you think he didn't notice that it was on someones user page? Have you considered that maybe he thought it was just good manners that he be notified? Use your imagination. What you are arguing above sounds like some desperate attempt to legitimize a draft RfC put together by his opponents during a content dispute.

The crux of your argument appears to be based on prescient knowledge: Alienus would have refused to abide by the unknown outcome of an RfC that never occured. Al did protest the 3 day block you gave him for referring to someone as an "edit warrior"... a block that another admin eventually overturned. Has it occured to you that maybe it was unfair? Perhaps some community input would have helped clarify things. It seems your argument is that Alienus should have submissivly agreed to whatever accusations you or his opponents made against him. Since he did not, he is automatically assumed to be in the wrong. This suggests an infallibility complex. ^^James^^ 07:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am certainly willing to admit mistakes, and have done so on many occasions. In this instance, some folks agreed with the block and some disagreed. Blocks are not based on popularity, but even so we had a thorough discussion about it at AN/I. The admin who removed my block replaced it with his own for the same cause, although a different instance. That block did not lead to this RfAr, though it the action which caused it was one more straw on the camel's back. Alienus's possible future actions are pure speculation. Who know's if he'd have abided by the outome of an RfC. We do know he didn't heed warnings. And we know that he's chosen to leave the project, at least for the moment, rather than abide by the ArbCom's judgement, even though he doesn't know what it will be. Those actions, and his own comments, are strong indicators of his willingness to take guidance. I don't know whether this RfAr will proceed in his absence, but he's welcome to return at any time to respond to claims about his behavior, just as he could in an RfC. -Will Beback 08:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it emerges that Alienus has decided to stop editing Wikipedia, the arbitration case can be shelved. If he changes his mind in the future then it can be resumed on his return. On the other hand part of the case concerns alleged corruption or incompetence on the part of administrators, so it's possible that the case could continue and examine that allegation in detail.. --Tony Sidaway 12:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perm ban[edit]

Removed from project page

Shouln't there be a discussion and consensus before a perm community ban is effected? Also, should we not consider the merits of his edits, even if they are from illegal puppets? We don't really hunt down puppets of others unless they they are doing something very bad like vandalism, etc. Al's edits are good and helping WP. If Al was given a year he would be welcomed back after "time served," but there is no reason to bother with his puppets if they are not doing anything terrible to WP, and esp. not use that as an excuse to arbitrarily issue a community ban to Al.Giovanni33 22:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Banned editors are banned, period. We don't analyze the quality of their edits, particularly when they edit in exactly the same way that got them in trouble in the first place. If Alienus were to edit quietly then no-one would notice him; instead, he continues to engage in the same problematic behavior that got him banned in the first place. Evading bans, and disrupting while doing so, are clear grounds for a permanent community ban. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alienus is using his sockpuppets to attack other editors personally and generally degrade the quality of Wikipedia articles. While some of his edits are legitimate, a block is a block. LaszloWalrus 23:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]