Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Anthony DiPierro 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Case Opened on February 26, 2005

Case Closed on 26 March 2005

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.) 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 a proposed decision at /Proposed decision.

Involved parties[edit]

Statement by Snowspinner[edit]

Please limit your statement to 500 words, material below from original request may be modified.

Anthony is already subject to a standing order by the arbcom at [[]]. However, this order does not seem to be effectively restraining Anthony's conduct, and I believe his recent actions to cross the line into requiring further and more direct sanction. Specifically, I would like his recreation of Shawn Mikula at User:Anthony DiPierro/Shawn Mikula investigated. Shawn Mikula was an article deleted on VfD. Following its deletion, its creator would periodically recreate the article, leading the article to be protected blank in order to prevent further vandalism. Anthony, not liking this solution, asked for a history only undeletion on VfU. When people objected, he claimed no vote was necessary as it was history only. Though it was technically a history undeletion, it was clearly the case that the article was fully deleted, and that the existence of any article at Shawn Mikula was a fluke to prevent vandalism. Pointing this out, I asked Anthony to relist in the appropriate location. He refused, relisting several times as a history only undeletion until an admin, unaware of the background, gave him the requested information.

He proceeded to recreate the article in his userspace. I marked it as a speedy deletion candidate, and after the tag was removed by Anthony several times, it was deleted. He then listed it on VfU again, this time making the untrue claim that the article was not a recreation of Shawn Mikula. This claim is a lie. He further accused the protection of the blank page of being "vandalism."

This is not the first time in the past few months that Anthony has had some problems with VfU. Nor is it the only article recreation he has made in his userspace, despite having his own website (McFly) dedicated in part to hosting deleted content. Note also that, despite his requests, the consensus is overwhelming that users should not get access to deleted content, meaning that his obtaining of the content of Shawn Mikula was underhanded and based on a non-good faith description of events to admins. Currently, there are many requests on VfU to undelete the article until there is some clarification on whether or not it is appropriate to house deleted content in your userspace. (I obviously contend that it is not, due to prohibitions on recreating deleted content, which have long been interpreted to apply to creating it under a different page name, and also due to the claim that userspace is not personal webspace).

I request that some sort of additional sanction be made that will help deter Anthony from this continual trolling. It is clear that 24 hour bans are not sufficient. Snowspinner 18:04, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

Addendum: It should be noted that both David, who deleted the page, and Neutrality, who is the admin Anthony accused of vandalism for protecting Shawn Mikula probably should recuse themselves on this case as well. Snowspinner 05:09, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Raul654[edit]

I'm making this request as more of a formality than anything else. Anthony has recently withdrawn from his standing order. The standing order was put in place as an alternative to arbitration over his long-standing trolling. Anthony's trolling includes (but is not limited to) the Votes for Deletion (which led to his first arbcom case), the featured article candidates, and the votes for undeletion. Facing a second go-round with the committee in July, Anthony agreed to the standing order, which stipulates any admin could ban him for 24 hours for provactive editing or edit warring. The order also stipulates that if he withdrew from it, it would go immediately into arbitration, and was in-fact signed by 4 arbitrators.

Unfortunately, he has not reformed himself; he has been banned repeatedly, by numerous admins for trolling and edit warring. (RickK quit wikipedia over it). His promise not to edit war was a lie - I banned him several times in January for edit warring on Clitoris. On the other hand, his total number of useful contributions in the time he has been here is actually quite low. In short, Anthony is far more trouble than he is worth, and it's about time he was sanctioned for his misbehavior. →Raul654 17:20, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Anthony DiPierro[edit]

Please limit your statement to 500 words. Material below, from response to original request, may be modified.

I have requested assistance from the AMA in dealing with this matter and User:KeithTyler has agreed to help me. As always, I am open to mediation with Snowspinner or anyone else who wishes to resolve any issues with me, and I believe that that is more appropriate than arbitration in this case. anthony 警告

Statement by User:KeithTyler (advocate)[edit]

I intend to advocate for User:Anthony DiPierro in this matter. Keith D. Tyler [AMA] 21:00, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Added on 7 March[edit]

Initial comments[edit]

I would like to point out that despite the merging of the two cases, each complaint speaks to different disputes with Anthony, and have only marginal or circumstantial connection to each other. I ask that the Arbitration Committee keep this in mind when assessing the combined case.

I also request, due to the high number of recusals, that the Arbitration committee confirm which of its members are not recused from this case, as The Epopt has done.

Regarding the Snowspinner complaint[edit]

Our understanding of this issue is that it is primarily based on the actions surrounding Anthony's creation of a page in user space, User:Anthony DiPierro/Shawn Mikula, based partially on the content of an article at Shawn Mikula which was deleted 19 May 2004 (and/or 15 October 2004 apparently in an identical condition).

Anthony requested on 31 January for a history only undeletion, indicating that he did not intend to recreate the article. He received partial content from Dpbsmith. This content was added to and copyedited and made into a user space article at User:Anthony DiPierro/Shawn Mikula.

On 13 February, Snowspinner added a CSD tag to this user space article.

We contend the following:

  • Each separate namespace in Wikipedia serves a different purpose, and therefore is subject to different standards of content. There is the encyclopedia namespace (Main), the administrative namespace (Wikipedia:), and the personal namespace (User:), among others (the support namespace Help:, the customization namespace MediaWiki:, etc.)
  • The standards of one namespace does not dictate or leach into the standards of another unless specifically stated in that namespaces' guidelines. The suitability of particular content for one namespace is not automatically suitable for another namespace -- and the inverse holds as well.
  • The User: namespace guidelines, at Wikipedia:User page, state that: Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit.
  • The Wikipedia consensus for deletion of content in User space, based on recent VfD's on user space content, is that CSD is inappropriate in user space; the user should be notified and requested to remove the article first, even prior to a VfD submission. As example, I refer to the discussion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Beta m/Deletionaholics. This principle is backed by Wikipedia:Deletion_policy.

We feel that, given the above, the "wide latitude" provision in the User: namespace guidelines, as well as the consensus on deletions in user space evidenced in VfD discussions, trumps the CSD guideline regarding recreated articles, which is primarily intended for the Main: namespace, and to a lesser extent the Wikipedia: namespace.

Furthermore, we feel that the statement regarding CSD for reposting of deleted content at WP:CSD is only intended to mean recreation within the same namespace. Recreation of articles means recreation of articles with the same or similar names to that of deleted articles within the same namespace.

Also, it is consensual convention that, when a question is made as to whether or not to delete a page, the benefit of the doubt should be given to not deleting the page. 'when in doubt, don't delete' (Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators and Wikipedia:Deletion policy).

Given the above, we argue that the CSD for Anthony's user space article was inappropriate. If any, the proper channel for deletion in this case would have been via VfD -- and only after consulting the user first.

We contend that Anthony's removal of the CSD notice was intended to prevent an inappropriate CSD from being accepted. Anthony was not familiar with the guidelines on contesting a CSD.

Due to its expediency, and the "uphill climb" to restore a CSD'd article, we argue that Speedy should only be used for clear-cut cases, not cases where there is clearly expressed uncertainty. The recent votes on Wikipedia:Proposal to expand WP:CSD seem to agree with this sentiment. We disagree with Snowspinner's "negative-assumption" argument (appearing in the edit war which ensued) that a CSD nomination should persist even if there is dispute over the article's suitability for CSD.

Added on 11 March[edit]

Regarding the Raul654 complaint[edit]

User:Anthony DiPierro entered into a standing order on 24 July 2004 that opened with the words:

"In order to avoid Arbitration on the matter of Anthony DiPierro's actions, Raul654 and Anthony DiPierro have come to the following agreement."

Anthony undertook this standing order -- which, it should be stressed, was not a remedy imposed by arbitration, but an expliclit agreement between himself, Raul654, and 4 members of the Arbitration Committee (User:Jdforrester, User:The Epopt, User:MyRedDice, and User:Fred Bauder) who were specifically representing that capacity.

Anthony initially proposed the terms of this order. As it was an agreement involving himself and 5 arbitrators, he understood that, by doing so, he was submitting himself to a form of parole/probation "in order to avoid Arbitration", as it stated.

On 20 February 2005, User:Snowspinner opened an RfAr complaint against Anthony. On 26 February 2005, the Arbitration Committee accepted this complaint.

As Anthony understood that the standing order was an agreement "in order to avoid Arbitration", the introduction of Arbitration against him was against the terms of the agreement, and therefore the act of opening Arbitration against him nullified the agreement and therefore the remainder of terms of the standing order. Based on that logical conclusion, and as a formality, he declared that the standing order no longer applied to him by indicating his withdrawal from it (with comments to that effect on the agreement's Talk page).


The standing order in question also stipulated:

"At six month intervals, three members of the Mediation Committee (enumerated below) should vote on whether or not Anthony has reformed. If two or more of those members should agree that Anthony has reformed, this agreement is considered fullfilled and over. Otherwise, the agreement should be renewed for another six months."

(The three mediators referred to are User:Angela, User:Bcorr, and User:Cimon avaro.)

This standing order, to stress again, was not a remedy imposed by arbitration, but an expliclit agreement between Anthony, Raul654, and 4 members of the Arbitration Committee. Each signatory entered into the agreement under the terms as written. Without that agreement, the order would have had no force and no grounds for enforcement. As an agreement among parties, the only way the agreement could be altered would be with the consent of all signing parties. This is a different animal from an arbitration decree or remedy which is not something the affected party must agree to (either to enact or to amend).

On 28 Jan 2005, the standing order was brought up for reconsideration as provided in the above terms. However, the mediators did not find what they felt to be sufficient evidence to extend the order for 6 months. Two of the mediators (Angela and BCorr) then proceeded to vote to renew the order for 3 months.

We argue that this vote was not valid as such an extention was not proscribed in the agreement. The terms of the agreement (as reprinted above) specified either 6 months, or nothing.

In fact, the third mediator (Cimon), expressed this concern to the validity of the other two mediator's votes. Forced under the terms of the agreement only to vote between a 6 month extension, and fulfillment of the agreement, he chose fulfillment. This is significant; as it shows that all three mediators did not think a 6 month extension was necessary, and that Anthony's involvement in WP had, in fact, improved, and more to the point, would likely continue to improve such that either an expedited or immediate end to the order was the most appropriate.

Note also that much of the early events in the series leading to the current Snowspinner complaint against Anthony were provided to the mediators for their assessment and consideration in their decision. The revert war between Snowspinner and Anthony began (by Snowspinner's account) on the same day as the first mediator to vote on extension did so (on 15 Feb). It did not appear to significantly sway their decision.

The parties to the agreement at no time agreed to amended the order (a possibility which was in fact suggested by Cimon) which would allow for a 3 month extension.

As this problem was never resolved, we insist that reconsideration of the agreement never completed, and more importantly, that since no valid vote for extension ever occured, it should not have been assumed to be extended until a valid vote confirming extension occurs. We don't feel that it is logical to presumed that the order is still be in effect if this would have depended on a particular vote which was not held (that is, a vote between 6 months and nothing).

Now, since it has been expressed to me that the ArbCom does not like what they term "technicalities" and what I call "accountability and following stated proscriptions", I will repeat for clarification here: that, as the standing order was not something created by the ArbCom as a remedy, it is not an order which they, or any other party, can unilaterally amend. It was an agreement between parties on specific stated terms, and I argue it should be treated and honored as such, including questions of applicability, conditions leading to nullification, and validity under its own terms of practices or actions used in its maintenance.

Added on 25 March[edit]

As of March 23, Anthony DiPierro has indicated to me that my advocacy for him is no longer necessary. - Keith D. Tyler [AMA] 20:31, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Preliminary decisions[edit]

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing the Snowspinner matter (5/0/5/0)[edit]

  • Recuse, although I believe this should be looked at. →Raul654 19:11, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Accept mainly to determine policy on deleted content in userspace. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:40, 2005 Feb 23 (UTC)
  • Recuse, and second Raul's comments. Ambi 04:28, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Recuse. David Gerard 11:49, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Recuse. Neutralitytalk 16:12, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Accept. I'm concerned so many arbitrators find it necessary to recuse; not necessarily that there is anything wrong with their reasons, just that it leaves so few arbitrators to arbitrate. Nohat 00:08, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Accept Fred Bauder 13:04, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Recuse. I've had discussions on this incident that I feel mean I should not be involved in hearing it -- sannse (talk) 01:31, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Accept Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 16:12, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Accept — the case has already been accepted; I'm voting now only to establish that I'm not recused. ➥the Epopt 21:56, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing the Raul654 matter (0/0/1/5)[edit]

Temporary injunction (none)[edit]

Final decision (none yet)[edit]

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



1) A user may say whatever he/she wants on his/her user page within reason (e.g. Wikipedia:No personal attacks). However, Wikipedia is not a hosting service, and you should generally avoid any substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia. (See Wikipedia:Userpage.)

Passed 6-0.

Deletion of content from userspace[edit]

1.5) Deleting content from the user namespace or adding deletion tags to content in the User namespace without the affected user's permission is discouraged.

Passed 6-0.

Speedy deletion of recreations of deleted articles[edit]

2) If content is recreated in the main Wikipedia namespaces after having been deleted (via votes for deletion or speedy deletion, it may be speedily deleted. (See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#General.)

Passed 6-0.


3) Wikipedia users are expected to behave civilly and calmly in their dealings with other users. If disputes arise, users are expected to utilise dispute resolution procedures instead of merely attacking each other.

Passed 6-0.

Assume good faith[edit]

4) Assume good faith. This keeps the project workable in the face of many widely variant points-of-view and avoids inadvertent personal attacks and disruption through creation of an unfriendly editing environment.

Passed 6-0.

Findings of fact[edit]

Recreation of deleted material I[edit]

1) Anthony DiPierro has attempted to recreate material at User:Anthony DiPierro/Shawn Mikula which had previously been deleted at Shawn Mikula. [1]

Passed 6-0.

Recreation of deleted material II[edit]

2.1) The recreation of the deleted content at User:Anthony DiPierro/Shawn Mikula does not constitute recreation of the article Shawn Mikula.

Passed 6-0.

Protection of Shawn Mikula[edit]

3) The intent of the protection of Shawn Mikula as a blank page was to prevent vandalism in the form of recreation of an article deleted according to the proper process. Such actions do not constitute abuse of administrator powers.

Passed 6-0.

Revert warring[edit]

4) Anthony DiPierro has engaged in an unhelpful amount of revert warring in order to promote his recreation of the content of Shawn Mikula in his userspace, among other disputes.

Passed 6-0.


5.1) Anthony DiPierro has at times been incivil during the course of the above dispute. [2], [3]

Passed 6-0.

Previous arbitration[edit]

6) There was a previous arbitration concerning Anthony DiPierro, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Anthony DiPierro. Evidence concerning Wikipedia:Votes for deletion are at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Anthony DiPierro/Evidence. Other evidence is at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Anthony DiPierro/Old evidence. The decision, at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Anthony_DiPierro#Decision provided:

1. The arbitration committee instructs Anthony to refrain from playing around and making provocative edits on VfD and associated pages. The arbitration committee does not object to which way Anthony voted, only the manner in which he voted.

2. The issues of Anthony's reverts and alleged trolling are referred to the mediation committee.

Passed 6-0.

Settlement of previous arbitration by agreement[edit]

7) As the result of mediation Raul654 and Anthony DiPierro made an agreement on July 24, 2004, see the standing order.

Passed 6-0.

Six month review[edit]

9) The six month review provided for in the agreement was held and resulted in the extension of the agreement for three months due to evidence of isolated instances of disruptive behavior, see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Standing_orders/Anthony#Six_month_review.

Passed 6-0.

Withdrawal from the agreement[edit]

10) The settlement agreement provided an option for Anthony to withdraw from the agreement and go directly to arbitration, thus activating the original arbitration. Anthony did so on 26 Feb 2005 [4].

Passed 6-0.

Disruptive behavior by Anthony I[edit]

11) The evidence in the original arbitration includes numerous instances of disruptive behavior by Anthony which occured in the first part of 2004.

Passed 6-0.


Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Revert limitation[edit]

1) Anthony DiPierro is limited to one revert (per article) per twenty-four hour period for a period of three months. Violations of this shall be treated as violations of the three-revert rule, and shall cause the three months to reset.

Passed 6-0.

Recreation limitation[edit]

2) Anthony DiPierro is instructed that if a page is properly deleted via votes for deletion and votes for undeletion fails to get the article recreated then he is not permitted to recreate that article in any namespace on Wikipedia for a period of three months after the vote for undeletion fails. Any violation of this rule will be a candidate for speedy deletion.

Passed 4-2.

Bans for disruption[edit]

3.1) For one year, if Anthony should, for any reason, make a provocative edit (that is, an edit which is "trolling", "disruptive", and/or "antisocial" as interpreted by an admin) or engage in an edit war, an admin, may at his discretion, block Anthony for a period of one hour.

Passed 4-1-1.

Ban from editing the Wikipedia namespace[edit]

4) Anthony DiPierro is banned from editing in the Wikipedia namespace for a period of one year due to the fact that almost all the disputed behavior he has engaged in has occurred in that namespace. Edits to requests for arbitration, mediation, and RfCs that he is involved in are excepted. Also if Anthony's behaviour is being disccused on a page in the Wikipedia namespace then he is permitted to put one post where he can explain his actions and invite people to come to his talk page to discuss things. Note that Anthony is not permitted to initiate such discussions, he is only allowed to respond to them.

Should he violate this order, he may be blocked for up to a week by an administrator. After 3 months he can appeal to the ArbCom to review the matter and the ArbCom can then choose to keep or modify the order.

Passed 4-1.