Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Anthony DiPierro 2/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=0&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

Evidence presented by Snowspinner

I don't usually preface these things, but it seems important in this case. I want to thank Anthony for his tireless backing of the inclusionist viewpoint. I absolutely do not object to his belief that Shawn Mikula should get an article. I do not object to his expression of that belief. What I object to is his disruption and violation of policy in pursuit of that belief. To my mind, the key principle of this case is Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.

Long ago

• User:Raul654/Anthony evidence is the evidence from the previous arbcom case, which is now germain again as that case has been re-opened due to Anthony's withdrawl from the standing order.

Also Long Ago

I can't find the VfD debate for Shawn Mikula at the moment, though I'll keep looking. Here is what I remember of it, though. The article was created and deleted as a vanity page on a non-notable grad student. The page was recreated several times, deleted several times, listed for undeletion several times, supported by sockpuppets several times, claimed by its creator to be a copyvio several times, and, finally, protected blank. The whole matter was more or less forgotten except for the occasional times when someone would come by and try to recreate it anyway. Regardless, it should be noted that Shawn Mikula probably holds some kind of record for most-deleted article in history.

I believe this is the original vfd discussion: Template talk:VfD-Shawn Mikula. See also Wikipedia:Requests for investigation/Archives/2004/06 (search for "Mikula" within the page). Wile E. Heresiarch 22:07, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

31 January

• [2]
  • Anthony lists Shawn Mikula as a history undeletion.

1 February

• [3]
  • Anthony claims that he does not intend to recreate the article.

• [4]
  • Anthony is given partial content of the article.

2 February

• [5] (Note:Admin viewable only)
  • Anthony recreates Shawn Mikula in his userspace. Note that the content is almost exactly the content he was given the day before shortly after saying he would not recreate the article.

3 February

• [6]
  • Anthony claims that no vote is necessary. This is untrue. Shawn Mikula was deleted on VfD, and has a history only because it was protected blank against recreation vandalism. This is explained to Anthony.

4 February

• [7]
  • Anthony makes his first accusation that this protection was an abuse of admin powers.

• [8]
  • I remove the listing, clearly indicating in the edit summary that Anthony should list it as a full undeletion.

5 February

• [9]
  • Anthony relists the article, removing the previous debate. For this, I block him for 24 hours under his standing order and revert.

6 February

• [10]
  • Anthony relists again. Is banned again for it.

• [11]
  • Dpbsmith provides the information. He later apologizes via talk page when I point out the history of the debate to him - a history that he was unaware of because of Anthony's demonstrably untrue claim that no vote was required. In other words, at this point, Anthony has lied and tricked an admin into giving him information he should not have had.

11 February

• [12] (Admin viewable)
  • Anthony replies to my inquiry as to what the point of his recreation is, saying that he intends to create a page in the Wikipedia.

14 February

• [13] (Admin viewable)
  • I list the page as a speedy deletion candidate. Note that the speedy deletion boxes state "do not remove this notice from articles that you have created yourself."

15 February

• [14] (Admin viewable)
  • Anthony does just that. Revert war ensues. The account User:Iamasockpoppet and User:Iamnotasockpoppet are used, though there is no particular reason to think either of these are Anthony. The tag is also removed by User:Jesse's Girl. I reinstate the tag on the grounds that there is no particular way to improve the content, and that it is unclear that it is not a CSD.

17 February

• David Gerard deletes the page.

18 February

• [15]
  • Anthony claims to David on his talk page that the page is not a recreation.

19 February

• [16]
  • Anthony lists his user subpage on VfU.

20 February

• [17]
  • Anthony claims that the content is different from the content that is deleted.

21 February

• [18]
  • The page is recreated by the IP 82.32.38.159. Anthony edits it twice after this. I delete it as a clear recreation.

• [19]
  • Anthony accuses me of starting an edit war over the deletion tag. Note that he removed the tag against policy, making this accusation... interesting.

• [20]
  • Anthony attempts to claim that the two pages are in fact different.

23 February

• [21]
  • Anthony claims that he created the page to improve Wikipedia, insisting he needs no further justification.

24 February

• [22]
  • Anthony claims that the VfD applies only to the old article - not to the idea of ever having an article on Shawn Mikula.

• [23]
  • Anthony offers a more in depth explanation of the above, in which he claims that it is unclear whether or not a non-vanity article on Shawn Mikula could be created based on the VfD.

• [24]
  • Anthony directs vague hostility towards me, saying I should mind my own business. As a sysop, it should be noted that CSDs and enforcing standing orders is my business.

27 February

• [25]
  • Anthony recreates the content again on his userpage. Shortly later he removes the content, instead linking to two mirrors that haven't updated to remove the article yet.

20 March

• [26] and [27]
  • Anthony, upon seeing the possibility of a ban from the Wikipedia namespace, begins removing comments of his from the Wikipedia namespace while he still can. When confronted on this by Jnc, he did not provide any explanation, simply declaring that it was his right. It was not until I explained the situation for him that Jnc had any actual idea what was going on, When several people, including Jnc, requested he strike through the comments for the sake of historical record, this was met with refusal. Furthermore, Anthony has suggested that his content is not actually licensed under the GFDL, alleging that the GFDL has been violated.

Evidence presented by Raul654

As Snowspinner has presented a very long and detailed case, I'm just going to state my case in very simple terms. Anthony has been on Wikipedia a long time. In that time, he has contributed very, very little of value. On the other hand, Anthony is forever causing troubles; he has already been through arbitration once, where he was ordered to stay making provocative edits on the Votes for Deletion (an order he subsequently choose to ignore).

He then moved his trolling to the featured article candidates. First he nominated a list as a featured article candidates (as someone later pointed out, it was obviously a breaching experiment). It was roundly shot down. So, obviously not having gotten a rise out of people, he went and nominated a stub. This was subsequently removed as obvious trolling, and he began to edit war over it. Furthermore, he began to edit war on the featured article template, ultimately resorting to sheer vandalism (overwritting a picture of Jim Henson with a blank picture using the upload summary "public domain image" - . He did this on the grounds that he did not think we should be using fair use images on the main page). That's what led to his 2nd near miss with the arbcom (User:Raul654/Anthony evidence) He agreed to the standing order, which let others ban him if he made provocative edits.

He has repeatedly been banned under that agreement, by numerous admins, for various forms of trolling. As per his usual MO, once he was thrown off the VFD and the FAC, he moved his trolling elsewhere, to the votes for undeletion. He was banned for edit-warring (which he promised not to do; a lie, because he edit warred on clitoris in January); for making provocative edits on the Votes for Undeletions and elsewhere; 'etc. RickK left over his trolling.

I think it's about time we got rid of Anthony. All he does is cause trouble. →Raul654 22:52, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Evidence presented by KeithTyler on behalf of Anthony DiPierro

I apologize for submitting evidence out of order; there are multiple issues and angles here, and a single linear timeline doesn't seem the best to me in this case.

Objections (resolved)

• [28] (Snowspinner's first of 2 Feburary)
• [29] (Snowspinner's first of 11 February)
• [30] (Snowspinner's first of 14 February)
• [31] (Snowspinner's first of 15 February)
  • For all of the above: I strongly object to the submission, inclusion, and consideration of any evidence which is not visible to either Anthony DiPierro or myself.

Public versions of the above:

• 2 Feb: [32]
• 11 Feb: [33]
• 14 Feb: [34]
• 15 Feb: [35]

24 July 2004

• [36]
  • The standing order (aka agreement) for Anthony mentioned in Snowspinner's complaint. It states that the order is entered into so that Anthony can avoid arbitration. Note that this is an agreement signed by Raul654, Anthony, and 4 members of the Arbitration Committee specifically serving as representatives of such.

21 February

• [37]
  • The initial submission of this RfAr by Snowspinner against Anthony, specifically regarding the Shawn Mikula matter.

26 February

(13:04 UTC)

• [38]
  • Acceptance of the Snowspinner RfAr by the Arbitration Committee.

(16:49 UTC)

• [39]
  • Anthony posts to the discussion page for the standing order, stating that his understanding of the agreement means that the opening of arbitration against him (see previous) causes the order to be nullified.

(16:52 UTC)

• [40]
  • Anthony's withdrawal from the standing order.

15 October 2004

• (Unavailable)
  • The deleted content of Shawn Mikula as of October 15 2004, prior to deletion. (This is admin-only information; I don't know the exact URL to their view of it.)

2 February

• [41]
  • The content of User:Anthony DiPierro/Shawn Mikula prior to CSD by Snowspinner. There are improvements (albeit minor, but improvements nonetheless) to the content of the article as compared to the deleted mainspace version of the article Shawn Mikula (see previous).

13 February

• [42]
  • First CSD of the userspace article by Snowspinner.

15 February

• [43]
  • Vote by Angela on the reconsideration of the standing order, for only half the extension term predicated by the agreement. The implication is that a full 6 months was not deemed warranted.

18 February

• [44]
  • Vote by Bcorr on the reconsideration of the standing order, likewise for only half the extension term predicated by the agreement. The implication is that a full 6 months was not deemed warranted.

19 February

• [45]
  • Vote by Cimon questioning the validity of a 3 month extension, given that the agreement specifies 6 months, or nothing. Given the choice between 6 months or nothing, Cimon chooses nothing (no extension).

Evidence presented by Anthony

• 13:49, 17 Mar 2005: Snowspinner removes a CSD tag from an article he created. The article was deleted as vanity via VfD, failed VfU, and was recreated with different content.
• 22:56, 2005 Mar 17: On Talk:Steak and Blowjob Day: Snowspinner argues in complete opposition to the arguments he's making in this case. "Deletion serves to delete article text - not subject matter." and "speedying is for unambiguous cases. The number of people who have restored the article or removed the tag makes clear that this is not unambiguous."
• Wikipedia:Refactoring
• 16:31, 14 Mar 2005 Gamaliel states: "With the exception of a few specific circumstances such as posting personal attacks, I find the idea that someone could be blocked for what they do with their own userspace outrageous."
• undated The vast majority of my edits are outside the Wikipedia: namespace.
• undated The vast majority of my edits within the Wikipedia: namespace are helpful to the encyclopedia.
• undated I have not recently engaged in disruptive edits to the Wikipedia: namespace
• undated I did not ever nominate a stub for a featured article candidate.
• Wikipedia:What is a troll Nominating a list for a featured article candidate is not trolling.

Evidence presented by Netoholic

18:58, 2005 Mar 19: Snowspinner reverts an edit and removes evidence against himself. He leaves the ironic message "you should not modify other people's sections".

Evidence presented by KeithTyler

• [46], [47]
  • Snowspinner, once again, edits another member's user page without notice. Arbitration has not seen fit to sanction or even cite Snowspinner for this sort of stomping on other member's user space, in contradiction with stated and civil policy laid out in Wikipedia:User page and elsewhere, including this case's FoFs.