User:Raul654/Anthony evidence

Anthony DiPierro

Since the previous arbcom ruling on User:Anthony DiPierro, Anthony has moved to other pages with much the same methodology that got him banned from VfD, namely voting without seeming regard for "established Wikipedia customs and common practices." Furthermore, he has been generally abusive and uncooperative when confronted regarding his failure to apprehend said customs and practices. As such, Anthony qualifies as a "a highly disruptive influence on the community" which in the past has led to arbcom intervention.

For a small accounting of his most recent transgressions: On July 6, 2004, Anthony engaged in a revert war on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates seeking to repeatedly list 13 colonies, which obviously not featured article quality, as seen at [1]. User:Raul654, who typically manages FAC, removed the nomination in an attempt to clear up the page, which is generally overloaded. Anthony relisted it four times, violating the three revert rule: [2] [3] [4] [5]

Note that in one of those edits, he also removed a comment made by Raul while relisting the page. He similarly removed an objection by Snowspinner at [6]. When this came up in IRC, he became extremely abusive, making comments such as "fuck you raul, you don't run FAC".

Note also that, as shown above, the page is obviously not featured quality, as the number of objections that existed prior to it being deleted shows. [7] and [8] show these objections. Note in the latter Anthony’s seeming refusal to work to fix objections that are not "easy to fix."

His behavior in the various deletion pages is not much better. Anthony was previously instructed by the Arbcom 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.". Apparently, he has decided not to abide by this.

He removes nominations altogether if he opposes them, and his opposition frequently seems motivated by revenge rather than by any content-based grounds. See [9]. Note that this and his deletion of my (Snowspinner's) comment from FAC above both came following my removal of 13 colonies from FAC, and appear to be simple retaliation. Similar incidents can be found at [10] and [11], though these do not seem to be motivated by any revenge.

He also continues to vote to include nominations in seeming disregard for policy. For instance, [12] despite general policy against including middle and high schools that are not exceptionally notable. Similarly, [13], and [14], which is, as with the edits he was previously reprimanded for by this committee, needlessly flippant and hostile. Similarly, his vote at [15] demonstrates a lack of awareness of the consensus reached regarding people who died in the 9/11 attacks. Although there is not, to my knowledge, a policy on articles regarding bloggers, [16] shows the same attitudes.

He similarly seems to have a lack of willingness to accept or respect the policies regarding vanity pages, as with votes such as [17], at [18] he similarly supports maintaining an article on a company that sells no products, agreeing with the anonymous user who created the vandalism page.

Anthony’s attitude on this matter is well summarized by his edit at [19]. Again, this is simply not in accordance with the standard conventions regarding vanity and non-noteworthy articles.

Recent Main page vandalism

Generally, fair use images on wikipedia are discouraged but not prohibited - the same policy applies to the main page. Anthony has a declared a personal war on fair use images on the main page, and has disrupted wikipedia operations in the process.

The featured article for July 19 was Jim Henson. The image used is an "obvious case of fair use" (--Jamesday). Anthony took it upon himself to remove the image, thus precipitating a (predictable) edit war during which he was reverted by Raul654 and DavidGerard. [20] [21] [22].

Unable to edit the template, Anthony decided to vandalize the image itself. He uploaded an 8 kilobyte blank picture to replace the picture of Jim Henson, with the mislead upload summary "PD replacement" so as to prevent people from knowing it was vandalism. The then reverted all attempts to restore the original. The image page has been cleaned up, but from Wikipedia:Upload log archive/July 2004 (2):

00:46, 16 Jul 2004 Gerald Farinas uploaded "Jimhensonmug.jpg" (Template:Fairuse Official image of Jim Henson from the Jim Henson Foundation, established by Jim Henson in 1982 to promote puppetry as an art form)
18:52, 19 Jul 2004 Anthony DiPierro uploaded "Jimhensonmug.jpg" (PD replacement)
19:46, 19 Jul 2004 Hemanshu uploaded "Jimhensonmug.jpg" (Reverted to earlier revision)
19:46, 19 Jul 2004 Anthony DiPierro uploaded "Jimhensonmug.jpg" (Reverted to earlier revision)
19:52, Jul 19, 2004 Raul654 uploaded "Jimhensonmug.jpg" (Reverted to earlier revision)
19:59, 19 Jul 2004 Anthony DiPierro uploaded "Jimhensonmug.jpg" (Reverted to earlier revision)
20:02, Jul 19, 2004 Raul654 uploaded "Jimhensonmug.jpg" (Reverted to earlier revision)
20:06, 19 Jul 2004 Anthony DiPierro uploaded "Jimhensonmug.jpg" (Reverted to earlier revision)

That night, Raul654 cycled the featured article and unprotected the page. Anthony then took it upon himself [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Template:Feature&oldid=4743961

to change the featurd article], violating (1) the prohibition on cycling it more than once every 24 hours and (2) the long-standing-but-unwritten rule that Raul654 should do it (this has since been formalized). A wholly-predictable edit war ensued, during which Anthony reverted the template 5 times (he was reverted by Danny and Blankfaze). Ultimately, Danny banned him for 24 hours.

The main page is the most visible part of Wikipedia (possibly the entire wikimedia project). Edit warring here is absolutely prohibited. Yet, Anthony showed no qualms about doing it - he started one knowing full well what would happen. Jimbo himself has said as much.

Users who endorse the above evidence

Response

It is unclear to me what remedies the above users are requesting to resolve this dispute. Once again there has been no mediation, and Raul has flat out rejected mediation. Apparently he wants me permanently banned from all pages except articles, article talk pages, and user talk pages.

Edit wars/vandalism

My block following the edit war on the template page, combined with my subsequent private email discussion with Jimbo regarding edit wars has convinced me that the three revert rule is indeed valid policy. I have therefore decided to voluntarily submit myself to a one-revert rule, so that I am not tempted to break it again in the future. I would have no problem with the arbitration committee making this official for up to three months.

I'd like the arbitration committee to consider the actions of others in the edit war on the template page. I'd like them to decide if there is indeed valid policy instituting Raul as dictator on that page, whether or not the actions of Raul and Danny in protecting the page violated policy, whether or not any users violated policy on use of the rollback button, and whether or not Blankfaze violated policy by breaking the three revert rule.

Featured articles candidates

Most of the allegations here are related to violation of the revert rule. The rest seem rather minor to me. I made a nomination in good faith and Raul insisted on removing it before it was given a chance.

VfD

It is my understanding that the previous arbitration ruling did not prohibit me from voting on VfD, even to express an opinion held by a small minority. On the contrary, I continued to vote on VfD through the arbitration ruling, yet the ruling said that my inappropriate behavior on VfD had ceased, and said that it was not opposed to the way I voted but with the manner I voted. The two votes that I removed from VfD were done for legitimate reasons. In one case there was no reason given and no VfD tag, and in the other case the reason for listing was resolved.

anthony (see warning) 03:50, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Previous statement from mediation committee

From Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Archive 7:

Concerning the mediation requested by the Arbitration Committee regarding User:Anthony DiPierro and a number of other users:

Although the members of the Mediation Committee have been willing to conduct a mediation and have solicited possible participants, to date no one has stepped forward to be a second party. As it has been the committee's experience that attempting to conduct a mediation discussion with only one party has not been successful, it seems best to wait until there are additional parties willing to participate. Anthony has demonstrated his willingness to mediate; but his adversaries have not. Until they do, we must consider Anthony a Wikipedian in good standing, and any comments to the contrary a demonstration of incivility.

The Mediation Committee is more than willing to mediate this case if and when anyone comes forward with specific concerns.

BCorr & sannse, Co-chairs
On behalf of the Mediation Committee
Copied to User talk:Anthony DiPierro and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Anthony DiPierro