The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the page.

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: ~~~~), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 00:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC).

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute[edit]

Aitias has continued the same behavior that led up to his RfC and RfAR. He has not improved himself since those events, and the community has not had a decent chance to comment on his actions.

Desired outcome[edit]

Aitias should make an immediate change to his behavior, which seems unlikely given past events, resign his adminship gracefully; or if there's consensus in this RfC for his desysopping, end up with a second ArbCom case.

Evidence of disputed behavior[edit]

For background behind the following diffs, it may be wise to read Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aitias/Evidence first. While the diffs here may not seem like much or a big deal at first, they follow the pattern of overall behavior listed there.

  1. Not long after Aitias was resysopped, he began bugging MZMcBride, an editor who has been critical of Aitias, but has also made effort to help him. Based on past events, Aitias should have left the situation to other users.
  2. Opposes Majorly's RfA. Majorly had filed the request for arbitration against Aitias. This is not a slight against "oppose" votes in themselves, and Aitias is allowed to oppose candidacies, but this is relevant because Aitias has a history of vengeance votes.
  3. Closes a deletion review against the established consensus.
  4. The first part of this discussion with J.delanoy appears to come across as sarcastic, and Aitias was admonished by ArbCom not to be sarcastic.
  5. More unnecessary bugging of J.delanoy.
  6. Aitias filed a request for administrator review which received almost exclusively negative feedback including questions about his pledge in his successful request for adminship wherein he said that he would resign if he felt he no longer had the trust of the community. Aitias' responses were inadequate, even dismissing a user due to their participation on a site that was criticizing Aitias' behavior as an administrator. He archived the page after a month.
  7. Creates unnecessary drama from a block summary made by William M. Connolley, and started an AN/I thread that generated more drama; the thread was criticized and quickly archived.
  8. BADSITESesque behavior on Jennavecia's request for oversight. She, like MZMcBride, has been critical of Aitias in the past. A review of Aitias' diffs link only to criticism of his past behavior as an administrator. He then opposed the said candidacy; see #2 above. In addition, Aitias' reasons for opposition were immensely hypocritical.
  9. Despite being banned from granting or removing rollback, Aitias still continues to participate in rollback-related discussions. While he is technically not in violation of the letter of the ban, he is violating the spirit. As rollback was a major factor in Aitias' RfC/RfAR, he should keep away from these. Aitias blocks Catterick for edit-warring.
  10. Participation in the above discussion wouldn't have been too bad if he'd just left it alone after that, but then Catterick removes the block notice from his talk page, and leaves mildly uncivil comments on his own talk page. Aitias and a couple of other users then revert war unnecessarily on Catterick's talk page. This user was blocked; there was no need to restore a block template for the sake of restoring it. Aitias then increases the block and disables talk page editing. Aitias should have just left Catterick alone. BigDunc questions the block, as did Xeno. Rather than address their concerns, he asks questions back to them. BigDunc restores Catterick's comments on his own talk page, and Aitias reverts again, with a threat to block BigDunc if he continued. BigDunc by now has raised the issue on AN/I, and Aitias' reblock did not have widespread support; instead it received a fair amount of opposition, with criticism of Aitias' "goading" of Catterick. BigDunc also mentioned that Aitias had not assumed good faith towards him (BigDunc), and pointed out that Aitias' was incorrect to block Catterick for incivility based on his own bad behavior that let to his RfC and RfAR. Aitias dismissed BigDunc's concern saying that his behavior was irrelevant. In the overall thread, Catterick's incivility was not condoned, but Aitias should not have revert-warred nor reblocked Catterick. After Catterick's block was over, Catterick restored his old comment, and as seen in that diff, Aitias reverts him and then blocks him again, and then a second time when Catterick again restores the comment and Aitias reverts him yet again. Indeed, Catterick was wrong to repost the comment, and this is in no way condoning his behavior, but it wasn't "new" incivility, and Aitias needn't have reacted this way; plus, Catterick is not the one with the block button. A similar event to this is mentioned here.
  11. Makes a controversial block (which Aitias should avoid making, he should stick to uncontroversial blocks) of ChildOfMidnight that was overturned a few hours later. In addition, Aitias showed bad judgment by going offline after the block. By the time he returned, the block had already been overturned. Since the block was a controversial one, he should have either stayed around to answer questions or, better still, since he had to go offline, he shouldn't have made the block in the first place.
  12. Aitias starts a ban discussion on an editor who had criticized his conduct from an off-Wiki site, Wikipedia Review, which is a site that is dedicated to criticizing what it feels is wrong with Wikipedia. Aitias had filed a previous AN/I report on EricBarbour for past criticism of him, which was archived quickly; the ban discussion came across as revenge-seeking, and as mentioned above, BADSITESesque behavior. During the discussion, which did nothing but cause drama, Aitias was criticized; he also responded in a sarcarcastic and patronizing way about language to one of the participants, and takes the discussion off to an irrelevant subject before it was removed. In addition, WR then started a new thread on Aitias' behavior: that of his antics in starting the EricBarbour ban fiasco. As a result, he ended up creating fresh criticism from the site.
  13. Aitias then participates on Jennavecia's oversight candidacy again, and Jennavecia said she was feeling "creeped out" by Aitias' comments, which came across as nothing more than trolling, disruptive, and retaliatory.

Other[edit]

Not actually comments made by Aitias, but they are relevant.

  1. The ArbCom vote to desysop Aitias was split at 7 for/7 against/1 abstaining.
  2. Here and here are criticism of Aitias' involvement in the WMC issue and of his past disputes.
  3. Aitias has become distrusted enough that someone opposed a candidate he nominated on the basis that the candidate had bad judgment to accept a nomination from Aitias.
  4. A comment inviting Aitias' critics to start an RfC or an RfAR against him.
  5. As with the diff just above this one.
  6. Same again.
  7. Some criticism and advice from Lar.
  8. A note from Majorly on Aitias' administrator review page observing that Aitias was unlikely to listen to feedback unless it was positive.

Applicable policies and guidelines[edit]

  1. WP:AGF
  2. WP:CONSENSUS
  3. WP:BLOCK

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute[edit]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute[edit]

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. Acalamari 15:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Majorly talk 15:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary[edit]

  1. Lara 16:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Mike H. Fierce! 16:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. With the caveat that some of the examples listed seem relatively minor to me. Still, the total picture given is essentially correct. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The pattern of behavior that lead to previous concerns about Aitias has obviously not changed. Achromatic (talk) 18:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Everyking (talk) 21:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Any admin, and most regular editors, should know that trying to ban someone over off-wiki comments is not supported by policy. Admins are expected to know and follow policy and guidelines. Cla68 (talk) 01:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. One hopes that Aitias doesn't up and retire on the heels of this. seicer | talk | contribs 02:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Aitias Shrugged! *Dan T.* (talk) 02:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Wasn't aware of previous RfC when I had my interaction with this user and a little digging showed that it was part of a pattern that hasn't changed.BigDunc 11:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 19:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. ++Lar: t/c 07:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Chose not to learn lessons from previous events. Minkythecat (talk) 07:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view[edit]

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view by Friday[edit]

Arbcom, please desysop Aitias.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Friday (talk) 16:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Lara 16:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mike H. Fierce! 16:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Ironholds (talk) 18:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Achromatic (talk) 18:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Shappy talk 21:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Everyking (talk) 21:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Very necessary. (By the way, I laughed at the straight forwardness) Ottava Rima (talk) 22:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. But maybe he'll read the writing on the wall and pull the plug himself. Bullzeye contribs 23:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. If necessary absolutely yes, but prefer that Aitias simply resigns the bit voluntary as suggested in my outside view below. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Law type! snype? 01:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. I would say that this is probably appropriate. A temporary suspension, such as six months, would probably work also as an attempt at corrective action. Cla68 (talk) 01:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Long overdue. seicer | talk | contribs 02:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Hasn't made any changes to their methods since previous RfC and arbcom. BigDunc 11:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Who is Aitias? In some ways it is like he is the wheel of a great spinning cog machine! He is a very dangerous man; like giving the Pope a gun and a disguise. Thalweg & Nimbus (talk) 11:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Stricken, user indefblocked. Shappy talk 18:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Brevitas delectat. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 19:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. I thought Aitias was getting better (per my discussion with him after reviewing contribs) but I think some of the recent stuff cited in this RfC shows there still is a serious issue. I favor this approach rather than a voluntary desysop as this is more clearly "under controversial circumstances". ++Lar: t/c 07:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

View by Juliancolton[edit]

I can't call myself entirely uninvolved, as Aitias and I have had a few run-ins in the past (the majority of our interactions have, however, been positive and productive). As I noted in the previous RfC, Aitias is generally a good editor and admin; he just needs to know where to draw the line, and where to take a step back. I have no doubt he is acting in good faith, and he usually makes an effort to correct his mistakes.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Even though Aitias has done some things I'm sure even he'll agree wasn't exactly wise, I'll say that it's fair to WP:AGF, and at worst give him a warning. And yes, I am aware of what he has done before, both now and at his first RfC. I'mperator 18:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. iMatthew talk at 15:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Heimstern[edit]

Aitias has shown little sign of correcting his past behaviour. He continues to do exactly what he did before his ArbCom case: dramamongering, from making mountains out of molehills, such as in the case of the WMC block summary, to turning candidate questions into interrogation chambers at Lara's OS election page. Administrators should be trying to minimize drama, not add to it, and as such Aitias's conduct is incompatible with adminship. Rather than propose desysopping, I suggest a course of action for Aitias: Voluntarily step away from the admin tools. I don't mean request desysopping at meta; but rather just quit using the tools for the time being. Also, step away from AN, ANI and other dramaboards, and initiate no discussions concerning sanctions against an editor or review of admin actions. While you're away from those, work on some articles. Looking through your mainspace contribs, it's hard to find anything that's not an admin action or automated. Do some actual editing to improve the encyclopedia, whether adding new content or copyediting existing content. We're here for the encyclopedia. Try improving it instead of stoking drama.

Users who endorse this view:

  1. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Lara 17:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. lifebaka++ 17:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Mike H. Fierce! 17:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --DThomsen8 (talk) 18:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --javért stargaze 18:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. With caveat- he should be desysopped and do the things suggested above. Friday (talk) 18:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Endorsed as alternative Achromatic (talk) 18:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Mathsci (talk) 21:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Everyking (talk) 21:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Absolutely. He escaped his RFAR with his bit intact only by the skin of his teeth, but rather than humbling and reorienting him towards productive article editing, the experience seemed to only embolden him to continue his harassment against the people he sees as his "enemies". No more. Full stop. Walk away, Aitias. Bullzeye contribs 23:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Yes. I do think Aitias gives the impression of having a "Wikipedia will fall apart without me to keep it in line" attitude, and seeing for himself that his absence from the drama boards doesn't make any difference would hopefully be good for all concerned. – iridescent 00:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. (X! · talk)  · @074  ·  00:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. seicer | talk | contribs 02:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. BigDunc 11:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be happy to see this! He is a dangerous man - would you give a blunderbuss to a wolf? Thalweg & Nimbus (talk) 14:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Stricken, user indefblocked. Shappy talk 18:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Spartaz (commenting as a not particularly good admin about another not particularly good admin)[edit]

At first sight there appeared to be more then a hint of persecution of Aitias in this RFC as none of the incidents cited in themselves deserve a de-op or particular sanction, but then I stopped to think and realised that everytime I see Aitias's signatire at an admin noticeboard I am steeling myself for a poor decision, OTT action or inflamatory comment that makes a difficult situation worse. The problem is not that Aitias makes dreadful decisions but that they simply cannot help themselves from making a constant stream of poor decisions. Being at RFAR should have made Aitias rethink their approach but it seems to have had absolutely no effect and Aitias hasn't improved one jot. Really, unless they can learn to stand back, self adjust or learn when to butt out they simply cannot act in a way befitting an admin on a top-10 WWW site. Does this mean they should be de-oped? I'm afraid that when there is a run of poor decisions this bad then there really is no choice but I hope very much that Aitias takes the opportunity of this discussion to actually listen and learn because the next step if their is no improvement is arbitration and we know where that leads.... ((and in fairness, since there is a degree of pot calling the kettle here, If anyone wants to discuss my own series of poor decisions feel free to drop me a note on my talk page))

Users who endorse this view:

  1. Spartaz Humbug! 19:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Achromatic (talk) 20:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Lara 21:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Mike H. Fierce! 21:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Shappy[edit]

One thing I've noticed is that Aitias a) does not have good judgement and b) does not react well to criticism. I believe that Aitias very well knows that he does not have much of the community's trust, yet still refuses to acknowledge this (as highlighted in his admin review). I think he has a particular vendetta against the Wikipedia Review, who have criticized his decisions on numerous occasions. His ban proposal of EricBarbour (talk · contribs) for things said off-wiki was completely inappropriate. Eric is rather outspoken and I disagree with him often, but I believe that the ban proposal was completely out of line on Aitias's part. Another less inflammatory action is his participation in Jennavecia (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)'s oversight candidacy. Although they don't state it specifically, I believe Aitias is doing these actions to avenge the criticism the Wikipedia Review gave him. In conclusion, I won't put it as bluntly as Friday did, but I do not believe that Aitias should be an admin here anymore.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Shappy talk 21:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Lara 22:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. More importantly, his jihad against Eric Barbour on WP:ANI for "off-wiki harassment" displayed a colossal ignorance to (literally) the last 4-years worth of administrative precedent. It's 2009 and we have an admin slavering at the mouth to throw an indef on a user for criticizing him off-Wiki, aka WP:BADSITES on steroids. Futhermore, he's never admitted he was wrong! Bullzeye contribs 23:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Shappy gets it spot-on here. – iridescent 23:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. →javért stargaze 00:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. seicer | talk | contribs 02:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Endorse everything up to the last sentence whole-heartedly. Endorse last sentence if Aitias is unwilling or unable to change. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Mike H. Fierce! 06:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. BigDunc 11:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hand it in! Fold it! Put it into a letter box! Post it away! Thalweg & Nimbus (talk) 14:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Stricken, user indefblocked. Shappy talk 18:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Bigtimepeace[edit]

I don't have to be a weatherman to see which way the RFC wind blows. This thing is going to end up as a big "no confidence" vote on Aitias, and if necessary it will then go to ArbCom and Aitias will almost certainly be de-sysopped. 95 out of 100 that's what happens. Lengthy RFCs and (even short) ArbCom cases drain community resources and generally suck. So rather than asking the Arbs to desysop Aitias as Friday suggests (though I support that if necessary), and rather than simply asking Aitias to lay aside the tools as Heimstern suggests (which I don't think will satisfy the critics), Aitias should simply respect the fact the s/he does not have the trust of the community as admin and ask to have the bit removed. To do that would be to do the community a favor by saving us all some time and acrimony, with the additional benefit that other editors will come away with a better view of Aitias then if we're still talking about this in an ArbCom case come phony May Day. It's a win-win and the ideal (but not only) way forward.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. →javért stargaze 01:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Lara 06:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Mike H. Fierce! 06:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I really do like Aitias and have supported him on a lot of decisions; but a few recent drama-increasing actions combined with the obvious lack of community support for him here unfortunately makes me believe this is the best option. Aitias can save everyone, particularly himself, a lot of acrimony and stress. I don't think adminship is worth having lots of people angry with you; and that seems to be where this is going. ~ mazca talk 15:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by SoWhy[edit]

I do not think this RFC is a way to handle any alleged problematic behavior shown by Aitias. I won't comment on the behavior per se (I have not got the time to investigate the evidence) but the point is that we had a previous RFC already and no side will claim that it lead to anything useful at all. So rather than dragging out this process of which we can predict will not result in anything happening, the users filing this RFC should just re-petition the case to ArbCom. The evidence of how the previous RFC went and the existence of a previous ArbCom case should convince everyone that another RFC is unlikely to be helpful but, as Bigtimepeace says, will drain community resources. As we can predict that such a drain will happen no matter what, we should limit it by simply skipping this part. If Aitias has violated the previous ArbCom ruling, then there is no point in not simply taking this back there. And if he hasn't, there is no point in not asking ArbCom to confirm this.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. SoWhy 10:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The complete lack of supportive statements are telling. –xenotalk 14:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    information Note:: Potentially moot as a result of Wikipedia:A/R/M#Aitias desysop. –xenotalk 23:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Tan | 39 14:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Law type! snype? 02:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. iMatthew talk at 15:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

Summary[edit]

Proceeded to ArbCom desysop motion.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More