Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aitias

Case Opened on 21:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Case Closed on 13:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Watchlist all case pages: 1, 2, 3, 4

Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case. Statements on this page are original comments provided when the Committee was initially requested to Arbitrate this page (at Requests for arbitration), and serve as opening statements; as such, they should not be altered. Any evidence you wish to provide to the Arbitrators should go on the /Evidence subpage.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions as needed, but this page should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification, and report violations of remedies at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

Involved parties

• Aitias (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Majorly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Requests for comment

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Aitias

Statement by Majorly

I'm saddened to bring this here, as much as I avoid drama, but feel it is the most appropriate route. Aitias was the subject of a user RFC just under a month ago, and I agreed to its closure on the basis that Aitias had learnt from the issues raised, and that he would change his approach, and perhaps take a break from RFR. To summarise the RFC: it was becoming clear Aitias was having WP:OWN issues around the rollback page, and when someone disagreed with a decision of his, he often became hostile, rude, and often insulting to both the admin and the person applying. He often takes a high handed approach in situations, such as regarding early closures of RFAs, yet cannot handle any flack that comes with it. A big issue was Aitas's own use of rollback, which was sometimes erroneous, and yet he denied people for mistakes made months ago. He often did not seem to "get" when it was time to end the discussion, such as where I demonstrated on RFA talk. He also brought several instances of "misbehaviour" to admin noticeboard, and it was clear in the cases I presented, there was no need at all for admin intervention.

While the RFC had several minor issues in it, they gradually build up over time, and Aitias has again come to my attention. The point of the RFC closing was for him to take a break from RFR, where most of the biggest problems were. He took a total of 4 days away from the page, which was not really long enough with hindsight.

I was pointed to [this by someone, where it shows Aitias has yet again turned to aggression, sarcasm, and rudeness when someone, quite within their rights, granted rollback to somebody Aitias disagreed with. The discussion then moved to his talk page, where I told him how concerned I was. I then noticed this inappropriate revert of a good faith edit. I asked him about it, and he pointed to the rollback feature page as his reasoning. I explained to him the difference between user and user talk space, but he told me to stop discussing it and "wikilawyering". Since he refused to accept this was the case, I decided to come here, since I believe he is no longer suited to be in a position of authority, because he can't seem to handle it. When I implied I was going to request arbitration, he egged me on, saying "Do it Majorly, do it", and continued to insist I was wrong. JulianColton and SWATJester both agreed that Aitias's revert was inappropriate, and Aitias did not provide any evidence or policy based reason why he was reverting a good faith edit. He continued to insist everyone except him was wrong, and responded LOL. Again, read Wikipedia:Rollback_feature#When_to_use_rollback ("[...] to revert content in your own user space [...]") and Wikipedia:User_space. It's simple, you're wrong, nothing to admit on my part (but on yours), no need for further discussion. Since this is not an isolated incident, and an ongoing pattern, I believe this is extremely problematic behaviour.

This is not the only thing I have discovered. Aitias makes a lot of edits, so it is difficult to go through them and find any potential problems, but I did see a lot of issues with the User:RMHED block. The original post contains comments from Aitias that appear to be unnecessarily goading, and begging some admin to block for longer, which was rather unnecessary considering several admins were dealing with it. He was asked on several occasions on the thread to disengage - he did not listen, instead creating a further (pointless) thread about off-wiki attacks [1]. He then proceeded to create an RFC, despite the user being blocked, and the issue long over - an example of adding further fuel to the fire (that had burned out pretty much by then in any case). The page was deleted, but Aitias simply did not get the hint [2] to stop it. His continued posts to the page caused MZMcBride to ask him to stop posting there. Aitias argued about it, and continued to post there anyway [3], fussing about an apparent COI - comments are further goading the editor whose talk it was.

There was another issue which I should bring up, though I personally did not see it as a big issue, but others did. The creation of this reconfirmation RFA was seen by many to be POINTy (though I disagreed completely) and unnecessarily rushed through against normal procedures.

A further issue I found was a block of Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) (again, I agreed with this block, but the crowd was divided). Further details can be found here, and here.

A couple of days ago, this discussion took place on Aitias's talk, with some editors concerned about his ongoing issues.

So in conclusion, while I agree with Aitias on many issues, I feel he is no longer suited to continue as an administrator. Admins ought to have full respect from the community, should act professionally, and converse with other people politely and with respect. I feel another RFC would be fruitless, as he appears to have not learnt a thing from the first one, so I come here, and he even seems to want me to, wrt his egging me on. I do not believe Aitias is a net positive any longer and think he should be desysopped, at least temporarily. Thanks for your consideration.

To Avruch: there's a little phrase that goes "the straw that broke the camel's back". This was it. As I mentioned in my statement, it's a lot of different issues over time building up and building up. The rollback was problematic, but if Aitias had simply admitted it was and accepted he could have gone about it differently, the issue would be over. Instead, he argued and argued, claiming everyone except him was wrong, and insisting he was totally in the right to revert good faith edits, despite three other users concerned with it. In short, yes, the rollback brought me here today, but it's far from the only issue. Majorly talk 03:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Aitias

Well, I will start with analysing all the evidence presented here by several users, especially of course by Majorly. The first thing here that seems to be noteworthy is that all the evidence presented in the various statements is mostly quoted out of context — this constitutes, at least in my opinion, a considerable problem and thus I will try to provide some context/background for each of the incidents presented.

For the beginning, as Majorly just repeats the allegations from the RfC, it seems to be the best thing to read the whole reply I provided back then, so that I do not have to repeat everything.

• “The point of the RFC closing was for him to take a break from RFR [...] He took a total of 4 days away from the page [...]” Well, some context: I asked Majorly on his talk page how long he expected me to not edit the rollback page. His reply was: “I don't expect or demand anything; I haven't been looking at your edits or anything. [...] If you think you're able to return there now, feel free.” Also, regarding the “WP:OWN issues” (in case they did exist before the RfC), I think I have worked more than well on them after the RfC (as promised): Since the RfC closed, I have made just a few edits to that page — in total, about 5% of the edits that were made in this timeframe were made by me; just in contrast: 34% of the edits were made by User:Juliancolton. I don't think one can call that “WP:OWN issues”.
• “I was pointed to [this by someone, where it shows Aitias has yet again turned to aggression, sarcasm, and rudeness when someone, quite within their rights, granted rollback to somebody Aitias disagreed with.” Firstly, none of this applies. My comments do neither constitute sarcasm nor aggression, let alone “rudeness”. Also, I did not disagree with Juliancolton's decision to grant rollback — if one reads my comments carefully they will find out that this was not at all the point I tried to make. To illustrate this point, I think it may be a good idea to simply quote an email I wrote Juliancolton:

“ Dear Julian,

thank you for your e-mail. I never disagreed with your decision to grant rollback in general - merely with the manner. I would have granted rollback here as well, however I found this one worrying revert and thus I asked this question. After the user had written this reply, I would have granted as well. I simply deemed ignoring my concern/question and granting rollback that hasty a bit disrespectful. "In hindsight, I suppose I shouldn't have been so hasty in granting the user rollback."¹ - This was exactly the point I tried to make.

Howsoever, I hope everything is a bit more understandable now. :)

Best wishes,

Aitias.”

---

¹ This is quoted from Juliancolton's e-mail, to which I did reply with my e-mail.

• “I then noticed this inappropriate revert of a good faith edit. [...] JulianColton and SWATJester both agreed that Aitias's revert was inappropriate, and Aitias did not provide any evidence or policy based reason why he was reverting a good faith edit. He continued to insist everyone except him was wrong [...]”. Firstly, it was not only me who told Majorly that he was wrong. Protonk (talk · contribs) tried to do this was well: “You can roll back edits on your user or user talk page, FYI. No wikilawyering about it.” and also in his statement here. When I was told that one is entitled to use rollback in his own user space (of course including user talk page) the first time (I think I was told on AN or AN/I), I was surprised as well. However, the situation is clear, even if still disputed by Majorly. Howsoever, it was anyway the first time I did revert a good faith edit using rollback in my user space, and it will remain the last time.

• “This is not the only thing I have discovered. Aitias makes a lot of edits, so it is difficult to go through them and find any potential problems, but I did see a lot of issues with the User:RMHED block. The original post contains comments from Aitias that appear to be unnecessarily goading, and begging some admin to block for longer, which was rather unnecessary considering several admins were dealing with it.” I have to ask Majorly for clarification here, as it is not clear to me to which comment he is exactly referring to. If he is referring to “Actually, the edits on Deaths in 2009 clearly constituted Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Has this been taken into account while blocking?” I can not see anything wrong about this comments; it was a simple, unproblematic question that received a simple answer without any problems. Also, I don't think I have much to say to RMHED's block. I will quote a short part of an e-mail sent to me by RMHED a few days ago instead: “Aitias I just wanted you to know that I bear you no ill feelings. I called you an arsehole but I am very much aware that I acted like an arsehole. Anyways, I apologize for my rudeness [...]”.

• “There was another issue which I should bring up, though I personally did not see it as a big issue, but others did. The creation of this reconfirmation RFA was seen by many to be POINTy (though I disagreed completely) and unnecessarily rushed through against normal procedures.” As Majorly points out correctly, these allegations do not apply in my opinion. However, if I had known that it would be that controversial, I would never have done it. It was not intended to be pointy at all, but simply bold. Again, I would not have done it if I would have been aware that it might be that controversial.

• “A further issue I found was a block of Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) (again, I agreed with this block, but the crowd was divided). Further details can be found here, and here.” This block was clearly justified and resonable. Also, it was supported and endorsed by consensus on AN/I.

• “A couple of days ago, this discussion took place on Aitias's talk, with some editors concerned about his ongoing issues.” Some may realise that these “some editors” are always the same: Majorly, Rjd and MZM. Also, Rjd was the one who made a mistake and I reverted it correctly — Rjd did admit that his edit was mistaken.

---

Taking everything into account, I think it's safe to say that I did at no time misuse, let alone abuse, my administrator tools; also, I never did violate WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL. There are, simply, certain editors (mostly Majorly, MZM and Rjd) who dislike me —they are, of course, perfectly entitled to that— however, the problem is that you can provide as many strong, undeniable arguments as possible, you can be proved right, and they still will remain unreasonable. They are, of course, perfectly entitled to that as well. However, if those people come here claiming that I would be unwilling to learn anything, everyone should be aware that this basically means nothing else than I don't give my blessing to everything they say. I am perfectly willing to learn and admit mistakes, but I am not willing to agree with everyhting they want me to agree. However, disagreeing with certain viewpoints of them is not a reason for desysoping or whatsoever. In case the Committee thinks it is, I am happy with that as well; I am not at all attached to the tools, I use them to do a lot of thankless work and to help the project, not because I would get a big bang out of using them. Anyway, thank you for your consideration. — Aitias // discussion 11:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Addendum re. Rjd0060's concerns and explanation:

I agree with Rjd0060's et al. concerns, both above and below, and second that this case should go its usual way. However, I'd like to emphasise that this is not “an attempt to hinder Arbitration Committee proceedings” (as Rjd0060 called it above); I simply no longer feel like contributing here any longer. Also, please note that this is not a sign of disrespect for the Committee or the arbitration process, I am simply tired of this project.

Finally, I'd like to sincerely apologise to all persons who feel I was unfair/impolite towards them, who feel I have taken unfair/bad decisions, who feel I was an unfair/bad administrator and editor and I'd also like to truly apologise for any mistake I have made. I honestly can assure you that I have always acted with the best of intentions; I have always tried to do what I thought was the best for the project — if I have failed to do so, I am genuinely sorry.

Thanks,

— Aitias // discussion 15:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (9/0/0/3)

• Accept. Based on the issues raised as well as the RfC, this seems like something to look into. Wizardman 02:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
• Accept. Kirill ^[pf] 02:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
• Awaiting statement by Aitias. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I have read Aitias' statement and it does not address all the concerns that have been raised, but it might be a start. For example, Aitias has stated that he will no longer use rollback to revert without explanation good-faith edits on his talkpage, which helps to moot that issue. (The discussion that has taken place regarding whether one may use rollback liberally on one's own user talkpage, as opposed to elsewhere in one's userspace, strikes me as a classic example of letting analysis of the literal wording of a policy overpower the reasons behind the policy, but never mind.) Aitias has stated or implied that he will open no more "reconfirmation" RfA's, which is also good. I would welcome a greater recognition from Aitias that there have been a series of civility issues as perceived by several people, which is a serious problem for an administrator, and that his demeanor toward other users would benefit from modification. And I think it might be best if Aitias stepped away for awhile from dealing with rollback requests; the chaos that some people expected when non-admin rollback was implemented and any admin allowed to confer it has generally not occurred, and I would like to see extra effort by all to avoid drama associated with this or any future userrights grants. I would welcome comments on whether taking a case right now is the best way forward. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • General comment: Clear and forceful advocacy of one's position on the requests for arbitration page is welcome, but excessively strident language, such as calling another editor a "sociopath," should be avoided. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Hold for now pending further clarification on what Aitias is going to do. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
• Awaiting statement by Aitias. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Accept There seems to be sufficient cause for concern here. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
• Accept. --bainer (talk) 07:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
• Accept. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I was about to add something like what Vassyana wrote below me, but he has and I agree with him. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Accept. Other methods having been tried, ArbCom is the best chance for resolution. Cool Hand Luke 20:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
• Accept; the concerns expressed in the RfC warrant looking into. — Coren ^(talk) 00:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

  Note; Aitias appears to have desire to retire; I see no reason to stop this case unless he gives up the administrators' tools (if that is his intent) however. If he does, then I will suggest that we close this case by motion with an annotation that he must request the bit again via RfA should he return. — Coren ^(talk) 13:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Have reviewed the RfC and am concerned that only 14 editors commented there, mostly giving different viewpoints and several criticising Majorly's approach to the RfC. Three editors endorsed Majorly's filing of the RfC. Atias endorsed his own response. One outside view got two endorsements (plus the author), another outside view got one endorsement (plus the author), another outside view got no endorsements other than by the author, another outside view got two endorsements (plus the author), and the final outside view got one endorsement (other then by the author). Also, the RfC was barely open for 5 days. I see now that it was closed due to Aitias making a statement agreeing with the desired objectives. Might I ask why the RfC cannot simply be reopened and updated to gather more comments, and left open regardless of what Aitias says (to avoid a repeat of the RfC closing early)? I have reviewed the further concerns Majorly has raised, and there are what appear to be troubling issues here, especially the behaviour surrounding the RHMED block, but I am uneasy with the course this dispute has taken, and am uncertain that any real attempt has been made to resolve the issues at earlier stages of dispute resolution. Carcharoth (talk) 03:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  • For now, reject in favour of re-opening the RfC, or (better) starting a new one. Carcharoth (talk) 03:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC) Overtaken by events. Carcharoth (talk) 00:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Striking my reject as things have escalated to the stage where they need to be dealt with now. Responding to Lar's point above, the committee have been discussing the request and asking some questions, and we have been discussing what to do (maybe a template should be used for that purpose to indicate that a request is under discussion on the mailing list and not just 'hanging here'?). I am currently drafting a motion, and will be posting that shortly. Carcharoth (talk) 00:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Correction: another arbitrator has kindly offered to draft the motion, which means it will be ready quicker! Carcharoth (talk) 01:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I would prefer to see a second RFC, or Aitias willingly back away from RFR and a few other areas where the trouble has brewed, in order to reduce chances of it flaring up again while the points made during the first RFC sink in. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I would like to wait to hear from Ncmvocalist before deciding whether to accept a case or desysop due to the resignation. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. I generally share the sentiments expressed by Carcharoth and Newyorkbrad. I would also note that the time and participation of the RfC was limited (albeit in large part due to Aitias' statement). However, I am inclined to accept this request. A clear pattern of behavior is being asserted as a continuing problem and we should take credible concerns about administrative misconduct very seriously. Disputes usually must exhaust the community's options before arbitration. Given the statements provided, it would be beyond my expectations to insist that the community holds another discussion. I cannot decline this request unless there are clear indications that another RfC will not simply lead to this case being heard some weeks down the road. (For example, Aitias showing that he understands the concerns and would heed the community consultation.) Vassyana (talk) 07:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
• Accept - We've long criticized RfC for being flawed. In fact, that should not be taken as granted since there are many succesful RfCs. But, for me, two RfCs in three months would mean that something is wrong and that the RfC process is really flawed (granted). Actually, we are already having a second RfC up here and it still seems that arbitration is needed. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Ncmvocalist, according to what I gathered from the whole comments and statements above, I understood that the community agree—in general—that arbitration is needed. After measuring the situation, I found myself agreeing with the need of an arbitration case —a position I explained aove. Now, while I do respect the analysis you reserved to the ArbCom process in general and to my positions in particular I still don't understand the fact of you commenting at this venue and making suggestions to the Committee when you believe this whole process is flawed. Please note that this is not personal criticism as much as it is a good faith analysis of the good faithed analysis you've just made. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Accept — Roger Davies ^talk 13:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Motion 1

This request for arbitration is temporarily suspended for up to 72 hours. Aitias is requested to officially advise us during this time whether he intends to continue as an administrator. Should Aitias be voluntarily desysopped within the next 72 hours, this request for arbitration will be closed as moot.

It is noted that if Aitias resigns while a request for arbitration is pending, any later request for restoration of Aitias' adminship would require either a new RfA or a vote of this committee (see, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Philwelch#Return of access levels; compare Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology/Proposed decision#Return of access levels). If Aitias were to request return of adminship after a break, the committee anticipates that it would invite community comment before addressing his request.

Should Aitias confirm that he will not resign as an administrator, or fail to respond within 72 hours, then the arbitration case will be opened at that time, unless otherwise directed by the committee.

Aitias is requested to refrain from any use of administrator tools until this matter is resolved.

Passed 13 to 0 at 14:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Motion 2

In order to avoid a ruling without the participation of the main party to the case, this request for arbitration is suspended until User:Aitias returns to editing.

Since User:Aitias has not voluntarily requested that his administrator access be removed, after this motion passes the Committee will invoke an immediate temporary suspension of his adminship. When User:Aitias returns to editing, he may contact the Committee and request the return of his adminship, which would trigger an additional ruling by the Committee about this current request for arbitration; or as an alternative, he may submit an RFA on his return to editing in lieu of a case.

Passed 13 to 0 at 14:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Enforcement

• 00:39, 22 March 2009 Mardetanha (Talk | contribs) changed group membership for User:Aitias@enwiki from Administrators to (none) ‎ (Desysping per Enwiki ArbCom https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Aitias_desysopped and http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests/Permissions&diff=prev&oldid=1432897)[4]

Motion 3

The suspension of User:Aitias's adminship becomes a permanent desysop if he doesn't return within 6 months. Thereafter, Aitias may request adminship again through an RfA only.

Passed 13 to 0 at 14:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Motion 4

User:Aitias is instructed to edit Wikipedia English with only the User:Aitias account until the issues in this dispute are resolved.

Passed 12 to 0 at 14:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Motion 5

The Aitias case will open with Aitias remaining desysopped during the resolution of the arbitration case.

Passed 15 to 0 at 21:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Final decision

All numbering based on /Proposed decision, where vote counts and comments are also available.

Principles

Administrators

1) Administrators are trusted members of the community. They are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship, as administrators are not expected to be perfect, but consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status. Administrators are expected to learn from experience and from justified criticisms of their actions, and should address, rather than dismiss, reasonable concerns raised by other users.

Passed 15 to 0, 13:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Editor conduct

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook. Unseemly conduct from all sides of a dispute, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, and disruptive point-making, is prohibited.

Passed 15 to 0, 13:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Granting of rollback rights

3) Administrators are expected to apply good judgment in addressing requests for userrights that they are empowered to grant, such as rollback. When administrators disagree as to whether rollback should be granted to a particular editor, they should discuss the matter collegially with the goal of reaching a consensus decision. To the extent possible, rollback requests should be handled efficiently and in a non-bureaucratic manner.

Passed 15 to 0, 13:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Right to vanish

4) Vanishing is the act of disassociating the identity of a user account from the identity, and is intended for those who wish to leave the project permanently. It is not meant to be used as a wikibreak, or to be used as a fresh start for a user not in good standing.

Passed 9 to 3, 13:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Feuds and quarrels

5) Editors who consistently find themselves in disputes with each other whenever they interact on Wikipedia, and who are unable to resolve their differences, should seek to minimize the extent of any unnecessary interactions between them. In extreme cases, they may be directed to do so.

Passed 15 to 0, 13:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocking

6) Blocking is a serious matter. Administrators should be exceedingly careful when blocking. Blocks should be made only if other means are not likely to be effective.

Passed 9 to 0, 13:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Policies

7) Policies need to be approached with common sense. Administrators enforcing policies should adhere to the spirit rather than the letter of the rules, and be prepared to ignore the rules on the rare occasions when they conflict with the goal of improving the encyclopedia, or when two or more policies conflict.

Passed 10 to 0, 13:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Contesting a candidacy for speedy deletion

8) Pages can be deleted without any discussion if they meet one of the criteria for speedy deletion. Any editor except a page's creator, acting in good faith and pursuant to a reasonable interpretation of policy, may contest the speedy deletion of a page by removing the deletion notice from the page. If there is a dispute over whether a page meets the criteria, the issue is typically taken to deletion discussions.

Passed 11 to 0, 13:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Findings of fact

History of the case

1) In March 2009, a request for arbitration was filed against Aitias. This Committee voted to accept the case, but at about the same time, Aitias announced that he was leaving the project. Accordingly, Aitias's administrator privileges were suspended temporarily, without prejudice, and the arbitration case was held in abeyance, with the understanding that the case would be reopened upon his return to editing. Approximately one month later, Aitias returned to editing, and we opened the case, directing that Aitias's adminship remain suspended, without prejudice to our ultimate decision, until the case was resolved.

Passed 15 to 0, 13:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Aitias' conduct

2.1) Aitias has repeatedly made inappropriate and unnecessarily sarcastic comments on-wiki ([5], [6], [7], [8], [9]) including in connection with discussion of his administrator actions, and despite having himself acknowledged that a polite and civil tone is necessary for administrators ([10]).

Passed 13 to 0, 13:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)'

Aitias and rollback

3) During the period from when administrators could begin granting rollback to April 10, 2009, Aitias was among the most active administrators on Wikipedia:Requests for rollback ([11]). During this period, he repeatedly conflicted with other administrators who disagreed with his decisions to deny rollback to several users requesting it, and often failed to address such disagreements in an appropriately collegial manner ([12], [13], [14]) evident by Aitias’ apparent high standards in handing out the tool ([15]).

Passed 13 to 0, 13:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Aitias and RMHED

5) In December 2008, Aitias blocked RMHED for violation of the three-revert rule in response to an edit war over a CSD tag on Manning Marable.[16][17] The other editor involved in the edit war was not blocked by Aitias or any other administrator. The block was overturned on review, during which there was discussion of what steps might be most appropriate when a CSD tag was repeatedly reapplied. Following the unblock, Aitias did not withdraw, but continued to discuss the block on RMHED's user talk page.[18][19]

Passed 9 to 1, 13:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Aitias and RMHED (II)

6) In February 2009, RMHED was again blocked for edit-warring. Aitias participated in the ANI discussion of RMHED's actions, as well as removing derogatory comments from RMHED's talk page and commenting on RMHED's talk page, despite repeated requests to disengage.[20]

Passed 10 to 1, 13:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Remedies

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.

Aitias's suspension confirmed

1.1) Aitias's administrator privileges are suspended for a period of "time served," i.e. from the date he returned to editing until the close of this case. Aitias's adminship shall be restored with the closing of this case, subject to the other remedies contained in this decision.

Passed 10 to 3, 13:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Aitias admonished

2.1) Aitias is admonished for making inappropriate and unnecessarily sarcastic comments, and is warned to avoid such comments in the future.

Passed 13 to 0, 13:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Aitias restricted

3) Aitias is not to participate at Requests for rollback, including its talk page, for six months.

Passed 14 to 0, 13:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions

Log any block, restriction, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.