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: 18:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC).
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
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.
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.
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.
Not actually comments made by Aitias, but they are relevant.
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
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:
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:
Arbcom, please desysop Aitias.
Users who endorse this summary:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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.
Proceeded to ArbCom desysop motion.
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: 18:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC).
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
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.
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.
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.
Not actually comments made by Aitias, but they are relevant.
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
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:
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:
Arbcom, please desysop Aitias.
Users who endorse this summary:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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.
Proceeded to ArbCom desysop motion.