Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators may edit, for voting.

Motions and requests by the parties

Durova added to list of involved parties

1) Durova (talk · contribs) is added to the list of involved parties, due to her extensive experience with the admin in question, and the fact that her experience has a significant relation to the actions that are being brought into question.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed by

Equazcion • argue/improves • 20:41, 10/15/2007

Comment by others:

See Durova's statement here. (Confusion regarding User:Lid removed.) Picaroon (t) 22:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

This user is free to submit evidence and/or workshop proposals. Any user can notify her that the case is pending if she is not already aware. Formal addition of more users as parties to the case is not necessary. Newyorkbrad 22:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually my interaction with Alkivar has been quite limited. Durova^Charge! 07:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, considering the JB196 connection, I'm neutral with no objection. I certainly welcome scrutiny of my own actions, so if anyone wishes to provide evidence about my conduct then go ahead and add me. Durova^Charge! 00:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

G2bambino is added as a party

2) G2bambino (talk · contribs) is added to the list of involved parties, due to him/her being another recent victim of an inappropriate block by Alkivar.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

See [1]. Proposed by east.718 at 21:19, 10/15/2007

The user is free to submit evidence and/or workshop proposals. Any user can notify him that the case is pending if he is not already aware. Formal addition of the user as a party to the case is not necessary. Newyorkbrad 22:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little confused as to what constitutes a good reason to add someone as an involved party.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 17:50, 10/16/2007

A good reason to add someone as a named party is if there might be a finding that would include sanctions against them, or specific appolgy/identification of the user as "in good standing" by the arbitration hearing. --Rocksanddirt 23:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just slow, but I didn't understand that at all. Let me put it to you this way: I was unduly blocked by Alkivar. G2bambino was also unduly blocked by Alkivar. Why am I a party and he is not?

Equazcion • argue/improves • 18:46, 10/18/2007

But he is a party. Re-read the intro: "G2bambino is added to the list of involved parties". - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

He's not a party. That's just a proposed action. And I'm still confused. Or rather I think everyone else is.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 03:31, 10/20/2007

We only need to formally add a party if it 1) becomes likely that they will be specifically identified in a sanction or finding and 2) they are not already participating in the case discussion. It is courteous to notify someone about the case if they have not previously participated as soon as their name appears in the evidence or workshop. If those notices are given, adding parties is irrelevant. GRBerry 17:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Sysop tools

1) That Alkivar suspend the use of the sysop tools until this ArbCom case has been settled.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I don't believe this is necessary at the moment, although Alkivar should of course be aware that we will look very dimly on any incidents during the proceedings. Kirill 01:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed by nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 21:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I agree, since he is constantly engaging himself in more controversial actions. Actually, he is wheel warring against a broad consensus at ANI right now[2]. Melsaran (talk) 21:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Note - above user blocked as abusive sock -- Tawker 04:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Completely uninvolved, but I agree that any on a RfA should have admin rights temporarily suspended (depnding on outcome of said RfA). Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 21:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

You mean RfAr, right? But I digress, I completely agree with the above proposal. east.718 at 21:30, 10/15/2007

Concur with Melsaran. Given past history (and the recent incident of alleged wheel warring), I think there's too much potential for damage to the encyclopedia. (Via editors scared off, etc.) --Bfigura ^(talk) 21:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe this is necessary. While legitimate concerns have been raised, Alkivar has not had any chance to present evidence, and there is no showing of an emergency situation. The proposal is particularly problematic because of the length of time that, unfortunately, arbitration cases are currently taking. Alkivar would be well advised, however, to avoid any highly contentious administrator actions or any actions that could reasonably be perceived as wheel-warring for the foreseeable future. Newyorkbrad 21:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, for the simple reason that Alkivar may want to raise the defence that while his actions have previously been questionable, he has learnt from them and is able to use admin tools responsibly. Not having the tools would make this a matter of guesswork on both sides. Sam Blacketer 22:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I would also oppose, but it appears that Alkivar has already scared away one contributor; to me that would be an ever-present specter if Alkivar is permitted to have his tools for the duration of arbitration. east.718 at 22:06, 10/15/2007

Support due to the wheel warring despite his admin actions being called into question in an RfAR. No controversial actions (assuming he retains them) for the duration of the case is a negative defence, and as such cannot be relied on over such a short amount of time. Viridae^Talk 22:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree per NYB and Kirill. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 23:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Alkivar conduct on Evidence subpage

2) Despite posted instructions that a participant should refute evidence in their own section of evidence, and also despite being reverted, Alkivar has edited the evidence sections of other users to refute their claims. Alkivar is encouraged to create his own evidence section to argue against other editors' evidence, with assurances that it will be read by the ArbCom, and may be blocked briefly if he continues to edit other sections.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Milto LOL pia 19:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

With no opinion one way or another, I think it's relatively more common than one would think (it's happened in the last couple arbitrations I've been involved with). ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 23:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Administrators

1) Wikipedia administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Occasional lapses may be overlooked, but consistently poor judgment may result in desysopping.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, adapted from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey O. Gustafson. Melsaran (talk) 20:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Administrators expected to lead by example

2) Administrators are expected to lead by example. To a greater extent than other editors, administrators are expected to observe the principles of Wikiquette by behaving in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, adapted from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey O. Gustafson. Melsaran (talk) 20:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Administrative tools

3) Capabilities given only to administrators, such as page deletion, are not to be used for trivial, novel, experimental, or unexpected purposes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Vague, give something more specific please.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 22:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed, adapted from [3]. Melsaran (talk) 20:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• Too wide for me, as it stands. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose vehemently, if this is accepted as principle, we might as well delete WP:IAR. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 21:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• I find the exact opposite to be true, as the trivial, novel, and experimental use of the tools is often the best way to discover how to use them properly. I've blocked my sockpuppet AuburnPiIot (talk · contribs), reverted it, and I believe deleted/restored some of its userspace as a way to flesh out the "unexpected purposes". - auburnpilot talk 23:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

This principle didn't pass at the Jeffrey O. Gustafson arb (and was withdrawn). Without some serious revision, I doubt it will pass here.-Chunky Rice 23:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• This was very vague the last time it was used, and could be used to object to a lot of totally legitimate admin actions. And I still can't figure out how you do something for an "unexpected purpose". --W.marsh 00:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• I took the "unexpected purpose" to mean something along the lines of an "unintended consequence". Of course, I'm not sure how you would use something for an unintended consequence, but either way, it's too non-specific. - auburnpilot talk 01:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• It might be getting at something like "Don't use admin tools when you have no idea what effect it will have" but the wording is just hopelessly dense, I can't understand the resistance to just clearing it up. --W.marsh 01:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
• I was under the impression that unexpected purpose was reffering the community not expecting the admin tools in unusual ways - specifically JOG's use of the delete button to archive his talk page (or not archive it). Viridae^Talk 21:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, forget it, on second thought this is not really applicable to this case. Melsaran (talk) 10:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Admins are NOT drones - as a such, cannot be expected to act as drones. With wording as above, anything could be considered as "unexpected" - we would be better off using bots to preform all admin actions (something I do in fact oppose in the strongest possible terms) -- Tawker 04:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Use of admin tools in a dispute

4) It is inappropriate for an administrator to use their tools in a content dispute they are directly involved in or have strong feelings about.

4.1) Editors who use administrative tools in a dispute where they are involved, or in which they are likely to be significantly non-neutral, can expect their use to be subject to above-average scrutiny.

4.2) It is considered inappropriate for an administrator to use sysop powers as part of a content dispute to which they are a party. Furthermore, any use of sysop powers in a situation where the administrator using them may be percieved to be non-neutral can be expected to be heavily scrutinised.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Melsaran (talk) 20:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Strong feelings may well be correct feelings. This would be writing new rules. Moreschi ^Talk 20:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. If someone posts a message on your talk page saying "and I hope your dog gets shot", you are both involved and (hopefully) have strong feelings about the issue. But you are still free to block, in my opinion. Picaroon (t) 20:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Alkivar has repeatedly protected pages that others were adding pop culture sections to, which he feels strongly about, even though he didn't always edit the pages himself, hence the "or have strong feelings about". Not entirely sure this is the best wording, though. Melsaran (talk) 21:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it could be amended to say "...in a content dispute..."? -Chunky Rice 21:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I added that word for clarity. Melsaran (talk) 21:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• 4.1 proposed as modification. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  • "Subject to above-average scrunity" is not really a good wording, I think. It should be explicitly stated that using your admin tools to win a dispute is prohibited. Melsaran (talk) 21:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Two separate issues arise, then. A good draft is needed to combine them:

1. Use of tools by a party who has a stake or stance in a dispute is forbidden in many cases (particularly and notably, content disputes).
2. Even if permitted, use of tools by a party who is (or may be perceived) non-neutral can be expected in any case, to be scrutinized more than normal.

In a nutshell, neutrality should be visible; if there is significant prior "history" or a non-neutral stance involved, then probably the matter needs to be 1/ very clear and obvious, 2/ checked with others, or 3/ left to others to decide upon the action. It risks being seen as poor use of judgement to not visibly consider and allow for how ones actions might appear. The arbcom ruling in past cases has been that an activist agenda is incompatible with neutral editing, or the like. Or, if one can't be visibly neutral, then defer action to others. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• 4.2 proposed as modification 86.159.208.13 01:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Certainly correct in both parts, and too mild if anything. DGG (talk) 04:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Civility

5) Wikipedia users are expected to behave in a calm and mutally respective manner in their dealings with other users, and to remain civil. When disputes arise, users are expected to use dispute resolution procedures instead of resorting to personal attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, adapted from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RK 2 (slight wording tweak). Melsaran (talk) 20:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. Obvious. Durova^Charge! 07:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Acalamari 17:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Administrators are trusted community members

6) Administrators of Wikipedia are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia policies. (See Wikipedia:Administrators.)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. This and the next proposed principle were shamelessly stolen from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war. east.718 at 21:41, 10/15/2007

Administrators granted blocking power provided policy is followed

7) Administrators are Wikipedia users who on the basis of trustworthiness have been granted the power to execute certain commands which ordinary users cannot execute. This includes the power to block and unblock other users or IP addresses provided that the blocking policy is followed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. east.718 at 21:41, 10/15/2007

Wheel warring

8) Wheel warring (an administator reverting an administrative action by another administrator more than once, or two or more groups of administrators reverting each other's administrative actions repeatedly) without first attempting to resolve the dispute is unacceptable; see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes#Avoidance, "Do not simply revert changes in a dispute." Administators who wheel war may be desysopped.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. east.718 at 21:41, 10/15/2007

This definition of wheel warring is, in my opinion, out-of-date and not currently supported by consensus. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Workshop for the extended dialogue. A wheel war is acting to reinstate a previous administrator action (ie. block, unblock, block). Daniel 08:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I obviously need to read what I lift more closely, as I agree with you. Tweaked it a little, hope you're happy. east.718 at 09:39, 10/16/2007

Ugh. More wheel war. Firstly, a "wheel war" is a meaningless buzzword. I would much prefer a principle addressing the content of a wheel war without the catchy title - i.e. that Wikipedians should generally not reverts one another, except in cases of bad judgment on the editor's (or admin's) part, in the case of vandalism, etc. One or two reverts, even of an administrative action, should not constitute a wheel war. What should constitute a wheel war is, oh, say, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war/Evidence#Evidence presented by Thebainer or Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al. (So if you think by now that I am on some vendetta against wheel wars, I am not. I just think that the word is being used too liberally and is here misapplied.) --Iamunknown 12:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate blocking

9) Administrators should follow the blocking policy when blocking, barring a serious threat to Wikipedia. Specifically, "the purpose of blocking is prevention [of damage], not punishment."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, adapted from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Freestylefrappe. east.718 at 21:41, 10/15/2007

Could that be made more explicit? Perhaps to say that blocks should be used to prevent damage to Wikipedia, not as a punitive device? Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 21:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I've fleshed it out some more. Cheers! east.718 at 21:51, 10/15/2007

This user has inappropriatley blocked users before. In fact, he did so to me. Check my block log, and anyone can see how inappropriate it was. Wwefan980 21:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You should have been blocked indefinately. Accusing another user of being a pedophile (admins can see that edit summary here in the deleted revisions) in an edit summary is grounds for a block (typically indefinite). You also have an extremely long record of warnings and requests to stop your behavior on your talk page. Your 2 week block was more than justified.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 23:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Two weeks for incivility by an account that had no prior block history? The edit summary looks punitive, even vengeful. Please supply examples of comparable vigilance toward editors who don't frequent the topic of professional wrestling. Otherwise, given Alkivar's own problematic history, this looks like WP:KETTLE. Durova^Charge! 00:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

That's not why you blocked me though. You said it was over telling another user they should be blocked. Wwefan980 00:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Assume good faith

10) Editors are expected to be cooperative with other users and to assume good faith on the part of others in the lack of evidence to the contrary.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. east.718 at 21:41, 10/15/2007

Deletion of pages

11) Wikipedia's deletion policy, undeletion policy, and criteria for speedy deletion together provide policy and procedure for deletion and undeletion. Wikipedia administrators are expected to use the deletion and undeletion abilities granted to them in a fashion consistent with these policies. Administrators who wish to delete articles that are clearly outside the criteria for speedy deletion should list those articles at articles for deletion or proposed deletion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, adapted from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war. east.718 at 21:41, 10/15/2007

Administrators 2

12) Administrators of Wikipedia are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia policies. They are expected to pursue their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this: administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, consistently or egregiously poor judgement may result in removal (temporary or otherwise) of admin status.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Already proposed, see #Administrators above. I think this wording is better, though. Melsaran (talk) 22:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I also favor this over the version taken from the Jeffrey O. Gustafson arbitration. east.718 at 22:07, 10/15/2007

Endorse. I think this finds the right tone and balance. Durova^Charge! 07:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

This is correct. Acalamari 17:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Block notices

13) Block notices allow users to understand why they have been blocked. Except in extreme circumstances, administrators should leave an informative note on the talk page of user they have blocked fully explaining the reason that they have been blocked.

13.1) Block notices allow users to understand why they have been blocked. Administrators should leave an informative note on the talk page of user they have blocked fully explaining the reason that they have been blocked, except when blocking obvious vandals, trolls, and sockpuppets of banned users, and in extreme circumstances.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I do not leave block notices for users with blocks shorter than 1 month, I try to leave clear and descriptive block summaries instead, something they actually look at when blocked. When placing indefinate blocks, I do tend to leave the {{indefblockeduser}} template on their page, I do get lazy and miss a few, but you should find i'm at least 75-80% on leaving a template.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 22:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. See fof 6. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed 13.1 as an alternative, to clarify that while administrators may place block notices on the talk pages of vandals and other obviously disruptive accounts, they are not required to do so. John254 01:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Admins should always leave a block notice except in extreme circumstances - 13.1 suggests that they should only leave them in extreme circumstances. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I have restructured the sentence to remove the potential ambiguity. John254 02:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

"Admins should always leave a block notice except in extreme circumstances." I'm not sure where that's from? Is it policy somewhere (I can't find it in WP:BLOCK) or your own opinion? If the latter it seems unfair to criticise Alkivar for something I don't think there's a consensus on. If the block summary says everything the blocking admin thinks needs saying, I don't think duplication on the talkpage should be required - that seems rather bureaucratic, a bit like filling out forms in triplicate. The blocked user will see that full summary from the block whenever they try to edit. Though it is my practice always to leave a message on the talkpage, some of our best admins don't and I'm not convinced they should do. WjBscribe 16:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's not as clear as it should be, but from WP:BLOCK - "Administrators must supply a clear and specific block reason which indicates why a user was blocked. Block reasons should avoid the use of jargon as much as possible so that blocked users may better understand them. Administrators may also notify users when blocking them by leaving a message on their user talk page. It is often easier to explain the reason for a block at the time than it is to explain a block well after the fact." - I'm sure there was a previous arbitration case where there was a similar principle, I'll see if I can dig it out. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me that this reason could be conveyed as easily in a block summary as in a talkpage message. If the reason is complex, it may be too long for the summary, and should be on the talkpage. But "may also" is hardly saying the policy requires this... WjBscribe 17:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Disagree with 13.1. When blocking obvious vandals, use {{subst:vandalonly}}. When blocking sockpuppets of banned users, use {{subst:sockblock}}, etc. As Ryan said, admins should always leave a block message except in extreme circumstances, to explain to the user why they have been blocked. Melsaran (talk) 09:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Frequently, I won't leave one for a school block. The template {{schoolblock}} would confuse someone who comes by and sees it after the block has expired, so I just use the block message itself without leaving the template on the talk page. There is another beansy reason not to leave one in certain cases. If someone is being blocked other than for flagrant vandalism, a block message on the talk page is essential ... but if we're talking about a flagrant vandal, it really isn't anything that's a big deal either way. --B 19:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Block notices are also important because they let a user know how they can request to be unblocked. -Chunky Rice 22:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

That's on the block message you get if you are blocked ... in great detail. --B 22:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

My mistake. -Chunky Rice 22:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Kind of hard to write a finding over something that lacks a firm policy statement or explicit consensus discussion. If such can be found then I'll back this, otherwise this looks like reaching. Contrary to custom, perhaps, but I couldn't hold that against him formally. Durova^Charge! 07:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Not biting the newbies

14) Newcomers are always to be welcomed. Caution should be taken not to bite the newbies, and to assume good faith on their part.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Assumption of good faith only goes so far. AGF is not a suicide pact. I have absolutely no problem overlooking a first or second infraction for something, but when someone has received 6 or 7 sometimes as many as 50 or 60 notices from various people and bots about image policy violations in a 3-4 week period, its obvious they do not get it and AGF should rightly go out the window at that point. I regularly welcome newbies on IRC and assist them with their editing questions. I have done the same on my talk page when asked for assistance with things like wikitable code or how to make a prettier userpage, its in the history of my talk page (I don't really archive), feel free to read it.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 22:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed, seems applicable here. Melsaran (talk) 22:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

My only concern is the wording "Newcomers are always to be welcomed". Reminds me of the the perennial proposal for a WelcomeBot. Must we welcome vandals? Seems a bit broad, but the rest appears fairly straight forward. - auburnpilot talk 22:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Reminds me of statement #2 at User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles ;-) Melsaran (talk) 22:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I think welcomed in this sense means treated nicely and extended patience, not templated. Of course there is no necessity for every new user to have {{subst:welcome}} slapped on their talk page. Picaroon (t) 23:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

(←dent) If a new user uploads a number of images in an attempt to contribute, they'll probably get a large number of warnings from a bot (unless they get our copyright issues right on the first go). I imagine this could be intimidating / confusing. I don't think it's necessarily "obvious they do not get it". Now, if they persist after being warned by a human (or an explanation of what they're doing wrong), sure, no problem. But I don't think bot warnings are a reason to not AGF. --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. A few weeks after I started on Wiki, I got a load of bot notices which (at the time to me) were very confusing. Davnel03 15:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The indefinite block of User:Chiangkaishektwnroc without warning is particularly egregious. Thanks to our weak and confusing image upload wizard new users often upload a bunch of non-compliant images and learn only from being notified by the bots that there's something wrong. That's no reason to block, particularly if not a single human editor has warned, counseled, or helped them. These used to be sporadic but recently STBotI has been vigilantly patrolling newly uploaded images and running in batches; hence a new user who doesn't know better gets a large batch of notices all at once within a day of their first attempt to upload images without proper information. Now he tries to justify the block by saying it is okay to assume bad faith, claiming good faith is "not a suicide pact" (whatever that means), "only goes so far" and should "rightly go out the window". For what? Getting a string of bot-generated image notices? The user got two STBotI bot-generated fair use notices on October 7, which other users promptly corrected. Then on October 14 he/she all at once got 12 missing copyright tag notices and 13 missing use rationale notices from STBotI. Even experienced users get these notices from time to time - I just saw one on Betacommand's page. If Alkivar doesn't understand how that works he shouldn't be blocking users over it. It's illustrative of his overall lack of concern that he's blocking people without a full understanding of the situation, and during the pendency of this action no less, when one would hope he is on best behavior! Wikidemo 00:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a reference to "The Constitution is not a suicide pact". —Random832 15:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I caught that. But I'm not sure how it justifies anything except applying WP:RBI to obvious trolls. --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Too sweeping. Some newcomers actually are up to no good, and obviously so. Durova^Charge! 07:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep most newcomers are up to no good. Banners like this do not help. That is incredibly bitish. I really think it should be removed. Davnel03 21:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocking of e-mail

15) The newly implemented capability for a blocking administrator to disable the blocked user from sending Wikipedia e-mail should be used only when the user has seriously misused e-mail in the past or there is good reason to believe he or she is likely to do so in the future.
15.1) The newly implemented capability for a blocking administrator to disable the blocked user from sending Wikipedia e-mail should be used only where there is good reason to do so, such as when the user has seriously misused e-mail in the past, there is good reason to believe he or she is likely to do so in the future, or for the protection of the project or other users in extreme situations.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. While this is not the crux of the case, in at least two of Alkivar's recent disputed blocks, he checked the "block user from sending e-mail" function, although there is no evidence suggesting that the users had misused e-mail or were a threat to do so. The "disable e-mail" function was installed to address harassment or blatant trolling situations, and its use in connection with routine blocks should be discouraged. (If Alkivar relates that he checked the box by mistake, however, I will accept that.) Newyorkbrad 02:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

He claims that was a mistake. Viridae^Talk 02:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Noted, but some of the newer evidence suggests that this has happened several times before, so it still might be worth noting the principle. Newyorkbrad 02:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. If it's an accident, it's a frequent one. (There were a few of the indef blocked copyvio editors who had email cut off as well). Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 02:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting that Alkivar explicitly took me to task for having blocked Burntsauce's e-mail (which I admit was a mistake on my part and I've been more circumspect about that option since), yet he engages in the same thing himself. I disagree with the wording, though. Blocking of e-mail in certain extreme situations may be necessary to prevent trolling or ill-judged attempts by other Wikipedians to contact a very disturbed editor. Durova^Charge! 07:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

15.1 proposed as alternative per Durova's request to modify the wording; other suggestions welcome. Newyorkbrad 01:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It blocks contact TO the blockee as well? How interesting, I didn't know that. Milto LOL pia 01:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. No problems now. Durova^Charge! 00:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Protection of article pages

• 16.1) Ordinarily articles may be protected only to allow parties in an edit war to cool down, or to shield a page from persistent vandalism.
• 16.2) Administrators may protect pages only in the state they find them (except in cases of clear vandalism or certain legal issues).
• 16.3) Articles may not be protected to prevent addition of content an administrator disfavors, or to prevent removal of content an administrator favors, regardless of whether the administrator believes such content is in accordance with policies and guidelines (except for the limited purpose of stopping present, persistent vandalism or legal problems).
  • 16.3.1) Articles may not be protected to prevent good-faith edits to content an administrator (dis)favors, regardless of whether the administrator believes such content is appropriate (except because of present, persistent vandalism, legal problems or WP:BLP violations).
• 16.4) Administrators should not infer an edit war from a single bold addition or removal thereof, or from any other edits that follow or are likely to lead to a consensus resolution.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposing these to be clear on unwarranted blocking. #1 is implicit from and #2 is directly from WP:PROT. #3 follows from #2. #4 follows WP:CONSENSUS. Wikidemo 09:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

16.2 is too narrow, 16.4 is too subjective (what edits are likely to lead to a consensus resolution?), 16.1 is also too narrow (articles may be protected due to BLP issues, office actions, arbcom injunctions and whatnot), but 16.3 looks good. It's a little wordy though, so I proposed a more concise version at 16.3.1. Melsaran (talk) 10:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

With respect to 16.1 I used the word "ordinary" as a shorthand for that because I didn't want to quote the whole litany of purposes that clearly don't apply. The point is that the two reasons in WP:PROT that would remotely allow Alkivar to block the articles he did are edit wars and vandalism. It's clearly not vandalism. 16.2 is straight from WP:PROT - there are very few things that would allow an admin to change an article immediately before protecting it and none applied here. 16.4 is pretty important but maybe there's a better way to phrase it. When an article is going through consensus process, admins should allow consensus process to play out. In one case we had no contention at all - just bam, change and protect by alkivar. In the other there was one bold edit, one reversion, then bam. Protected because Alkivar didn't like the change. In addition to everything else he did wrong, he removed the articles from the consensus process. It's over application of admin tools, not just improper application. Wikidemo 10:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocking users

• 17.1) Edit war blocks should never be applied to editors for following the WP:CONSENSUS process, which allows bold edits and reversions *thereof for any reason.
• 17.2) Blocks should never be used to favor one side over the other in an edit wara content dispute.
• 17.3) Subject to WP:3RR it is the party/parties who re-add materialre-introduce a reverted edit without consensus, not those who revert to preserve the prior state of an article, who are initiating an edit war.
• 17.4) Policy violation blocks must be based on a direct, legitimate, consensus application of policy. If the community disagrees about what a policy means or whether a given action violates it, an editor may not be blocked for following in good faith one interpretation of policy or the other.
• 17.5) Where there is a legitimate, good faith disagreement as to whether given article content is allowed or prohibited by policy, users who add or remove it on policy grounds are engaged in a content dispute, not a behavioral violation. An editor who makes an edit specifically permitted by a stable or longstanding guideline may not be blocked based on a policy interpretation that would render the guideline invalid. "Policy trumps guideline" is not a valid reason for blocking a user in a content dispute.
• 17.6) Administrators should not unblock users blocked by other administrators without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator and discuss the matter with them (except in the case of an unambiguous error by the blocking administrator). When there is some ambiguity, the block should be discussed with other administrators before being removed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposing these. 17.1 and 17.2 follow from WP:CONSENSUS. 17.3 is from WP:BP. 17.4 and 17.5 are proposed interpretations of WP:BP. Wikidemo 09:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposing 17.6 (lifted from WP:BP#Unblocking, for the reasons outlined in my evidence section. --Bfigura ^(talk) 21:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

17.3 is dangerous because it speaks of re-adding material that was not in the original/consensus version of the article, when this case is about re-adding material that was in the original version that was deleted without consensus, and it is the re-deletion of the same that (if the phrasing weren't geared towards non-consensus additions, it would say) began the edit war. —Random832 14:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I've edited this to make it clear. I meant that people wanting to change consensus are the ones warring. Reverting articles to preserve consensus is not disruptive (subject to 3RR).

Use of admin tools in a dispute #2

• 18.1) Administrative tools may not be used to further the administrator's own position in a content dispute.
• 18.2) If an administrator is actively involved in an unresolved policy, guideline, or interpretation thereof, they are deemed "involved" in how it applies to the content of any given article, and should therefore recuse themselves from using administrative tools to favor their own position without regard to whether they have participated before in the article at hand.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposing these. 18.1 is similar to / derives from 4, 4.1 above. 18.2 is a proposed interpretation of conflicts of interest. Wikidemo 09:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I like 18.1, it is very short, clear and not open to multiple interpretations. Melsaran (talk) 10:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Communication

19) Due to the collaborative nature of Wikipedia, proper communication is extremely important, and all editors are expected to respond to messages intended for them in a timely manner and to constructively discuss controversial issues. This is especially true for administrators in regard to administrative actions. Such expected communication includes: giving appropriate (as guided by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines) warnings prior to, and notification messages following, their actions; using accurate and descriptive edit and administrative action summaries; and responding promptly and fully to all good-faith concerns raised about their administrative actions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Taken from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand as a replacement for "block notices". Ryan Postlethwaite 17:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Interpretation of WP:WRONG

20) The message of meta:The wrong version is NOT that admins are permitted to choose what version to protect (according to the protection policy, they are not), but rather that accusations that they have violated this rule are often made frivolously and should not (per WP:AGF) be made unless it is extremely clear that this is in fact the case (such as by a reversion by the admin immediately prior to, or after, the protection).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Though even if WP:WRONG did mean what he thinks it means, an essay doesn't trump policy. —Random832 01:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Investigations

21) When an account has been indefinitely blocked as the result of a sock/meatpuppet investigation, reviewing administrators are advised to consult the investigation before lifting the block instead of relying solely on checkuser results.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Durova^Charge! 23:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Positions of trust

22) Administrators are entrusted with certain tools for the good of Wikipedia and must not knowingly misuse them to advance the disruptive agenda of a sitebanned vandal.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Durova^Charge! 00:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Template

22) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Alkivar has misused admin tools

1) Alkivar has repeatedly misused his admin tools in disputes he is personally involved in, see evidence.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

In bullet point #1 provided by Melsaran in evidence I was asked on IRC to delete the original research made by TJ Spyke in his userspace, I was unaware at the time of its status on MFD. You will note on DRV, I explained I was unaware of the MFD, and agreed it should be undeleted. This was a simple mistake, and easily corrected.

In bullet points #2 and #3 at no point was I involved in the writing of content in said articles. As an impartial third party I undid what I saw was an incorrect reversion, and then protected the articles. If anything this is a claim of WP:WRONG.

See section below regarding Equazcion for my response to bullet point #4.

 ALKIVAR™ ☢ 21:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Melsaran (talk) 20:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell WP:WRONG does not apply here, really, because Alkivar reverted to the version he preferred and then protected it. When page protection is applied to stop an edit war, it should be applied to the page in the state that the admin finds it. The moment that you pick a preferred version to protect, you have stepped outside the bounds of appropriate use. -Chunky Rice 22:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Chunky Rice. With limited exceptions such as WP:BLP violations, the moment an admin feels serious temptation to revert to some previous version before protecting is the moment an admin ought to recuse himself or herself. Durova^Charge! 07:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Re-addition of unsourced material is in violation of WP:V and WP:RS I made no judgements regarding the content of the material readded, merely that it was unsourced and a trivia section. I have no problems with material in trivia sections if they are 1) validly and reliably sourced 2) written in paragraphical form instead of some crazy long half-assed bulleted list. Wikipedia manual of style and WP:TRIVIA comment that trivia should be integrated into the main body of text, and should be sourced.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 03:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a dodge. The edits Alkivar blocked Equazcion over are correct edits as per the WP:TRIVIA guideline, which is a consensus interpretation of various policies. It's unreasonable to block someone for following a guideline simply because one personally thinks the guideline is at odds with policy. Nor can one turn a content dispute into a behavior dispute by citing content policies. If that were the case administrators could block anyone doing edits they don't like simply by arguing that their preferred version is the most encyclopedic. Which is, essentially, what happened. Further, as I detail in the evidence section, many of the deleted popular culture sections were in fact sourced, relevant, not trivia, etc. Alkivar blocked Equazcion over the simple proposition that Alkivar did not want 150+ articles to include "popular culture" sections, and Equazcion believed that the summary deletions were unwarranted. Wikidemo 03:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The guidelines do not say to slash-and-burn trivia sections, they say to incorporate them into the text. Alkivar, as stated in his usual vulgar and uncivil way, obviously believes the slash-and-burn approach is just fine, regardless of policy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Note that one day after posting the above, Alkivar's stated reason for a two week block on an editor with no prior block history was that it was for incivility. Shall we propose a two week block on Alkivar for consistency's sake? Durova^Charge! 00:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

No. Newyorkbrad 00:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that does look POINTy. Alkivar, please refactor. Durova^Charge! 00:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Burntsauce

2) Burntsauce (talk · contribs · block log) was initially blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned editor. This block was overturned by Alkivar. Two months later, Burntsauce was blocked for consistently neglecting to use edit summaries when proposing articles for deletion, and Alkivar overturned the block again. He was reblocked after a debate at WP:ANI. Alkivar has a history of protecting pages Burntsauce is actively editing in favour of Burntsauce's version for reasons not justified by the protection policy, see statement by Lid.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Initially blocked as sockpuppet invalidly, checkuser data proved JB196 and Burntsauce to be using different IPs, from ISPs located in distant locations from one another. JB196 posted to Wikipedia Review that he was not Burntsauce, but did endorse Burntsauce's actions. As checkuser did prove them to be different I unblocked. I cannot recall which checkuser I asked for validation, but this occurred on IRC prior to or shortly after my unblock. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 21:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed (note that I split this off #Equazcion, as two separate proposals). Melsaran (talk) 21:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

"...was blocked for not using edit summaries when proposing articles for deletion" looks like a silly reason to block. I am not certain as to whether summary unblocking without discussion in a case like this is appropriate, but it doesn't look unreasonable either. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The situation that lead to the block, and the subsequent unblock can be read here: [4] –– Lid^(Talk) 09:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. It was clearly a more serious issue than I thought. I have updated the text to note the "consistent" lack of edit summaries with the PROD noms. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser cannot prove a negative; strong reasons existed to conclude that the account was a sock/meatpuppet, that a substantial portion of its edits mimicked JB196's particular disruptive methodology, and even that JB196 was in communication with Burntsauce. Other editors who examined that evidence were unanimous in agreement; Alkivar acted unilaterally without the evidence, ignored it when it was presented to him, and has consistently rebuffed all attempts to discuss the issue on its merits. Durova^Charge! 17:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• Burntsauce's edits are all very sockpuppet like in their frequency, and I find it incredibly convenient that Burntsauce has recently made a point of disagreeing with Alkivar on a few deletion pages, and has been completely uninvolved in this discussion...JJJ999 03:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • It's also telling that Alkivar took enough interest in Burntsauce's block to ask a checkuser to look into it, but didn't look at the actual evidence or discussion that had led to the block. I think this raises some serious questions. —Random832 19:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I requested the checkuser because the person he was claimed to be a sock of was shouting from the rooftops he had nothing to do with the account over on Wikipedia Review. As checkuser showed two entirely different ip ranges, and Burntsauce had made all his edits in compliance with policy (albeit he should have used edit summaries and been more descriptive of his actions) he really shouldn't have been blocked. For you to state "raises serious questions" makes me assume you are saying he is a sockpuppet of mine. This has been checked in the past, and proven to be untrue. To make false accusations against me here isnt exactly WP:AGF or WP:CIVIL of you.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
      • • Actually that banned editor had been praising Burntsauce's work on other websites, and within about an hour after the block that same banned user had overwritten the praise with a denial that it was him. That timing gives such a strong whiff of WP:MEAT that I'd fire up the grill and fetch barbecue sauce. Durova^Charge! 07:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Others have suggested it, I was referring to that suggestion (that you've taken an unusual interest in this user is undeniable). And, anyway I'm sure _lots_ of sockpuppeteers claim they're not, how does this case merit a checkuser request (and a private one, too, since if you'd gone to RFCU you'd have been shot down with "checkuser does not prove innocense"). Not to mention, the actual accusation seems to have been meatpuppetry, so a negative checkuser result means less than nothing. —Random832 01:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
        • I think you'll find I have NEVER used RFCU. RFCU is a completely borked and molasses-in-january-like slow process. Its much quicker to merely find one who's active on irc and ask them to look into things. So please don't think this was some private endeavor... by that idea, every single one of my checkuser requests is private, and i'd say a good 60% of checkusers done are private. As for "checkuser doesnt prove innocense"... its utter bullshit and very much anti-WP:AGF. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE A NEGATIVE. I can't without a doubt prove you are not banned user Willy-on-Wheels either... but if you edit from say ohio... and willy always uses IPs from zimbabwe... I think its pretty obvious your not the same person. If we stuck to "checkuser doesnt prove innocence" there wouldnt be any point to even having the feature, because hey... block and throw away the key would be the process every single time.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 03:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
          • Alkivar's casual lapses into vulgarity are further evidence that he lacks the temperament and civility to be an admin. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
          • Would you mind clarifying your statement [5]? Did you intend to imply that you feel that participation in RFC/U's is pointless, or that it's not the best way to go about a sock case? --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• (un-indent) Yes I do intend to imply that RFCU is pointless. It like many of the processes here at WP are severely flawed (RFA, AFD, DRV) and overloaded (RFCU, RFAr, Cleanup) they started out with the best of intentions and clear goals... and over time have become twisted and stretched so far beyond their initial tasks that they have lost any sense of purpose. When we have to remind people things are a !vote because voting is evil... yet its obvious to anyone unfamiliar with wikipedia that it is indeed a vote (i'm referring to RFA in this example) its like saying the moon is made of green cheese... completely inaccurate but believed by some. When we have to remind people that DRV is not a place to put forth "keep" or "delete" arguments (which sadly needs to be done about once every 5 minutes) it loses its value. there are many more arguments about how DRV is broken but they are immaterial here.
• RFCU the topic at hand has become quite slow and ineffectual for several reasons 1) not enough checkusers for the work 2) sockpuppeteers are too familiar with our methods for detecting them 3) the checkuser interface is so limited that it actually retards some of the necessary work to be done. See this example there is so much work involved in tracking down every single sock of this 1 user, that many more cases sit and wait hours, days, hell sometimes weeks before something actually gets done about them. Thats also not the only crazy entanglement of sockpuppets either. Checkusers like Raul are crying for features to make their job easier, and they will come eventually... I hope. But as it stands now, it still forces an admin to spend many hours of effort that could better be spent elsewhere, and the process is still broken. Do I think its broken beyond repair? Most likely. Do I think there is a better way to do this? Probably. Do I have a solution? No.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 06:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • In response to the "utter bullshit" comment, checkuser is not intended to prove innocence. It's meant to prove guilt. It catches the most obvious instances of sock puppetry, the ones where people are dumb enough to log onto multiple accounts from the same IP. Just because it may not catch the smarter puppeteers doesn't mean the alternative of "block everyone and throw away the key" is being suggested. Checkuser is useful but not foolproof or absolute enough to prove innocence.
    Equazcion • argue/improves • 06:27, 10/24/2007
    • Comment- After reading some of the comments here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Burntsauce I have come to the conclusion we should review or warn burntsauce too. He is little better than Alkivar, engaging in these edits goes without saying, but he has nothing but contempt for other editors it seems, and ArbCom generally. Remarks like "get your head checked, yo", and "I'm not interested" in whatever Arbcomm says about him are pretty concerning.JJJ999 23:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Alkivar, in regard to your contention that your checkuser is quite ineffectual, what would you propose to take its place? I did perform a careful sock/meatpuppet investigation, and I took the initiative of opening a thread for discussion and offering to share the evidence with any Wikipedian who doubted the decision to indef block Burntsauce. Yet it was you who relied on the checkuser and acted without even viewing the other evidence. I think my e-mail client would have sent an undeliverable message if, as you claimed at another website, you never received that evidence. Yet even when I sent it again it you refused to discuss the investigation. Checkuser cannot be both paramount and worthless, yet you've treated it as such. Durova^Charge! 15:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Equazcion

3) On 8 October 2007, Burntsauce removed sections related to popular culture from articles en masse. After a discussion, where the consensus was that these removals were inappropriate, Equazcion (talk · contribs · block log) subsequently reverted Burntsauce's edits, after which Alkivar blocked Equazcion indefinitely for "wikistalking". This constitutes an abuse of admin powers. The block was immediately overturned as out of policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Discussion on the WP:TRIVIA talk page occurred after several users had thanked burntsauce for his actions on his talk page, no one had made any statement to burntsauce regarding this as inappropriate until AFTER Equazcion had mass reverted.

WP:STALK defines wikistalking as "The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target" Equazcion's actions do fit that definition. E had reverted as vandalism the last 90 or so edits by Burntsauce, across multiple articles, with no prior discussion at any of them.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 21:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

That's selective quoting. WP:STALK also says "Wikistalking is the act of following another user around in order to harass them" (original emphasis). Equazcion was not trying to harass Burntsauce, he was restoring content that was removed inappropriately. In this case, Burntsauce was mass-removing pop culture sections in a manner directly against the relevant guideline (This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page.) because he personally dislikes pop culture sections. Equazcion rightfully restored these sections, since removing them without prior discussion, especially on such a massive scale, is disruptive (as pointed out in the subsequent debate at WT:TRIVIA). Melsaran (talk) 21:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Melsaran (talk) 21:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser does not "prove innocence". A sock-block based on WP:DUCK is not "invalid". Furthermore... the definition of "wikistalking" is not designed for cases where the supposed "victim" is making controversial changes en masse, and using it to apply to such a case is disingenuous at best. Answering mass changes with mass reverts does not meet a common-sense definition of wikistalking (whether it is edit warring depends on whether there was discussion, etc, but it's absolutely not wikistalking). Claiming that the lack of discussion at the individual articles is relevant amounts to sheer wikilawyering when you consider that there was (as far as I can recall - I haven't checked the timings yet) discussion ongoing in a central location. —Random832 21:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Alkivar's claims here are simply untrue. As a matter of timing, Burntsauce's first round of deletions were 21:46-22:54 October 8 [6]. Alkivar started this content battle before Burntsauce did, and was in the thick it by 00:30 October 9 [7]. Alkivar was warned four times by Baseball Bugs then brought up over it on the AN/I complaint at 12:52 October 9 that eventually ripened to this arbitration [8]. There were warnings and discussions about this on Burntsauce's talk page by 12:49 on October 9 [9]. Equazicon announced and got support for his plan to revert [10]. If you look at the history of WP:TRIVIA there was already a storm of discussion starting 13:08 October 9, with Equazicon participating, most running against the deletions and for reversion [11]. There were also discussions raging on many of the affected article talk pages, and about 20 of them had been reverted by various other people already. Equazcion's first round of reversions were not until 13:18 to 13:37 October 9 [12], after extensive discussion had taken place. Both Equazcion and I called for Burntsauce to be blocked [13] [14] [15]. This was all well before Alkivar blocked Equazcion at 17:05 October 9 [16]. Alkivar should have known and must have known what was going on because he was participating in it. As an admin Alkivar should have gotten his facts right before blocking a user in the first place. For him to repeat the misstatements now his defense, with all eyes on him, that Equazcion was wikistalking and that there was no prior discussion is utterly baffling.Wikidemo 14:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The only explanation I can think of is wikilawyering. He either genuinely believes, or thinks he can convince everyone else, that Equazcion's actions, on a technicality, constitute Wikistalking, and therefore everything done against him (reversion, protection, blocking) is justified. —Random832 17:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the guy just knows he is screwed, and if trying to use fury and determination as a way out. This guy has clearly abused his powers on a massive scale, and the sooner he is removed as an admin the better.JJJ999 03:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Alkivar has been incivil

4) Alkivar has repeatedly been incivil in log entries for administrative actions, see evidence.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Melsaran (talk) 21:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Davnel03 16:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. Durova^Charge! 17:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Alkivar has wheel-warred

5) Alkivar has engaged in wheel-warring despite being under the scrutiny of the Arbitration Committee. See evidence.

5.1)On 15 October 2007, Alkivar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked G2bambino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for a period of one week for uploading images without the correct sources[17]. G2bambino appealed the block on the grounds that he only received warnings from bots and he was acting in good faith [18], he was unblocked by AuburnPilot (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [19]. Six minutes after the unblock, Alkiver re-blocked G2bambino[20] without consulting anyone. This was strongly critisised at the incidents noticeboard leading to a consensus forming for G2bambino to be unblocked. The reblock by Alkivar constitutes a wheel war.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Unblock policy clearly states unblocks should not be made without discussion with blocking admin first. Auburnpilot made the unblock before even waiting for my response as to why I placed said block, entirely uninformed of the users past numerous warnings (I counted at least 7). I simply reblocked to put things back at status quo, as user had made 15 uploads prior to block in violation of copyright policy. One of our ideal goals with regard to copyright policy at wikipedia is "do no harm". To prevent further unsourced possibly copyrighted uploads I reblocked the user. After further discussion on IRC/ANI it was stated by all involved user appeared to grasp what he did was wrong and would not continue his previous behavior. To that effect, I believe the block not only was warranted but proved effectual in correcting unacceptable uploading.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 21:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

What you've just described is a wheel war action from yourself, it is not acceptable to re-apply one of your own administrative actions if it has already been overturned - especially without any discussion. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Alkivar, you obviously only took a cursory browse of my talk page history before jumping to conclusions about previous warnings regarding images and copyright; a deeper investigation would have revealed to you that those warnings were from bots, and I either satisfied the request or simply let the image be deleted as I couldn't find the missing information. I believe that, as it stands now, all images I uploaded prior to October 15 are in good order.

On October 15 I uploaded images that were 100+ years old, thereby putting them in the public domain. I applied the appropriate copyright tags for this; so one cannot say I had no concern for copyright. Where I went wrong was in the assumption that free images did not require the excess information fair-use images do, including sources. Bot notices saying the images were not compliant with Wikipedia copyright policy were dismissed because I thought my two public domain copyright tags on each image did satisfy Wikipedia copyright policy.

Your block eventually proved effectual in correcting my behaviour, but it was needlessly convoluted and caused much disturbance for myself and others. A simple message on my talk page about what I was doing wrong would have achived the same end without the undue stress. --G2bambino 01:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. east.718 at 21:45, 10/15/2007

Proposed 5.1. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I think 5 is better: it says "Alkivar has wheel warred", a finding of fact, and links to the Evidence page for details on the incident. There's no need to explain each incident in detail in an FoF, I think. Melsaran (talk) 13:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. One action, followed by a revert, followed by a re-revert is not a wheel war. It is, however, exceptionally poor judgement. --Iamunknown 03:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

If someone has one of there administrative actions overturned and they reapply it, then it is a wheel war. Ryan Postlethwaite 09:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Daniel 10:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't. And if it is strictly the definition of a "wheel war", it is a moot and pointless definition, and should be ignored. "Wheel war" is merely a buzzword with no actual meaning, quite like "attack site". Admins should not be restricted to zero reverts for fear of "wheel warring", just as admins should remain unrestricted in many regards. As I said, however, a more accurate description of the series of blocks is "exceptionally poor judgement"; which, provided there is a pattern of such events, is still grounds to desysop an admin. --Iamunknown 12:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, if one's admin actions are overturned and one restores them that is a "wheel war". It may not be the worst form but it is a wheel war nonetheless. There are 1000+ admins - if one's action was correct, one can trust that another admin will restore it. I don't see how 0RR for an admin is a bad thing - subject to the usual exceptions for vandalism. Obviously no admin should get in trouble for repeatedly unblocking Jimbo or restoring the mainpage if an admin account is hijacked for example. You don't need 3RR for an edit war, similarly you don't need 3RR for a wheel war. And I wouldn't say "wheel war" has no meaning, it is simply the admin equivalent of an edit war... WjBscribe 12:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Alkivar failed to issue a block notice

6) Alkivar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has failed to issue any block notice when blocking G2bambino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)[21], Tim Long (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)[22] and Chiangkaishektwnroc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)[23].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

With regards to JJJ999 below. Admins can see this deleted article text copyvio this deleted image history to see verification of image copyvio and as for readdition, the article Most Phallic building was deleted validly under CSD criteria, then its content was posted in a different article Phallus hence "recreation of deleted materials". My mistake, "copyvio, recreation of deleted materials, image copyvio" would have been more accurate.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It may be worth noting that this has happened on multiple occasions. Just on a cursory glance at the last couple weeks, I see similar occurances with Tim Long (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Chiangkaishektwnroc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). -Chunky Rice 22:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added the other 2 in as well. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Here are some others that have been blocked since the initial blocking of Equazcion that caused this arbitration:

• Chiangkaishektwnroc (talk · contribs)
• Mikeyxbikey (talk · contribs)
• Cranny07 (talk · contribs)
• Mino Algerie (talk · contribs)
• Ilgb06 (talk · contribs)

There are others before Equazcion, but would those be relevant? –– Lid^(Talk) 23:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

In addition to not leaving a block notice, as far as I can tell, these users were also not warned before being blocked other than a copyright notice bot message (which makes no mention of blocking). -Chunky Rice 23:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

That seems to be the case. I've also listed some others on the Evidence page. --Bfigura ^(talk) 21:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Alkivar's block summary was descriptive. Given that the blocked user will see that block reason whenever they try to edit a page, I'm not sure there's much point in demanding that the message be duplicated on the talkpage. WjBscribe 16:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Alkiver also blocked me for 2 weeks for supposedly placing one copyvio, gave false reasons for the block, provided no warning, and unsurprisingly it was quickly overturned (it was the first and only image I had ever uploaded). Alkivar's name does not appear in my userpage history, and that can't be right because he blocked me and there was a notice there, has he used admin tools to hide it somehow? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JJJ999JJJ999 03:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

No. If you go to your contributions page, at the top you will see a link for "block log." Click there, and a list will appear including Alkivar's block of you and the later unblock. Newyorkbrad 03:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• • Ooops- didn't know it was there. anyway, was clearly a nonsensical block.JJJ999 03:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Additional criticism- I would like to add though, that his one line reason for blocking was a tissue of lies, which even he must have known. He wrote "Repeated violations of Wikimedia copyright policy: copyvio, recreation of deleted content, reupload of copyvio". Now, given exactly one image had ever been uploaded by me, and I was in the process of discussing on the deletion discussion of images why I thought in good faith this was not covered under copyvio, he must have known this was a lie. Additionally, this image was never "reloaded" nor was deleted content "recreated", unless recreated means me posting quite openly on the deletion board that his original argument for deletion (not in use anymore) was false, because I had since used the same image on another page (subject to the consensus on the deletion of image discussion). Someone who chronically lies like this to justify a block should be removed...JJJ999 03:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

This, and Alivar's rebuttal above, is a good example of how a lack of discussion with editors prior to blocking them can lead to additional problems. If Alkivar had explained the problem to JJJ999 then there may not have been any need for a block in the first instance. Even if he had blocked, at least JJJ999 would have understood why. There is not point blocking anyone if the reason for the block is unclear to them, as when they are permitted to edit again, they may simply make the same mistakes. Rockpocket 01:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Alkivar's reply is just not true. The essay is arguably in the public sphere, and no effort to discuss this. It may still be in public sphere, and it may be possible to obtain evidence of this (though I stopped bothering after the fuss Alkivar made). The image simply had not been deleted, as the record will show I never reloaded it onto wiki, it was simply that the article it was in was deleted. When Pete.Hurd argued it should go because it was orphaned, I said it was still in use, because I had used it for another article. Alkivar was not involved in this discussion at all, though he must have read it to know as much. As I note, zero warning. I still contend this essays text is in the public domain. It was just not discussed before Alkivar trashed it.JJJ999 04:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Please refactor that heading into something more genteel. Durova^Charge! 17:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Thank you. Durova^Charge! 14:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand#Communication suggests that administrators should leave block notices on talk pages after they have blocked users. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Good point. Durova^Charge! 14:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Alkivar has blocked without warning

7) Alkivar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has repeatedly blocked good-faith users without any warning beforehand, and without issuing a block notice. See evidence.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed as an alternative to FoF #6. Melsaran (talk) 09:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I've listed several other cases in my Evidence section. --Bfigura ^(talk) 16:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Alkivar has deleted images inappropriately

8) Alkivar has repeatedly deleted images that had no source or licensing information upon sight, without warning the uploader and without taking the taking the seven-day (CSD I4) or two-day (CSD I7) waiting time into account.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

With regard to specific image Image:SMS0392 RM5 Back S.jpg mentioned below as well as the other Malaysian currency pictures deleted: Images which have remained unsourced since 2005 are extremely unlikely to be sourceable 2 full years later. These images were in violation of wikimedia image policy (2 were uploaded to commons as PD-self, based on invalid license assertions in the EN image page), and in need of deletion. Nothing is stopping anyone from requesting undeletion should sources be provided (extremely unlikely as user who uploaded them is no longer a contributor). Deletion of these also makes it more likely someone will come by and replace it with a fully sourced image as "something good enough" there is a strong demotivating factor for a valid replacement.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 21:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Melsaran (talk) 14:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Evidence? In any event, the purpose of the waiting period is so that a pro forma issue can be fixed. In other words, if the user forgot to select a tag, give the source, or write a rationale, they have time to fix it. The purpose of the delay is NOT to allow a copyvio image to sit around for a week. If an image is clearly a copyright violation, it can and should be deleted on sight (G12) - there's no reason to waste everyone's time with it. I briefly scanned the /Evidence page and didn't see any examples of these deletions there, so it needs to be clarified whether the images were actually copyright violations or not. --B 14:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I based this on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar#Statement by uninvolved AuburnPilot and things I saw in his logs (this, for example, was deleting an image without a fair use rationale within four days without notifying the user, [24] (deleting an image three minutes after it was uploaded and blocking the uploader without a single human warning beforehand), etc), but I'm not that experienced with image issues, so I'm not sure about how to correctly describe this on the evidence page. Melsaran (talk) 14:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

With respect to Image:Yulia-tatu-elena-lena.jpg, the image was deleted by ElinorD. It was reuploaded 12 hours later, given a false copyright tag, and a rationale that does not meet our policies. The deletion was 100% appropriate. Image:RHS gates and gym.jpg was almost certainly downloaded from the website of Angelo Rodriguez High School‎. He should have had a chit chat with the uploader about it - and it was definitely wrong not to - but there was nothing wrong with the deletion itself. Flagrant copyvios may be deleted on sight. --B 14:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

That may be, I'm not sure on this since I have very little understanding of image licensing and tend to stay away from it. I based this primarily on AuburnPilot's statement. Melsaran (talk) 14:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Try Alkivar's deletion logs. Most, if not all, deletions he made on 15 October 2007 fall into the description by Melsaran. Some images, such as Image:SMS0392 RM5 Back S.jpg, were deleted without discussion, without notification, and without any tag being applied that would alert other editors to the problem. - auburnpilot talk 14:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this deletion was inappropriate. If sourced, it would be fine as no copyright occurs when you scan a 2d object. He should have tagged it with {{subst:nsd}} and let nature take its course. --B 14:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar/Evidence#Evidence presented by Erik. Melsaran (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

These are two separate issues. Removing disputed images from an article and blowing them away without discussion is bad (with the narrow exception of galleries of non-free images, which should be removed on sight). The finding should be reworded to make it clear that he deleted "disputed" images inappropriately as opposed to deleting unsourced copyvios. Deleting unsourced copyvios is a good thing. --B 15:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Alkivar has used admin tools to "bully" other editors

9) Alkivar has used admin tools to "gain the upper hand" in situations and to bully other editors - but also blocking good-faith editors without a proper consensus to.

9.1) Alkivar has used admin tools to "gain the upper hand" in situations, bully good faith editors, and support his personal non-consensus position in a content dispute.

9.1(a) The question of whether "popular culture" sections belong in articles, including the matter of whether they should be deleted, preserved, or reverted if deleted, is a content matter on which the Committee takes no position. However, as a content matter, using administrative tools to favor one version or the other is improper.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Davnel03 16:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You do not need a consensus to block a user. If administrators had to go and ask and wait for a consensus before we blocked good-faith users, we'd get nothing done. Oppose as presently worded. Blocking against consensus is different to blocking without consensus - the reason why people oppose for judgement concerns at RfA is because administrators act unilaterally on 90% of occasions when blocking. Daniel 07:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

When there is not a general consensus that a particular type of behavior is grounds for blocking, I would say that a block can be described as "blocking without a proper consensus", and that such actions should at least be taken carefully, if at all. —Random832 15:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm suggesting 9.1, a revised version, in light of the above discussion. The content dispute to which I refer is his support for deleting popular culture sections, so I've added 9.1(a) to address that.Wikidemo 20:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Alkivar inadequate understanding of policy

10) Alkivar believes that reversing an administrative action once constitutes wheel warring, and that restoring it does not. He also thinks that an admin is free to revert to what he considers the right version of a page before protecting it. He thinks that a block based on sockpuppetry is automatically invalid if the claim is not supported by Checkuser data. He thinks that reverting mass changes qualifies as wikistalking.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. I think he honestly believes all of the above, based on his words in this case, and could possibly be a better admin if these misconceptions are corrected. —Random832 17:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think any good can come from this. We need to focus on the inappropriate actions, not on the person. This would be like having a finding of fact "user:xyz is stupid and ugly". --B 18:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I actually intended this as a mitigating factor, not an accusation. —Random832 18:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah ... I can see that I obviously don't question your intentions - I know you don't intend it to be insulting. I just think that if this were said about me, I probably wouldn't appreciate it. --B 18:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Alkivar speedy deleted pages outside policy

11) On at least two occasions, Alkivar unilaterally and inappropriately deleted pages with either no, or spurious, justification in WP:CSD.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, based on the evidence provided my Melseran and myself. Rockpocket 18:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean outside of policy? Or without? (It's somewhat ambiguous, so I wasn't sure which wording you were going for). Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 18:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I meant outwith, but was not aware common usage of the word was regionally restricted. Sorry. Rockpocket 21:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I just learned a new word :) --Bfigura ^(talk) 16:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

In with the old, outwith the new. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I've updated to "outside", of which "outwith" is an archaic form that means the same thing. Neil ☎ 12:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Burntsauce and JB196

12) Burntsauce is a meatpuppet and a sockpuppet (in all likelihood the sock of a banned editor), who has been advancing the disruptive agenda of the community banned vandal JB196.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Durova^Charge! 23:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Durova emailed evidence of this to the committee, so there is nothing onwiki to link to. Picaroon (t) 23:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately. I am willing to share evidence privately with trusted editors upon request. Durova^Charge! 23:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Not related. Davnel03 21:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

How did Mackensen's "likely" translate to "unrelated"? Picaroon (t) 00:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Eyrian's accounts

13) Eyrian has used at least one alternate account disruptively and has assumed bad faith.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Dannycali, RobJ1981, and JB196

14) Dannycali and RobJ1981 are proxy editing for JB196 and assuming bad faith.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the presented evidence supports this. There's only one wrestling AFD that Dannycali participated in and there's nothing linking RobJ to JB196.--chaser - t 20:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Template

15) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed 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.

Alkivar desysopped

1) For consistent poor judgement in performing administrative actions, Alkivar's sysop privileges are to be revoked. He may reapply at any time through the usual means or by appeal to the Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I agree. He's not fit to be an admin. Questionable if he's even fit to be a common editor. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I know this is arbitration, but can we watch the attacks and discuss the matter at hand? That would be better then disparaging Alkivar. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 02:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

His actions demonstrate that he is not fit to be an admin, etc. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree. At the very least, Alkivar has shown repeatedly that he is not especially objective, or cool-headed in the face of conflict, which are the very qualities admins need to possess above all others. In his lack of objectivity and cool-headedness he has also repeatedly used his admin powers to affect the outcomes of said conflicts. On a very fundamental level, this is the opposite of what an admin should be.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 02:46, 10/16/2007

Comment by others:

Proposed. Melsaran (talk) 22:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It would be appropriate to allow Alkivar time to present his evidence and any statement before forming the view that he should be desysopped. I'm not impressed at first blush with some of his actions and comments either, but he's a dedicated admin and is at least entitled to have his position heard before people form judgments. Newyorkbrad 03:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

So far he has also demonstrated nearly total indifference to any criticism in general and to this process in particular. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree. He's used admin tools to simply get his own way. Davnel03 16:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree. There isn't just the occassional misuse or mistake here. There's a long term pattern of intentional misuse and abuse of tools. He's also very unresponsive to critique and change. Support de-sysop. Rlevse 16:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

agree- this guy has to go, I'd review burntsauce too. He has nothing but contempt for process, has a short temper and has a proven record of repeated and unrepentant abuse.JJJ999 04:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Disagree per NYB. Alkivar is a dedicated admin and I believe he does more good than harm. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 18:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I posted my comments urging that people hold off on making judgments until the evidence was submitted, because much of the evidence wasn't written up yet and in particular Alkivar hadn't made a submission. The arbitrators will evaluate everything once the evidence is submitted (I believe people are pretty much done now, but I could be wrong about that). Newyorkbrad 18:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

comment- Alkivar has said he will not even bother to submit an evidence page, merely offer sniping, brief remarks here to some of the accusations, with the same irritable, unrepentant tone he always has, so while I understand he should be allowed to present a defence, he seems to have made it clear he has no interest in doing so.JJJ999 20:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Even if the good outweighs the bad in aggregate, it's not an excuse to abuse the tools. If I used this argument in court I'd be laughed out ("your honor, I admit I robbed the jewelry store, but I give twice that to charity every year!") - Merzbow 21:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Concur wholeheartedly (as an uninvolved party). The sneering refusal to even acknowledge ArbCom's authority here is the final nail in the coffin, as far as I'm concerned. He either doesn't realize or doesn't care; I assure you, he will soon. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 02:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Where the hell are you coming from? I have never once refused to accept arbcom's authority. I stated I would not bother spending hours of my time writing up responses for a zillion random diffs until said time that it was in fact an accepted case. Look above, i've responded to NUMEROUS points... does that really look like someone refusing to work with the process to you?  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 03:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. Serious pattern of problems over many months. Stonewalls in response to feedback. Perhaps a good content editor, but many good content editors aren't right for the tools. Adminship is no big deal at a site that grants every editor powers that most websites would reserve for sysops (imagine if The New York Times allowed readers to edit its articles). Durova^Charge! 08:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Adminship suspended

2) Alkivar's adminship is suspended for a period of 30 days.

2.1) Alkivar's adminship is suspended for a period of 6 months.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Yes, 6 months at least, leaving room for the possibility of reform. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed as an alternative to #Alkivar desysopped, adapted from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey O. Gustafson. Melsaran (talk) 22:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed 2.1. Viridae^Talk 22:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrators are unlikely to support a long suspension; it's unprecedented, and I don't think this case would bring about it. Depending on the evidence, the likely remedy would be no remedy, a strong warning, a 10-30 day suspension, or complete removal, with the option for the Committee to restore his adminship, or restoration through RFA. Ral315 » 22:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I don't see how a suspension changes anything. His lapses have spanned a long period and cover varied but fundamental matters of adminship. If he has not learned anything from prior notices, sanctions, and complaints, and his utterly unrepentant and resistant to process, I don't see how time off sould solve anything. Wikidemo 13:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and would prefer the indefinite desysopping. I do not think that the community consensus supports having Alkivar as an admin at this time. If he thinks he does have that trust of the community, then he can reapply through RFA at all times. Melsaran (talk) 13:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• • I agree, temporary suspension will not make a difference for such a habitual abuser of admin powers. He should go permanently and earn the right to readmission...JJJ999 03:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Suspension Works. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 19:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes it works; if Mr. Gustafson reports that it changed his attitude or behavior, I certainly believe him, although one would hope that less draconial measures would normally suffice to achieve the same result. Other times, though, a long arbitration case culminating in suspension of adminship leads to an admin leaving the project altogether; certainly we haven't seen much of InShaneee lately. One would hope that desysopping suspension of adminship would only be considered where no lesser sanction is likely to be effective; it is regrettable that matters have come to the point that many editors believe this is such a case. Newyorkbrad 00:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure there are many people who could testify that suspension was effective for them, but that's not the point. Saying "Suspension works" doesn't really say very much. Suspension works in order to accomplish what? For who? What did you do to warrant a suspension in the first place? I don't know what Gustafson did, but the general feeling is that Alkivar didn't just do something -- rather, he demonstrated a fundamental lack of administrative ability. Suspension might work to send the message that a particular action was seriously unwarranted, but it can't change a person's fundamental outlook on his position.

Alkivar has the following links posted under the heading "Food for Thought" on his talk page: Why Wikipedia Must Jettison Its Anti-Elitism by Larry Sanger, which is a dissertation on why Wikipedia's open philosophy is detrimental in the end, and User:Alkivar/Rant, which is basically the same point rehashed in Alkivar's own words. It seems that Alkivar would like it a lot better if Wikipedia had some unquestionable central authority behind it, rather than being quite as collective as it is.

These opinions are fine to have. I'm all for the free expression of ideas. However, Alkivar's actions as an admin seem to fall in line with these opinions, so that they've ceased to be hypothetical ideas. He not only wants there to be an unquestionable central authority watching over articles, but he sees himself as that authority, a right he sees as bestowed upon him by adminship. This is not a case of a person who needs to be taught a lesson. This is a case of someone who's simply wrong for the job.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 01:28, 10/24/2007

Clearly you didn't bother to actually look at User:Alkivar/Rant because you'd see it was not written by me and it is attributed. It was in fact written by User:Jscott a person who's insight into wikipedia through various writings and speeches I consider thought-provoking. These posts are listed to make people think, not because I particularly think they are 100% accurate. I notice you leave out the fact that I link to 2 comments by Jimbo as well. Please if you are going to try to express what my viewpoint is, ask me for it, dont assume.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 03:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• I don't even think it matters if he wrote it... the fact he posts this stuff on his user page tells you alot about him, and only confirms that suspending him is a useless half measure, because he's admitted he will come back the same as ever. Look how far we are into this, and despite the number of accusations and the increasing obviousness that he will lose his adminship, he can't bring himself to offer even pretend concessions, or admit he might have to reform his behaviour a bit. though no doubt he will reply to this with something like "I haven't said that", which would be true in the literal sense, but it's the absence of stuff he has said that really is the clincher of even remote doubt.JJJ999 05:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah I was gonna say that, you beat me to it. It doesn't matter who wrote it; he has it posted, and seems to agree with it, as his actions demonstrate. Notice that he also didn't even correct me; he just said I was wrong about what he thinks and didn't tell us what he actually does think. And why is this one of the only things he's responded to? There have been much more serious accusations here that he hasn't responded to, things that matter a lot more than me trying to get inside his head. If he were an active participant in this arbitration, taking responsibility for his actions, and not just sniping at the odd comment here and there, I would say a suspension might do the job. But if he doesn't even respond to this process, what makes you think he'll respond to anything else -- and noting his conspicuous absence here, why does he even deserve that leniency?
    Equazcion • argue/improves • 05:57, 10/24/2007
    • The imperious tone of that rebuttal says more than the essay itself. Durova^Charge! 15:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd be extremely reluctant to see anyone desysopped because of expressed opinions about WP. The reason for desysop in this case is rather the pattern of actions--over a long period of time, over many issues-- and the failure to modify them after the RfC. It will not prevent him from every becoming an admin again, but he he would have to re-apply, and be judged by the community on the basis of what he will have subsequently been doing as an editor. I think after what's been presented here it would send the wrong message to merely have a suspension. I'd seen the rudeness from time to time, but i never realized how extensive and consistent it was. We need to demonstrate that when a mistake is made in giving adminship, it can be corrected. DGG (talk) 22:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Well stated, and of course I agree. The issue here is more subtle than desysopping because of opinions about WP: it's about whether mitigating circumstances justify any of the several lesser remedies that have been proposed here. The pattern of abuse is so extensive that remorse is probably irrelevant, but even if it were relevant Alkivar's posts express the opposite sentiment. Durova^Charge! 23:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Alkivar placed on civility parole

3) Alkivar is placed on standard civility parole for one year. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, then he may be blocked for a short time of up to one week. After five such blocks, the maximum block time is increased to one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Unlikely to be effective. He has shown very little interest in communicating nor in this process. People don't change unless they have a reason to. Give him a reason to change. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed, adapted from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Karmafist. Melsaran (talk) 22:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe Alkivar has been incivil enough to warrent civility parole, the problem here is with his admin actions. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

He hasn't really been incivil with regards to individual editors (he hasn't made any personal attacks), but he has been incivil in log summaries, is uncommunicative, needlessly WP:BITEy, etc. You have a valid point, though, when saying that a civility parole wouldn't be really effective. Proposed #4. Melsaran (talk) 22:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there a broader-based adminship probation or mentorship option where we can pair him up with a more seasoned / less controversial admin or group of admins who will watch over him, counsel him, then re-evalute at the end of the period to either lift the probation, continue it, or revoke adminship? That's ideal if we have the process and people are willing to make the effort. I think he wants to be a good admin but he has to learn to do so. Guidance would be effective in my opinion than a hair-trigger system of short suspensions based on minor violations. Wikidemo 13:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. He's already had plenty of chances. Rlevse 16:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Disagree, if this is an alternative to desysopping. He repels feedback, and editors who require mentorship aren't the ones who ought to have the tools. Durova^Charge! 08:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Alkivar reminded

4) Alkivar is reminded to be more civil towards other editors and to be communicative in explaining his actions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Unlikely to be effective. He has shown very little interest in communicating nor in this process. People don't change unless they have a reason to. Give him a reason to change. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Melsaran (talk) 22:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Users have tried to communicate with him in the past - but failed. Davnel03 16:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Communication

5) Alkivar is required to answer good-faith concerns brought up on his talk page before removing the comments.
5b) Alkivar is required to give a satisfactory response to any good-faith concerns brought up on his talk page. If the user who brought up the concern considers a response unsatisfactory after two attempts (i.e. informing him the first response was unsatisfactory and giving another chance), they may begin a discussion on Wikipedia:Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents, notifying Alkivar of this discussion, and if a consensus forms that the response was dismissive or otherwise an inadequate explanation of his actions, he may be blocked for 31 hours. After this happens five times regarding administrative actions, this case will be reopened.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Unlikely to be effective. He has shown very little interest in communicating nor in this process. People don't change unless they have a reason to. Give him a reason to change. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

proposed: alternative to desysopping, on the uncommunicativeness issue. Yes, this isn't something normally required of editors - but neither are 1RR, various paroles/probations/bans, etc, that we see all the time in arbcom cases; that's why it's in the remedy section. —Random832 13:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Adopting this as a formal remedy won't work, I think. It can hardly be enforced, because Alkivar could just say "OK" and remove the comment without actually listening to it. I'd prefer a reminder (as at #Alkivar reminded). Melsaran (talk) 13:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)`

Proposed 5b, with more specifics and some teeth. —Random832 17:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Will 5b) not be punitive, after the time it takes for 'consensus' to be formed? Daniel 09:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Only by the logic that all blocks are punitive because they happen after the action that earned the block. It's a deterrent. It's preventative because it'll make him think twice before doing it again. —Random832 14:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Alkivar placed on Wheel War parole

6) If Alkivar reinstates any administrative action of his that is undone, he may be blocked for one week. If this happens five times, or if he unblocks himself, he will be desysopped.
6.1) Alkivar is on administrative 0RR. He may not undo any block/unblock or deletion/undeletion of any other administrator within 24 hours of the original action. If he violates this, he may be desysopped.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed —Random832 17:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Five times??? I don't think it should go that far. 6.1 proposed, though I support an outright desysopping, so this should be moot anyway. --B 18:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Wheel war parole? Durova^Charge! 08:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll be more succint: ? east.718 at 09:37, 10/23/2007

It's modeled after the "civility parole" etc that we often see in other cases. The idea is "he needs to not do it again, and if he does do it again there will be severe consequences" (it might seem light, but my perspective is that if he in fact fails to get the point, he will most likely unblock himself anyway, and get desysopped) —Random832 15:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Wheel war parole as a concept is problematic. The standard response has been to desysop and wait for an editor to regain the community's trust. If an innovative solution is to be tried here, I'd like to see some particular reason for deviating from precedent. I doubt it would be a good thing, since the measure could be construed as a message that wheel warring isn't such a serious thing. I was very circumspect to avoid a wheel war with Alkivar - or even treading into any gray area in that regard. Anything other than a very firm and clear response in this case would be like a slap in the face to sysops who back away after being brushed off and insulted and who wait for the normal dispute resolution process to run its course. Durova^Charge! 17:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Suspension and review

7) Alkivar's adminship is suspended for a period of 3 months, and will be restored after that time. Two months after his resysopping, his admin actions actions and overall behavior will be reviewed, and the Arbitration Committee can decide whether to allow him to remain an administrator, or to desysop him permanently. If the committe allows him to keep his status, and he resumes old behavior, the case will be re-opened; if desysopped, Alkivar will have to re-apply for adminship via the usual means, or by applying to the committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. I got the idea for this remedy by reading Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-09-11/Carnildo resysopped, where it mentions that Carnildo would be re-evaluated two months after his resysopping. Acalamari 18:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't support this I'm affraid, Alkivar is either trusted with the tools or he isn't. A brief suspension may give him time to think about his actions, but 3 months is far too long. Leaving it upto the committee to decide whether he is resysopped after the 3 month period is asking for trouble and will no doubt lead to a trainwreck on AN/I whatever they decideded. That said, maybe a 30 day suspension, would be in order as proposed up above. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment- Stuff to remember- Alkivar took 3 applications for Admin before he was successful, and the reasons for failure are very similar to the reasons he faces sysop now. This is over a period of 2-3 years mind you. Now, in light of this, I think it sends a terrible message to merely suspend him. He really does need to win back community support to have credibility, especially as it is arguable that he should have been made an Admin originally. If he hasn't changed post mod status, indeed the evidence suggests he has gotten more offensive, then I don't see why he should be entitled to a suspension. The guy won't even apologise for obvious violations, that tells you alot right there.JJJ999 22:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree with JJJ999, who summarizes the situation very well. Durova^Charge! 14:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • This is a good option to consider. As strongly as I feel about the impropriety of his actions, and as skeptical as I am that he will change, he has never yet been formally required to clean up his ways. Perhaps he will if we make it official. He still wants to be an admin, we need admins, and if people are willing to make the effort to monitor a suspension and probation like this, I don't see the harm in giving it one last chance. Wikidemo 15:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment There was an RfC (here) in July. Alkivar declined to respond there, so he has had at least some signal that there was an issue. (I'm not really familiar with that RfC's case, but per Newyorkbrad's comments on that RfC, it may not have been the most productive RfC ever filed). Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 16:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Burntsauce banned

8) Burntsauce is banned as a meatpuppet of JB196.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Durova^Charge! 15:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Evidence submitted off-wiki, with more available upon request. I am willing to provide the essentials to trusted Wikipedians, but due to JB196's history as one of the most site's most notorious and prolific sockpuppeteers I won't be posting details. Durova^Charge! 15:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I would support this proposal, but based on the actions that led to this thread. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to submit that as evidence please provide details at the evidence page. Durova^Charge! 00:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Durova, please forgive my ignorance with Requests for arbitration, but where would the evidence page be? Also, regarding the possibility of meat- or sockpuppetry, you may also wish to consider these edits. The very first edit of which states in the edit summary "I agree with Burntsauce" and the fourth of which states "Burntsauce is correct"; indeed, practically all of the handful of edits by this new account are anti-in popular culture material either along the lines of those edits that occurred earlier this month or in direct defense of them. Again, I apoligize for not knowing where would be the proper place to mention these, but I thought they may interest you in any event. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I too don't know exactly where we should talk about this if we have comments beyond the evidence. I checked these new edits out and reverted four of them. The other sections he just deleted had only material that I don't see any use for in Wikipedia, so I let them stand. Despite the fact that I reviewed them carefully, restored selectively, and left edit summaries describing my reversion, he reverted them all back with uncivil accusations that I was stalking, don't know what I'm doing, etc. For a brand new account, this user certainly seems to have a chip on his shoulder and know his way around Wikipedia. I've restored a second time and left a civility and contentious editing warning on his talk page, but having been blocked over this I'm too shell-shocked to risk getting involved more than that. Such is the chilling effect of partisan administrators and improper user blocks. Wikidemo 04:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeffed as a sockpuppet of JB196. It's late at night; would someone take care of the usual templates? Durova^Charge! 05:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Please provide a link to evidence supporting this proposal, or if the evidence is confidential and has been submitted off-wiki, it would be good to make a note of that. Newyorkbrad 15:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

If it is true that Burntsauce is a sockpuppet or otherwise deserved to be banned in the first place, then this entire sorry incident rests on Alkivar's shoulders - 168 articles disrupted on a WP:POINT violation, two prolific Wikipedians blocked, infighting, the whole arbitration case. And if that's true, any user or administrator who got suckered into siding with them should be ashamed. Even in the most generous interpretation Alkivar overrode without forethought the considered decision of administrators who actually knew what they were doing to block Burntsauce. He let Burntsauce out of the cage. In less generous interpretations it is very suspicious that the two of them were in cahoots over this content deletion campaign. Burntsauce did what you might expect a contentious user or sockpuppet user to do, contentious edits to stir up trouble and dissent. This is all pretty sordid. If it turns out that Burntsauce is anything more than a misguided good faith editor or that there is some relationship between im and Alkivar, that would change my opinion about giving Alkivar a second chance. Wikidemo 08:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't agree with this viewpoint. Any sanctions against Alkivar should be based on his actions, but it would not be fair to hold him responsible for discerning that someone was allegedly a meatpuppet (not a sock) of an ingenious banned user, particularly where it seems to have taken substantial investigation by an experienced administrator to reach this conclusion. Newyorkbrad 11:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Alkivar not only "let Burntsauce out of the cage", he aided and abetted Burntsauce's campaign to slash-and-burn trivia sections. There's something fishy going on there. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I am very confident that Burntsauce is a sockpuppet as well as a meatpuppet, and I made every reasonable effort to open a dialog with Alkivar and supply evidence to that effect in a timely manner. Durova^Charge! 14:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Administrators are given administrative tools for the project's good, not their own. This goes to the damage caused when they're abused. Administrators must know that when they un-block a sockpuppet, block a good faith editor, or join sides in a content dispute, they can damage more than just the article at hand. You bet it's fair to hold administrators accountable for the foreseeable effects of their bad acts. If they can't accept that their actions have consequences for other people, they shouldn't be administrators. Durova, is there any way you can point to your evidence of sock puppetry or communicate directly with the ArbCom members if your evidence is too sensitive to publicly share? Wikidemo 15:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The arbitrators already have the evidence and if you contact me privately I've got a referenced summary you can read. Durova^Charge! 16:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

If Burntsauce is a meat- or sockpuppet and one of the main criticisms of that user appears to be the efforts to remove trivia/in popular content material, is it possible or reasonable to suspect that other accounts acting with similar aggression against that kind of material could also be meat- or sockpuppets, i.e. is there perhaps an even bigger problem? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Each account history would have to be examined separately. Deletionism is a legitimate Wikipedia philosophy. We assume good faith toward individual editors until compelling evidence demonstrates otherwise. Of course, per Wikidemo, it may be worth proposing a parallel sanction on Alkivar. Runcorn/Poetlister was desysopped and sitebanned for attempting something not too different from what Alkivar and Burntsauce actually accomplished for half a year. Durova^Charge! 16:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

For more information regarding the relationship between Alkivar and Burntsauce see my evidence here which details Alkivar's aiding of Burntsauce in disputes long before this arbitration case was opened as well as when Burntsauce was blocked for disruption in June and Alkivar unblocked him without explanation (and still has yet to explain why he unblocked him then). –– Lid^(Talk) 17:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

He already explained that he unblocked because he got an inconclusive result from a checkuser and (claims he) did not see the other evidence. He has not, however, explained his interest in Burntsauce's case. —Random832 16:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

No, that was the first unblocking from a block set by Durova; I'm referring to the second unblocking of Burntsauce by Alkivar when he was blocked by TenOfAllTrades (talk · contribs) for disruption which had no checkuser and Alkivar has never explained why he unblocked Burntsauce in that situation.

1. 20:54, 8 June 2007 Ryan Postlethwaite (Talk | contribs) blocked "Burntsauce (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 17 hours ‎ (Invalid unblock, failure to use edit summaries per consensus on Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Block_review:_failure_to_use_edit_summaries_for_PRODing)
2. 15:43, 8 June 2007 Alkivar (Talk | contribs) unblocked Burntsauce (Talk | contribs) ‎ (ten of all trades should remember that blocks must be placed according to blocking policy.)
3. 13:54, 8 June 2007 TenOfAllTrades (Talk | contribs) blocked "Burntsauce (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Failure to use edit summaries for deletion nominations) –– Lid^(Talk) 21:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems following a dispute on Jess Margera and this ANI post Burntsauce has quit wikipedia, changing his talk page to simply read "I quit." with the edit summary "FUCK THIS PLACE"[25]. In summary: Burntsauce got annoyed that his edit was reverted and the page fully protected on the version that wasn't his. The similarity to the way he did this with Alkivar has been lost on no one. –– Lid^(Talk) 22:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Does this mean we can start undoing Burntsauce's damage? Also... any bets on whether Alkivar will unprotect that page? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we should proceed as before. Burntsauce isn't participating either way so any action against him is going to be in absentia anyway. Burntsauce's was back up to his old tricks today deleting sections of incidental material he didn't like on claim that it was unsourced. At about 2RR in the ensuing revert war an administrator who reverted then immediately protected the article. BurntSauce lodged an AN/I complaint. A few minutes later, when he didn't immediately get his way, the irony seems to have inflamed him, he became uncivil, then claimed he quit Wikipedia. The biggest similarity with Alkivar's page protects in that in both cases an administrator reverted then protected an article over a content dispute over trivia, and that Burntsauce was at the center of both disputes. Also, both page locks were quickly overturned. The most obvious difference is that whereas Alkivar protected the page on Burntsauce's side, this one protected the page against his edits. More significant differences: Alkivar refused to answer to why he blocked the page either on his talk page or AN/I. This admin quickly responded on AN/I, civilly, and unprotected the page. In Alkivar's case the block was to protect a contentious content deltion and is part of a long pattern of misusing tools. In the new case the block defends against a content deletion and appears to be a simple misunderstanding of page protect policy. So they're not really the same thing. But no matter. Burntsauce was being a hothead. He may cool down and he may be back. And he may be a sockpuppet. The decision on what to do with him should be made based on the evidence in the case, not whether he's here and not based on this latest, largely irrelevant flap. All we can infer is that if he is not stopped he will continue to delete article content indefinitely. Wikidemo 00:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I was being facetious, as I don't believe for a second that Burntsauce is actually going to quit voluntarily. But I do wonder about something though: wasn't he permanently blocked once? So why is he back in action? Just because Alkivar unblocked him? Why does Alkivar's opinion on that issue matter more than any other admin's? Even if he wasn't proven to be a sockpuppet, his behavior warranted a lengthy block, at least. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this falls under misusing edit tools or here but five months ago Burntsauce effectively blanked the article on Steve Blackman, was reverted and after a minor edit war including a JB196 sockpuppet Alkivar fully protected the article. The articles full protection was only removed today after there had been no activity on the talk page outside of random IPs in those five months and really no chance of the edit war starting again even a week after the event. I doubt Alivar even remembered this article.

1. (cur) (last) 04:01, 3 November 2007 Nat (Talk | contribs) m (Unprotected Steve Blackman: unprotect due to fact that it has been 5 months which means 0 activity) (undo)
2. (cur) (last) 13:01, 6 September 2007 Zscout370 (Talk | contribs) (1,927 bytes) (remove image) (undo)
3. (cur) (last) 13:24, 30 May 2007 Alkivar (Talk | contribs) (1,946 bytes) (due to edit warring this article is now protected... discuss changes on the talk page... only referenced material gets put back in) (undo) –– Lid^(Talk) 01:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Yet another Burntsauce / Alkivar / JB196 tag team. Alkivar protected first, and then edited the protected article to restore burntsauce's/JB196's edits to blank article content. Troubling. Be sure to check the "evidence" page and if this incident is not in there, you should add it.Wikidemo 01:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Eyrian desysopped

9) Eyrian is desysopped and blocked for persistent edit-warring, assumptions of bad faith, and disruptive use of an alternate account (JohnEMcClure)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Who is Eyrian, what does he have to do with this case, and where is the finding of fact which should answer those two questions? Picaroon (t) 16:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see here for evidence and relevance. Sincerley, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but this appears to be an attempt to cram a completely tangential issue into an ongoing Arbitration and I don't think this arbitration is the correct place to deal with the behavior in the attached evidence section.--Isotope23 ^talk 16:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. While some action should probably be take regarding Eyrian, it seems like it's outside the scope of this arbitration. -Chunky Rice 17:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It appears to be part of the expanding soap opera concerning Alkivar and Burntsauce. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Other than having a similar view towards trivia sections, I don't see any concrete connection between Eyrian and Alkivar/Burntsauce.

It is claimed, by some, that Burntsauce and the banned user JB-something are sockpuppets or meatpuppets; that Eyrian is connected with JB; and that Alkivar is aiding and abetting Burntsauce, i.e. by extension is playing favorites with JB and Eyrian. It's like a matrix. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I have commented at length on the talk page - no opinion on what we should do, just trying to frame the question. Wikidemo 18:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Dannycali and RobJ1981 blocked

10) Dannycali and RobJ1981 are blocked for proxy editing for JB196 and persistent assumptions of bad faith.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's try to assume a little good faith here. Not everybody who wants to remove trivia sections and "in popular culture" sections is a sock or meat puppet. -Chunky Rice 17:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It is incontrovertible that sockpuppets/meatpuppets have been involved. There is a specific accusation of sockpuppetry, meat-puppeting, and/or proxy editing against these two. Good faith doesn't enter the equation. Either they are or they are not. And either the accusation is credible or it is not. If it is a credible accusation it is a proper subject for this case (although ArbCom may well decide not to hear it, or decide it's unproven). Only if the accusation is not credible, or is made in bad faith, is it improper. Wikidemo 18:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

There's little to no evidentiary support for this. RobJ, Dannycali, Le Grand Roi, Eyrian, and others have been involved in a months-long dispute about pop culture and trivia sections in articles. This and the proposed remedy about Eyrian feel like cramming tangential issues into this case.--chaser - t 20:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I mention elsewhere that I have commented about this issue on the talk page. There certainly is plenty of evidence of a months-long trivia dispute in Eyrian's case, some already presented here and much on AN/I and Eyrian's edit history / talk page. The complaint against Eyrian also involves sockpuppeting, trolling, WP:POINT violations, etc., just a few days ago in connection with this dispute. The real question, I think, isn't whether he did it but what to make of it and whether the connection is close enough to consider it part of this case. Le Grand Roi certainly presents a large volume of evidence to show sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, and/or proxy editing so you can't say there's no evidence. Whether it's convincing evidence I don't know. It's quite daunting. I suppose it's ArbCom's job to make the conclusion. Incidentally, every single one of the participants mentioned, other than RobJ and Alkivar, are claiming as of the moment to have left Wikipedia for good (Le Grand Roi, who made this proposal, claims to be on a long wikibreak). I don't know what to make of that.Wikidemo 22:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Having looked through it, I meant that it's unconvincing. He emailed me that he's traveling the next few weeks.--chaser - t 22:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. If the evidence isn't conclusive, it's not conclusive. Wikidemo 23:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Alkivar banned

11) For proxy editing, conspiracy, and misuse of sysop powers on the behalf of a sitebanned vandal, Alkivar is banned indefinitely from Wikipedia. Durova^Charge! 21:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Rather than banning him, for now I suggest requiring him to edit with one account and tell ArbCom if he changes his user names. This way the Community can keep an eye on him and see it he continues with is problematic behavior. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I only edit with one acct... I HAVE ONLY EVER EDITED ARTICLES/VOTED WITH ONE ACCOUNT... if your going to accuse me of this nonsense provide some proof please. I use Verizon DSL and have since the first day I edited... I hereby give full permission to any and all arbcom/checkusers to disclose my ip information ... go ahead and break our privacy policy, I release you from any restrictions.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 03:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I have been with this community since 2003, a signed in user since 2004, as an admin i've been subjected to DEATH THREATS at my house, phone calls to my work, phone calls to my house all hours of the day after a vandal posted my home phone number all over wikipedia (which is semi-responsible for Oversight being created). I stayed after dealing with all that shit, and you REALLY think I'd stay with the project to do vandalism? Increadible.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 04:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

(posting out of section to reply) Sockpuppetry is one thing I do not accuse you of, but there are very serious concerns of other policy violations and I would not have proposed this unless very strong evidence led to that conclusion. You have received many overtures from concerned editors, responded inappropriately or not at all, and continued the behavior that prompted the concerns. You could hardly have expected that to have been tolerated forever, and in deference to your long service to the project you have receive far more good faith than most editors would ever have been extended. If my conclusion is mistaken and you have not been perpetuating the disuptive campaign of JB196, then by all means submit evidence and an alternate explanation. I sympathize with these other incidents you mention, but cannot withdraw the proposal on that basis. Durova^Charge! 04:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Durova^Charge! 21:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I really want to see the evidence for this This is a Secret ^account 00:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Durova and another user or two have presented evidence via email to the committee regarding this case. Picaroon (t) 00:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Any chance this evidence could be made public? --Hemlock Martinis 00:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems like this is one of those cases that the evidence isn't public because of privatcy concerns. This is a Secret ^account 00:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I emailed Durova, I don't know if she will give it, but I promise I won't leak it, right now I'm studying current arbcom cases This is a Secret ^account 00:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding FloNight's comment Unless checkuser found something I didn't, that wouldn't address his problem. He protects, proxies, and runs interference for other people who abuse multiple accounts. Durova^Charge! 01:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Has Alkivar had the evidence against him that cannot be released made available to him? I can quite understand the need not to release certain information on-wiki, but I would be uneasy if he has not had the opportunity to know the case against him and respond to it. WjBscribe 04:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

So I see Alkivar is being charged with conspiracy, which is the crime of forming an agreement with at least one other person to break the law in the future. I don't get it. MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 04:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to concur with Messedrocker here. This is an arbitration. Alkivar's not on trial, and he should not be treated as such. --Hemlock Martinis 04:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm more concerned over the wording, i.e. what 'conspiracy' means in this context. MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 04:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

RE Durova's response to Alkivar above: If he's not being accused of operating these other accounts, then what has he done wrong? Somebody once wrote on here that "when a number of people work independently towards the same goal, the end result is indistinguishable from a conspiracy". It looks like that's what's happened here. Furthermore, the benefit of the doubt lies with Alkivar, so he is under no compulsion to provide an alternative explanation, especially when he doesn't even know what exactly you're accusing him of. --Hemlock Martinis 04:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The Committee has the evidence in full, and no doubt reads it with a default assumption of good faith on all sides. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and I made every effort to supply a careful and thorough presentation after exhaustive research. The case remains open and those who dispute the conclusion may do likewise. Durova^Charge! 05:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

We know your claim but we don't know what the "extraordinary evidence" that you used to get there is. Without knowing that, how are we able to factually refuse your accusations? Alkivar has waived his privacy above, so if you or one of the arbitrators could please post the evidence publicly we will then be able to get to the bottom of this. --Hemlock Martinis 05:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Template

12) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

5) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment on Equazcion's statment on the evidence page: when I first saw the popular culture deletions--which i personally considered altogether idiosyncratic and a clear attempt to disregard any need to establish consensus--I began slowly manually undoing them--there had in one or two cases already been subsequent edits that needed sorted out., Then, as there was clearly going to be a day or two of work ahead in restoring things, I decided to get some sleep first--and by the time I got back to WP, everything else happened. So I was going to do it differently from the way Equazcion did it--but I can not say he was wrong. Perhaps he should have prepared the ground first by a few appropriate postings, but there is a wide liberty given to emergency first responders. After all, the next step after BOLD is REVERT--to be followed by DISCUSS. If what Burntsauce did was justified, so was what Equazcion did, per WP:BOLD. If what Burtntsauce did was not justified, then what he did was all the more justified as reverting unjustified mass deletion. I would be more inclined to accord good faith to Burtnsauce if he had proceeded after some attempt to determine consensus. I would be more inclined to accord good faith to his defenders if they had not supported him so blindly in this. DGG (talk) 04:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)