From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case Opened on 19:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Case Closed on 01:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case. Only add a statement here after the case has begun if you are named as a party; otherwise, your statement may be placed on the talk page, and will be read in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

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

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks and bans as needed, but closed cases should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification.

Contents 1 Involved parties 1.1 Requests for comment 2 Statement by Nat 3 Statement by Equazcion 4 Statement by Baseball Bugs 5 Preliminary decisions 5.1 Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (6/0/0/0) 6 Final decision 6.1 Principles 6.1.1 Administrators 6.1.2 Decorum 6.1.3 Communication 6.1.4 Use of administrative tools in a dispute 6.1.5 Wheel-warring 6.1.6 Who's who 6.2 Findings of fact 6.2.1 Alkivar 6.2.2 Burntsauce disrupting per a banned user 6.2.3 Burntsauce is sock of a banned user 6.3 Remedies 6.3.1 Alkivar desysopped 6.3.2 Burntsauce banned 6.4 Log of blocks and bans

[edit] Involved parties

• Nat (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) (initiating party)
• Alkivar (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights)
• Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Equazcion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Burntsauce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

[edit] Requests for comment

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Alkivar

[edit] Statement by Nat

My concern here is the conduct of the sysop Alkivar (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) in terms of the inappropriate usage of sysop tools. Before I found the WP:ANI report that had been listed by Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs), I was completely uninvolved with the situation between Alkivar (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) and Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs) and my involvement until requesting for arbitration was minimal. The evidence that was listed on WP:ANI was:

• [1] and [2] - The edit summary written by Alkivar (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) was, and I quote, "since idiots seem inclined to continuously readd pop trivia to ENCYCLOPEDIA ARTICLES... this will be protected until said time the parties agree to stop." (end quote) Alkivar (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) essentially involved himself/herself in the dispute, then he/she protected the page to lock out non-sysops from editing, and basically called editors who wish to add the trivia section, and I quote, "idiots" (end quote).
• [3] - Indefinite blocked Equazcion (talk · contribs) based on "Attempting to harass other users: wikistalking". Although this might seem like the case and there could be a chance that there is, Equazcion (talk · contribs) was essentially restoring trivia sections of the articles and it so happened that Burntsauce (talk · contribs) (the user who Equazcion was accused of wikistalking) was removing the trivia section. In my opinion, is that this was just a case of content dispute and not wikistalking. In addition to this point, I would like to point out that Equazcion (talk · contribs) was not given any warning before being issued a block. Equazcion (talk · contribs) was later unblocked by Nishkid64 (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights), stating as the reason for unblocking was, and I quote, "User seems to have been acting in good-faith per discussion at Wikipedia talk:Trivia sections. Indefinite block was a bit too much." (end quote).

Based on the evidence presented above, I feel that his actions were clearly not one should expect from a sysop. I was hesitant to file this report until I saw that this was not the first time his behaviour was placed under the microscope:

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Alkivar - An WP:RfC that was filed against Alkivar (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) on 27 July 2007 (UTC) for incivility. The statement of the dispute in the RfC was, and I quote, "The administrator User:Alkivar makes incivil statements to other users, particularly in edit summaries, and then either dismisses criticism of this behavior, or, in at least one instance, attempts to quash the criticism by invoking his administrator status.".

My goal in filing this report is to halt this disgusting misuse of sysop tools, and to ensure that Alkivar (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) does not become a liability to the Community. nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 21:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Equazcion

I wasn't aware of the RfC either, until I got blocked. At first I figured Alkivar was acting simply because he saw me making a lot of rollbacks of the same user's edits, without knowing about the larger situation, and figured it was reasonable for him to think it was stalking. Basically I just thought it was just a misunderstanding. Then I learned that Alkivar has been removing trivia sections and simply didn't like that I was replacing them. I feel it's very inappropriate for an admin to perform a block for a content dispute that he himself is involved in, especially an indefinite block of my IP, and with no warning. I was also unable to email Alkivar during the time I was blocked, although having never been blocked before I can't say whether or not this was supposed to happen as the result of a block. I learned afterwards of Alkivar's past issues and of his routine blanking of his own talk page sections where people comment on his behavior. I don't know if this is one of the diff's linked to, but here he protected a page due to people continuing to re-add a trivia section to an article, an inappropriate action to begin with, with a very inappropriate edit summary.

I don't think this person should be an admin. His use of admin tools has been inappropriate -- and very far from the objective/cool-headed stance that admins should have in situations of conflict.

←I'd also like to point out that Alkivar has done a number of questionable things with his user page. He's deleted vandalism from his history (diff) and then permanently fully protected his own user page. He had the protection removed once by another admin but he re-protected it again (diff). His reasoning is frequent vandalism, but we can't check that due to the revision deletions -- see his user page history, which shows little to no vandalism. Is it proper to use admin tools like this?

[edit] Statement by Baseball Bugs

After the "idiots" comment cited by Nat, above, I posted a comment on the admin's talk page challenging that name-calling. He deleted that comment without response. [4] . I tried three other times to engage him. No response. [5] [6] [7] Knowing nothing of his prior history, I then decided to file a complaint on WP:ANI. Given the issues raised there, including taking sides in a content dispute and blocking the page, and blocking another user for not taking the same side (both actions since being reverted by other admins) I have concluded that Alkivar is unsuited to be an admin. I expect better behavior from admins than from the average editor. The fact that he appears to be disinterested in the various complaints made against him add to the argument that he should not be an admin. At the very least, he should be suspended for awhile and let him ponder the situation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for saying Alkivar does not respond. He just responds indirectly. Apparently the issues cited recently are "over and done with and no longer matter". [8] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

At least two editors are skirting around invoking the "S-word" as regards Alkivar and Burntsauce. Someone should at least take a look at the edit times of those two, and see if they overlap or are mutually exclusive, not that that would prove anything. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Preliminary decisions

[edit] Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (6/0/0/0)

• Accept. There appears to be some cause for concern here. Kirill 04:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. James F. (talk) 22:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
• Accept FloNight♥♥♥ 01:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
• Accept Fred Bauder 16:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Final decision

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

[edit] Principles

[edit] Administrators

1) Administrators 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 the removal of administrator status.

Passed 6-0 at 01:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Decorum

2) Administrators are expected to maintain an appropriate level of decorum. In particular, they are expected to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others, and to avoid acting in a way that brings the project into disrepute.

Passed 6-0 at 01:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Communication

3) 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 log summaries; and responding promptly and fully to all good-faith concerns raised about their administrative actions.

Passed 6-0 at 01:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of administrative tools in a dispute

4) Administrative tools may not be used to further the administrator's own position in a content dispute.

Passed 6-0 at 01:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wheel-warring

5) In a non-emergency situation, administrators are expected to refrain from repeatedly undoing each others' administrative actions without first attempting to resolve the dispute by means of discussion.

Passed 6-0 at 01:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Who's who

6) It is rarely possible to determine with complete certainty whether several editors with very similar behaviour are sock-puppets, meat-puppets, or acquaintances who happen to edit Wikipedia. In such cases, remedies may be fashioned which are based on the behaviour of the user rather than their identity. Editors who edit with the same agenda and make the same types of disruptive edits may be treated as a single editor.

Passed 6-0 at 01:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Findings of fact

[edit] Alkivar

1) Alkivar (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) has repeatedly shown poor judgment in using his administrative tools. His behavior includes wheel-warring ([9]), incivility and unacceptable commentary in log summaries ([10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]), abuse of protection ([17], [18]) and blocking ([19]) to further his viewpoint in a content dispute, inappropriate removal of protection ([20]), and unwillingness to respond to good-faith community concerns ([21], [22]).

Passed 6-0 at 01:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Burntsauce disrupting per a banned user

2) Burntsauce (talk · contribs) has been advancing the disruptive agenda of the community-banned vandal JB196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log).

Passed 6-0 at 01:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Burntsauce is sock of a banned user

3) Burntsauce (talk · contribs) is very likely to be either a meat- or sock-puppet of another banned user, per evidence submitted privately to the Committee.

Passed 6-0 at 01:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Remedies

[edit] Alkivar desysopped

1.2) For showing consistently poor judgment in performing administrative actions, Alkivar's (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) administrative privileges are revoked. He may apply to have them reinstated by appeal to the Committee, but not through the usual means.

Passed 6-0 at 01:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Burntsauce banned

3) Burntsauce (talk · contribs) is banned as a meat-puppet of JB196.

Passed 6-0 at 01:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Log of blocks and bans

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

• Burntsauce blocked indefinitely by me, and Alkivar requested desysopped at m:RFP. Picaroon (t) 01:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• (User rights log); 01:20 . . Drini (Talk | contribs | block) (changed group membership for User:Alkivar@enwiki from sysop to (none): per arbcom decision http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Alkivar#Alkivar_desysopped)
• Burntsauce (talk · contribs) requested unblocking at 20:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC) for reason: "I would like to see my account reinstated. I was blocked using false evidence. I do not know JB196 and have never done his bidding. One case in point, I would like to ask as many knowledgeable members of the Wikipedia community as possible to review my talk page history. There you will find a number of messages left for me by presumably JB196 which I had no interest in, messages which I promptly cleared as unnecessary. It is unreal to me that I would be blocked for being a puppet of someone I do not know. Yes, I have removed unverifiable material from Wikipedia articles, including professional wrestling articles, but that is the extent of things there. I have received emails from multiple editors who have told me that the person who presented "evidence" of me being someone I'm not has also blocked other contributors under the same false pretenses, using evidence compiled in bad faith. I have made at least 8,000 edits to this project, I'd like to thing that they were a net positive (i.e. they improved Wikipedia as a whole) and if I am to leave I would like that decision to be mine and mine only. Thanks for consideration. I am available by email if this request is denied for any reason. " No action taken at present. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)