Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Alkivar

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 15:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).



Statement of the dispute
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.

Desired outcome
The desired outcome is that Alkivar cease making incivil comments, particularly in edit summaries.

Description
My first interaction with User:Alkivar was yesterday, when I happened to notice this edit summary, which I felt was incivil, on a page I was watching. I left a mild note on his talk page, at which point I was told to "step off". When I complained, I was informed that I am not an administrator, and should not involve myself in his affairs until I was an administrator.

I originally dropped a report at WP:ANI, and since several other users indicated similar problems with incivility by Alkivar, particularly in edit summaries, I thought it would be better brought here, than to have a long thread on the noticeboard that results in no concrete action.

Evidence of disputed behavior

 * Statement telling me to "step off" in response to criticism - diff
 * Statement telling not to involve myself in administrator affairs - diff
 * Removal of criticism from his talk page, including a message from Jimbo, with the edit summary "remove worthless crap" - diff
 * Telling other editors "fuck you", or "fuck off" - section, diff

Applicable policies and guidelines

 * WP:CIVIL

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
This user is long established and an administrator, and should be well aware of civility guidelines.
 * diff
 * diff

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

 * Videmus Omnia Talk  15:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Rlest  (formerly Qst) 16:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Quadell states it well below. I hope the concerned opinions from several editors can convince Alkivar to adjust course.  Durova Charge! 19:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Since the second diff is mine, I want emphasize that its use represents neither me certifying nor endorsing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've struck out that diff. I shouldn't have included it; my intention here was simply to move the discussion off WP:ANI into a more constructive forum. Videmus Omnia Talk  00:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And I'll state that my contact was via e-mail related to a sockpuppet/meatpuppet investigation where I had already asked people to take queries offline because I didn't want to educate banned users about how to construct better sockpuppets. So I really can't present diffs, only aver that Alkivar was quite rude and refused to look at evidence or discuss matters when I sent a polite response asking that we cool down the discussion and examine the full range of facts on their merits.  My effort at dispute resolution was met with silence.  He insisted that checkuser proves a negative (which it doesn't).  Several editors contacted me regarding that case and all others agreed I had been right after they saw the evidence.  I backed off to avoid a wheel war, but was very dissatisfied.  Durova Charge! 15:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * reply In principle, you could provide a scan of the email with headers. That isn't perfect, of course, could be tinkered with - and it raises off-wiki issues.  But at least there wouldn't be some unspecified accusation of rude.  Anyways, the parties that brought up this RFC are showing themselves in a very poor light this week.  You must read the entire RFC to understand it.  BlueSapphires 15:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If verification of my endorsement makes the difference to certification of this RFC, please e-mail me and I'll forward relevant correspondence. When the topic came up at WP:AN I queried whether these were isolated events and saw a variety of affirmations including from SlimVirgin, so RFC seemed a legit route.  Durova Charge! 19:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Alkivar and I have gotten up to date on our e-mails. He tells me part of our correspondence never arrived at his inbox months ago, which explains part of the understanding.  It certainly sheds a much better light and I'll take his word on that.  Durova Charge! 14:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Alkivar and I have gotten up to date on our e-mails. He tells me part of our correspondence never arrived at his inbox months ago, which explains part of the understanding.  It certainly sheds a much better light and I'll take his word on that.  Durova Charge! 14:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

 * The diffs above clearly demonstrate conduct unbecoming an administrator. This in particular shows a completely unacceptable disregard for "mere editors".  Friday (talk) 16:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in chastising or embarrassing anyone, but I am interested in changing incivil behavior from an admin. – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Change of behavior is needed. - Merzbow 20:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Per Quadell. ElinorD (talk) 20:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Friday and Quadell have it right, there's no reason to talk to someone like that. RxS 05:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Alkivar said: "...you should not be involving yourself in my affairs until said time you become an administrator." This is an unacceptably elitist statement for an administrator to make. I also don't think this is an isolated incident; there have been concerns about Alkivar's civility since he failed two RfAs over it in 2005, and barely passed his third by convincing people that he had changed.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  01:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll also observe that Jimbo's post, which Alkivar removed in this diff, concerned Alkivar's block of an editor for upholding WP:BLP.Proabivouac 02:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This editor needs to change his behavior. His comments come off as arrogant, and his dismissal of non-administrators is especially disingenuous.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 03:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. I was very disturbed by this diff, which shows both an alarming lack of sensitivity towards the mentally handicapped and extreme incivility towards editors with whom Alkivar disagrees.  I've seen some very questionable blocks by this admin, as well.  Heather 02:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, some of those edits summaries could also brush WP:BITE, depending on who they were said to.Also his conduct is not appropriate for an admin.  Blacksmith talk 07:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Response
I see no substantial evidence of incivility here, nor any evidence of persistent, rebuffed attempts to resolve such incivility as might have occurred. I suggest that the parties involved try a bit harder to show one another some respect. --Tony Sidaway 20:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that Alkivar is the problem here: Let's look the guys that coordinated this RFC and Why

 * a. Videmus Omnia and Drama
 * Videmus Omnia was blocked today for massive attacks on Alkivar, NeoCoronis, Mike Halterman and Alkivar. He's been blocked (and unblocked, with a discusson going on on the ANI concerning VO's deletion of all their images, and it would appear vindictively.  I don't see Alkivar involved in major disputes with four people this week.  I see Videmus Omnia and Abu badali in a lot of situations.  Also, Alkivar is not the only person who seems to be being targeted. I don't think that Alkivar is the problem, which leads me to point b.
 * b. Was Abu dabali not provoking of Alkivar?
 * Doth he not provoke many people? He seemed to be provoking Alkivar in that conversation - he's still trolling Alkivar's talk page, nagging him like a school marm, provoking him.  In the incident, Abu badali was pestering Alkivar and Alkivar told him (in the edit summary, mind you) to get off his xxx.  That is not a big deal - not considering that this guy had been bugging Alkivar for months.  And Abu dabali just slipped out of an Arbcom procedure because he was (hello?) stalking, provoking and pestering people.  Read the Arbcom summary.  Abu badali tag-teamed with Videmus Omnia on this deal, pestering Alkivar, until he said something curt (as Alkivar will) so he could run off and make a Request for Comment, that he railroaded into an RFC.  And when I say "tag team" I mean that this RFC was the result of blantant WP:CANVASSing, see here.-
 * c. Systemic Attacks on the part of Videmus Omnia
 * I've been observing, quite by accident, Videmus Omnia's egregious behavior in the last week stemming from the Amy/JamesRenner article deletion cases. Videmus Omnia got a no-warning block today, for deleting about all the images of three people that he's got issues with - including Alkivar. Yup - maybe 50 images, I'm not sure.  This is just plain obvious stuff.  He also (I feel) targeted James Renner, after Renner argued that an image was fair use - Renner had used it in his book, so Omnia went off accusing Renner of COI, and all kinds of things (there were some confusing issues about BLP, and I'm not sure who was right, to be honest). Basically I'm thinking we are observing someone with some serious issues, or in the middle of some kind of crisis.  It simply can't be a conincidence that so many things are being stirred up by Videmus Omnia this week.
 * Coincidence 1: James Renner
 * Punishment for disagreeing. This started out as image-related, and grew to a massive attack on various fronts. Videmus Omnia is, as we speak, driving a mass deletion of a notable journalist (who's also directed a movie based on a short Steven King story).  Vedimus Omnia's main grudge is that the guy contested Vedimus Omnia's opinion about fair use.  The guy is a journalist and he wrote a book about the article topic - and he used the picture in his own book, and he tried to explain that to Omnia.  Omnia seized on this information to report him for COI.  There was already a BLP talk going on, abut the naming of suspects in a murder case - which is debatable as to who was right - but Renner doesn't know wiki rules, and he got tripped up and even blew his cool after Videmus had 4 different "trials" going on for him at once (remember Renner is a public person and this is the internet - and this is humiliating, as well as potentially defaming). Vedimus Omnia organized this rashly in one day - to a newbie expert (and famous) editor, who couldn't wikilawyer back.
 * Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard
 * Conflict of interest/Noticeboard
 * Articles_for_deletion/Amy_Mihaljevic
 * [Image:Amyphoto.jpg for deletion]
 * Articles_for_deletion/James_Renner


 * Conincidence 2: Neocoronis
 * Punishment for ignoring him? Neocoronis removed the fair use tag from an image that he had put a fair use tag on. He asked her why she did that, - but she never had a chance to answer because he had commenced with the deletion of ALL her images within TEN MINUTES.  This reminds me of the temper tantrums I've seen grown adults throw.  Given that he keeps doing such severe things when people don't answer him, or engage as he wishes, I have the impression that he hates being ignored, and if ignored, he will attack.  This has nothing to do with the encyclopedia.  It speaks to something else.


 * Coincidence 3: Mike Halterman
 * Videmus Omnia had demanded an retraction from Mike Halterman for his comment on this RFC talk page where he criticized the 'stupid sniping'. If you read the talk page of this RFC, you can see the circituous baiting taking place.  It would up on Mike's talk board where Videmus Omnia let it be known that Mike had called 'him' stupid (not accurate).  VO asked for a 'retraction'.  Mike demurred.  Within TEN MINUTES, Videmus Omnia was deleting Mike's images.  Coincidence???  ;)
 * Coincidence 4: Alkivar
 * Made an RFA on Alkivar, and fast-forwarded it to a real RFC - when really, no one cared all that much.
 * Videmus Omnia started out the RFC by asking Abu badali to certify it as the 2nd party (Abu badali had been harassing Alkivar and others).  This is WP:CANVASS, as well as inappropriate, given that Abu badali was involved in the initial (trumped up) accusation against Alkivar.
 * He is taunting Alkivar by deleting all his pictures, obviously.
 * And he made a bizarre accusation of sockpuppetry (Videmus Omnia requested a checkuser on Alkivar). Oddly enough the 'accused sockpuppet' was accusing Videmus Omnia of being a sock of Abu badali).

Looks Like a Little Game
I just read the top section of this ANI, which says, ''"at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it".  And then it occurred to me that the needling that Abu badali is doing on Alkivar's talk page (points 1-3 below) which I hope he really doesn't consider to be conciliation, in any serious manner, is just a way of saying '"hey! I tried to resolve the dispute with Alkivar, and he wouldn't resolve, so I think he should be XXXX'ed as punishment". '''
 * 1. Hello, Alkivar. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Alkivar, where you may want to participate.-- Videmus Omnia Talk 15:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[1]


 * 2. Alkivar, you have recently been criticized for your behavior, in regard to uncivil comments and personal attacks. This is not the first time it happens. In some occasions in the past (not so long ago), you reacted to different kind of criticism by disregarding them with more uncivil comments.  Do you recognize that you have acted badly? Are you willing to take an effort to avoid repeating such behavior? And mainly, can we expect you to improve your attitude towards criticism?  Please, take this message as the conciliating effort it intends to be.  Awaiting, -- Abu badali (talk) 18:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[2]


 * 3. Hi, Alkivar. Did you had the time to address this question? -- Abu badali (talk) 04:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[3]

I think that it bears mentioning that while these saccherine messages were being floated on his board, both Abu badali and Videmus Omnia were working to delete all of Alkivar's images from Wikipedia. I think that Alkivar is being very controlled not to give them a piece of his mind. I can't believe that these two guys think we are that foolish enough to buy this.

Fortunately, this isn't a very hot debate - and maybe because it is summer, and nice weather, people aren't making a big deal of what isn't a big deal. What I find strange is that Abu badali (or VO) think that this will work. Doesn't he have some pictures to upload, or something? BlueSapphires 12:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary

 * Although I did not write this summary, I agree with it.  ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 18:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Suggestion: They've moved my input into a section away from the Response section, and created a new, blank, response section. I believe it would be wise for you to make a pointer to the "Bluesapphire input" section, or at least one sentence, lest they have one teensy-weensy point to ride on.  My 2 cents.  Preventitive medicine and all that.   BlueSapphires 22:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Users who want to comment about this summary

 * 1) Are you Alkivar? If not, your comments belong in an outside view, not response. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * * reply You want *another* checkuser? I'm not Alkivar, but I've been dealing with your friends, who you seem to support no matter what their behavior. This doen't reflect terribly well on you, frankly.  But if you need for me to get a "free use tag" from Alkivar, to act as his go-between, I'm happy to do it, and though I don't know him really, I bet he'll agree - clearly he thinks this is completely bogus and wants nothing to do with it.  So if I get this licence, where do you want the .jpg uploaded to?  (ps: could you grasp at any *more* wikilawyering straws? Maybe I should ask for a consensus if I can place obvious information in the Response. :/  FOCUS my son.  We are here to edit an encyclopedia.... Games are for out in the sunshine...)  BlueSapphires 13:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't ask for a checkuser. I didn't ask for a personal attack either. I'm just pointing out that your comments are in the wrong place. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't seem to think I made a personal attack. You think that making a joke about free-use tags is a personal attack?  Wow.  That's not *my* idea of a personal attack.  ;)  Being humorously slightly sarcastic is what helps me to cope with daily life - and this stuff is not daily life. I'm just glad I'm not Alkivar.  I think he's being very, very restrained in the face of this silliness. BlueSapphires 13:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * FWIW, it is my bipartisan opinion that if you push in this tinker-with-the-rules manner, it is going to become clearer to anyone paying attention (if anyone is bothering) that you subscribing, and aiding, what is clearly, as NewyorkBrad put it, "unencyclopedic behavior". The chances of railroading it will diminish, since the full information is already out-there, and you are going to lose credibility - and perhaps be labeled as a troublemaker.  I'm not NPA'ing, I'm telling you what might happen if you do that.  My 3 cents.  People here aren't dumb.  They just usually don't have time or patience to figure everything out.  This took me a few days, and I'm very glad I bothered.  BlueSapphires 14:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, I can respond, because ignore all rules! :)  BlueSapphires 14:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, why on Earth is this in the response section? --Iamunknown 18:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * reply: Honestly? I didn't know procedure.  This normally isn't my bag.  But as it stands, I think it turned out well. BlueSapphires 21:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * BlueSapphires has zero edits prior to 29 July June 2007 and knows a lot about process. I've added the username to WP:RFCU.  It isn't a good sign when this sort of thing occurs.  Durova Charge! 20:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Correction. Durova Charge! 23:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Durova: My thoughts in response
 * This account is 2-3 months old, and I've used it by and again, but I don't edit on wiki much anymore. Your assertion that it is a brand-new account, created for this case, is patently false.  You should apologize, but I won't hold my breath.
 * If you *really* need a checkuser to prove I'm not Alkivar, go for it. But:
 * Your response makes it appear as if you endorse the above vishigas (however it is spelled). I mean, you did endorse it, but writing that makes it completly clear that you don't care that it is a vishigas.  If you are clear about that, then "ok".
 * I haven't done anything untoward, or against Wikipedia rules. If preventing you from forwarding this vishigas is that upsetting, then it is a good thing that you can't find anything in the past to dig up on me to create the future RFC/Bluesapphires (wait, I already knew that).
 * Intervening in a situation like this is dangerous on Wikipedia, even if it is right. This is why such travesties are allowed to happen.  People are afraid to speak the truth, even if it would be right to do so.
 * Either you have some grudge against Alkivar, or you have a grudge against speaking the truth, when it contravenes some larger mandate - even if that mandate is destructive to human beings, or the project. I almost have the impression that the Wikipedia environment (sadly) has a tendency to attracts people who have this proclivity, while encouraging other to yield to it (lest they too suffer an attack).  I'm absolutely opposed to such a dynamic.  I won't even tolerate it in real life.  It is emotional blackmail.  I won't allow a group to do this to me, nor a private relationship.  Ever.
 * FWIW, if someone did the same thing to you, I'd contest it just as hotly. Maintaining basic standards of treatment are, for me, a matter of personal integrity.
 * If you have it in your mind to attack me later for this event, you'll be robbed of the satisfaction of my getting upset, as I'm very detached. That is the key to freedom in relationships - and how to not be manipulated.  Very zen.

BlueSapphires 21:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith and accept my comments at face value. I'm concerned about Alkivar's conduct and hope it improves.  See Category:Eguor admins for background.  I've opened a thread at WP:AN because this RFC has taken an unusual shape.  And if you can demonstrate activity from this account from a couple of months ago, I'll strikethrough my comment.  The account history looks pretty clear to me.  Durova Charge! 22:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1. You checkuser me, and now AN me, and you tell me to assume good faith? That's rich.  You only did that because I've called these people on their behavior.  I question your reason for challenging me for that.
 * 2. My edit history is a few months old. I think you read my Talk page history.  And I don't edit much anymore.  Unless you want to just punish me for supporting Alkivar.
 * 3. re: Checkuser. Will not be interesting in any way shape or form, as I'm travelling on business.  Good luck figuring that one out.  And its not Alkivarland.BlueSapphires 23:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to reply to the issues raised in this comment, but I have to ask that the personal attacks (such as the statements that I have issues or am in the middle of a crisis), be withdrawn. Videmus Omnia Talk  23:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * reply: I did just that. Per WP:AGF, to assume a good situational reason for multiple simultaneous situations in one week was to give you the benefit of doubt.  Note that you need to blank out your own writing of it. BlueSapphires 01:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it still contains massive amounts of erroneous information and accusations of bad faith, including canvassing I didn't do, images I didn't delete (I can't delete anything, not an admin), statements that I made noticeboard reports or nominated articles for deletion that I did not, comments about tantrums, etc. Please remove or provide diffs for your various accusations, as I've already asked. Videmus Omnia Talk  01:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I would like to remain as anonymous but I have been following this from ANI. I would like to point out something which looks a bit suspiciouss.

Quoting BlueSapphires "You want *another* checkuser?".


 * Another Checkuser? From their contribs, they don't seem to have been involved in any checkuser cases which leads me to believe that this is a dormant sock puppet account of someone who has been previously involved in a checkuser request. Just thought that it should be pointed out as a bit odd. 79.65.181.41 23:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The above IP's only post to Wikipedia is at this RFC. Durova Charge! 02:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I replied to her comment,
 * * BlueSapphires has zero edits prior to 29 July 2007 and knows a lot about process. I've added the username to WP:RFCU#Alkivar. It isn't a good sign when this sort of thing occurs. DurovaCharge! 20:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * * I was concerned (and still am) she was (is) calling me a RFC SPA, simply because she didn't like that I highlighted what VO and AB were doing on other boards (there are two open ANIs on them, at present). BlueSapphires 01:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * * I was concerned (and still am) she was (is) calling me a RFC SPA, simply because she didn't like that I highlighted what VO and AB were doing on other boards (there are two open ANIs on them, at present). BlueSapphires 01:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: The above checkuser request (since archived) came back as Unlikely. Just dropping this here as there doesn't appear to be any followup on the above accusation. - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 13:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Outside view by AMIB
I have a handful of haiku on this subject. I invite you to ponder them.


 * Everyone gets stressed
 * Do your best to keep your cool
 * Forgive those who slip


 * Last words may be harsh
 * Users may burn their bridges
 * Allow rebuilding


 * Diffs from months ago
 * While inflammatory
 * May not match the now


 * All are editors
 * Admins aren't above the rest
 * It's no big deal

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) - A Man In Bl♟ck  (conspire | past ops) 00:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) - Videmus Omnia  Talk  00:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) - Veneno 00:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 04:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Commentary moved to talk. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) ˉˉanetode╦╩ 05:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) - 7390r0g 04:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

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

This seems very petty and trivial. Everyone gets a bit hot under the collar sometimes. People at Wikipedia seem to expect editors to exhibit super-human interaction abilities at all times. 86.137.24.224 07:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

And besides, I see admins saying much worse things every day. Alkivar's behaviour is much better than the behaviour I've come to expect from wikipedia administrators. 86.137.24.224 07:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary: Users who comment on this summary:
 * 1) Wise words, regardless of the source. —freak(talk) 22:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Per fon Will (talk) 02:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Agree with first the first part. Prefer not to comment on the second statement. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 05:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Yes.  T Rex  | talk  02:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) It's a shame to see people use User:RFC as another battlefield in an external war that's really unrelated to user conduct. Alkivar's limited rudeness is lamentable, but anyone can see his/her patience overwhelmed now and then. I see no justification for this RFC.Verklempt 03:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) — xDanielx T/C 02:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) What behavior have you come to expect from Wikipedia administrators since 26 July 2007 when you began editing, or is there another account you'd refer us to for that history? Durova Charge! 20:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, Durova. "86.137.24.224" is an IP.  Editing from an IP isn't against Wikipedia rules. You are going to have to calm down and realize that you can't kill accuse everyone who doesn't agree that Alkivar should be shot, mobbed , banned , hung out to dry , treated like this.BlueSapphires 21:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA please. Durova Charge! 23:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply to Durova:
 * You just added me on a checkuser (and now an WP:AN!), for no real reason. Hence WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA right back at you.
 * See also: WP:KETTLE   BlueSapphires 23:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If this behavior is better than you've come to expect from Wikipedia Administrators and that opinion is actually supported by evidence, then there is something fundamentally wrong with the way administrators are conducting themselves in regards to other editors right now.--Isotope23 talk 17:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I was the person who made this comment. I completely forgot about it. Kamryn · Talk 14:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

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

I am not, in the least, impressed with the behavior of most of the people involved in this situation. If you are one of the people named on this page, please ask yourself if your comments or actions over the past few days have worked toward or against the goal of writing an encyclopedia while enjoying a healthy and productive collaborative environment. If the answer is not a good one, please speak or act very differently next time.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Newyorkbrad 12:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) BlueSapphires 13:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) An important point, but let's not take it too far.  There are diffs showing completely inappropriate behavior from Alkivar.  Cries of "But look, someone else did something bad, too!" are completely irrelevant for our purposes here.  If other editors are doing bad things, deal with them appropriately, but it doesn't make the concerns raised here any less legitimate. Friday (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Alkivar is, of course one of the people mentioned on this page.... Newyorkbrad 18:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Iamunknown 18:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC) A thoughtful outside view by Newyorkbrad.  I would like to, however, point out that I agree with Friday in that complaints about Alkivar's behavior are legitimate and should not be minimized by the existence of despicable behavior on all sides.
 * 2) Endorsing both Newyorkbrad's comment and Iamunknown's reminder above.  Durova Charge! 20:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Maybe I should have bit my tongue, but I was full well in my rights to decline, and not get harassment (let's really call it what it was) for it. It's legal and okay harassment, but it was still harassment. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 22:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Pilotguy 22:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) I regret the image tagging (my timing was horrendous), sincerely apologize to all involved, and totally concur with Newyorkbrad's statement. Now can we get the personal attacks, incorrect statements, and accusations of bad faith off the page above? Videmus Omnia  Talk  01:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) ElinorD (talk) 15:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Ral315 » 03:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Outside view by Iamunknown
From Administrators:


 * "In the very early days of Wikipedia, all users functioned as administrators, and in principle they still should. Any user can behave in a way befitting an administrator (provided they do not falsely claim to be one), even if they have not been given the extra administrative functions."

[ Suggesting or acting otherwise] is elitism and classism and is completely unacceptable for Wikipedia.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Iamunknown 19:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Absolutely.  Friday (talk) 19:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 3)  Durova Charge! 20:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) ElinorD (talk) 20:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 22:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Being an admin does not make you any more, or less, of an editor of this Encyclopedia. Haemo 00:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Absolutely.  r speer  /  ɹəəds ɹ  01:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Perhaps this was an isolated incident on a bad day, but Alkivar should have known better than to make a comment like that.  —David Levy 01:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Naturally.Proabivouac 02:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Videmus Omnia  Talk  02:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Assertions of authority have more to do with personality than anything else. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 05:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Agree, though I don't think Alkivar's minute misstep is something to get upset about. — xDanielx T/C 03:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment on Statement of Iamunknown
This is a very egalitarian and noble statement :1. Abu badali was provoking Alkivar
 * Yet I don't think that this is the main point
 * Nor am I convinced that it applies to Alkivar (unless someone can prove to me that Alkivar consistently throws his administrator weight around (which I haven't seen evidence of).
 * Main points: (my take)
 * 2. Alkivar swore at him (if you call edit comments swearing)
 * 3. Abu badali has a big history of harasing people, including Alkivar, even as of yesterday
 * 4. Alkivar reacted to being hassled
 * 5. I submit that the focus should be on swearing, or such, and not in the case of when someone is 'all over him' so to speak, and that the issue of being an administrator not be made the point point, if it is not.
 * 6. I submit that some people might have issues with Alkivar, but to have it brought up under such duress, by someone who is openly hassling and now attacking him, isn't going to improve his attitude. In fact, it would naturally get more entrenched.   It depends if you want a better relationship with Alkivar, or if you want to rub his face in it.  Two different things.  BlueSapphires 23:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * BlueSapphires, I disagree with the premise that it is okay to be uncivil if someone was uncivil to you first. An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind. Administrators, in particular, should be able to come up with better ways to respond (or not respond).  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  01:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 7. ~   Wi ki  her mit  03:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.
 * taken to arbcomRlevse 15:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)