Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar/Workshop

Mentor
Can a mentor be assigned as a remedy? I think that a lot of this stems from genuine confusion about the details of policy, and an unwillingness to trust "mere mortal" users who tell him his interpretations are wrong. If ArbCom could pick someone and tell him "you have to listen to this person", it might be possible to fix those misunderstandings. —Random832 18:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is not that he hasn't gotten feedback on his poor behavior. The problem is precisely that he disregards such feedback.  So the proposed remedy of "assign a specific person to give him more feedback" doesn't seem to be aimed at the actual problem.  Friday (talk) 18:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * My suspicion is that he doesn't _trust_ the people telling him he's wrong - i.e. he thinks they are the ones with the misinterpretations. So, maybe if there were someone who he was unambiguously told by someone in authority that he should listen to, he will. —Random832 03:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Whatever he may be thinking, if there's someone he respects and who's willing to work with him while he's on probationary status, I'm all for that. This is about the good of the project and everybody contributing, not punishment.  That's up to arbcomm at this point though.  Wikidemo 04:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed remedies
Can someone please consider the unblock request of LeoGard? He's been indef blocked since september, and per his talk page comments, he appears to be a genuine contributor. Thanks (and sorry if this is the wrong place to post this). -- B figura (talk) 03:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have posted a message on the user's talk page explaining our licensing needs, asking him to post a message that he agrees not to upload any more photos until the copyright holder releases them under the GFDL and permission is sent to Wikimedia, and saying that once he agrees, he can be unblocked. Any thoughts? -- B  03:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That seems reasonable to me. (Granted, IANAdmin). Hopefully we haven't lost the user completely by now. Thanks though :) -- B figura (talk) 03:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The user has now been unblocked by another administrator. Newyorkbrad 01:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs
I'm troubled by Baseball Bug's transparent efforts to derail any remedy that doesn't involve the immediate desysopping and banning of Alkivar from the project. Adding 'Unlikely to be effective' to any proposal that doesn't draw blood seems to imply a basic cynicism about the process. - C HAIRBOY (☎) 03:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Or it could represent a view that Alkivar shouldn't be a sysop. Granted, it would be better if he provided some reasoning to back up his assertions, but I don't think he's really derailing anything. (Is there something that the two times he's made the unlikely to succeed comment that I'm missing?) In any case, I don't imagine that any one user's opinion will affect ArbCom's decision. Best, -- B figura (talk) 03:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I am troubled by the admin's apparent disinterest, if not outright disdain, for this process. If he is simply slapped on the wrist and told "naughty-naughty", not only is he unlikely to have any incentive to change, but far worse, it will encourage other admins to behave the same way. I made an initial good-faith effort to communicate with this guy. He slammed the door in my face. The ArbCom should do likewise to his admin privileges. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Bfigura, I think BB has helped illustrate my point exactly. - C HAIRBOY (☎) 04:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Point taken. I still think appeals to emotion won't carry much(any) weight with ArbCom though. Baseball Bugs: just so you know, by making statements that make it seem like you're out for an immediate de-sysop, you're kinda acting slightly opposite to How to present a case. If you want to have a more effective impact, I'd suggest reading the guide. Best, -- B figura  (talk) 04:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As if ArbCom is likely to be swayed by what I think. I expect courtesy and neutrality from an admin. I don't detect any interest on the part of this admin to adhere to either of those. People don't change unless they have a reason to. Give him a reason to change. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Simply copying and pasting the same short comment to a multiple different remedies is not going to help make your point. If you want the arbitrators to consider your opinion, I'd recommend you explain why you think less serious sanctions are unlikely to be effective, using Alkivar's prior actions as examples. This will be more effective 99 times out of 100. Picaroon (t) 15:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Arbcom are big boys or girls, they can sort it all out. We need to present our evidence and arguments, and let them decide.  From a purely strategic point of view, attempts to tell adjudicators what to do can backfire because they'll be disregarded and unless made expertly they mark you as not understanding the process.  That so many people think Alkivar should be sanctioned tells Arbcom two things: 1) Alkivar's actions are unpopular and nobody is willing to stick up for him and/or 2) everyone here has an axe to grind.  But nevermind.  As long as nobody actually obstructs each other's participation here, there's no harm in everyone including Basebal Bugs saying what they know or think, and then trusting Arbcom to devise a fair solution.  Wikidemo 11:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll restate some of the above within the currently-terse comments that you're criticizing, to make it clear to those big boys and/or girls as to why I think there's little hope for this admin improving his approach. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't recall interacting with Alkivar before the Burntsauce block became an issue and I've avoided him afterward, except for this and the RFC. I've watched developments from a distance because of my experience in the JB196 investigation.  So I don't particularly have an axe to grind.  I simply don't see why there's been a drive to invent innovative and lenient remedies for a sysop who barely deigns to defend himself.  Durova  Charge! 15:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Likewise, I never heard of Alkivar until the recent incident. But it didn't take long to figure out that he has no business being an admin. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Issue
Since the initiation of this case, sanctions have been proposed against six new accounts:, , , , , and. Should some or all of these parties be considered for sanctions or should the case be limited to Alkivar (and possibly Burntsauce)?

Background
Note that I say "accounts" above because some are accused and in one case confirmed x-puppets (by which I mean sockpuppets, meat-puppets, or puppeteers, or proxy editors).

Of these, JohnEMcClure is already blocked as a sockpuppet. Eyrian admits to having created JohnEMcClure, an alternate account, as an "experiment" in provoking people but, denies without explanation that it fit the technical definition of sockpuppetry. As an administrator accused of sockpuppetry, incivility, using administrative tools to his ends in a dispute, etc., he is certainly eligible for sanctions and de-sysopping. The possible relationships to the case are: (1) he made himself part of the case by involving himself with it, the parties here, etc. He observed the case and jumped in with a sockpuppet where Burntsauce and Alkivar left off; and (2) evidence is presented that JohnEMcClure and Eyrian themselves may be x-puppets in common with the parties in this case, with respect to the events of the case. 68.163.65.119 existed only for two days, was very active, and never came back. It is clearly an experienced Wikipedian, and is accused of being an anonymous version of one of the parties here. Burntsauce is the subject of part of the case against Alkivar and is a party here already. He too claims to have quit Wikipedia, and is also accused of being an x-puppet with respect to the events of the case. RobJ1981 is an administrator accused of being an x-puppet of the parties here with respect to similar events. I'm not familiar with these accusations. Dannycali is accused of being an x-puppet somehow involved with RobJ1981 a blocked user named JB196. He too claims to have left Wikipedia.

So five out of six of these accounts claim to have quit Wikipedia for good after being named in this case. The matter may be moot if they are truly gone, or they can be handled by administrative action outside of ArbCom. Ostensibly, only RobJ1981 remains.


 * The word claim is key here. Picaroon (t) 01:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Analysis
ArbCom can make this case as narrow or broad as it wants. They don't even have to hear the case. On the narrow end, they could deal with Alkivar without considering the other parties. There is arguably enough to warrant de-sysopping Alkivar without considering accusations that he is involved with sockpuppets, or his participation in the recent trivia deletion incident. An exhoneration of Alkivar, by contrast, would logically require clearing him of these accusations.

If there is in fact sockpuppetry afoot, the problem will not be fixed by simply desysopping Alkivar and/or blocking BurntSauce. That's like pulling one dandelion and leaving the garden full of spores. They'll be back. The issue, then, is whether ArbCom is the right forum for exposing sockpuppets of parties already involved in an ArbCom case, or whether ArbCom should simply rule on the known parties, and then leave weeding the sockpuppets to administrators as a post-ruling enforcement action.

A second question of scope has to do with the issues in the case. There is a significant, contentious dispute over whether deleting (or conversely restoring) articles and article sections that one party contends is trivia, is a content issue versus a behavior issue. Obviously, anything can become a behavior issue if it involves incivility, edit warring, and other prohibited conduct. But is a program of deleting alleged trivia simply because one disapproves of it (something prohibited by guideline) a behavior problem or a content dispute? Similarly and on the other side, is reverting such a deletion, despite a claimed lack of sources and/or relevance, a behavior problem or a content dispute? It may be necessary to answer that question before deciding the extent to which Alkivar's actions were an abuse of tools. Was Alkivar simply enforcing behavior policy against editors repeatedly "adding" (as some claim a revert is) unsourced material in violation of WP:V, or was Alkivar using tools to enforce a content decision he could not win by consensus (deleting trivia as such is a violation of the trivia guideline).

This, too could be decided on other grounds, but it is at the heart of the dispute. In addition to all being accused x-puppets involved in a common set of circumstances, the proposed parties have all acted within a short time on a common set of articles on the claim that various material is trivia to be deleted, and that once deleted the material cannot be restored without committing a sanctionable behavioral violation. ArbCom can consider this issue or it can sidestep it. If it's decided, people may listen to the decision and stop fighting over it. If avoided, the issue will continue and will probably be the subject of future disputes over administrative actions. In short, more weeds in the garden.

One counterargument against widening the case, even if there are wider issues to address and additional parties involved, is simple case administration. Do ArbCom and the participants have the bandwith and tools to handle a case this complex? If not, better to take a small stab at an important issue than none at all.

Further question
If ArbCom will consider sanctions against some or all of these six accounts, is there any procedure that needs to be followed as far as notification, motions, presentation of evidence, etc? Is more evidence needed before even making that decision?

-- Wikidemo 18:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC) (I haven't signed subsections)


 * I'll notify the ones who haven't been notified yet that they've been mentioned. Thanks for reminding me. Picaroon (t) 01:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. RobJ was the only one who needed notification. The others are blocked or notified already. Picaroon (t) 01:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Procedural note
has been blocked by a member of ArbCom as a confirmed sockpuppet. The extensive commentary by whomever was behind this sock is too extensive to manually remove - however, for purposes of any actions the fact that this is a blocked sock must be considered. -- Tawker 04:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Already noted here Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 04:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Redundancy can't hurt :) -- Tawker 05:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)