Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar/Evidence

Create your own section to provide evidence in, and do not edit anyone else's section. Keep your evidence to a maximum of 1000 words and 100 diffs. Evidence longer than this will be refactored or removed entirely.

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible. A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.

It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log, as those will have changed by the time people click on your links. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

(will elaborate later)

• [1] Deleted a page in userspace per WP:OR (which is not applicable to userspace) while it had been kept by MFD twice before. Deletion was overturned by Spartaz after unanimous consensus to restore at WP:DRV.
• [2] Protected a page after reverting a user who added information he disagreed with (and he inappropriately used admin rollback to remove the content[3]). Protection was overturned by Edokter with the comment not a valid reason for protection.
• [4] Protected a page while involved in a content dispute over the addition of a "pop culture" section. Protection was overturned by B with the comment inappropriate protection - admin tools should not be used in this manner.
• [5] Blocked a long-term constructive user for "wikistalking" who was reverting someone who removed pop culture sections from hundreds of articles en masse. Block was almost immediately overturned by Nishkid64 with the comment User seems to have been acting in good-faith per discussion at Wikipedia talk:Trivia sections. Indefinite block was a bit too much.
• [6] Unprotected Phil Sandifer's talk page that had been briefly protected due to a coordinated vandal attack, in retaliation for this edit removing an inappropriate banner that was in violation of WP:BITE. Protection was overturned by Phil Sandifer.

• [7] since idiots seem inclined to continuously readd pop trivia to ENCYCLOPEDIA ARTICLES... this will be protected until said time the parties agree to stop
• [8] thanks to idiot vandals spamming their websites this article is now semi-protected
• [9][10] bullshit licensing
• [11] WP:NOT for shit you wrote in school one day
• [12] give me a fucking break
• [13] nonsense crap

There are three administrative actions that were the reasons for this request:

• Protection of Palatine uvula (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (undone by B)
• Block of Equazcion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (undone by Nishkid64)
• Protection of Area code 205 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (undone by Edokter)

There are several other administrative actions I have noticed on a cursory glance of Alkivar's logs that, on the surface, appear questionable and should be explained:

• Unprotection of User talk:Phil Sandifer (logs) with the message "if i cant have my banner... you cant have your protection... how's them apples?"
• Two-week block of Wwefan980 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), apparently in response to [14]. The user has since left Wikipedia.
• Protection of Talk:Demonoid (logs) - as far as I can tell, there was only one IP vandal, who simply could have been blocked rather than protecting the page. In any event, indef protecting talk pages is usually a bad idea.
• Deletion of Wikipedia:What would Jack do? (logs)

• [15] User:Chiangkaishektwnroc was blocked for 1 week for uploading copyrighted material. The user wasn't given any warning, or talk page suggestions.
• [16] User:Auzzz24 was blocked indefinitely for copyright violations without being warned by a human. The user was indef blocked while having only 176 edits, many of which were productive.
• [17] User:Dingv03 was indefinitely blocked for copyright violation with the message (Copyright infringement: User has absolutely no understanding of copyright or WP:Fair Use.) No human warnings or messages were given to suggest a better course of action to the editor. This seems to have led to surprise on the part of the blocked user [18].
• [19] Bellavinci was indef blocked, email disabled, with the message (repeated copyright violations). User had received 4 bot warning messages [20], but no warning before block, or any suggestions on how to fix behavior. User's contributions [21] suggest a good faith editor.
• [22] Krysttt was indef blocked with message (Repeated violations of Wikipedia copyright policy: once ... ok AGF.... twice... ok pushing it... 22 times... cya!). User had received a number of bot warnings, but again, no human contact [23]. Contribution history suggests an editor attempting to add to Wikipedia in good faith [24].
• [25] Cranny07 was indef blocked with message (Repeated violations of Wikipedia copyright policy: once... agf ... twice... agf ... more than 10... block). No warnings of block, or any other human contact [26]. Contributions suggest a new good faith editor [27].
• [28] User:LeoGard was indef blocked, email blocked, with the message (Repeated violations of Wikimedia copyright policy). Only bot warnings, no human contact. In this case, according to the user's talk page [29], the images uploaded were his own work, but he was confused by the copright policy, and got warned from bots, then indef blocked. Editor's contribs [30] suggest another productive editor. Editor was unblocked [31] with the message (unjustified block, no human warnings), per some talk page comments [32]. However, the editor hasn't contributed since his unblock request, so he may have left.

I think the lack of warnings is important here because these all seem to be good faith editors who could have changed their behavior with some simple human contact. The goal of blocking is to prevent harm to wikipedia. Maybe that goal could have been accomplished with mere communication, rather than forcing editors out of Wikipedia. After all, our copyright policy isn't trivially simple, so unless editors learn it on the first go, if they upload many images in an attempt to contribute, their talk page will probably have a number of bot warnings about licensing issues.

Mild disclaimer for the above: IANAAdmin, so I haven't been able to review the deleted contributions for any of the above users. If there's something there that contradicts anything above, please do let me know. Thanks. --Bfigura ^(talk) 18:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• [33] User:Burntsauce was blocked for prodding pages without using edit summaries (in effect submarine deleting). This was discussed on ANI (see here), and there appeared to be support for the block. Alkivar overturned the block, without attempting to contact the blocking admin, with the message (ten of all trades should remember that blocks must be placed according to blocking policy.) [34]. As a result of consensus on ANI that the block was for disruption, the block was reinstated. Alkivar was contacted by Ryan_Postlethwaite [35] and TenOfAllTrades [36] regarding the (un)block, but declined to make a response on ANI, either user's talk page, or anywhere other than the original block message [37]. While Alkivar may not have been aware of the consensus on ANI when he unblocked, he still should have made an attempt to contact the blocking admin before issuing an unblock (per WP:BP#Unblocking).

I think the unwillingness to communicate exhibited in the above incidents is inappropriate given the collaborative nature of Wikipedia. (And especially undesirable for an administrator). --Bfigura ^(talk) 21:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the blocking policy states that email should only be blocked... in cases of abuse of the "email this user" feature, I think the following email blocks were unjustified (searching back to July 2007):

• User:Equazcion was blocked [38], in a dispute described elsewhere in evidence. There's no evidence that the user was abusing email, and the block was quickly overturned by consensus [39].
• User:Tim_Long was blocked [40] with the message Repeated violations of Wikimedia copyright policy). No evidence to suggest abuse of email. (User's contributions appear to be otherwise productive [41]).
• User:LeoGard was email blocked on copyvio grounds, see first section for diffs.
• User:Bellavinci was email blocked on copyvio grounds, see first section for diffs.
• User:Dingv03 was email blocked on copyvio grounds, see first section for diffs.

Please note that there are a number of additional email blocks, however, I'm willing to give Alkivar the benefit of the doubt and assume he had a reason for blocking the email of the people he blocked for disruption and vandalism. --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On October 15th, 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 week for uploading images without source information, despite not having warned the user for it. After G2bambino requested an unblock, AuburnPilot (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) unblocked him, stating that the intial block was "unjustified by policy." Six minutes later, Alkivar reblocked him, which was undone by Sam Blacketer (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) after a discussion on AN/I. The reblock by Alkivar constitutes a wheel war.

I think it is pretty clear from the evidence given above that Alkivar is and has been abusing admin tools. Another example of where he abused admin tools is here. He speedy deleted a subpage within a userspace, despite the fact that there were no votes for delete. Also, Alkivar indef blocked the user just two months earlier [42], so speedy deleting the page, despite a consensus not to just further heated the argument. In this particular discussion, it is pretty clear that Alkivar is only using admin tools to his clear advantage over other users who are not administrators. Whenever something begins to tremble out of hand, Alkivar has to for no reason resort to admin tools that are not exactly necessary at that point of time (page protection, blocks, image deletions etc.) Personally, I think Alkivar should be punished for his actions; if he isn't then other adminstrators might unfortunately resort to Alkivar's petty decisions. However, saying that, the discussion over at ANI concerning the trivia sections got very heated, and I feel that some of this could of been easily avoided if we co-operated with one another.

Alkivar needs to learn how to use admin tools properly and efficiently, not to abuse that at every moment, like he has been doing. Davnel03 21:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to present one minor example of perceived misuse by Alikivar, as an example of his disregard for accepted process.

WP:JACK, an essay that is mostly my work, was deleted by Alkivar without any justification in the deletion summary (log). As no WP:CSD justification was offered and I could find no record of community discussion, I politely asked Alkivar on his talk page if he would mind explaining his reasoning. [43] Five days later Alkivar deleted [44] my request without providing an answer, his edit summary on that occasion was nothing in this section is needed anymore. The essay itself is hardly important to me or the project, and had he provided even a nominal nod to policy or reason to justify the deletion I would not have protested. However, this process (or lack thereof) appears to be typical of his use of the tools. If admins are to use their tools for for reasons that are not obvious in policy, one would at the very least expect a willingness to explain their reasoning. It is a concern that Alkivar does not appear to appreciate this. However, more concerning is that he chooses to ignoring requests for such reasoning, dismissing them instead. Rockpocket 21:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As seen here in a prominent comment, Alkivar often makes rude, over-the-top comments. In this case, and it hardly seems to be an isolated one, we see a rude comment followed by... nothing. Alkivar doesn't check back (or if he does check back, gives no indication of caring) to see replies to his comment, or developments in the discussion. In this case, Alkivar made an offensive comment about deleting the article, then the article was totally rewritten, and no one wanted it deleted anymore. In this case, it was all "veterans" involved so there was really no harm done... but I cringe to think of some well-meaning new editor encountering "nuke it" Alkivar... if I was a new user, spent hours reading policy and carefully improving an article, only to be told Nuke it again... and again... and again... and again... and again... ad nauseum until its finally gone I probably would not edit much more. That's not how anyone should act, let alone an admin.

This RFAr itself conveniently shows an example of this, too... Alkivar had no interest in responding when it was just lowly admins and respected editors complaining. He even stated he was going to wait until ArbCom was on the verge of desysopping him before he would defend his actions. Is that really how admins should act? "Don't like something I did? I won't change, explain myself, or do anything but continue to abuse you, until you are a few days away from removing my adminship". --W.marsh 23:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On October 8-10 Alkivar, User:Burntsauce, and fellow administrator User:Neil joined forces to delete "popular culture" sections from 168 articles simultaneously, using administrative tools to mop up articles and block users who got in the way.

Early Octeober 8, Alkivar edited then immediately protected an article under no dispute at the time [45], in the edit summary threatening "next person to readd the trivia section gets a boot upside the head." Later, User:Burntsauce deleted 167 sections in 68 minutes [46] with the identical sumamry "popculturectomy" plus occasional asides like "FUCKING RIDICULOUS"[47]. User:Baseball Bugs restored one [48] he had been editing for five months (see [49], [50]). Alkivar re-deleted then immediately and indefinitely protected [51], in his summary calling Baseball Bugs an "idiot" and admitting his purpose was to block addition of "pop trivia".

Community reaction was swift. Baseball Bugs complained four times to Alkivar and, after Alkivar deleted each without response ([52], [53], [54], [55], filed an AN/I complaint [56]. In my first involvement, I investigated and raised serious concerns over Alkivar [57]. Several warned Burntsauce to stop ([58], [59], [60]). Extensive discussion on Wikipedia talk:Trivia sections reached consensus that the deletions were improper, that the guideline's rule against deleting trivia sections should be followed, and that popular culture is not necessarily trivia [61]. Neil tried to change the guideline three times to favor deletion ([62], [63], [64], triggering protection of the page [65]. Equazcion announced [66] then enacted [67] reversion of 137 of Burntsauce's deletions (the others had been restored by other editors, including at least one administrator[68] [69] [70]). Equazcion and others initially stood by a summary of these as "vandalism" reversions ([71], [72], [73]), but later backed off the claim (see Equazcion's statements here).

Burntsauce soon re-deleted 118 sections, claiming "vandalism" and "disruptive addition of trivia"[74]. Alkivar re-deleted others ([75], [76], [77], [78], [79]). I called the re-deletions improper and contentious [80]. Burntsauce responded to my new warning [81] that I should "get [my] head checked" [82], prompting my civility warning [83] and AN/I warning / block request [84]. Equazcion also asked that Burntsauce be blocked [85], then restored 111 sections [86]. Alkivar then blocked Equazcion indefinitely without warning, and Neil refused to block Burntsauce [87] then blocked me for using the undo button to restore three sections Neil himself had deleted for a third time [88]. Neil later claimed he mistook me for Equazcion and later invented rules to justify his actions ([89]; also see talk page here).

Alkivar's protect-and-block ploy went against the legitimate, majority, and likely correct application of Wikipedia content policy. In mentioning this I am omitting others' good faith arguments and occasional cheerleading for the deletions. I bring this up not to win an argument over article content but to establish for the Committee that there was a good faith disagreement, and that Alkivar was using his adminship to take sides in a content dispute, not to deal with any clear behavior problem.

The 168 sections were apparently chosen indiscriminately for deletion based on having the words "popular culture" in the heading or body (Burntsauce refers to searching the term on google [90]) Analyzing 1/3 of them, many had sourced statements ([91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96]), described the article subject directly ([97], [98], [99]), or supported articles that were about popular culture to begin with ([100], [101], [102], [103], [104], [105], [106]). Among facts removed are that buffalo wings are used in competitive eating events, Cochise's grandson played Cochise in The High Chaparral[107]; superconductivity [108], oscilloscopes [109], and spacefaring[110] are staples of science fiction; an 1855 painting of Scranton, Pennsylvania hangs at the National Gallery of Art[111]; The Matrix is an exposition of Plato's cave and other philosophical constructs [112]; Neuschwanstein is the model for Disney's Sleeping Beauty Castle[113]; Nemo is a clownfish [114]; and buffalo wings are not related to American bison [115]. Many described notable adaptations, sequels, treatments, and performances of popular works, or notable portrayals of mythological beings.

Wikipedia considers popular culture a notable subject and devotes vast portions of its content to the subject (e.g. anime, Hip Hop, Film). Universities have departments for popular culture. Trivia, which is clearly not the same thing, is explicitly allowed and is not summarily deleted per WP:TRIVIA. Whether popular culture belongs in in article or not, it is a reasonable content decision to have it. Per WP:CONSENSUS removing content in good faith is allowed, and restoring it is allowed too. If parties disagree they should talk about it; deleting a second time is contentious editing.

I affirm that I am a productive, good faith editor who has made many constructive contributions to Wikipedia. I have not been blocked or participated in an Arbcomm case before and have spent considerable time dealing with this one. I restored the three popular culture sections mentioned above after (i) carefully surmising that they contained uncontroversial material that added to the article and could be sourced if needed; and (ii) becoming convinced after a close reading of the relevant policies, guidelines, and debates that the deletions were improper, and that the material was best improved through normal editing process. I am mortified by the block, which I consider an unfortunate and unjustified blemish on my record from an ugly situation not of my making, and by Neil's ongoing accusations against me, which I consider shameful and uncivil.

Such is the chilling effect of misuse of tools that the damage goes well beyond two blocked users and two locked articles, both quickly reversed. I see that the other articles are in intermediate states, some with the sections restored, others with useful information still missing. I am still afraid to touch any of them, or to go anywhere near an administrator who is using cursewords or contentiously editing content lest I get blocked again. People suggest I would be a good administrator. After seeing how some administrators behave and elsewhere I don't want to be part of that club, and I think I can do more good simply editing and adding my opinions where I see a problem or a policy question. A strong stand by the committee against the kind of administrative abuse would go some way to restoring my faith in the project.

Alkivar argued with the arbitration clerk and refused to participate here or on AN/I until forced [116] (a comment he removed [117] after confirming that the reason he agreed to answer was that the Committee agreed to take the case [118]). He deleted relevant evidence from his talk page after arbitration started, calling it "stuff thats over and done with that no longer matters." [119], and again [120].

Alkivar unilaterally deleted four non-free images from Children of Men and Fight Club (film): 1, 2, 3, and 4. He then removed the Children of Men image without elaboration. For Fight Club, he removed each image right before/after its deletion: 1, 2, and 3. The images were deleted and removed from the articles with zero attempt to initiate discussion or to pursue WP:IFD. Considering that the two aforementioned articles are Good Articles, the brusque approach was completely unwarranted. All these images had fair use rationales attached, and while they were questionable, this did not warrant immediate deletion. Wikipedia is about building consensus, and there was no intent to inquire about how the images could be better implemented or if they could be replaced by more suitable images. His conduct was a gross misuse of the tools to which he is privy. Having worked on a lot of content for Fight Club (film), I was able to add other non-free images that suited the admin's perspective, but the process would have been more amicable to improving the article if the judgments made by the admin had not been so swift.

The banner mentioned above (the one that, when Phil Sandifer removed it, he unprotected his page in retaliation) is still present as of today.

[121] This diff shows that Alkivar believes that WP:WRONG (or, rather, the underlying message that "it's the wrong version" is a frivolous complaint) means that he is entitled to choose what version to protect, and to revert to that version before protection, without either violating the protection policy or, indeed, the revert itself qualifying as being "involved" in the content dispute. It is possible, though, that this is a good-faith misunderstanding. (Incidentally, his very claim that there was no edit war—which was, by that point, true, though it's quite possible that had he not protected there would have been one—shows that there was no basis for protection)

These have been brought up elsewhere before, including here for completeness

• [122] diff from his first RFA, included to demonstrate his incivility in edit summaries dating back to March 2005.
• [123] diff showing his attitude towards non-admins, brought up in the RFC

• [124] diff showing assertion that the unblocking admin had wheel-warred, and that he had not by reblocking
• ANI threads, for reference:
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive311#Alkivar (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves)]]
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive308#Admin incivility (the main focus of the section this appears in is pop culture section removals)

Add me to list- no warning, 2 week block for one supposed copyvio (my first and only ever image added too), and false (unexplained and unjustified) reasons for the block. As I note on the workshop page for Alkivar, his notice was a tissue of lies, and even he must have known it. 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 Pete.Hurds original argument (not his, since he didn't bother to engage) 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). There were 2 posts about this image on the deletion discussion, neither by Alkivar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_September_26#Image:Winner_1.jpg) Someone who chronically lies like this to justify a block should be removed The block was reversed obviously. Remove this guy. While Alkivar has since claimed a 2nd copyvio, this was in dispute (the text is v.likely public domain), but as Alkivar never attempted to discuss it, or look with me for evidence of this, and I was blocked, I never ended up pursuing it further.JJJ999 03:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Alkivar has apparently flat out stated he will not bother to present any evidence, just offer token and selective refutations on his workshop page. why bother to even wait to dump him? He clearly has no respect for this process, and nothing but contempt for other posters on wikipedia.JJJ999 19:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is more a counterpoint to something presented in the evidence section by Wikidemo (talk · contribs) as I don't think his characterization of the core "popular culture deletion" dispute that led to this arbitration tells the whole story. Take it for what it is worth (and if this would be more appropriate in Workshop#Analysis of evidence, please feel free to move it there). Wikidemo's description of events fails to mention that while some editors supported Equazcion's use of an editing tool populating the edit summary of "vandalism" on his reverts of Burntsauce's text removal, there were several editors at Wikipedia talk:Trivia sections and pop trivia ANI (myself included) who disputed characterizing these edits as vandalism. In my opinion, the usage of script assisted editing with what I (and others) considered to be misleading edit summaries contributed to the escalation of this situation. Of course this doesn't in any way justify the usage of blocking in this case, but it bears pointing out that there were several editors and admins involved in the discussion that somehow managed to not start reverting edits and blocking editors, but there was a small group (Burntsauce, Equazcion, Wikidemo, Alkivar, and Neil) who, while I believe were acting in what they considered to be good faith attempts to protect Wikipedia, were engaging in behavior that was disruptive and detrimental. In regards to this particular situation, Alkivar isn't the only one who got his hands dirty so to speak. --Isotope23 ^talk 13:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I've tried to make as clear as possible everywhere else, I did not necessarily consider Burntsauce's edits to be vandalism. I was using the Twinkle vandalism rollback function because that was the only feasible way to roll back edits on such a massive scale. Twinkle does have other rollback methods, but they require multiple steps per rollback, whereas the vandalism rollbacks can be accomplished in a single click. It was not my first choice, as I knew the edit summary calling the edits vandalism would at least be easy for my opponents to refute. Again, I did my best to clarify to everyone that I did not mean to call the edits vandalism, but that this was just a matter of the most technically feasible way to perform such a massive rollback.

Now, why were the rollbacks necessary, and why participate in what could be perceived as edit warring? Well, Wikidemo has more or less stated this a lot better than I could on the Trivia guideline's talk page, but I'll give it a shot because it seems a response to Isotope's concerns should exist on this page.

Had I not rolled them back right away, Burntsauce's edits, which went against the consensus established in the trivia guideline, would have succeeded. What else was there to do? How do you fix a mass-edit like that without mass-reverting it? What exactly should I have done? The common suggestion as an alternative to reverting immediately is to participate in a discussion on an article's talk page -- but there were 150 articles (I don't know if that's the exact number, but it was at least that) and discussing the revert on each talk page would've been impossible. I did participate in the only feasible discussion I could -- a centralized discussion about the mass-edits, in which there was consensus that the edits were disruptive along with consensus support for the mass-rollback -- and, which I might add, neither Burntsauce or Alkivar participated in, despite knowing that the discussion was taking place.

Besides which, if we can agree that the mass edit was wrong, then this really would've been the only way to fix it. Had I even waited a day to do it (for argument's sake, assuming that would've assuaged concerns over the method), there would've surely been further changes to these articles, making rollbacks impossible.

The debate over trivia and pop-culture sections has been long and heated; Everyone involved is frustrated and wishes they could have things their own way -- but most of them realize they must wait patiently, participate in the debate, and honor the current consensus and compromise. If Burntsauce and Alkivar (and Neil) had an opinion and wanted to change things, they should have made the effort in the appropriate Wikipedia fashion, just like everyone else has -- and yet, as a longtime resident of WT:TRIVIA, I've yet to see any of their names there once. They didn't want to discuss. They wanted to take a shortcut. I simply didn't allow them to, and I stand by that decision.

In addition to the disruption that brought about this discussion, a new account appears to be acting as a meat- or sockpuppet of one of the users under discussion. The very first edit of this new account 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. This new account is also making stalking accusations. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On an initial note, I had hoped that providing this information would not be necessary, especially because my interaction with most editors since my return has been pleasant and rewarding: [125], [126], [127], [128], [129], [130], [131], [132], [133], [134], [135], [136], [137]. Thus, even though I have suspected RobJ1981, for example, to be a proxy editor, I offered to seek mediation later this month or avoid each other back on the 30th and then I made it a point to avoid AfDs altogether. I have not participated in any AfDs on Halloween or today and I don't plan to do so either, but then I see that after five hours of RobJ1981 not posting and despite my good faith post to agree to disagree and my self-imposed exile from AfDs, RobJ1981 posted two in a row about me:

• 20:47, 31 October 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Otto4711‎ (A new discussion about Le Grand started)
• 20:45, 31 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents‎ (==User:Le_Grand_Roi_des_Citrouilles==)
• 15:59, 31 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games‎ (Help needed with Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games)

I tried to just ignore that, too as two admins determined it was "resolved," and yet then today, his third edit of the day and in the same minute as the other two was yet again about me after I avoided the guy for well over a day, did not participate in any AfDs, etc.

• 13:07, 1 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents‎ (→User:Le_Grand_Roi_des_Citrouilles - comment)
• 13:07, 1 November 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:FullMetal Falcon‎ (Comment about your post on the talk page of Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games) (top)
• 13:01, 1 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games‎ (→Can we see a list of characters? - comment) (top)
• 21:12, 31 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Wingnuts‎ (+ orphan tag)

This determined interest in me has only been exhibited by two other editors in the past few months and in a very similar manner. These editors were Dannycali and Eyrian. I decided to see if there was more than just a coincidental connection among these three accounts and after comparing their edit history's along with those of other editors under discussion in this case, I have found some disturbing evidence that their may be complex proxy editng going on here. The accounts Dannycali and RobJ1981 may be a meat- or sock puppet or proxy editor of either Burntsauce or JB196 or Eyrian. The most compelling similarities in edits are 1) aggressive nomination for deletion and outright removal of trivia/in popular culture articles and sections exhibited by Burnstauce and Eyrian; 2) interest in professional wrestling articles a la JB196; 3) parallel harassment and assumptions of bad faith against DGG, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles, and Wikidemo by Dannycali, RobJ1981, and Eyrian; and 4) tag-teaming defense of each other.

• Alkivar and RobJ1981 post practically the same argument in this discussion.

• RobJ1981 posts in support of Burntsauce.

• Notice the closeness of Alkivar, Burntsauce, and RobJ1981’s posts in this discussion.

• RobJ1981 nominates an article for deletion, Burntsauce agrees in this discussion.

• Another Alkivar, Dannycali, Burntsauce, and RobJ1981 deletion team up in this discussion.

• RobJ1981, Alkivar, Dannycali, and Burntsauce want to delete this article, too.

• RobJ1981 nominates an article, Burntsauce agrees with Rob in this discussion.

• RobJ1981, Dannycali, and Burntsauce again want to delete an in popular culture article

• RobJ1981 nominates another article and both Burntsauce and Alkivar also want it deleted. Notice as well the close times of the edits:

• • 22:41, 11 September 2007 Alkivar (Talk | contribs) (5,415 bytes) (→List of one-off characters on South Park - delete) (undo) (cur) (last)
  • 22:40, 11 September 2007 Burntsauce (Talk | contribs) (5,108 bytes) (undo) (cur) (last)
  • 22:39, 11 September 2007 Burntsauce (Talk | contribs) (5,112 bytes) (undo)

• Compare RobJ1981, Dannycali, and Eyrian‘s posts in this discussion.

• RobJ1981 and Eyrian again in this discussion.

• RobJ1981 and Alkivar in this discussion.

• RobJ1981 and Eyrian, and Burntsauce in this discussion.

• RobJ1981, Eyrian, and Burntsauce in this discussion.

• RobJ1981 and Burntsauce in this discussion, in which Burntsauce yet again repeats his “Delete all subjects in popular culture comment.” Keep in mind as additional evidence below indicates, the RobJ1981 and Dannycali accounts also often repeat the same arguments practically verbatim in multiple AfDs.

• RobJ1981 and Eyrian in this discussion.

• RobJ1981 and Dannycali in this discussion.

• Alkivar and Dannycali in this discussion. Notice as well Alkivar’s comment to Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles, which RobJ1981 also has aggressively posted to Le Grand Roi in other discussions. Incidentally, Le Grand Roi has since abandoned arguing as such and sought advice about his participation in AfDs. Therefore, even if anyone agreed with this particular criticism of Le Grand Roi, he has adjusted his edit habits in a proactive way.

• RobJ1981 and Dannycali in this discussion. Notice how both Dannycali and RobJ1981 use the phrase “very trivial” in the short posts.

• Alkivar, Burntsauce, and Dannycali in this discussion.

• RobJ1981 and Dannycali in this discussion.

• RobJ1981 and Dannycali in this discussion.

• RobJ1981 and Dannycali in this discussion.

• Burntsauce and Dannycali in this discussion.

• Burntsauce and Dannycali in this discussion about professional wrestling.

• Burntsauce and Dannycali (notice how they post immediately after each other with practically the same messages) in this discussion:
  • Delete Don't make category, this is unencyclopedic listcruft. Dannycali
  • Delete. Do not make a category either, it is non encyclopedic garbage as already mentioned. Burntsauce

• RobJ1981 and Dannycali in this discussion.

• Burntsauce and Dannycali right after each other in this discussion.

• Alkivar, Burntsauce, and Dannycali in this discussion.

• RobJ1981 and Dannycali in this discussion.

• RobJ1981 and Dannycali in this discussion.

• RobJ1981 and Dannycali in this discussion.

• RobJ1981 and Dannycali in this discussion.

• RobJ1981 and Dannycali in this discussion.

• RobJ1981 and Dannycali in this discussion.

• RobJ1981 and Dannycali in this discussion.

• RobJ1981 and Dannycali in this discussion.

• Eyrian, Burntsauce, and Dannycali in this discussion. They even posted within a minute of each other:
  • 17:00, 24 August 2007 Eyrian (Talk | contribs) (13,750 bytes) (→Sirius in fiction - fmt) (undo) **16:59, 24 August 2007 Dannycali (Talk | contribs) (13,750 bytes) (undo)

• Dannycali, Eyrian, and RobJ1981 in this discussion.

• Eyrian and Dannycali in this discussion.

• Eyrian and Dannycali in this discussion.

• Burntsauce and Dannycali in immediate succession.

• JohnEMcClure, RobJ1981, and Burntsauce in this discussion.

Dannycali also shares RobJ1981 and Eyrian’s harassment of at least DGG, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles, and Wikidemo and relentless anti-in popular culture edits. In addition to the determined effort to remove what he/they perceive as trivia/in popular culture, Dannycali, RobJ1981, and JohnEMcClure, the alleged reincarnation of Eyrian, have all accused multiple editors of stalking them:

• Dannycali is warned for his stalking accusations.

• JohnEMcClure accuses a user of stalking.

• RobJ1981 is warned for making stalking accusations.

Also, consider the following diffs:

• [138]
• [139]
• [140]
• [141]

Thus, at some point in time, Dannycali or RobJ1981 tried to move/rename/redirect the same Stephen King in popular culture article.

Also, you will see that the Dannycali, RobJ1981, and an IP account have been targeting Family Guy episode articles this month as well: by Dannycali, by RobJ1981, [142]

Prior to his “departure” and use of the new account, Eyrian had engaged in a number of conflicts with other editors: [143], [144], [145], [146], [147], and [148]. In this edit and this edit, Eyrian attempts to squash criticism by multiple editors of his recent editing habits. He also seemed to be edit warring:

• 16:47, 22 August 2007
• 19:19, 23 August 2007
• 19:30, 23 August 2007
• 19:40, 23 August 2007
• 13:19, 24 August 2007

As the above evidence suggests, he does not seem to be open-minded to criticism and appeared to be violating Wikipedia:POINT in discussions on Articles for Deletion regarding “in popular culture” content. This kind of disruptive behavior did not improve with the new account, which in addition to acting in suspicious support of Burntsauce in two of its first four edits also accused another editor (Wikidemo) of stalking, something Anthony pointed out when he declined John's unblock request.

Dannycali just copy and paste posted the same message in AfDs: [149] and [150]

RobJ1981 also just repeats the same arguments: [151] and [152].

Also, notice the following similarities:

• [153] and [154];
• [155] and [156] (notice Dannycali even says “per Rob“;
• [157] and [158];
• [159] and [160].
• [161], [162], and [163]

In the above diffs, the editors exhibit practically identical or at least similar “delete” voting and similar kinds of personal attack allegations against editors.

RobJ1981, who accused Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles and DGG of wikistalking (something Rob was warned about: [164]), still ironically posted after Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles in various discussions or about him in others: [165], [166], [167], [168], [169], [170], [171], [172], etc.

In the one instance he even agreed with an editor’s (Otto4711) incivil and insulting comments that served as part of the reason for that editor to be blocked.

Incivility and assuming bad faith by Dannycali: [173], [174], [175], and [176].

Assuming bad faith/harassment by RobJ1981: [177] and [178].

This IP is also acting quite a bit like Burntsauce with the mass reverting/tagging.

Edit-warring by Eyrian and Threeafterthree with other editors on an “in popular culture” article that survived an AfD:

• 19:50, 22 August 2007 Casliber (Talk | contribs) (7,518 bytes) (neither do you (dictate policy) - I said 2 weeks)
• 19:34, 22 August 2007 Eyrian (Talk | contribs) (6,797 bytes) (rv; I'm afraid you don't dictate policy. It's still in the history if you're looking for significance. Until then, it's uncited and unacceptable)
• 19:33, 22 August 2007 Casliber (Talk | contribs) (7,518 bytes) (now now, I said 2 weeks didn't I?)
• 14:47, 22 August 2007 Eyrian (Talk | contribs) (6,797 bytes) (→Cartoons and comics - off with it, still uncited)
• 04:54, 18 August 2007 Firsfron (Talk | contribs) m (7,518 bytes) (→References - in keeping with the main Stegosaurus article)
• 06:38, 14 August 2007 Pixelface (Talk | contribs) m (7,517 bytes) (beed>been)
• 21:19, 13 August 2007 Casliber (Talk | contribs) (7,517 bytes) (a ref for familarity from a scholarly text)
• 19:49, 13 August 2007 Threeafterthree (Talk | contribs) (7,161 bytes) (rm original resaerch and copy edit)
• 19:47, 13 August 2007 Threeafterthree (Talk | contribs) (7,229 bytes) (rm unsourced material)
• 17:34, 13 August 2007 Threeafterthree (Talk | contribs) (7,303 bytes) (added or tag)
• 14:42, 13 August 2007 Casliber (Talk | contribs) (7,297 bytes) ((sigh) add non OR intro sentence for the time being)
• 14:27, 13 August 2007 Threeafterthree (Talk | contribs) (7,239 bytes) (→Cartoons and comics - removed unsourced/original research material)
• 04:23, 13 August 2007 Casliber (Talk | contribs) m (7,381 bytes) (Reverted edits by Eyrian (talk) to last version by Casliber)
• 04:10, 13 August 2007 Eyrian (Talk | contribs) m (6,576 bytes) (Reverted edits by Casliber (talk) to last version by Eyrian)
• 04:06, 13 August 2007 Casliber (Talk | contribs) m (7,381 bytes) (Reverted edits by Eyrian (talk) to last version by Casliber)
• 04:03, 13 August 2007 Eyrian (Talk | contribs) m (6,576 bytes) (Reverted edits by Casliber (talk) to last version by Eyrian)
• 03:31, 13 August 2007 Casliber (Talk | contribs) m (7,381 bytes) (Reverted edits by Eyrian (talk) to last version by Casliber)
• 01:31, 13 August 2007 Eyrian (Talk | contribs) m (6,576 bytes) (Reverted edits by Casliber (talk) to last version by Eyrian)
• 23:50, 10 August 2007 Casliber (Talk | contribs) m (7,381 bytes) (Reverted edits by Eyrian (talk) to last version by Casliber)
• 23:30, 10 August 2007 Eyrian (Talk | contribs) (6,576 bytes) (rv; no, it's not. It's a telegraphic list posing as a paragraph.)
• 23:27, 10 August 2007 Casliber (Talk | contribs) (7,381 bytes) (its a cohesive paragraph, not a list)
• 22:52, 10 August 2007 Eyrian (Talk | contribs) (6,576 bytes) (rv; because they're simple appearances with no indications of significance)
• 22:11, 10 August 2007 Circeus (Talk | contribs) (7,381 bytes) (re-revert.No justification whatsoever as to why this is particular is supposed to be "trivial")
• 22:05, 10 August 2007 Eyrian (Talk | contribs) m (6,576 bytes) (Reverted edits by Circeus (talk) to last version by Eyrian)
• 21:18, 10 August 2007 Circeus (Talk | contribs) m (7,382 bytes) (Reverted edits by Eyrian (talk) to last version by Jaranda)
• 20:56, 10 August 2007 Eyrian (Talk | contribs) (6,576 bytes) (→Cartoons and comics - rm trivia)
• 19:00, 8 August 2007 Jaranda (Talk | contribs) (7,382 bytes) (survived AFD)
• 16:22, 2 August 2007 J. Spencer (Talk | contribs) (7,595 bytes) (→Cartoons and comics - so it kind of looks like Stegosaurus?)
• 16:13, 2 August 2007 Eyrian (Talk | contribs) (7,916 bytes) (→Television - rm trivial)
• 16:17, 1 August 2007 Otto4711 (Talk | contribs) (8,147 bytes) (afd nom)

Eyrian and Threeafterthree also edited on American Israel Public Affairs Committee: [179] and [180]. Threeafterthree is on break and Eyrian has allegedly left, but we already know that Eyrian did come back, but under the JohnEMcClure account.

Thus, the total suspected meat- and/or sockpuppets and/or proxy editors of JB196 included: 68.163.65.119, 75.5.225.151, 138.88.170.131, Alkivar, Burntsauce, Dannycali, Eyrian, JohnEMcClure, RobJ1981, and Threeafterthree. If you look at the above mentioned user’s contributions, you will see that of the few AfDs they participate in daily, they are almost all the same ones as each other and they seem bent on aggressively deleting certain kinds of articles (popular culture/professional wrestling). Respectfully submitted, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JB196 is a community banned vandal whose modus operandi is described here. For more information see this user conduct RFC that was opened on a JB196 sockpuppet called BooyakaDell a few months after the original ban.

Basically, JB196 is a disruptive vandal who attempts to force his own idiosyncratic views about professional wrestling onto Wikipedia. Principally he tries to get biographies deleted if he doesn't like the performer. There are vast numbers of performers he doesn't like, so he games the verifiability policy and the biographies of living persons policy to delete large amounts of information that is uncontroversial and verifiable, but not actually cited, from large numbers of articles. Meanwhile he tags and PRODs large numbers of articles. This is no good faith attempt to improve the topic, but a strategy to overwhelm the topic's contributors with an insurmountable burden of evidence, thus jettisoning the information he doesn't want the project to publish.

JB196 has made hundreds of sockpuppets.

• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/JB196
• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/BooyakaDell
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/DogJesterExtra
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Damastakilla
• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kungfoofighting1
• Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_JB196 (confirmed; 233 entries)
• Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of JB196 (unconfirmed; 294 entries)

Per evidence I have submitted and am preparing for submission to the Committee via e-mail, both Burntsauce and Alkivar have been doing JB196's bidding for half a year. They copied his methodology to disrupt professional wrestling, adapted the same methods to disrupt in popular culture sections, and have actually taken their marching orders from him in habitual violation of WP:BAN#Editing_on_behalf_of_banned_users. As demonstrated above, Burntsauce and Alkivar damaged 168 in popular culture sections as well as scores of wrestling biographies in pointed defiance of consensus, and Alkivar misused his sysop tools to abet the disruption. This is one of the most serious betrayals of trust that any editor, much less an administrator, could perpetrate on the community. Furthermore, Burntsauce is a meatpuppet and a sockpuppet whom Alkivar defended and protected in violation of multiple policies, and in full knowledge of the circumstances.

I urge the Committee to create a deterrent against future abuse by exercising the strongest remedies at its disposal against both of these editors. Durova^Charge! 07:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Early on 28 October, Durova blocked JohnEMcClure (talk · contribs) as a sockpuppet of User:JB196.
• About 8 hours later, on AN/I administrator Eyrian (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) stated that JohnEMcClure (talk · contribs) is an alternative account that he created, in part to test boundaries.
• The contribution dates of the two accounts don't overlap prior to the block, including the deleted contributions of each.

• There is a deleted RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Eyrian. While sockpuppetry is mentioned in the RfC complaint, it was not the primary issue nor is it immediately obvious that there was any relevant evidence on sockpuppetry. The primary focus was a mass attack on "... in popular culture" articles and sections.
• Eyrian had written an essay on articles in popular culture that is now at User:Edgarde/IPC. Some talk page history (roughly ending when the RfC was deleted) is deleted at User talk:Eyrian/IPC.

Alkivar was involved in the BJAODN controversy, as seen here, with this section quoted from the log:

1. 10:30, 14 August 2007 Alkivar (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense/Richardland Middle School" ‎ (WP:DENY, its mere presense promotes slander, copyright violation, spam, and more vandalism)
2. 10:30, 14 August 2007 Alkivar (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense/" ‎ (WP:DENY, its mere presense promotes slander, copyright violation, spam, and more vandalism)
3. 10:29, 14 August 2007 Alkivar (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia talk:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense/Jimbo Wales for admin" ‎ (WP:DENY, its mere presense promotes slander, copyright violation, spam, and more vandalism)
4. 10:29, 14 August 2007 Alkivar (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense/Jimbo Wales for admin" ‎ (WP:DENY, its mere presense promotes slander, copyright violation, spam, and more vandalism)
5. 10:29, 14 August 2007 Alkivar (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia talk:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense/ASCII cows" ‎ (WP:DENY, its mere presense promotes slander, copyright violation, spam, and more vandalism)
6. 10:29, 14 August 2007 Alkivar (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense/ASCII cows" ‎ (WP:DENY, its mere presense promotes slander, copyright violation, spam, and more vandalism)
7. 10:29, 14 August 2007 Alkivar (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia talk:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense/Sysop Accountability Policy" ‎ (WP:DENY, its mere presense promotes slander, copyright violation, spam, and more vandalism)
8. 10:29, 14 August 2007 Alkivar (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense/Sysop Accountability Policy" ‎ (WP:DENY, its mere presense promotes slander, copyright violation, spam, and more vandalism)
9. 10:28, 14 August 2007 Alkivar (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense/Wikipe-tan" ‎ (WP:DENY, its mere presense promotes slander, copyright violation, spam, and more vandalism)
10. 10:28, 14 August 2007 Alkivar (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense/Template" ‎ (WP:DENY, its mere presense promotes slander, copyright violation, spam, and more vandalism)
11. 10:28, 14 August 2007 Alkivar (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense/Wikipedia:Featured deletion discussions" ‎ (WP:DENY, its mere presense promotes slander, copyright violation, spam, and more vandalism)
12. 10:28, 14 August 2007 Alkivar (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense/Dušan Jocić" ‎ (WP:DENY, its mere presense promotes slander, copyright violation, spam, and more vandalism)
13. 10:28, 14 August 2007 Alkivar (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense/Saint Denis" ‎ (WP:DENY, its mere presense promotes slander, copyright violation, spam, and more vandalism)
14. 10:27, 14 August 2007 Alkivar (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense/User:Jimbo Wales, April 1 2006" ‎ (WP:DENY, its mere presense promotes slander, copyright violation, spam, and more vandalism)
15. 10:27, 14 August 2007 Alkivar (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense: The Next Generation/People for deletion/Old" ‎ (WP:DENY, its mere presense promotes slander, copyright violation, spam, and more vandalism)
16. 10:27, 14 August 2007 Alkivar (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense/Wikiality" ‎ (WP:DENY, its mere presense promotes slander, copyright violation, spam, and more vandalism)
17. 10:27, 14 August 2007 Alkivar (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia talk:Admin accountability poll/Sysop Accountability Policy 2004" ‎ (WP:DENY, its mere presense promotes slander, copyright violation, spam, and more vandalism)
18. 10:27, 14 August 2007 Alkivar (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia:Admin accountability poll/Sysop Accountability Policy 2004" ‎ (WP:DENY, its mere presense promotes slander, copyright violation, spam, and more vandalism)
19. 10:26, 14 August 2007 Alkivar (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense/Monkey jesus" ‎ (WP:DENY, its mere presense promotes slander, copyright violation, spam, and more vandalism)
20. 10:26, 14 August 2007 Alkivar (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense/Baradise" ‎ (WP:DENY, its mere presense promotes slander, copyright violation, spam, and more vandalism)
21. 10:26, 14 August 2007 Alkivar (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense/Articles for wheelation" ‎ (WP:DENY, its mere presense promotes slander, copyright violation, spam, and more vandalism)
22. 10:26, 14 August 2007 Alkivar (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense/Freebutchers" ‎ (WP:DENY, its mere presense promotes slander, copyright violation, spam, and more vandalism)
23. 10:26, 14 August 2007 Alkivar (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense/Poop egg" ‎ (WP:DENY, its mere presense promotes slander, copyright violation, spam, and more vandalism)
24. 10:25, 14 August 2007 Alkivar (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense/Spam Eaters" ‎ (WP:DENY, its mere presense promotes slander, copyright violation, spam, and more vandalism)

There was a wheel-war at the time over the BJAODN issue, and an essay is not a reason to delete something, per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion.

His lack of civility is shown in these edit summaries with the protection/deletion/block log:

• 00:31, 9 October 2007 Alkivar (Talk | contribs) protected Palatine uvula ‎ (since idiots seem inclined to continuously readd pop trivia to ENCYCLOPEDIA ARTICLES... this will be protected until said time the parties agree to stop. [edit=sysop:move=sysop])
• 02:16, 28 September 2007 Alkivar (Talk | contribs) unprotected User talk:Phil Sandifer ‎ (if i cant have my banner... you cant have your protection... how's them apples?)
• 05:32, 28 September 2007 Alkivar (Talk | contribs) blocked "Wwefan980 (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 2 weeks ‎ (Attempting to harass other users: "I say you get blocked for threatening me by acting like you can block me when you can't. How's that?"... How's This?)

The edit summaries are clear violations of WP:CIVIL.

Another example of incivility can be found here, at [[181]] as an example.

I haven't interacted with this user much, but I'm adding in info gleaned from the RFC on him, and from the deletion logs. --Solumeiras ^talk 11:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When Burntsauce first turned up, his editing pattern was so similar to that of JB196 that he was blocked. Checkuser did not prove the link, so Burntsauce was unblocked. His subsequent editing continues to resemble that of numerous JB196 socks. All this is stated above.

On the short-lived wikiabuse website, started by Rootlogy, JB196 (posting under his Wikipedia Review username Looch) made much of this, referring to Burntsauce as a "respected editor" at a time when Burntsauce was both new and combative, undoubtedly not respected. It is clear to me that JB196 took and takes a close interest in Burntsauce's edits, is strongly supportive of Burntsauce in debate on Wikipedia review. Threads such as "Wikipedia falsely bans a GREAT editor as a sockpuppet of myself" started by JB196 / Looch are representative.

Alkivar has consistently served as the protector of Burntsauce's edits in edit wars, regardless of merit or communication. These locks have lasted from only a few days to several months:

Bob Saget

• Burntsauce removes contents of article[182]
• WRE451 reverts to original[183]
• Can't sleep, clown will eat me reverts to Burntsauce[184]
• Ned Scott reverts to original[185]
• Burntsauce reverts[186]
• San Diablo reverts Burntsauce[187]
• Alkivar reverts to Burntsauce[188]
• Alkivar fully protects article[189]
• Anonymous user questions full protection on ANI[190]
• Merope removes full protection following discussion[191]

Chris Candido

• Burntsauce removes contents of article[192]
• Koberulz reverts[193]
• JB196 sockpuppet Slazengerbin reverts to Burntsauce[194]
• The Evil Spartan reverts[195]
• Alkivar reverts to Burntsauce[196]
• Alkivar fully protects article[197]
• I post a request for unprotection at WP:RFPP arguing article fully protected after, effectively, one revert[198]
• Trebor removes full protection[199]

Orville Brown

• Burntsauce removes contents of article[200]
• I revert[201]
• Burntsauce reverts[202]
• BionicWilliam reverts[203]
• Burntsauce reverts[204]
• Geoffg reverts[205]
• Burntsauce reverts[206]
• Darrenhusted reverts[207]
• Alkivar reverts[208]
• Alkivar fully protects article[209]
• I post a request for unprotection at WP:RFPP[210]
• Trebor removes full protection[211]

Rodney Anoa'i

• Burntsauce removes contents of article[212]
• The Prince of Darkness reverts[213]
• Burntsauce reverts[214]
• Alkivar fully protects article[215]
• I post a request for unprotection at WP:RFPP[216]
• Trebor removes full protection[217]

Rico Constantino

• Burntsauce removes contents of article[218]
• Anonymous reverts[219]
• RFerreira reverts to Burntsauce[220]
• Anonymous reverts[221]
• Alkivar reverts to Burntsauce[222]
• Alkivar fully protects article[223]

Steve Blackman

• Burntsauce removes contents of article[224]
• Croctotheface reverts[225]
• Burntsauce reverts[226]
• Croctotheface reverts[227]
• JB196 sockpuppet Fragilecreep reverts[228]
• Croctotheface reverts[229]
• Alkivar fully protects article[230]
• Alkivar reverts to Burntsauce[231]
• Nat unprotects article, five months later[232]

See Burntsauce's block log, incident report

Burntsauce was blocked on June 8, 2007 by TenOfAllTrades after continuing to neglect to use edit summaries when prodding articles for deletion after being warned on four occasions by several editors.([233], [234], [235], [236], [237], [238]) The block had 100% support from ANI however just under two hours later Alkivar lifted the block with the edit summary "ten of all trades should remember that blocks must be placed according to blocking policy". After I noticed the unblocking I notified ANI and after further discussion, in which Alkivar never responded either on ANI or on his talk page as to why he lifted the block (and has to this date never explained his reasoning), Ryan Postlethwaite re-instated the block. At the time Ryan Postlethwaite observed that outside of the unblock Alkivar made no edits in the hours immediately before, or after, and seemed to have come online solely to unblock Burntsauce. This gave a strong implication Alkivar and Burntsauce are at least in communication off-wiki and Alkivar uses this relationship over the judgment and decisions of the community.

See contributions: 216.17.109.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), Radarman1 (talk · contribs · block log)

JB196 seems to monitor the edits of Burntsauce and Alkivar when they removed contents from articles. When they were reverted JB196 would go to their talk pages to notify them.

Diffs: Burntsauce (only from May to June, there are more): [239] [240] [241] [242] [243] [244] [245] [246] [247] [248] [249] [250] [251]

Alkivar: [252] [253] [254]

There seems to have been a short conversation between the two that started acrimoniously but ended with Burntsauce requesting Eyrian join the champions of WP:CLUE.[255] Burntsauce then removed the conversation.[256]

Cross-posted from a declined checkuser request

JohnEMcClure was initially blocked as a sockpuppet of banned user JB196 (talk · contribs) and after an unsuccessful unblocking attempt stating "I'm nobody's sockpuppet; is it impossible to agree with someone else?" administratior Eyrian, who had been inactive for some time claimed the account was his here. During the discussion about the bizarre behavior of Eyrian a reference to another sock account was made as well and soon after Eyrian vanished deleting various pages of his and the JohnEMcClure.

The situation is bizarre and has become part of an arbitration case. Some users are not sure if Eyrian and JohnEMcClure are even related and the JohnEMcClure's odd timing appearing just as the arbitration case began has lead to even more questions. I feel a checkuser needs to be run to make sure Eyrian, who is now facing de-sysopping and block, is in fact JohnEMcClure and to find the third sockpuppet Eyrian admitted to having.

The CheckUser results are in, and I quote:

 Confirmed. It's more than just these two, as well. As well as numerous IP edits, there's also User:Varlak, who I'd previously blocked, and User:THX1337, an apparent sleeper. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per that, I've filed an emergency ArbComm case to get Eyrian desysopped. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me)(public computer) 12:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.