Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:39, 16 October 2007

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.

Evidence presented by Melsaran

(will elaborate later)

Alkivar has misused admin tools

• 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.
• Protected a page after reverting a user who added information he disagreed with (and he inappropriately used admin rollback to remove the content). Protection was overturned by Edokter with the comment not a valid reason for protection.
• 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.
• 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 Misplaced Pages talk:Trivia sections. Indefinite block was a bit too much.
• 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.

Alkivar has been incivil in log summaries

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

Evidence presented by User:B

Disputed actions

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:

• Protection 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 . The user has since left Misplaced Pages.
• 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 Misplaced Pages:What would Jack do? (logs)

Evidence presented by User:Bfigura

Alkivar has blocked without warning

• User:Chiangkaishektwnroc was blocked for 1 week for uploading copyrighted material. The user wasn't given any warning, or talk page suggestions. This seems to be uncivil biting of a new editor who might be lost to the project now.
• 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, which suggests the mistakes may have been due to the user being new to Misplaced Pages, rather than a persistent vandal.
• User:Dingv03 was indefinitely blocked for copyright violation with the message (Copyright infringement: User has absolutely no understanding of copyright or WP:Fair Use.) While a notice of the notice (which was left seemed rather harsh ) was left, 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 .

--Bfigura 03:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by east718 (incomplete)

Alkivar has wheel-warred

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 uploading images without source information, despite not having warned the user for it. AuburnPilot (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) then unblocked, stating that the intial block was "unjustified by policy." Six minutes later, Alkivar reblocked, which was undone by Sam Blacketer (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) after a discussion on AN/I.

Evidence presented by Davnel03

Alkivar has clearly abused admin tools

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 , 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)

Evidence presented by Rockpocket

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

Example of an unilateral and unjustified page deletion by Alkivar

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. Five days later Alkivar deleted 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 therefore) 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)

Evidence presented by W.marsh

Incivility/lack of accountability

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)

Evidence presented by Wikidemo

Alkivar was a partisan in a content dispute

To understand Alkivar's recent actions on October 8-10, one has to know the context of a small band of editors and administrators who set out to gut "popular culture" sections from articles, and obstruct those who got in their way.

User:Burntsauce on October 8 deleted | 167 article sections with section titles mentioning "popular culture" in a space of 68 minutes, each with an edit summary of "popculturectomy" or a slight variant. Analyzing just 1/3 of these, many deleted statements were sourced (, , , , , ), relevant to the notability of the article subject because the subject participated directly ([, [http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Height_adjustable_suspension&diff=prev&oldid=163191081, ), or are expositions of article subjects that are popular culture phenomena to begin with (, , , , , , ). Among the tidbits removed are that buffalo wings are used in competitive eating events, that Cochise's grandson played the part of Cochise in The High Chaparral, that superconductivity, oscilloscopes, and spacefaring are staples of science fiction, that an 1855 painting of Scranton, Pennsylvania hangs at the National Gallery of Art, the film, The Matrix, is an exposition of Plato's cave and other theories of philosophy, that Neuschwanstein is the model for Disney's Sleeping Beauty Castle, that the title character of Finding Nemo is a clownfish, and that buffalo wings are not in fact made out of buffalo. Many other deleted items are notable cover versions, treatments, performances, sequels, or portrayals of fictional or mythological things, poems, songs, plays, etc.

User:Equazcion, believing the deletions to be improper, restored xxxxx of them (several had already been restored by other people). Multiple parties, myself included, told Burntsauce that his deletions were improper, warned him to stop, and said they would bring the matter to WP:ANI. Discussions started there and on WP:TRIVIA where the prevailing opinion was and still is that the deletions were improper. Nevertheless, Burntsauce promptly deleted them again. Equazcion was in process of restoring them a second time when User:Alkivar blocked him indefinitely and without warning.

Alkivar was in this process form the beginning. He was not the one out front mass-deleting content, but he followed behind Burntsauce, reverting and threatening others who would restore any of the sections. Meanwhile another administrator, Neil, was doing the same. I had restored a total of three sections, after extensively participating in the discussion on the matter and clearly stating why the sections should stay. Yet Neil, apparently confusing me in the heat of the moment with Alkivar, blocked me indefinitely and without warning under similar circumstances, accusing me of improper use of tools (I have no idea what he means; I was using the "undo" button).

There is no prohibition on popular culture references in Misplaced Pages. In fact, even trivia (which is clearly not considered same as popular culture, as evidenced by certain discussions) is as per guidelines not supposed to be summarily removed. Popular Culture is a notable thing in itself and there are many scholars, books, articles, and academic departments devoted to popular culture.

The point is not that this content should or should not be in Misplaced Pages, but rather that many people believe it to be encyclopedic and that editors like Equazcion may reasonably and correctly believe that the material belongs. When someone disagrees with the removal of a "popular culture" section he may restore it. He is not breaking any Misplaced Pages guidelines or policies, he is simply disagreeing that the edit was the right thing to do. If there is a good faith disagreement over article content, the WP:CONSENSUS process is that an editor like Burntsauce may make a bold edit, but another editor like Equazcion is perfectly within his rights to restore it, whereupon the matter goes through the usual process on Misplaced Pages, starting on the article talk page. If someone disagrees with 167 deletions he may make 167 restorals - to say that the rules work differently when large changes are involved to the point where one may not revert large scale bold edits would make a mockery of the consensus process. The bottom line is that whether or not a popular culture section stays is a content dispute, not a behavioral issue.

The distinction is critical. What it means is by joining forces with a small band of content-deleters, Alkivar was using his administrative tools to further his minority position in a content dispute. When he edit protected articles, blocked one user and threatened users, he was not enforcing policy with respect to any bona fide claim of editor misbehavior, but rather gaining an advantage of power over anyone who would oppose their mission.

Alkivar's actions were unusually disruptive

Alkivar may have only protected two articles and blocked one user that day, but it was in the context of a skirmish over 167 articles simultaneously, three aggressive deletionists, and numerous editors who opposed their efforts. They mutually emboldened each other. I was utterly shocked to be blocked - I'm a very productive editor of medium-length tenure (start of 2007), and have never faced any disciplinary action here. I wasn't a part of this; I was responding the best I could to what looked and still looks to be a very disruptive WP:POINT violation. Alkivar, Burntsauce, and Neil could not have their way to deleting through consensus, policy, and guideliens so they just go ahead and do it anyway, and block people who opposed them. Now the users are unblocked, the articles unprotected, the matter got brought up on AN/I, this mediation, and a strong consensus has emerged that these mass deletions are improper. But even now many of these articles are in a random unprotected state. The reason is the bad blood, and the fear of another edit war erupting. I personally think there is much material to restore, but I'm afraid to do anything because I've been threatened with getting blocked again. The result, therefore, is a chilling effect that goes well beyond a single block.

Alkivar refuses to come to terms with his abuse of admin tools

This matter is in arbitration because Alkivar simply will not listen to or communicate with other people. He did not respond to warnings, questions, or pleas about his actions in the trivia matter. After the matter was proposed for arbitration he refused to participate in the process, saying he would only respond if the arbitration actually commenced - in other words, if he was forced to. He argued with and refused to follow the committee clerk, who he misunderstood, and only removed his contentious comment when it was clear the arbitration would take place. Meanwhile, he deleted material from his talk page that is relevant to the case, citing "(get quote)". To add icing to the cake, he has continued the practice of blocking people without warning even now that he knows his adminship is on the line. In short, I see very little evidence that he will do anything unless forced to. He does not listen to consensus, policy, warnings from admins and non-admin editors, and has already shown contempt for this arbitration. I'm afraid that unless strong action is taken he will continue his practice of abusing administrative tools. A mere caution, warning, or statement by the committee is not going to slow him down. Either his adminship should be revoked or he should be put on a very short leash with clear instructions and oversight.

Evidence presented by Erik

Unilateral deletion of images

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. Misplaced Pages 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.

Evidence presented by Random832

Inappropriate banner on Alkivar's user talk page

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

(more to come...)

Evidence presented by {your user name}

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

{Write your assertion here}

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.

{Write your assertion here}

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.