Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eyrian/Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notice 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 for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. 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.

Contents


[edit] Evidence presented by Wikidemo

Note: the following material, other than headings, is copied verbatim from the WP:RFAR. I may refactor later.

[edit] Trolling, Abusive Sockpuppeting, Incivility, Meatpuppeting for Banned User

Detailed background

I have no prior dealings with Eyrian (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) or his apparent sockpuppets, JohnEMcClure (talk · contribs), Varlak (talk · contribs), 68.163.65.119 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS) and

This user is a sock puppet of Eyrian, and has been blocked indefinitely.
Please refer to this Checkuser request for evidence.

Account information: block log – current autoblocks – edits – logs

. The Alkivar incident, where I first encountered Alkivar (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) and Burntsauce (talk · contribs), involved Alkivar's use of Administrative tools to defend Burntsauce's contentious deletion of "popular culture" sections from 168 articles in league with a notorious puppetmaster. During the subsequent RfArb Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles (talk · contribs) identified a new suspected sockpuppet who was re-deleting content from the same articles. [1]. LGR provided a link ([2]) to the mystery user's contribution history, which revealed Burntsauce-like "popculturectomies" to five of Burntsauce's 168 articles ([3], [4], [5], [6], [7]) and two new ones ([8], [9]). The very first edit from this new account proclaimed "Burntsauce is correct"; others summarized "I agree with Burntsauce and Neil", "More trivia junk gone", "Terrible. Gone", and "None of that is important whatsoever. It needs to stay gone". He also nominated an article for deletion [10] and voted in an AFD.

I reviewed each deletion in depth and decided that four of the seven contained material likely to be sourceable that was relevant to the article. I restored these ([11], [12], [13], [14]) with appropriate summaries: ("After reviewing, much of the material is useful. Please discuss or source", "There is no blanket policy against lists. This one is useful, and it is annotated.", "Depictions of a mythological being are a relevant part of the mythology. The material is sourceable so please be constructive and add sources rather than delete", "info re. ghostbusters is useful. I don't agree with deletion"). I integrated the content into one article[15] as WP:TRIVIA suggests, and explained on another that I left material deleted because it was irrelevant[16], before turning to more important wikibusiness, creating two new articles, here and here, improving two others here and here, voting in some WP:AFDs, assessing articles for a wikiproject, etc.

Eyrian would have none of that. I learned from LGR ([17] that Eyrian's sockpuppet had accused me of "stalking" him and had re-deleted all four sections ([18], [19], [20], [21]) with summaries ranging from rude to uncivil ("Did you actually read the section?", "Re-purge the trivia junk. No, it's not important. Whatever "Reviewing" you're doing is flawed. Reading up, it seems to be a habit of yours.", "Not a chance. Go stalk someone else"). I left a warning for civility, disruption, and edit warring[22]. Altough convinced now that the edits were in bad faith, I patiently explained the WP:TRIVIA guideline and the WP:CONSENSUS policy to follow if he wanted to change the articles, and left a courtesy notice that a claim had arisen in the Alkivar case that he was a possible sockpuppet. I restored the content a second time ([23], [24], [25], [26]), and began improving two of the other articles ([27], [28]) per the guidelin. I explained what I was doing and why to arbcom [29]).

Shortly after Durova announced she had blocked JohnEMcClure as a suspected sockpuppet of JB196 ([30], [31]) Eyrian used the sockpuppet's talk page ([32]) to accuse me of biting him as a "new user", to announce that he had reviewed my edit history and deemed me a promoter of trivia, to vow continued edit warring ("There will be no compromise. One of us will force our opinion on the other."), to deny that it was a puppet of anybody, and to say "I don't think anything I've said is over the line." Hours later Eyrian asked for a block review [| block review], admitting JohnEMcClure was an alternate account he created "designed to be entirely disposable" as an "experiment" to "see what would happen if I tested the line somewhat more than necessary." He claimed he was "making a determination if I would be any happier if I returned; it's clear I wouldn't be" and said he had "no investment" in the account.

[edit] History of disruption

Eyrian has a history of contentious edits and runs in the same circles as JB196, Alkivar, and Burntsauce. His methods, attitude, and language are the same: deleting professional wrestling bios months ago, and now popular culture sections, with deception and rude, insulting treatment to any who would oppose him. A prior RfC raised sockpuppetering and other issues here. A checkuser confirmed JohnEMcClure as a sockpuppet and found others he had not yet disclosed ([33]). He must have known he was interfering with a matter in Arbitration - he deleted the same articles, he reviewed the history, and I told him explicitly. He left Wikipedia a huff, deleting and salting his and his sockpuppet's pages on the way out ([34]).

[edit] Evidence presented by Casliber

[edit] Bare minimum evidence, untrustworthy behaviour, requires desysopping

At the bare minimum we have on User talk:JohnEMcClure, User:JohnEMcClure requesting an unblock where they declare they are not a sockpuppet [35], and then Eyrian saying this here.

A requirement of being an admin is being trusted with the tools, of which is the bare minimum indicates he can't.

Also, his dismissive attitude on his talk page upon quitting suggests he does not feel he has done anything wrong. Notably he left in August and returned secretively suggests there is no reason not to expect further episodes. It is interesting to note there appear to be further incidents of accounts deleting large amounts of material Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive323#User:Pilotbob cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Nwwaew

[edit] CheckUser results

After Eyrian's confession on ANI that JohnEMcClure was his sockpuppet, Lid filed a CheckUser to confirm. Morven performed the check, and reported the following results:

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)

[edit] Evidence presented by Durova

[edit] Eyrian has forfeited the community's trust

The JohnEMcClure account piqued my interest while I was doing peripheral investigation on the Alkivar case. I blocked it as a likely JB196 sockpuppet, and since some editors criticize the term meatpuppet as not sufficiently genteel I'll say that if this wasn't JB himself it sure looked like a marionette from the same puppet theater. Wikidemo's excellent evidence conveys a basic outline of the patterns I was watching.

What matters more than the reasons behind that block is Eyrian's reaction to it. Had Eyrian contacted me privately and offered a reasonable explanation for the situation I would likely have lifted it myself, but Eyrian made no such attempt. Instead, as other editors have demonstrated, Eyrian's subsequent behavior was erratic. He soon stopped editing and left many questions unanswered. If Eyrian returns now and offers a statement at this case it will still be impossible to trust any assertion he fails to verify, since his previous statements were elaborate and contradictory.

I ask for the Committee's patience regarding the remainder of my evidence. Some other activity that relates to this case requires additional analysis. DurovaCharge! 08:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Evidence presented by {your user name}

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

[edit] {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.

[edit] {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.