Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Eyrian

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Statement by Isotope23

This has already been brought up in the Alkivar arbitration several days ago. As far as I can tell, Eyrian has not committed any vandalism since this was brought up there, so I'm not sure I see a reason for an emergency desysoping, though if Eyrian's behavior isn't being considered as part of the Alkivar arbitration (sorry, I've not kept up with it enough to know if this is now being rolled into the original case) it might be worth accepting a case simply to look into the allegations.--Isotope23 talk 13:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I just reviewed the proposals at the Alkivar case. It may be worth reviewing Eyrian's behavior separately, though I still don't see this as an emergency situation.--Isotope23 talk 14:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Durova

I suggest that the most dignified solution here would be for Eyrian to resign the tools. Eyrian has not been added to the list of parties in the Alkivar case and two arbitrators have moved to close. To the best of my knowledge, Alkivar did not operate any sockpuppets. Eyrian, by contrast, has multiple sockpuppets in violation of the good hand/bad hand provision of WP:SOCK and has placed himself in an untenable position by both denying and confirming that one of them was his. I had identified that sockpuppet as functionally indistinguishable from JB196, a banned vandal, and blocked it indefinitely. I have no objection to the proposed arbitration case, however, if Eyrian thinks these actions are defensible. DurovaCharge! 15:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by W.marsh

The more I look at this, the more I think ArbCom either needs to pull the Alkivar case back into the voting phase or even evidence phase, and/or remove anything related to Burntsauce/etc. from the proposed decision, and add a finding to explain what ArbCom thinks of the connection between Alkivar and Burntsauce. Which to do hinges on whether there's evidence that Alkivar was a major player in the Burntsauce/etc. thing, or just a peripheral admin who happened to support Burntsauce on occasion. As the ANI thread, the new evidence on the Alivar evidence page, and this ArbCom case show... there's a lot of unanswered questions here related to JB196 and perhaps Alkivar's relation to him.

In other words, before closing the Alkivar case, we should figure out specifically how it related to the JB196/Burntsauce thing. I might be wrong, but there seems to be a lot of confusion in the air. --W.marsh 15:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by User:Rocksanddirt

My observations on the Alkivar situation are that the case should be completed esentially as is by the Committee and that the actions of Eyrian should be looked at separately by the committee. --Rocksanddirt 17:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Thatcher131

The situation as I see it is that Eyrian has had a long-standing objection to extensive trivia/pop culture sections in articles [1]. After the Alkivar/Burntsauce situation came up on the admin noticeboard, Eyrian useds sockpuppet accounts JohnEMcClure (talk · contribs) and Varlak (talk · contribs) in an intentional breaching experiment [2]. Because the edits were identical in style to triva-blanking edits by Burntsauce, the initial assumption that the accounts were Burntsauce socks was reasonable. The edits were controversial less because of their content than the manner in which they were made. (I have recently significantly trimmed the trivia and pop culture sections of two of JohnEMcClure's targets without controversy.)

Copying Burntsauce in the middle of a controversy over Burntsauce's edits was definitely not admin-approved behavior, and retiring with tools intact is an unsatisfying resolution. But, Eyrian's breaching experiment was rather brief and did not involve the misuse of admin tools, in marked contrast to the evidence and findings in the Alkivar case. The solution I would recommend is to remove Eyrian's sysop tools immediately, without holding a case, and ask him to have a discussion with ArbCom about the situation. If he has permanently retired, then no further action is needed. If he wishes to return and can make a satisfactory explanation (and apology) to the Committee, the Committee can restore his privileges at that time, or open a case for a full review if it is divided. I'm not sure a 2 month public flogging benefits anyone at this point.

[edit] Statement by Lid

My connection to this case is through that I was the person who posted the checkuser on JohnEMcClure and that I also posted a thread on ANI about Eyrian asking for his actions to be analysed however it was concluded that it was part of the Alkivar arbitration case nd thus a committee matter.

There seems to be some misinformation and misrepresentation of the facts of the Alkivar case being spread around; Alkivar is not a puppet master, Alkivar is not intimately related to JB196 and the relationship of Alkivar to JB196 was JB196 using Alkivar to disrupt articles. This is not the sole part of the case, in fact until I posted my evidence it was only mentioned once on the evidence page and even then it wasn't the crux of my evidence. My evidence was largely based on the preferential treatment Alkivar gave to Burntsauce in many content disputes.

In regards to Eyrian I believe this case should be taken as it has had a peculiar sequence of events that include lying, sockfarms, disruption and incivility all from an admin.

  1. The Alkivar arbitration case is opened and it is noticed a new user JohnEMcClure (talk · contribs) has been created and immediately started editting in a matter similar to banned vandal JB196's MO, including following around Burntsauce's edits to revert to Burntsauce.
  2. Durova blocks JohnEMcClure as a sock of JB196
  3. JohnEMcClure posts a request for unblocking stating "I'm nobody's sockpuppet; is it impossible to agree with someone else?"
  4. AGK declines pointing out that even if he was not a sock and only agreeing with Burntsauce and Alkivar he was also incivil, disruptive and all-round poorly behaved user.
  5. Inactive admin Eyrian then appears on ANI posting a request for block review stating that JohnEMcClure is his puppet and he did not think he had violated any puppet policies.
  6. The revelation it was Eyrian confused many users as Eyrian had at no point been connected to the case at all and Eyrian was an inactive administrator.
  7. During the discussion Eyrian made reference to another sockpuppet of his and also that the accounts were "disposable" disruptive accounts, an admission considered bizarre by users as it flew in the face of numerous obvious policies and that an admin didn't see the problem was confusing.
  8. Eyrian then disappears deleting his userpages and some of the JohnEMcClure pages just before he goes.
  9. I post a RFCU due to that some users aren't even sure Eyrian is in fact the sockmaster and may just be messing around, and if he was to find the puppet he made reference to before.
  10. CU completed uncovering two socks and "numerous IPs".

The actions of Eyrian fly in the face of how an admin should behave and his departure should not disguise the fact that he has retained his admin tools, and to another extent his account. Although he has not used his admin tools maliciously they should not be in the hands of a user who is an admitted sockpuppeteer with disruptive sockpuppets that leaves when public opinion does not agree with his.

[edit] Statement by Casliber

I'd second Lid's summary above. To put it simply: An administrator is someone who can be trusted with the tools. At the bare minimum, Eyrian has admitted lying above WRT User:JohnEMcClure. He also admits here [3] to 'tested the line somewhat more than necessary' (i.e. trolling). Also, there is no record of remorse or concession in any of his postings, leading one to the conclusion that he thinks he has done nothing wrong. Thus, he cannot be trusted and shouldn't be an admin regardless of whether he ever edits again.

I concede I'm not uninvolved, I entered into one edit war and several other discussions on AfDs where I was taken aback by the hardline uncompromising attitude and disruptive mass deletions taking place. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Wikidemo

I was trolled by JohnEmcClure, an administrator's sockpuppet. Eyrian admits he conducted an "experiment" in going "over the line". Eyrian's provocation cost time and aggravation to me and various others participating in the Alkivar arbitration. We were alarmed at yet another in a series of content deleting sockpuppets, deflected its contentious edits, went through three rounds on AN/I, a block, a block review, a check user, and now this case. Eyrian lied by denying it, and made bad faith accusations against me of WP:BITEing and stalking a new user when he knew I was getting close to uncovering his deception. He vowed an uncompromising edit war, in which one of us would force our opinion on on the other. When caught he was defiant and not forthcoming about his other sockpuppets. Now he is absent from this arbitration. At best he exercised terribly poor judgment; at worst he sabotaged Wikipedia for his obscure ends. There is no reason to believe he will not sockpuppet again. We lend administrative tools for overseeing the project, not as a personal entitlement. Whether he used tools or not in this instance, we cannot trust them to someone who has been so erratic and improper. We need to take them back. ArbCom is the community's only recourse, and the only viable solution is an indefinite de-sysop and/or block.

note: the below was added to the evidence page (and may be there in original or refactored form)Wikidemo 21:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

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 arbitration Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles (talk · contribs). identified a new suspected sockpuppet who was re-deleting content from the same articles.[4]. LGR provided a link[5] to the mystery user's contribution history, which revealed Burntsauce-like "popculturectomies" to five of Burntsauce's 168 articles ([6], [7], [8], [9], [10]) and two new ones ([11], [12]). 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 [13] 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 ([14], [15], [16], [17]) 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[18] as WP:TRIVIA suggests, and explained on another that I left material deleted because it was irrelevant[19], 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[20] that Eyrian's sockpuppet had accused me of "stalking" him and had re-deleted all four sections ([21], [22], [23], [24]) 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[25]. 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 ([26], [27], [28], [29]), and began improving two of the other articles ([30], [31]) per the guidelin. I explained what I was doing and why to arbcom [32].

Shortly thereafter Durova announced she had blocked JohnEMcClure as a suspected sockpuppet of JB196.[33], [34]. Eyrian used its talk page [35] 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.

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 sockpuppeting and other issues here. A checkuser confirmed JohnEMcClure as a sockpuppet and found others he had not yet disclosed[36]. 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 [37].

[edit] statement by user:Mikkalai

I am surprized that no one brought the WP:POINT into consideration. Eyrian clearly stated his claculated intention to run an experiment. It was a clear disruption of work of other wikipedians and was brainless at least despite Eyrian's claim that "he checked not to violate any policies". Wikipedia is to ctreate article content not to play with policies. While the wikipedia "Code Book" is quite thick now, it was never an intention to write an exhaustive specification, and it is no biggie for a smart and malicious person to walk thro the holes. The ultimate rule is common sense based on the purpose of the project. An admin who does not understand this must be desysyopped without prejudice. `'Míkka>t 17:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clerk's Draft Summary

== [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eyrian]] == This Arbitration case has now closed, and the final decision is available at the above link. Whereas Eyrian has engaged in abusive [[Wikipedia:Sock puppetry|sock puppetry]] in an apparent attempt to game the system, and failed to offer any reasonable explanation for his actions, his Administrator privileges are revoked (and may only be restored through appeal to the Arbitration Committee), and is banned from Wikipedia until he provides satisfactory explanation regarding this matter. ''For the Arbitration Committee'',<br>~~~~

[edit] Eyrian banned remedy

The remedy states that Eyrian's account is banned. However, FloNight states that this applies to the actual person, and not just the user themselves. Is FloNight's remedy the official one, and if so, how are we going to determine if someone is a sock of the Eyrian account holder, as well as deal with them? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 16:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

This case is still pending and so this question really belongs on its proposed decision talkpage, but since it's here I can answer briefly. Subject to correction from an arbitrator, I think FloNight's comment simply made express something that would have been understood anyway. In no case is it permissible for a user banned by ArbCom as Username1 to start up anew under Username2. (That is a different situation from where the problem is with the username only, or where the committee says the person can continue editing but under only one account.) The procedure if the person were to return prematurely would be the same as for any other sock of a banned user. Note, though, that under the proposed decision, the duration of the remedy is flexible in this case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Just to reiterate what Newyorkbrad stated, this case is currently open and voting is in progress, and as such the Ban is not considered to be in place yet. Anthøny 16:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
NYB is correct; FloNight just stated explicitly something that is normally assumed to be understood. Kirill 16:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)