*******************************************
*Backstory: An "investigation" and how AC responds*
*******************************************
From: (FloNight)
Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 18:09:30 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: The Alkivar/Burnsauce/JB196 connection
Durova is supplying evidence of planned disruptive editing between
Alkivar, Burntsauce, and JB196. These and other evidence Durova
forwarded shows Alkivar being deceptive rather than merely clueless.
:-(
She and other editors want us to take action against Burntsauce in the
Requests for arbitration/Alkivar case before it closes as it will be
the quickest way to deal with Burntsauce.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...sion#BurntsauceSydney
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Durova
Date: Nov 3, 2007 5:51 PM
Subject: The Alkivar/Burnsauce/JB196 connection
To: FloNight
The Alkivar/Burntsauce/JB196 connection
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so please be
understanding about the length and tardiness of this presentation. I
am asserting that both Alkivar, Burntsauce, and JB196 conspire to
vandalize articles, that they have done so for a long time, and that
Alkivar has misused his sysop tools on behalf of JB196 in full
knowledge of the impropriety of his actions.
I can supplement this larger amounts of equally compelling evidence
upon request, but I think this is enough to establish the fundamentals
beyond reasonable doubt.
******
JB196 has spent months giving proxy edit instructions to both Alkivar
and Burntsauce through IP addresses and throwaway socks. He goes to
their user talk pages and gives a terse comment with a link, usually
to a wrestling article.
For example:
FractionDecibel
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=151830960A JB196 sock:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FractionDecibelRegarding wrestler Terry Gerin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_GerinMore examples, briefly ? Alkivar:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=141362380http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=140763653http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=135879883http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=135428437http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=135455187http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=135484225http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=135838757http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=135879194http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=136223962http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=132486071http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=132494826http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=132494826Many more exist, but that should convey the idea.
Alkivar has never asked for these posts to stop or blocked the socks.
Instead, when a well-meaning Wikipedians gives a friendly heads up,
he rebuffs it and implicitly acknowledges that he both knows and
approves of JB196's activity.
The heads up:
22 May 2007
You do realise that Sasquatch Fate
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Sasquatch_Fate ]
is JB196 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JB196], and that by doing
what you have done you have played in to his hands, and this will only
encourage him. However as a responsible admin I'm sure you will check
through his contributions as this sock and make a report to get him
banned. It might also be worth considering that JB196 keeps creating
account to inform Burntsauce when [[WP:PW]] members revert BS's
deletions and that maybe by you then locking the pages you are simply
encouraging one of the most reviled vandals in Wikipedia history.
[[User:Darrenhusted|Darrenhusted]] 14:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=132683585Reply by Alkivar:
And perhaps if you bothered to read policy you'd see regardless of the
fact he's a troll... HE'S RIGHT IN THIS CASE. Source the comments,
discuss the content on the talk page... and I'll unprotect... It's
that simple. [[User:Alkivar|<font
color="#FA8605">'''ALKIVAR'''</font>]][[User_talk:Alkivar|â„¢]]
<span style="font-size:130%; background:yellow; border:1px solid
black;">☢</span> 22:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=132687164Look how Alkivar interacts with JB196 just a few days later:
29 May 2007
The sock appears and directs him to the Steve Blackman article, a
wrestling biography.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=134435572JB196 adds a second wrestling biography: Adrian Adonis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=134482033?refines the request?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=134482912And Alkivar explicitly admits that he has protected an article at the
request of this banned vandal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=134482972Here's the protection itself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=134482378And after protection, Alkivar even reverts to JB196's vandalized version.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=134482498Backing up in time just a little bit, here's the edit warring that
JB196 had been doing on that article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=134455158Here's Burntsauce's cooperation to that edit war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=132742880http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=131119292And here's JB196's marching order to Burntsauce regarding that. The
IP later god indeffed as an open proxy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=134448055Now just in case anyone still has a shred of good faith left for
Alkivar, look at what followed on his own user talk page:
JB196 thanks him for misusing the tools.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=134484140Yummifruitbat identifies that as "a blatant ban-evading sock of
JB196'' and asks Alkivar to block.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=134484393But Alkivar doesn't block. Yummifruitbat has to file a report.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=134483885SirFozzie follows up with another good faith post.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=134485300?Which JB196 is arrogant enough to reply to.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=134485300And here's the post where the sock even admits he's JB196.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=134480982And does as much damage as possible to various articles in the interim
before Ryulong actually blocks the account.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Radarman1http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...=User:Radarman1And in spite of all these events and alerts, Alkivar never undoes his
reversion to the banned vandal's version of the article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=134482498Or responds to the multiple heads up he got from Wikipedians in good
standing. Alkivar just deletes the thread without reply.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=135838757But two days after the old sockpuppet got shut down, a new incarnation
of JB196 comes over to Alkivar's talk page with a new set of marching
orders: the Rodney Begnaud wrestling biography.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=135079974Now Alkivar doesn't march to every order he receives. He tends to
show up when both JB196 and Burntsauce are having trouble getting
their vandalism to stick, and misuse the tools to make sure the edit
war ends their way. The real way this disruption ring operates is
that JB196 runs around to a lot of articles causing trouble, and if he
thinks he needs backup from a second editor he gets Burntsauce to
oblige. Let's take a look at that Rodney Begnaud example.
Four minutes before the post to Alkivar, JB196 asks Burntsauce for help.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=135217479Burntsauce had already pitched in for JB196 several times at that
page. Massive deletion here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=128720579http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=133209111After other editors re-add material, JB196 deletes it again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=135308427http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=135383284And yes, that really is JB196. He can't resist the temptation to
troll the RFA of his nemesis SirFozzie.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=138298068So when JB196 can't get his way alone, Burntsauce marches to those
orders and proxy edits.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=135723422http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=135804635http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=135804816http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=135804908http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=135805346http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=135945865Finally Alkivar steps in to delete the image, giving a dubious fair
use rationale.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=136842473http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=136872794Yet ? this digression is too odd to pass up ? at the same time
Alkivar's own image uploads are getting speedy deleted because he
provided no fair use rationale at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=143289477http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=143362108http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=143362337To round this out, here's a sampling of some other JB196 marching
orders to Burntsauce:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=141510739http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=141509255http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=141504409http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=141277071http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=141276752----------
From kirill.lokshin at gmail.com Sat Nov 3 23:15:31 2007
From: kirill.lokshin at gmail.com (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 19:15:31 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: The Alkivar/Burnsauce/JB196 connection
In-Reply-To: <16032ea0711031509sd5c8598i6a00350098380ca7@mail.gmail.com>
References: <a01006d90711031451o5820737y77dd124a2d10330d@mail.gmail.com>
<16032ea0711031509sd5c8598i6a00350098380ca7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3f797b9a0711031615l7c9d472dx5fa8608045fea413@mail.gmail.com>
On 11/3/07, FloNight <sydney.poore at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Durova is supplying evidence of planned disruptive editing between
> Alkivar, Burntsauce, and JB196. These and other evidence Durova
> forwarded shows Alkivar being deceptive rather than merely clueless.
> :-(
>
> She and other editors want us to take action against Burntsauce in the
> Requests for arbitration/Alkivar case before it closes as it will be
> the quickest way to deal with Burntsauce.
>
>
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...sion#BurntsauceYeah, looks like that may be needed. On a more concerning note, this may
mean that we need additional measures regarding Alkivar himself; the current
findings address only the simple abuse of the tools, and make no mention of
conspiring with a banned user. Perhaps we ought to explicitly note that and
consequently forbid Alkivar from seeking the tools without our approval.
Kirill
----------
From: (James Forrester)
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2007 00:29:01 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: The Alkivar/Burnsauce/JB196 connection
On 03/11/2007, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin at gmail.com> wrote:
> Yeah, looks like that may be needed. On a more concerning note, this may
> mean that we need additional measures regarding Alkivar himself; the current
> findings address only the simple abuse of the tools, and make no mention of
> conspiring with a banned user. Perhaps we ought to explicitly note that and
> consequently forbid Alkivar from seeking the tools without our approval.
OK, my proposal would be to add (+) or change (~) the following:
P:
+ It is rarely possible to determine with complete certainty whether
several editors with very similar behaviour are sock-puppets, meat
puppets, or acquaintances who happen to edit Wikipedia. In such cases,
remedies may be fashioned which are based on the behavior of the user
rather than their identity. Editors who edit with the same agenda and
make the same types of disruptive edits may be treated as a single
editor.
FoF:
+ Burntsauce has been advancing the disruptive agenda of the
community-banned vandal JB196.
+ Burntsauce is very likely to be either a meat- or sock-puppet of
another banned user, per evidence submitted privately to the
Committee.
R:
+ Burntsauce is banned as a meat-puppet of JB196.
~ 'Alkivar desysoped', change "either through the usual means or by
appeal" to just "through appeal".
Durova also submitted the remedy:
+ For proxy editing, conspiracy, and misuse of sysop powers on the
behalf of a sitebanned vandal, Alkivar is banned indefinitely from
Wikipedia.
... which is possible, but I think would be difficult to make stick
with the community without some serious evidence (or, at least,
supporting FoFs!).
Is this a sensible commit? No point putting it up if there's no appetite for it.
Yours,
--
James D. Forrester
----------
From: (FloNight)
Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 20:32:17 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: The Alkivar/Burnsauce/JB196 connection
Looks good.
When I voted a few minutes ago I already added another Desyop remedy
requiring him to appeal to the Committee.
Sydney
----------
From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 20:33:05 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: The Alkivar/Burnsauce/JB196 connection
On 11/3/07, James Forrester wrote:
>
> Durova also submitted the remedy:
>
> + For proxy editing, conspiracy, and misuse of sysop powers on the
> behalf of a sitebanned vandal, Alkivar is banned indefinitely from
> Wikipedia.
>
> ... which is possible, but I think would be difficult to make stick
> with the community without some serious evidence (or, at least,
> supporting FoFs!).
Weren't we limiting bans to a year? ;-)
But I think this *could* be made to stick with a FoF to the effect that
we've received convincing evidence that Alkivar has conspired with JB196 to
disrupt the project.
Kirill
-----------
From: (David Gerard)
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2007 00:33:45 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: The Alkivar/Burnsauce/JB196 connection
On 04/11/2007, James Forrester wrote:
> Durova also submitted the remedy:
> + For proxy editing, conspiracy, and misuse of sysop powers on the
> behalf of a sitebanned vandal, Alkivar is banned indefinitely from
> Wikipedia.
> ... which is possible, but I think would be difficult to make stick
> with the community without some serious evidence (or, at least,
> supporting FoFs!).
> Is this a sensible commit? No point putting it up if there's no appetite for it.
You'd need convincing public evidence. Deadminning would mitigate the
damage; if he keeps doing stupid things after that, it'd be easy.
I must say, this doesn't accord with the Alkivar I know. I wonder WTF
led him to this happy land of crack. I suspect he considered
Burntsauce a cohort from AFD and didn't think too much further. This
is all most disconcerting to see.
- d.
----------
From: (James Forrester)
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2007 00:38:33 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: The Alkivar/Burnsauce/JB196 connection
On 04/11/2007, David Gerard wrote:
> On 04/11/2007, James Forrester wrote:
>
> > Durova also submitted the remedy:
> > + For proxy editing, conspiracy, and misuse of sysop powers on the
> > behalf of a sitebanned vandal, Alkivar is banned indefinitely from
> > Wikipedia.
> > ... which is possible, but I think would be difficult to make stick
> > with the community without some serious evidence (or, at least,
> > supporting FoFs!).
> > Is this a sensible commit? No point putting it up if there's no appetite for it.
>
>
> You'd need convincing public evidence. Deadminning would mitigate the
> damage; if he keeps doing stupid things after that, it'd be easy.
Yeah, I think it's not worth it for the long-term benefit for the project.
> I must say, this doesn't accord with the Alkivar I know. I wonder WTF
> led him to this happy land of crack. I suspect he considered
> Burntsauce a cohort from AFD and didn't think too much further. This
> is all most disconcerting to see.
Absolutely. I thought Alkivar was somewhat-sound. This is making me
re-evaluate many (you all suck! I'm not talking to you lot no more!
;-)).
Yrs,
--
James D. Forrester
----------
From: (David Gerard)
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2007 00:43:26 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: The Alkivar/Burnsauce/JB196 connection
On 04/11/2007, James Forrester wrote:
> On 04/11/2007, David Gerard wrote:
> > I must say, this doesn't accord with the Alkivar I know. I wonder WTF
> > led him to this happy land of crack. I suspect he considered
> > Burntsauce a cohort from AFD and didn't think too much further. This
> > is all most disconcerting to see.
> Absolutely. I thought Alkivar was somewhat-sound. This is making me
> re-evaluate many (you all suck! I'm not talking to you lot no more!
> ;-)).
I've known him to have shaky judgement ... but not actual malice.
- d.
----------
From: (FloNight)
Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 20:43:45 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: The Alkivar/Burnsauce/JB196 connection
What if we also restrict him to editing with one account and make him
tell the Committee if he changes user names.
This hopefully will stop him from doing something stupid like edit
with a sock account.
Sydney
----------
From: (James Forrester)
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2007 00:52:57 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: The Alkivar/Burnsauce/JB196 connection
On 04/11/2007, FloNight wrote:
> Looks good.
>
> When I voted a few minutes ago I already added another Desyop remedy
> requiring him to appeal to the Committee.
OK, done. Feel free to vote. :-)
Yrs,
--
James D. Forrester
----------
From: mindspillage.org (Kat Walsh)
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 12:27:51 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Alkivar
I don't understand why the evidence regarding Alkivar must remain
secret, or what sort of sophisticated techniques Durova is using that
can't be shared.
Could someone please explain it more clearly? It's not at all clear
from the previous messages on the list.
I can understand if someone who submits evidence wants to remain
anonymous, but I don't see what is so sensitive about the evidence
itself that we must not share it. It's definitely not clear to people
outside the AC -- which brings on the usual drama; i.e., the drama has
already started and people are starting to question why it shouldn't
be public. And I can't give a good explanation.
-Kat
----------
From: (Dmcdevit)
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 18:15:28 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Alkivar
Kat Walsh wrote:
> I don't understand why the evidence regarding Alkivar must remain
> secret, or what sort of sophisticated techniques Durova is using that
> can't be shared.
I echo this sentiment. I am already starting to hear people dissatisfied
with the proposals that look draconian without public evidence, and
there is nothing here that looks like it needed to be private, so the
resentment from well-meaning people who don't understand will be the
Committee's own doing.
Dominic
----------
From: (charles.r.matthews)
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 11:08:30 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Alkivar
Dmcdevit wrote
> I am already starting to hear people dissatisfied
> with the proposals that look draconian without public evidence, and
> there is nothing here that looks like it needed to be private, so the
> resentment from well-meaning people who don't understand will be the
> Committee's own doing.
There is some onus on the AC. It begins, though, with Alkivar, surely. We are very likely giving out a desysopping here (I've just voted); and the AC is saying it will possibly revoke that. So Alkivar is presumably going to need to meet the points brought forward against his admin actions. It makes some sense to do this in private, first? In the scenario that this is later cleared up, that is kinder, if of course less transparent.
Charles
----------
From: (Timothy Titcomb)
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 15:09:51 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Alkivar
Given what I remember of what I've read, I see no problem with
making the evidence public. What are the reasons why we should not?
In any case I am satisfied with my vote to desysop based upon on-wiki
evidence.
Paul August
----------
From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 15:54:10 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Alkivar
On 11/6/07, Timothy Titcomb wrote:
>
>
> On Nov 5, 2007, at 12:27 PM, Kat Walsh wrote:
>
> > I don't understand why the evidence regarding Alkivar must remain
> > secret, or what sort of sophisticated techniques Durova is using that
> > can't be shared.
> >
> > Could someone please explain it more clearly? It's not at all clear
> > from the previous messages on the list.
> >
> > I can understand if someone who submits evidence wants to remain
> > anonymous, but I don't see what is so sensitive about the evidence
> > itself that we must not share it. It's definitely not clear to people
> > outside the AC -- which brings on the usual drama; i.e., the drama has
> > already started and people are starting to question why it shouldn't
> > be public. And I can't give a good explanation.
> >
> > -Kat
>
> Given what I remember of what I've read, I see no problem with
> making the evidence public. What are the reasons why we should not?
> In any case I am satisfied with my vote to desysop based upon on-wiki
> evidence.
>
> Paul August
Making the evidence public will likely teach our banned friend not to be
quite so obvious in instructing his proxies the next time around; but I'm
not sure if (possibly) delaying that -- he'll eventually figure it out on
his own, I'm sure -- is a sufficient reason to keep this under wraps. I
think that at least the general points could be revealed without
compromising anything important.
Kirill
Durova block of !! (Nov/Dec 2007) Including backstory on the hidden list, and AC acting on those "investigations"
MaliceAforethought Durova block of !! (Nov/Dec 2007) Including backstory on the hidden list 
