Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Eyrian

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Isotope23|Isotope23]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Durova|Durova]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:W.marsh|W.marsh]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Comment by [[User:Rocksanddirt]] 

message: 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  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)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Wikidemo|Wikidemo]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  statement by [[user:Mikkalai]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: NYB is correct; FloNight just stated explicitly something that is normally assumed to be understood. Kirill 16:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eyrian/Proposed decision#Eyrian banned|Eyrian banned remedy]]