Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar/Proposed decision

message: I'm not sure what wording would be appropriate so I won't suggest anything specific on the workshop, but I had a comment.  7 of the 14 links on the FoF about Alkivar's adminship link to logs; maybe a note about proper log entries should be included in the principles, either as a separate principle or under "Communication".  Milto LOL pia 01:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logs 

message: A new essay I started yesterday, intended in general terms but specifically inspired by the multiple leniency experiments that have been proposed in this case.  Basically, you can't squeeze blood from a turnip.  Extreme gestures of good faith and leniency aren't necessary when an editor shows no hint of remorse. DurovaCharge! 17:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: after a cursory review of this case (the evidence, workshop, and talk pages), I think Durova's new essay should get some serious consideration by those who review and make decisions on this (and many other) arbcomm cases.  --Rocksanddirt 18:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:TURNIP]] 

message: Kirill and Flo, don't you think a finding (and remedy, depending on the finding) should be part of the decision? See the workshop, he's certainly part of the dispute too. A finding one way or another regarding his status would be appreciated. Picaroon (t) 00:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Burntsauce 

message: Under the "Decorum" statement shouldn't the move to de-sysop and block Eyrian for incivility and sockpuppetry during the trivia edit war be added as a possible decision? –– Lid(Talk) 12:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eyrian 

message: Flonight's comment in her oppose for Proposed remedy 1.1 suggests that there is private evidence supporting the decisions here.  If this is indeed the case, could the final decision make it clear?  This seems important, particularly if the Committee is indeed taking the unusual step of barring an RfA. Chick Bowen 03:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed; clearly, private evidence should probably remain private, but a mention of the existence of such evidence would be important, especially given the No RFA provision.  Ral315 » 17:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I provided private evidence.  The bulk of that evidence I have also shared via e-mail with trusted Wikipedians.  Roughly half a dozen people outside the Committee have examined it, and if it were wanting I'm sure someone would have objected.  The main reason for privacy has been because of the persistence of JB196, whose actions relate to this case and who has created over 500 disruptive sockpuppets. DurovaCharge! 17:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As it relates to Alkivar, Durova's evidence is basically a more extensive version of Lid's public evidence, showing that Alkivar was knowingly in contact with a banned user and acted on his requests. Thatcher131 12:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: I am not sure where best to post this, but it seems like it will be seen here.  I just wanted to encourage the arbiters to close this case now (as they seem inclined to do) and take up the related Eyrian matter as a separate case.  It is better to move forward with these remedies now; they have the clear support of the committee and can enter into force while sanctions (if necessary) on others ar considered.  Eluchil404 08:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Support Close