Remember that threaded discussions or comments are not appropriate on the evidence page (but they are on the workshop page). Responses in a separate section (under one's own "Evidence presented by X" heading) are, however, appropriate. --Iamunknown 21:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question: is there a way to provide a diff for a block? The header for evidence suggests that linking to logs is to be avoid (as they're subject to change). So what is the proper method to show evidence of a block being placed if no talk page message was left? Thanks in advance, --Bfigura ^(talk) 21:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the thing about not linking to a log is meant to refer to logs that are very active. eg. An admin's deletion logs to "show" that he deleted something. It makes more sense to link to the article's deletion log, as that should, in theory, be only displayed on a single page, as opposed to pages and pages of entries. Ditto for a block log. Just to be sure, you can give the date and time of the block. You can give diffs for other associated actions as well (such as leaving a talk page block message), but to show wording in the block log summary, you have no other option, as far as I'm aware, than to link to the block log. In this case, don't link to Alkivar's log showing the block actions he made, but link to the log of the user being blocked. eg. This is Alkivar's log of the blocks and unblocks he has made (for the record, 509 from 01:26, 9 November 2005 to 18:16, 15 October 2007). His latest block of G2bambino shows up there at the top for now, but would soon get lost in the noise. A better way to link to that block is to link to G2bambino's block log (the log of times G2bambino was blocked), for which see here, to give the date and time (18:16, 15 October 2007), and to quote the block log summary by Alkivar as "Repeated violations of Wikipedia copyright policy: block fully justified by policy." It would be nice to be able to give a direct 'diff' for a block, but that is all I know that is possible. Hope that helps. Carcharoth 21:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much for the help. That's pretty much what I had, but I'll copy the time/date/summary into my evidence summary. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To link to a specific block, use the following form: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&user=Alkivar&page=User:G2bambino&from=20071015162525&until=20071015162625. Note how I used timestamps there at the end. Picaroon (t) 22:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even better. Thanks. I'll update my section, then if that isn't in the diff help (I might have missed it), I'll add it. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought there might have been a way to do it. I've used timestamps to delimit a set of contributions, but never a block log. Maybe the Arbcom boilerplate saying not to link to logs needs to be changed as well? Carcharoth 23:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated it. Picaroon (t) 23:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've also gone and updated Wikipedia:Simple_diff_and_link_guide. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 23:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I added this. If there is an easier way of doing this (eg. simply using start and end times, rather than an offset time and a limit), please change that and let me know. Thanks. Carcharoth 01:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recently added evidence to the page, but I wanted to make sure that it is appropriate to include here. I've reviewed the relevant pages, and this seems to be the case, though I'd like a final assurance. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, looks okay. The last few sentences diverge from providing evidence into providing your own opinions, but there's no need to be unduly formal and move them. Picaroon (t) 15:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's also on User_talk:Hall Monitor no one ever complained about it there.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 22:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out, I'll ask that user to remove it as well. This banner is incredibly bitish and anonymous users have the right to edit. If an admin performs actions related to them, they have the right to question those actions, plain and simple. Melsaran (talk) 09:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did these comments [1] get moved somewhere? They shouldn't be threaded like they were, but they shouldn't have been outright deleted, either. -Chunky Rice 16:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't bother, they've been rewritten by me in the /Workshop section.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 04:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no evidence to put forward, nor do I have any stake in this, but I noticed Wikidemo has decided to misrepresent quite a bit of a minor dispute I had with him in place of any real evidence of a problem with Alkivar's actions. I had to notice myself, as nobody alerted me to this.

The dispute was to do with him and Equazcion repeatedly reverting to remove links to WP:V from their WP:TRIVIA page. Please make sure you click the diffs and look for context when reviewing his evidence. Again, I am not certain why this has been brought up in an Arbitration case discussing Alkivar's conduct, but I felt I should say something.

He also lies about the reason for his block - he was blocked for continuing to use his undo button to undo good faith edits, describing them as vandalism.([2]) No other reason. This was thoroughly explained to him. I don't know whether Wikidemo's poor understanding of simple events comes from a poor grasp of English, or it is deliberately being done to make Alkivar seem worse out of bitterness about the block.

I would suggest Wikidemo and Equazcion's actions in that dispute, at least, were thoroughly disruptive, and Alkivar acted correctly in blocking Equazcion. I make no judgements or comment upon Alkivar's conduct in any other areas of contention. Neil ☎ 16:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A good place for this would be either in your own section on the evidence page or at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar/Workshop#Analysis of evidence. You can respond to evidence you feel is incorrect even if it happens to be an offtopic part of the evidence. Picaroon (t) 21:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest in getting involved in a case in which I am at most tangentially involved. I have said my piece here, which is enough for me. Neil ☎ 12:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would also not accomplish anything, as Alkivar will get desysopped (probably) with or without Wikidemo's flawed evidence. Neil ☎ 12:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's disappointing that Neil pops back to disparage me again. As is clear in my presentation of evidence, I describe his and Burntsauce's participations in the trivia content dispute to give context to what Alkivar was doing. They were cohorts in this. Earlier in the case Neil tried to justify his behavior by accusing me of "misuse of rollback tools" (whatever that is). Now he is back to accuse me of disruption and lying, and either having a "poor grasp of English" or acting in bad faith. Neil's specific points are beneath response, except that they're unsupported and flat out wrong. Shame on him for abusing his blocking privilege in a content dispute in the first place, and shame for dragging the discussion down to the level of mud-slinging and incivility. I did nothing wrong. I stand by everything I say and do in the evidence page. But nobody has to listen to Neil accuse me or me defend myself - it's in the record. Neil's adminship is not in question. This seems to be an isolated case for him. However, if the finding in this case is that Alkivar acted improperly in blocking Equazcion, Neil would do well to take that to heart because he did the same to me. Wikidemo 01:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What was disappointing was that you failed to inform me that you were discussing my actions within an arbitration case. But, I know about it now, so let's move on. I suggest those who review evidence within this case to make sure they check all diffs provided by Wikidemo for representation, context and accuracy. For Wikidemo's benefit (again, let's assume he is not deliberately feigning ignorance), "rollback tools" in this instance means the undo button you used to revert good faith edits ([3] [4] [5]). These buttons are inteded for undoing vandalism; you were temporarily blocked for one hour to prevent your continuing misuse of the button ([6]), a block backed by at least one other uninvolved admin ([7]). And note I unblocked you 12 minutes after I blocked you ([8]), once you had indicated you would not misuse the tools in such a way again. Equazcion was guilty of the same thing on a larger scale (this is a staggeringly bad faith series of edits), for which he was rightly blocked by Alkivar. Neil ☎ 12:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're on notice because you're in the case already. You took a swipe at me while this was at WP:RFARB. I responded in detail. Other users agreed that your behavior was problematic. At the arbitration clerk's request the discussion got moved to its own subsection. The arbitrators moved it again when they agreed to hear the case. It's still there at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar#Responses to a comment by Neil. When it came time to refactor earlier arguments and evidence, I did so. If the issue is that one should remind people already in the case when one mentions them again, point taken. I've never done one of these cases before because knock on wood I haven't personally encountered this level of administrative abuse. Turning the tables now to accuse me of impropriety is unwarranted. You blocked me to win your side of a content dispute. You've admitted as much, only you, like Alkivar, now claiming it is a behavioral issue because your version of the content is the better one. Now you're making up a rule that the "undo" button is only for vandalism. By that logic you should have blocked yourself, the 10+ other editors and administrators who also reverted Burntsauce's deletions, and most of the membership of Wikipedia. Where are you getting that from? I'm sorry, but it is not okay to block users without warning on a 1RR for restoring consensus content you're trying to delete because you've taken sides in support of a WP:POINT violation. If a third administrator beyond you and Alkivar thinks so, he is wrong too. At any rate that is an issue in the case. We've all presented our arguments; let's see if the arbitration committee has something to say about this kind of block and not have a side debate on the issue here. I promised to obey the rules around here, which I was going in the first place. I didn't promise to agree with your administrative indiscretions or the policies you made up. Your ongoing incivility here in the arbitration proceedings ("deliberately feigning ignorance") is most unfortunate. Your adminship would be at issue too here if the incivility and abuse of tools were as bad as Alkivar's. Plus you are at least communicating, which is good. Wikidemo 17:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know there was a section directly addressing my actions within this RFArb, only 14 days after you created it. I have responded. Neil ☎ 19:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added evidence related to Eyrian (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and JohnEMcClure (talk · contribs). It at least gives some context to the "... in popular culture" aspect of the case. Per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive828#Block review - JohnEMcClure, there may also be reason for the ArbComm to consider a different desysopping. I'm not sure that consideration belongs in this case however. GRBerry 20:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, my block on JohnEMcClure was because the account's edits and methodology looked like JB196 activity. I acted per WP:DUCK. Durova^Charge! 21:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's some mention of another sockpuppet (or whatever you call operating anonymously even though you have an account), 68.163.65.119. I just added a comment to AN/I here that sums up some concerns. This case started out as a single admin under scrutiny for using tools to back up a contentious editor. Now we have multiple admins, sockpuppets, meatpuppets, all kinds of subterfuge. I think some further background investigation is in order to see if we've found all of the related accounts and parties after all, even if that means prolonging the case a few more days. If we find nothing, no harm done and we can all have confidence in the outcome here. If we find that the problem is wider than we thought, we've saved this case from an incomplete resolution. I'm new to the world of checkusers and sockpuppets, so I don't really know what is involved in an "investigation" or how feasible it is. Wikidemo 22:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could file a formal checkuser motion at the workshop. And please enable your e-mail. Durova^Charge! 22:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]