Motions

The Arbitration Committee has determined that Altenmann (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has been using multiple accounts to influence discussions, particularly deletion discussions, in a manner contrary to the sockpuppetry policy, using the following accounts:

• Mukadderat (talk · contribs)
• Timurite (talk · contribs)
• Xuz (talk · contribs)
• Dzied Bulbash (talk · contribs)
• Laudak (talk · contribs)
• Twri (talk · contribs).

Further, Altenmann has used his administrator permissions to close deletion discussions in agreement with his personal opinion as expressed by one or more of his alternate accounts.[1],[2]

In particular, Altenmann has also used two or more of his accounts to comment in deletion discussions relating to various phobias, both recently and in the past.[3],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8]. He has used the administrator account to close deletion discussions related to phobias in which he has commented using one or more of his other accounts.[9],[10],[11] The deletion of the Enochlophobia article took place in March 2010.

All of the sockpuppet accounts are now blocked indefinitely. As well, the SemBubenny and Mikkalai (talk · contribs) accounts, which are Altenmann's former usernames, have also been blocked indefinitely. Altenmann is currently blocked indefinitely until the sockpuppetry investigation is complete, at which time an appropriate block length can be ascertained.

Altenmann is currently subject to an Arbitration Committee restriction, issued in March 2009 under his former username of SemBubenny (talk · contribs), that specifically discusses his role in deletion of phobia-related articles.[12] In particular, "SemBebenny is warned that any continuation of the problematic behavior in which he previously engaged, such as a pattern of improper or unexplained deletions or refusals to communicate with editors concerning his administrator actions, is likely to lead to the revocation or suspension of his administrator status without further warnings."

Accordingly, the majority of the Arbitration Committee has voted to approve the immediate removal of administrator permissions from Altenmann for abuse of administrator permissions in violation of an Arbitration Committee remedy, abuse of administrator permissions by closing deletion discussions in which he has commented using one or more alternate accounts, and inappropriate use of alternate accounts in violation of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Approving the desysop are: Coren, Hersfold, KnightLago, Mailer Diablo, Newyorkbrad, Risker, Rlevse, SirFozzie, and Wizardman; with Steve Smith abstaining.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Risker (talk) 20:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Motion

• Motion enacted at 01:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC) by Tiptoety ^talk

The administrator permissions of Altenmann (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) are removed for abuse of administrator permissions in violation of an Arbitration Committee remedy [13], abuse of administrator permissions by closing deletion discussions in which he has commented using one or more alternate accounts, and inappropriate use of alternate accounts in violation of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Altemann is restricted to one account. He may not change username without the explicit authorization of the Arbitration Committee. Altemann may seek to regain adminship through a request for adminship.

Support

1. Risker (talk) 20:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Wholeheartedly endorse. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Socking by administrator is not to be tolerated. — Coren ^(talk) 21:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Agreed, and hoping the community will quickly come to the decision as to the necessary block length once the SPI completes. SirFozzie (talk) 21:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. Shell ^babelfish 21:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. Especially considering the past arbitration case. I would also like to propose an indefinite ban for this user, although I'll wait for further input, especially from the community (and if the community were to propose such a ban, that would be awesome) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
9. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 13:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
10. KnightLago (talk) 14:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
11. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
12. Disappointing. Cool Hand Luke 17:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
13. Initially not sure about any ban length, but after reading the responses from the editor in question (it is nearly always best to wait and see what the accused has to say), there is little option here but for desysop with little recourse from the pending community ban. A pity because the editor is quite capable of productive editing. Carcharoth (talk) 00:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

Recuse

1. Owing to past conflict with Altenmann. Steve Smith (talk) 16:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Discussion re block length

In most cases where sockpuppetry is identified, the socks are blocked indefinitely, and the master account is blocked for a specified period of time; the length of block is usually determined by the extent of the socking, whether or not this is a first finding of sockpuppetry, and factors such as how the socks were used. Typically, the master account would be blocked anywhere from a week to a month for a "first offense". In this case, the blocks were implemented once it was clear that there was abusive socking occurring, in part because an administrator account was involved and the issue of whether to desysop needed to be addressed; therefore the master account (Altenmann) has been blocked indefinitely so that an appropriate block length can be determined. This sockpuppetry has been taking place over several years, and has involved editing in a large number of areas on the wiki; thorough analysis of the effects of this socking is not yet complete.

Community input, or even a community decision, would be helpful in determining the appropriate block length. Risker (talk) 21:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where? Here? I've reviewed the case from last year and seen the checkuser stuff and would like to give an opinion. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 21:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think here is as good as anywhere. Suggest putting notices at SPI, AN, etc. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Last year I was not impressed by his/her response to the comments by the community, and I'm not surprised that further abuse occurred. This was willful abuse of the accounts by a knowledgeable user. Since indef blocks make the time of return very open to interpretation, I prefer something set. I think the block needs to be lengthy at least 6 months, although I prefer a year. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 22:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • We share the same sentiment that this user's conduct needs to be dealt with harshly in order to prevent future disruption at Afd and give the broad community confidence that admin don't get special privileges and have this swept under the rug. Because community bans can be undone with minimal discussion, I want to go on the record stating that this one needs to be kept in place for a minimum of one year. And if allowed to return to editing, then strict editing restrictions need to be put in place to make it easier to detect improper use of alternative accounts. If I was still on ArbCom, to respond to his violation of his ArbCom remedy, I would have written a motion for an one year ban and editing restrictions when the ban expired to run concurrent with the Community Ban so that he would not return for At Least one year. As long as this is handled to get the same effect, it doesn't matter to me how it is implemented. On Altenmann's talk page, I asked for the name of other accounts to aid in clarifying if other exist here or on other wikis. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 11:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Six months (one month for each account listed above). --MZMcBride (talk) 22:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd actually say indef in this case. Assuming Arbcom are telling the truth (yes, I know…) this isn't an Undertow-style case where there's no intention to disrupt and no damage caused despite all the "zOMG you LIED!!!11!1!" hyperbole; this is a systematic campaign. – iridescent 22:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Deletions like this one, to me, show that the user knowingly and willingly abused multiple accounts to "get his/her way", even after immediately after a prior arbcom enforcement decision. This is clearly blatant disruption of community consensus and I would like to see at least a year, if not an indefinite, block. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 22:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indef seems about right to me. Too systematic for less. ++Lar: t/c 22:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is some concern about what indef means in this case, struck. I mean "Community Ban", with a requirement for a formal appeal and a community consensus to overturn the ban, not just an admin granting on their own recognizance. I think NYB misses the value of saying now, while the incident is fresh, what the block length ought to be. ++Lar: t/c 04:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this discussion may be premature. We don't know whether this user will ever request an unblock after these revelations; if he doesn't, deliberating on the precise block length will be misplaced effort. If an unblock is requested, although I cannot imagine a good explanation for what has occurred here, and an indefinite or lengthy block are quite likely to be the result, the user's comments, if any, should at least be taken into account in making a final decision. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of the number of checkuser that spent time sorting out this matter and want to go on the record giving my opinion while this incident is fresh in my mind. If some other substantive information comes up then that can be taken into consider. But for now, this user needs to know that as far as I'm concerned this is not going to quickly blow over. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 00:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very strange: arbcom decides everything but the block length? When did this happen? Aiken ♫ 00:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because that's generally the community's job when no arbitration case is involved or especially needed. In this case, our intervention was borne out of the fact that the sock master was an admin (which we needed to fix), and blocking the socks indefinitely is just standard operating procedure. — Coren ^(talk) 01:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indef for all of them, and make it a ban. Votestacking in AfDs is completely unacceptable, and the fact this was an administrator makes it even more egregious. Blueboy96 01:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with indefinite ban - this is neither a well-intentioned mistake or an isolated incident; it is a systematic campaign to abuse our deletion process. If the user chooses to request unblock at some point it can be considered at that time. ~ mazca ^talk 01:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Putting on my checkuser/admin hats for a minute, I would prefer to have a defined-period block or, alternately, a community ban (of a specified or permanent period), for a few reasons. First, it would be immediately clear to both Altenmann and to any administrator how long before he was eligible to return to editing. Secondly, there would be little doubt what to do with any socks discovered later (either new ones or ones that have not yet been identified): they would be blocked. With an indef block, there is a lot more uncertainty. I tend to agree with FloNight that indefinite blocks tend to be interpreted fairly widely, and I rather doubt, in this case, that leaving any loopholes open is a good idea. I will reiterate that a full review of all of the articles and other discussions in which these accounts were involved hasn't been carried out; at this point, we do not know if there was use of alternate accounts to edit war, talk page discussions that were subverted, RFAs that were affected, and so on. There are over a thousand overlaps in editing, and it would take days to review all of them to determine which ones had an effect on content or project issues. Myself, I favour a block no shorter than six months, ranging up to two years. Risker (talk) 01:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there will be any loopholes if it is indef, Risker. It's long been standard practice that votestacking on AfDs is an indef-able offense. Blueboy96 02:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Community ban The Internet is a big place. Nobody needs to edit Wikipedia. When people act with purposeful malice towards our project, they should be banned. If the user wants to be unbanned at some point in the future, they can lodge an appeal. Jehochman ^Talk 02:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Community ban. I'm on the hard-nosed end of this one. When I discovered this mess (while investigating the relevant SPI), I was gobsmacked; it didn't make any sense to me that a member of our community with such longevity could be engaged in such anti-social behavior; it didn't make any sense to me and it still doesn't, but it's hard to argue with the technical evidence (and, more to the point, the behavioral evidence of the AfD vote-stacking.) The community should not and need not tolerate such deception; I support an outright and permanent ban. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 02:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm surprised that the discussion is even being had; I wouldn't think it would normally be necessary. Agree with everyone else on the indef community ban above per everyone else's conclusion. NW (Talk) 03:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should this be brought to a wider venue (AN, perhaps?) Or are there enough eyeballs here? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm of the mind this needs to be brought to AN, if only because we're discussing a potential ban on an administrator. Blueboy96 03:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Community ban - I am not an administrator, however I agree with Jpgordon and Jehochman. This is a wanton and gross abuse of the tools and the community's trust. As far as I'm concerned, there is nothing this user can do that would make me think he could ever be a worthy contributing member of the community again. The user should under no circumstances be allowed anywhere near the tools again and should remain banned. If he wishes to be unbanned he can request it just as any other banned editor has to. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 03:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• This needs to be a community ban, in my view. We community-banned editor JamesBurns who similarly used sock puppetry to influence AfDs over many years. For an admin to do this, it's even more a breach of the community's trust. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Community ban - This is an egregious and blatant violation of the community's trust, and a blatant misuse of the administrator tools. Not only should he be banned, but if he ever does come back he should be barred from ever regaining the tools. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 04:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Perma-Community ban - I think that such abuse deserves nothing less. Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 04:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Community ban - if ever allowed back to be banned from applying for adminship ever again. Mjroots2 (talk) 06:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me — there is absolutely no way the community would ever knowingly return the tools to this user. What he has done will tarnish his legacy with such an uncomely scar that no amount of time will let it callous; rather, the bad blood will fester into a stain that will outlast many of our own tenures on Wikipedia, and newcomers who delve into the more bureaucratic areas of Wikipedia will be made aware of him if they are even dimly aware of historical administrative abuse. Master&Expert (Talk) 11:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Community ban, per Mjroots2; warranted by the blantant abuse of our trust and their rights. Blurpeace 06:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Huh. When I filed the sockpuppet case, I most definitely did not expect Mikkalai to be behind this - I quite liked him, a "grumpy old bear", who was able to objectively analyze sources and stay neutral. Timurite, on the other hand, was a different type - ".. stop smearing my personality in shit and stick to shitty article content to make it less shitty.." etc. Sockpuppetry this wide and long must be very well planned (different personalities, different approaches). I wonder how many of his socks are going undetected? --Sander Säde 07:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Permanent community ban. Long-term sockpuppetry alone would be enough to enough to merit a lengthy block. Long-term systematic abuse of admin tools would also merit a lengthy block. The combination of those two combines to make this a no-way-back issue for me. Community trust is an absolutely essential component of wikipedia's functioning, because it is the only way we have any chance of preventing wikipedia becoming a permanent battlefield, and this systematic combination of sockpuppetry and admin abuse is about as serious a breach of trust as can be imagined. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not sure why the ArbCom has to post a motion here and pass it, if for any reason other than to make it official — but that seems unnecessary. This person has done far more harm to Wikipedia than possibly any other user — if he does not receive a ban of at least one year, then I would be disappointed in the excessive leniency of our community. And I seldom ever speak out against another so vitriolically, but this editor's actions have left me outraged. I once spoke in favour of him — now I very strongly support a desysop and site ban for a very lengthy period of time. Master&Expert (Talk) 11:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment not being an admin and having had a very limited interchange with the editor regarding the problems of separating soviet/russian project tagging while having experienced a large number of other editors who give this whole wikipedia project - a hell of a lot more legitimacy and credibility in the way they conduct themselves on it - I am astonished that the editor has suggested at the talk page that they return in a year to check things out - I mean it would be like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DavidYork71 (for those so far short termers commenting here - look at that one for an unrepentant abuser) for some totally unfathomable reason with apologies and cap in hand trying to get unblocked... I think the erosion of credibility of the functioning of admin role, and the blatant misuse of the community trust needs to be remedied with sufficient sanction - and feel reassured by the comments above that something will emanate that discourages anyone else thinking they can pull something like this and get easy passage a year or two down the line SatuSuro 12:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Permaban, toss the key, add him to the Posterity List. No reason to ever consider allowing them to ever edit here again. Tan | 39 15:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Permanent community ban - Anything else would be detrimental to the long-term health of the project, and would signal to others that the risks involved in such activities are worth the results. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Permanent community ban per Beyond My Ken. Sole Soul (talk) 17:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Permanent with unblock requests being taken no earlier than 2 years from now. There is really no excuse whatsoever for this behaviour. Even myself, staunch advocate of second chances, don't think I could ever grant one in this case. –xeno^talk 18:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment According to this page he made a new sock less than an hour after his main account was blocked, so I'd say he isn't exactly learning his lesson from all this. —Soap— 18:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to enact the ban. Obvious consensus. Tan | 39 18:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Altenmann used his socks abusively on meta wiki as well: [14] [15] Colchicum (talk) 23:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Not that it's needed, but I fully endorse a permanent community ban. This is wanton abuse of administrator privileges and shows nothing but utter contempt for the community that administrators are supposed to be serving. We need to send a strong message that this community will not tolerate that kind of abuse for anybody considering doing it in the future or and this is such an egregious violation of trust that I don't think he can ever be trusted to return. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]