| Revision as of 13:37, 5 January 2019 view sourceDavey2010 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers142,544 edits +statement← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:54, 5 January 2019 view source AmandaNP (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Bureaucrats, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators45,707 edits →Sockpuppet allegations: Removing request for arbitration: declined by the CommitteeTag: ReplacedNext edit → | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| <noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks|acotstyle=float:right}}</noinclude>{{NOINDEX}} | <noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks|acotstyle=float:right}}</noinclude>{{NOINDEX}} | ||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=45%</noinclude>}} | {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=45%</noinclude>}} | ||
| == Sockpuppet allegations == | |||
| '''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 08:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
| === Involved parties === | |||
| <!-- Please change "userlinks" to "admin" if the party is an administrator --> | |||
| *{{userlinks|Levivich}}, ''filing party'' | |||
| *{{admin|Bbb23}} | |||
| ;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request | |||
| <!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. --> | |||
| * | |||
| ;Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| === Statement by Levivich === | |||
| I know this is a silly dispute, but I've tried all other avenues available and this is my last stop, and I think explanation of some of the principals here would be helpful to me and maybe to the community. Here's what happened: I read and posted ]. {{u|Bbb23}} closed it, writing: {{tq|Insufficient evidence. I find the filer of this report more suspicious than the alleged master.}} I asked him to remove it per ], ], ] Bbb replied, {{tq|You have all the earmarks of a sock.}} I asked again. Bbb did not respond. Per ] ("Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor.") and WP:CIVIL (same) I placed the {RPA} tag. , Bbb replied, {{tq|@Levivich: If you do that again, I will block you.}} I asked again. Others joined at Bbb's talk page, ]; ] and it was archived without being closed. I'm embarrassed by some of the things I wrote in those conversations, where I lost my cool, and also for their length. | |||
| Bbb has not explicitly stated any reasons why I am a sockpuppet or suspicious. Others' reasons were: | |||
| # proficiency with WP jargon, editing procedures and policies | |||
| # getting citation formatting right | |||
| # participating in AfD in my first week | |||
| # participating in the GS ArbCom (second month) | |||
| # filing the above SPI (second month) | |||
| I don't know if Bbb's silence indicates agreement with those justifications or not. I think none of those grounds are valid for the reasons stated in ]. I'm not a sockpuppet; I'm not a returning user; I've never edited under any other account or IP; I'm a longtime reader, first time editor. | |||
| I know Arbcom can't police everything everyone says, but this is a ''checkuser'' closing an SPI with no explanation of the accusation. I think it implies ''technical evidence'' of sockpuppetry or some other private evidence. I'm not as bothered by people who accuse me of being a sockpuppet for being "proficient" or for participating in discussions; other editors can read the reasoning and make up their own minds if it's valid or not. But anyone who ] and types in Levivich at any point in the future will see a CU accusing me of being a sock, will think there's some kind of technical info, and will never find the discussion on Bbb's talk page or ANI. If I touch the SPI page in any way, I will be blocked by Bbb. So I'm stuck with a "black mark" on my record, forever. | |||
| I'm not asking for any sanction of any kind; I don't think this rises to that level. I'm asking for a decision by Arbcom as to whether {{tq|I find the filer of this report more suspicious than the alleged master.}} on ] rises to the level of an unsubstantiated allegation/casting aspersions/personal attack, such that I can remove it per ] without being blocked for that, or not. Declining this case request would basically be answering my question with "not," which I appreciate is an efficient way to answer the question, but whether this case request is accepted or not, I would thank the arbitrators for saying some words about when/where/how/with what evidence socking allegations can be made. I note ] mentions COI but not socking allegations explicitly; the most-recent statement of principal there is from 2015; and socking allegations are common at ANI, not just SPI. . Thank you for considering this request and please forgive that it's 600 words instead of 500. ] (]) 08:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *Assuming that no one wants to hear any more from me, I am not planning to respond unless asked. I wanted to drop a note saying I am reading it all and I am grateful to everyone who is taking the time to share their thoughts. Thank you. ] (]) 05:46, 4 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Bbb23 === | |||
| I wasn't going to say anything unless requested by an arb, but in response to {{U|TParis}}'s question, the answer is no, and please don't ping me again. Thanks.--] (]) 16:06, 3 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Johnuniq === | |||
| I know this is a silly comment, but would someone please indef Levivich (account created 12 November 2018). Filing this case to harass a volunteer doing thankless SPI work after ] indicates that an indef would be best. ] (]) 08:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ===Statement by Softlavender=== | |||
| @Levivich: "{{xt|But anyone who goes over to SPI and types in Levivich at any point in the future will see a CU accusing me of being a sock}}". No, they will see a fairly ridiculous SPI, confirmed by nothing and no one, closed by an administrator (not as a CU) with the comment "Insufficient evidence. I find the filer of this report more suspicious than the alleged master" and denying the use of CU. Bbb23 has never accused you of being a sock; he said on his talkpage that "You have all the earmarks of a sock", but that's not an accusation; merely an observation. You're lucky that he didn't block you when you persisted the in the behavior that he said he would block you for if you persisted. <p>In terms of ], you conveniently left out the relevant passage: "{{xt|there is no official policy regarding when or whether most personal attacks should be removed, although it has been a topic of substantial debate. Removing unquestionable personal attacks from your own user talk page is rarely a matter of concern. On other talk pages, especially where such text ''is directed against you'', removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack.}}"<p>My advice would be, don't ever try to remove something you perceive as a personal attack if the comment is directed toward you. Consult an administrator about it instead. Lastly, you should never have opened an SPI having only been on Misplaced Pages for one month.<p>I suggest withdrawing this RFAR, as I do not think it will end well for you. ArbCom isn't going to accept it or make an ad hoc decision about the comment(s) you dislike, and you may be subject to a ] block or other sanction. ] (]) 08:39, 3 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Hhkohh === | |||
| Wow, why not email to ArbCom directly? I do not see something we need to go here. ] (]) 09:28, 3 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Kashmiri === | |||
| Decline this pointless case. Bbb23, whom I respect greatly, could have been friendlier to a newcomer in this instance, and could perhaps take back their comment, given that there was zero evidence of any wrongdoing on Levivich's part. Levivich, who has made some very valuable contributions, will find Misplaced Pages editing less frustrating if they did not to take things too personally; read ]. — ] ] 12:48, 3 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Beyond My Ken === | |||
| Geez louise, is it the silly season '''''already'''''? A pretty new editor files a spectacularly bad SPI, which is closed by one of our most experienced CUs because... well because it was spectacularly bad. The CU then makes some very trenchant, accurate, and '''''appropriate''''' comments about the filer's own editing profile closely resembling that of a sock. The author of the spectacularly bad SPI takes his high dudgeon to AN/I and gets no relief, so he brings his new spectacularly wrong beef to ArbCom, which should reject it without a second thought, and give the CU a raise and a bonus.{{parabr}}'''''Please, throw out this garbage request,''''' and apologize to Bbb23 -- one of our very best admins -- on behalf of the entire community. I cannot think of anything else which would overjoy the many, many puppetmasters out there more than seeing Bbb23 sanctioned in any way, shape or form. ] (]) 15:54, 3 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :Oh, yeah, and definitely BOOMERANG the OP. An indef would be a good idea, although from experience I know it's unlikely to happen. ] (]) 15:55, 3 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by TParis === | |||
| *{{reply to|Bbb23}} Can I please just redact the comment so that we can move on?<p>@Everyone: I also was accused of being too proficient when I arrived here because I figured out how to edit templates. It's not unheard of for editors to have some technical background and experience with programming languages when they arrive.--v/r - ]] 15:58, 3 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Ivanvector === | |||
| I endorse Bbb23's statement in its entirety, except for the part that is a reply to TParis. This is a non-case and should be quickly rejected. Redaction of comments in SPI should be carried out only by SPI clerks or those who have to interact with the process, and in this case Bbb23's comment that is alleged to be a personal attack (observing that a new account familiar with Misplaced Pages jargon is participating in administrative and disciplinary forums) is in fact useful to the investigation and would be useful if a similar investigation were to be opened in the future. However this is quite unlikely: Levivich's filing failed to establish a useful connection, and there is not presently any case having been made regarding Levivich themselves (] remains a redlink). To {{ul|Levivich}}: checkuser findings are clearly marked as checkuser findings, usually through the use of a template (such as {{confirmed}} or {{unrelated}}) or clearly annotated in prose (such as "I have checked this account and concluded that it is technically a cream pie") and also usually followed by an annotation in the block log. Bbb23's comment was not a checkuser finding and no experienced user would interpret it as such (or they would be swiftly corrected). There is nothing here that should concern you. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 16:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
| Also, regarding "you have all the earmarks of a sock": I suppose based on comments here and elsewhere that the "earmarks" are an account making a sophisticated and technically proficient edit to a semiprotected page as their first autoconfirmed edit. The "technically proficient" part is accurate here (see ) but the rest is not: the suspicious edit was Levivich's 10th, not their 11th, it was on the same day that they created their account (not after the 4th day), and they edited a page which was not protected at that time. At a quick glance the edit is suspicious and might merit further investigation, but for my part it amounts to nothing. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 16:48, 3 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Govindaharihari === | |||
| Last time I said something similar, hey, you a looking very sockish I was quite quickly informed by an admin that it was a personal attack and I should retract it and apologise, the inferred feeling I got from the admin was that they would block me if I did not do as they requested. I find it a shame that Bbb23 has yet to follow the same standard. The admin also had the tools to check, I gather from the lack of a spi block that there is there is no smoking gun. ] (]) 17:11, 3 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by MrX === | |||
| This does not nearly rise to the level of seriousness requiring anything more than a <nowiki>{{trout}}</nowiki>, if that. Ideally, Bbb23 would have just kept his suspicions to himself, but I would never want to see an editor sanctioned for occasionally sharing their suspicions about another editor. Indeed, Levivich's contribution history does raise some suspicion per ], so saying so is not especially offensive or inappropriate. | |||
| Levivich stated, {{tq|"But anyone who goes over to SPI and types in Levivich at any point in the future will see a CU accusing me of being a sock..."}}. Actually, what they will see is this: ] | |||
| The SPI decline was routine. It's not a logged action, so there is no black mark. The best course is for Levivich to learn from the experience and be more thorough next time. It also wouldn't hurt to choose one's battles more carefully.- ]] 🖋 18:47, 3 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ===Statement by Awilley=== | |||
| Decline this and trout the OP. For the record Levivich looks suspiciously ''not new'' to me as well. I try to treat unusually advanced newbies like IP editors who just created their first account or legitimate fresh-start accounts, unless I see that they're editing disruptively or stirring up <u>unnecessary drama</u>. (hint hint) <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 19:27, 3 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ===Statement by Beeblebrox=== | |||
| Not really about accepting the case as I trust the committee will do the right thing and reject it, but to the filing party, if you feel you have to preface your comments with "''I know this is a silly dispute''" then maybe don't pursue it and just move on with your life. ] (]) 23:06, 3 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ===Statement by Robert McClenon=== | |||
| There is a saying that it is sometimes better to keep quiet and be thought to be a fool than to open one's mouth (or keyboard) and dispel all doubt. I am not saying that the filer is a fool, but this filing is foolish. ] (]) 04:43, 4 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ===Observationibus SN54129=== | |||
| ''Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses'', eh ]...? ;) ]]] 06:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by ] === | |||
| I was accused of being a sock by another editor in the first months I started editing regularly in 2013. I know other editors who have been to. We all got on with editing. To show how seriously I took it, I don't even remember who accused me of being a sock. If you take offense and read any slight or conflict as a personal attack, you won't last long editing Misplaced Pages. It's the internet, people are curt or can take swipes at people they have suspicions about or who simply bug them. In this case, Bbb23 was sharing the impression you left and you might consider the reasons behind this impression instead of being insulted. | |||
| It would behoove you to get over this and develop a thick skin. I can guarantee you that you will face more disparaging comments here than being accused of being a sock. This comment doesn't rise to being a personal attack. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 01:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by ] === | |||
| I agree that the request was bound to fail - but it has been brought in good faith from what I can see. I think some of the statements above are unnecessarily harsh and should be moderated - but that doesn't seem to happen on this page. When I voted to support each of the Arbcom. members who have "opined" so far, it was because I hoped to see even-handed, balanced opinions. Not overly detailed, just enough to give clue as to their thinking - with BALANCE as the central theme. Several of the Arbcom statements below totally fail in that regard. There is no need to chastise the filer of the case or cause ridicule by describing a case in a derogatory fashion. Implying that bringing a case has caused a black mark reputation should not be part of a fair and balanced opinion on the merits. Cases are brought here precisely because there is a belief in the merits. Some of these opinions seem designed to play to the peanut gallery. ]] 13:29, 5 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Dave === | |||
| Could Bbb have been a bit friendly ? Sure, Is it worthy of an Arb case? No!,<br> | |||
| "{{xt|I know this is a silly dispute,}}" - If you know it's silly then why continue it ?.<br> | |||
| Decline and trout the OP for their stupidity. –]<sup>]</sup> 13:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by {Non-party} === | |||
| Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information. | |||
| <!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * --> | |||
| === Sockpuppet allegations: Clerk notes === | |||
| :''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).'' | |||
| * | |||
| === Sockpuppet allegations: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/8/0> === | |||
| {{anchor|1=Sockpuppet allegations: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter}}<small>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)</small> | |||
| * I see no merit to this request. '''Decline.''' <span class="nowrap">]]</span> 17:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Decline''' There's nothing to this at all. ] (]) 17:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Decline'''. I'll echo what many others said in the ANI - the filer's decision to hammer away at this in every available venue has caused a Streisand Effect about a passing remark that would have otherwise gone unnoticed to history. ♠]♠ ] 18:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Decline''' Here's an idea: stop talking about this nothingburger of an SPI and nobody will talk about it (or think about it) either. And as an aside, if you came to my talk page and dropped all those policy links in that manner, I likely would keep my mouth shut as well. I'd be too angry to trust myself to speak to you calmly. <span style="color: #9932CC">]<sup>]</sup></span> 20:19, 3 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Decline'''. As far as the imaginary "black mark" is concerned - exactly what PMC said. The reality of a large project is that every so often, someone will make an offhand remark that rubs you the wrong way, and there's not really a good solution other than to acknowledge your own annoyance and move on. Since I've been up on a soapbox more than once about the potential problems that can come from sock accusations, I'll take the opportunity to repeat myself - I do think "your early edits smell socky" isn't a very useful observation on its own. Either you're right, in which case you get nothing out of it except "I told you so" points later when substantive evidence eventually presents itself, or you're wrong, in which case you've just said something discouraging about precisely the most competent and quick-learning subset of new editors. But if we demanded maximum utility from every random comment anyone made, we'd be out of editors before breakfast. (I'd get kicked out for this post, I assume :) ] (]) 08:57, 4 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Decline'''. Filing this case request likely had the opposite effect and most likely has only made things worse. ''']''' ] 21:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::Most of the advice provided here was given at ANI in December and it still remains the best advice. ''']''' ] 01:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Decline'''. There is no "black mark", aside perhaps from the reputation you've now developed among some by escalating this non-issue to the Arbitration Committee. ] <small>]</small> 23:01, 4 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Decline'''. Bbb23's comment and response weren't really called for, but this is making a mountain out of a molehill. – ] <small>(])</small> 00:08, 5 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:54, 5 January 2019
Shortcut
Requests for arbitration
Arbitration Committee proceedings- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.
Open cases| Case name | Links | Evidence due | Prop. Dec. due |
|---|---|---|---|
| Palestine-Israel articles 5 | (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) | 21 Dec 2024 | 11 Jan 2025 |
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
Clarification and Amendment requestsCurrently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.
Arbitrator motions| Motion name | Date posted |
|---|---|
| Arbitrator workflow motions | 10 January 2025 |
| Shortcuts
About this page Use this page to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority). Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests. Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide to case requests. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace. To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.
Guidance on participation and word limits Unlike many venues on Misplaced Pages, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.
General guidance
|
lists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1-2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.