Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Requests for arbitration

Requests for clarification and amendment

Motions

Ricky81682 unblocked

Ricky81682 (talk · contribs) is unblocked subject to an indefinite one account restriction.
For this motion there are 15 active arbitrators, so 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support
Oppose
Abstain/recuse
Arbitrator comments/discussion
  • I'm inclined to support unblocking based on Ricky's appeal below, but given that he is a former administrator blocked and desysopped under a cloud, we decided to post the motion publicly to hear any community comments first. – Joe (talk) 12:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Community discussion

The following is the appeal sent to ArbCom by Ricky, copied here with his permission:

I would like to request an unblock on English Wikipedia. I was blocked in October 2016 by Arbcom pursuant to https://en.wikipedia.org/en/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ricky81682. At the time, I was an administrator here for almost a decade.
I admit that I was sockpuppeting and trolling around with various other accounts to make a point across the project. Basically, in mid-2016, I was in some very minor disputes with other individuals here and created fake accounts that added absurdity to this. It was purely a WP:POINT violation. Before that, in the years I have been involved in the project, I have NEVER done anything like that but I admit that I typically stayed away from relatively contentious editing disputes. For some reason, the issue of userspace drafts got me absorbed into complete and utter idiocy in a way nothing else ever has.
Of course, when caught, I first began to pretend like it was someone else editing on my devices rather than admit fault. In complete embarrassment at my childishness, I continued to try to deny my antics until I was eventually desysoped and banned.
I'm aware that I have no chance at ever becoming an admin again but I would like to be able to resume editing here. In the intervening years, I have focused on simple English and Commons and focusing on my core area of organizing and dealing with categories while staying away from the kind of bizarre silly disputes that got me in trouble here.
I hope that my years of service to this project prior to the many month-long idiocy, combined with the years of service since then, is sufficient evidence that I understand the seriousness of wasting other people's time and energy with such nonsense and will never engage in any antics like that again. Again, I'm aware the community will likely never have the confidence in me again as an admin which I only feel shame about but I would like to be able to edit here in good standing once again.
Thank you very much,
Ricky

– Joe (talk) 12:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

  • (Is this the equivalent of the "section titled 'Community discussion'" in the scary pink warning box above? If not, please move appropriately.)
    Logged-out-Ricky is community-banned too (discussion), so this isn't solely arbcom's call. —Cryptic 12:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
    Cryptic: Joe Roe renamed the section for you. As I read it, that IP range was harassing Ricky, not used by Ricky. Isn’t that right? –xenotalk 13:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
    Yeah that IP isn't listed in the SPI. Was it later linked to Ricky? – Joe (talk) 13:09, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
    It was indeed used by Ricky - he edited a DRV logged out, and I noticed before it was oversighted that his IP was in the same range as the anon harassing him. I can go looking for the right drv subpage if someone with the special OS goggles wants to confirm that, but it'll take a while. I'd thought at the time that the overlap was coincidence - it's a very wide range - but behavorially it's pretty damning in the context of the other socks. (Also, it was mentioned indirectly in the SPI by User:SmokeyJoe, though as an IP it was of course not commented on by the CUs.) —Cryptic 13:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
    Turns out it wasn't even oversighted - [1]. —Cryptic 13:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
    Two or three ranges of IPs were trolling Ricky. Ricky was obsessed with clearing old abandoned drafts, fast. The IPs were countering with poorly-put counter arguments. In hindsight they read as sarcasm directed at Ricky opponents. At the time my suspicion was that Ricky was being trolled by a family member. There was no overt malice, but was SOCK violating and attempting to ridicule debating opponents. No objection to Ricky returning, if he stays away from abandoned drafts. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
    Regarding the procedural point: although ArbCom is more reluctant nowadays to decide appeals of bans placed by the community, it still has that authority under the arbitration policy. Some long-time editors might remember the Ban Appeals Subcommittee (BASC), which was a subcommittee created by ArbCom specifically to handle appeals of community-imposed sanctions. When BASC was dissolved, ArbCom passed a motion saying it would only hear certain kinds of appeals. No opinion as to whether the community ban falls under one of those categories, but it technically could be "solely arbcom's call". Or it could reroute that decision to WP:AN. It's up to them. Mz7 (talk) 05:42, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I remember Ricky being one of the good guys prior to his dramatic self-destruct, and I for one would be happy to see him back. Reyk YO! 12:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • (assuming this is right place to comment) - Before my time, but this seems a reasonable appeal. I can't see how keeping him out would be preventative. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:53, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The name Tippopotamus (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ricky81682/Archive) does sound familiar for some reason, but otherwise I remember this case very imperfectly. The appeal inspires confidence, though, and I hope the committee unblocks. Bishonen | talk 13:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC).
    As I understand it, the Tippopotamus account was a declared alternative account; it was included in the SPI for completeness. –xenotalk 13:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, this is a very self-reflective appeal. Curiously Idon't remember the case at all, but theSO has been well adhered to, and I also hope thecommittee unblocks. ——SN54129 13:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Well before my time, but enough time has elapsed for reflection and learning, and the unblock appeal suggests that has happened - I hope the appeal is successful. GirthSummit (blether) 13:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The appeal looks appealing and with one account restriction, I will support their unblocking. They clearly need to restrain themselves though. – Ammarpad (talk) 13:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • A cautious yes if indeed there has been no socking since 2016 and there has been constructive editing on other wiki projects.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
    Yes they have been contributing to Commons, I support letting them back with the proposed 1 account restriction. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • It was disappointing when it was discovered that Ricky was using socks. It was even more disappointing to discover that he was sockmaster behind the IP's attacking himself. I had spent considerable effort in tracking down the IP's that were involved and proposed the ban linked by Cryptic above. Nonetheless, Ricky's service to WP prior to that insanity was already well over a decade and, to me, grants him a fair amount of good will for this appeal. If anyone is interested, I still have the page I created to log down all the IP's I could find. I went back to it and most of the IP's have not edited since the end of 2015 although some edited in 2016, but nothing later than that. I would not be opposed to Ricky being unblocked Blackmane (talk) 00:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • As I remember, I was one of the primary arbs reviewing the situation that was brought to me and I proposed some form of the original motion, or at least the idea behind it. It's been 4 years since, and with over 100,000 in contribs to other places since, I would be fine with this motion passing. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 03:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support He was a good admin and also a good editor. Socking was unexpected but I see no issue now. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 03:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support People can learn from their mistakes. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Everyone can make mistakes, even incredibly bad judgements such as socking. Most of our users that sock, though, do not have the giant repertoire of positive contributions that Ricky did. As such, I'm more than willing to grant this unblock request (don't think the one account restriction will be necessary after they return either, but wouldn't be a terrible idea for them to be open to random checks of their account for the first year or so). Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 07:33, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Requests for enforcement


Notagainst

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Notagainst

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Femkemilene (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 17:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Notagainst (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBCC: Climate change

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 

Examples of not trying to find consensus

Examples of failing Wikipedia:Verifiability by misrepresenting sources

  • 19 December Inserting statement that climate change is already driving mass migration with four sources, two of which don't talk about the past/current state at all. Also falsely claiming report is from IPCC, when it's instead from IOM.
  • 19 December Leaving out important context (worst-case scenario). Removed verification failed tag on December 29 without correcting various mistakes.
  • 19 December Inserted five sources, none of which supported statement. Later corrected, but I think still in violation with WP:NPOV.
  • 20 December Amended number, but source (UN) still explicitly states this number is guesswork and the report cites works that describe the number as apocalyptic.
  • 2 January Other examples of wrongful attribution: not scientific American, but somebody published by them.

Examples of personal attacks

  • 24 September Personal attack directed at me: "it seems you just run with the bullies."
  • 9 September, 28 September, 6 November, 6 November Personal attack directed at group of editors "the page has been taken over by climate crisis deniers." and Sounds like you might be a climate crisis denier? and more.
  • 12 January Personal attack at me: what kind of person does that?.
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Notagainst is a prolific editor of some of the most widely-read pages about climate change. I regret that I feel obliged to ask enforcement instead of working together on improving this important topic. The disruptive editing consists of a persistent refusal to engage seriously in consensus building and objecting to community input. Furthermore, they are editing so much that other editors don't have time to verify, often with a high rate of mistakes. When other editors comment on mistakes or on other content disputes, the editor often continues editing the article in the direction other editors objected to. The editor also frequenty uses personal attacks, even after being called out on them. Frequent editor concerns are about POV pushing. That this type of editing occurs on widely-read pages makes it more urgent in my view.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

[2]


Discussion concerning Notagainst

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Notagainst

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Notagainst

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

Xenagoras

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Appealing user 
Xenagoras (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)Xenagoras (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Sanction being appealed 
31 hour block for WP:1RR violation on article Tulsi Gabbard.
 Block log. 
Administrator imposing the sanction 
Doug Weller (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator 
The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by Xenagoras

This block by @Doug Weller is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption because I did not violate the WP:1RR editing restriction on Tulsi Gabbard with any of my today's 5 edits [3][4][5][6][7] there. These 5 edits are part of one series of consecutive edits that undid MrX actions in part and count as one revert. WP:3RR states, "A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert". The user MrX that I reverted, confirmed to me that my 5 edit-sequence did not violate the WP:1RR restriction [8]. MrX [9] and myself [10] agreed to continue to discuss disputed content on the article talk page. The block also violates the blocking policy WP:EXPLAINBLOCK because the blocking admin did not give reviewable evidence or explain which of my edits violated any policy. Xenagoras (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Doug Weller

It was clearly a 1RR block which I didn't think needed an explanation. Xenagoras made three edits, then MrX made one. Xenagoras made 2 edits after that with the last one being another revert. I have no idea why they still fail to acknowledge that. The issue isn't one of reverting the same edit twice, it's simply that it wasn't a string of five reverts, with a break of 14 minutes between MrX's edit and Xenagoras's fifth edit. That's plenty of time for someone who is editing an article that they clearly know is under 1RR and who has had a previous warning - see User talk:Xenagoras#1RR. Maybe if it had been just a minute or two a free pass with another reminder might have been ok, but that's just too long a gap. Doug Weller talk 10:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Statement by MrX

Xenagoras, you misrpesented what I said. I did not "confirm" that your 5 edit-sequence did not violate the. I wrote that I "did not say" that you violated 1RR. In other words, I was silent on the issue. However, it appear that you did in fact make a second revert [11]. While your 18:44 edit appears to be part of a series of edits, your 18:57 edit raises some doubts. - MrX 🖋 22:46, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

MrX, I am sorry if I misinterpreted your statement as "confirmation", "I did not say that violated 1RR. I just wanted to make sure that you didn't in subsequent edits"[12] appeared like confirmation of 1RR not broken so far to me. All of my 5 edits happened in very fast succession to make it obvious that they are part of one editing sequence. I did not revert twice anything you wrote. My edit from 18:57 in section Early life and education that you refer to reverted your edit from 13:15, and you did not revert anything I wrote in that section Early life and education after 13:15, therefore my 18:57 edit was a singular revert of your edit from 13:15 as well as part an editing sequence. Xenagoras (talk) 00:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Xenagoras

  • The block will expire automatically at 04:00 hours UTC. ——SN54129 12:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Xenagoras

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Xenagoras violated 1RR, as Doug Weller has already explained above, but I'll do it again. I was going to give diffs, but I believe it's really more informative for my readers to look at the article history, here. The relevant edits by Xenagoras (five edits) and MrX (one edit) are currently twelve lines down, running from 18:34 to 18:57 13 January (UTC). Xenagoras's first three edits, 18:34, 18:40 and 18:43, count as one revert. Then comes an edit by MrX at 18:43, not sure whether that's a revert, and it doesn't matter. Xenagoras's fourth edit, at 18:44, is Xenagoras's second revert. But if that was all, I wouldn't sanction it, because they could well have made that fourth edit without being aware of MrX editing in between, both looking at the timestamps and looking at the text that was reverted.
However, Xenagoras's fifth edit at 18:52 is definitely a second revert. They're actually reverting what MrX did in between, so they were clearly aware of it, and can't reasonably have thought their five edits were consecutive. (I do not mean to say they're claiming it in bad faith, but that they fail to understand what "consecutive" means.) Xenagoras, you refer to WP:3RR for saying all your edits are consecutive, but that policy actually says "A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert." My italics. You violated 1RR, and the sanction was proper. Bishonen | talk 10:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC). PS, no, I misread Xenagoras's fifth edit, and have crossed out what I said about it. Their reverts still weren't consecutive, and I don't believe they could have reasonably missed MrX's intervening edit. Bishonen | talk 10:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC).
Uhm, Doug and Bishonen, given the timeline, and the fact that MrX's intervening edit was to a paragraph other than the one Xenagoras worked on next, I don't think it's reasonable to assume Xenagoras must have been aware of MrX's edit. I'd tend to assume good faith here and consider that Xenagoras was still genuinely thinking of his edits as an unbroken sequence. Fut.Perf. 11:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I pointed out that Xenagoras couldn't necessarily be expected to notice MrX's intervening edit when he made his fourth edit, Future. But his fifth edit was 14 minutes after MrX, and I think he should have checked the history in the meantime. But I'm not against assuming good faith here, even though I'm surprised Xenagoras still thinks all his edits were consecutive. I mean, I would have thought he'd at least have looked at the history when he wrote this appeal. But nm, if it depends on me I'll neither oppose nor support granting the appeal. I hope some more admins post before the 31 hours are up. Bishonen | talk 12:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC).