| Revision as of 21:37, 28 December 2012 view sourceUbikwit (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,539 edits →Involved parties← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:47, 28 December 2012 view source AlexandrDmitri (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,569 edits →Deskana's refusal to perform CU in SPI case: removed as withdrawn by filing partyNext edit → | ||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| <noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks|acotstyle=float:right}}</noinclude>{{NOINDEX}} | <noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks|acotstyle=float:right}}</noinclude>{{NOINDEX}} | ||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=53%</noinclude>}} | {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=53%</noinclude>}} | ||
| == Deskana's refusal to perform CU in SPI case == | |||
| '''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 20:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Involved parties === | |||
| <!-- use {{admin|username}} if the party is an administrator --> | |||
| *{{userlinks|Ubikwit}}, ''filing party'' | |||
| *{{userlinks|deskana}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Evildoer187}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|72.74.59.228}} | |||
| <!-- The editor filing the case should be included as a party for purposes of notifications. --> | |||
| ;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. --> | |||
| *Diff. 1 | |||
| *Diff. 2 | |||
| ;Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried | |||
| <!-- Identify prior attempts at dispute resolution here, with links/diffs to the page where the resolution took place. If prior dispute resolution has not been attempted, the reasons for this should be explained in the request for arbitration --> | |||
| *Link 1] | |||
| *Link 2 | |||
| I have a grievance with respect to the refusal by deskana to perform a CU in an SPI case I filed against IP 72.74.59.228 and Evildoer187, claiming there were insufficient grounds. | |||
| Cause for filing the SPI: | |||
| ] | |||
| Though I am a newbie to serious editing, it seems to me that the case at hand merits a CU according to the policy statements, specifically the following: | |||
| ] | |||
| *Sock puppetry | |||
| *Disruption (or potential disruption) of any Wikimedia project | |||
| *Legitimate concerns about bad faith editing | |||
| Here deskana asserts that my sockpuppetry case was dubious, and has demonstrated what appears to be a somewhat disciplinarian disposition. Policy wise it would appear to be irrelevant to a SPI investigation that deskana is “fed up” with a content dispute with which he hasn't familiarized himself, so something’s afoot or amiss. | |||
| The SPI case is related to a series of ongoing content disputes at ] and ]. I should have taken the content dispute to dispute resolution, but I am very busy in real life, and have therefore been somewhat remiss in studying policy here. Bringing a time consuming action such as this is also not something I’m enthused about, but it has become necessary. | |||
| In discussion on my talk page subsequent to the block, deskana leveled the gratuitous accusation against me of pushing an agenda and being a single-purpose account, while proclaiming that he had not even read my comments or edits. I informed him that such an accusation was presumptuous, and drew a distinction between having a rational POV and supporting it versus having an irrational agenda and pushing it. | |||
| And he leveled that accusation against me apparently in a manner such as to defend a self-proclaimed Jew admitting to being “extremely outspoken on antisemetism” and “largely unsympathetic to anti-Zionist viewpoints” , , while shielding him from CU in a case that meets the policy-based evidential criteria above. | |||
| I asked him whether he had been familiar with this ] | |||
| No reply, so I assume he hadn't. Is that due to simple negligence, perhaps under duress due to time constraints? | |||
| Evildoer187 is one of a number of editors commenting on the talk pages of I/P articles whose behavior evinces problems relating to conformance with WP:TPG, WP:NPA and WP:AGF, hindering discussions and impeding progress toward consensus. Personal attacks are rife, and irrational, bad faith reactions to the presentation of RS the order of the day. Before taking the content issues up, it would seem that the conduct issues should be addressed. Having read the policies more closely during this block, I’ve come to see things in a new light. | |||
| Though I have been accused of , , , , the sockpuppetry case represents a probable example of real-world conspiracy that could be confirmed by use of a simple tool, so I am somewhat incredulous that the CU has not been performed. | |||
| HOW DO I WITHDRAW THE CASE? I'VE BEEN ADVISED, BUT HOW? | |||
| === Statement by Deskana === | |||
| ] is the checkuser case. I've already told Ubikwit () that since all consequences of using the tool rest on my shoulders, not only is it my call whether I use the checkuser tool, but the privacy policy (more specifically a directive from AUSC, but that's sematics) prohibits me from connecting IPs to accounts so even if the case actually had any substantial evidence in it then I wouldn't be able to tell him anything anyway. | |||
| Since my stance on this will not budge, I advised this user to contact the Arbitration Committee regarding this matter. I indicated that he should email you. I'm sorry my lack of clarity has caused him to file this case and waste your time. | |||
| --] ] 20:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *Reply to Newyorkbrad's comment : I agree that telling him in no uncertain terms that his complaint has no merit is better than forwarding it on to AUSC. I would have done so myself, but I think it's better for me to always refer people to AUSC if they kick up a fuss even if their complaint has no merit. That way I do not appear to be attempting to quash any complaints people have about me. --] ] 21:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Evildoer187 === | |||
| As much as I don't want to give this the attention it clearly doesn't deserve, I am obligated to respond. This user has been harassing me and monitoring my every move ever since the dispute at the List of indigenous peoples page. Ubikwit, do you really believe that I'm going to be civil towards someone who told me I would "make the Mossad proud"? Who repeatedly accused me of duplicity, for no apparent reason other than the fact that I disagreed with you? You've got a lot of nerve. Also, I am not "impeding" consensus, as to do that there would have to be a consensus to impede. The majority of people there do not believe Palestinians should be included on the list, but you refuse to accept it and let it go. That is the problem.] (]) 20:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Floq === | |||
| Per comment, The OP is withdawing the case. Rather than further declines or statements, perhaps a clerk can just do the necessary? I assume since comments have been made that Ubikwit can't just delete this. --] (]) 21:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by {Party 3} === | |||
| === Clerk notes === | |||
| :''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).'' | |||
| === Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/3/0/0) === | |||
| <small>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)</small> | |||
| *'''Decline''' for ArbCom and advise Ubikwit to send complaint to the Audit Subcommittee. The procedure for complaints regarding use of the CheckUser tool is given at ] which directs people to ] where it can be seen that "All complaints about the use of CheckUser or Oversight privileges received by the Arbitration Committee shall be referred to the Audit Subcommittee by forwarding the complaint to the subcommittee's mailing list (arbcom-audit-enlists.wikimedia.org)." ''']''' ''']''' 21:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Decline'''. Deskana's decision that there were insufficient grounds for a checkuser falls well within the range of acceptable checkuser discretion. Therefore, there is no basis for an arbitration case. Nor do I see a reason to advise bringing this matter to the Audit Subcommittee, whose investigations focus primarily on inappropriate use of checkuser or oversight tools rather than what we have here, which is a perfectly reasonable decision ''not'' to use one of these tools. ] (]) 21:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::I would agree with you NYB, except that the procedure says that the Committee should refer complaints regarding CU to the Audit subcommittee - I assume that means we do not make a judgement on the complaint but allow the subcommittee to make their own assessment. ''']''' ''']''' 21:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::The policy is that complaints of ''potential misuse'' of the checkuser tool go to the Audit Subcommittee. I don't know that a declination to use the tool, especially in a single instance, can be characterized as a ''misuse'' of the tool. We might want to clarify the policy in this respect. As importantly, per "Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy," when we receive a complaint that clearly lacks merit, I think it makes sense for us to say so rather than invite the complainant to pursue another procedure that we know full well will not lead to a useful result. ] (]) 21:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Decline''' per SilkTork. ] ]] 21:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:47, 28 December 2012
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.