Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:31, 2 May 2016 view sourceLiz (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators760,396 edits Removing request for arbitration: declined by the Committee← Previous edit Revision as of 20:59, 9 May 2016 view source SheriffIsInTown (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers59,199 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 6: Line 6:
<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>}}

== ] ==
'''Initiated by ''' ] | ] | '''at''' 20:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

=== Involved parties ===
<!-- Please change "userlinks" to "admin" if the party is an administrator -->
*{{userlinks|SheriffIsInTown}}, ''filing party''


;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
Krzyhorse22 has been reported under ] four times, on ] by ], on ] by ], on ] by ] and on ] by me.

=== Statement by SheriffIsInTown ===
Lagoo sab created a total of 100 socks between 2009 and 2013. The last confirmed sock of Lagoo sab was blocked on 6 November 2013. Krzyhorse22 was created on 29 August 2014 and there is a 9 months difference between the last sock block and the creation of Krzyhorse22. Considering the time difference, there was never going to be a successful CU because of all of the confirmed socks being stale. The cases only can be decided based on the behavioral evidence present in the filings and according to my analysis of all these four cases, there was more than enough evidence each time to block the user based on behavioral evidence e.g. ] as many users have been blocked behaviorally in the past with fraction of the evidence presented as was presented in these filings. There are other editors who have expressed their opinions in those filings such as ] that evidence suggests that Krzyhorse22 is a Lagoo sab sock. The closing admin Bbb23 for the last filing has expressed in the past that he does not do blocks based on behavioral evidence rather he only matches IP and the IP addresses do not match. He has also hinted that the location of Krzyhorse22 might be the same as Lagoo's previous socks but that is irrelevant considering the topics they edit. Based on that admission, i also had the feeling that nobody even evaluated the evidence presented in the last filing to decide whether there is a behavioral match except off-course Magog the Ogre who is not a CheckUser. Thus, i am requesting the committee to analyze the behavioral evidence presented in last four filings, more importantly the last two because they had bulk of evidence in them. Arbitration Committee is the last resort to resolve any matter on Misplaced Pages and considering the history of disruption by Lagoo sab socks previously and by Krzyhorse22, it is important that Committee reviews this case and give their final decision in this matter. If Committee finds enough evidence then this user has violated ] by not declaring all previous 100 accounts and by not following the proper procedure for appealing the block and only coming back when the appeal is granted.

=== 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. * -->

=== Clerk notes ===
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
*

=== ]: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0/0> ===
{{anchor|1=]: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter}}<small>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)</small>
*

Revision as of 20:59, 9 May 2016

Shortcut


Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
]   9 May 2016 {{{votes}}}
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
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions
Motion name Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions 1 December 2024
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.


File an arbitration request


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.

  • Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced.
  • In general. Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs.
  • Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.)
  • Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-l@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.
    • Members of the Committee may also grant extensions when they ask direct questions to facilitate answers to those questions.
  • Refactoring statements. You should write carefully and concisely from the start. It is impermissible to rewrite a statement to shorten it after a significant amount of time has passed or after anyone has responded to it (see Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments), so it is often advisable to submit a brief initial statement to leave room to respond to other users if the need arises.
  • Sign submissions. In order for arbitrators and other participants to understand the order of submissions, sign your submission and each addition (using ~~~~).
  • Word limit violations. Submissions that exceed the word limit will generally be "hatted" (collapsed), and arbitrators may opt not to consider them.
  • Counting words. Words are counted on the rendered text (not wikitext) of the statement (i.e., the number of words that you would see by copy-pasting the page section containing your statement into a text editor or word count tool). This internal gadget may also be helpful.
  • Sanctions. Please note that members and clerks of the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions when necessary to promote the effective functioning of the arbitration process.

General guidance

  • This page is for statements, not discussion.
  • Arbitrators or clerks may refactor or delete statements, e.g. off-topic or unproductive remarks, without warning.
  • Banned users may request arbitration via the committee contact page; don't try to edit this page.
  • Under no circumstances should you remove requests from this page, or open a case (even for accepted requests), unless you are an arbitrator or clerk.
  • After a request is filed, the arbitrators will vote on accepting or declining the case. The <0/0/0> tally counts the arbitrators voting accept/decline/recuse.
  • Declined case requests are logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests. Accepted case requests are opened as cases, and logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Cases once closed.

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Lagoo sab

Initiated by Sheriff | ☎ 911 | at 20:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Involved parties


Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Krzyhorse22 has been reported under Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Lagoo sab four times, on 20 November 2014 by Faizan, on 04 October 2015 by Smsarmad, on 24 November 2015 by LouisAragon and on 14 April 2016 by me.

Statement by SheriffIsInTown

Lagoo sab created a total of 100 socks between 2009 and 2013. The last confirmed sock of Lagoo sab was blocked on 6 November 2013. Krzyhorse22 was created on 29 August 2014 and there is a 9 months difference between the last sock block and the creation of Krzyhorse22. Considering the time difference, there was never going to be a successful CU because of all of the confirmed socks being stale. The cases only can be decided based on the behavioral evidence present in the filings and according to my analysis of all these four cases, there was more than enough evidence each time to block the user based on behavioral evidence e.g. WP:DUCK as many users have been blocked behaviorally in the past with fraction of the evidence presented as was presented in these filings. There are other editors who have expressed their opinions in those filings such as Magog the Ogre that evidence suggests that Krzyhorse22 is a Lagoo sab sock. The closing admin Bbb23 for the last filing has expressed in the past that he does not do blocks based on behavioral evidence rather he only matches IP and the IP addresses do not match. He has also hinted that the location of Krzyhorse22 might be the same as Lagoo's previous socks but that is irrelevant considering the topics they edit. Based on that admission, i also had the feeling that nobody even evaluated the evidence presented in the last filing to decide whether there is a behavioral match except off-course Magog the Ogre who is not a CheckUser. Thus, i am requesting the committee to analyze the behavioral evidence presented in last four filings, more importantly the last two because they had bulk of evidence in them. Arbitration Committee is the last resort to resolve any matter on Misplaced Pages and considering the history of disruption by Lagoo sab socks previously and by Krzyhorse22, it is important that Committee reviews this case and give their final decision in this matter. If Committee finds enough evidence then this user has violated WP:SOCK by not declaring all previous 100 accounts and by not following the proper procedure for appealing the block and only coming back when the appeal is granted.

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.

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Lagoo sab: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)