This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TrevelyanL85A2 (talk | contribs) at 20:20, 8 July 2012 (→Admin Involvement and Handling of Edits by Sockpuppets: Confirmation Diffs). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 20:20, 8 July 2012 by TrevelyanL85A2 (talk | contribs) (→Admin Involvement and Handling of Edits by Sockpuppets: Confirmation Diffs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Requests for arbitration
Arbitration Committee proceedings- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Request name | Motions | Initiated | Votes |
---|---|---|---|
Admin Involvement and Handling of Edits by Sockpuppets | 8 July 2012 | {{{votes}}} |
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 motionsMotion 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.
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
|
Admin Involvement and Handling of Edits by Sockpuppets
Initiated by TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) at 19:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- TrevelyanL85A2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
- MastCell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Jclemens (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Nyttend (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Mathsci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Collect (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- SightWatcher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
MastCell: Future Perfect: Jclemens: Nyttend: Mathsci: Collect: SightWatcher:
- Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
- Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mathsci/Archive#26_May_2012
- User_talk:Jclemens/Archive_10#Community_confidence
- User_talk:Jclemens/Archive_10#Your_conduct
- User_talk:MastCell#Deleting_through_ArbCom_protection...
- Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive236#Response_to_wikihounding
- Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive116#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_TrevelyanL85A2
- User_talk:Jclemens/Archive_10#warning_logged_at_R.26I.3F
Statement by TrevelyanL85A2
I apologise for this late request. I requested arbitration on the mailing list on 12 June, following advice I was given at AE to do so, but ArbCom advised me (on 28 June) that I should make my request in public after my block expired. As ArbCom has seen my initial complaint, they know it can't be described without referring to some editors who were formerly involved in R&I. Therefore, I take ArbCom's instructions that I make the complaint in public to mean I should just summarise the dispute, without otherwise commenting on these editors.
Since May, MastCell has made several administrative actions defending Mathsci's interests in disputes related to Echigo Mole. These include deleting a pair of files that Jclemens protected as evidence for ArbCom, protecting my user talk to stop me restoring Echigo Mole's posts there, and blocking me for a month when Mathsci accused me of violating my topic ban (without giving me time to make a statement in the AE thread). This is concerning because MastCell's involvement in the dispute was privately requested by Mathsci: "Irrespective of Jclemens' protection, the two pages were later deleted by MastCell following my request" Said request must have been made privately because it was not anywhere public. Collect raised a related complaint here about Future Perfect. Jclemens suggested Collect's complaint be brought up for broader review, so I hope ArbCom can address both issues.
The basic problem affecting Collect and me is that an admin can be technically uninvolved, yet still use their powers to exclusively defend the interests of an editor or group of editors. MastCell has a long pattern of following Mathsci to disputes to defend him, both by arguing with Mathsci's opponents and using his admin tools. I'll present more examples if ArbCom accepts the case.
I'll summarise the other main aspects of this dispute because its complexity is one of the reasons I think it requires arbitration.
- The question of when it's permissible to restore edits by sockpuppets, as debated in the AN thread. Editors seem to be held to inconsistent standards. Collect and Nyttend were allowed to restore posts from Echigo Mole socks in their user talk, but when I did the same my user talk was protected to prevent it.
- The accusations by SilkTork, Collect and Jclemens against one of the other parties. No comment on whether the accusations are true, but a summary of the dispute needs to mention them.
- The accusation here, here, here, and here that Jclemens abused his authority as an arbitrator. No comment on this accusation either, but a few admins and other editors made it, so I think the committee should examine it.
In summary, four admins have been accused of misconduct in this dispute: Nyttend (in the AN thread), MastCell, Future Perfect and Jclemens. Therefore, I do not think this can be resolved in an RFC, and arbitration is the best option.
Statement by {Party 2}
Statement by {Party 3}
Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/1/0)
- Recused, obviously. Jclemens (talk) 20:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)