Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests - 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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DoxTxob (talk | contribs) at 03:55, 4 April 2009 (response to naval and suggestion for a solution.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 03:55, 4 April 2009 by DoxTxob (talk | contribs) (response to naval and suggestion for a solution.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Template:Active editnotice

Weighing scales Arbitration​Committee
Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Misplaced Pages Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes
Shortcuts

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Misplaced Pages. 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:

Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests

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
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

Current requests

Jvolkblum

Initiated by doxTxob \  at 22:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
  • User Doncram
  • User Orlady
  • User Coren FYI
  • Wknight94 retired from Misplaced Pages on March 20, 2009
  • Courtesy notes were left on talk pages of user actively involved in the discussion.
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by doxTxob

The ongoing incident I want to request arbitration for started with the (justified) ban of User:Jvolkblum for disruptive edits on May 31, 2008, initiated by User:Orlady. Since then, user Orlady has contiued a quest to find and ban sockpuppets of user Jvolkblum. According to user Orlady, 66 accounts of suspected sockpuppets have been banned or blocked from Misplaced Pages, following investigation by several Checkusers.

The bans and blocks include accounts of registered users from which no disruptive behavior has emerged. The latest example is Umbarella (talk · contribs) who was banned for no reason, except for sharing an IP address with banned user Jvolkblum. From that legitimate registered user account three edits were made to articles about topics in the New Rochelle, New York area. All three edits were not disruptive, they "tweaked" historical information to the articles in question and they were not reversed. Still, the user was banned from editing Misplaced Pages after these three edits.

The topic was discussed on different userpages and on the page that documents the sockpuppet investigation regarding user Jvolkblum. Recently, the topic was brought to the attention of the Administrators noticeboard twice by user Doncram. The discussion there was cut short and was closed within 24 hours after it was initiated by User:Coren (administrator). it seems to me that all means of solving the problem are exhausted. I will inform user Coren of this request for arbitration for his/her information. In my opinion this case would definitely profit from an outside perspective from editors who were not formerly involved in the case and can approach this issue with an open mind, and I kindly request that it not be closed prematurely without due discussion of the topic and without all voices heard.

My main point in this request is that registered user accounts are blocked or banned without harm emerging from them. I understand that an IP address shared with a confirmed disruptive user might cause suspicion. I do not understand, however, that a user account is blocked or banned without any destructive behavior found in their edits. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia everyone can edit, that is a value that should be held high and no one should be kept from editing without proof of disruptive edits. It is not - in my humble opinion - a positive contribution to the project if registered users are rejected from Misplaced Pages just because of an IP number. I further request that user accounts unjustly banned (with no disruptive edits) are unbanned. Thank you! doxTxob \  22:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Response to statement by Coren
Yes, I see your point regarding the involvement, that is why I have left a note on your talk page FYI. I will leave messages on the talk pages of editors who were actively involved in the case to inform them. I do not want to add every contributor of an opinion in this case as an involved party. But they should definitely be informed about the arbitration request. If you think is is better to add all of them as involved parties I will add them, otherwise I will inform them. Coren, I have not met you before and therefore I cannot form an opinion about you at all. I value your opinion very much and I hope that you can contribute constructively to this arbitration, but I kindly request that the arbitration process be conducted by an editor who has not dealt with this case before and can contribute a new pair of eyes to this topic. And I kindly request that this arbitration is not closed within 24 hours after it was opened, but all opinions be heard. doxTxob \  23:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Response to statement by Rlevse
In my humble opinion it should not be possible to ban a registered account unless there are disruptive activities emerging from it. I absolutely support the ban of user Jvolkblum, the behavior was disruptive and the ban justified. The key point in my request is that user accounts were banned just for sharing the IP. This can happen if they use the same hotspot at McDonalds or if they share an IP at a computer room at school or an university or whereever. I do not request an unban of user Jvolkblum at all. I do request, however, an unban of user accounts that might share the IP for any reason but which could not be proven disruptive. There is no proof in some of these cases that they are puppeteers. What has User:Umbarella done wrong to deserve a ban? I don't know, maybe you can explain it to me so that I can understand it, because I do not understand.
Response to statement by Enric Naval
Thanks for your advice, I am able to think for myself and make up my own mind. That a majority of people is of the same opinion does not necessarily mean they are right, from an objective perspective. I do not at all intend to request amnesty for users who made harmful edits to Misplaced Pages, whether registerd or anonymous. As a matter of fact, I am opposed of anonymous edits. My main point here is that accusations were made against registered and logged in users from whose accounts no harm emerged. However, these accounts are treated like they were harmful to Misplaced Pages and that is not right. I am not fighting for or against someone. I just think that the situation is stuck to a degree that it is very difficult to untangle and straighten it up.
Suggestion for a solution
May I have another word here for a minute to suggest a possible solution? There was one comment that I would like to focus on as a possible hint on a solution to this problem because I think that it is important. Carcharoth mentioned the danger of being involved for too long in a sockpuppet investigation below, in the arbitrators' opinions. These were very wise words in my opinion. And I was very, very impressed that Coren suggested to recuse from the discussion on request to avoid any claim that there is bias in the discussion or decision. I requested a new pair of eyes in this case and did not want him/her to withdraw completely, because every opinion is of value. I just asked not to prematurely close the case within hours but asked that it be discussed. What great assets these two are for Misplaced Pages! I would like to ask for a solution here that might be in the very spirit of these two comments and I hope that we can discuss it shortly here before the case is dropped and dismissed, even if it might not be the right forum. Thank you!
I think that Orlady, Doncram and doxTxob (myself) are involved for too long and are biased too much to continue further in this case. The discussion is stuck to a degree that it is very difficult to get out of this and solve it. Furthermore the discussion heats up to a point where it gets personal and that is not a good way to move Misplaced Pages forward.
Is it possible to find a solution here that Orlady, Domcram and doxTxob (myself) all stay out of this case of Jvolkblum suckpuppets completely and indefinitely and that other trusted members of Misplaced Pages take over that case? I am not suggesting a topic ban of either of the parties, but suggest that a binding voluntary agreement be found that the above three parties stay out of this completely, eternally and for good. In my opinion this "case" has caused more harm than good for Misplaced Pages, wasting time and efforts of valuable editors and admins, and it is due time that it ends and we move forward to improve Wikipeadia instead of good editors fighting each other. Thank you for your consideration.

Statement by doncram

(statement edited down to <500 words by doncram) It is not my choice to open an arbitration proceeding now, just having received some community attention to the two recent wp:an discussions, and having received direct advice not to pursue this further. It is Doxtxob's request to pursue arbitration. While Doxtxob is not entirely correct and knowledgeable about the whole case, he has enough of it right that I think I should support him, to at least try to channel this towards some helpful outcome.

I think Orlady did not technically initiate the ban, as the banning event seems to have been proposed and closed by User:Rudget in this discussion at wp:an. Orlady was, however, involved early on (see Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Jvolkblum (2nd)), and it may be that she advocated for the ban and could be viewed as having initiated it.

What is clear to me is that there is a long-running problem since then and that there has been over-confidence in the one solution tried, which essentially is to delete and block on sight. The enforcement that i have watched in the last months has seemed unreasonable and excessive. I believe that there are multiple persons caught up in the case, and one or more have been treated seriously unfairly, and they feel justified in opening new accounts and continuing to edit. There was the original Person A, recent editors who I call Person G and H, and MagdaWoman, who was accused emphatically but falsely of being a Jvolkblum sock. The general behavior seems most consistent with several persons showing legitimate interest in editing NR area articles, but frustrated deeply by enforcement actions that are incomprehensible, seem obviously unfair in human terms, and seem obviously unfair to them also in terms of wikipedia policies and practices. There is ample room for decent persons to believe that they have been wronged, given sloppy language about sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry and overly emphatic rejections. Technically, at least, the huge case should be divided into separate ones, allowing for separate resolutions.

In the first wp:an discussion, i started by asking for a four part solution that is/was not accepted. I see that was too complicated, when diverse persons are to be involved. I would ask in the arbcom case, if it is accepted, for an arbcom ruling of amnesty for persons involved, allowing any one of the persons involved to start over and edit from just one account, upon their promise to stay within that. Person G agreed to commit to editing from one account, if allowed to do so.

Doxtxob, at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Jvolkblum, compares this situation to prison camps in Germany. I’ve separately thought it showed similarities to prison guard syndrome. The depth of unfairness and frustration here is severely felt. The situation represents a liability for wikipedia that should be addressed. I also believe it would be within Arbcom means to order substantial remedy, so I do ask for Arbcom to take this case. doncram (talk) 01:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

response to Coren

I don't object at all to Coren participating. doncram (talk) 01:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

response to Kirill and to Risker

Some indication is needed here, as to what would allow a person to be unblocked. There are indications that the users would like to be unblocked and to edit as regular users. In which case they could be easily monitored. They don't believe me or anyone though, that they can be unblocked; they are not welcome to appeal their blocks. The Unban proceeding at wp:an was quickly closed. It would be efficient to discuss conditions of unblocking by taking this case. doncram (talk) 01:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Further, you may not understand the facts of the situation if you are asking whether the accounts are sockpuppets, depending on what you mean. I suspect you might possibly think it is obvious to show that they are sockpuppets in that they can be linked to previous accounts caught up in this. That is not the correct standard, IMHO. We can assume all users involved have created multiple accounts. They are not all sockpuppets, by definitions of wp:sockpuppet. The ones created by persons who are not Person A, are not even meatpuppets of the one banned user, by wp:meatpuppet. So AGF should apply, per guidelines/policy. There is serious confusion in use of terms running thru all this. I don't think it would be right for this case to be rejected by arbcom for lack of attention to language; it would always be subject to question what you meant or understood when you rejected it. doncram (talk) 03:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
response to Rlevse

I take note of your statement that "Indefed puppeteers are often treated as banned due to their long disruption". That appears to be a statement of practice, perhaps not shown in policy statements, and hence part of what is not understood or accepted. About "where's the prior dispute resolution?", do you mean the original ban? I provide a link to that. doncram (talk) 01:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Orlady

I see no reason for arbitration. DoxTxob and Doncram are good Wikipedians with good intentions who have been "taken in" by the deceptions of a dedicated vandal.

Jvolkblum and associated sockpuppets have a long record of disruptive behavior, including but not limited to sockpuppetry. They have been subjects of 18 SSP cases, 15 RFCUs, and 12 SPIs (including the current case). There are nearly 300 confirmed sock accounts, many more IPs, and a few dozen suspected sockpuppet accounts. The socks have frequently claimed to be innocent victims of a witchhunt (going back at least as far as Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Jvolkblum (2nd), where several such claims were made), and it seems that both DoxTxob and Doncram have fallen for their con game.

I did not initiate the Jvolkblum sockpuppetry case, but I got involved fairly early when a user I was interacting with was named as a suspected Jvolkblum sock. Then and since, I've seen plenty of behavioral evidence that clearly links many of the sockpuppet accounts and IPs (only a couple of checkuser "confirms" in the past year were surprises to me). I am not a checkuser or a sysop, but I have access to logs at websites I manage, and I have participated in evaluations of abuse-investigation findings at another online project, so I have some familiarity with the evidence available to checkusers, and I have seen how devious some internet users can be in their efforts to attack a website. Although I am fundamentally a trusting person (like DoxTxob and Doncram), my experience has taught me to perceive abuse patterns where formerly I might have only seen coincidences. The Jvolkblum socks intrigued me, so I have continued to track them. I don't know if Jvolkblum is one person or several, but if it is several people it is a coordinated group (maybe it's a fraternity) working together to attack Misplaced Pages. He/they have been deviously clever in their attacks, including inserting fake references to disguise copyvio text and posting those sob stories about being innocent bystanders caught in the net.

I had nothing to do with banning Jvolkblum, but I think the ban was well-deserved and I have tried to help enforce it. Contrary to the premise of this RFAR, enforcement of the ban has not been very effective. Much content contributed by the socks (including much unsourced or questionably sourced content and possible copyvios) has remained in the encyclopedia -- because it looks plausible, because Wikipedians fall for those sob stories, and because it is difficult to surgically remove it from articles with complex edit histories. Also, many of the images that Jvolkblum socks have uploaded to Commons (where Jvolkblum is not banned) remain there. Jvolkblum's favorite topics have not suffered -- compare the number and length of the articles in Category:New Rochelle, New York and Category:Sarah Lawrence College with coverage for other similar-sized cities and educational institutions.

I doubt that any innocent users have been caught in the Jvolkblum net, but any that have can request redress on their own. User:Umbarella is neither banned nor blocked, but I expect that checkuser will eventually confirm that this is a sock. --Orlady (talk) 03:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Mr.Z-man

First, I'd point out that WP:AN is not dispute resolution. Second, the first AN discussion (that I participated in) was marked as resolved after a little more than 24 hours because not a single user agreed with the stated proposal. A quick count shows 15-20 users involved in the discussion, including several checkusers, and many users (such as myself) who are otherwise uninvolved with the case. The second discussion on AN (that I didn't participate in) went basically the same way. I don't quite see what there is to arbitrate here. The community consensus is quite clear that Jvolkblum is banned and the consensus among checkusers seems be rather clear as well about the quality of the technical evidence - that they used the same IP is not the only evidence available. Also, User:Umbarella isn't blocked and never has been. Am I missing something here? Mr.Z-man 23:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Bali_ultimate

My only involvement with this was recently stubbing a rather attrocious article by one of the banned users socks (but since the filer has canvassed me to participate, here's my two cents). The article was filled with false and misleading information (most glaringly it claimed that a place "is" an island, when in fact it hasn't been an island for a long long time). The rest was a bunch of citations that didn't support rather specific, if trivial, historical claims (who owned a ferry 150 years ago, what it was constructed of, etc...) This is what the article looked like once i'd spent a lot of time investigating its claims . This is what it looked like when the sock (later indef blocked) was done editing it . I urge the arbitrators to dismiss this out of hand as disruption on behalf of a user with 200 CU confirmed socks . There's not much more to say. If any user feels they've been unfairly blocked (as in, they're not in fact sockpuppets) then those users can pursue their concerns through the regular channels. But a succesful challenge to the validity of blocking users based on CU and behavioral evidence would reduce the rather shaky structure that wikipedia has created to deal with disruption and game playing to a pile of rubble. Again, this is an enormous waste of time and disruptive.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement by LessHeard vanU

I was notified, as a previously uninvolved party, of this matter and asked if I might consider making a statement. I shall do so; I believe that this request should be rejected. WP:BAN is a long standing policy, and the seeming basis of this request is covered by Misplaced Pages:BAN#Reincarnations - banned editors (not specific accounts) are not permitted to edit the encyclopedia, their alternative accounts are to be blocked indefinitely, and all edits except removal of BLP violations or similar serious vandalism are to be reverted. While there may or not be questions regarding the reliability of Checkuser findings, or the sense in reversing what are otherwise good edits, or if WP:BAN requires updating, this is not the venue for such a debate and nor has it been requested. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Enric Naval

Jvolkblum makes some good edits, but he will then resist any correction of "his" edits, he will then edit war to his favourite version, and he will then make very bad faith accusations against people who is rightfully trying to get him into track and/or simply trying to fix articles that he broke.

He makes bad faith accussations against Orlady, always claiming to be some uninvolved user that just happened to pass by and see the injustice to that poor guy Jvolkblum or to that innocent that got caught in overzealing whack-a-socking. However, checkuser shows later that it was Jvolkblum all along, pretending to be different persons, lying throught his nose in order to turn unware editors against Orlady. Some of the accusations are pretty transparent, and it's plain clear to any experienced sock-spotter that the involved user is simply someone's sock trying to accomplish some scheme or other, and most editors receiving his messages weill spot the socking or will accept the checkuser results. However, every once in a while Jvolkblum hits a gold mine and he finds a good faith that gets totally convinced by his argument, and who won't believe neither admins that have experience with the sockmaster, nor checkusers, nor any proof put against him. Those poor users will get milked by the sockmaster, and will finish getting burned by the understandable resistance of other editors to enable a banned sockmaster who falls so low as to exploit these poor users.

IMHO, doncram needs to realize that there is people here that is capable and willing of elaborating very credible and ellaborate stories just for petty vengeances. That means sockmasters who spend disproportionate amounts of time doing preparations, and who use all means, technical or otherwise, to deceive good-faith editors who can't believe that anyone would go to such lengths to deceive (remember Poetlister?). doncram needs to realize that he is giving too much credence to a person who is abusing his confidence and using him. He has been told by lots of people that all those IPs and accounts are just socks of Jvolkblum; I'm just saying that, when you have so much people telling you that you are wrong, then it's time to start recognizing that you might have assesed incorrectly the situation, and start disengaging. (idem for doxTxob) --Enric Naval (talk) 22:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Durova

Another case request where none of the claimed dispute resolution steps actually are formal dispute resolution. Just sayin'. Durova 22:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.
Just a note that banned users who may or may not desire to make a comment may email their comments to arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org for inclusion in the case. MBisanz 23:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/11/1/0)

  • It should be pointed out that, strictly speaking, I could be seen as peripherally involved in the matter given that I have both commented in the relevant AN(/I) threads and have sought Doncram to recommend that they drop the matter. I don't believe this affects my ability to hear a case (which I would lean to accept), but will recuse on simple request from any of the named parties. — Coren  22:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment and note See WP:BANNED--banned means no editing AT ALL; disruption is not required in the case of a banned user (as opposed to someone who is merely indefed). Indefed puppeteers are often treated as banned due to their long disruption, though note here Jvolkblum has been formally banned. Awaiting more comments to decide upon acceptance. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC) PS--where's the prior dispute resolution? — Rlevse • Talk • 23:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Reject; now reject. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Reject; I see no case here. If any of these account aren't sockpuppets, they're free to appeal their individual blocks; but, as a matter of policy, even non-disruptive sockpuppets may be routinely blocked as necessary to enforce the original ban. Kirill  00:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Reject per Kirill. The individual accounts are welcome to appeal their blocks. Risker (talk) 00:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Reject Wizardman :  Chat  00:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Reject. I see no violation of policy here; if any individual account wishes to make an appeal, it should be dealt with on its merits. Sam Blacketer (talk) 08:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Reject per Kirill and Sam. But with the caveat that it is dangerous for one person to spend too long hunting the socks of a single puppet master. It is common to become too easily persuaded that new accounts are socks, and eventually there will be collateral damage. At some point, someone should volunteer to take over. It is also sometimes better (per WP:DENY), if the only evidence linking two accounts is behavioural, to block a misbehaving account on the basis of that misbehaviour, rather than add another (possibly incorrect) notch to the sock tally. CU-confirmed socks are different, and can be blocked as socks as normal, with an eye to the possibilities of IPs being shared (as should be standard for checkusers). Carcharoth (talk) 22:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Reject. There is no evidence that socks have been inappropriately labeled. If there are users who have been inappropriately blocked as collateral damage, those blocks may be appealed using {{unblock}} or by email to the Arbitration Committee. If there is private information which proves that one of these accounts is a different person, please inform the Arbitration Committee via email. John Vandenberg 23:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Reject. Each user can contact ArbCom individually to explain why the account should not be blocked. Additionally, I'm opening to reviewing the block of any user that is able to make good contributions going forward. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline per several of the comments above. If a genuine mistake has been made in identifying a sockpuppet, or if an admitted puppeteer desires another chance, the appropriate vehicle for consideration is a request made by e-mail to the Arbitration Committee, which under our new procedure will refer the matter to the Banned User Appeals Subcommittee for a recommendation. Note to Clerks: Although a majority of the arbitrators have now voted to decline the request, please do not remove it from this page for a reasonable time, so that affected editors will have an opportunity to see the arbitrators' comments. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline per preceding. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline per all the above. -- FayssalF - 04:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Clarifications and other requests

Shortcuts

Place requests related to amendments of prior cases, appeals, and clarifications on this page. If the case is ongoing, please use the relevant talk page. Requests for enforcement of past cases should be made at Arbitration enforcement. Requests to clarify general Arbitration matters should be made on the Talk page. To create a new request for arbitration, please go to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration. Place new requests at the top. Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/How-to other requests

Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests

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
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


Category: