WP:ARC

Requests for arbitration

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Sockpuppet allegations		3 January 2019	0/3/0

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Historical elections	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Aug 2024	03 Sep 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b)	Motion	none	26 July 2024
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral)	none	none	17 August 2024
Clarification request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	8 September 2024
Amendment request: Pseudoscience	none	(orig. case)	9 September 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Sockpuppet allegations

Initiated by Levivich (talk) at 08:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Levivich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
Bbb23 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Notified

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Levivich

I know this is a silly dispute, but I've tried all other avenues available and this is my last stop, and I think explanation of some of the principals here would be helpful to me and maybe to the community. Here's what happened: I read this and posted this SPI. Bbb23 closed it, writing: Insufficient evidence. I find the filer of this report more suspicious than the alleged master. [1] I asked him to remove it per WP:PA, WP:ADMINCOND, WP:Casting aspersions [2] Bbb replied, You have all the earmarks of a sock. [3] I asked again. [4] Bbb did not respond. Per WP:RPA ("Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor.") and WP:CIVIL (same) I placed the {RPA} tag. [5], [6] Bbb replied, @Levivich: If you do that again, I will block you. I asked again. [7] Others joined at Bbb's talk page, archived here; I posted to ANI and it was archived without being closed. I'm embarrassed by some of the things I wrote in those conversations, where I lost my cool, and also for their length.

Bbb has not explicitly stated any reasons why I am a sockpuppet or suspicious. Others' reasons were:

proficiency with WP jargon, editing procedures and policies
getting citation formatting right
participating in AfD in my first week
participating in the GS ArbCom (second month)
filing the above SPI (second month)

I don't know if Bbb's silence indicates agreement with those justifications or not. I think none of those grounds are valid for the reasons stated in WP:DBQ. I'm not a sockpuppet; I'm not a returning user; I've never edited under any other account or IP; I'm a longtime reader, first time editor.

I know Arbcom can't police everything everyone says, but this is a checkuser closing an SPI with no explanation of the accusation. I think it implies technical evidence of sockpuppetry or some other private evidence. I'm not as bothered by people who accuse me of being a sockpuppet for being "proficient" or for participating in discussions; other editors can read the reasoning and make up their own minds if it's valid or not. But anyone who goes over to SPI and types in Levivich at any point in the future will see a CU accusing me of being a sock, will think there's some kind of technical info, and will never find the discussion on Bbb's talk page or ANI. If I touch the SPI page in any way, I will be blocked by Bbb. So I'm stuck with a "black mark" on my record, forever.

I'm not asking for any sanction of any kind; I don't think this rises to that level. I'm asking for a decision by Arbcom as to whether I find the filer of this report more suspicious than the alleged master. on this page rises to the level of an unsubstantiated allegation/casting aspersions/personal attack, such that I can remove it per WP:RPA without being blocked for that, or not. Declining this case request would basically be answering my question with "not," which I appreciate is an efficient way to answer the question, but whether this case request is accepted or not, I would thank the arbitrators for saying some words about when/where/how/with what evidence socking allegations can be made. I note WP:Casting aspersions mentions COI but not socking allegations explicitly; the most-recent statement of principal there is from 2015; and socking allegations are common at ANI, not just SPI. [8] [9] [10]. Thank you for considering this request and please forgive that it's 600 words instead of 500. Levivich (talk) 08:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bbb23

I wasn't going to say anything unless requested by an arb, but in response to TParis's question, the answer is no, and please don't ping me again. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:06, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Johnuniq

I know this is a silly comment, but would someone please indef Levivich (account created 12 November 2018). Filing this case to harass a volunteer doing thankless SPI work after failing at WP:AN indicates that an indef would be best. Johnuniq (talk) 08:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Softlavender

@Levivich: "But anyone who goes over to SPI and types in Levivich at any point in the future will see a CU accusing me of being a sock". No, they will see a fairly ridiculous SPI, confirmed by nothing and no one, closed by an administrator (not as a CU) with the comment "Insufficient evidence. I find the filer of this report more suspicious than the alleged master" and denying the use of CU. Bbb23 has never accused you of being a sock; he said on his talkpage that "You have all the earmarks of a sock", but that's not an accusation; merely an observation. You're lucky that he didn't block you when you persisted the in the behavior that he said he would block you for if you persisted.

In terms of WP:RPA, you conveniently left out the relevant passage: "there is no official policy regarding when or whether most personal attacks should be removed, although it has been a topic of substantial debate. Removing unquestionable personal attacks from your own user talk page is rarely a matter of concern. On other talk pages, especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack."

My advice would be, don't ever try to remove something you perceive as a personal attack if the comment is directed toward you. Consult an administrator about it instead. Lastly, you should never have opened an SPI having only been on Wikipedia for one month.

I suggest withdrawing this RFAR, as I do not think it will end well for you. ArbCom isn't going to accept it or make an ad hoc decision about the comment(s) you dislike, and you may be subject to a WP:BOOMERANG block or other sanction. Softlavender (talk) 08:39, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hhkohh

Wow, why not email to ArbCom directly? I do not see something we need to go here. Hhkohh (talk) 09:28, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kashmiri

Reject this pointless case. Bbb, whom I respect greatly, could have been friendlier to a newcomer in this instance, and could perhaps take back their comment, given that there was zero evidence of any wrongdoing on Levivich's part. Levivich, who has made some very valuable contributions, will find Wikipedia editing less frustrating if they did not to take things too personally; read WP:MMORPG. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:48, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

Geez louise, is it the silly season already? A pretty new editor files a spectacularly bad SPI, which is closed by one of our most experienced CUs because... well because it was spectacularly bad. The CU then makes some very trenchant, accurate, and appropriate comments about the filer's own editing profile closely resembling that of a sock. The author of the spectacularly bad SPI takes his high dudgeon to AN/I and gets no relief, so he brings his new spectacularly wrong beef to ArbCom, which should reject it without a second thought, and give the CU a raise and a bonus.

Please, throw out this garbage request, and apologize to Bbb23 -- one of our very best admins -- on behalf of the entire community. I cannot think of anything else which would overjoy the many, many puppetmasters out there more than seeing Bbb23 sanctioned in any way, shape or form. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:54, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah, and definitely BOOMERANG the OP. An indef would be a good idea, although from experience I know it's unlikely to happen. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:55, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TParis

@Bbb23: Can I please just redact the comment so that we can move on?
@Everyone: I also was accused of being too proficient when I arrived here because I figured out how to edit templates. It's not unheard of for editors to have some technical background and experience with programming languages when they arrive.--v/r - T P 15:58, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ivanvector

I endorse Bbb23's statement in its entirety, except for the part that is a reply to TParis. This is a non-case and should be quickly rejected. Redaction of comments in SPI should be carried out only by SPI clerks or those who have to interact with the process, and in this case Bbb23's comment that is alleged to be a personal attack (observing that a new account familiar with Wikipedia jargon is participating in administrative and disciplinary forums) is in fact useful to the investigation and would be useful if a similar investigation were to be opened in the future. However this is quite unlikely: Levivich's filing failed to establish a useful connection, and there is not presently any case having been made regarding Levivich themselves (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Levivich remains a redlink). To Levivich: checkuser findings are clearly marked as checkuser findings, usually through the use of a template (such as Confirmed or Unrelated) or clearly annotated in prose (such as "I have checked this account and concluded that it is technically a cream pie") and also usually followed by an annotation in the block log. Bbb23's comment was not a checkuser finding and no experienced user would interpret it as such (or they would be swiftly corrected). There is nothing here that should concern you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, regarding "you have all the earmarks of a sock": I suppose based on comments here and elsewhere that the "earmarks" are an account making a sophisticated and technically proficient edit to a semiprotected page as their first autoconfirmed edit. The "technically proficient" part is accurate here (see [11]) but the rest is not: the suspicious edit was Levivich's 10th, not their 11th, it was on the same day that they created their account (not after the 4th day), and they edited a page which was not protected at that time. At a quick glance the edit is suspicious and might merit further investigation, but for my part it amounts to nothing. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:48, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Govindaharihari

Last time I said something similar, hey, you a looking very sockish I was quite quickly informed by an admin that it was a personal attack and I should retract it and apologise, the inferred feeling I got from the admin was that they would block me if I did not do as they requested. I find it a shame that Bbb23 has yet to follow the same standard. The admin also had the tools to check, I gather from the lack of a spi block that there is there is no smoking gun. Govindaharihari (talk) 17:11, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MrX

This does not nearly rise to the level of seriousness requiring anything more than a {{trout}}, if that. Ideally, Bbb23 would have just kept his suspicions to himself, but I would I ever want to see an editor sanctioned for occasionally sharing their suspicions about another editor. Indeed, Levivich's contribution history does raise some suspicion per WP:PRECOCIOUS, so saying so is not especially offensive or inappropriate.

Levivich stated, "But anyone who goes over to SPI and types in Levivich at any point in the future will see a CU accusing me of being a sock...". Actually, what they will see is this: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Levivich

The SPI decline was routine. It's not a logged action, so there is no black mark. The best course is for Levivich to learn from the experience and be more thorough next time. It also wouldn't hurt to choose one's battles more carefully.- Mr X 🖋 18:47, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Awilley

Decline this and trout the OP. For the record Levivich looks suspiciously not new to me as well. I try to treat unusually advanced newbies like IP editors who just created their first account or legitimate fresh-start accounts, unless I see that they're editing disruptively or stirring up unnecessary drama. (hint hint) ~Awilley (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Sockpuppet allegations: Clerk notes

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

Sockpuppet allegations: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/3/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

I see no merit to this request. Decline. AGK ■ 17:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Decline There's nothing to this at all. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. I'll echo what many others said in the ANI - the filer's decision to hammer away at this in every available venue has caused a Streisand Effect about a passing remark that would have otherwise gone unnoticed to history. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Decline Here's an idea: stop talking about this nothingburger of an SPI and nobody will talk about it (or think about it) either. And as an aside, if you came to my talk page and dropped all those policy links in that manner, I likely would keep my mouth shut as well. I'd be too angry to trust myself to speak to you calmly. Katie^talk 20:19, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]