Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions

Edit links
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by L235 (talk | contribs) at 04:21, 18 January 2020 (→Ricky81682 unblocked: enact). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5 (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 14 Dec 2024 04 Jan 2025
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Motion name Date posted
Ricky81682 unblocked 18 January 2020

Motions

Ricky81682 unblocked

Ricky81682 (talk · contribs) is unblocked subject to an indefinite account restriction: Ricky81682 is restricted to one account, and may not edit anonymously.

For this motion there are 15 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Enacted: Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 04:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. Ricky was a productive editor, and I'd be happy to see them return under the terms of the standard offer. I am confident that the "complete and utter idiocy" won't be repeated. – bradv🍁 15:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The request shows genuine remorse, his editing on other projects has been positive and there were no incidents here while blocked. Also, Ricky knows he is under a microscope even if this motion passes, so I don't think we need further restrictions than those proposed in the motion. Plus, there appears to be a strong consensus here that agrees that Ricky should be given a second chance. Regards SoWhy 21:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per the appeal and the input from the community. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:15, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I'm satisfied with both the appeal and the community input. Maxim(talk) 23:48, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The project will benefit. –xenotalk 01:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per comments above as well as the community input below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support unblocking per a convincing appeal, and after reviewing the community feedback. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I have concerns, but not sufficient to stop the appeal. Ricky, please prove me wrong. WormTT(talk) 09:24, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Edit wisely, Ricky. I hope and trust in your sincerity. Katietalk 13:57, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. We haven't made it a formal topic ban, but I think it would be a very good idea to avoid anything to do with userspace drafts. – Joe (talk) 14:43, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain/recuse
Arbitrator comments/discussion
  • I'm inclined to support unblocking based on Ricky's appeal below, but given that he is a former administrator blocked and desysopped under a cloud, we decided to post the motion publicly to hear any community comments first. – Joe (talk) 12:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As "one account restriction" was not defined at the link target, I updated the wording to clarify that they may not edit anonymously. Feel free to edit further. –xenotalk 13:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Wordsmithed a little further to avoid repetition. And I have no idea whether they would be eligible for a rename, but I wouldn't want this motion to prevent that. – bradv🍁 15:32, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Community discussion

The following is the appeal sent to ArbCom by Ricky, copied here with his permission:

I would like to request an unblock on English Wikipedia. I was blocked in October 2016 by Arbcom pursuant to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ricky81682. At the time, I was an administrator here for almost a decade.
I admit that I was sockpuppeting and trolling around with various other accounts to make a point across the project. Basically, in mid-2016, I was in some very minor disputes with other individuals here and created fake accounts that added absurdity to this. It was purely a WP:POINT violation. Before that, in the years I have been involved in the project, I have NEVER done anything like that but I admit that I typically stayed away from relatively contentious editing disputes. For some reason, the issue of userspace drafts got me absorbed into complete and utter idiocy in a way nothing else ever has.
Of course, when caught, I first began to pretend like it was someone else editing on my devices rather than admit fault. In complete embarrassment at my childishness, I continued to try to deny my antics until I was eventually desysoped and banned.
I'm aware that I have no chance at ever becoming an admin again but I would like to be able to resume editing here. In the intervening years, I have focused on simple English and Commons and focusing on my core area of organizing and dealing with categories while staying away from the kind of bizarre silly disputes that got me in trouble here.
I hope that my years of service to this project prior to the many month-long idiocy, combined with the years of service since then, is sufficient evidence that I understand the seriousness of wasting other people's time and energy with such nonsense and will never engage in any antics like that again. Again, I'm aware the community will likely never have the confidence in me again as an admin which I only feel shame about but I would like to be able to edit here in good standing once again.
Thank you very much,
Ricky

– Joe (talk) 12:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • (Is this the equivalent of the "section titled 'Community discussion'" in the scary pink warning box above? If not, please move appropriately.)
    Logged-out-Ricky is community-banned too (discussion), so this isn't solely arbcom's call. —Cryptic 12:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Cryptic: Joe Roe renamed the section for you. As I read it, that IP range was harassing Ricky, not used by Ricky. Isn’t that right? –xenotalk 13:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah that IP isn't listed in the SPI. Was it later linked to Ricky? – Joe (talk) 13:09, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It was indeed used by Ricky - he edited a DRV logged out, and I noticed before it was oversighted that his IP was in the same range as the anon harassing him. I can go looking for the right drv subpage if someone with the special OS goggles wants to confirm that, but it'll take a while. I'd thought at the time that the overlap was coincidence - it's a very wide range - but behavorially it's pretty damning in the context of the other socks. (Also, it was mentioned indirectly in the SPI by User:SmokeyJoe, though as an IP it was of course not commented on by the CUs.) —Cryptic 13:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Turns out it wasn't even oversighted - [1]. —Cryptic 13:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Two or three ranges of IPs were trolling Ricky. Ricky was obsessed with clearing old abandoned drafts, fast. The IPs were countering with poorly-put counter arguments. In hindsight they read as sarcasm directed at Ricky opponents. At the time my suspicion was that Ricky was being trolled by a family member. There was no overt malice, but was SOCK violating and attempting to ridicule debating opponents. No objection to Ricky returning, if he stays away from abandoned drafts. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the procedural point: although ArbCom is more reluctant nowadays to decide appeals of bans placed by the community, it still has that authority under the arbitration policy. Some long-time editors might remember the Ban Appeals Subcommittee (BASC), which was a subcommittee created by ArbCom specifically to handle appeals of community-imposed sanctions. When BASC was dissolved, ArbCom passed a motion saying it would only hear certain kinds of appeals. No opinion as to whether the community ban falls under one of those categories, but it technically could be "solely arbcom's call". Or it could reroute that decision to WP:AN. It's up to them. Mz7 (talk) 05:42, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    When I raised this exact same point at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive315#Indefinite community site-ban for Edgar181, Joe Roe was pretty emphatic that they don't have this power anymore, or at least wouldn't exercise it. [2] —Cryptic 12:49, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So the community banned unnamed individuals and it later came to light that some of those individuals might have been Ricky81682? Was the amorphous ban ever converted into a named ban?
    As to the procedural question, the Policy (ratified 2011) grants responsibilities, some of which the committee chose to download back to the community by motion in 2015. –xenotalk 16:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    From what I understand, Ricky81682 was checkuser-blocked for sockpuppetry in October 2016; however, it later turned out that an earlier ban was placed by the community in January 2016 not realizing it was Ricky81682 at the time, but later found to be Ricky81682. I don't think that the amorphous ban was ever converted into a named one; at least I haven't seen such a discussion. It's a very unusual situation, and because of that, I think the best solution is to have ArbCom decide this site-block/ban appeal in its entirety; no need to get WP:AN involved.
    The committee still has the power to decide appeals of any community-imposed ban, but in 2015 it passed a motion to limit the types of appeals it considers (it can pass a new motion at any time to expand that scope to additional types). With that being said, this appeal does fall within the post-2015 purview of ArbCom because Ricky81682 is currently subject to a checkuser block, and I'm assuming logged-out editing is a factor in the checkuser block. I think there could be an argument to hold an WP:AN discussion on top of this, but that's getting a bit too wiki-lawyer for me. Just have ArbCom do the whole thing. Mz7 (talk) 04:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It was announced at AN, and the concept of them possibly having been banned while presenting anonymously was raised early in this discussion. It seems to me the fact the unblock has received support can be interpreted as support for vacating whatever portion of the 'unnamed' ban may apply to Ricky. –xenotalk 14:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I remember Ricky being one of the good guys prior to his dramatic self-destruct, and I for one would be happy to see him back. Reyk YO! 12:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (assuming this is right place to comment) - Before my time, but this seems a reasonable appeal. I can't see how keeping him out would be preventative. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:53, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The name Tippopotamus (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ricky81682/Archive) does sound familiar for some reason, but otherwise I remember this case very imperfectly. The appeal inspires confidence, though, and I hope the committee unblocks. Bishonen | talk 13:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]
    As I understand it, the Tippopotamus account was a declared alternative account; it was included in the SPI for completeness. –xenotalk 13:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, this is a very self-reflective appeal. Curiously Idon't remember the case at all, but theSO has been well adhered to, and I also hope thecommittee unblocks. ——SN54129 13:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well before my time, but enough time has elapsed for reflection and learning, and the unblock appeal suggests that has happened - I hope the appeal is successful. GirthSummit (blether) 13:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The appeal looks appealing and with one account restriction, I will support their unblocking. They clearly need to restrain themselves though. – Ammarpad (talk) 13:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A cautious yes if indeed there has been no socking since 2016 and there has been constructive editing on other wiki projects.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes they have been contributing to Commons, I support letting them back with the proposed 1 account restriction. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was disappointing when it was discovered that Ricky was using socks. It was even more disappointing to discover that he was sockmaster behind the IP's attacking himself. I had spent considerable effort in tracking down the IP's that were involved and proposed the ban linked by Cryptic above. Nonetheless, Ricky's service to WP prior to that insanity was already well over a decade and, to me, grants him a fair amount of good will for this appeal. If anyone is interested, I still have the page I created to log down all the IP's I could find. I went back to it and most of the IP's have not edited since the end of 2015 although some edited in 2016, but nothing later than that. I would not be opposed to Ricky being unblocked Blackmane (talk) 00:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I remember, I was one of the primary arbs reviewing the situation that was brought to me and I proposed some form of the original motion, or at least the idea behind it. It's been 4 years since, and with over 100,000 in contribs to other places since, I would be fine with this motion passing. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 03:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support He was a good admin and also a good editor. Socking was unexpected but I see no issue now. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 03:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support People can learn from their mistakes. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Everyone can make mistakes, even incredibly bad judgements such as socking. Most of our users that sock, though, do not have the giant repertoire of positive contributions that Ricky did. As such, I'm more than willing to grant this unblock request (don't think the one account restriction will be necessary after they return either, but wouldn't be a terrible idea for them to be open to random checks of their account for the first year or so). — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 07:33, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unblock with a provision that all edits must be done from this account – no alternate accounts or logged-out editing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:38, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Editors involved in the discussions relating to userspace draft are well-aware of the antics that Ricky deployed to make a WP:POINT. I, for one, do not support punitive measures and would welcome their return despite their wrongdoing — however, I would prefer if they also had an indefinite restriction w.r.t. anything related to user drafts (userspace and draftspace), until we are sure they will not go down the same hole again. --qedk (t 桜 c) 15:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Assuming you are also soliciting community consensus to unban. Sufficient time served; I wish checkusers would have a permanent green light to make sure old tricks aren't revisited. Any next socking episode would be the last, I am sure. Carrite (talk) 18:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Ricky was a great editor and indeed a great admin and personally I don't see why they shouldn't be given a second chance. –Davey2010Talk 01:44, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - As I would've expected from someone with so much experience, it's an appeal done the way an appeal should be done, and seems reasonable. Like QEDK and SmokeyJoe, however, I would've liked to see a condition (or explicit voluntary commitment) to stay away from userspace drafts given the context. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I would like to see Ricky unblocked, he is an excellent contributor and I think we need to give people the chance to come back as productive members of the project. Everyone makes mistakes (said as someone who has made mistakes in the past!) and these should not hang over us for all time. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 09:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's obvious this will pass, and I don't think it will be the end of the world if he comes back, and I'm well aware that humans (especially me) are imperfect. I won't pointlessly oppose to make sure I get attention (after all, this isn't RFA). I don't even know for sure why this particular unban request annoys me, but it's probably related to the fact that it's really annoying that intentional trolling, not caring one iota about wasting other people's time, and lying to everyone's face about it is now being spun by some people here as simple "mistakes". And while I'm sure the unblock request was wordsmithed quite a bit, it still has a whiff - to me, anyway, although apparently no one else - of "this crazy topic forced me do something stupid", rather than "I consciously chose to do something stupid". I would feel slightly better if he promised not to even try to be an admin again, and promised to stay away from the userspace draft issue forever, but support is so strong here that it would probably be smarter to just ignore me and say nothing at all. Grumble grumble. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He does mention that he knows he has no chance of ever being an admin again, and I think the vast majority of the community would agree, I certainly wouldn't ever support adminship for someone who had committed such a serious breach of trust. I see your point about the word "mistakes". It is somewhat open to interpretation. These certainly weren't things he did by accident, but rather serious errors in judgement. However I do feel that the remainder of the appeal makes it clear they understand how thoughtless and infantile this all was. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions&oldid=936335084"