Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-06-19/Arbitration report

The Arbitration Committee did not close any cases this week.

New cases
Four cases were opened this week; all are in the evidence phase.


 * Irishpunktom: A case brought against Irishpunktom, though arbitrator James Forrester noted the behavior of Karl Meier might also be examined.  Evidence presented by Tony Sidaway noted revert warring and incivility by both users.


 * Iloveminun: A case brought against Iloveminun.  Evidence presented asserted that Iloveminun violated fair use and image deletion policies by uploading copyrighted images and removing tags.  A checkuser request confirmed that Iloveminun also was involved in sockpuppetry.


 * Moby Dick: A case brought against Moby Dick.  Administrators Tony Sidaway, Bishonen, and MONGO have alleged that Moby Dick is a sockpuppet of Davenbelle, violating previous arbitration rulings in his political edits and his relations with Cool Cat.


 * Pudgenet: A case brought against Pudgenet, involving a dispute between Pudgenet and -Barry-.  The dispute involves pages relating to Perl, as well as Wikipedians with articles.

Evidence phase

 * Raphael1: A case brought against Raphael1, involving the display of images on Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy.


 * Saladin1970: A case involving an appeal of Saladin1970's indefinite block originally placed by Jayjg, and later by SlimVirgin.

Voting phase

 * Francis Schuckardt: A case involving editors on Francis Schuckardt.  Many principles and findings of fact were added today by Fred Bauder, but none have been voted on by other arbitrators.


 * Highways: A case involving naming conventions on highway-related articles.  Current remedies that will likely pass include a probation against move warriors in the case, and a ban on moving pages between names until a policy on the names is adopted.


 * Blu Aardvark: A case involving the block status of Blu Aardvark.  Blu Aardvark was unblocked to participate in the case, but a temporary injunction in the case bans Blu Aardvark to his talk page and pages relating to the case.  Five arbitrators, with no dissent, have endorsed remedies banning Blu Aardvark for one year, and placing him on personal attack parole, probation, and general probation, as well as admonishing administrators for block-warring.  Blu Aardvark has claimed that he has left Wikipedia for good.


 * Election: A case involving editors on 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities.  The dispute centers around edit-warring on the article, including the addition and removal of a "NPOV" tag.  Five arbitrators, with no dissent, have endorsed remedies placing the article on probation, but allowing all editors to continue editing.


 * Deathrocker: A case involving Deathrocker and Leyasu.  Five arbitrators supported measures that would place both Deathrocker and Leyasu on revert parole, banning the user from reverting more than once per 24 hour period, more than twice in any 7 day period, or more than three times in any 30 day period.  Deathrocker could be blocked for up to a week for violations of the ban; Leyasu could be blocked for up to a year.


 * Infinity0: A case involving Infinity0 and RJII.  It appears that RJII may be banned for one year, and Infinity0 may be placed on one-revert-per-day parole for a year, requiring Infinity0 to discuss any reverts on talk pages.


 * PoolGuy: A case involving PoolGuy.  PoolGuy, who has created multiple sockpuppets, is likely to be restricted to one user account (7 arbitrators supporting), though he would not be required to disclose the account's name.  A remedy to place PoolGuy on probation has 4 support votes and 1 oppose.

Motion to close

 * Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others: A case involving editors on biological psychiatry.  Cesar Tort and Ombudsman believe the article has a pro-psychiatry point of view.  If closed, Ombudsman would be placed on probation indefinitely for tendentious editing on the article, and Cesar Tort would be cautioned to "limit critical material to that supported by reliable scientific authority."


 * Locke Cole: A case involving Locke Cole and Netoholic.  If closed, Locke Cole would be banned for a month for harassment, and placed on non-vandalism one revert per page per day parole, requiring all reverts to be explained on the article's talk page.  Netoholic would be banned from editing in the template namespace and restricted to one revert per page per day, as was previously prescribed in a previous case.  Netoholic would also be reminded of Wikipedia's fair use policy, and both Netoholic and Locke Cole would be banned from interacting with each other.  Locke Cole has since left Wikipedia.