Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-07-03/Arbitration report

The Arbitration Committee closed five cases and opened two others this week.

Closed cases

 * Deathrocker: Closed on Tuesday, this case involved Deathrocker and Leyasu involved in revert wars on various articles related to Gothic rock. The Arbitration Committee placed both Deathrocker and Leyasu on revert parole, banning them 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, who was already subject to a revert parole in a previous case, could be blocked for up to a year.


 * Locke Cole: Closed on Thursday, the case dealt with a dispute between Locke Cole and Netoholic. The Arbitration Committee found that Locke Cole's tactic of arguing on previously untouched pages after Netoholic was sufficiently "similar to stalking" to warrant a one-month ban for harassment. Locke Cole was also placed on non-vandalism one revert per page per day parole, requiring all reverts to be explained on the article's talk page. Meanwhile, Netoholic is again subject to restrictions imposed in a previous case, which had been temporarily suspended. These bar him from editing in the template namespace and restrict him to one revert per page per day.  Netoholic was also reminded of Wikipedia's fair use policy, and both Netoholic and Locke Cole are banned from interacting with each other.  Locke Cole has since left Wikipedia.


 * Blu Aardvark: The review of the block status of Blu Aardvark was closed Friday. Blu Aardvark had been banned by general community agreement on 2 April for a series of disruptive activities, including vandalism, harassment, and creating sockpuppets. An attempt on 28 May by Linuxbeak and Raul654 to unblock him after negotiating a mentoring arrangement met with considerable opposition, leading to the arbitration case. Blu Aardvark was unblocked to participate in the case with a temporary injunction limiting his edits to his talk page and pages relating to the case. In the end, it was decided to ban Blu Aardvark for one year, although he claims to have left Wikipedia for good . The administrators involved in the May incident, which included several unblocks and reblocks, were admonished for block-warring.


 * Infinity0: This case, involving Infinity0 and RJII, was closed Saturday. RJII has been banned for one year, after a number of blocks based on a previous probation. Infinity0 was placed on one-revert-per-day parole for a year, requiring Infinity0 to discuss any reverts on talk pages.


 * Election: Closed Saturday, this case involved the conduct of editors on 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities. The dispute traced back to edit-warring on the article, including the addition and removal of a "NPOV" tag. The arbitrators found that the addition of the tag had been "adequately justified". To deal with the situation, they decided to structure a probation around articles rather than users, focusing on a set of nine related articles. Editors may continue to work on the articles, but any editor may be banned by an administrator from this group of articles "for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, incivilty, and original research."

New cases
Two cases were opened this week; both are in the evidence phase.


 * Eternal Equinox: A case involving Eternal Equinox. Several users complained that Eternal Equinox has been trying to claim ownership of articles with edit wars and abuse directed at those who try to edit them. Eternal Equinox claims to have left Wikipedia, but the other parties argued that this was not credible because of a number of similar statements previously.


 * Hunger: A case involving a dispute about articles related to The Hunger Project. One of the parties, Jcoonrod, identifies himself as John Coonrod, an executive with that organization. The dispute has been in mediation about how and whether to include unflattering material about the organization in the article.

Evidence phase

 * Añoranza: A case involving Añoranza.  Users asserted that Añoranza had been incivil, and had filed a retaliatory request for comment and request for checkuser.  The dispute involves the usage of terms such as "Operation Iraqi Liberation" for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.


 * 8bitJake: A case involving 8bitJake.  badlydrawnjeff, the initiator of the arbitration request, has asserted that 8bitJake's editing on political articles was biased, and that 8bitJake was incivil to other editors on the articles.


 * Dionyseus: A case involving Dionyseus and Danny Pi, and their actions on Veselin Topalov, an article on a Bulgarian chess player accused of cheating.


 * 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.

Voting phase

 * 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.


 * Irishpunktom: A case involving Irishpunktom, Karl Meier, and Dbiv.  Measures to ban Irishpunktom and Dbiv from editing Peter Tatchell for one year, place Irishpunktom and Karl Meier on probation for one year, place Irishpunktom on one revert per article per week parole, and desysop Dbiv have the support of two arbitrators.


 * Saladin1970: A case involving an appeal of Saladin1970's indefinite block originally placed by Jayjg, and later by SlimVirgin.  Arbitrator Fred Bauder has submitted remedies in the case, but none have been voted on by other arbitrators as of press time.


 * Raphael1: A case brought against Raphael1, involving the display of images on Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy.  Measures to place Raphael1 on article probation for one year, as well as general probation, and to ban Raphael1 from Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy for one year, have the support of three arbitrators.


 * Francis Schuckardt: A case involving editors on Francis Schuckardt.  Remedies to place the article on probation are being debated.

Motion to close

 * 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, a ban on moving pages between names until a policy on the names is adopted, and a warning for JohnnyBGood and SPUI to remain civil at all times.