Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-01-15/Arbitration report

The Arbitration Committee opened no cases this week, and closed one case.

Closed case

 * Brahma Kumaris: A case involving the actions of avyakt7 and 195.82.106.244 (195) on the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University article.  Avyakt alleges that 195 has defamed Brahma Kumaris in the article but 195 claims that avyakt has misinterpreted the reliable sources policy.  As a result of the case, 195 was banned for one year and placed on probation.  In addition, the article was placed on article probation.

Evidence phase

 * Piotrus-Ghirla: A case involving the actions of Piotrus and Ghirla on various Russia- and Poland-related articles. Piotrus alleges that Ghirla has added unsourced POV material to these articles, and generally been incivil, while Ghirla claims that Piotrus has engaged in various forms of harassment, and calls for his desysopping.  However, the parties have now entered into informal mediation, with proposals including mutual civility parole (and in which Ghirla has dropped his call for desysopping), and as a result of this, a motion has been proposed temporarily deferring the case until the outcome of the mediation is known.


 * Starwood: A case involving links to Starwood Festival-related articles from various pages.  Paul Pigman, who brought the case, alleges that Rosencomet "persistently and systematically" added these links, perhaps to an extent that violates WP:SPAM, and that Hanuman Das, Ekajati and 999 have harassed users attempting to remove the links.  Mattisse confirms that she has been harassed by Hanuman Das, Ekajati and 999, but that she has no issue of harassment with Rosencomet himself.  Hanuman Das has asked that his name be removed from the request, as "I decline to participate", citing that he has not edited the links since he agreed not to on the 5th of December.  Although Arbitration is not a consensual process, he also seems to have exercised the right to vanish.  999 and Ekajati deny the allegations, and allege that Mattisse has used multiple sockpuppets to request the links and then call for their removal.  In addition, various users allege that Rosencomet has a WP:COI, as the executive director of the for-profit ACE LLC, which promotes the festival.


 * Robert Prechter: A case regarding the behaviour of Rgfolsom and Smallbones on the Socionomics and Robert Prechter pages. Rgfolsom alleges that Smallbones has violated WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL and WP:DR (by abusing the mediation process), and that he has added "smears, demonstrable falsehoods, and a calculated overemphasis on quotes of critics".  In response, Smallbones alleges that Rgfolsom has violated WP:V and WP:NPOV by removing claims critical of Prechter, and adding claims complimentary to him, and WP:COI because he is one of Prechter's employees.

Voting phase

 * Husnock: A case involving the actions of Husnock and Morwen, involving a comment made by Husnock, "I would be careful telling a deployed member of the military they shouldn't edit on Wikipedia for whatever reason.", following disputes on various Star Trek-related AfDs, which Morwen considered to be "intimidating", and Husnock alleges that she stated that she was "in fear of her life", and that he has been investigated by real-world bodies regarding it. Fred Bauder has proposed motions describing Husnock's comments as "regrettable", and others desysopping him as well as cautioning him on various matters, and encouraging Morwen to "be more sensitive to the feelings of others".  Most of these proposals have the support of three arbitrators, but FloNight has opposed the remedy relating to Morwen.


 * Sathya Sai Baba 2: Thatcher131 alleges that Andries has repeatedly added a link to an unreliable source to the Robert Priddy article, in violation of a remedy in a prior case on the subject, and that SSS108 has edit warred and exhibited signs of article ownership on the page. Both users deny the allegations.  UninvitedCompany has proposed remedies banning Andries from editing the article, or starting any dispute resolution procedures regarding it and requiring Etanik to edit under one username only.  Fred Bauder has supported the proposals, but Charles Matthews has opposed the editing restrictions.


 * Midnight Syndicate: A case brought by Durova involving an edit war on the Midnight Syndicate article.  Dionyseus and Skinny McGee allege that GuardianZ has engaged in sockpuppetry and general disruption on the article.  He denies the allegations and argues that Dionyseus and Skinny McGee have engaged in similar behaviour.  A temporary injunction has been granted placing Dionyseus, Skinny McGee, and GuardianZ on revert parole.  Fred Bauder has proposed remedies, supported by jpgordon and Dmcdevit, banning GuardianZ and Skinny McGee from the article indefinitely, and Dionyseus for a period of three months, and forbidding any employees of Midnight Syndicate, Nox Arcana or Monolith Graphics from editing the article.


 * Yoshiaki Omura: Various users, principally Crum375, allege that Richardmalter and alleged sockpuppets have added biased, unsourced material to Bi-Digital O-Ring Test, an alternative medicine technique created by Yoshiaki Omura which was criticised by a New Zealand disciplinary tribunal as lacking scientific basis. However, Richardmalter denies that his pro-Omura edits were either biased or unsourced and claims that the mediation process has supported his position.  Fred Bauder has proposed motions to the effect that "Richardmalter...[has] edited Yoshiaki Omura in an aggressive biased manner", and banning him from the article indefinitely.  These motions have attracted the support of four arbitrators.


 * Derek Smart: A case involving a dispute over the inclusion of critical material in the Derek Smart article.  Various editors on both sides of the dispute claim that the other has violated policy in promoting their case, and some suggest that various accounts (Supreme Cmdr and WarHawkSP inter alia) are in fact used by Smart himself, citing as evidence perceived similarities in their writing styles.  These editors deny the allegations.  Remedies have been proposed prohibiting single-purpose accounts (of which Mael-Num, WarHawk, WarHawkSP, and Supreme_Cmdr are named as examples) from reverting the article, and banning Supreme Cmdr for two weeks, as well as an alternative remedy banning him for one year.  These remedies have the support of three to six arbitrators.


 * Naming Conventions: A case regarding a dispute over whether articles without alternative meanings should be disambiguated for the sake of clarity - for example, Never Kill a Boy on the First Date (Buffy episode). While about 80% of involved editors said in a straw poll that it should not be disambiguated, both sides allege that editors on the other have behaved disruptively.  Fred Bauder has proposed a principle stating that appeals to the Arbitration Committee as a method to determine consensus in a policy dispute is not generally viable, due to the press of work as well as other considerations, and a remedy stating that no penalties are to be imposed in respect of past actions in violation of consensus, but has proposed an enforcement motion stating that editors who violate the consensus decision in the matter may be briefly blocked.  UninvitedCompany has also proposed a remedy banning Izzy Dot for two weeks.  These motions have the support of five to seven arbitrators.