Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-02-05/Arbitration report

The Arbitration Committee opened one case this week, and closed five cases.

Closed cases

 * Nathanrdotcom: "Under private deliberation", with no workshop or evidence page, a case involving Nathanrdotcom. In August, Nathanrdotcom was indefinitely blocked by former administrator Sceptre, with the summary "particularly spiteful email attacking Sergeant Snopake and I, twisting my words, just being a total dick".  Due to the sensitive nature of the issue, the block was discussed privately, and at that time was endorsed.  In January, Tawker unblocked him, citing the fact that it was a private e-mail, and arguing for the benefit of the doubt.  The issue was discussed on the administrators' noticeboard, before being referred to ArbCom for a decision.  As a result of the case Nathanrdotcom was blocked indefinitely.


 * 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. As a result of the case, Husnock's comments were described as "regrettable", and "at least one of [them] could justly be interpreted as a credible threat of harm, and he was desysopped and cautioned on various matters.


 * 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.  As a result of the case, Richardmalter was described as " [having] edited Yoshiaki Omura in an aggressive, biased manner", and banned from the article indefinitely.


 * 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 and the fact that Ghirla has been inactive since the 27th of December, a motion was passed dismissing the case without prejudice.


 * 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 was granted placing Dionyseus, Skinny McGee, and GuardianZ on revert parole.  As a result of the case, GuardianZ and Skinny McGee were banned from the article indefinitely, and Dionyseus for a period of three months, and any employees of Midnight Syndicate, Nox Arcana or Monolith Graphics were forbidden from editing the article.  Interestingly, unlike other cases, no general "enforcement by block" motion has yet been proposed to enforce the bans, although a motion to allow SPAs and others to be blocked indefinitely was enacted.

New case

 * Occupation of Latvia: A case regarding discussions over whether or not Latvia should be described as having been "occupied" by the USSR.  Some editors, notably Irpen, allege that the issue is merely a content dispute (upon which the committee has traditionally declined to rule), but others, especially Constanz feel that there has been abuse of dispute tags.

Evidence phase

 * WLU-Mystar: WLU alleges that Mystar has harrassed him, alleging incivility, wikistalking and sockpuppetry, inter alia. Mystar denies the allegations, and claims that WLU has been incivil.


 * Barrett v. Rosenthal: A case brought by Peter M. Dodge involving the actions of Ilena and Fyslee. According to Dodge, Ilena was initially reported to AN/I for "posting links to sites that some considered to be attack sites".  Various users attempted to assist Ilena, but "This was sabotaged...when Fyslee posted a link to a site that attacked Ilena in a personal manner".  The title of the case refers to Barrett v. Rosenthal, a decision of the Supreme Court of California, which ruled that internet users and providers were not liable for the republication of defamatory statements, which some editors believe provides protection for Wikipedia.  According to Durova, Ilena is the Rosenthal in that case, and she (Ilena) alleges that Fyslee has a close relationship with Barrett.


 * 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

 * 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.  remedies have been proposed banning Andries, Wikisunn, SSS108 and Freelanceresearch from editing the article, and requiring Ekantik to edit under one username only.  These proposals have the support of two to four arbitrators.

Motion to close

 * 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, and another banning him only from the Smart article.  These remedies have the support of three to eight arbitrators.  A motion to close has been proposed by UninvitedCompany, but opposed by Fred Bauder.

Under review

 * Waldorf education: In pursuance of a remedy passed in the initial case, Fred Bauder has initiated a review of all parties' behaviour, and has proposed a remedy banning Pete K from the article and those relating to it indefinitely.