Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-02-19/Arbitration report

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

New cases

 * India-Pakistan: A case involving a dispute between Rama's Arrow and others, and Nadirali, Szhaider and others, over whether certain people should be categorised as Indian or Pakistani, and what should occur as a result of this.


 * Free Republic: A case involving the actions of Dean Hinnen, BenBurch and Fairness And Accuracy For All on the Free Republic. Both sides allege incivility, and Hinnen alleges stalking in real life.

Evidence phase

 * Occupation of Latvia: A case regarding the discussion over the propriety of the article in question having its current scope to be titled Occupation of Latvia 1940-1945.  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, and possibly WP:NOR violations.


 * 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.

Voting 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.  Kirill Lokshin has proposed remedies prohibiting the two parties from interacting with each other.


 * Philwelch: A case regarding the actions of Philwelch. A number of editors, principally Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington allege that he has taken "very controversial" sysop actions.  Philwelch has since been voluntarily desysopped.  Flcelloguy has proposed a principle stating that admins who request desysopping under non-controversial circumstances may have adminship restored upon request.


 * 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.  Hanuman Das and 999 have been blocked indefinitely as sockpuppets of Ekajati, who has been blocked as puppetmaster.  Fred Bauder has proposed a remedy cautioning Rosencomet "to avoid aggressive editing of articles when there is a question of conflict of interest".


 * 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.  Fred Bauder has proposed a remedy banning Smallbones from editing articles and talk pages relating to Prechter.


 * 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 five 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.