Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-03-05/Arbitration report

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

Closed cases

 * India-Pakistan: A case involving a dispute between Rama's Arrow and others, and Nadirali, Szhaider and others, over whether certain people (as article subjects) should be categorised as Indian or Pakistani, and what should occur as a result of this. As a result of the case, Nadirali, Szchaider, Unre4L and Siddiqui were each banned for one year.


 * 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.  As a result of the case, remedies were enacted 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 one year, and banning him from editing the Smart article.

New case

 * Falun Gong: A case regarding the conduct of various editors on the Falun Gong article. Olaf Stephanos and Asdfg12345 allege that Samuel Luo has edit-warred in removing pro-Falun Gong material from the article, while Luo, Tomananda and others allege that Stephanos, Asdfg and others have edit-warred (including page blanking) in removing anti-Falun Gong material.

Evidence phase

 * Armenia-Azerbaijan: A case, brought by ex-arbitrator Dmcdevit, regarding a dispute between Armenian and Azerbaijani editors on a large number of articles.


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

Voting 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.  Remedies admonishing the parties for their behaviour, and strongly encouraging them to enter into mediation have the support of five arbitrators.


 * 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.  Fred Bauder has proposed remedies, with the support of five arbitrators, banning Ilena for one year, and prohibiting her and Fyslee from editing the articles in question.


 * 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.  It has the support of two arbitrators.

Motion to close

 * 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, which would be carried were the case closed, stating that admins who request desysopping under non-controversial circumstances may have adminship restored upon request, although remedies would be enacted defining Philwelch's desysopping as controversial, and requiring him to reapply through RfA.


 * Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war: A case, referred to the committee by Jimbo Wales, regarding a wheel war on the Daniel Brandt article. Wales summarily desysopped Yanksox, Geni and Freakofnurture, and referred the case to ArbCom.  If closed, Yanksox and Geni would be desysopped, and Gaillimh banned for ten days, but Freakofnurture would be resysopped.

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, which has been supported by Matthew Brown.