Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-06-25/Arbitration report

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

Closed case

 * TingMing: A case involving the actions of .  alleged that he had engaged in "controversial edits", edit warring, incivility, and possibly sockpuppetry. As a result of the case, TingMing, who was already blocked while the case was ongoing, was banned for one year.

New case

 * Zacheus-jkb: A case involving the actions of -jkb- and Zacheus. Jkb alleges that Zacheus has published personal data on him, and has made legal threats.  Zacheus denies the allegations, and Thatcher131 alleges on the talkpage that jkb has himself revealed personal information on Zacheus.

Evidence phase

 * Miskin: A case involving the actions of, who was controversially blocked by for one month (later reduced to one week) for alleged revert warring.


 * Abu badali: A case alleging that has disruptively tagged non-free images for deletion, even when a valid fair-use justification exists, and has harassed editors who have complained about this behavior. Abu badali denies the allegations.


 * NYScholar: A case involving the actions of a number of users, including and, in relation to the Lewis Libby article.

Voting phase

 * PalestineRemembered: A case involving the actions of, referred from the Community sanction noticeboard. Kirill Lokshin has proposed a motion to dismiss, with the support of four arbitrators.


 * Badlydrawnjeff: A highly controversial case involving the actions of Badlydrawnjeff, Doc glasgow, Tony Sidaway and JzG in relation inter alia to the article known as QZ, which underwent an AfD which was closed as delete by Drini, but overturned on DRV by Xoloz. The resulting AfD was then speedily closed by thebainer.  Badlydrawnjeff then filed for a deletion review, which was speedily closed or removed by a number of administrators and others consecutively, including JzG, Doc Glasgow and Tony Sidaway, and the closures often reverted or new DRVs opened.  There is dispute as to whether the actions of all parties were within process, and whether, as some believe, WP:BLP takes priority over DRV.  A peripheral issue to the case is a 60-hour block of Badlydrawnjeff by Zsinj, apparently after discussions on the admin IRC channel, although some have stated that the consensus on the channel did not favour the block.  The block was quickly undone by Gaillimh.  Additionally, some allege that violetriga acted improperly in undeleting some articles deleted under BLP.  Kirill Lokshin has proposed principles to the effect that the overriding principle with respect to BLPs should be "do no harm", and that suspected violations may be speedy deleted, but that these may be contested through the normal channels, although they must not be restored until consensus has formed to do so, and remedies cautioning or admonishing Violetriga and Night Gyr  to avoid undeleting content deleted under BLP, all of which have the support of nine to ten arbitrators.  Various remedies relating to Badlydrawnjeff have been proposed, but none has so far achieved a majority, except for one cautioning him "to adhere to the letter and the spirit of the Biographies of Living Persons policy", which stands at six to two.


 * Piotrus: A case involving and other editors on Central and Eastern Europe-related articles. Multiple parties accuse others of edit warring, incivility, unethical behavior and biased editing. (An earlier arbitration case, Piotrus-Ghirla, was dismissed without prejudice, in part due to inactivity of, who was listed as a party in the new case.)  An amnesty for past behaviour in editing disputes on articles relating to Eastern Europe has the support of two arbitrators.  Voting on other remedies is split.


 * Paranormal: A case involving the actions of various users, especially as regards bias and attribution, on "articles on paranormal and pseudoscientific topics", such as parapsychology and Electronic voice phenomenon. Proposals placing paranormal-related articles on article probation, limiting editors on them to one revert per week, and cautioning Dradin and Kazuba have the support of two arbitrators; voting on other remedies is split.


 * Hkelkar 2: A case involving the actions of, , and , Rama's Arrow alleges that the others acted as meatpuppets of banned user Hkelkar, and blocked them for six months.  They deny the allegations, and allege that Rama's Arrow acted improperly in blocking them, and in posting private e-mails to the incidents noticeboard.  Various remedies have been proposed including an early proposal to impose no sanctions on any of the parties but calling on the parties to enter into mediation, based on a finding of fact noting a lack of reliable evidence in the case, but a proposal to prohibit administrator actions between the parties has the support of six arbitrators, and a recent proposal to desysop Rama's Arrow (who recently resigned adminship) stands at five-to-two.  Voting on principles regarding the posting of private e-mails is split but it appears that a majority of arbitrators will support the principle that private e-mails may not be posted on-wiki without the consent of the sender.

Motion to close

 * E104421-Tajik: A case involving the actions of E104421 and Tajik. The case had been suspended to allow a referral to Community enforceable mediation, but the mediation broke down after Tajik was alleged to have edited through sockpuppets while claiming to be away and unavailable for the mediation. If closed, Tajik would be banned for one year, and his community ban would be endorsed, and AzaToth would be reminded that Wikipedia operates by consensus.


 * Transnistria: A case involving the actions of and  on Transnistria-related articles.  MariusM alleges that Mauco (who has not made a statement because he is blocked) has engaged in sockpuppetry, edit warring and other misconduct.  If closed,,  and  would be indefinitely banned from any editing related to Transnistria.  However, Jdforrester has opposed the motion to close, calling for remedies against MariusM.

Under review

 * Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram: A review of the Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram case. Ideogram and Sean William allege that Certified.Gangsta has engaged in tendentious editing since the main case.