Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-08-13/Arbitration report

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The Wikipedia Signpost


The Report on Lengthy Litigation

By David Mestel and Newyorkbrad, 13 August, 2007

The Arbitration Committee accepted one new case during the past week. No cases were closed this week.

New case

  • Allegations of apartheid: This new case concerns the conduct of various editors in connection with a group of articles whose titles include the words "Allegations of apartheid". It has been alleged that these articles were created in violation of Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, after several deletion debates concerning Allegations of Israeli apartheid resulted in that article being kept. Issues have also been raised concerning comments made in deletion discussions and reviews. Several users who have created and edited the "Allegations of apartheid" articles have strongly denied any inappropriate conduct.

Evidence phase

Voting phase

  • Great Irish Famine: A case initiated by SirFozzie, involving allegations including misuse of sources and harassment relating to Great Irish Famine and other Ireland/Northern Ireland articles. Arbitrators are voting on arbitrator Mackensen's proposals to place the Great Irish Famine article under the "mentorship" of three to five administrators and restrict Sarah777's editing, as well as proposals by arbitrator Kirill Lokshin that would ban Sarah777 from Wikipedia for one year and place MarkThomas on civility parole.
  • Jeffrey O. Gustafson: A case brought by John254 alleging incivility and other misconduct by administrator Jeffrey O. Gustafson. Arbitrator UninvitedCompany has proposed that Mr. Gustafson's administrator privileges be suspended for 30 days, while arbitrator Kirill Lokshin has proposed desysopping him.
  • Zacheus-jkb: A case involving the actions of -jkb- and Zacheus, who have been involved in disputes in other forums that were imported to the English Wikipedia. In a proposed decision, the Arbitration Committee would admonish both editors for their previous misconduct against each other but note that the problematic conduct seems to have stopped, and warn the parties not to resume practices such as posting identifying information about other editors or making personal attacks.
  • Armenia-Azerbaijan 2: A case alleging misconduct by various editors, some of whom were previously placed on revert parole in an earlier case, on articles relating to Armenia, Azerbaijan, Iran, and related matters. A proposed decision drafted by arbitrator Fred Bauder would place those editors already subject to the revert parole on probation as well, and would impose identical remedies on any other editors who are identified as editing these articles aggressively and uncivilly.
  • COFS: A case initiated by Durova based on a discussion at the community sanctions noticeboard. The case involves allegations of tendentious editing by various editors, sockpuppetry, conflicts of interest, and other user conduct issues on Scientology related articles. The proposed decision submitted by UninvitedCompany would ban COFS for 30 days for POV editing and require him to change his username and disclose any duties he may have to the Church of Scientology before resuming editing.
  • Pigsonthewing 2: A case initiated by Moreschi concerning the conduct of Pigsonthewing, including a series of conflicts between this user and other editors involving the use of microformats on Wikipedia and other matters. A proposed decision submitted by UninvitedCompany would find that "Pigsonthewing disregards the Wikipedia way of doing things and is unable or unwilling to improve his pattern of participation" and would ban Pigsonthewing from editing Wikipedia for one year.
  • Attachment Therapy: A case initiated by Shotwell, who alleges that other editors have engaged in POV pushing and tendentious editing on attachment therapy and related articles. During the case, checkuser indicated that DPeterson had created at least four sockpuppets that were used to edit-war on these articles and create the appearance of consensus. A proposed decision by Kirill Lokshin would ban DPeterson for one year and would remind the other parties to exercise care while editing articles as to which they may have a conflict of interest.

Motion to close

  • Piotrus: This case involves Piotrus and other editors on Central and Eastern Europe-related articles. In the case, multiple parties have accused one another of edit-warring, incivility, unethical behavior, and biased editing. Under the currently proposed decision, an amnesty would be granted for prior editing problems on these articles, and the parties would be reminded of the need to edit courteously and co-operatively in the future. Two arbitrators have opposed closing the case pending consideration of additional remedies.


Also this week: CC 3.0 approved

Bug reviewWikiWorldNews and notesIn the newsFeatures and adminsTechnology

Arbitration