Case closes within 1 month
The Arbitration Committee opened no cases this week, but closed one, leaving none open.
This case concerns accusations of wiki-hounding and disruptive editing, and was filed by Stevertigo, a Wikipedia editor since 2002. He alleged that several editors deem his editing to be "disruptive" or "in need of banning" because they "still hold the grudge that previous cases did not find in their favor regarding [Stevertigo]". He also alleged that he "largely won" an argument against two editors in relation to the Time article, and that those two editors began editing the Punishment article due to an undue interest in Stevertigo's editing rather than due to an interest in the article. The case moved to the proposed decision phase during the week, and within 48 hours, 11 out of 12 active arbitrators finished voting on the decision. The case was closed shortly thereafter.
- What is the effect of the decision and what does it tell us?
- Stevertigo is banned from Wikipedia until 24 October 2011.
- Even if no other bans are in force, or if the ban expires, Stevertigo is not allowed to edit Wikipedia without appealing to the Committee. Upon making an appeal, he will be offered probationary conditions by the Committee which he will need to accept in order to edit Wikipedia. Should he reject the conditions, the appeal will be unsuccessful. He can make an appeal no more than once every 6 months.
- Stevertigo is indefinitely subject to a special editing restriction – he must cite a published source for any material that he adds to any article.
- Where he does not do so, any editor may remove the added material; removal of such material will be considered as ‘reversions of obvious vandalism’ for the purposes of revert limitations or restrictions.
- If he cites a source that is subsequently determined not to support the material added, he may be blocked for up to a week for each violation.
- Users who have been sanctioned for improper conduct may be subject to increasingly severe sanctions if they do not improve their conduct.
- Articles need to comply with core policies concerning verifiability, reliable sources, and original research.
Earlier in the week, the Committee made an announcement that sparked a brief controversy. The Committee confirmed that Polargeo was the subject of several investigations, and that he requested for his tools to be removed earlier this month. It also stated that "Polargeo has created and/or used at least ten alternate accounts in a manner neither consistent with Wikipedia's policies nor meeting the minimum standards expected of administrators." The Committee's decision was that Polargeo will need to make a successful request for adminship if he wishes to regain his administrator tools.
Check back for the next Signpost