Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-05-28/Arbitration report

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Arbitration report

The Report on Lengthy Litigation

The Arbitration Committee did not accept any new cases this week, and closed two cases. Acceptance of the controversial Badlydrawnjeff case regarding WP:BLP and related issues currently stands at 6/3/1/0.

The committee is also considering whether to lift Dmcdevit's ban on Koavf (talk · contribs), and instead to impose probation and a revert parole, without a full hearing. Currently, voting stands at 5/0/0/1, but some editors have expressed concerns over whether it is appropriate to deal with the case by summary motion.

Closed cases

  • Henrygb: A case filed by David Gerard alleging that administrator Henrygb (talk · contribs) had used sockpuppets disruptively. As a result of the case, Henrygb was desysopped, limited to one account, and banned from Wikipedia until he addresses the committee's concerns.

Evidence phase

  • Abu badali: A case alleging that Abu badali (talk · contribs) 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.
  • Piotrus: A case involving administrator Piotrus (talk · contribs) 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 Ghirlandajo (talk · contribs), who was listed as a party in the new case.)

Voting phase

  • TingMing: A case involving the actions of TingMing (talk · contribs). Ideogram (talk · contribs) alleges that he has engaged in "controversial edits", edit warring, incivility, and possibly sockpuppetry. TingMing denies the allegations, and alleges incivility on the part of Ideogram. Kirill Lokshin has proposed a remedy banning TingMing for one year, which has the support of three arbitrators, but is opposed by Blnguyen.
  • 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. Remedies have been proposed banning Tajik either indefinitely or for one year (which have the support of four arbitrators), and placing E104221 on revert parole (with the support of one arbitrator).
  • Zeq-Zero0000: A case involving the actions of Zeq (talk · contribs) and Zero0000 (talk · contribs). Zero alleges that Zeq has engaged in POV-pushing, while Zeq alleges that Zero has misused administrative tools in blocking him, the case in particular involving the question of whether probations, article bans, etc. can be enforced by involved admins. The arbitrators have considered several different versions of a principle covering to what degree involved administrators may enforce probation; none yet has majority support. A majority (between nine and eleven) of the arbitrators have voted to advise Zero0000 not to take further administrative actions against Zeq, including enforcement of probation, and to admonish Zero0000 that editors who are not restricted in their editing of a page or area are entitled to be accorded good faith and be treated with respect and courtesy. Arbitrator Fred Bauder proposed banning Zeq from editing articles related to the Israel-Palestine conflict, but no other arbitrator has voted in support, and four have opposed.