Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-05-02/Arbitration report
The Report On Lengthy Litigation
First of all, we would like to atone for any confusion caused by the last edition of T.R.O.L.L. The article was written late Wednesday, with the result that certain statements — notably the number of cases closed — were no longer correct at press time. The current report covers the ArbCom's work since then.
This week as a whole was a busy one for the committee, with a dramatic reduction in its caseload coming from the conclusion of several previously-stubborn issues. The Committee's docket looks clearer now than it has been for some time.
Cases Brought
Three outstanding petitions failed to make it to the contest phase. One of these, involving STP and potential sockpuppetry, failed after the expiration of a one week period with four outstanding rejection votes, according to policy. The other two were sent back with an admonition to pursue earlier steps in the dispute resolution process first. One of these was between Fadix and Coolcat over personal attacks violations; the other between SummerFR (petitioning) and BaronLarf (responding) regarding NPOV. Due to the unusually impassioned nature of the latter case, this advocate wouldn't be surprised if it returns to arbitration in a few weeks' time.
A pair of disputes, ostensibly between Xiong and Netoholic on one side and Snowspinner on the other, has been brought before the committee this week; a number of rather confused postings on the subject left some doubt as to the content of the dispute. What was clear was that a page created by Netoholic, Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates, was involved. Arbitrators were divided on how to proceed, due to the case's convoluted nature, and decided not to hear the disputes. Another dispute, between SPUI (responding) and Neutrality (petitioning) regarding incivility and violation of VfD guidelines, has come before the committee. At press time, this has prompted a pair of recusals (one from Neutrality, who is an arbitrator) and a reject vote from arbitrator Grunt in favor of other dispute resolution steps.
A dispute between Curps (petitioning) and AndyL (responding) regarding possible abuse of administrative powers was brought forth late on 1 May (or early on 2 May), especially regarding the page The Matrix. Multiple RfCs have been filed by both parties. Arbitrators have yet to render a decision whether to hear the case.
Another case regarding LevelCheck was brought forward this week; this is discussed in more detail below.
Cases in Evidence
A new case was both brought and accepted for arbitration this week regarding the user LevelCheck. Meelar alleged that LevelCheck has violated Wikipedian policy regarding disruption and civil disobedience. After Meelar's evidence was presented, LevelCheck refused to comment, and the case was unanimously taken. The ArbCom continues to accept evidence from all interested parties.
Cases regarding User:Instantnood, et al. remained in the evidentiary phase from last week. The case, seen by some as an exemplar of the wider dispute over Wikipedia's Chinese naming conventions, has seen evidence offered by a wide variety of users in different capacities, including User:Susvolans, an active editor of the German language Wikipedia. Evidence has yet to be gotten from several further participants. Interested parties may still leave further evidence related to these cases; no injunctions are in effect.
The dispute between tkorrovi (petitioning) and Paul Beardsell (responding) also remains in the evidentiary phase, with an injunction effective against edits by either user. Interested parties may still contribute evidence as the case proceeds.
Cases in Voting
The dispute between William M. Connolley (petitioning) and Cortonin (responding), despite indications to the contrary, remained in the voting phase for a second week. Evidence continued to be added by several parties as recently as 28 April, including new evidence from Sheldon Rampton on behalf of the petitioner. As no new discussion has occurred regarding the evidence for several days, and consensus seems to have been reached on most points, a settlement should be forthcoming.
The second Netoholic case also remained mired in voting for another week, despite a lack of new evidence. Consensus, however, seems to be developing on a regimen of revert restrictions for the respondant as well as mentorship under Grunt, Raul654 and Kim Bruning. This case is likely to be settled within the coming week.
Cases Closed
Since last writing, several cases were brought to closure, although only one of these occurred this week. The second 172 case, was dismissed due to 172's departure from Wikipedia, as expected, with a proviso that he be consulted whether he would like to be struck from the rolls to settle the administrative question. The other two outstanding resolutions were equally-unsurprising—the third Rex case saw an endorsement of Rex071404's self-imposed six-month ban, while the RJII matter was dismissed due to behavioral and consensual improvements by all parties involved.
The final matter closed was that of the John Gohde case, after extensive and sometimes-heated discussion and an unusual published opinion, prepared by arbitrator sannse. sannse stated that it was "a complex case, and one that doesn't fall into the usual pattern of principle, findings, and remedies." The decision reached was in favor of a long-term ban, in this case a year in duration, followed by a personal attack parole and the unusual requirement that, upon his return, John Gohde read the articles on 'ownership of articles' and 'no personal attacks' and write two-hundred words' worth of reflections on each. Users Matt Crypto and TenOfAllTrades commented that this was an unusual remedy, with Matt adding that "essay-writing seems a farcical thing for grown-ups to be faffing around with."
Discuss this story
Well, that's amusing. Matt says that "essay-writing seems a farcical thing for grown-ups to be faffing around with". We are looking on the same website here, aren't we? Hmmm. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:02, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]