Starwood: A case involving links to
Starwood Festival-related articles from various pages.
Paul Pigman, who brought the case, alleged that
Rosencomet "persistently and systematically" added these links, perhaps to an extent that violates
WP:SPAM, and raised allegations against several other editors, which they have denied. As a result of the case, Rosencomet was cautioned "to avoid aggressive editing of articles when there is a question of conflict of interest".
New cases
Darwinek: A case involving the actions of
Darwinek.
Thatcher131 alleges that he has misused blocks and rollback, and has edit warred and been incivil. Darwinek promises that "I will never abuse that powers [sic] again in the future."
Freedom skies: A case involving the actions of
Freedom skies.
JFD and others allege that he has edit warred to push his point of view. He denies the allegations.
Evidence phase
Falun Gong: A case regarding the conduct of various editors on the
Falun Gong article.
Olaf Stephanos and
Asdfg12345 allege that
Samuel Luo has edit-warred in removing pro-Falun Gong material from the article, while Luo,
Tomananda and others allege that Stephanos, Asdfg and others have edit-warred (including page blanking) in removing anti-Falun Gong material.
Voting phase
Lukas19-LSLM: A case involving the conduct of
Lukas19 and
LSLM. Both parties allege incivility. Kirill Lokshin has proposed remedies, supported by Fred Bauder, banning both parties for one year.
Armenia-Azerbaijan: A case, brought by ex-arbitrator
Dmcdevit, regarding a dispute between Armenian and Azerbaijani editors on a large number of articles. Kirill Lokshin has proposed remedies, supported by Fred Bauder, imposing a variety of bans and paroles on various editors.
InShaneee: A case involving the actions of
Inshaneee.
81.179.115.188 (formerly
Worldtraveller) alleges that InShaneee inappropriately blocked him in a dispute in which he was involved in violation of
WP:BP, and that he responded agressively to criticism. InShaneee in his statement points to an apology admitting the block was premature, and denying any aggressive response. Paul August has proposed a remedy admonishing InShaneee, which has a majority of six to three, and another desysopping him for ten days is at 5-3.
Barrett v. Rosenthal: A case brought by
Peter M. Dodge involving the actions of
Ilena and
Fyslee. According to Dodge, Ilena was initially reported to
AN/I for "posting links to sites that some considered to be attack sites". Various users attempted to assist Ilena, but "This was sabotaged...when Fyslee posted a link to a site that attacked Ilena in a personal manner". The title of the case refers to
Barrett v. Rosenthal, a decision of the
Supreme Court of California, which ruled that internet users and providers were not liable for the republication of defamatory statements, which some editors believe provides protection for Wikipedia. It has been alleged that some editors were involved in the real-life litigation of the case. If closed, Ilena would be banned for one year.
Starwood: A case involving links to
Starwood Festival-related articles from various pages.
Paul Pigman, who brought the case, alleged that
Rosencomet "persistently and systematically" added these links, perhaps to an extent that violates
WP:SPAM, and raised allegations against several other editors, which they have denied. As a result of the case, Rosencomet was cautioned "to avoid aggressive editing of articles when there is a question of conflict of interest".
New cases
Darwinek: A case involving the actions of
Darwinek.
Thatcher131 alleges that he has misused blocks and rollback, and has edit warred and been incivil. Darwinek promises that "I will never abuse that powers [sic] again in the future."
Freedom skies: A case involving the actions of
Freedom skies.
JFD and others allege that he has edit warred to push his point of view. He denies the allegations.
Evidence phase
Falun Gong: A case regarding the conduct of various editors on the
Falun Gong article.
Olaf Stephanos and
Asdfg12345 allege that
Samuel Luo has edit-warred in removing pro-Falun Gong material from the article, while Luo,
Tomananda and others allege that Stephanos, Asdfg and others have edit-warred (including page blanking) in removing anti-Falun Gong material.
Voting phase
Lukas19-LSLM: A case involving the conduct of
Lukas19 and
LSLM. Both parties allege incivility. Kirill Lokshin has proposed remedies, supported by Fred Bauder, banning both parties for one year.
Armenia-Azerbaijan: A case, brought by ex-arbitrator
Dmcdevit, regarding a dispute between Armenian and Azerbaijani editors on a large number of articles. Kirill Lokshin has proposed remedies, supported by Fred Bauder, imposing a variety of bans and paroles on various editors.
InShaneee: A case involving the actions of
Inshaneee.
81.179.115.188 (formerly
Worldtraveller) alleges that InShaneee inappropriately blocked him in a dispute in which he was involved in violation of
WP:BP, and that he responded agressively to criticism. InShaneee in his statement points to an apology admitting the block was premature, and denying any aggressive response. Paul August has proposed a remedy admonishing InShaneee, which has a majority of six to three, and another desysopping him for ten days is at 5-3.
Barrett v. Rosenthal: A case brought by
Peter M. Dodge involving the actions of
Ilena and
Fyslee. According to Dodge, Ilena was initially reported to
AN/I for "posting links to sites that some considered to be attack sites". Various users attempted to assist Ilena, but "This was sabotaged...when Fyslee posted a link to a site that attacked Ilena in a personal manner". The title of the case refers to
Barrett v. Rosenthal, a decision of the
Supreme Court of California, which ruled that internet users and providers were not liable for the republication of defamatory statements, which some editors believe provides protection for Wikipedia. It has been alleged that some editors were involved in the real-life litigation of the case. If closed, Ilena would be banned for one year.
Discuss this story