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.
Badlydrawnjeff: A highly controversial case involving the actions of
Badlydrawnjeff,
Doc glasgow,
Tony Sidaway and
JzG in relation inter alia to the article known as
QZ, which underwent an
AfD which was closed as delete by
Drini, but overturned on
DRV by
Xoloz. The resulting AfD was then speedily closed by
thebainer. Badlydrawnjeff then filed for a deletion review, which was speedily closed or removed by a number of administrators and others consecutively, including JzG, Doc Glasgow and Tony Sidaway, and the closures often reverted or new DRVs opened. There is dispute as to whether the actions of all parties were within process, and whether, as some believe,
WP:BLP takes priority over DRV. A peripheral issue to the case is a 60-hour block of Badlydrawnjeff by
Zsinj, apparently after discussions on the admin IRC channel, although some have stated that the consensus on the channel did not favour the block. The block was quickly undone by
Gaillimh. Additionally, some allege that
violetriga acted improperly in undeleting some articles deleted under BLP. Kirill Lokshin has proposed principles to the effect that the overriding principle with respect to BLPs should be "do no harm", and that suspected violations may be speedy deleted, but that these may be contested through the normal channels, although they must not be restored until consensus has formed to do so, and principles cautioning Violetriga and
Night Gyr to avoid undeleting content deleted under BLP, all of which have the support of FloNight. A remedy banning Badlydrawnjeff from editing all articles covered by
WP:BLP, and any associated discussions, especially deletion discussions, and those relating to the policy itself has not been voted on.
Piotrus: A case involving
Piotrus(
talk·contribs·blocks·protections·deletions·page moves·rights·RfA) 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.) An amnesty for past behaviour in editing disputes on articles relating to Eastern Europe has the support of two arbitrators. Voting on other remedies is split.
Paranormal: A case involving the actions of various users, especially as regards
bias and
attribution, on "articles on paranormal and pseudoscientific topics", such as
parapsychology and
Electronic voice phenomenon. Proposals placing paranormal-related articles on article probation, limiting editors on them to one revert per week, and cautioning
Dradin and
Kazuba have the support of two arbitrators; voting on other remedies is split.
Hkelkar 2: A case involving the actions of
Rama's Arrow(
talk·contribs·blocks·protections·deletions·page moves·rights·RfA),
Bakasuprman (
talk·contribs),
Dangerous-Boy (
talk·contribs) and
Sbhushan (
talk·contribs), Rama's Arrow alleges that the others acted as meatpuppets of banned user
Hkelkar, and blocked them for six months. They deny the allegations, and allege that Rama's Arrow acted improperly in blocking them, and in posting private e-mails to the
incidents noticeboard. Various remedies have been proposed including an early proposal to impose no sanctions on any of the parties but calling on the parties to enter into mediation, based on a finding of fact noting a lack of reliable evidence in the case, and a proposal to prohibit administrator actions between the parties has the support of six arbitrators. Voting on a recent proposal to desysop Rama's Arrow is split at three-to-two. Voting on principles regarding the posting of private e-mails is split but it appears that a majority of arbitrators will support the principle that private e-mails may not be posted on-wiki without the consent of the sender.
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 six arbitrators), and reminding
AzaToth that Wikipedia operates by consensus (with the support of three arbitrators).
Motion to close
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 eight arbitrators. However, a motion to close the case "as moot" has the support of three arbitrators.
Transnistria: A case involving the actions of
MariusM (
talk·contribs) and
William Mauco (
talk·contribs) on
Transnistria-related articles. MariusM alleges that Mauco (who has not made a statement because he is blocked) has engaged in sockpuppetry, edit warring and other misconduct. If closed,
MarkStreet (
talk·contribs),
William Mauco (
talk·contribs) and
EvilAlex (
talk·contribs) would be indefinitely banned from any editing related to Transnistria. However, Jdforrester has opposed the motion to close, calling for remedies against MariusM.
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.
Badlydrawnjeff: A highly controversial case involving the actions of
Badlydrawnjeff,
Doc glasgow,
Tony Sidaway and
JzG in relation inter alia to the article known as
QZ, which underwent an
AfD which was closed as delete by
Drini, but overturned on
DRV by
Xoloz. The resulting AfD was then speedily closed by
thebainer. Badlydrawnjeff then filed for a deletion review, which was speedily closed or removed by a number of administrators and others consecutively, including JzG, Doc Glasgow and Tony Sidaway, and the closures often reverted or new DRVs opened. There is dispute as to whether the actions of all parties were within process, and whether, as some believe,
WP:BLP takes priority over DRV. A peripheral issue to the case is a 60-hour block of Badlydrawnjeff by
Zsinj, apparently after discussions on the admin IRC channel, although some have stated that the consensus on the channel did not favour the block. The block was quickly undone by
Gaillimh. Additionally, some allege that
violetriga acted improperly in undeleting some articles deleted under BLP. Kirill Lokshin has proposed principles to the effect that the overriding principle with respect to BLPs should be "do no harm", and that suspected violations may be speedy deleted, but that these may be contested through the normal channels, although they must not be restored until consensus has formed to do so, and principles cautioning Violetriga and
Night Gyr to avoid undeleting content deleted under BLP, all of which have the support of FloNight. A remedy banning Badlydrawnjeff from editing all articles covered by
WP:BLP, and any associated discussions, especially deletion discussions, and those relating to the policy itself has not been voted on.
Piotrus: A case involving
Piotrus(
talk·contribs·blocks·protections·deletions·page moves·rights·RfA) 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.) An amnesty for past behaviour in editing disputes on articles relating to Eastern Europe has the support of two arbitrators. Voting on other remedies is split.
Paranormal: A case involving the actions of various users, especially as regards
bias and
attribution, on "articles on paranormal and pseudoscientific topics", such as
parapsychology and
Electronic voice phenomenon. Proposals placing paranormal-related articles on article probation, limiting editors on them to one revert per week, and cautioning
Dradin and
Kazuba have the support of two arbitrators; voting on other remedies is split.
Hkelkar 2: A case involving the actions of
Rama's Arrow(
talk·contribs·blocks·protections·deletions·page moves·rights·RfA),
Bakasuprman (
talk·contribs),
Dangerous-Boy (
talk·contribs) and
Sbhushan (
talk·contribs), Rama's Arrow alleges that the others acted as meatpuppets of banned user
Hkelkar, and blocked them for six months. They deny the allegations, and allege that Rama's Arrow acted improperly in blocking them, and in posting private e-mails to the
incidents noticeboard. Various remedies have been proposed including an early proposal to impose no sanctions on any of the parties but calling on the parties to enter into mediation, based on a finding of fact noting a lack of reliable evidence in the case, and a proposal to prohibit administrator actions between the parties has the support of six arbitrators. Voting on a recent proposal to desysop Rama's Arrow is split at three-to-two. Voting on principles regarding the posting of private e-mails is split but it appears that a majority of arbitrators will support the principle that private e-mails may not be posted on-wiki without the consent of the sender.
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 six arbitrators), and reminding
AzaToth that Wikipedia operates by consensus (with the support of three arbitrators).
Motion to close
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 eight arbitrators. However, a motion to close the case "as moot" has the support of three arbitrators.
Transnistria: A case involving the actions of
MariusM (
talk·contribs) and
William Mauco (
talk·contribs) on
Transnistria-related articles. MariusM alleges that Mauco (who has not made a statement because he is blocked) has engaged in sockpuppetry, edit warring and other misconduct. If closed,
MarkStreet (
talk·contribs),
William Mauco (
talk·contribs) and
EvilAlex (
talk·contribs) would be indefinitely banned from any editing related to Transnistria. However, Jdforrester has opposed the motion to close, calling for remedies against MariusM.
Discuss this story