The first case of 2016—Wikicology
In this week's Arbitration Report: The first case of 2016 has been accepted, and we'll be talking about its background and what's going on at this time.
- Background
Wikicology first began editing Wikipedia on 3 June 2014, mentioning that his name is Isaac, from Nigeria. Three months into his joining the site, Stalwart111 started a thread on Wikicology at the Administrators' Incidents noticeboard, pointing out that the new editor had made 1000 edits, "40%" of them giving other users—both new and senior editors alike—advice on their talk pages. He was called out for making a questionable non-admin closure of HMS Richmond helicopter crash AFD ( original decision, Deletion Review). This thread lasted from 13 to 28 September, with one editor calling for his rollback rights being taken from him.
Moving ahead to 28 March 2016, Peter Damian started a thread about a legal threat by Wikicology, saying: "Invasion of the right to privacy can be the basis for a lawsuit for damages against the person or entity violating the right. You are unlawfully intruding into my private life, unauthorized disclosure of my personal information." ( Legal threats are grounds for blocking on Wikipedia.) Wikicology had by this point identified as Olatunde Isaac, a biochemist and co-founder of the " Wikimedia affiliate in Nigeria". He serves as a member of the Individual Engagement Grants Committee, under the WMF's programs and event grants, and as the manager of the Wikipedia Education Program in Nigeria, and established a branch of The Wikipedia Library in the Yoruba-language Wikipedia on 12 January 2016.
Another issue raised in the thread was that Wikicology created seven articles about himself. From Olatunde olalekan isaac, Olatunde isaac, to even Olatunde olalekan. Peter Damian challenged Wikicology's claim to be a biochemist, harking back to the infamous Essjay controversy, where former administrator, bureaucrat, and arbitrator Essjay was found to have falsified his qualifications and experience. Essjay later stepped down from all of his positions and retired from Wikipedia.
A call for Wikicology to be indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia received two-thirds support (24–12). Mentoring was offered. Consensus was finally reached when it was decided to "Kick it to arbcomm".
- The case
With the claims that Wikicology falsified his occupation on Wikipedia, a case request for the Arbitration Committee to accept was started on 3 April 2016 by Jayen466. In the preliminary statements, Jayen466 recapped everything that had happened while Wikicology stood by his claim of being a biochemist. Twelve active members of the Committee voted to accept the case. It is currently in its evidence phase, which is scheduled to close on 25 April.
The first case of 2016—Wikicology
In this week's Arbitration Report: The first case of 2016 has been accepted, and we'll be talking about its background and what's going on at this time.
- Background
Wikicology first began editing Wikipedia on 3 June 2014, mentioning that his name is Isaac, from Nigeria. Three months into his joining the site, Stalwart111 started a thread on Wikicology at the Administrators' Incidents noticeboard, pointing out that the new editor had made 1000 edits, "40%" of them giving other users—both new and senior editors alike—advice on their talk pages. He was called out for making a questionable non-admin closure of HMS Richmond helicopter crash AFD ( original decision, Deletion Review). This thread lasted from 13 to 28 September, with one editor calling for his rollback rights being taken from him.
Moving ahead to 28 March 2016, Peter Damian started a thread about a legal threat by Wikicology, saying: "Invasion of the right to privacy can be the basis for a lawsuit for damages against the person or entity violating the right. You are unlawfully intruding into my private life, unauthorized disclosure of my personal information." ( Legal threats are grounds for blocking on Wikipedia.) Wikicology had by this point identified as Olatunde Isaac, a biochemist and co-founder of the " Wikimedia affiliate in Nigeria". He serves as a member of the Individual Engagement Grants Committee, under the WMF's programs and event grants, and as the manager of the Wikipedia Education Program in Nigeria, and established a branch of The Wikipedia Library in the Yoruba-language Wikipedia on 12 January 2016.
Another issue raised in the thread was that Wikicology created seven articles about himself. From Olatunde olalekan isaac, Olatunde isaac, to even Olatunde olalekan. Peter Damian challenged Wikicology's claim to be a biochemist, harking back to the infamous Essjay controversy, where former administrator, bureaucrat, and arbitrator Essjay was found to have falsified his qualifications and experience. Essjay later stepped down from all of his positions and retired from Wikipedia.
A call for Wikicology to be indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia received two-thirds support (24–12). Mentoring was offered. Consensus was finally reached when it was decided to "Kick it to arbcomm".
- The case
With the claims that Wikicology falsified his occupation on Wikipedia, a case request for the Arbitration Committee to accept was started on 3 April 2016 by Jayen466. In the preliminary statements, Jayen466 recapped everything that had happened while Wikicology stood by his claim of being a biochemist. Twelve active members of the Committee voted to accept the case. It is currently in its evidence phase, which is scheduled to close on 25 April.
Discuss this story
- It's unfortunate this went to Arbcom. The argument to send it there was that a widely supported community indef might be reversed by some random admin. But I think Arbcom should hear real disputes, not hypothetical ones. When there's just one person and many disinterested parties are saying what he did was wrong, that's a simple disciplinary matter, not a dispute to be arbitrated. (I mean, there's literally one "involved party" on a case being arbitrated. That kind of thing can physically damage your logic organs.) Wnt ( talk) 20:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Just to clarify: The results of the poll (which was closed 3.5 days after opening) at the recent ANI were actually: 22 supporting site ban, 6 take it to Arbcom, 5 mentoring, and 1 neutral. Since almost all of the "take it to Arbcom" voters were actually pro-siteban, that's more than a 2/3 majority, it's over 80%. Softlavender ( talk) 14:50, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Discuss this story