Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases/2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of the results of all cases completed by the Arbitration Committee in 2007. There were a total of 91 cases closed in 2007, six of which were dismissed without action.

More recently-closed cases on top


Arbitration Committee Index of Cases (All Cases)

2024edit
2023edit
2022edit
2021edit
2020edit
2019edit
2018edit
2017edit
2016edit
2015edit
2014edit
2013edit
2012edit
2011edit
2010edit
2009edit
2008edit
2007edit
2006edit
2005edit
2004edit

2007

[edit]

91 cases, 6 dismissed without action.

December

[edit]

November

[edit]

October

[edit]

September

[edit]
  • Five cases
  • Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson Decided September 26, 2007
    • Parties: Seraphimblade (talk · contribs), Jmfangio (talk · contribs), Chrisjnelson (talk · contribs)
    • Remedies: Chrisjnelson is limited to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page, for a duration of six months. If he exceeds this limit, fails to discuss a content reversion, or makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked.

August

[edit]
  • Zacheus-jkb Decided August 18, 2007
    • Parties: -jkb- (talk · contribs), Zacheus (talk · contribs)
    • Remedies: -jkb- and Zacheus are admonished for their behaviour, and directed to refrain from importing outside disputes into the English Wikipedia, disclosing real names or other identifying personal information on-wiki, and from making personal attacks and uncivil remarks.

July

[edit]
  • Miskin Decided July 27, 2007
    • Parties: Swatjester (talk · contribs), Miskin (talk · contribs)
    • Remedies: Miskin is cautioned to gain a consensus on article talk pages before making further edits if his first edits are reverted. Swatjester is advised to take into account the length of time between previous blocks when blocking users, and to treat all editors violating the three-revert rule fairly.
  • Paranormal Decided 27 July 2007
    • Parties: Dradin (talk · contribs), Kazuba (talk · contribs)
    • Remedies: Dradin and any other editor who is involved professionally or avocationally in the paranormal is cautioned regarding aggressive editing of articles which relate to the particular subjects they are involved with. Kazuba is cautioned to extend good faith to Dradin if he edits and to avoid including disparaging material about Dean Radin on his user page.
  • CharlotteWebb Decided 18 July 2007
    • Parties: KamrynMatika (talk · contribs), CharlotteWebb (talk · contribs), Jayjg (talk · contribs)
    • Remedies: The Arbitration Committee notes that CharlotteWebb remains a user in good standing, and is welcome to return to editing at any time. Jayjg is reminded to to avoid generating drama by making public proclamations of misbehavior before attempting private discussion and resolution of the issue.
  • Hkelkar 2 Decided 11 July 2007
    • Parties: Rama's Arrow (talk · contribs), Bakasuprman (talk · contribs), Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (talk · contribs), Dangerous-Boy (talk · contribs), Dbachmann (talk · contribs), Sbhushan (talk · contribs), DaGizza (talk · contribs), AMbroodEY (talk · contribs), Scheibenzahl (talk · contribs)
    • Remedies: The parties to this case are strongly encouraged to enter into mediation arrangements regarding any disputes over article content that may still be outstanding. All parties are reminded in the strongest possible terms that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a forum for conspiracy, personal attacks, nor the continuation of ethnic disputes by other means. "Parties who continue such behaviour, and parties who consider it their moral duty to call out such behaviour, will be hit on the head with sticks until the situation improves." Rama's Arrow is desysopped, but is welcome to apply for reinstatement at RfA at any time. As always, administrators should not use their administrative powers in conflicts or disagreements they are involved in. Administrators who are parties to this case are reminded that they should find an uninvolved admin to determine if blocks or other actions against any other parties to the case are appropriate, and should under no circumstances take such actions themselves. Any party that violates the ban on admin actions imposed in this case will be summarily desysopped once the violation is brought to the attention of the Arbitration Committee.

June

[edit]
  • Four cases
  • E104421-Tajik Decided on 29 June 2007
    • Parties: E104421 (talk · contribs), Tajik (talk · contribs), AzaToth (talk · contribs)
    • Remedies: The current indefinite community ban on Tajik is endorsed; concurrently, Tajik is banned for one year by the Arbitration Committee. AzaToth is reminded that Wikipedia operates by consensus and advised that he may wish to be more responsive to other users' reactions.
  • Koavf Decided on 6 June 2007
    • Parties: Koavf (talk · contribs)
    • Remedies: By an open motion made on the main Requests for arbitration page, the indefinite ban on Koavf is replaced by revert parole. He is limited to one content reversion per page per day, and may be reblocked briefly for each violation, extending to indefinite after 3 blocks, depending on the blocking administrator's discretion.
  • Zeq-Zero0000 Decided on 1 June 2007
    • Parties: Zeq (talk · contribs), Zero0000 (talk · contribs)
    • Remedies: Zer0000 is advised not to take any further administrator actions against or in relation to Zeq, including but not limited to enforcement actions under their prior arbitration case, and admonished that so long as an editor, including one on probation, is not restricted in their editing of a page or area they are entitled to be accorded good faith and be treated with respect and courtesy when they edit in those areas.

May

[edit]

April

[edit]

March

[edit]
  • Barrett v. Rosenthal decided 27 March 2007
    • Parties: Ilena (talk · contribs), Fyslee (talk · contribs)
    • Remedies: Ilena is banned for one year and banned from editing articles and talk pages related to alternative medicine except talk pages related to breast implants. Fyslee is cautioned to edit in accordance with policy.
  • Philwelch Decided 6 March 2007
    • Parties: Philwelch (talk · contribs), others
    • Remedies: Philwelch, who was voluntarily desysopped while the request for arbitration was pending, may not be automatically restored to adminship. If he desires, he may seek adminship again through RFA.

February

[edit]
  • Five cases (one was dismissed)
  • WLU-Mystar Decided 23 February 2007.
    • Parties: Mystar (talk · contribs), WLU (talk · contribs)
    • Result: WLU and Mystar are prohibited from interacting with each other, directly or indirectly, on any Wikipedia page, and may be blocked for up to one week for each violation. For the purpose of this remedy, any edit by either WLU or Mystar to one of the articles over which they had previously been in conflict (including, but not limited to, Terry Goodkind and Lupus Erythematosus) shall be considered an interaction with the other party.
  • Piotrus-Ghirla Dismissed on 1 February 2007 due to inactivity of one of the two parties and ongoing mediation.

January

[edit]
  • Naming Conventions Decided 19 January 2007
    • Parties: Wknight94 (talk · contribs), Yaksha (talk · contribs), Ned Scott (talk · contribs), Josiah Rowe (talk · contribs), Elonka (talk · contribs)
    • Remedies: It is the responsibility of administrators and other responsible parties to close extended policy discussions, such as this dispute. Closing consists of announcing the decision at the locations of the discussion and briefly explaining the basis for closing it in the way it is being closed; further, to change any policy pages, guidelines or naming conventions to conform with the decision; and finally, to enforce the decision with respect to recalcitrant users who violate the decision, after reminding them and warning them. Izzy Dot's editing privileges are suspended for a period of 14 days. Any user who purposely violates the consensus decision in this matter during the next 180 days may be briefly blocked.