Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution

The Arbitration Committee opened one case this week, leaving two open.

Open cases

This case concerns accusations of wiki-hounding and disruptive editing. Stevertigo alleges that several editors deem his editing to be "disruptive" or "in need of banning" because they "still hold the grudge that previous cases did not find in their favor regarding [Stevertigo]". He also alleges that he "largely won" an argument against two editors in relation to the Time article, and that those two editors began editing the Punishment article due to an undue interest in Stevertigo's editing rather than due to an interest in the article. The case is currently in the evidence phase.

Innovations have been introduced for this case, including special rules of conduct that were put in place at the start of the arbitration. However, the handling of the case has been criticized by some participants; for example, although the evidence and workshop pages were closed for an extended period, no proposals were posted on the proposed decision page and participants were prevented from further discussing their case on the case pages (see earlier Signpost coverage). The proposed decision, drafted by Newyorkbrad, Risker, and Rlevse, sparked a large quantity of unstructured discussion, much of it comprising concerns about the proposed decision (see earlier Signpost coverage). A number of users, including participants and arbitrator Carcharoth, made the discussion more structured, but the quantity of discussion has continued to increase significantly. Rlevse had said that arbitrators were trying to complete the proposed decision before September 6, but it was later made clear that he will no longer be voting on this decision.

A few participants recently made further criticisms of the handling of the case ([1] [2] [3] [4] [5]). Arbitrator Roger Davies was the only user who responded in ArbCom's defense but agreed with some of the criticisms and reconfirmed that after the case has closed, a workshop will be held where users may provide feedback ([6]). This week, further attempts were made to manage the quantity of discussion, and arbitrators made further additions and votes to the proposed decision. The proposed decision is said to be "winding down" as arbitrators move towards a final decision.

Proposals being considered for the decision include:

A recently drafted discretionary sanctions scheme that was specifically tailored for the CC case & topic (see earlier Signpost coverage concerning discretionary sanctions clarification)

Committee reminders to editors and administrators

Committee encouragement to administrators and checkusers

An evidence sub-page remedy (see earlier Signpost coverage of a similar remedy)

Rulings concerning 15 editors (including 2 former administrators), 2 current administrators, and 1 current ombudsman/functionary (a former steward)

Some proposed rulings in relation to the 18 individuals
1 administrator significantly edited CC content issues previously and should not participate as an uninvolved administrator in CC sanction requests All 17 other users made significant contributions towards a battleground atmosphere in their capacity as editors or administrators. The ombudsman/functionary, is still uninvolved, but should not participate as an uninvolved administrator in CC sanction requests The other administrator is topic-banned from CC (no reference has been made to involvement or significant content edits) The 15 editors (including an editor who recently retired as well as a former administrator who invoked his right to vanish during the case) are topic-banned from CC.

Some proposed rulings in relation to the 18 individuals

1 administrator significantly edited CC content issues previously and should not participate as an uninvolved administrator in CC sanction requests
All 17 other users made significant contributions towards a battleground atmosphere in their capacity as editors or administrators.
- The ombudsman/functionary, is still uninvolved, but should not participate as an uninvolved administrator in CC sanction requests
- The other administrator is topic-banned from CC (no reference has been made to involvement or significant content edits)
- The 15 editors (including an editor who recently retired as well as a former administrator who invoked his right to vanish during the case) are topic-banned from CC.

Closed cases

PHG (Week 1)

Recently, Per Honor et Gloria requested that his restrictions (which ban him from articles relating to the Mongol Empire, the Crusades, and Hellenistic India) be lifted. The restriction was imposed after the case found that there was a continued likelihood of POV-pushing if he was permitted to edit the articles he was banned from. Arbitrator SirFozzie stated that he is currently not leaning towards modifying the restrictions.

At the time of writing, no other arbitrators have responded since last week to:

the request to reimpose an Eastern European topic ban on Radeksz

Piotrus' request for his Eastern Europe topic ban to be lifted.

The request to impose a topic ban on Ferahgo the Assassin from race and intelligence related articles remains open. Earlier in the week, Ferahgo the Assassin stated that she would voluntarily accept a probation; she alleges that this would avoid the need for incessant accusations by the same two involved users from the case, while allowing uninvolved administrators to determine if there are any legitimate concerns with her editing. At the time of writing, no arbitrator has responded to this suggestion yet.