Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-04-14/Arbitration report

Arbitration report

The first case of 2016—Wikicology

Share this

By

GamerPro64

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

rollback rights

being taken from him.

Moving ahead to 28 March 2016,

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.

In this issue

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Want the latest Signpost delivered to your talk page each month?

Home

About