Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 14

Changes in Arbitration Committee and users with advanced permissions

Further to the results of the community election of arbitrators, and the formal announcement of their appointment, the following users are members of the Arbitration Committee effective today.

In order to facilitate the work of the Committee, the following arbitrators are granted advanced permissions:

In keeping with longstanding practice, arbitrators whose term has expired may remain active in cases open at the time of their retirement. They may also retain CheckUser and Oversight permission, provided they continue to meet the minimal activity standards expected of all CheckUsers and Oversighters. The following arbitrators are retiring effective 31 December 2011.

The Arbitration Committee thanks these members for their work on behalf of the Committee and the community, and looks forward to continuing to work with each of them in their new roles as functionaries.

The Committee also wishes to thank Bastique (talk · contribs) and Brandon (talk · contribs), both of whom have recently resigned as functionaries for personal reasons. Bastique is not only a longstanding member of the Wikipedia community, but was also one of the first employees of the Wikimedia Foundation. Brandon was appointed as a CheckUser in August 2009, and is also a longstanding member of the community. The Arbitration Committee wishes both Brandon and Bastique well in their future endeavours, and hopes that they will continue to remain a part of the Wikimedia and Wikipedia communities.

For the Arbitration Committee, Risker (talk) 00:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Archived discussion


Desysop of User:Malcolm

Preamble: Checkuser of an account behaving in an inappropriate manner revealed that Malcolm (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) had created multiple abusive alternate accounts which were used to vandalize and disrupt the project. Below is the list of alternate accounts used to edit inappropriately:


Motion: The administrator permissions of Malcolm (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) are revoked for abuse of multiple accounts. In order to regain administrator permissions, Malcolm must successfully complete a new Request for Adminship. Malcolm is also indefinitely prohibited from using any other account than User:Malcolm, subject to standard arbitration enforcement restrictions.

Support: AGK, Casliber, Courcelles, David Fuchs, Elen of the Roads, Hersfold, Jclemens, Kirill Lokshin, Newyorkbrad, PhilKnight, Risker, SirFozzie

Opposed: None

Not voting: Roger Davies, SilkTork, Xeno

For the Arbitration Committee, Risker (talk) 05:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: As a personal CheckUser action, in consultation with other members of the CheckUser team, I have blocked the master account, Malcolm (talk · contribs) for two weeks. This is in keeping with usual practices for first time socking by an established user, and reflects the seriousness of the disruption. Risker (talk) 05:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Further note: Malcolm has now been desysopped by me, in my capacity as a bureaucrat. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Archived discussion

User:Worm That Turned, the newest Arbitration clerk

The Arbitration clerks would like to welcome Worm That Turned to the clerk team as a trainee!

We are still looking for additional volunteers. Users who would like to join the clerk team, whether they be administrators or not, are welcome to apply by sending an email to clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org. NW (Talk) 20:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Audit Subcommittee vacancies: Call for applications (2012)

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint at least three non-arbitrator members to the Audit Subcommittee.

The Audit Subcommittee ("AUSC") was established by the Arbitration Committee to investigate complaints concerning the use of CheckUser and Oversight privileges on the English Wikipedia, and to provide better monitoring and oversight of the CheckUser and Oversight positions, and use of the applicable tools.

Matters brought before the subcommittee may be time-sensitive and subcommittee members should be prepared and available to discuss cases promptly so they may be resolved in a timely manner. Sitting subcommittee members are expected to actively participate in AUSC proceedings and may be replaced should they become inactive. All subcommittee members are subject to the relevant local and global policies and guidelines concerning CheckUser and Oversight.

If you think you may be suitably qualified, please see the appointments page for further information. The application period is scheduled to close 31 January 2012.

For the Arbitration Committee, –xenotalk 18:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Archived discussion

New Arbitration Commitee clerks

The Arbitration clerks would like to welcome Guerillero and Mlpearc to the clerk team as trainees! --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 23:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

Creation of BASC mailing list

A new mailing list, arbcom-appeals-en† will be created for the use of the Ban Appeals Subcommittee, and all correspondence having to do with appeals will be directed to that list. The initial membership of the new list will include all currently sitting arbitrators.

Support
AGK, Casliber, Courcelles, David Fuchs, Elen of the Roads, JClemens, Kirill Lokshin, Philknight, Risker, Roger Davies, SilkTork, SirFozzie
Oppose
None
Not voting
Hersfold, Newyorkbrad, Xeno
† Please see the Arbitration Committtee's "Communications and privacy" statement.
Archived discussion

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images closed

An arbitration case regarding Muhammad images has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

  1. The community is asked to hold a discussion that will establish a definitive consensus on what images will be included in the article Muhammad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and on where the images will be placed within the article. As with all decisions about content, the policies on verifiability and the neutral point of view must be the most important considerations. The editors who choose to participate in this discussion are asked to form an opinion with an open mind, and to explain their decision clearly. Any editor who disrupts this discussion may be banned from the affected pages by any uninvolved administrator, under the discretionary sanctions authorised in this decision. The decision reached in this discussion will be appended to this case within two months from the close of the case.
  2. Ludwigs2 is prohibited from contributing to any discussion concerning Muhammad.
  3. Ludwigs2 is banned from the English Wikipedia for one year.
  4. Tarc is admonished to behave with appropriate professionalism in his contributions to discussions about disputed article content.
  5. FormerIP is admonished to behave with appropriate professionalism in his contributions to discussions about disputed article content.
  6. Hans Adler is reminded to engage in discussions about disputed article content with an appropriate degree of civility.
  7. Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to Muhammad, broadly interpreted.
  8. The participants in the dispute about depictions of Muhammad are reminded that editors who engage extensively in an intractable dispute can become frustrated, and that it is important to be aware that as editors we are limited in our ability to contribute constructively to a deadlocked disagreement. Our exasperation with a dispute can make us unprofessional or unreceptive to compromise. We therefore encourage the disputants of this case to consider if their participation in the coming community discussion of depictions of Muhammad would be useful, and we remind them that if they disrupt the community discussion they may be banned from the discussion or otherwise sanctioned under the discretionary sanctions provision of this case.

For the Arbitration Committee, Mlpearc (powwow) 16:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions that: The Racepacket case is supplemented as follows:

The Arbitration Committee has determined that, as User:Racepacket has on two occasions on 4 February 2012 breached his interaction ban, he is indefinitely site banned from the English Wikipedia. The user may request that the site ban be reconsidered once a minimum of twelve months have elapsed from the date of this motion passing. In the event that Racepacket violates either the site ban, or the interaction ban, the minimum period before an appeal may be submitted will be reset to twelve months from the date of the violation.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 20:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Betacommand 3 closed

An arbitration case regarding Betacommand (Δ) has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

  1. The existing community sanctions on Betacommand were a valid response by the community to prior problems with Betacommand's editing, and that Betacommand was required to abide by those sanctions if he wished to continue editing. However, given that interpretation and implementation of those sanctions has led to ongoing disputes, the community sanctions are superseded by the more straightforward remedies provided for in this decision.
  2. Betacommand is banned from Wikipedia for a period of no less than one year.
  3. After one year has elapsed from the date of his ban, Betacommand may request that the ban be lifted. As part of any such request, Betacommand shall be required to submit a plan outlining his intended editing activity and demonstrating his understanding of and intention to refrain from the actions which resulted in his ban. The Committee shall present this plan to the community for review and comment prior to any modification of Betacommand's ban.

For the Arbitration Committee, --Guerillero | My Talk 01:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Audit Subcommittee appointments (2012): Invitation to comment on candidates

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint at least three non-arbitrator members to the Audit Subcommittee, and is now seeking comments from the community regarding the candidates who have volunteered for this role.

Interested parties are invited to review the appointments page containing the nomination statements supplied by the candidates and their answers to a few standard questions. Community members may also pose additional questions and submit comments about the candidates on the individual nomination subpages or privately via email to arbcom-en-b@lists.wikimedia.org.

Following the consultation phase, the committee will take into account the answers provided by the candidates to the questions and the comments offered by the community (both publicly and privately) along with any other relevant factors before making a final decision regarding appointments.

The consultation phase is scheduled to end 23:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC), and the appointments are scheduled to be announced by 29 February 2012.

For the Arbitration Committee, –xenotalk 04:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Audit Subcommittee report of activity for July 2011 to February 2012

The Audit Subcommittee (AUSC) has published a summary of its activity for July 2011 to February 2012. During this period, the subcommittee received and investigated eight cases relating to the use of CheckUser or Oversight permissions; of these eight cases, one review was requested by another functionary, one review was initiated by a member of the subcommittee, and six were requests by non-functionaries. To read the report, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee/Reports#July 2011 through February 2012.

For the Audit Subcommittee, AGK [•] 23:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Support
AGK, Jclemens, Keegan, Risker
Oppose
None
Not voting
David Fuchs
Archived discussion

Co-ordinating administrators for Abortion article titles discussion

Pursuant to the remedy at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion#Systematic discussion and voting on article names, the pending structured discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles requires one or more uninvolved administrators to be appointed to co-ordinate and close the final vote of the RFC. We asked Black Kite, EyeSerene, and HJ Mitchell if they would commit to co-ordinate the vote, and they have agreed to do so. We therefore select these administrators to be the administrators appointed by the Committee, in the sense defined in the above remedy. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 09:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this (RFC talk page)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement closed

An arbitration case regarding Civility enforcement has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

  1. Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) is desysopped for wheel warring and conduct unbecoming of an administrator, in the face of previous admonishments regarding administrative conduct from the Arbitration Committee. Hawkeye7 may re-apply for the administrator permissions at RFA at any time.
  2. Thumperward (talk · contribs) is admonished for conduct unbecoming an administrator, and for failing to adequately explain his actions when requested by the community and Arbitration Committee.
  3. John (talk · contribs) is admonished for reversing another administrator's actions while said actions were under review through community discussion.
  4. Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from any page whose prefix begins with "Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship". This remedy explicitly does not prevent him from voting on RFAs; however, should his contributions to a specific request for adminship become disruptive, any uninvolved admin may ban him from further participation in that specific RFA. Further, Malleus Fatuorm is admonished for repeatedly personalizing disputes and engaging in uncivil conduct, personal attacks, and disruptive conduct.
  5. Administrators are reminded that blocks should be applied only when no other solution would prove to be effective, or when previous attempts to resolve a situation (such as discussion, warnings, topic bans, or other restrictions) have proven to be ineffective.
  6. All users are reminded to engage in discussion in a way that will neither disrupt nor lower the quality of such discourse. Personal attacks, profanity, inappropriate use of humour, and other uncivil conduct that leads to a breakdown in discussion can prevent the formation of a valid consensus. Blocks or other restrictions may be used to address repeated or particularly severe disruption of this nature, in order to foster a collaborative environment within the community as a whole.
  7. The imposition of discretionary sanctions, paroles, and related remedies by the community is done on an ad hoc basis in the absence of clear documented standards. The community is strongly encouraged to review and document standing good practice for such discussions. As a related but distinct issue, the community is encouraged to review and document common good practice for administrators imposing editing restrictions as a condition of an unblock and in lieu of blocks.
  8. Should any user subject to a restriction or topic ban in this case violate that restriction or ban, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year, with the topic ban clock restarting at the end of the block. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, and thereafter to the Administrators' noticeboard, or to Arbitration Enforcement, or to the Arbitration Committee. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions.

For the Arbitration Committee:
Mlpearc (powwow) 02:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy ban appeal closed

This case has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

  1. Jimbo Wales' ban of TimidGuy is vacated.
  2. TimidGuy is advised to adhere closely to the reliable sources (medicine) guideline in any edit he makes within the Transcendental Meditation topic.
  3. For conduct unbecoming an administrator, Will Beback is desysopped and may only regain the tools via a new Request for Adminship.
  4. Will Beback is indefinitely topic banned from pages related to new religious movements, broadly construed.
  5. Will Beback is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. After six months, he may appeal his ban to the Arbitration Committee.
  6. The community is encouraged to open a Request for comment on the "Conflicts of Interest" guideline with a view to reconciling some of the apparent contradictions discussed in the applicable finding of fact.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 00:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Audit Subcommittee appointments (2012)

Effective 1 March 2012, Avraham (talk · contribs), Ponyo (talk · contribs), and Salvio giuliano (talk · contribs) are appointed as community representatives to the Audit Subcommittee. The period of appointment will be 1 March 2012 to 28 February 2013. MBisanz (talk · contribs) is designated as an alternate member of the subcommittee and will become a full member should one of the appointees resign their role during the term. The Arbitration Committee thanks all of the candidates, as well as the many members of the community who participated in the appointment process for these roles.

The Arbitration Committee also extends its thanks to Keegan (talk · contribs) who is expected to remain in office until 31 March 2012.

Support motion
AGK, Casliber, Courcelles, Elen of the Roads, Hersfold, Jclemens, Kirill Lokshin, PhilKnight, Risker, Roger Davies, Xeno.
Not voting
David Fuchs, Newyorkbrad, SilkTork, SirFozzie.

For the Arbitration Committee, –xenotalk 17:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

Per a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification:

The text in WP:ARBPIA section "Further remedies" is modified from "Clear vandalism, or edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty" to "Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Reverts of edits made by anonymous IP editors that are not vandalism are exempt from 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring." As identical text is used in an active sanction related to The Troubles case, the same substitution of wording shall be made there.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety talk 18:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Motion: To rename Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley

Per a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

The case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley is renamed to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cold fusion 2. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cold fusion is created as a redirect to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion, and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion 2 is created as a redirect to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cold fusion 2. For the purposes of procedure, the index of topics with an active discretionary sanctions provision will be updated with the new title, but previous references to the Abd-William M. Connolley decision do not require to be updated. The rename of the Abd-William M. Connolley case to Cold fusion 2 is only for clarity in reference, and does not invalidate any previous action or pending sanctions taken under the provisions of this case.

For the Arbitration Committee, Mlpearc (powwow) 02:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Motion: To rename Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren

Per a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

The case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren is renamed to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe. For the new title of Eastern Europe, WP:ARBEURO and WP:ARBEE are created as shortcuts. For the purposes of procedure, the index of topics with an active discretionary sanctions provision will be updated with the new title, but previous references to the Digwuren decision do not require to be updated. The rename of the Digwuren case to Eastern Europe is only for clarity in reference, and does not invalidate any previous action or pending sanctions taken under the provisions of this case.


For the Arbitration Committee, --Guerillero | My Talk 03:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation closed

An arbitration case regarding article titles and capitalisation has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

  1. All parties are reminded to avoid personalizing disputes concerning the Manual of Style, the article titles policy ('WP:TITLE'), and similar policy and guideline pages, and to work collegiately towards a workable consensus. In particular, a rapid cycle of editing these pages to reflect one's viewpoint, then discussing the changes is disruptive and should be avoided. Instead, parties are encouraged to establish consensus on the talk page first, and then make the changes.
  2. Pmanderson is indefinitely prohibited from engaging in discussions and edits relating to the Manual of Style or policy about article titles.
  3. Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, broadly construed.
  4. Born2cycle is warned that his contributions to discussion must reflect a better receptiveness to compromise and a higher tolerance for the views of other editors.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 23:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment that:

The Martinphi-ScienceApologist and Pseudoscience cases are supplemented as follows:

The discretionary sanctions provision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#Standard discretionary sanctions are moved to a new section underneath Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions. The annotation at Pseudoscience that the older discretionary sanctions are superseded by Martinphi-ScienceApologist is stricken through, and to it is appended a note that "Those discretionary sanctions were later moved by motion to this case" with a link to this motion. The sanctions at Martinphi-ScienceApologist are stricken through, with a note that they are "moved by motion to Pseudoscience" with a link to the new sanctions and to this motion.

The purpose of moving the discretionary sanctions provision is to bring it within a case with an appropriate, clear title. Previous actions and current sanctions with their basis on this discretionary sanctions provision are not affected by this move.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 12:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Desysopping of User:Centrx

Pursuant to WP:AC/P#Removal of permissions "Level I procedures", the administrator privileges of Centrx (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) are revoked pending a full review. The motion was supported by AGK, Hersfold, and SilkTork. (Meta permissions request.)

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 15:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Ban appeal by User:Altenmann

On 11 April 2010, User:Altenmann was desysopped and community banned, which the user would like reconsidered. Accordingly, the Ban Appeals Subcommittee seeks comment from the community on suspending the ban and interested editors are invited to participate. For the committee, SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Appeal discussion

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt and Jayen466

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment that: The Cirt and Jayen466 case is supplemented as follows:

Notwithstanding other restrictions on his editing, Cirt is granted an exemption in order to edit the article Dan Savage bibliography, its talk page, a peer review for that article, and a featured list candidacy for the article. This exemption may be withdrawn by The Rambling Man at anytime, or by further motion of the Arbitration Committee.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 17:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Review closed

The arbitration review of the Race and Intelligence case has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above.

The following remedies have been enacted:

  1. Mathsci (talk · contribs) is admonished for engaging in battlefield conduct
  2. Ferahgo the Assassin (talk · contribs) and Captain Occam (talk · contribs) are site-banned from Wikipedia for a period of no less than one year. After one year has elapsed, a request may be made for the ban to be lifted. Any such request must address all the circumstances which lead to this ban being imposed and demonstrate an understanding of and intention to refrain from similar actions in the future.
  3. SightWatcher (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from editing and/or discussing the topic of Race and Intelligence on any page of Wikipedia, including user talk pages, or from participating in any discussion concerning the conduct of editors who have worked in the topic. This editor may however within reason participate in dispute resolution and noticeboard discussions if their own conduct has been mentioned.
  4. TrevelyanL85A2 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from editing and/or discussing the topic of Race and Intelligence on any page of Wikipedia, including user talk pages, or from participating in any discussion concerning the conduct of editors who have worked in the topic. This editor may however within reason participate in dispute resolution and noticeboard discussions if their own conduct has been mentioned.


For the Arbitration Committee,

--Guerillero | My Talk 02:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough closed

An arbitration case regarding Rich Farmbrough has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above.

The following remedies have been enacted:

  1. Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from using any automation whatsoever on Wikipedia. For the purposes of this remedy, any edits that reasonably appear to be automated shall be assumed to be so.
  2. Rich Farmbrough's administrator status is revoked. At any time after the closing of this case, Rich Farmbrough may request that his administrator status be restored by filing a request for adminship.
  3. Elen of the Roads (talk · contribs) is reminded that an administrator who is a party to an arbitration case should not block another editor (or their bot) who is a party to the same case.

For the Arbitration Committee,

--Guerillero | My Talk 19:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Merging of clarification and amendment processes

In order to consolidate the array of on-wiki arbitration pages so far as possible, the pages Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification are being merged. The amalgamated process page will be Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, and both requests for clarification and amendment of final arbitration decisions should be submitted to this page. Editors attempting to use the new process who encounter issues or who find the new instructions unclear should feel welcome to contact any arbitrator or clerk for assistance

The merger of the two process pages was supported by a majority of the active arbitrators, but as a minor change did not require a formal motion. The old pages and shortcuts should redirect to the new page, as should obviously-synonymous pagenames. WP:A/R/CA and WP:A/R/C&A now exist, for those of us who use shortcuts. However, if you notice any legacy errors from the old pages, please draw them to the attention of me, another arbitrator, or any clerk, or fix them yourself if it is obvious what they should now be.

We hope this makes the whole process somewhat less cumbersome. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 22:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Guerillero promoted to full clerk

We are pleased to announce that Guerillero has been promoted to a full Arbitration Committee clerk position, effective immediately.

We thank Guerillero and all of the clerks for their assistance to the Committee and its work.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kirill [talk] 18:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Latest addition to the Arbitration Committee clerk team

The Arbitration Committee clerk team would like to welcome our latest trainee clerk, Lord Roem, to the team. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 19:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Arbitration motion regarding Changes evidence limits in arbitration cases

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions that:

Users who are named parties to an arbitration case shall limit their evidence submission to no more than 1000 words in length. All other users submitting evidence to an arbitration case shall limit their evidence submission to no more than 500 words in length. All evidence must be presented on the case's /Evidence subpage. Evidence submissions significantly over the appropriate limit may be refactored by an arbitration clerk at the discretion of the clerks and Committee.

For the Arbitration Committee,

--Guerillero | My Talk 06:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Review

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment that:

FoF 2.5 in the Race and intelligence review be amended to read: Mathsci has engaged in borderline personal attacks and frequent battleground conduct.

For the Arbitration Committee,

-- Lord Roem (talk) 06:08, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough

Resolved by motion that:

FoF 8 (Unblocking of SmackBot) changed to:

Rich Farmbrough has on many occasions, after another administrator has placed a block on his bot account, used his administrative tools to unblock his own bot without first remedying the underlying issue to the blocking admin's satisfaction or otherwise achieving consensus for such unblock (see block logs of SmackBot, Helpful Pixie Bot).

For the Arbitration Committee,

-- Lord Roem (talk) 14:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Archived discussion


Arbitration motion regarding submission of evidence in arbitration cases

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions that:

Submissions of evidence are expected to be succinct and to the point. By default, submissions are limited to about 1000 words and about 100 difference links for named parties, and to about 500 words and about 50 difference links for all other editors. Editors wishing to submit evidence longer than the default limits are expected to obtain the approval of the drafting arbitrator(s) via a request on the /Evidence talk page prior to posting it.

Submissions must be posted on the case /Evidence pages; submission of evidence via sub-pages in userspace is prohibited. Unapproved over-length submissions, and submissions of inappropriate material and/or links, may be removed, refactored, or redacted at the discretion of the clerks and/or the Committee.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Seddon talk 18:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology

Resolved by motion that:

The restriction imposed on Jayen466 (talk · contribs) by Remedy 21.1 of the Scientology case ("Jayen466 topic-banned from Rick Ross articles") is hereby lifted.

For the Arbitration Committee, -- Lord Roem (talk) 22:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change

Resolved by motion that:

The restriction imposed on A Quest For Knowledge (talk · contribs) by Remedy 18 of the Climate change case ("A Quest For Knowledge topic-banned") is hereby lifted.

For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 15:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change (2)

Resolved by motion that:

The restriction imposed on Prioryman (talk · contribs) by Remedy 11.6 of the Climate change case ("ChrisO topic-banned") is hereby lifted.

For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 17:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology (Sanctions)

Resolved by motion that:

Remedy 4 - Discretionary topic ban

This remedy is superseded with immediate effect by Remedy 4.1. All discretionary topic bans placed under Remedy 4 remain in full force and are subject to the provisions of Remedy 4.1.

Remedy 4.1 - Discretionary sanctions authorised

Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised with immediate effect for the Scientology topic broadly construed. All warnings and sanctions shall be logged in the appropriate section of the main case page.

For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 02:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology (2)

Resolved by motion that:

The restriction imposed on Prioryman (talk · contribs) by Remedy 17 of the Scientology case ("ChrisO restricted") is hereby lifted.

For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 02:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Arbitration motion on decision elements

To provide greater clarity regarding the purpose of each element of an arbitration decision, the following statement is adopted:

Elements of arbitration decisions

For standard hearings, decisions are posted in the form of "Principles", "Findings of Fact", "Remedies" and "Enforcement".

Principles highlight key provisions of policy, procedure, or community practice which are relevant to the dispute under consideration; and, where appropriate, include the Committee's interpretation of such provisions in the context of the dispute.

Findings of fact summarize the key elements of the parties' conduct in the dispute under consideration. Difference links may be incorporated but are purely illustrative in nature unless explicitly stated otherwise.

Remedies specify the actions ordered by the Committee to resolve the dispute under considerations. Remedies may include both enforceable provisions (such as edit restrictions or bans) and non-enforceable provisions (such as cautions, reminders, or admonitions), and may apply to individual parties, to groups of parties collectively, or to all editors engaged in a specific type of conduct or working in a specific area.

Enforcement contains instructions to the administrators responsible for arbitration enforcement, describing the procedure to be followed in the event that an editor subject to a remedy violates the terms of that remedy. Enforcement provisions may be omitted in decisions that contain no independently enforceable remedies.

Additionally, the existing procedure for voting on proposed decisions is modified to replace the first sentence ("For standard hearings, proposed decisions will be posted in the form of 'Principles', 'Findings of Fact', 'Remedies' and 'Enforcement', with a separate vote for each provision.") with the following:

Proposed decisions will be posted with a separate vote for each provision.

For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 03:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Amendment: Brews ohare topic-ban (Speed of light)

The following was resolved by motion:

1. From the statements, it is more probable than not that User:Brews ohare is unable to work cooperatively and effectively with others within the topic and is thus repeating the behaviour which resulted in his now expired sanctions. The earlier episodes were very disruptive and were a great drain on the community's patience and resources.

2. It follows that preventative action is appropriate. Accordingly, the Committee topic-bans Brews ohare indefinitely from all pages of whatever nature about physics and physics-related mathematics, broadly construed. After a minimum period of at least one year has elapsed, Brews ohare may ask the Arbitration Committee to reconsider the topic ban, giving his reasons why the Committee should do so.

3. Should Brews ohare violate this topic ban he may be blocked, initially for up to one week, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year, with the clock for any lifting of the topic ban restarting at the end of each block. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions. Appeals of blocks may only be made by email to the Arbitration Committee.

For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 19:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Arbitration motion on standardized enforcement

To provide for standardized enforcement of editing restrictions imposed by the Committee, and to reduce the amount of boilerplate text in decisions, the following procedure is adopted, and shall apply to all cases closed after its adoption:

Standard enforcement provision

The following standard enforcement provision shall be incorporated into all cases which include an enforceable remedy but which do not include case-specific enforcement provisions passed by the Committee:

"Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, and thereafter to arbitration enforcement, or to the Arbitration Committee. All blocks shall be logged in the appropriate section of the main case page."

For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 19:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Archived discussion

2012 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Call for applications

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint additional users to the CheckUser and Oversight teams. Experienced editors are invited to apply for either or both of the permissions, and current holders of either permission are also invited to apply for the other. There is a particular need for Oversight candidates in this round of appointments.

Successful candidates are likely to be regularly available and already familiar with local and global processes, policies, and guidelines especially those concerning CheckUser and Oversight. CheckUser candidates are expected to be technically proficient, and previous experience with OTRS is beneficial for Oversight candidates. Trusted users who frequent IRC are also encouraged to apply for either permission. All candidates must at least 18 years of age; have attained legal majority in their jurisdiction of residence; and be willing to identify to the Wikimedia Foundation prior to receiving permissions.

Current demand for users with regional knowledge
Because of the increasing activity from the South Asian, Southeast Asian, or Middle Eastern regions, CheckUser applications are particularly sought from people who not only meet our general requirements but also are familiar with the ISPs and typical editing patterns of any of these regions.

If you think you may be suitably qualified, please see the appointments page for further information. The application period is scheduled to close 15 June 2012.

For the Arbitration Committee, Risker (talk) 02:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Motion on Rich Farmbrough enforcement

The following was resolved by motion:

It is not in dispute that, despite being indefinitely prohibited from doing so, Rich Farmbrough made automated edits in breach of the sanction on 31 May 2012.
  1. Accordingly, Rich Farmbrough is blocked for thirty days from the date of enactment of this motion.
  2. To avoid future breaches of whatever nature, Rich Farmbrough is directed:
    1. to blank userspace js pages associated with his account/s;
    2. to avoid making automated edits to pages offline for the purpose of pasting them into a normal browser for posting;
    3. to make only completely manual edits (ie by selecting the [EDIT] button and typing changes into the editing window);
    4. to refrain from edits adjusting capitalisation of templates (where the current capitalisation is functional) or whitespace and similar as these can create the appearance of automation.
  3. Further, Rich Farmbrough is advised that:
    1. The prohibition on using automation will remain in place and in full force until modified or removed by the Committee;
    2. The earliest date on which Rich Farmbrough may request that the Committee reconsider the automation prohibition is 15 January 2013;
    3. The Checkuser tool will be used to verify Rich Farmbrough's future compliance with the prohibition;
    4. If Rich Farmbrough breaches the automation prohibition again, notwithstanding the standard enforcement provisions, he will likely be site-banned indefinitely with at least twelve months elapsing from the date of the site-ban before he may request the Committee reconsider.
By adopting this motion, the Committee is extending considerable good faith to Rich Farmbrough, despite the aggravating factors, and notes he has unconditionally accepted provisions to this effect.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Lord Roem (talk) 22:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Motion on procedural motions

To provide an opportunity for community comment on proposed changes to the Arbitration Committee's processes and procedures prior to enactment, the following procedure is adopted:

Modification of procedures

Significant or substantive modifications of the Arbitration Committee's procedures shall be made by way of formal motions on the Committee's public motions page; shall be announced on the Committee's noticeboard and the administrator's noticeboard by the clerks when first proposed; and shall remain open for at least 24 hours after those announcements are made.

For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 22:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Amendment: Scientology (Lyncs)

Resolved by motion that:

The indefinite ban of Lyncs (talk · contribs) from the Scientology topic—that was set down (as "Topic banned from Scientology") as a condition of his successful siteban appeal—is vacated.

For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 20:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay closed

An arbitration case regarding User:GoodDay has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

  1. GoodDay is indefinitely prohibited from making any edits concerning diacritics, or participating in any discussions about the same, anywhere on the English Wikipedia. This includes converting any diacritical mark to its basic glyph on any article or other page, broadly construed, and any edit that adds an unaccented variation of a name or other word as an alternate form to one with diacritics.
  2. GoodDay is strongly warned that, in the event of additional violations of Wikipedia's conduct policies (especially of the nature recorded in this decision as findings of fact), substantial sanctions, up to a ban from the project, may be imposed without further warning by the Arbitration Committee.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 08:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Archived discussion

2012 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Invitation to comment on candidates

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint additional users to the CheckUser and Oversight teams, and is now seeking comments from the community regarding the candidates who have volunteered for this role.

Interested parties are invited to review the appointments page containing the nomination statements supplied by the candidates and their answers to a few standard questions. Community members may also pose additional questions and submit comments about the candidates on the individual nomination subpages or privately via email to arbcom-en-c@lists.wikimedia.org.

Following the consultation phase, the committee will take into account the answers provided by the candidates to the questions and the comments offered by the community (both publicly and privately) along with all other relevant factors before making a final decision regarding appointments.

The consultation phase is scheduled to end 23:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC), and the appointments are scheduled to be announced by 6 July 2012.

For the Arbitration Committee, Risker (talk) 23:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Arbitration motion regarding User:Carnildo

For exercising long term poor judgement in his use of administrative tools, including his recent block of User:Itsmejudith, User:Carnildo's administrative tools are removed. Carnildo may regain the administrative tools in the usual manner via a successful Request for Adminship.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Archived discussion

2012 CheckUser and Oversight appointments & personnel changes

The Arbitration Committee has resolved to appoint four editors to the CheckUser team and eight editors to the Oversight team pursuant to the CheckUser and Oversight appointment procedures and following the 2012 CUOS appointments process.

Subject to the editors named below providing identification satisfactory to the Wikimedia Foundation (if they have not already done so), the Arbitration Committee hereby resolves to:

(a) appoint the following editors as checkusers:

(b) appoint the following editors as oversighters:

† Previously identified member of the Audit Subcommittee who will retain the specified permission(s) upon the conclusion of their terms.

The committee thanks the other candidates (Mlpearc, Tiptoety); those who applied but were not put forward as candidates; and the community in bringing this appointment process to a successful conclusion.

The committee also thanks LessHeard vanU (talk · contribs), who has recently resigned as an oversighter, for his longterm dedication to the project, and wishes him well in his future endeavours. As well, the committee thanks John Vandenberg (talk · contribs), who has also resigned his checkuser and oversight permissions, for his work as a checkuser, an oversighter, and for his work as an arbitrator; John continues to make contributions in multiple areas within the WMF projects and as an executive member of Wikimedia Australia.


Supporting: Casliber, Courcelles, David Fuchs, Hersfold, Jclemens, Kirill Lokshin, Newyorkbrad, PhilKnight, Risker, Roger Davies, SirFozzie.
Not voting/Inactive: AGK, SilkTork, Xeno

For the Arbitration Committee, Risker (talk) 02:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth closed

An arbitration case involving the article Perth has been closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

  1. JHunterJ is advised to respond calmly and courteously to queries regarding Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions.
  2. Deacon of Pndapetzim is admonished for use of administrative tools while involved, and for reversing another administrator's legitimate administrative action without first entering into discussion.
  3. Kwamikagami is desysopped for use of administrative tools while involved in an editing dispute, and for reinstating a reverted administrative action without clear discussion leading to a consensus decision. He may regain the admin toolkit through a fresh request for adminship.
  4. Gnangarra is admonished for use of administrative tools while involved in an editing dispute, and for reinstating a reverted administrative action without clear discussion leading to a consensus decision.

For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 14:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Proposed motion on annotating changed usernames in arbitration decisions

A motion on annotating changed usernames in arbitration decisions has been proposed. Editors may comment in the general discussion section.

For the Arbitration Committee --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 12:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun Gong 2 closed

An arbitration case regarding Falun Gong has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

  1. Homunculus is banned from editing and/or discussing topics related to the Falun Gong movement and/or the persecution thereof, broadly construed, across all namespaces, for a period of one year.
  2. Ohconfucius is indefinitely banned from editing and/or discussing topics related to the Falun Gong movement and/or the persecution thereof, broadly construed, across all namespaces.
  3. At the discretion of any uninvolved administrator, editors may be placed on mandated external review for all articles relating to the Falun Gong movement and/or the persecution thereof, broadly construed. Editors on mandated external review must observe the following restrictions on editing within the designated subject area:
    1. Any major edit (defined as any edit that goes beyond simple and uncontroversial spelling, grammatical, and/or stylistic corrections to article content) must be proposed on the article's talk page. This proposal must be discussed by interested editors until a consensus to make the edit is formed.
    2. Once consensus has been reached in support of the edit, the proposal must be reviewed by an uninvolved editor for neutrality and verifiability of the information presented.
    3. When approval is received from the uninvolved editor, the editor subject to mandated external review may make the edit to the article. Violations of these restrictions may be reported to Arbitration Enforcement.
  4. Upon the expiry of the applicable ban, Homunculus is subject to mandated external review as outlined in remedy 4, with respect to articles relating to the Falun Gong movement and/or the persecution thereof, broadly construed.
  5. Should the applicable ban be lifted, Ohconfucius is subject to mandated external review as outlined in remedy 4, with respect to articles relating to the Falun Gong movement and/or the persecution thereof, broadly construed.
  6. Colipon is subject to mandated external review as outlined in remedy 4, with respect to articles relating to the Falun Gong movement and/or the persecution thereof, broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 14:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ closed

An arbitration case regarding User:Fæ has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

  1. Fæ is admonished for making personal attacks and making ad hominem attacks on others based on perceived affiliation.
  2. Fæ is hereby limited to one account, and expressly denied the option of a fresh WP:CLEANSTART. Should Fæ wish to change the name of the one account he is allowed to use, he must receive prior permission from the Arbitration Committee before editing under any other username. Fæ must provide a list of all accounts they have controlled to the Committee, with any objections to making the accounts publicly listed. The Committee will then advise Fæ of whether they will need to list the objected to account(s) publicly.
  3. As Fæ likely would have had his administrator status revoked as a result of this case, his resignation of tools is considered as "under controversial circumstances", and they cannot get the tools back without first standing for a fresh request for adminship. Should they run for RfA again, they must publicly link to the statement on their user page announcing the accounts they have used previously.
  4. For numerous violations of Wikipedia's norms and policies, Fæ is indefinitely banned from the English Language Wikipedia. He may request reconsideration of the ban six months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.
  5. For creating a page on an external webpage designed to harass another user, Michaeldsuarez is banned indefinitely from the English language Wikipedia. They may appeal this ban one year after its enactment.
  6. Delicious carbuncle is severely admonished for posting another editor's non-disclosed private information on an external website and warned that should they do so again, they will face sanctions, up to and including an indefinite site ban from Wikipedia.

For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 22:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Lord Roem clerk appointment

The Arbitration Committee is pleased to announce that effective immediately, Lord Roem (talk · contribs) has been appointed as a full arbitration clerk. The committee appreciates his assistance as well as the work of the entire clerk team. As usual, editors interested in joining the team as a trainee may volunteer by e-mailing clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org.

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 19:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment that:

The India-Pakistan case is supplemented as follows:

Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 18:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Archived discussion

BASC mailing list

Pursuant to our February 2012 motion, the committee's arbcom-appeals-en mailing list is now operational. All new correspondence relating to appeals should be sent to arbcom-appeals-en@lists.wikimedia.org, and appellants should be directed from today to e-mail the new address instead of the committee's main mailing list.

Several members of the committee are endeavouring to update the community's help and guidance pages with the new e-mail address, but any assistance in updating references (within the context of ban appeals) to "arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org" would be greatly appreciated.

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 21:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment that: The Eastern European mailing list case is supplemented as follows:

The interaction ban placed upon User:Nug and User:Russavia in the Eastern European mailing list case is lifted, effective immediately. The users are reminded of the discretionary sanctions authorized for their area of mutual interest.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 20:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Reminder to administrators concerning "review by ArbCom only" blocks

(Cross-posted from WP:AN)

This is just a general reminder for administrators of a statement that has been posted in the past.

At times, in blocking an editor, an administrator will note that the block "should only be lifted by the Arbitration Committee" or that "any appeal from this block is to ArbCom or BASC only." This notation is appropriate in circumstances when the block is based upon a concern that should not be discussed on-wiki but only in a confidential environment. This could include situations where discussion would reveal or emphasize information whose disclosure could jeopardize an editor's physical or mental well-being, where on-wiki discussion would identify anonymous editors, or where the underlying block reason would be defamatory if the block proved to be unjustified.

In such cases, the blocking administrator should immediately notify the Arbitration Committee mailing list by e-mail of the block and of the reasons for it. This is important so that the arbitrators can evaluate such blocks as needed and will have the background to consider any appeals or if any further actions concerning the blocked editor are required.

If an administrator is unsure whether this type of block is justified, he or she should feel free to e-mail the Arbitration Committee mailing list before blocking.

Thank you.

For the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Copied from the Wikimedia Announcement mailing list with modifications to links, because this proposed program would apply to all administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, arbitrators, OTRS volunteers. Risker (talk) 23:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Many Wikimedians take on key support roles that help ensure that the community’s projects run smoothly and effectively. The Wikimedia Foundation -- under the lead of the Finance Department and the Legal and Community Advocacy Department -- is proposing the Legal Fees Assistance Program. This program is intended to help find qualified lawyers or pay for the legal defense fees of eligible users in specified support roles. The assistance would be available in the unlikely event those users were ever named in a legal complaint as a defendant because of their support roles on any Wikimedia project. The program would apply to all projects and languages.

We have started a request for comment to see what the community thinks of this proposed initiative, and we would like those who are interested to look at the proposed program itself and let us know your thoughts. If you have further questions, we have prepared an FAQ, and we will be available to discuss via the talk pages.

Many thanks,

Geoff
wmf:User:Gbrigham

Geoff Brigham
General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation

Garfield
wmf:User:Gbyrd

Garfield Byrd
Chief of Finance and Administration
Wikimedia Foundation

Note that discussion about this proposal should be at the request for comment on Metawiki. Risker (talk) 23:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding User:EncycloPetey

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case that:

For using his administrator tools while involved (see evidence), the administrator permissions of User:EncycloPetey are revoked. To regain administrator permissions, EncycloPetey must make a successful Request for Adminship (RfA).

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Motions regarding discretionary sanctions and Falun Gong 2

Pursuant to two motions voted on at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, the following actions have been taken:

For the Arbitration Committee,
NW (Talk) 16:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment that:

Remedy 5 (Standard discretionary sanctions) of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles is amended as follows:

The words "and British baronets" are stricken from this remedy. The Committee reserves the right to restore sanctions to this area by motion, should a pattern of editing problems re-emerge. Existing sanctions which were placed prior to this amendment remain in effect (and unmodified) until they expire or are lifted via the normal appeals process.

For the Arbitration Committee, --Guerillero | My Talk 19:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Arbitration motion regarding User:GregJackP

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment that: The Climate change case is supplemented as follows:

The restriction imposed on GregJackP (talk · contribs) in the Climate change case and the supplementary restriction relating to New Religious movements imposed by the Ban Appeals Subcommittee on 17 March 2012 as a condition of unblocking are hereby lifted.

For the Arbitration Committee, --Guerillero | My Talk 22:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment that: The Race and Intelligence case is supplemented as follows:

Banned editors and their sockpuppets have long caused disruption to both the Race and Intelligence topic ("R&I") and editors associated with it.

The Committee notes that the applicable policy provides:

  • banned editors are prohibited from editing pages on Wikipedia;
  • the posts of a banned user may be reverted on sight by any editor;
  • any editor who restores the reverted post/s of a banned editor accepts full responsibility for the restored material.

To reduce disruption, the Committee resolves that no editor may restore any reverted edit made by a banned editor:

  • which was posted within the R&I topic or
  • which relates, directly or indirectly, to either the R&I topic or to any editor associated with the R&I topic.

Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised to enforce the foregoing in respect of any editor restoring any reverted post.

Sanctions may not be imposed for edits made prior to the passing of this motion but warnings may be given for prior activity and should be logged appropriately.

For the Arbitration Committee, --Guerillero | My Talk 23:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2

By a vote of 9-0, the Arbitration Committee has passed the following motion:

Remedy 1.1 of the Sathya Sai Baba 2 arbitration case is suspended for three months. During this period, Andries may edit within this topic area, provided that he carefully abides by all applicable policies. After three months, Andries may request that the topic-ban remedy be vacated permanently.

For the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 21:07, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Proposed motion on "net four votes" rule

A motion on the "net four votes" rule has been proposed. Editors may comment in the Community comments concerning motion section.

For the Arbitration Committee --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 22:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Motion on "net four votes" rule

By a vote of 11-1-1 (support/oppose/abstentions), the Committee has amended its procedures regarding the opening of proceedings. The text of the new rule is as follows:

A request will proceed to arbitration if it meets all of the following criteria:

  1. Its acceptance has been supported by either of (i) four net votes or (ii) an absolute majority of active, non-recused arbitrators;
  2. More than 24 hours have elapsed since the request came to satisfy the above provision; and
  3. More than 48 hours have elapsed since the request was filed.

A proceeding may be opened earlier, waiving provisions 2 and 3 above, if a majority of arbitrators support fast-track opening in their acceptance votes.

Once the Committee has accepted a request, a clerk will create the applicable case pages, and give the proceeding a working title. The title is for ease of identification only and may be changed by the Committee at any time. The Committee will designate one or more arbitrators to draft the case, to ensure it progresses, and to act as designated point of contact for any matters arising.

For the Arbitration Committee --Lord Roem (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement

By a vote of 9-1, the Arbitration Committee has passed the following motion:

Remedy 4 ("Malleus Fatuorum topic banned") of Civility Enforcement is vacated, and replaced with the following:

Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is topic banned from making edits concerning the RFA process anywhere on the English Wikipedia. As an exception, he may ask questions of the candidates and express his own view on a candidate in a specific RFA (in the support, oppose, or neutral sections), but may not engage in any threaded discussions relating to RFA. An uninvolved admin may remove any comments in violation of this remedy, and may enforce it with blocks if necessary.

For the Arbitration Committee, --Lord Roem (talk) 19:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Arbitration motion regarding Iantresman

By a vote of 7-4, the Arbitration Committee has passed the following motion:

The topic ban placed against Iantresman (talk · contribs) as a condition of unblocking in [1] is hereby lifted. In its place, Iantresman is subject to a standard 1RR restriction (no more than one revert per article per 24-hour period) on all articles covering fringe science- and physics-related topics, broadly construed, for six months. This restriction may be enforced by escalating blocks up to and including one month in length, and up to and including indefinite length after the fifth such block. When each block is lifted or expires, the six-month period shall reset. Additionally, the original topic ban shall be reinstated if Iantresman is subjected to an indefinite block as a result of this restriction. The Arbitration Committee should be notified of this situation should it occur.

For the Arbitration Committee, --Lord Roem (talk) 21:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Archived discussion

By a vote of 8-0 in response to a request for clarification, the Arbitration Committee has passed the following motion:

Remedy 13 of the Pseudoscience Case is modified to read "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all articles relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning."

Existing discretionary sanction remedies that this motion will deprecate may be stricken through and marked as redundant in the usual manner. Enforcement should now be sought under Pseudoscience, rather than under previous decisions concerning sub-topics of pseudoscience, but previous or existing sanctions or enforcement actions are not affected by this motion.

For the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 22:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Statement regarding recent leaks from arbcom-l

The Arbitration Committee has recently been made aware that information posted to its arbcom-l mailing list was inappropriately shared outside of the Committee this month. The disclosures involved posts made to the mailing list by arbitrator Jclemens on November 6 and 7 (UTC), and pertained to some of his positions in the coming Arbitration Committee election. These posts were themselves considered by several arbitrators to be inappropriate and contentious, with some viewing them as attempts to intimidate sitting arbitrators from seeking re-election. The unauthorized disclosures were reported to the Committee separately by two non-arbitrator candidates in the current Arbitration Committee elections, and our understanding is that other candidates and other editors have also received correspondence repeating some or all of the information.

Arbitrator Elen of the Roads has confirmed that she shared information, including direct quotes from the mailing list, with two non-arbitrators within 24 hours of Jclemens' original posts. This information was subsequently shared with other parties, including at least some of the current candidates. The Committee was made aware of this on November 13. On polling the arbitrators, Elen of the Roads disclosed that she had released a portion of one email to non-arbitrators, and denied sharing any further emails. She subsequently clarified on 25 November that she had released information from two separate emails, including the full text of one.

In addition, an email written by Jclemens was copied and sent to at least some current candidates on November 19 from a Gmail account. There were certain modifications made to the email that do not match the original or the information shared by Elen of the Roads. All arbitrators have been polled, and all have denied sharing that post with anyone outside of the Committee.

Arbitrators supporting this statement: Casliber, Courcelles, Hersfold, Kirill Lokshin, Risker, Roger Davies, SirFozzie
Arbitrators subsequently supporting: SilkTork, PhilKnight (via list), AGK
Arbitrators not yet voting: None
Arbitrators recused from voting on this statement: All current candidates (Elen of the Roads, Jclemens, Newyorkbrad, David Fuchs)
Arbitrators inactive on voting on this statement: Xeno

For the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Archived discussion

The 2012 Arbitration Committee Election is open

The 2012 Arbitration Committee Election is now open. Users may review the election page to learn more about the election and determine if they are eligible to vote. The election will run from November 27 until December 10.

Voters are encouraged to review the candidate statements prior to voting. Voter are also encouraged to review the candidate guide. Voters can review questions asked of each candidate, which are linked at the bottom of their statement, and participate in discussion regarding the candidates.

Voters can cast their ballot by visiting Special:SecurePoll/vote/259.

Voters can ask questions regarding the election at this page.

For the Electoral Commission. MBisanz talk 00:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Announcement of changes in CheckUser status

Longtime checkuser Luk (talk · contribs) has elected to voluntarily resign checkuser tools due to his current low level of activity.[2] The Arbitration Committee thanks Luk for his extensive participation in various areas of the project over the course of many years, and wishes him well in his future endeavours; we hope that he may return to regular activity in the project in the future.

Former checkuser WilliamH (talk · contribs) has requested the return of checkuser permissions. He resigned his checkuser and oversight permissions earlier this year in relation to a planned extended period of inactivity. The Arbitration Committee has voted to return checkuser permissions to WilliamH.

Supporting: AGK, Casliber, Courcelles, Hersfold, Kirill Lokshin, Newyorkbrad, PhilKnight, Risker, SilkTork, SirFozzie, David Fuchs

Supporting after posting: Jclemens, Roger Davies

Opposed: None

Not voting: Elen of the Roads

Inactive: Xeno

For the Arbitration Committee, Risker (talk) 01:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Temporary approval of checkuser status

So that they may complete their duties as scrutineers of the 2012 Arbitration Committee Elections, the stewards User:Pundit, User:Teles, User:Quentinv57, and User:Mardetanha are authorized to grant themselves checkuser rights on the English Wikipedia. They are authorized to use these rights solely for the purpose of fulfilling their duties as scrutineers. They may retain these rights until the election results are posted and verified; at that time the checkuser rights should be relinquished.

  • Supporting: AGK, Courcelles, Hersfold, Kirill Lokshin, Risker, Roger Davies
  • Supporting after posting: SilkTork, PhilKnight
  • Abstaining: David Fuchs, Elen of the Roads, JClemens, Newyorkbrad
  • Not voting at time of posting: Casliber, SilkTork, SirFozzie
  • Inactive for this motion: Xeno

For the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this statement

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment that:

1) Standard Discretionary sanctions are authorised with immediate effect for all pages relating to Prem Rawat, broadly construed; this supersedes the existing Article Probation remedy.

2) Any current non-expired Article Probation sanctions are hereby vacated and replaced with standard Discretionary Sanctions in the same terms and durations as the vacated sanctions. If appropriate, these may be appealed at Arbitration Enforcement.

3) The Logs of blocks, bans, and restrictions at the Prem Rawat 2 case page is to be merged into the original Prem Rawat log at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat#Logs of blocks, bans, and restrictions, which is to be used for all future recording of warnings and sanctions.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 17:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SchuminWeb

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case that:

The accepted case is hereby suspended pending SchuminWeb's return to editing. SchuminWeb is instructed not to use his administrator tools in any way until the closure of the case; doing so will be grounds for removal of his administrator userrights. Should SchuminWeb decide to resign his administrative tools, the case will be closed and no further action taken. Should SchuminWeb not return to participate in the case within three months of this motion passing, this case will be closed, and the account will be desysopped. If the tools are resigned or removed in either of the circumstances described above, restoration of the tools to SchuminWeb will require a new request for adminship.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 19:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Arbitration motion regarding Jerusalem

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case that:

The community is asked to hold a discussion that will establish a definitive consensus on what will be included in the article Jerusalem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), with a specific emphasis on the lead section and how Jerusalem is described within the current, contested geopolitical reality. As with all decisions about content, the policies on reliable sourcing and neutral point of view must be the most important considerations. The editors who choose to participate in this discussion are asked to form an opinion with an open mind, and to explain their decision clearly. Any editor who disrupts this discussion may be banned from the affected pages by any uninvolved administrator, under the discretionary sanctions already authorised in this topic area. The discussion will be closed by three uninvolved, experienced editors, whose decision about the result of the discussion will be binding for three years from the adoption of this motion.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 22:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Changes to the Arbitration Committee

2013 Arbitration Committee members

With the election concluded and the successful candidates formally appointed, with effect from 00:01 (UTC), 1 January 2013 the Arbitration Committee comprises:


Advanced permissions for 2013 Arbitration Committee members

Advanced permissions are authorised as follows for the newly-elected/re-elected arbitrators with effect from 1 January 2013:


Retiring 2012 Arbitration Committee members and changes to their permissions

The following arbitrators are retiring from the Committee on the expiry of their terms at 23:59 (UTC), 31 December 2012. The Committee is grateful to them for their service to the Committee and to the community and takes this opportunity to thank them for it.

Several retiring arbitrators have indicated they wish to work as functionaries. They will provisionally retain access to CheckUser and Oversight pending an upcoming annual review of the Functionaries team by the Committee. However:

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies talk 22:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Changes to the Audit Subcommittee (AUSC)

The terms of the following arbitrator members of the Audit Subcommittee expire at 23:59 (UTC), 31 December 2012:

The vacated seats will be taken for six-month terms by the following arbitrators with effect from 00:01 (UTC), 1 January 2013:

As a consequence of the election of Salvio giuliano (talk · contribs) to the Arbitration Committee, he has resigned his seat as a Community Member of the Audit Subcommittee with effect from 23:59 (UTC), 31 December 2012. His seat will be filled for the unexpired portion of the term (that is, until 28 February 2013) by MBisanz (talk · contribs), the alternate Community Member, with effect from 00:01 (UTC), 1 January 2013.

The Committee is grateful to the participating arbitrators and to MBisanz for their service.

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies talk 22:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Advanced permission changes

The Committee takes this opportunity to thank Cool Hand Luke and Deskana for their hard work and commitment as functionaries.

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies talk 22:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Archived discussion
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_8&oldid=1190141204"