Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Arbitration​Committee

This noticeboard is for announcements and statements made by the Arbitration Committee. Only members of the Arbitration Committee or the Committee's Clerks may post on this page, but all editors are encouraged to comment on the talk page.

Announcement archives:

• 0 (2008-12 – 2009-01)
• 1 (to 2009-02)
• 2 (to 2009-05)
• 3 (to 2009-06)
• 4 (to 2009-07)
• 5 (to 2009-12)
• 6 (to 2010-12)
• 7 (to 2011-12)
• 8 (to 2012-12)
• 9 (to 2013-12)
• 10 (to 2015-12)
• 11 (to 2018-04)
• 12 (to 2020-08)
• 13 (to 2023-03)
• 14 (to present)

Arthur Rubin case closed

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

• Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs) is desysopped for repeatedly not meeting the community expectations and responsibilities of administrators as outlined in WP:ADMINACCT. He may regain the administrative tools at any time via a successful request for adminship.

For the Arbitration Committee, Mdann52 (talk) 16:35, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 35#Arthur Rubin case closed

Motion: Sexology

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Remedy 4.1 ("Discretionary sanctions") of the Sexology case is rescinded. Any sanctions or other restrictions imposed under this remedy to date shall remain in force unaffected.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Motion: Sexology

Community feedback: Proposal to modify how and where case requests are filed (subpages)

The Arbitration Committee has discussed modifying how case requests are made and would like community feedback before proceeding further with this change.

Current system

Under the current system, to file a case request a user completes a proforma which adds a new section to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. When a case request is accepted and a case opened, parts of the case request are copied and pasted to the main case page and other parts are copied to the talk page of the main case page. If a case request is declined, it is simply removed from the page and a permanent link to the revision immediately prior to its removal is added to the index.

This system has the benefit of keeping requests centralised and that changes to case requests appear on the watchlists of any editor monitoring Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. However, there are also drawbacks to the current system. Chief among them is that it can be extremely difficult to find diffs of comments made in a case request due to the significant number of edits made to that page. This is especially disadvantageous when cases requests are declined and editors need to ask for help in other locations using evidence or examples from the case request. The (necessary) practice of copying sections of case requests to the case pages also has the added drawback of removing the link between the page history and the content of user's edits. Editors are also unable to effectively draft their request before publishing it as as soon as they complete the proforma, it is published to a highly viewed page.

Proposed system

Under the current proposal, case requests will instead be made at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/CASENAME/Request. A proforma will be created, similar to the current one, which will allow editors to create a request on the appropriate subpage. Once the editor is ready with the request, they will transclude their request to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. This is similar to how the RfA process works. I've written this up in more detail at User:Callanecc/sandbox.

This proposal has the benefit of keeping case request page histories simple, where they can be easily accessed. It will be easier for editors who wish to watch a specific case request as they will be able to monitor a specific /Request subpage rather than needing to sort through every edit to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. A related downside is that editors (such as arbitrators and clerks) who wish to monitor each individual case request will need to manually watchlist each new request. A downside is that there will be an increase in subpages of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case and that some requests may be made but not transcluded/filed. A tracking template which categories case requests will be used (see this example) and clerks will monitor case requests which haven't been filed. If they aren't filed after a specified time period (such as a week) they will be deleted.

General

As part of this proposal, there are no plans to modify any of the following:

• how cases are named.
• how new case requests are handled by the Committee.
• the layout of the main case pages.

The Committee realises that editors wish to see changes in this area, but wishes to addresses these issues one at a time.

Thank you, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:20, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Feedback from the community is welcomed at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Community feedback: Proposal to modify how and where case requests are filed (subpages).

Temporary checkuser permission for election scrutineers

The Arbitration Committee resolves by motion, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions, that:

Temporary Checkuser rights are granted to Matiia, RadiX, Shanmugamp7, and (alternate if necessary) Mardetanha for the purpose of their acting as Scrutineers in the 2017 Arbitration Committee election.

For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 16:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Temporary checkuser permission for election scrutineers

Motion: Crosswiki issues

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The Arbitration Committee has considered the request for arbitration titled "Crosswiki issues" and decides as follows:

(A) Whether and how information from Wikidata should be used on English Wikipedia is an ongoing subject of editorial disputes, and is not specifically addressed by current English Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Aspects of these disputes may include disagreements over who should decide whether and when Wikidata content should be included, the standards to be used in making those decisions, and the proper role, if any, of the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) in connection with this issue.

(B) To allow the English Wikipedia community to decide the policy issues involved, the Arbitration Committee recommends that a request for comment (RfC) be opened.

(C) While the RfC is being prepared and it is pending, editors should refrain from taking any steps that might create a fait accompli situation (i.e., systematic Wikidata-related edits on English Wikipedia that would be difficult to reverse without undue effort if the RfC were to decide that a different approach should be used).

(D) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all discussions about the integration of Wikidata on the English Wikipedia for a period of one year from the enactment of this motion, unless ended earlier by the Arbitration Committee.

(E) Editors should abide by high standards of user conduct, including remaining civil and avoiding personal attacks, in the RfC and in all other comments on Wikidata-related issues. Editors who are knowledgeable and/or passionate about the issues are encouraged to participate and share their expertise and opinions, but no individual editor's comments should overwhelm or "bludgeon" the discussion.

(F) The request for an arbitration case is declined at this time, but may be reopened if issues suitable for ArbCom remain following the RfC.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Motion: Crosswiki issues