Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14

2020 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: announcement

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint additional editors to the Checkuser and Oversight teams. The arbitrators overseeing this will be Bradv, KrakatoaKatie, and Xeno.

The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will assist in the vetting process.

This year's timeline is as follows:

  • 7 September to 19 September: Candidates may self-nominate by contacting the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-en-c@wikimedia.org.
  • 20 September to 23 September: The Arbitration Committee and Functionaries will vet the candidates.
  • 24 September to 26 September: The committee will notify candidates going forward for community consultation and create the candidate subpages containing the submitted nomination statements.
  • 27 September to 7 October: Nomination statements will be published and the candidates are invited to answer questions publicly. The community is invited and encouraged to participate.
  • By 14 October: Appointments will be announced.

For the Arbitration Committee, Katietalk 22:58, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 47#2020 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: announcement

Proposed motion for amendment to arbitration procedures: prohibition of multiple roles

The Arbitration Committee is considering a motion to amend its procedures to prohibit sitting arbitrators from serving as members of the Ombuds Commission or the WMF Case Review Committee in accordance with a community RfC. Comments on the motion are welcome at the motion page. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:19, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 47 § Proposed motion for amendment to arbitration procedures: prohibition of multiple roles

Arbitration motion regarding an amendment to arbitration procedures: prohibition of multiple roles

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Based on the outcome of the community discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC: Multiple roles for active arbitrators, the Arbitration Committee procedures are amended by adding a new Section 1.6, providing:

To avoid any potential conflicts of interest, current arbitrators may not serve as members of either the Ombuds Commission or the WMF Case Review Committee while serving as arbitrators.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 16:55, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 47 § Arbitration motion regarding an amendment to arbitration procedures: prohibition of multiple roles

Proposed arbitration motion regarding Abortion 1RR

The Arbitration Committee is considering a motion to formally vacate general 1RR sanctions in the Abortion topic area, leaving the existing standard discretionary sanctions scheme in place. Community statements are welcome at the clarification request. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:39, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 47 § Proposed arbitration motion regarding Abortion 1RR

Temporary change to email address for Oversight

The OTRS system is going to undergo major upgrades starting in a few hours, and lasting 2-3 days. In the interim, to ensure that Oversight is still available to the community, the email address has temporarily been changed to oversight-l@lists.wikimedia.org, which is usually the private, non-archiving mailing list used by oversighters to discuss requests. Additional moderators will be on duty during this time. The email address attached to User:Oversight has been changed over, and people are urged to use that method for making oversight requests. Other pages that contain the email address will also be modified.

On behalf of the Oversight team, Risker (talk) 00:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Noting that the OTRS upgrade has now been completed, and everything is now being returned to normal.
Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 47 § Temporary change to email address for Oversight

Functionary applications closing soon

Applications to join the CheckUser and Oversight teams will close September 19 at 2359 UTC. Those interested should contact the Arbitration Committee by sending a request to arbcom-en-c@wikimedia.org.

Katietalk 13:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 47 § Functionary applications closing soon

Arbitration motion regarding Abortion

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The one-revert restriction on all articles related to abortion, authorized by the community here and modified by the Arbitration Committee in the Abortion arbitration case, is formally taken over by the committee and vacated. Discretionary sanctions remain authorized for all pages related to abortion, broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 47 § Arbitration motion regarding Abortion

2020 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Community consultation phase open

The community consultation portion of the functionary appointment process is now open. Editors may ask up to two (2) questions of each candidate (similar to RFA rules). However, since this is a consultation and not a !vote, please refrain from phrasing comments in a support/oppose/neutral fashion.

The Arbitration Committee invites editors to comment and ask questions until 23:59 UTC on October 7, 2020.

Katietalk 19:06, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 47 § 2020 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Community consultation phase open

Changes to functionary team

At his request by email to the committee, the CheckUser and Oversight permissions of Yunshui are removed. The Arbitration Committee sincerely thanks Yunshui for his long service as a functionary.

Katietalk 14:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 47 § Changes to functionary team

Arbitration motion regarding Portals

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Remedies 1 & 2 of the Portals case are temporarily lifted, only at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BrownHairedGirl 2 and related pages, and only until the conclusion of the RfA process.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 47 § Arbitration motion regarding Portals

2020 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Candidates appointed

The Arbitration Committee is pleased to appoint the following users to the functionary team:

The Committee thanks the community and all of the candidates for helping to bring this process to a successful conclusion.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Katietalk 03:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 47 § 2020 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Candidates appointed

Anti-harassment RfC closed

In a prior case, the Arbitration Committee mandated that a request for comment be held on how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future. This request for comment has now been closed with the following summary:

In this RFC the community was asked to weigh in on 8 topics of concern regarding Wikipedia editors ("editors"), the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom), Trust & Safety (T&S), and the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF). There were common themes presented across some of the questions, so if a related question contains similar themes that will be indicated in parentheses (e.g. "Q1"). Please note that while there may be proposals listed that arose during this discussion, any significant/policy changes to ArbCom must go through the standard processes as described in the Overview.

One of the overarching themes of responses to the questions was that ArbCom will always be under some form of scrutiny or displeasure from certain areas of the community. However, since they were elected to be trusted members of the community, they should do their best knowing that a majority of users supported their term when they were elected (Q1). However, that does not mean they should be entirely absent from ArbCom proceedings (Q6) or jump too quickly to conclusions when it comes to the presumption of innocence (Q5).

Q1, on the matter of private evidence impacting sanctions
ArbCom, by its very nature, will occasionally have cases that involve private evidence - be it email correspondence or links to off-wiki websites - that cannot be publicly displayed in the public-facing case evidence. This private evidence is of most concern when it is the sole (or majority) reason for a case being opened and/or sanctions being filed; multiple examples were given where the results of a case were given without one being formally opened on-wiki, or where supposedly "private" information was actually present in diffs on-wiki the entire time.
While many agreed that private evidence should stay private, there were a few main suggestions regarding how ArbCom should deal with private information:
  • ArbCom should disclose if/when private information is being used to inform the case
  • ArbCom should "categorise" any private evidence so interested parties would know the provenance of said information
  • ArbCom should open a public case report, even if the evidence is 100% private, so that editors are aware that a discussion is taking place
  • ArbCom should only use private information when absolutely necessary - if sanctions and/or findings of fact can be based on public/on-wiki evidence, then that should be prioritised (Q2)
Q2, on fear of retaliation
To summarize multiple editors' opinions in this section, "there is no easy solution" to the issue of retaliation as a result of harassment and subsequent case filing. That being said, many of the editors agreed that if the information is public then the case should be handled publicly and not behind closed doors (Q1). Additionally, admins should be more willing to do what is necessarily “lower down” in places like ANI, and bump cases to ArbCom after these interventions are shown to be ineffective (Q7). While there was a suggestion for some form of intermediate location for cases to be handled between ANI and ArbCom, there was no significant agreement on what that should look like; among the ideas were bringing back RFC/U, having some form of formal mediation process between the users (Q8), or having the functionaries act as some form of private investigators vetting private information before it reaches ArbCom.
One supported suggestion was to allow third-party filings to ArbCom in an effort to minimize retaliation on the harassed/concerned editor.
Q3, on responding to allegations
This question follows on rather heavily from Q2, but focused more on the accused rather than the complainant. Many editors agreed that evidence should not be kept secret from the accused, except when it comes down to the safety of the complainant; if there are specific threats and/or information that could be used in retaliation, T&S should be contacted first (Q8). If there is private information, the complainant should be asked what information they would be willing to release publicly.
While the idea that "innocent until proven guilty" (Q5) was used a lot, significantly more people indicated that we (Wikipedia or ArbCom) are not a legal system, and so that should not be assumed; principles, not any specific rule or formulae should be used in relation to the accused. However, it was felt that there is an imbalance between accuser and accused, and that mediation (Q2, Q8) may be helpful to level that imbalance.
Q4, on unsubstantiated claims
This question had a fairly straight-forward consensus; all editors should be treated with respect and politeness, but there is nothing either the community or ArbCom can do to interrupt the "unpleasant dynamic" of unsubstantiated complaints and filings. A certain amount of "tough skin" is needed to edit Wikipedia, but ArbCom should not be used as therapy.
Q5, on plausible deniability
As mentioned in Q3, there is no "right" to a presumption of innocence. That being said, there was expressed a concern that there should not be any sanction unless there is a clear violation of policy; off-wiki links with no verification should be treated carefully. As every case is different, it is difficult if not impossible to write "rules" around this issue; ArbCom should use common sense and deal with limited available evidence on a case-by-case basis
Q6, on the arbitration environment
There was a fairly consistent response to this question advocating for more/better patrolling of ArbCom proceedings, in particular by the clerks. This includes word limits, lack of diffs (especially when accusations are made), and civility/arguing concerns; clerks should also be doing a better job of communicating with those who have "broken" the rules to get clarifications and/or indicate that their edits were removed for technical/procedural reasons rather than any sort of "point of view" suppression.
One supported proposal was to have ArbCom cases written in "c2:DocumentMode", where a case is presented more like an article (with clerks summarizing and updating a single document) and less like a half-threaded discussion between members (which can become heated/unproductive)
Q7, on unblockables
Much like Q2, there is no clear definition or easy solution to "unblockables"; everyone is cantankerous at some point, and we should all be treated equally. Opinions were highly variable, including many that felt there are no changes needed or that everything should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, but the following were some of the most prevalent suggestions among the participants:
  • Admonishments and/or final warnings should be much more frequent, and actually enforced
  • Blocks should be handed out more frequently, but only as short-term blocks
  • Users with multiple (but un-sanctioned) cases at ANI, and/or those with lengthy block logs, should be looked at by ArbCom
  • More admin cases should be brought before ArbCom
Q8, on the relationship with T&S
Editors strongly feel that en-wiki issues should be handled "in-house", and only matters that affect the real world (Q2, Q3) should be passed to T&S. A better/improved dialogue between ArbCom and the WMF is also desired, with the Foundation and T&S passing along en-wiki-specific information to ArbCom to handle.
There was a desire from some editors, expressed in this section as well in previous sections, for the WMF to hire/find/create resources and training for mediation and dispute resolution, which would hopefully mitigate some of the most prevalent civility/harassment issues present on Wikipedia.

To reiterate, this close summarizes the opinions and feelings of those who participated, and are not binding; any proposals or suggestions that change policy will still need to go through the formal procedures as outlined in the Overview.

Signed,

Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 02:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 47 § Anti-harassment RfC closed

Temporary checkuser privileges for scrutineers

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

On recommendation of the Electoral Commission, temporary English Wikipedia checkuser privileges are granted to stewards Mardetanha, Martin Urbanec, and Tks4Fish solely for the purpose of their acting as scrutineers in the 2020 Arbitration Committee election.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 20:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 47 § Temporary checkuser privileges for scrutineers

Arbitration motion regarding Horn of Africa

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

This case request is provisionally resolved by motion as follows:

Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes) for a trial period of three months and until further decision of this Committee. After March 1, 2021 (or sooner if there is good reason), any editor may ask that this request be reopened for the purpose of evaluating whether the discretionary sanctions have been effective and should be made permanent or if a full case should be accepted to consider different or additional remedies.

For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:05, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 47 § Arbitration motion regarding Horn of Africa

Arbitration motion regarding Antisemitism in Poland

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Remedy 4b of Antisemitism in Poland ("Volunteer Marek topic-banned") is rescinded.

For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:36, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 47 § Arbitration motion regarding Antisemitism in Poland

2021 Arbitration Committee

The Arbitration Committee welcomes the following new and returning arbitrators following their election by the community. The two-year terms of these arbitrators formally begin on 01 January 2021:

All incoming arbitrators have elected to receive (or retain, where applicable) the CheckUser and Oversight permissions.

We also thank our outgoing colleagues whose terms end on 31 December 2020:

Outgoing arbitrators are eligible to retain the CheckUser and Oversight permissions, remain active on cases accepted before their term ended, and to remain subscribed to the functionaries' and arbitration clerks' mailing lists following their term on the committee. To that effect:

  • Stewards are requested to remove the permission(s) noted from the following outgoing arbitrators after 31 December 2020 at their own request:
    Oversight: Joe Roe
  • Outgoing arbitrators are eligible to remain active on cases opened before their term ended if they wish. Whether or not outgoing arbitrators will remain active on any ongoing case(s) will be noted on the proposed decision talk page of affected case(s).
  • All outgoing arbitrators will remain subscribed to the functionaries' mailing list
  • DGG, Joe Roe, and Mkdw will be unsubscribed from the arbitration clerks' mailing list at their request.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Katietalk 01:56, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 47 § 2021 Arbitration Committee

Motion: The Rambling Man topic ban lifted enacted

A motion regarding The Rambling Man case at Requests for Clarification and Amendment has been enacted after it reached majority support. The motion is as follows:

The Rambling Man topic ban from the Did You Know? process (Remedy 9 in The Rambling Man case) is lifted, subject to a probationary period lasting six months from the date this motion is enacted. During this period, any uninvolved administrator may re-impose the topic ban as an arbitration enforcement action, subject to appeal only to the Arbitration Committee. If the probationary period elapses without incident, the topic ban is to be considered permanently lifted.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 09:38, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 47 § Motion: The Rambling Man topic ban lifted enacted

Luxofluxo unblocked

Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, Luxofluxo (talk · contribs) is unblocked subject to a one-account restriction and a topic ban from European Schools. These restrictions may be appealed on-wiki after 6 months. For the Arbitration Committee, Maxim(talk) 00:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 47 § Luxofluxo unblocked

Tendering resignation (Xeno)

I have very recently accepted an upcoming role with the Foundation to help facilitate the second phase of the meta:Universal Code of Conduct consultations investigating key enforcement questions. To protect the integrity of internal committee deliberations, I am humbly tendering my resignation from the Arbitration Committee.

Strong community governance is paramount to the ongoing health and longevity of our projects. My goal will be to ensure community concerns are clearly communicated and considered by the drafting committee while working to demonstrate that community enforcement mechanisms can adequately handle the additional burdens that may be placed on the Foundation and project volunteers by public policy changes.

I enjoyed working with last year's committee and look forward to serving the community in this more focused role. I hope that you will be willing to share with me any general or specific concerns concerning the Universal Code of Conduct, especially as it relates to enforcement. I will act as a conduit for community ideas, questions, and change requests.

Please feel free to let me know if you have any questions.

–xenotalk 01:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Archived discussion this

Changes to functionary team

At his own request, the Oversight permission of Someguy1221 are removed.

In addition, in accordance with the policy on CheckUser and Oversighter inactivity, the CheckUser rights of Berean Hunter are removed.

The Arbitration Committee sincerely thanks Someguy1221 and Berean Hunter for their service as functionaries.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Katietalk 15:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 47 § Changes to functionary team

Change to the Checkuser team

Following a request to the Committee, the CheckUser permissions of Ivanvector (talk · contribs) have been restored. For the Arbitration Committee, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 47 § Change to the Checkuser team

Motion: American politics 2 (1992 cutoff) enacted

A motion regarding the American politics 2 case has been enacted after it reached majority support following a Request for Amendment. The motion is as follows:

Remedy 1.2 of the American politics 2 case ("Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff)") is retitled "Discretionary sanctions (1992 cutoff)" and amended by replacing the words "post-1932 politics of the United States" with "post-1992 politics of the United States". Any sanctions or other restrictions imposed under the discretionary sanctions authorization to date shall remain in force unaffected.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 22:33, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 47 § Motion: American politics 2 (1992 cutoff) enacted

Flyer22 and WanderingWanda case dismissed

The Committee has received word that Flyer22 Frozen (talk · contribs) has passed away. Accordingly, the currently open case is dismissed. We would like to express our heartfelt condolences to the family of Flyer22.

Passed 9 to 0 on 17:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

For the Arbitration Committee, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 47 § Flyer22 and WanderingWanda case dismissed

Donald1972 unblocked

Following an appeal to the Arbitration Committee, Donald1972 (talk · contribs) has been unblocked, subject to a restriction from editing the Matthias Laurenz Gräff article. Maxim(talk) 01:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 47 § Donald1972 unblocked

Motion: MONGO (alt) enacted

A motion regarding the MONGO case has been enacted after it reached majority support following a Amendment request. The motion is as follows:

Remedy 1 of the MONGO case ("Links to ED") is amended to read, "Links to, and/or content from, Encyclopædia Dramatica may be removed wherever found on Wikipedia, absent explicit consensus for their inclusion."

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 09:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 47 § Motion: MONGO (alt) enacted

Proposed changes to how Workshops in cases are run and used

Several motions have been proposed on the Committee's public motions page relating to Case Workshops. These proposed motions change how Workshops are run and used, including making it optional. These motions will modify the Arbitration Committee's procedures. Editors are welcome and encouraged to make comments in the "Community discussion" sections for each motion. A running total of votes for each motion can be viewed in the implementation notes section. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 20:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Discuss the motions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions § Case Workshops. Discuss this notice at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 47 § Proposed changes to how Workshops in cases are run and used

GeneralNotability appointed trainee clerk

The Arbitration clerks are pleased to welcome GeneralNotability (talk · contribs) to the clerk team as a trainee!

The Arbitration clerk team is often in need of new members, and any editor who would like to join the clerk team is welcome to apply by email to clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 00:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 47 § GeneralNotability appointed trainee clerk

Gender and sexuality standard discretionary sanctions authorized

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

In order to promote consistency and reduce confusion, the arbitration clerks are directed to create a new arbitration case page under the name Gender and sexuality, with the following sole remedy: "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people." For the avoidance of doubt, GamerGate is considered a gender-related dispute or controversy for the purposes of this remedy.

Clause (i) of Remedy 1.1 of the GamerGate case ("Discretionary sanctions") is rescinded. Sanctions previously issued in accordance with Remedy 1.1 of the GamerGate case will from this time on be considered Gender and sexuality sanctions. This motion does not invalidate any action previously taken under the GamerGate discretionary sanctions authorization.

In order to preserve previous clarifications about the scope of these discretionary sanctions:

  1. Gender and sexuality discretionary sanctions apply to any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender.
  2. Gender and sexuality discretionary sanctions apply to any discussion regarding systemic bias faced by female editors or article subjects on Wikipedia, including any discussion involving the Gender Gap Task Force.
  3. Remedy 15 of the Manning naming dispute case ("Discretionary sanctions applicable"), as amended, is rescinded.
  4. The final clause of the February 2019 Manning naming dispute motion (adding an amendment to the Interactions at GGTF case) is rescinded.

The index of topics with an active discretionary sanctions provision will be updated with the new title, but previous references to GamerGate need not be updated. The arbitration enforcement log, however, should be updated for the current year. For prior years, the new name should be noted along with the old one. The arbitration clerks are also directed to update templates and documentation pages with the new name as appropriate. This motion should be recorded on the case pages of the GamerGate case, the new Gender and sexuality case, the Manning naming dispute case, and the Interactions at GGTF case.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 01:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 47 § Gender and sexuality standard discretionary sanctions authorized

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan closed

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

  • Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed.
  • GPinkerton (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • GPinkerton (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles related to Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • Thepharoah17 (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles related to Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • عمرو بن كلثوم (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles related to Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles related to Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • Paradise Chronicle is warned to avoid casting aspersions and repeating similar uncollegial conduct in the future.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 14:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 47 § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan closed

Level 1 desysop of DYKUpdateBot

Under the Level 1 desysopping procedures, the administrator permissions of DYKUpdateBot (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) have been temporarily removed as a suspected compromised account.

Supporting: Barkeep49, Bradv, CaptainEek, Maxim, Worm That Turned

For the Arbitration Committee, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:24, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 47 § Level 1 desysop of DYKUpdateBot

Restoration of privileges to DYKUpdateBot

DYKUpdateBot (talk · contribs) is granted administrative permissions on the English Wikipedia following the securing of its passwords by the operator.

For the Arbitration Committee, – bradv🍁 23:18, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 47 § Restoration of privileges to DYKUpdateBot

Motion: Timetable and case structure enacted

A motion has modified the internal procedures of the Arbitration Committee. The motion was enacted after it reached majority support on the the committee's public motions page. The Arbitration Committee intend to incorporate the analysis of evidence into the evidence phase. The committee also intends to make workshops optional, such as in cases where the conduct of one or two editors is being examined. The section which has been added to the procedures page reads:

Once a case has been accepted, the Arbitration Committee will instruct the clerks on the name, structure, and timetable for a case so they may create the applicable pages. The name 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 be drafting arbitrator(s) for the case, to ensure it progresses, and to act as a designated point of contact for any matters arising.

The standard structure of a case will include the following phases and timetable:

  1. An evidence phase that lasts two weeks from the date of the case pages opening;
  2. A workshop phase, that ends one week after the evidence phase closes;
  3. A proposed decision which is published within one week of the workshop phase closing.

The timetable and structure of the case may be adjusted (e.g. a phase may be extended, closed early, added or removed) by the initiative of the Committee, at the discretion of the drafting arbitrator(s) during the case. Drafting arbitrator(s) shall also have broad authority to set case-specific rules regarding the running of the phases (e.g. enforce threaded discussions, set a word limit for participants in the workshop phase) to enforce the expectation of behavior during a case. Parties to the case may also petition for changes to the timetable and structure for a case.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 00:11, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 47 § Motion: Timetable and case structure enacted

Arbitration motion regarding Kurds and Kurdistan

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The phrase "articles related to" in the topic bans for GPinkerton, Thepharoah17, عمرو بن كلثوم, and Supreme Deliciousness are struck, to clarify that the bans are not limited to article-space.

For the Arbitration Committee, GeneralNotability (talk) 02:16, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 47 § Arbitration motion regarding Kurds and Kurdistan

SethRuebens unblocked

Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, SethRuebens is unblocked subject to a (1) one-account restriction, (2) a ban from directly editing Britannia (TV series), and (3) a requirement to disclose any relevant conflicts of interest. For the Arbitration Committee, Maxim(talk) 19:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 47 § SethRuebens unblocked

J-Man11 unblocked

Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, J-Man11 (talk · contribs) is unblocked subject to a one-account restriction. Maxim(talk) 17:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 47 § J-Man11 unblocked

Motion regarding Tenebrae

Due to a conflict of interest, User:Tenebrae is indefinitely banned from any mainspace edits related to Frank Lovece or Maitland McDonagh, broadly construed. Violations will be enforced by escalating blocks. They may request edits on talkpages. This restriction may be appealed in six months. For the Arbitration Committee, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 47 § Motion regarding Tenebrae

Jessiemay1984 unblocked

Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, Jessiemay1984 (talk · contribs) is unblocked subject to a one-account restriction. Maxim(talk) 15:18, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 47 § Jessiemay1984 unblocked

2021 discretionary sanctions review: community consultation

Editors are invited to provide feedback in the discretionary sanctions community consultation, which is open until April 25, 2021.

This consultation is part of the Arbitration Committee's revision process for the discretionary sanctions procedure, which sets forth a special set of rules that apply in topic areas defined by the Arbitration Committee. The purpose of this revision process is to simplify and clarify the procedure and resolve problems with the current system of discretionary sanctions.

For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 47 § 2021 discretionary sanctions review: community consultation

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS closed

The final decision in the RexxS arbitration case has been made and the case subsequently was closed. The final decision is viewable on the main case page. One remedy was passed as part of the final decision, which is included below:

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 23:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS closed

Universal Code of Conduct open letter

A majority of the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee has signed the open letter from arbitration committees to the Board of Trustees on the Universal Code of Conduct. This follows a months-long drafting process between the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee and the arbitration committees of other projects. For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:33, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 47 § Universal Code of Conduct open letter

Appeals report

The Arbitration Committee will be periodically publishing statistics about private appeals in an effort to increase transparency at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Appeals. The first such report, covering January to March 2021 has been published. For the Arbitration Committee, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 47 § Appeals report

Arbitration motion regarding Carlossuarez46

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The "Carlossuarez46" request for arbitration is accepted. Given that Carlossuarez46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has retired from the English Wikipedia, this case will be opened but suspended for a period of three months, during which time Carlossuarez46 will be temporarily desysopped.

If Carlossuarez46 should return to active editing on the English Wikipedia during this time and request that this case be resumed, the Arbitration Committee shall unsuspend the case by motion and it will proceed through the normal arbitration process. Such a request may be made by email to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org or at the clerks' noticeboard.

If such a request is not made within three months of this motion, this case shall be automatically closed, and Carlossuarez46 shall remain desysopped. Carlossuarez46 may regain the administrative tools at any time only via a successful request for adminship.

For the Arbitration Committee, GeneralNotability (talk) 02:37, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 47 § Arbitration motion regarding Carlossuarez46
The suspended case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Carlossuarez46. For the Arbitration Committee, GeneralNotability (talk) 00:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Motion regarding retaining personal identifying information

The Arbitration Committee has passed the following motion:

Information disclosed to the Arbitration Committee should be retained no longer than necessary. In order to further this goal, the committee will, beginning in April of each year, examine the information stored on the Arbitration Committee wiki. In general, information is considered no longer necessary if the user has not edited under any account for a significant number of years or if the reason for the private information to be held has passed. In these cases, the information should be removed from the relevant page, or the page deleted. It is noted that some information is retained for the purposes of stopping sockpuppetry and, where possible, this should be stored at the checkuser wiki and that technical limitations of wiki software would potentially allow information to be accessed again in the future.

For the Arbitration Committee, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § Motion regarding retaining personal identifying information

Arbitration motion regarding Antisemitism in Poland

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Remedy 5 of the Antisemitism in Poland case ("Article sourcing expectations") is amended to read as follows: The Arbitration Committee advises that administrators may impose "reliable-source consensus required" as a discretionary sanction on all articles on the topic of Polish history during World War II (1933-45), including the Holocaust in Poland. On articles where "reliable-source consensus required" is in effect, when a source that is not a high quality source (an article in a peer-reviewed scholarly journals, an academically focused book by a reputable publisher, and/or an article published by a reputable institution) is added and subsequently challenged by reversion, no editor may reinstate the source without first obtaining consensus on the talk page of the article in question or consensus about the reliability of the source in a discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.

For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:49, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § Arbitration motion regarding Antisemitism in Poland

Changes to functionary team

At his request by email to the committee, the CheckUser permissions of DGG are removed. The Arbitration Committee sincerely thanks DGG for his service as a CheckUser. Maxim(talk) 13:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § Changes to functionary team

Uhooep unblocked

Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, Uhooep (talk · contribs) is unblocked, subject to a one-account restriction. Maxim(talk) 18:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § Uhooep unblocked

COVID-19 discretionary sanctions authorised

The Arbitration Committee has authorised standard discretionary sanctions for the area of COVID-19 which supersede the community-authorised general sanctions for the same topic area by motion following a case request. The motion is as follows:

The case request is accepted under the title COVID-19 and resolved by motion with the following remedy:

Discretionary sanctions

(i) The community COVID-19 general sanctions are hereby rescinded and are replaced by standard discretionary sanctions, which are authorized for all edits about, and all articles related to, COVID-19, broadly construed.

(ii) All sanctions in force when this remedy is enacted are endorsed and will become standard discretionary sanctions governed by the standard procedure from the moment of enactment.

(iii) Notifications issued under COVID-19 general sanctions become alerts for twelve months from their date of issue, then expire.

(iv) All existing and past sanctions and restrictions placed under COVID-19 general sanctions will be transcribed by the arbitration clerks in the arbitration enforcement log.

(v) Any requests for enforcement that may be open when this remedy is enacted shall proceed, but any remedy that is enacted should be enacted as a discretionary sanction.

(vi) Administrators who have enforced the COVID-19 general sanctions are thanked for their work and asked to continue providing administrative assistance enforcing discretionary sanctions and at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 23:57, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § COVID-19 discretionary sanctions authorised

Ritchie333 and Praxidicae interaction ban modified

Following a now closed amendment request, the Arbitration Committee resolved by motion that:

In the interest of furthering discussion around the UCOC, admin sanctions, and other such reforms, the interaction ban between Praxidicae and Ritchie333 is amended after the last sentence to add Parties may discuss the existence of the ban, and examine its implications, but remain forbidden from discussing each other and interacting with each other.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 20:10, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § Ritchie333 and Praxidicae interaction ban modified

TheresNoTime permissions restored

Following a request to the committee, the CheckUser and Oversight permissions of TheresNoTime (talk · contribs) are restored.

Supporting: Barkeep49, Beeblebrox, Bradv, CaptainEek, Casliber, KrakatoaKatie, L235, Primefac, SoWhy, Worm That Turned

For the Arbitration Committee,

– bradv🍁 02:38, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § TheresNoTime permissions restored

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Carlossuarez46 closed

An arbitration case regarding User:Carlossuarez46 has now closed. The Arbitration Committee resolved by motion in April to suspend the case, which could be unsuspended if Carlossuarez46 requested it within three months. Because Carlossuarez46 has not requested that the case be unsuspended, the case has been automatically closed. The motion which has now closed the case is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Carlossuarez46#Motion: Suspended case (3 months).

For the Arbitration Committee, GeneralNotability (talk) 03:10, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Carlossuarez46 closed

Remedy 5 of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case clarified

The committee has clarified by motion Remedy 5 of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case following an amendment request. The motion is as follows:

The phrase "other internal project discussions", as used in Remedy 5 of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case ("ARBPIA General Sanctions"), shall be construed to include requested moves.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 19:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § Remedy 5 of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case clarified

CodeLyoko reappointed as a trainee clerk

The arbitration clerks are pleased to welcome back CodeLyoko (talk · contribs) after a period of inactivity to the clerk team as a trainee!

The arbitration clerk team is often in need of new members, and any editor who would like to join the clerk team is welcome to apply by email to clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 11:03, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § CodeLyoko reappointed as a trainee clerk

changes to Oversight team

In accordance with the Committee's standing procedure on functionary inactivity, the Oversight permissions of ST47 (talk · contribs) are removed. The Committee extends its appreciation for ST47's service as an Oversighter.

Katietalk 19:45, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § changes to Oversight team

Firefly appointed trainee clerk

The Arbitration clerks are pleased to welcome Firefly (talk · contribs) to the clerk team as a trainee!

The Arbitration clerk team is often in need of new members, and any editor who would like to join the clerk team is welcome to apply by email to clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 22:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § Firefly appointed trainee clerk

Statement regarding Flyer22 Frozen

Earlier this year, the Arbitration Committee dismissed a case involving Flyer22 Frozen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) after receiving a credible report that that editor had passed away. Members of the community expressed condolences and Flyer22 was added to the "Deceased Wikipedians" page [1].

The Arbitration Committee subsequently received off-wiki correspondence alleging that Flyer22 had not actually died and explaining the senders' basis for reaching that conclusion. The Committee takes this issue seriously and looked into it as thoroughly as we could within the bounds of appropriateness.

We must ask editors to bear in mind that while the Arbitration Committee can be privy to some evidence that cannot be shared on-wiki, such as checkuser findings, the scope of our responsibilities and authority is still limited. We are a committee of volunteers who are elected to help solve disputes arising on a website. Our authority and responsibilities do not include conducting forensic investigations off of the site. For example, in connection with the current allegations, someone sent us documentation purporting to reveal the identity of Flyer22, and suggested that we investigate, perhaps even reaching out to that person and members of their family to determine whether and when the identified person had passed away. It would not be appropriate for the Arbitration Committee or anyone else to do these things, and we have not and will not do so.

It is, however, possible to take action with regard to the SPI relating to accounts that have edited in recent months. The following have been blocked following traditional SPI investigations:

The editing by these accounts is improper independent of the circumstances concerning Flyer22. Accordingly, these accounts have been blocked. The person or persons behind these accounts is required to cease editing. Any concerns about further accounts may be posted to an as-yet-to-be created SPI page that the committee should have posted shortly, or e-mailed to the Arbitration Committee.

This is a difficult situation for many Wikipedians. Some key facts still are not known, and behind every username there is a real person. We ask that everyone please treat it with sensitivity, proportionality, and decorum.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Beeblebrox (talk) 23:04, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § Statement regarding Flyer22 Frozen

2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: announcement

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint additional editors to the Checkuser and Oversight teams. The arbitrators overseeing this will be Bradv and KrakatoaKatie. The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will assist in the vetting process. This year's timeline is as follows:

  • 6 September to 18 September: Candidates may self-nominate by contacting the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-en-c@wikimedia.org.
  • 19 September to 23 September: The Arbitration Committee and Functionaries will vet the candidates.
  • 24 September to 26 September: The committee will notify candidates going forward for community consultation and create the candidate subpages containing the submitted nomination statements.
  • 27 September to 6 October: Nomination statements will be published and the candidates are invited to answer questions publicly. The community is invited and encouraged to participate.
  • By 17 October: Appointments will be announced.

For the Arbitration Committee, Katietalk 11:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: announcement

Changes to functionary team

Following a request to the committee, the Oversight permissions of Callanecc are restored.

Katietalk 13:09, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § Changes to functionary team

Motion to standardize Extended Confirmed restrictions

A motion has been made to amend the Arbitration Committee's procedures to standardize the extended confirmed restriction. Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Extended confirmed restriction omnibus motion for more information or if you wish to comment. For the Arbitration Committee, Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide 03:06, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § Motion to standardize Extended Confirmed restrictions

Changes to functionary team (2)

At his request by email to the committee, the Oversight permissions of Mkdw are removed. The Arbitration Committee sincerely thanks Mkdw for his service as an Oversighter. Maxim(talk) 13:36, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § Changes to functionary team (2)

Extended confirmed restriction omnibus motion

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

In order to standardize the extended confirmed restriction, the following subsection is added to the "Enforcement" section of the Arbitration Committee's procedures:

Extended confirmed restriction

The Committee may apply the "extended confirmed restriction" to specified topic areas. When such a restriction is in effect in a topic area, only extended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area, subject to the following provisions:

A. The restriction applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area, broadly construed, with the following exceptions:
1. Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Should disruption occur on "Talk:" pages, administrators may take enforcement actions described in "B" or "C" below. However, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even within the "Talk:" namespace. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs, and noticeboard discussions.
2. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.
B. If a page (other than a "Talk:" page) mostly or entirely relates to the topic area, broadly construed, this restriction is preferably enforced through extended confirmed protection, though this is not required.
C. On any page where the restriction is not enforced through extended confirmed protection, this restriction may be enforced by other methods, including page protection, reverts, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters.
D. Reverts made solely to enforce this restriction are not considered edit warring.

Remedy 7 of the Antisemitism in Poland case ("500/30 restriction") is retitled "Extended confirmed restriction" and amended to read as follows:

Extended confirmed restriction

7) The extended confirmed restriction is imposed on edits and pages related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland, broadly construed. Standard discretionary sanctions as authorized by the Eastern Europe arbitration case remain in effect for this topic area.

Remedy 5 of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case (ARBPIA General Sanctions) is amended by replacing item B with the following:

Extended confirmed restriction: The extended confirmed restriction is imposed on the area of conflict.

For the Arbitration Committee, SQLQuery Me! 10:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § Extended confirmed restriction omnibus motion

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian politics closed

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

  • (i) The community-authorized general sanctions for post-1978 Iranian politics are hereby superseded and replaced by standard discretionary sanctions, which are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.
    (ii) All sanctions in force when this remedy is enacted are endorsed and will become standard discretionary sanctions governed by the standard procedure from the moment of enactment.
    (iii) Notifications issued under Post-1978 Iranian politics general sanctions become alerts for twelve months from their date of issue, then expire.
    (iv) All existing and past sanctions and restrictions placed under post-1978 Iranian politics general sanctions will be transcribed by the arbitration clerks in the arbitration enforcement log.
    (v) Any requests for enforcement that may be open when this remedy is enacted shall proceed, but any remedy that is enacted should be enacted as a discretionary sanction.
    (vi) Administrators who have enforced the Post-1978 Iranian politics general sanctions are thanked for their work and asked to continue providing administrative assistance enforcing discretionary sanctions and at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
  • Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to take appropriate actions (pursuant to the discretionary sanctions authorization) to facilitate consensus through moderation of any Requests for Comments (RfC). These actions may include, but are not limited to:
    • moratoriums up to one year on initiating RfCs on a particular dispute,
    • word and/or diff limits on all RfC participants,
    • bans on editors who have disrupted consensus-finding from participation in a particular RfC, and
    • sectioned commenting rules in RfCs.
  • BarcrMac (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • Idealigic (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • Mhhossein (talk · contribs) is warned against a battleground mentality and further incivility.
  • Mhhossein (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from People's Mujahedin of Iran (MEK), broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • Stefka Bulgaria (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • Vice regent (talk · contribs) is warned against a battleground mentality.

For the Arbitration Committee, GeneralNotability (talk) 16:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian politics closed

MJL appointed trainee clerk

The Arbitration clerks are pleased to welcome MJL (talk · contribs) to the clerk team as a trainee!

The Arbitration clerk team is often in need of new members, and any editor who would like to join the clerk team is welcome to apply by email to clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 22:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § MJL appointed trainee clerk

2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Community consultation phase open

The community consultation portion of the functionary appointment process is now open. Editors may ask up to two (2) questions of each candidate (similar to RFA rules). However, since this is a consultation and not a !vote, please refrain from phrasing comments in a support/oppose/neutral fashion.

The Arbitration Committee invites editors to comment and ask questions until 23:59 UTC on October 6, 2020.

Primefac (talk) 00:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Community consultation phase open

2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: candidates appointed

The Arbitration Committee is pleased to welcome the following editors to the functionary team:

The committee thanks all members of the community who participated and helped bring this process to a successful conclusion.

Katietalk 04:44, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: candidates appointed

Eostrix Blocked

The Arbitration Committee has determined through private evidence, including evidence from the checkuser tool, that Eostrix (talk · contribs) (a current RfA candidate) is a sockpuppet of Icewhiz (talk · contribs). Accordingly, the Committee has resolved that Eostrix be indefinitely blocked. For the Arbitration Committee, Beeblebrox (talk) 01:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § Eostrix Blocked

GeneralNotability promoted to full clerk

The Arbitration Committee is pleased to announce that GeneralNotability (talk · contribs) has been appointed a full clerk, effective immediately, concluding his successful traineeship.

The arbitration clerk team is often in need of new members, and any editor who would like to join the clerk team is welcome to apply by e-mail to clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org.

For the Arbitration Committee, Maxim(talk) 13:02, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § GeneralNotability promoted to full clerk

Temporary checkuser privileges for scrutineers

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

On recommendation of the Electoral Commission, temporary English Wikipedia checkuser privileges are granted to stewards Sotiale, Martin Urbanec, and Tks4Fish solely for the purpose of their acting as scrutineers in the 2021 Arbitration Committee election.

For the Arbitration Committee, Maxim(talk) 17:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § Temporary checkuser privileges for scrutineers

Level 1 desysop of Epbr123

Under the Level 1 desysopping procedures, the administrator permissions of Epbr123 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) have been temporarily removed as a suspected compromised account.

Supporting: CaptainEek, Casliber, Maxim

For the Arbitration Committee, Maxim(talk) 02:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § Level 1 desysop of Epbr123

Arbitration motion regarding Horn of Africa

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion to amend the case Horn of Africa as follows:

The already authorized standard discretionary sanctions for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes), broadly construed, are made permanent. The committee declines to open a full case. Any further amendments or requests for clarification should be made following the normal method.

For the Arbitration Committee, firefly ( t · c ) 16:32, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § Arbitration motion regarding Horn of Africa

Épine unblocked

Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, Épine (talk · contribs) is unblocked, subject to a one-account restriction. --BDD (talk) 20:17, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § Épine unblocked

Changes to the Functionaries email list

Following a review of current practices involving email lists, the Arbitration Committee has decided that the functionaries email list (functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org) will no longer be set to accept incoming email aside from list members and WMF staff. For private concerns other than those requiring oversight, please contact the Arbitration Committee directly.

For the Arbitration Committee, Primefac (talk) 13:54, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § Changes to the Functionaries email list

El Sandifer unbanned

The Arbitration Committee has accepted El Sandifer (talk · contribs)'s appeal of her ban imposed by motion of the Arbitration Committee (permalink). The Committee has determined that the ban is no longer necessary, and has accordingly resolved to grant the appeal.

Support: Barkeep49, Beeblebrox, CaptainEek, Casliber, Newyorkbrad, Primefac, SoWhy, Worm That Turned

Oppose: BDD, Bradv, David Fuchs, KrakatoaKatie, L235, Maxim

For the Arbitration Committee, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:17, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § El Sandifer unbanned

2022 Arbitration Committee

The Arbitration Committee welcomes the following new and returning arbitrators following their election by the community. The two-year terms of these arbitrators formally begin on 1 January 2022:

All incoming arbitrators have elected to receive the checkuser and oversight permissions.

We also thank our outgoing colleagues whose terms end on 31 December 2021:

Outgoing arbitrators are eligible to retain the CheckUser and Oversight permissions, remain active on cases accepted before their term ended, and to remain subscribed to the functionaries' and arbitration clerks' mailing lists following their term on the committee. To that effect:

  • Stewards are requested to remove the permission(s) noted from the following outgoing arbitrators after 31 December 2021 at their own request:
    CheckUser: Casliber, David Fuchs, Newyorkbrad, SoWhy
    Oversight: Casliber, David Fuchs, Newyorkbrad, SoWhy
  • Outgoing arbitrators are eligible to remain active on cases opened before their term ended if they wish. Whether or not outgoing arbitrators will remain active on any ongoing case(s) will be noted on the proposed decision talk page of affected case(s).
  • All outgoing arbitrators will remain subscribed to the functionaries' mailing list
  • David Fuchs will be unsubscribed from the arbitration clerks' mailing list at his request.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Maxim(talk) 16:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § 2022 Arbitration Committee

Amortias re-appointed as full clerk

The Arbitration Committee is pleased to announce that Amortias (talk · contribs) will be rejoining the arbitration clerk team as a full clerk. We express our thanks to the clerks for the work they do in ensuring that the arbitration process operates smoothly. If you are interested in joining the team as a trainee, please read through the information page and send an email to clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org.

For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:08, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § Amortias re-appointed as full clerk

Arbitration motion regarding Scientology

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion to amend the case Scientology as follows:

Remedy 2 of the Scientology arbitration case, "Church of Scientology IP addresses blocked", is hereby rescinded. Any remaining blocks currently in force may be lifted or appealed according to the unblocking policy.

For the Arbitration Committee, firefly ( t · c ) 18:55, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § Arbitration motion regarding Scientology

Arbitration motion regarding American politics 2

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Atsme's topic ban from post-WWII Anti fascism in the United States is provisionally lifted for a period of twelve months. If at any point before 1 January 2023 an uninvolved administrator feels that Atsme is not able to edit productively in this area, they may re-impose the topic ban.

For the Arbitration Committee, –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 21:28, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § Arbitration motion regarding American politics 2

Arbitration motions from the declined case request Warsaw concentration camp

The Arbitration Committee has declined the case request Warsaw concentration camp and has resolved through several motions that:

This request for arbitration is resolved as follows:
  1. The request for an arbitration case to resolve the issue of a potential conflict of interest as originally posted is declined, as the community has resolved the issue presented.
  2. The request for an arbitration case as subsequently revised to address misconduct in the topic area of the Holocaust in Poland is declined at this time, based on the terms of this motion.
  3. Editors are reminded that standard discretionary sanctions and special sourcing restrictions remain in effect for articles relating to the Holocaust in Poland. These provisions are to be interpreted and enforced with the goal of ensuring that Wikipedia's coverage of this important and sensitive topic is fairly and accurately presented based on the most reliable sources available, while maintaining a reasonable degree of decorum and collaboration among editors.
  4. Requests to enforce the discretionary sanctions or sourcing restrictions should be posted to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard (AE) for evaluation by uninvolved administrators. The sanctions and restrictions should be interpreted and enforced so as to promote our content-quality and user-conduct expectations. Enforcement discussions should focus on the accuracy of our articles and the well-being of our editors, not on procedural technicalities beyond those necessary to ensure fairness.
    As an alternative to AE, editors may make enforcement requests directly to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA. The committee will consider presented evidence and statements before deciding by motion what, if any, actions are necessary to enforce proper conduct in the topic area.
  5. The community, particularly including any editors with subject-matter knowledge who have not previously been active in this topic-area, is urged to carefully review the accuracy and sourcing of our articles on the Holocaust in Poland and related topics, with the goal of identifying and addressing any deficiencies that might exist, and implementing any other improvements that may be possible. Appropriate user-conduct is required during all discussions that are part of any such review.
  6. Editors in good standing who have withdrawn from editing in this topic-area, who are prepared to abide by all the relevant policies and expectations, are invited to return to editing.
  7. Should further alleged misconduct affecting our articles on the Holocaust in Poland take place, or be discovered, a new request for arbitration may be filed. The request for arbitration, and any responses to it, should identify specific instances of misconduct that is affecting the content of or editing environment on these articles. Reasonable extensions of the word limits, where warranted, will be afforded to allow the presentation of relevant and significant evidence. In addition to the usual processes, a consensus of administrators at AE may refer complex or intractable issues to the Arbitration Committee for resolution at ARCA, at which point the committee may resolve the request by motion or open a case to examine the issue. In the event that an arbitration case is opened, the Committee will give serious consideration to requests to hold part or all of the case in camera.
  8. Editors are reminded that Wikipedia discussions are about forming a consensus, not convincing everyone to agree. Discussion is an important part of how consensus is reached on Wikipedia and everyone should have the opportunity to express their views, within reasonable limits. It may be taken as disruptive to attempt stalling out the consensus-building process by repeatedly stating an opinion or with repeated demands for re-explanation of that which has already been clearly explained.
  9. Editors participating in Arbitration Committee proceedings are reminded that they are subject to high standards of behavior. Editors are required to act with appropriate decorum. While grievances must often be aired during proceedings, editors are expected to air them without being incivil or engaging in personal attacks, and to respond calmly to allegations. Accusations of misbehavior must be supported by clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Statements containing private or sensitive information should be submitted to the Arbitration Committee by email and are subject to the arbitration policy's provisions on admissibility of evidence.

Jehochman (talk · contribs) is admonished for behavior during this case request which fell short of the expectations for administrators and for the behavior of all editors participating in an Arbitration Committee proceeding. Specifically, Jehochman proxied for a globally banned harasser by posting on their behalf a denial of harassment and unsupported claims of collusion among editors in this topic area [2] and for casting aspersions at another editor for userboxes shown on their userpage [3]. The Arbitration Committee acknowledges that Jehochman has since apologized for these comments and has since been desysopped at his request. [4]

MyMoloboaccount (talk · contribs) is warned against casting aspersions towards other editors [5]. This warning should be considered as a sanction for the purposes of awareness in the topic areas of Eastern Europe and the Holocaust in Poland.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 14:46, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § Arbitration motions from the declined case request Warsaw concentration camp

Arbitration motion regarding Crouch, Swale

Following an amendment request, the committee has resolved by motion that:

Crouch, Swale's editing restrictions, previously modified in 2019, are modified as follows: He may create at most one new mainspace article per month through any process. He is not required to use the Articles for Creation process, and is not permitted to use it to exceed this rate. This restriction includes the creation of new content at a title that is a redirect or disambiguation page. This supersedes the second bullet point of the 2019 motion. Additionally, he may move userspace or draftspace pages to mainspace for the purpose of creating his one article per month, as an exception to his page move restriction. His restriction on frequency of appeals remains in force.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 23:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § Arbitration motion regarding Crouch, Swale

Discretionary sanctions topic area changes

In a process that began last year with WP:DS2021, the Committee is evaluating Discretionary Sanctions (DS) in order to improve it. A larger package of reforms is slated for sometime this year. From the work done so far, it became clear a number of areas may no longer need DS or that some DS areas may be overly broad. This discussion is intended to focus on those areas. Community feedback is invited and welcome at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions § Discretionary sanctions topic area changes

Miki Filigranski unblocked

Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, Miki Filigranski (talk · contribs) is unblocked, subject to a one-account restriction and one-revert rule. --BDD (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § Miki Filigranski unblocked

Changes to functionary team

In accordance with the policy on CheckUser and Oversighter inactivity, the CheckUser and Oversight rights of Callanecc are removed.

The Arbitration Committee sincerely thanks Callanecc for his service as a functionary.

For the Arbitration Committee, Maxim(talk) 15:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § Changes to functionary team

General comment regarding appeals to the Arbitration Committee

This announcement is a general comment from the Arbitration Committee concerning situations in which ArbCom grants an appeal from a sanction. While the vast majority of appeals that ArbCom receives are of Checkuser blocks, it also reviews sanctions imposed by ArbCom itself, Oversight blocks, and situations involving matters unsuitable for public discussion.

By granting an appeal, ArbCom is expressing that, based on the information available to it, it believes that the problems that led to the sanction are unlikely to recur. Granting an appeal does not necessarily mean that the initial decision that resulted in the sanction was incorrect at the time, unless the appeal announcement specifically says so. The rationales for granting appeals are, in general, the same as those arising from on-wiki process, but for reasons of privacy or jurisdiction, the appeal is heard by ArbCom.

An editor whose appeal was accepted by ArbCom remains subject to all applicable policies, guidelines, and community expectations, the same as any other editor. If there is new misconduct after the successful appeal, the editor may be (re)sanctioned no differently than any other editor. It is not necessary for sanctioning administrators to consult ArbCom in such cases, but if a question or concern arises, they are free to do so.

ArbCom will continue to consult with the community, or to have appeals posted for review by the community, in appropriate cases. Such consultations are of particular use where community members are likely to have relevant information or experience that may be unavailable to the arbitrators.

For the arbitration committee, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § General comment regarding appeals to the Arbitration Committee

Arbitration motions regarding discretionary sanctions topics

As part of its ongoing discretionary sanctions modernization effort, the Arbitration Committee has resolved through a series of motions that:

Remedy 7 of the Senkaku Islands case ("Discretionary sanctions") is rescinded. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the discretionary sanctions authorization remain in force and are governed by the discretionary sanctions procedure.

— Motion regarding "Senkaku islands"

The first sentence of the January 2013 motion in the Waldorf education case (authorizing discretionary sanctions) is stricken. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the discretionary sanctions authorization remain in force and are governed by the discretionary sanctions procedure.

— Motion regarding "Waldorf education"

The first sentence of the January 2014 motion in the Ancient Egyptian race controversy case (authorizing discretionary sanctions) is stricken. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the discretionary sanctions authorization remain in force and are governed by the discretionary sanctions procedure.

— Motion regarding "Ancient Egyptian race controversy"

Remedy 4.1 of the Scientology case ("Discretionary sanctions authorised") is rescinded. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the discretionary sanctions authorization remain in force and are governed by the discretionary sanctions procedure.

— Motion regarding "Scientology"

The January 2015 motion in the Landmark Worldwide case (authorizing discretionary sanctions) is rescinded. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the discretionary sanctions authorization remain in force and are governed by the discretionary sanctions procedure.

— Motion regarding "Landmark worldwide"
  1. Remedy 5 of the Neuro-linguistic programming case ("Mentorship") is rescinded.
  2. Remedy 2.1 of the Occupation of Latvia case ("Article probation") is rescinded.
  3. Remedy 2 of the Shiloh case ("Article-related Probation") is rescinded.
  4. Remedy 14.3 of the Obama articles case ("Articles semi-protected") is rescinded.
  5. The Arbitration Committee clarifies that the article probation referenced in Finding of Fact 3 of the Obama articles case ("Articles placed on probation") and subject to review in Remedy 1.1 of the Obama articles case ("Article probation review") is no longer in effect pursuant to a March 2015 community discussion, but related articles may be covered by remedies in the American politics 2 case.

Any actions previously taken in accordance with the foregoing remedies remain in force, and appeals and modifications therefrom shall be governed by the standard procedure for arbitration enforcement appeals.

— Motion regarding "Article probation revocation"

Remedy 7 of the Transcendental Meditation movement case ("Standard discretionary sanctions") is rescinded. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the discretionary sanctions authorization remain in force and are governed by the discretionary sanctions procedure.

— Motion regarding "Transcendental Meditation movement"
Remedies 6, 7, and 8 of the Asmahan case (relating to article probation and discretionary sanctions) are rescinded.
Remedy 2 of the Waterboarding case ("General restriction") is rescinded. Where appropriate, the discretionary sanctions authorized in the American politics 2 case may continue to be used.

Any actions previously taken in accordance with the foregoing remedies remain in force, and appeals and modifications therefrom shall be governed by the standard procedure for arbitration enforcement appeals.

— Motion regarding "Obsolete probation-like sanctions"

For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:35, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § Arbitration motions regarding discretionary sanctions topics

Arbitration motion regarding HazelBasil and SquareInARoundHole

For intractable differences of opinions and conduct both on- and off-wiki, the Committee resolves that HazelBasil (talk · contribs) and SquareInARoundHole (talk · contribs) are placed under an indefinite interaction ban, pursuant to the standard exceptions. This also precludes SquareInARoundHole from editing the Ashley Gjøvik article.

In addition, for comments and conduct made both on- and off-wiki, HazelBasil is indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia.

For the Arbitration Committee, Primefac (talk) 19:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § Arbitration motion regarding HazelBasil and SquareInARoundHole

Arbitration motion regarding Timwi

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The "Timwi" request for arbitration is resolved as follows:

The Committee recognizes Timwi's long service, and encourages his continued editing. However, Timwi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is warned that the use of the administrator toolset must conform to the policies set by the community. He should especially take note of WP:ADMINACCT, and remember that the toolset is not to be used to further content or policy disputes. The Committee will consider any further misuse of the toolset within a two-year period to be immediate cause for opening de-sysop proceedings.

For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 22:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § Arbitration motion regarding Timwi

Arbitration motion regarding Jonathunder

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The "Jonathunder" request for arbitration is accepted. This case will be opened but suspended for a period of six months.[note 1]

If Jonathunder (talk · contribs) should return to active editing on the English Wikipedia during this time and request that this case be resumed, the Arbitration Committee shall unsuspend the case by motion and it will proceed through the normal arbitration process. Such a request may be made by email to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org or at the clerks' noticeboard. Jonathunder is temporarily desysopped for the duration of the case.

If such a request is not made within six months of this motion or if Jonathunder resigns his administrative tools, this case shall be automatically closed, and Jonathunder shall be permanently desysopped. If tools are resigned or removed, in the circumstances described above, Jonathunder may regain the administrative tools at any time only via a successful request for adminship.

  1. ^ The case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jonathunder.

For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:38, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § Arbitration motion regarding Jonathunder

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing closed

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

  • Rp2006 (talk · contribs) is warned against a battleground mentality and further incivility.
  • Rp2006 is indefinitely topic banned from edits related to living people associated with or of interest to scientific skepticism, broadly construed. This topic ban may be appealed after six months have elapsed and every six months thereafter.
  • A. C. Santacruz (talk · contribs) is reminded to remain collegial in editing and interacting with others.
  • Roxy the dog (talk · contribs) is warned to remain collegial in editing and interacting with others.
  • Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia (GSoW) is advised that a presence on English Wikipedia, perhaps as its own WikiProject or as a task force of WikiProject Skepticism, will create more transparency and lessen some of the kinds of suspicion and conflict that preceded this case. It could also provide a place for the GSoW to get community feedback about its training which would increase its effectiveness.
  • Editors are reminded that discretionary sanctions for biographies of living people have been authorized since 2014. Editors named in this decision shall be considered aware of these discretionary sanctions under awareness criterion 1.

For the Arbitration Committee, –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 49 § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing closed

Arbitration motion regarding Geschichte

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The "Geschichte" request for arbitration is accepted. This case will be opened but suspended for a period of three months.[note 1]

If Geschichte (talk · contribs) should return to active editing on the English Wikipedia during this time and request that this case be resumed, the Arbitration Committee shall unsuspend the case by motion and it will proceed through the normal arbitration process. Such a request may be made by email to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org or at the clerks' noticeboard. Geschichte is temporarily desysopped for the duration of the case.

If such a request is not made within three months of this motion or if Geschichte resigns his administrative tools, this case shall be automatically closed, and Geschichte shall be permanently desysopped. If tools are resigned or removed, in the circumstances described above, Geschichte may regain the administrative tools at any time only via a successful request for adminship.

  1. ^ The case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Geschichte.

For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 04:57, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 49 § Arbitration motion regarding Geschichte

Arbitration motion regarding Supreme Deliciousness

Following an amendment request, the Arbitration Committee has resolved the following by motion:

Supreme Deliciousness' topic ban from Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed is lifted subject to a probationary period lasting twelve months from the date this motion is enacted. During this period, any uninvolved administrator may re-impose the topic ban as an arbitration enforcement action, subject to appeal only to the Arbitration Committee. If the probationary period elapses without incident, the topic ban is to be considered permanently lifted.

For the Arbitration Committee, GeneralNotability (talk) 16:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 49 § Arbitration motion regarding Supreme Deliciousness

MustafaO unblocked

Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, MustafaO (talk · contribs) is unblocked, subject to a one-account restriction. Primefac (talk) 12:52, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 49 § MustafaO unblocked

Arbitration motion: Opening of proceedings amendment

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The Arbitration Committee procedure on "Opening of proceedings" (Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Opening of proceedings) is amended so the first line reads: A case is eligible to be opened when it meets all of the following criteria

For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 07:55, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 49 § Arbitration motion: Opening of proceedings amendment

Proposed motion to modify the Arbitration Committee Procedures

The Arbitration Committee is voting on a motion to modify the procedures to clarify activity expectations for its clerks.

For the Arbitration Committee, Guerillero Parlez Moi 08:35, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 49 § Proposed motion to modify the Arbitration Committee Procedures

Changes to the functionary team

Following a request to the committee, the CheckUser and Oversight permissions of Ks0stm are restored.

For the Arbitration Committee, Maxim(talk) 19:50, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 49 § Changes to the functionary team

Arbitration motion regarding clerk terms

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The Arbitration Committee procedures is amended to add a new section "Clerks" (level 2) and a subsection entitled "Terms" with the following text:

Trainee clerks will have a term of up to 1 year after their appointment as a trainee to be promoted to full clerk. This term may be extended by the Committee.

Full clerks will be asked to confirm their desire to stay a clerk every 2 years, from the date they were appointed as a full clerk. There are no term limits for full clerks.

For the Arbitration Committee, –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:21, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 49 § Arbitration motion regarding clerk terms

Arbitration motion regarding St Christopher

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Remedy 2 of the St Christopher case ("Single-purpose accounts restrained") is rescinded. Any actions previously taken in accordance with this remedy remain in force.

For the Arbitration Committee, –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 49 § Arbitration motion regarding St Christopher

Arbitration motion regarding Ryulong

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Mythdon's topic ban from editing any page that falls under WikiProject Tokusatsu (including articles), and any discussions relating to those pages, broadly construed, is lifted.

For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:32, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 49 § Arbitration motion regarding Ryulong

Arbitration motion regarding Rachel Marsden

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Remedy 2 of the Rachel Marsden case ("Articles which relate to Rachel Marsden") is rescinded.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 14:37, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 49 § Arbitration motion regarding Rachel Marsden

Changes to the functionaries team

At his request by email to the committee, the CheckUser permissions of Ivanvector are removed. The Arbitration Committee sincerely thanks Ivanvector for his long service as a functionary.

For the Arbitration Committee, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:05, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 49 § Changes to the functionaries team

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/WikiProject Tropical Cyclones closed

An arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/WikiProject Tropical Cyclones has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

  • MarioProtIV (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from closing, or reopening, any discussion outside their own user talk space. This restriction may be appealed after 12 months.
  • Chlod (talk · contribs) is warned about using off-wiki platforms in an attempt to win on-wiki disputes.
  • Elijahandskip (talk · contribs) is warned about using off-wiki platforms in an attempt to win on-wiki disputes.
  • LightandDark2000 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from pages about weather, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed six months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • MarioProtIV is indefinitely topic banned from pages about weather, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed six months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • A set of best practices for leaders and/or moderators of off-wiki chat platforms to consider adopting

For the Arbitration Committee, --Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:27, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 49 § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/WikiProject Tropical Cyclones closed

Firefly promoted to full clerk

The Arbitration Committee is pleased to announce that Firefly (talk · contribs) has been appointed a full clerk, effective immediately, concluding his successful traineeship.

The arbitration clerk team is often in need of new members, and any editor who meets the expectations for appointment and would like to join the clerk team is welcome to apply by e-mail to clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org.

For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:42, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 49 § Firefly promoted to full clerk

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Geschichte closed

An arbitration case regarding User:Geschichte has now closed. The Arbitration Committee resolved by motion in March to suspend the case, which could be unsuspended if Geschichte requested it within three months. Because Geschichte has not requested that the case be unsuspended, the case has been automatically closed. The motion which has now closed the case is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Geschichte#Motion:_Open_and_suspend_case_(1)_2.

For the arbitration committee, GeneralNotability (talk) 20:56, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 49 § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Geschichte closed

An arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

  • 7&6=thirteen (talk · contribs) is topic banned from deletion discussions, broadly construed.
  • Johnpacklambert (talk · contribs) is banned from taking the following actions: (1) participating in deletion discussions, broadly construed; (2) proposing an article for deletion ("PRODing"), but not contesting a proposed deletion ("de-PRODing"); and (3) turning an article into a redirect.
  • Lugnuts (talk · contribs) is warned against making personal attacks, engaging in battleground behavior in deletion discussions, and other disruptive deletion behavior.
  • Lugnuts is banned from taking the following actions: (1) participating in deletion discussions, broadly construed; (2) contesting a proposed deletion ("de-PRODing"); and (3) creating articles that comprise less than 500 words, including converting redirects into articles.
  • Lugnuts is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia.
  • TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) is topic banned from deletion discussions, broadly construed.
  • The Arbitration Committee requests comment from the community on how to handle mass nominations at Articles for Deletion.

For the Arbitration Committee, -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 49 § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing closed

Special Circumstances Blocks

In 2010, the Arbitration Committee released a statement about checkuser blocks and the ways that they may be contested and appealed. In that statement, the committee also addressed the rare practice of blocks that are designated as appealable only to the Arbitration Committee. Much has changed since that time, including the introduction of Oversight Blocks and the assumption of responsibility by the Wikimedia Foundation over some kinds of child protection matters. Accordingly, we would like to update our prior guidance.

  • Off-wiki evidence of sockpuppetry, undeclared paid editing, or other spam concerns: The Arbitration Committee has previously established special VRTS email queues accessible to all checkusers where private information relating to such concerns should be sent. Checkusers may issue blocks or take other measures based on information received in these queues. Concerns should be sent to:
    • paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org – for undisclosed paid editing and spam concerns. Any resulting blocks will be labeled as paid editing or spam blocks and give the VRTS ticket number.
    • checkuser-en-wp@wikipedia.org – for other checkuser-related concerns. If checkuser data is used as part of a block's justification, the block may be labeled as a checkuser block. Otherwise, any resulting blocks should give the appropriate block rationale and give the VRTS ticket number.
  • Editors who should be oversight blocked: Evidence should be passed to the oversight team, who will decide whether any block is necessary under policy.
  • Highly sensitive and private information: If a potential block is based on highly sensitive information (e.g. a block of an account believed to be, but not actually confirmed as, a public figure), the information can be sent directly to the Arbitration Committee (arbcom-en@wikimedia.org) for consideration. This is true even if it falls into one of the categories above. The Committee may evaluate the submission and resolve the report itself or decide that it is actually appropriate for consideration by another group or on-wiki.

Administrators should contact the appropriate group rather than issue a block covered above. In unusual and/or extraordinary circumstances, an administrator may decide to ignore all rules and place a block appealable only to the Arbitration Committee without first consulting one of the groups mentioned above. In this case, it remains the responsibility of the administrator to immediately contact the Arbitration Committee with the appropriate evidence and reasoning for the block (see also the 2012 reminder on this topic).

For the Arbitration Committee, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:44, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 49 § Special Circumstances Blocks

Deletion RfC moderator appointments

As part of the Conduct in deletion-related editing case, the Arbitration Committee decided to request community comments on issues related to mass nominations at Articles for Deletion in a discussion to be moderated and closed by editors appointed by the committee.

Valereee (talk · contribs) and Xeno (talk · contribs) are appointed as co-moderators for the discussion. The co-moderators will jointly exercise the responsibilities assigned by the 2 August 2022 decision, which remains in full effect. The panel of three closing editors will be announced on a later date.

Wugapodes (talk · contribs) will serve as their committee liaison. The committee liaison will facilitate communication between the co-moderators and the full committee to ensure the process is carried out efficiently.

The Arbitration Committee sincerely thanks the co-moderators for accepting their appointments and assisting the community in holding this discussion.

For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 49 § Deletion RfC moderator appointments

Deletion RfC Closers sought

As part of the Conduct in deletion-related editing case, the Arbitration Committee decided to request community comments on issues related to mass nominations at Articles for Deletion in a discussion to be moderated and closed by editors appointed by the committee.

ArbCom is getting ready to appoint the 3 closer panel. Some editors have already contacted the committee to express their interest; thanks to those who have already volunteered. ArbCom would like to let the community as a whole know that we're looking for these closers. If you're interested in being a closer please send us an email to let us know. For the Arbitration Committee, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:25, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 49 § Deletion RfC Closers sought

Statement regarding harassment on off-wiki chat platforms

In recent years, the Arbitration Committee has referred several cases of off-wiki harassment involving off-wiki chat platforms (e.g. IRC, Discord, Telegram) to the Wikimedia Foundation Trust and Safety team (T&S). While these cases were not part of T&S's original core mandate, ArbCom made these referrals because these chat platforms are not supervised by any particular project community and allegations often involve non-public information. The Arbitration Committee has therefore asked T&S to further develop its policy and communication options for responding to these cases and has specifically asked T&S to consider updates to the global event ban policy to more effectively handle harassment in virtual, off-wiki spaces.

For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 05:35, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 49 § Statement regarding harassment on off-wiki chat platforms

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jonathunder closed automatically

An arbitration case regarding Jonathunder has now closed. The Arbitration Committee resolved by motion in February to suspend the case, which could be unsuspended on request by Jonathunder within six months. Jonathunder has not requested that the case be revived, and therefore it has been automatically closed. The motion triggering this process is available to read here at the case page.

For the arbitration committee, firefly ( t · c ) 09:24, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 49 § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jonathunder closed automatically

Muhammed images Discretionary sanctions

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that: Remedy 8.1 of the Muhammad images case ("Discretionary sanctions") is rescinded two months after this motion is enacted. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the discretionary sanctions authorization remain in force and are governed by the discretionary sanctions procedure.

Support: Barkeep49, BDD, Donald Albury, Enterprisey, Izno, Maxim, Wugapodes
Opposed: CaptainEek, WormThatTurned

For the Arbitration Committee, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 49 § Muhammed images Discretionary sanctions

pre-RfC mass-article creation discussion has begun

As part of the Conduct in deletion-related editing case, the Arbitration Committee decided to request community comments on issues related to mass nominations at Articles for Deletion in a discussion to be moderated and closed by editors appointed by the committee.

Workshopping for the first of two discussions (which focuses on mass article creation) has begun and feedback can be given at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale. As previously announced, Valereee and Xeno will be co-moderating these discussions.

For the Arbitration Committee, –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 22:08, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 49 § pre-RfC mass-article creation discussion has begun

Discretionary sanctions draft: community comment

The next phase of the ongoing discretionary sanctions amendment process has opened. The drafting arbitrators (CaptainEek, L235, and Wugapodes) have posted a draft of the amendments here, together with draft language, and invite community comments. We would like to note that this public consultation includes a draft of the amendments for the purposes of indicating possible areas for amendment; community comments will be instrumental in identifying what reforms are desirable to proceed on, and whether the draft is missing appropriate amendments. The Phase 2 Consultation will end on October 3rd. For the Arbitration Committee, CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 16:57, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 49 § Discretionary sanctions draft: community comment

2022 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: announcement

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint additional editors to the Checkuser and Oversight teams. The arbitrators overseeing this will be Barkeep49, Cabayi and Primefac. The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will assist in the vetting process. This year's timeline is as follows:

  • 5 September to 17 September: Candidates may self-nominate by contacting the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-en-c@wikimedia.org.
  • 18 September to 22 September: The Arbitration Committee and Functionaries will vet the candidates.
  • 23 September to 25 September: The committee will notify candidates going forward for community consultation and create the candidate subpages containing the submitted nomination statements.
  • 26 September to 5 October: Nomination statements will be published and the candidates are invited to answer questions publicly. The community is invited and encouraged to participate.
  • By 16 October: Appointments will be announced.

For the Arbitration Committee, Cabayi (talk) 21:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 49 § 2022 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: announcement

Lightbreather unban appeal

The Arbitration Committee is considering an unban appeal from Lightbreather (talk · contribs). Interested editors may give feedback to the committee at here. For the Arbitration Committee, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Lightbreather unban appeal

Level 1 desysop of Staxringold

Under the Level 1 desysopping procedures the administrator permissions of Staxringold (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) have been temporarily removed as a suspected compromised account.

Supporting: L235, Barkeep49, CaptainEek

For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:00, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 49 § Level 1 desysop of Staxringold

Request for comment closers appointed

As part of the Conduct in deletion-related editing case, the Arbitration Committee decided to request community comments on issues related to mass nominations at Articles for Deletion in a discussion to be moderated and closed by editors appointed by the committee.

KrakatoaKatie (talk · contribs), RoySmith (talk · contribs), and TheSandDoctor (talk · contribs) are appointed as closers for this discussion. The Arbitration Committee sincerely thanks the closers for accepting their appointments and assisting the community in holding this discussion.

For the Arbitration Committee, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 49 § Request for comment closers appointed

Change to the CheckUser team

At her request by email to the committee, the CheckUser permissions of GorillaWarfare are removed. The Arbitration Committee sincerely thanks GorillaWarfare for her long service as a CheckUser, and her continuing service as an Oversighter. For the Arbitration Committee, Wugapodes (talk) 20:02, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 49 § Change to the CheckUser team

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

In order to reaffirm the independence of the RfC authorized by the Conduct in deletion-related editing case, and to ratify the moderators' decision to hold two sequential RfCs, Remedy 11 ("Request for Comment") is amended as follows:

  • The second point is amended to read as follows: "The moderator(s), with community feedback, will be responsible for developing the questions presented. The moderator(s) may decide to split the questions over two sequential requests for comment; in the event that they choose to do so, the closing panel will close both RfCs. In the event that a member of the closing panel is no longer available to close the second request for comment, that member will be replaced by the Arbitration Committee upon request."
  • The sixth point is amended to read as follows: "Any appeals of a moderator decision or of the panel close may only be made to the Arbitration Committee at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. The community retains the ability to amend the outcomes of the RfC through a subsequent community-wide request for comment."

For the Arbitration Committee, –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:47, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 49 § Arbitration motion regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing

Arbitration motion regarding Lightbreather

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Remedy 1 of the Lightbreather case is suspended for a probationary period lasting twelve months from the date this motion is enacted. During this period, any uninvolved administrator may block Lightbreather (talk · contribs) for any of the behaviors identified in the Findings of Fact or for failure to adhere to any normal editorial process or expectations as an Arbitration Enforcement action for up to 1 year. Any block 3 months or longer should be reported to the Arbitration Committee for automatic review. The committee will consider presented evidence and statements before deciding by motion what, if any, actions are necessary, up to and including reinstating a site ban. In the event that no administrator imposes such a block, the remedy will automatically lapse after twelve months. Restrictions detailed in remedies 2-6 remain in place until actively appealed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 21:55, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 49 § Arbitration motion regarding Lightbreather

Staxringold restoration of permissions

The Wikimedia Foundation has determined that Staxringold (talk · contribs) is back in control of his account. The Arbitration Committee has corresponded with Staxringold and, based on all available information, is assured that he will follow appropriate personal security practices in the future. The Committee therefore restores his administrative access.

The Arbitration Committee is of the view that additional clarity about the Committee's return-of-adminship practices relating to account security is necessary. The Committee therefore invites interested community members to comment on the relevant motion.

Support: Barkeep49, CaptainEek, Enterprisey, L235, Maxim, Primefac, Worm That Turned, Wugapodes

Oppose: Cabayi, Donald Albury, Izno

For the Arbitration Committee, Maxim(talk) 17:40, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 49 § Staxringold restoration of permissions

RfC which may be of interest

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale Valereee (talk) 13:57, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 49 § RfC which may be of interest

Resignation of Donald Albury

I am resigning from the Arbitration Committee with an effective date of December 31, 2022. I am announcing my resignation now in order to allow the election of someone to complete the second year of my term through the annual election process that will start shortly.

I have not been contributing to the behind-the-scenes work of the committee, which is not fair to the other members of the committee (although they have been kind enough to not mention that to me). While I have not been contributing to that behind-the-scenes committee work, I have found that the time I spend reading e-mails and the project pages that are relevant to the committee's work is more than I enjoy spending. I have decided that I just want to go back to being an editor who occasionally performs an admin action.

I wish to thank everybody who voted for me last year, and hope you are not too disappointed that I am not completing my term. I also wish to thank my fellow ArbCom members for their support of, and patience with, me. My exposure to the inner workings of this part of the governance of the English Wikipedia has been reassuring to me about the durability and fairness of such governance. Donald Albury 18:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 49 § Resignation of Donald Albury

2022 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: candidates appointed

The Arbitration Committee is pleased to welcome the following editors to the functionary team:

The committee thanks all members of the community who participated and helped bring this process to a successful conclusion.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Cabayi (talk) 09:07, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 49 § 2022 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: candidates appointed

Changes to the functionary team

At his request, the Oversight permissions of DGG are removed. Also at his request, the Checkuser permissions of Joe Roe are removed. The Arbitration Committee sincerely thanks both DGG and Joe Roe for their service as an oversighter and a checkuser, respectively.

For the Arbitration Committee, Maxim(talk) 16:31, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 49 § Changes to the functionary team

Level II desysop of Athaenara

The Arbitration Committee has determined that Athaenara (talk · contribs)’s behavior appears inconsistent with the level of trust required of administrators. Athaenara has not responded to contact from the Arbitration Committee. Accordingly, the Arbitration Committee resolves that Athaenara be desysopped in accordance with the Committee’s Level II removal procedures.

Support: CaptainEek, Enterprisey, L235, Maxim, Primefac, Worm That Turned

For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 49 § Level II desysop of Athaenara

Arbitration motion regarding Athaenara

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

This case request was brought to review the administrative status of Athaenara (talk · contribs), a then-administrator who was indefinitely blocked for personal attacks. Subsequently, the Arbitration Committee resolved to remove Athaenara’s administrative privileges through its Level II removal procedures. This case request is therefore resolved as follows:
Athaenara may request that a case be opened and proceed through normal arbitration processes for further consideration of her administrative status by emailing the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-en@wikimedia.org within three months of the enactment of this motion. The Committee will then decide whether to open a case or resolve the matter by motion. If Athaenara does not make such a request within the three-month period, she will remain desysopped and may regain the administrative tools only through a successful request for adminship.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 22:15, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 49 § Arbitration motion regarding Athaenara

Arbitration motion regarding the reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara’s block

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The Arbitration Committee directs its clerks to open a case to examine the reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara (talk · contribs)’s block, TheresNoTime (talk · contribs)'s use of the checkuser tool, and connected events. Subject to amendment by the drafting arbitrators, the following rules will govern the case:

  • The case title will be Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block. The initial parties will be Lourdes (talk · contribs) and TheresNoTime (talk · contribs).
  • The evidence phase will be shortened to one week. Parties are particularly invited to submit statements about their own actions.
  • There will be no workshop phase.
  • Non-parties are discouraged from submitting evidence that has already been submitted to the Arbitration Committee through the case request process.
  • Any case submissions involving non-public information should be directed to the Arbitration Committee by email to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 22:53, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 49 § Arbitration motion regarding the reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara’s block

MJL promoted to full clerk

The Arbitration Committee is pleased to announce that MJL (talk · contribs) has been appointed a full clerk, effective immediately, concluding their successful traineeship.

The arbitration clerk team is often in need of new members, and any editor who would like to join the clerk team is welcome to apply by e-mail to clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org.

For the Arbitration Committee, Primefac (talk) 19:09, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 49 § MJL promoted to full clerk

Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block closed

The arbitration case Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block has now closed and the final decision has been posted. The following remedies and motions are part of the final decision:

  • For breaches of Wikipedia's administrative norms, Lourdes is warned.
  • For conduct which fell short of the high standards of behavior expected of functionaries, the CheckUser permissions of TheresNoTime are removed. They may seek to regain them only through the usual appointment methods.
  • For conduct which fell short of the high standards of behavior expected of functionaries, the Oversight permissions of TheresNoTime are removed. They may seek to regain them only through the usual appointment methods.
  • For serious breaches of Wikipedia's administrative norms and of the CheckUser policy, TheresNoTime is admonished.
  • The Arbitration Committee wishes to express that Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Actions by parties to a proceeding does not apply to TheresNoTime given that a majority of active arbitrators had opposed desysopping them at the time they relinquished their adminship.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 23:07, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block closed

Arbitration motion regarding temporary checkuser privileges for scrutineers

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

On recommendation of the Electoral Commission, temporary English Wikipedia checkuser privileges are granted to stewards Sotiale, Martin Urbanec, and Hasley solely for the purpose of their acting as scrutineers in the 2022 Arbitration Committee election.

For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:44, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 49 § Arbitration motion regarding temporary checkuser privileges for scrutineers

Discretionary sanctions review: proposed decision and community review

The Proposed Decision phase of the discretionary sanctions review process has now opened. A five-day public review period for the proposed decision, before arbitrators cast votes on the proposed decision, is open through November 18. Any interested editors are invited to comment on the proposed decision talk page. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:54, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Comment at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review/Proposed decision

Level II desysop of Stephen

The Arbitration Committee has determined, through the CheckUser tool, that Stephen (talk · contribs) has edited while logged out in a manner that harasses another user. The Committee has been unable to establish a satisfactory or alternative explanation after discussion with Stephen. Accordingly, the administrator privileges of Stephen are removed under the Committee's Level II removal procedures.

Supporting: WormThatTurned, Cabayi, Primefac, Donald Albury, Barkeep49, L235, CaptainEek, Izno, Beeblebrox

For the Arbitration Committee, CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:32, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 49 § Level II desysop of Stephen

Stephen - case request

Consistent with the Arbitration Committee's procedure on return of permissions following expedited removal, Stephen (talk · contribs) has requested that the Committee open normal arbitration proceedings to examine the removal of permissions and surrounding circumstances. Stephen has additionally requested that the case be heard privately, and the Committee agrees that there are significant privacy issues constituting extraordinary circumstances. Accordingly, the Committee directs its clerks to open an in camera arbitration case titled "Stephen", with no public evidence or workshop phase. Instead, relevant evidence may be submitted to the Arbitration Committee by email (arbcom-en@wikimedia.org).

For the Arbitration Committee, Primefac (talk) 18:24, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 49 § Stephen - case request

Arbitration motion regarding contacting admins for Level 2

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The first step of the Level II procedures is amended to read:

1. The initiating arbitrator will contact the account via e-mail asking the account to contact arbcom-en and leave a message on the account's talk page alerting the account to the email. If email contact is not possible, the initiating arbitrator will leave a message on the account's talk page asking the account to contact arbcom-en.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 00:26, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 49 § Arbitration motion regarding contacting admins for Level 2

Twsabin unblocked

Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, Twsabin (talk · contribs) is unblocked. Twsabin is indefinitely topic banned from post-1992 American politics, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed after 6 months have elapsed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Izno (talk) 00:16, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 49 § Twsabin unblocked

Stephen arbitration case closed

The Stephen arbitration case has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedy has been enacted:

  • The administrative permissions of Stephen are restored.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 23:08, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 49 § Stephen arbitration case closed

Contentious topics procedure adopted

The Arbitration Committee has concluded the 2021-22 review of the contentious topics system (formerly known as discretionary sanctions), and its final decision is viewable at the revision process page. As part of the review process, the Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The above proposals that are supported by an absolute majority of unrecused active arbitrators are hereby enacted. The drafting arbitrators (CaptainEek, L235, and Wugapodes) are directed to take the actions necessary to bring the proposals enacted by this motion into effect, including by amending the procedures at WP:AC/P and WP:AC/DS. The authority granted to the drafting arbitrators by this motion expires one month after enactment.

The Arbitration Committee thanks all those who have participated in the 2021-22 discretionary sanctions review process and all who have helped bring it to a successful conclusion. This motion concludes the 2021-22 discretionary sanctions review process.

This motion initiates a one-month implementation period for the updates to the contentious topics system. The Arbitration Committee will announce when the initial implementation of the Committee's decision has concluded and the amendments made by the drafting arbitrators in accordance with the Committee's decision take effect. Any editors interested in the implementation process are invited to assist at the implementation talk page, and editors interested in updates may subscribe to the update list.

For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:42, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 49 § Contentious topics procedure adopted

Iranian Politics disruption continues

The Arbitration Committee has been made aware by the Wikimedia Foundation's disinformation team of continued disruption in the Iranian Politics (IRANPOL) topic area, which was subject to an ArbCom case last year. Additional measures to address this disruption may be forthcoming in the year ahead from the Arbitration Committee and/or the Wikimedia Foundation. For now, the Arbitration Committee is informing the community of this disruption in the hopes that more editors and administrators may wish to begin working in the IRANPOL topic area. Uninvolved administrators are also reminded that editor restrictions and page restrictions are available for use in the topic area. For the Arbitration Committee, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:15, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 49 § Iranian Politics disruption continues

2023 Arbitration Committee

The Arbitration Committee welcomes the following new and returning arbitrators following their election by the community. The two-year terms of these arbitrators formally begin on 1 January 2023:

All incoming arbitrators have elected to receive the checkuser and oversight permissions.

The Committee will make a further announcement about outgoing arbitrators before the 2023 Committee takes office.

For the Arbitration Committee, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:21, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 49 § 2023 Arbitration Committee

Change to the Checkuser team

Following a request to the Committee, the CheckUser permissions of Ivanvector (talk · contribs) have been restored.

For the Arbitration Committee, Primefac (talk) 17:48, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 49 § Change to the Checkuser team

Outgoing members of the 2022 Arbitration Committee

The Arbitration Committee thanks our outgoing colleagues whose terms end on 31 December 2022:

Outgoing arbitrators are eligible to retain the CheckUser and Oversight permissions, remain active on cases accepted before their term ended, and to remain subscribed to the functionaries' and arbitration clerks' mailing lists following their term on the committee. To that effect:

  • Stewards are requested to remove the permission(s) noted from the following outgoing arbitrators, who did not elect to retain CheckUser or Oversight access, after 31 December 2022:
    CheckUser: BDD, Bradv, Maxim, Donald Albury
    Oversight: BDD, Bradv, Maxim, Donald Albury
  • Outgoing arbitrators are eligible to remain active on cases opened before their term ended if they wish. Whether or not outgoing arbitrators will remain active on any ongoing case(s) will be noted on the proposed decision talk page of affected case(s).
  • Maxim and Donald Albury will be unsubscribed from the functionaries' mailing list at their request.
  • BDD, Maxim, and Donald Albury will be unsubscribed from the arbitration clerks' mailing list at their request.

For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:32, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 49 § Outgoing members of the 2022 Arbitration Committee

Proposed motion for amendment to Arbitration procedures: Closing Clarification and Amendment Requests

The Arbitration Committee is considering a motion to add an additional route for closing clarification and amendment requests in certain circumstances. Comments are welcomed in the relevant section. For the Committee, firefly ( t · c ) 22:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding an amendment to arbitration procedures

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

A section titled "Closing" will be added to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures under "Requests for amendment" with the following text:

A request for clarification or amendment is eligible to be closed by an arbitrator if:

  1. A rough consensus has been reached among arbitrators participating in the request; and
  2. The rough consensus does not require a vote to implement (e.g. modifying the remedy to a case).

The closing arbitrator should include a summary of the rough consensus when closing the request for clarification or amendment.

For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 49 § Arbitration motion regarding an amendment to arbitration procedures

Possible Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 case under discussion

The Arbitration Committee is currently considering a motion to open "Armenia-Azerbaijan 3". Interested editors are invited to submit evidence about this topic area and feedback to the committee about this motion at the request. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:08, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Discuss this at the request

Simple-engineer unblocked

Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, Simple-engineer (talk · contribs) is unblocked. Simple-engineer is indefinitely topic banned from the Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed after 6 months have elapsed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Izno (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 49 § Simple-engineer unblocked

Contentious topics procedure now in effect

In December, the Arbitration Committee adopted the contentious topics procedure, which replaces the former discretionary sanctions system. The contentious topics procedure is now in effect following an initial implementation period.

The drafting arbitrators warmly thank all those who have worked to implement the new procedure during this implementation period and beyond. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 50 § Contentious topics procedure now in effect

ToBeFree appointed trainee clerk

The arbitration clerks are pleased to welcome ToBeFree (talk · contribs) to the clerk team as a trainee.

The arbitration clerk team is often in need of new members, and any editor who meets the expectations for appointment and would like to join the clerk team is welcome to apply by e-mail to clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org.

For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 49 § ToBeFree appointed trainee clerk

Change to the CheckUser team

At his request by email to the committee, the CheckUser permissions of MusikAnimal are removed. The Arbitration Committee sincerely thanks MusikAnimal for his long service as a CheckUser, and his continuing service on Wikipedia.

For the Arbitration Committee, Primefac (talk) 19:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 49 § Change to the CheckUser team

Proposed motion for amendment to Arbitration procedures: Documenting transition procedures

The Arbitration Committee is considering a motion to include a section on arbitrator transitions in the Committee's procedures. Comments are welcomed in the relevant section. For the Committee, — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Arbitrator access to mailing lists and permissions motion passed

The Arbitration Committee has passed the following amendment to its procedures:

Arbitrators-elect must sign the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information and any other non-disclosure agreements required for access to privileged communications before assuming office. All arbitrators are:

At the end of their term, outgoing arbitrators will:

  • be removed from all Committee-managed email lists with the following exceptions:
    • access to the clerks-l mailing list will be removed absent a request to remain, and
    • access to the functionaries-en mailing list will remain absent a request to be removed; and
  • have their CheckUser and Oversight permissions removed unless the outgoing arbitrator requests to retain one or both of them.

For the Arbitration Committee, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:52, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 50 § Arbitrator access to mailing lists and permissions motion passed

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Remedy 11 ("Request for Comment") of the Conduct in deletion-related editing case is rescinded. There are no actions remaining in force from this remedy, so the community are free to conduct and close these and related discussions moving forward. The Committee thanks Xeno and Valereee for their work as moderators; KrakatoaKatie, RoySmith, and TheSandDoctor for their work as closers; and all the editors who participated in these discussions to date.

For the Arbitration Committee, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 50 § Arbitration motion regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing

Change to the Functionaries team

Following a request to the Committee, the CheckUser and Oversight permissions of Callanecc (talk · contribs) have been restored.

For the Arbitration Committee, Primefac (talk) 18:43, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 50 § Change to the Functionaries team

Armenia-Azerbaijan 3: Arbitration case closed

An arbitration case about the conduct of editors in the Armenia-Azerbaijan topic area has now closed. The final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

  • Abrvagl (talk · contribs)
    • is topic banned from pages about Armenia, Azerbaijan, and related ethnic conflicts, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
    • may make only 1 revert on any page in any given 24 hour period. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
    • is indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, ZaniGiovanni anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions). This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • Dallavid (talk · contribs)
    • is topic banned from pages about Armenia, Azerbaijan, and related ethnic conflicts, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
    • may make only 1 revert on any page in any given 24 hour period. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • Olympian (talk · contribs)
    • is topic banned from pages about Armenia, Azerbaijan, and related ethnic conflicts, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
    • may make only 1 revert on any page in any given 24 hour period. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • ZaniGiovanni (talk · contribs)
    • is topic banned from pages about Armenia, Azerbaijan, and related ethnic conflicts, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
    • may make only 1 revert on any page in any given 24 hour period. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
    • is indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, Abrvagl anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions). This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • Golden (talk · contribs) and Grandmaster (talk · contribs) are placed on indefinite probation. If any party to this case is found to be edit warring within the area of dispute by an uninvolved administrator, the administrator should impose the following sanction: [Editor name] is indefinitely topic banned from all pages about Armenia, Azerbaijan, and related ethnic conflicts, broadly construed. Topic bans imposed via this remedy may only be appealed to the Arbitration Committee. For a topic ban imposed under this remedy, an editor may make their first appeal at any time; further appeals may be made every twelve months after an unsuccessful appeal.
  • When deciding on whether or not to issue an Arbitration Enforcement sanction, Administrators are encouraged to consider all behavior, including the seriousness of the violation and the possible recidivism of the editor in question. For instance, users who do not heed warnings or who engage in sustained, low-level misconduct should be sanctioned rather than re-warned. Where editor conduct frequently results in enforcement requests that are dismissed or closed with warnings, administrators are encouraged to impose robust restrictions on editors.

For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:08, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 50 § Armenia-Azerbaijan 3: Arbitration case closed

Changes to the functionaries team

At his request by email to the committee, the CheckUser permissions of ferret are removed. The Arbitration Committee sincerely thanks ferret for his service as a functionary.

For the Arbitration Committee, Izno (talk) 03:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 50 § Changes to the functionaries team
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_13&oldid=1164800717"