Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Change in status - Arbitration Committee clerk

This serves to confirm that NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs) is formally appointed as a full clerk to the Arbitration Committee. NuclearWarfare has been acting in this role for an extended period, and has been amongst the most active members of the clerking cadre. The Committee appreciates his continued diligence in this area.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Risker (talk) 19:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Arbitration Clerks Seeking New Volunteers

The Arbitration Committee clerks are currently looking for a few dependable and mature editors willing to serve as clerks. The responsibilities of clerks are simple—opening, closing, passing and declining cases and motions; maintaining the requests for Arbitration pages; and preserving order and proper formatting on cases. Clerks are the unsung heroes of the arbitration process, keeping track of details to ensure that requests are handled in a timely and efficient manner. Clerks get front-line seats to the political and ethnic warfare that scorches Wikipedia periodically, and, since they aren't arbitrators themselves, are rarely threatened with violence by the participants.

Past clerks have gone on to be (or already were) successful lawyers, naval officers, and Presidents of Wikimedia Chapters. The salary and retirement packages for Clerks rival that of Arbitrators, to boot.

Please email clerks-llists.wikimedia.org if you are interested in becoming a clerk, and a clerk will reply with an acknowledgement of your message and any questions we want to put to you.

For the Arbitration Committee clerks,
NW (Talk) 20:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria

At Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment, the Arbitration Committee reviewed a request by User:Jayjg to remove editing restrictions placed on him in the abovementioned case. By a vote of 12-0, the Committee passed the following motion:

In view of his compliance with Remedy 11 of the West Bank - Judea and Samaria case, the editing restrictions placed on Jayjg (talk · contribs) in that same case are lifted effective at the passage of this motion. Jayjg is reminded that articles in the area of conflict, which is identical to the area of conflict as defined by the Palestine-Israel articles case, remain the subject of discretionary sanctions; should he edit within this topic area, those discretionary sanctions continue to apply.

For the Arbitration Committee,
NW (Talk) 18:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Ban appeal by User:Turbotad

The Arbitration Committee en banc has allowed the appeal of:

• Turbotad (talk · contribs · logs)

The details of the decision have been posted on the editor's talk page.

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger ^talk 10:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Sanctions appeal by User:Koavf

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

The restrictions placed upon Koavf (talk · contribs) in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Koavf and in User:Koavf/Community sanction are terminated, effective immediately. Koavf is reminded to edit in the future in full accordance with all Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

For the Arbitration Committee,
NW (Talk) 05:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II

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

• Communicat (talk · contribs) is prohibited from editing or commenting on articles about World War II or the Aftermath of World War II. This prohibition is of indefinite duration, but may be appealed to the Committee by Communicat after six months;
• Communicat is placed under a behavioral editing restriction for a period of one year.

For the Arbitration Committee,
AGK [•] 15:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

User:X!, our new Arbitration clerk

The Arbitration clerks would like to welcome User:X! to the clerk team as a trainee!

At the same time, the call for volunteers that we issued last week is still applicable. Users who would like to join the clerk team, whether they be administrators or not, are welcome to apply by sending an email to clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org. NW (Talk) 17:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Appeal to BASC: SanchiTachi

The Ban Appeals Subcommittee has allowed the appeal of:

• SanchiTachi (talk · contribs)

The text of the decision has been posted on the editor's talk page.

For the Arbitration Committee, Shell ^babelfish 19:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Request for comments on the Audit Subcommittee

The Arbitration Committee has conducted an internal review of the Audit Subcommittee and is now seeking comment from the community, in particular about the subcommittee's effectiveness to date and ongoing representation from community delegates ("at-large members").

As the October 2009 election yielded few candidates relative to the number of seats available, it has been suggested that filling the non-arbitrator positions by appointment after community consultation (similar to the previous round of CU/OS appointments) would attract a greater number of suitably qualified candidates.

It has also been suggested that greater numbers of community delegates be appointed to ensure adequate ongoing community representation. Should a sufficient number of suitable candidates apply, the committee will appoint three "primary members" along with a number of "standby members" (who will also receive the CheckUser and Oversight privileges) and would stand in should a primary member become inactive or be unable to hear a particular case.

Comments are invited about the above, as well as any other general comments about the Audit Subcommittee. The Arbitration Committee would like to thank outgoing community members Dominic, Jredmond, and MBisanz for their patience and continued participation on the subcommittee while this review process is ongoing.

The next call for applications is provisionally scheduled for 20 February 2011.

For the Arbitration Committee, –xeno^talk 18:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Changes in CheckUser/Oversight permissions

Effective 1 February 2011, Keegan (talk · contribs) returns to the ranks of Oversighters. Keegan took a leave of absence from this responsibility while he was a WMF Community Associate during the recent successful fundraising drive.

At the completion of his term as a member of the WMF Ombudsman Commission, Lar (talk · contribs) will be returning to the ranks of CheckUsers. On behalf of the English Wikipedia, we thank Lar for taking on this appointment and representing this and other projects on the Commission.

FloNight (talk · contribs) has accepted an appointment to the Ombudsman Commission effective February of this year. We congratulate FloNight on her appointment, and thank her for representing this and other projects on the Commission. During her term as a member of the Commission, FloNight's permissions will change to global permissions, and she will not be acting as a local CheckUser or Oversighter.

For the Arbitration Committee, Risker (talk) 23:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Ban appeal by Justanother / Justallofthem

The Arbitration Committee has allowed the appeal of:

• Justanother (talk · contribs)

who has elected to edit as:

• Lyncs (talk · contribs)

The text of the decision has been posted on Lync's talk page.

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger ^talk 13:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

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

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

The topic ban placed upon Piotrus (talk · contribs) in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European mailing list and subsequent motions is lifted, effective immediately. Piotrus is reminded that further disruption related to this case may result in the topic ban or other remedies being re-imposed by the Committee.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller (talk) 09:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Arbitration motions regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking

The Arbitration Committee has considered and passed 2 motions regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking. They are listed below:

By a vote of 12-0:

Remedy 18 of the Date delinking case, which limits Ohconfucius (talk · contribs) to using a single account, is amended by adding the sentence: "He may also use a separate bot account for any bot task or tasks approved by the bot approvals group."

By a separate vote of a 12-0:

Remedy 7.1 of the Date delinking case, which as originally written prohibited Lightmouse (talk · contribs) from utilizing any automation on Wikipedia, is amended by adding the words "except for a bot task or group of related tasks authorized by the bot approvals group." Remedy 8, which limited Lightmouse to using a single account, is amended by adding the sentence: "He may also use a separate bot account for any bot task or group of related tasks approved by the bot approvals group."

For the Arbitration Committee,
NW (Talk) 15:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question closed

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

1. Standard discretionary sanctions are enacted for all articles related to the Shakespeare authorship question;
2. NinaGreen (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year;
3. NinaGreen is topic-banned indefinitely from editing any article relating (broadly construed) to the Shakespeare authorship question, William Shakespeare, or Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford;
4. The Arbitration Committee endorses the community sanction imposed on Smatprt (talk · contribs). Thus, Smatprt remains topic-banned from editing articles relating to William Shakespeare, broadly construed, for one year from November 3, 2010.

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 20:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity closed

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

1. Standard discretionary sanctions are enacted for all articles related to Longevity (broadly interpreted);
2. Ryoung122 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from editing, commenting on, or otherwise participating in any Wikipedia process related to articles about longevity (broadly interpreted);
3. John J. Bulten (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year;
4. WikiProject World's Oldest People is urged to seek experienced Wikipedia editors who will act as mentors to the project and assist members in improving their editing and their understanding of Wikipedia policies and community norms;
5. Within seven days of the conclusion of this case, all parties must either delete evidence sub-pages in their user space or request deletion of them using the {{db-author}} or {{db-self}} template.

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 22:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Audit Subcommittee vacancies: Call for applications

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

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

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

If you think you may be suitably qualified, please see the appointments page for further information. The application period is scheduled to close 7 March 2011.

For the Arbitration Committee, –xeno^talk 23:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

User:Rodhullandemu

Rodhullandemu (talk · contribs)

Background

This user has engaged in conduct unbecoming an administrator including: placing blocks and page protections when involved; engaging in personal attacks and incivility; as well as feuding and edit-warring.

Motion

Rodhullandemu's administrator status is revoked. He may apply for adminship at a future date by the usual means to the community.

Support motion

Casliber, Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, Coren, Elen of the Roads, Jclemens, John Vandenberg, Kirill, PhilKnight, Risker, Roger Davies, Shell Kinney, SirFozzie, Xeno

Oppose motion

none

Not voting or inactive on motion

Cool Hand Luke, David Fuchs, Iridescent, Mailer diablo, Newyorkbrad

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger ^talk 02:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Arbitration motion regarding User:Rodhullandemu

Per a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rodhullandemu:

[T]he 26 February 2011 motion posted to the Arbitration Committee noticeboard ("Rodhullandemu's administrator status is revoked. He may apply for adminship at a future date by the usual means to the community.") is rescinded and replaced with a temporary injunction suspending Rodhullandemu's administrative privileges for the duration of the case [opened 7 March 2011].

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 04:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Arbitration motion regarding Ebionites 2

Per an interim motion:

The request for arbitration is accepted (titled Ebionites 2). However, the case will be held in abeyance for four weeks to allow mediation to proceed. After four weeks, or earlier if the mediation is closed as unsuccessful, the Committee will reexamine the situation to determine whether the case will proceed or be dismissed.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller (talk) 14:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Audit Subcommittee appointments: Invitation to comment on candidates

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

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

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

The consultation phase is scheduled to end 23:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC), and the appointments are scheduled to be announced by 31 March 2011.

For the Arbitration Committee, –xeno^talk 00:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kehrli 2 closed

An arbitration case regarding Kehrli (talk · contribs) has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedy has been enacted:

• Kehrli (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from metrology-related articles, broadly defined, including talk pages and discussions.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Monty Hall problem closed

An arbitration case regarding Monty Hall problem has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following is a summary of the sanctions that were enacted:

• Standard discretionary sanctions are enacted for all articles related to Monty Hall problem (broadly interpreted)
• Glkanter is banned from Wikipedia for one year, and is further subject to an indefinite topic ban on subjects related to the Monty Hall Problem.
• Nijdam is topic banned from the subject of the Monty Hall problem for a period of one year.
• Rick Block is restricted to 1RR on the Monty Hall article for a period of one year.

For the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 00:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Advanced permissions and inactivity

Access to CheckUser and Oversight permissions is given sparingly. The permissions reflect the high trust placed in the holder but are not granted in perpetuity and holders are expected to use them regularly for the benefit of the project.

Accordingly, the minimum activity level for each tool (based on the preceding three months' activity) shall be five logged actions, including at least one community-requested logged action. Examples of community-requested actions include suppression requests via the oversight-en-wp OTRS queue; CheckUser requests through Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, those stemming from account creation requests, those made in response to threads at an administrative noticeboard, or posted on a CheckUser's personal user talk page. These activity requirements do not apply to: (a) sitting members of the Arbitration Committee; (b) holders using the permissions for audit purposes (such as members of the Audit Subcommittee); or (c) holders who have temporarily relinquished access, including CheckUsers or Oversighters who accept appointment to the Ombudsman Commission.

Holders of the permissions are also expected to:

1. Remain active on the English Wikipedia unless they have previously notified the Arbitration Committee of a significant expected absence and its likely duration.
2. Consider temporarily relinquishing their permission(s) for planned prolonged periods of inactivity.
3. Reply within seven days to email communications from either the Audit Subcommittee or the Arbitration Committee about their use of the permissions.

Holders who do not comply with the activity and expectation requirements – or who mark their accounts "semi-retired", "retired", or "inactive", or who announce their effective retirement by other means – may have their permissions removed by the Arbitration Committee. Prior to removal of access, two attempts will be made to contact the holder using the email address they provided to the Committee.

Permissions will usually be reinstated on the following bases:

• Temporarily relinquished permissions will normally be promptly restored provided no issues have arisen in the interim.
• Permissions removed for unannounced inactivity will normally be restored once (a) a satisfactory explanation for the unannounced inactivity has been given and (b) satisfactory assurances about future activity levels have been received.

Requests for reinstatement for any other reason will be considered on a case by case basis.

Note that Stewards and Wikimedia Foundation staff granted CheckUser and Oversight permissions by the WMF are outside of the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee.

Approved by motion of the Arbitration Committee

Suppporting the motion: David Fuchs, John Vandenberg, Kirill Lokshin, Mailer diablo, Newyorkbrad, PhilKnight, Risker, Roger Davies, Shell Kinney, SirFozzie, Xeno

Abstaining: Jclemens

Not voting: Casliber, Cool Hand Luke, Coren, Elen of the Roads, Iridescent

Inactive: Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry

For the Arbitration Committee, Risker (talk) 17:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Audit Subcommittee appointments (2011)

Effective 1 April 2011, Bahamut0013 (talk · contribs), Courcelles (talk · contribs), and Keegan (talk · contribs) are appointed as community representatives to the Audit Subcommittee. The period of appointment will be 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2012. AGK (talk · contribs) is designated as an alternate member of the subcommittee and will become a full member should one of the appointees resign their role during the term. The Arbitration Committee thanks all of the candidates, as well as the many members of the community who participated in the appointment process for these roles.

The Arbitration Committee also extends its thanks to Dominic (talk · contribs), Jredmond (talk · contribs), and MBisanz (talk · contribs), whose terms in office were extended so that an orderly transfer of responsibility could occur. Dominic will return to his previous role as a CheckUser and Oversighter; MBisanz will assume his role as an Oversighter. The Committee also thanks former subcommittee member Tznkai (talk · contribs), who was one of the original appointees to the Committee in 2009, and resigned in August 2010.

Support: Coren, David Fuchs, Elen of the Roads, PhilKnight, Jclemens, John Vandenberg, Mailer diablo, Newyorkbrad, Kirill Lokshin, Risker, Roger Davies, Shell Kinney, Xeno

Oppose: None

Abstain: None

Not voting: Casliber, Cool Hand Luke, Iridescent

Inactive: Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, Sir Fozzie

For the Arbitration Committee, –xeno^talk 16:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

BASC Statistics

During January, February and March 2011 the Ban Appeals Subcomittee (BASC) heard 21 appeals, 4 of which were successful. The successful appeals were Turbotad, Frieds02, SanchiTachi, and Justallofthem.

For the Arbitration Committee, PhilKnight (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Internal teams

To help ensure that all matters brought before the Arbitration Committee are addressed appropriately, certain arbitrators have volunteered to assume responsibility for various specific functions. A list of these arbitrators and the relevant areas is provided below for information purposes. Please note that, except for the formal subcommittees (WP:AUSC and WP:BASC), these assignments are informal and simply for purposes of internal coordination. Routine day-to-day changes will not necessarily be publicly announced. Coordination assignments are not exclusive and, except for recusals or inactive periods, all arbitrators may participate equally in all aspects of the Committee's work.

Incoming mail team

• Role: Expediting mail handling by providing initial responses; and triage of incoming mail.
• Team members: David Fuchs, Elen of the Roads, Iridescent, Jclemens, Mailer diablo, Roger Davies

Case management team

• Role: Overseeing requests for arbitration, opened cases, requests for clarification and amendment; monitoring Arbitration Enforcement.
• Team members: Cool Hand Luke, Elen of the Roads, Kirill Lokshin, Newyorkbrad, Roger Davies

Ban Appeals support team

• Role: assisting the Ban Appeals Subcommittee, with administration, statistics and correspondence.
• Team members: David Fuchs, Iridescent, Shell Kinney

Higher permissions team

• Role: coordination in selection of Oversighters, CheckUsers, and community AUSC representatives; working with the Audit Subcommittee; liaising with holders of higher permissions.
• Team members: Casliber, Risker, Xeno

Technical team

• Role: technical issues with the mailing list, the ArbCom private wiki, and related matters.
• Team members: Coren, John Vandenberg, Xeno

Overall internal coordination: Roger Davies, Kirill Lokshin

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger ^talk 09:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Henri Coanda closed

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

• Lsorin (talk · contribs) is prohibited from editing or commenting on articles about the Coandă-1910 aircraft, its inventor Henri Coandă, or the history of the jet engine. This topic-ban shall be effective indefinitely, but Lsorin may request that it be terminated or modified after at least six months have elapsed. In considering any such request, the Committee will give significant weight to whether Lsorin has established an ability to edit collaboratively and in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines in other topic-areas of the project.

• The topic-ban imposed in this decision applies to all pages in all namespaces. However, the topic-ban does not preclude Lsorin from (1) responding to good-faith, reasonable inquiries from other editors on his user talkpage seeking information about the Coandă-1910, as long as Lsorin does not misuse this permission; (2) participating in the arbitration enforcement discussion of any allegation that he violated the topic-ban; or (3) posting an authorized request for the lifting or modification of the topic-ban after the specified time period has elapsed.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Criteria for appointment to the Audit Subcommittee

To enhance the transparency of the Audit Subcommittee appointment process, the Committee has decided to publish the criteria used for appointment. For the appointments made last month, the criteria were as follows:

A candidate for the Audit Subcommittee will be appointed if:

1. No serious concerns in relation to privacy violations or other breach of trust have been raised; and
2. The candidate has been supported by at least 80% of the arbitrator votes cast.

In the event of there being more candidates meeting this standard than there are vacancies, candidates will be ranked by percentage of support. If this still results in a tie for the last available place(s), the number of support votes will be used to break the tie. If this does not break the tie, a runoff election will be held.

The fourth ranked candidate passing criteria (1) and (2) will remain an alternate, to be appointed if one of the appointed candidates retires before the end of his/her term.

These criteria were approved by a resolution of the Arbitration Committee:

Supporting: David Fuchs; Elen of the Roads; Iridescent; John Vandenberg; Kirill Lokshin; Mailer diablo; Newyorkbrad; PhilKnight; Risker; Roger Davies; Shell Kinney; Xeno

Not voting: Casliber; Cool Hand Luke; Coren; Jclemens

Inactive: SirFozzie; Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry

Unless announced otherwise, these criteria will be used for future appointments to the Audit Subcommittee.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Updated procedures for arbitrator activity and voting

The Arbitration Committee has updated its procedures for determining arbitrator activity and voting thresholds. The updated procedures are as follows:

Arbitrator activity

Arbitrators are presumed active unless they are on a wikibreak, have not participated in arbitration within the past week, or have informed the Committee of their absence. An inactive arbitrator may become active by voting on any aspect of a proceeding. An active arbitrator may become inactive by so stating, in which case their votes will be struck through and discounted.

Unannounced arbitrator absence

Any arbitrator who has not given prior notice of absence and who fails to post to the usual venues for seven consecutive days is deemed inactive in all matters with, where practical, retrospective effect to the date of the last known post.

Calculation of votes

Arbitrator votes are calculated on the following basis:

1. Each active, non-recused arbitrator may cast one vote; and
2. Recused, abstaining, and inactive arbitrators are discounted.

The following expressions are used, with the following meanings:

• "Four net votes": the number of votes to support or accept is at least four greater than the number of votes to oppose or decline.
• "Absolute majority": the number of votes to support or accept is greater than 50% of the total number of arbitrators, not including any arbitrators who are recused, abstaining, or inactive.

These procedures were approved by a resolution of the Arbitration Committee:

Supporting: Casliber; David Fuchs; Jclemens; John Vandenberg; Kirill Lokshin; Newyorkbrad; Risker; Roger Davies; Shell Kinney; Xeno

Not voting: Cool Hand Luke; Coren; Elen of the Roads; Iridescent; Mailer diablo; PhilKnight

Inactive: Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry

The updated procedures replace the previously published procedures for "Inactivity on internal resolutions" and "Unannounced arbitrator absence".

For the Arbitration Committee, Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Changes requested to the checkuser and oversight permissions

In order to remove the technical limitation that checkusers and oversighters must also be administrators to review deleted content, the deletedhistory, deletedtext, and browsearchive rights should be added to the oversight and checkuser permission groups.

Supporting: Cool Hand Luke; Coren; David Fuchs; Elen of the Roads; Jclemens; John Vandenberg; Kirill Lokshin; Newyorkbrad; PhilKnight; Risker; Shell Kinney; Roger Davies; Xeno

Not voting or inactive: Casliber; Iridescent; Mailer diablo; Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry; SirFozzie

For the Arbitration Committee, –xeno^talk 14:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Target timetable for cases

The Arbitration Committee has adopted a guideline providing a default timetable for the progression of cases, as follows:

Default case timetables

To expedite case handling, the target times are as follows:

1. The evidence phase lasts two weeks from the date of the case pages opening;
2. The workshop phase ends one week after the evidence phase closes;
3. The proposed decision is finalised within one week of the workshop phase closing.

The target times may be lengthened or shortened by initiative of the Committee, at the discretion of the drafting arbitrator(s), or at the request of one of the parties.

This guideline was approved by a resolution of the Arbitration Committee:

Supporting: David Fuchs, Elen of the Roads, Jclemens, John Vandenberg, Kirill Lokshin, PhilKnight, Risker, Roger Davies, Shell Kinney, Xeno

Abstaining: Casliber, Newyorkbrad

Not voting/inactive: Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, Cool Hand Luke, Coren, Iridescent, Mailer diablo, SirFozzie

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies ^talk 05:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence

By vote at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification, a majority of the Arbitration Committee has voted to amend the above case:

That the following replace the terms in Remedy 5.1:

Editors reminded and discretionary sanctions (amended)

5.2) Both experienced and new editors contributing to articles relating to the area of conflict (namely, the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed) are reminded that this is a highly contentious subject and are cautioned that to avoid disruption they must adhere strictly to fundamental Wikipedia policies, including but not limited to: maintaining a neutral point of view; avoiding undue weight; carefully citing disputed statements to reliable sources; and avoiding edit-warring and incivility.

To enforce the foregoing, Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for any editor making any edit relating to the area of conflict anywhere on Wikipedia.

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

All sanctions imposed under the original remedy shall continue in full force.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Arbitration procedures

The Committee has adopted the following, for incorporation into its Procedures.

Expectation of prior dispute resolution

The Committee usually expects editors to have exhausted the previous steps in the dispute resolution process before proceeding to arbitration. Exceptions include cases:

1. Where the case involves allegations of administrator misconduct or an unusually divisive dispute among administrators;
2. Where there has already been extensive discussion with wide community participation; or
3. Where there is good reason to believe that engaging in the earlier steps of the dispute resolution process would not be productive.

Opening of proceedings

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

1. Its acceptance has been supported by at least four net votes;
2. More than 24 hours have elapsed since the request passed the four net vote threshold; and
3. More than 48 hours have elapsed since the request was filed.

A proceeding may be opened earlier, waiving provisions 2 and 3 above, if a majority of arbitrators support fast-track opening in their acceptance votes. Once the Committee has accepted a request, a clerk will create the applicable case pages, and give the proceeding a working title. The title is for ease of identification only and may be changed by the Committee at any time. The Committee will designate one or more arbitrators to draft the case, to ensure it progresses, and to act as designated point of contact for any matters arising.

Expectation of participation in proceedings

Editors named as parties to an arbitration case, and duly notified of it, are expected to participate in the proceeding. Any editor named as a party to a case, or whose conduct otherwise comes under scrutiny during the course of a case, will be notified of this by the Committee or its clerks, and, except in exceptional circumstances, will be given a minimum of seven days to respond, calculated from the date the case opened or the date on which they are notified, whichever is later.

If a party fails to respond within a reasonable time of being notified, or explicitly refuses to participate in the case, or leaves Wikipedia just before or during the proceedings, the Committee may, at its discretion: (i) dismiss the case either in its entirety or only insofar as that party is concerned; (ii) suspend the case; (iii) continue the case regardless; or (iv) close the case by motion.

Actions by parties to a proceeding

If an administrator who is a party to a case resigns their permissions just before or during the case affecting them, they are not entitled to reinstatement under standard resysopping procedures, but are required, unless otherwise directed by the Committee, to submit a new request for adminship.

Submission of evidence

Evidence submissions are expected to be succinct and to the point. By default, they are limited to about 500 words and about 50 difference links and must be posted on the applicable case pages. The submission of evidence via sub-pages in userspace is prohibited. Editors wishing to submit over-length evidence must request the approval of the drafting arbitrator(s) prior to posting it. Unapproved over-length evidence and inappropriate material/links may be removed or redacted by the clerks.

Voting on proposed decisions

For standard hearings, proposed decisions will be posted in the form of "Principles", "Findings of Fact", "Remedies" and "Enforcement", with a separate vote for each provision. Where several substantive matters are combined in a single provision, they will be split into separate provisions for voting at the request of any arbitrator.

The final decision will consist of all proposed provisions which were passed by an absolute majority.

Motions to close

Once voting on a proposed decision appears to have ended, an arbitrator will move to close the case. To be adopted, a motion to close requires the support of the lesser of (i) four net votes or (ii) an absolute majority.

A final consideration period of at least 24 hours will usually elapse between the casting of the fourth net vote to close the case and the implementation of any remedies. However, closure may be fast-tracked if (i) all clauses pass unanimously or (ii) an absolute majority vote in the motion to do so.

Motions to dismiss

If, at any time, the Committee determines by an absolute majority that (i) issuing a formal decision serves no useful purpose; (ii) a majority decision is not achievable; or (iii) a case may best be resolved by a single motion rather than a full decision; it may close, dismiss or otherwise resolve the case by motion.

The procedures were adopted by resolution of the Arbitration Committee:

Support

Casliber, Cool Hand Luke, David Fuchs, Iridescent, Jclemens, John Vandenberg, Kirill Lokshin, Mailer diablo, Newyorkbrad, PhilKnight, Risker, Roger Davies, Shell Kinney, SirFozzie, Xeno

Oppose/Abstain

None

Inactive/Not voting

Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry; Coren, Elen of the Roads

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies ^talk 07:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander closed

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

1. Noleander (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from making any edit relating to Judaism, the Jewish people, Jewish history or culture, or individual Jewish persons identified as such, broadly but reasonably construed, in any namespace.

   Any disputes concerning the scope of the topic-ban may be raised on the Arbitration Enforcement page for prompt resolution. Unnecessary "wikilawyering" about the precise scope of the topic-ban is unwelcome and may be cause for further sanctions.

   This topic-ban shall be effective indefinitely, but Noleander may request that it be terminated or modified after at least one year has elapsed. In considering any such request, the Committee will give significant weight to whether Noleander has established an ability to edit collaboratively and in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines in other topic-areas of the project. Any perceptibly biased or prejudiced editing concerning any other group would weigh against lifting of the topic-ban and could also result in further sanctions.

2. The attention of editors and administrators is drawn to the "Editors reminded and discretionary sanctions (amended)" clause of Race and intelligence that was recently adopted, as its terms are applicable to other disputes similar to those arising in this current case. For ease of reference, the amended remedy states:

   Both experienced and new editors contributing to articles relating to the area of conflict (namely, the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed) are reminded that this is a highly contentious subject and are cautioned that to avoid disruption they must adhere strictly to fundamental Wikipedia policies, including but not limited to: maintaining a neutral point of view; avoiding undue weight; carefully citing disputed statements to reliable sources; and avoiding edit-warring and incivility.

For the Arbitration Committee, Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Updated Arbitration policy (final draft)

The final draft of a proposed update to the existing Arbitration policy is available. It has received extensive community review already but all editors are cordially invited to review the final draft and comment. The draft is here.  Roger Davies ^talk 10:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Clerk promotion

We are pleased to announce that Salvio giuliano (talk · contribs) has been promoted to a full Arbitration Committee Clerk position, effective immediately.

We thank Salvio giuliano and all of the Clerks for their assistance to the Committee and its work.

For the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Checkuser practice regarding the association of IP addresses to accounts

A concern was filed about a checkuser confirming on an SPI case that an IP address was associated with a specific editor. The request was subsequently withdrawn following discussion between the concerned party and the checkuser. Nonetheless, it is important to note that, while checkusers are normally reticent to make such direct links, there are valid reasons within the privacy policy to do so under certain circumstances. Those circumstances can include editors logging out to behave disruptively. The practice of declining to publicly link such activities to an account is merely a tradition, and checkusers may do so if discretion warrants it.

For the Audit Subcommittee, bahamut0013^words_deeds 15:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Happy-melon Oversight resignation

The Arbitration Committee has accepted Happy-melon's resignation from the Oversight role. We would like to extend our thanks to Happy-melon for his service in this role, and we are pleased that this resignation is prompted by his desire to focus on his role as a MediaWiki developer, where we expect his future contributions will benefit far more than just the English Wikipedia.

For the Arbitration Committee, Jclemens (talk) 13:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

Users Dreadstar, Sandstein, and Ludwigs2 are encouraged to read and reflect on the remedies applicable to them. All administrators who intend to enforce or undo an action linked to an arbitration remedy are advised to read the principles and remedies of the case.

For the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 19:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Arbitration motion regarding Russavia-Biophys

Following a request for clarification filed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment on 21 April 2011, the Arbitration Committee has resolved that:

Remedy 8 ("YMB29 topic banned") of Russavia-Biophys is terminated, effective immediately. YMB29 is placed on a one-revert-per-day restriction in the relevant topic area ("articles about the Soviet Union and former Soviet Republics, and all related articles") for a period of one year. YMB29 is reminded to abide by the principles discussed in the decision, as well as all applicable Wikipedia policies and guidelines, in his future editing, and that he remains subject to discretionary sanctions under the terms of related decisions should he violate them.

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 12:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Committee procedures relating to Ban appeals and to Discretionary sanctions

The Arbitration Committee has added the following provisions to its Procedures:

Ban appeals

An editor who is indefinitely topic-banned or otherwise restricted from editing in a topic area under an Arbitration Committee decision may request an amendment to lift or modify the restriction after an appropriate time period has elapsed. A reasonable minimum time period for such a request will ordinarily be six months, unless the decision provides for a different time or the Committee subsequently determines otherwise. In considering such a request, the Committee will give significant weight to, among other factors, whether the editor in question has established an ability to edit collaboratively and in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines in other topic-areas of the project.

Discretionary sanctions

Administrators are reminded that:

1. Discretionary sanctions are a fast-track procedure to tackle misconduct within defined topic areas and/or to prevent disputes from within the defined topic area overflowing freely into other areas of the encyclopedia;
2. Discretionary sanctions may be imposed by any uninvolved administrator after giving due warning;
3. Best practice includes seeking additional input prior to applying a novel sanction or when a reasonable, uninvolved editor may question whether the sanction is within the scope of the relevant case;
4. Warnings should be clear and unambiguous, link to the decision authorising the sanctions, identify misconduct and advise how the editor may mend their ways;
5. Notices of imposed sanctions should specify the misconduct for which they have been imposed as well as the appeal process;
6. Discretionary sanctions have an established and clearly defined appeal process, which must be adhered to;
7. Overturning arbitration enforcement actions out of process is strictly prohibited per longstanding principle;
8. Discretionary sanctions should be used with caution where the community is already dealing with the specific issue through dispute resolution processes.

The first new procedure was adopted by motion on 6 May 2011. The second new procedure was adopted by decision in Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling on 5 May 2011.

For the Arbitration Committee,
AGK [•] 13:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Changes in Checkuser/Oversight Personnel

This is to advise the community that CheckUser Lar (talk · contribs) and Oversighter Phantomsteve (talk · contribs) have recently resigned their advanced permissions. The Arbitration Committee thanks both of them for their work in these areas. Should they wish to resume activity in the future, they may contact the Arbitration Committee.

As well, in accord with the 30 March 2011 statement on advanced permissions and inactivity, the CheckUser and Oversight permissions of YellowMonkey (talk · contribs) are removed for inactivity. YellowMonkey has not participated in the project since November 2010. We wish him well in his future endeavours.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Risker (talk) 03:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Updated procedure for Committee resolutions

The Arbitration Committee has updated its procedure for deliberating on and enacting resolutions. The updated procedure is as follows:

Committee resolutions

The Committee will consider and adopt resolutions as follows:

1. All proposed resolutions will be posted for voting on the discussion board of the arbitration wiki.
2. The arbitrator initiating the proposal will notify arbcom-l of the proposal, and is responsible for sending any subsequent reminders as necessary.
3. A resolution will be considered to have passed when it is endorsed by an absolute majority of active, non-recused arbitrators.
4. When a resolution has passed, it will be announced on arbcom-l.

Resolutions intended for public dissemination will be published to the Arbitration Committee noticeboard. Internal resolutions will be retained in the Committee's internal records.

These procedures were approved by a resolution of the Arbitration Committee:

Supporting: David Fuchs; Iridescent; Jclemens; John Vandenberg; Kirill Lokshin; PhilKnight; Risker; SirFozzie

Not voting: Casliber; Cool Hand Luke; Coren; Elen of the Roads; Newyorkbrad; Roger Davies; Shell Kinney

Inactive: Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry; Mailer diablo; Xeno

The updated procedure replaces the previously published procedure for "Internal resolutions".

For the Arbitration Committee, Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 11:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

New procedure for quorum for urgent resolutions

The Arbitration Committee has adopted a new procedure for determining the quorum on urgent resolutions:

Quorum for urgent resolutions

The Committee sometimes needs to act urgently and it may do so as an interim measure, without a formal vote of the entire Committee, once a resolution proposing urgent action and explicitly stated as such has been unanimously supported by a quorum of the Committee, comprising a third of all active non-recused arbitrators. Such resolutions will be interim measures, pending review by the entire Committee.

This procedure was approved by a resolution of the Arbitration Committee:

Supporting: David Fuchs; Iridescent; Jclemens; John Vandenberg; Kirill Lokshin; PhilKnight; Risker; Roger Davies; SirFozzie

Not voting: Casliber; Cool Hand Luke; Coren; Elen of the Roads; Newyorkbrad; Shell Kinney

Inactive: Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry; Mailer diablo; Xeno

For the Arbitration Committee, Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 11:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Updated procedure for handling ban appeals

The Arbitration Committee has updated its procedure for handling ban appeals. The updated procedure is as follows:

Handling of ban appeals

The procedure for handling ban appeals is as follows:

1. The Committee hears appeals from editors who (i) have been banned or are subject to lengthy or indefinite blocks and (ii) have exhausted all other avenues of appeal.
2. Appeals must be submitted by email by the editor blocked or banned, setting out the grounds for appeal and the name of the account affected.
3. Incoming appeals will be reviewed by arbitrators on receipt.
4. Any arbitrator may refer the appeal to the Ban Appeals Subcommittee.
5. Any arbitrator may decline an appeal which appears to them groundless or frivolous and shall write to the editor stating the basis on which the appeal is declined, with a copy to the Committee for review. After review, any arbitrator may refer the appeal to the Ban Appeals Subcommittee.
6. Within a reasonable time of a ban appeal having been referred to it, the Ban Appeals Subcommittee shall recommend a response to the appeal, as established by unanimous agreement among its members. The subcommittee may determine what constitutes a reasonable time for this purpose, which should not be less than 72 hours, nor more than one week.
   • The response may confirm the ban, lift the ban, lift the ban and impose editing restrictions, recommend opening an arbitration case, refer the matter for community discussion, or entail any other action within the authority of the Committee.
   • The response may advise the user that they may request further consideration of the appeal by filing a new request after a specified amount of time has passed, or after satisfying other specified conditions.
   • The members of the subcommittee may communicate directly with the appealing editor, the blocking administrator, or other involved editors, at their discretion.
   • Should the subcommittee require an extended period of time to provide a recommendation, it shall advise the Committee of this, and provide a date on which it expects a recommendation to be ready.
7. If no arbitrator objects to the subcommittee's recommendation within 48 hours of its having been posted, the subcommittee shall issue the recommended response in the name of the Committee. If any arbitrator objects before the deadline, the response shall be brought before the entire Committee.
8. Should the subcommittee be unable to arrive at a unanimous recommendation, the matter shall be brought before the entire Committee.

An arbitrator's service on the Ban Appeals Subcommittee is part of his or her official service as an arbitrator, and therefore shall not constitute grounds for recusal in a subsequent matter involving an editor whose appeal was considered by the subcommittee.

This procedure was approved by a resolution of the Arbitration Committee:

Supporting: David Fuchs; Iridescent; Jclemens; John Vandenberg; Kirill Lokshin; PhilKnight; Risker; Roger Davies; Shell Kinney; SirFozzie; Xeno

Not voting: Casliber; Cool Hand Luke; Coren; Elen of the Roads; Newyorkbrad

Inactive: Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry; Mailer diablo

The updated procedure replaces the previously published procedure for "Handling of ban appeals".

For the Arbitration Committee, Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 11:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Arbitration motion regarding hyphens and dashes

In relation to a request for arbitration on 5 May 2011, the Arbitration Committee has passed by motion these interim decisions:

1. Temporary injunction on the article title disputes secondary to hyphen/endash issue:

   There is to be a moratorium on article title changes that are due to hyphen/endash exchange. The only edits allowed will be to create a redirect to the existing article title until the resolution of the debate below.

   All discussions on the subject of En dashes in article titles discussion (interpreted broadly) are subject to civility and 1RR restrictions. Administrators are urged to be proactive in monitoring and assertive in keeping debate civil. Actions requiring clarification can be raised with the Committee on the appropriate subpage.

2. Motion of instruction to editors involved in dispute:

   Interested parties are instructed to spend from now until 30 May 2011 determining the structure of a discussion on En dashes in article titles to obtain consensus. Note that this can be the continuation of a current discussion or commencement anew. From 30 May 2011, a period of six weeks is granted for the gathering of consensus on the issue. The discussion should be of sufficient structure to allow easy quantification of consensus rather than a large amount of poorly-framed debate. If after two months, a determination isn't realised, a case will be opened and conduct violations will be dealt with severely.

Both provisions were passed 12 to 0 with 1 recusal.

For the Arbitration Committee
AGK [•] 21:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Preliminary injunction regarding pending changes and biographies of living persons

By a vote of 9-0, a majority of the Arbitration Committee has voted to pass a preliminary injunction. This injunction was proposed and passed after User:Scott MacDonald brought a case request to the Committee regarding the implementation of the shutdown of pending changes. At the time of the passage of this injunction, the request is pending before the Committee.

Arbitration policy states that "injunctions are binding decisions that shall be in effect until a case closes". In the event that there is insufficient agreement among the Committee to open the case, clarification should be requested from the Arbitration Committee on how to proceed. The injunction is the following:

Any administrator who removes pending changes protection from any article flagged as a biography of a living person shall replace level 1 pending changes with semi-protection of an equivalent duration and replace level 2 pending changes with full protection of an equivalent duration. This measure shall be effective immediately, and administrators who have recently removed pending changes from biographies of living persons articles are expected to assure that these protection levels are applied to articles from which pending changes protection has been removed.

For the Arbitration Committee,
NW (Talk) 15:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Update

Because it is mathematically impossible for a case to be opened at this time per current procedure, the case request has been declined. Because pending changes are not enabled on any mainspace pages at this time,[1] the above injunction should be regarded as expired.

For the Arbitration Committee,
NW (Talk) 22:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

GoRight ban appeal

GoRight (talk · contribs) has appealed his community ban to the Arbitration Committee. The committee would appreciate brief (i) comments on the suitability of his possible return and (ii) proposals for possible editing restrictions should the appeal be successful. Private concerns may be raised with the committee by email at: arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org.

For the Arbitration Committee, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Removal of permissions

In accordance with the process for expedient removal of permissions, administrator permissions of the account Spencer195 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) are to be removed immediately given concerns that the account may have been compromised and being used to abuse multiple accounts.

This desysop is temporary until the entire Committee has had the opportunity to examine the matter and Spencer195 is given an opportunity to explain his actions.

Supporting: Coren, Risker, Casliber

— Coren ^(talk), for the committee, 16:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Arbitration policy update

The proposed update to the Arbitration policy has now been adopted by the committee with seventeen of eighteen arbitrators supporting the adoption: Casliber, Cool Hand Luke, Coren, David Fuchs, Elen of the Roads, Iridescent, Jclemens, John Vandenberg, Kirill Lokshin, Mailer diablo, Newyorkbrad, PhilKnight, Risker, Roger Davies, Shell Kinney, SirFozzie and Xeno. (Not voting/inactive: Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry)

The proposed update policy has now posted and is awaiting community ratification. All editors are cordially invited to participate in the referendum, which is now open.

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies ^talk 19:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/dash drafting open for voting

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/dash drafting has now been finalised for open community voting until July 14.

For the Arbitration Committee, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Motion regarding User:Barong

By a vote of 9-2, an absolute majority of the Arbitration Committee has voted to pass the following motion:

The restriction on using multiple/alternate accounts on User:Barong, formerly known as User:Jack Merridew is modified as follows: User:Barong is directed to edit solely from that account. Should Barong edit from another account or log out to edit in a deliberate attempt to violate this restriction, any uninvolved administrator may block Barong for a reasonable amount of time at their discretion.

However, because the account Barong has been globally locked as compromised, the person who edited with that account is directed to contact the Arbitration Committee with the name of the new account they wish to use in place of Barong.

For the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 22:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Final reminder: Arbitration policy update and ratification

The current written arbitration policy dates from 2004 and much has evolved since then. The policy has been extensively reviewed over the last two years, with a series of wide-ranging community consultations, to bring the written document up to date. The proposed update is posted and is undergoing community ratification, which is due to close on 13 June 2011. All editors are cordially invited to participate in the ratification process.  Roger Davies ^talk 05:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys

By motion voted upon at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

The topic ban placed upon Biophys (talk · contribs) in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Russavia-Biophys is lifted, effective immediately. Biophys is reminded that further disruption related to this case may result in the topic ban or other remedies being re-imposed by the Committee.

For the Arbitration Committee, Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2

By motion voted upon at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

Remedy 25.3 of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2 ("Future Perfect at Sunrise temporarily desysopped") is lifted, effective immediately. Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is reminded to abide by the policies guiding administrative acts in areas where one is involved, and to apply particular care to avoid conflict in areas related to Greece and Macedonia.

For the Arbitration Committee, Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket closed

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

1. Racepacket (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for one year
2. Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) is admonished for blocking editors with whom he has had recent editorial disputes
3. LauraHale (talk · contribs) and Racepacket are prohibited from interacting with one another
4. Hawkeye7 is prohibited from taking administrative action "with regards to, or at the behest of LauraHale".

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 21:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Arbitration motion related to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2

Per motion voted upon at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

The scope of the topic ban placed upon Ed Poor (talk · contribs) by Kafziel (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) on 2009-12-10[2] as a result of enforcement of remedy 1.1 of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2 is amended to "any article related to Category:Unification Church, not including associated talk pages", effective immediately. Ed Poor is reminded that further disruption related to this topic may result in the topic ban or other remedies being re-imposed by the Committee.

Passed 10-0 on 24 June, 2011.

On behalf of the arbitration committee, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC).

Archived discussion

Arbitration motion related to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case Nabla

An arbitration request regarding User:Nabla has now closed and the decision can be read here. The following motion has been enacted:

(A) The Arbitration Committee reaffirms its, and the community's, expectation that administrators will observe all applicable policies, avoid inappropriate edits, and behave with maturity and professionalism throughout their participation on Wikipedia. While administrators are not expected to be perfect, severe or repeated violations of policies and community norms may lead to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping.

(B) Nabla's conduct in admittedly making several unproductive edits while editing as an IP has been subject to significant, and justified, criticism. The Arbitration Committee joins in disapproving of this behavior, but accepts Nabla's assurance that he will not repeat it in the future, even to express good-faith concerns or frustrations regarding aspects of the project.

(C) Nabla is aware from the ANI discussion and this request for arbitration that some editors' trust in his ability to serve as an effective administrator has been eroded, both because of his IP edits and because of his period of inactivity. If Nabla intends to resume active work as an administrator, he should first refamiliarize himself with all applicable policies, and we recommend that he focus initially on less controversial administrator tasks. To an extent, these recommendations apply to any administrator who returns after a long period of inactivity.

(D) Although not directly relevant to Nabla's situation, the Arbitration Committee is aware of the ongoing community discussion regarding inactive administrator accounts, and stands ready to play its part if necessary once consensus has been determined. Passed 13-1 with 1 abstention on June 27, 2011.

For the Arbitration Committee, --Dougweller (talk) 13:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Shell Kinney resigns

The Arbitration Committee has, with regret, accepted the resignation of Shell Kinney (talk · contribs). The Committee extends its thanks to Shell Kinney for all of her work, both with the Arbitration Committee, and as a longtime Wikipedia contributor and administrator. We wish her the best in her future activities.

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies ^talk 20:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys

By motion voted upon at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

The remedies of the Eastern European mailing list and Russavia-Biophys cases are amended to permit bilateral interactions between User:Russavia and User:Miacek.

For the Arbitration Committee, Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 01:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Arbitration motion regarding User:Δ

Resolved by motion:
Pursuant to the provisions of Remedy 5.1, RfAr/Betacommand 2, and mindful of the recent and current disputes surrounding this user in many fora, the committee by motion indefinitely topic-bans Δ (formerly known as Betacommand) from making any edit enforcing the non-free content criteria, broadly construed. User:Δ is also formally reminded of the civility restriction and other terms to which they are still subject as a condition of the provisional suspension of their community ban.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 18:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping

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

1. The topic covered by the article currently located at Tree shaping, interpreted broadly, is placed under discretionary sanctions.
2. User:Blackash is topic banned from all discussion on the correct name for the tree shaping/arborsculpture/pooktre topic for one year. The topic ban includes talk pages, wikipedia space and userspace, but only covers discussion of what name should be given to the practice, and what title should be used for any articles on the subject.
3. User:Sydney Bluegum is topic banned from the subject of tree shaping/arborsculpture/pooktre widely construed for one year. The topic ban includes talk pages, wikipedia space and userspace.
4. User:Slowart is topic banned from all discussion on the correct name for the tree shaping/arborsculpture/pooktre topic for one year. The topic ban includes talk pages, wikipedia space and userspace, but only covers discussion of what name should be given to the practice, and what title should be used for any articles on the subject.
5. The community is urged to open up a discussion, by way of request for comment, on the article currently located at Tree shaping to determine the consensus name and scope for the subject matter, whether it should stand alone or whether it is best upmerged to a parent article. To gain a broad consensus, naming and scope proposals should be adequately laid out and outside comments invited to gain a community-based consensus. This should be resolved within two months of the closing of this case. Parties that are otherwise topic banned are allowed to outlay proposals and background rationale at the commencement of the discussion, and to answer specific queries addressed to them or their proposals. This concession is made due to their experience and familiarity with the area.
6. Within seven days of the conclusion of this case, all parties must either delete evidence sub-pages in their user space or request deletion of them using the {{db-author}} or {{db-self}} template.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Changes in advanced permissions

Effective immediately, arbitrator David Fuchs is granted CheckUser and Oversight permissions as a result of current and planned changes in his assignments within the Arbitration Committee.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 04:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria

By motion of the Arbitration Committee voted on at requests for amendment,

The editing restrictions placed on Nishidani (talk · contribs) in the West Bank - Judea and Samaria case are lifted effective at the passage of this motion. Nishidani is reminded that articles in the area of conflict, which is identical to the area of conflict as defined by the Palestine-Israel articles case, remain the subject of discretionary sanctions; should he edit within this topic area, those discretionary sanctions continue to apply.

For the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Manual of Style updated

Following the conclusion of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/dash drafting, the Wikipedia:Manual of Style has been updated accordingly, following drafting by Noetica (talk · contribs). I will unlock the page, but any further edit warring will be taken very badly.

For the Arbitration Committee, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

FloNight resuming oversighter role

This is to advise the community that the committee has agreed that FloNight (talk · contribs) shall resume her role as Oversighter effective immediately. We have reviewed the duties of her dual roles as an Oversighter and an Ombudsman and found no material issues in her willingness to serve in both capacities. We welcome FloNight's continued service to the English Wikipedia.

For the Arbitration Committee, Jclemens (talk) 06:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee closed

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

1. MickMacNee is banned from Wikipedia for a period of no less than one year. After this minimum time has elapsed, MickMacNee will remain banned indefinitely, until such time as he demonstrates to the Committee that he is no longer a threat to the collaborative nature of the project.
2. Δ (talk · contribs) is admonished for engaging in hostile and uncollegial conduct, and warned that the Committee may impose additional sanctions by motion if such conduct reoccurs.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 12:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Motion regarding Gilabrand's AE Block for WP:ARBPIA

The arbitration enforcement block placed on Gilabrand (talk · contribs) related to the Palestine-Israel articles case is provisionally suspended as of 25 August or the passage of this motion, whichever is the latter. Gilabrand is reminded that articles in the area of conflict remain the subject of discretionary sanctions, and are currently subject to a 1RR restriction. Gilabrand is further reminded that any future problematic editing following the removal of editing restrictions will be viewed dimly.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 15:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitrator abstention votes

Resolved by motion:

That in voting sections of proposed decisions as well as of freestanding motions, an additional "Comments" section will be included following the Support, Oppose, and Abstain sections. This section may be used only by arbitrators for comments on the proposal and for discussion of fellow arbitrators' comments. Posting a comment on a proposal does not constitute a vote on the proposal or change the required majority for the proposal. The use of abstention votes as a vehicle for comments, while ultimately within each arbitrator's discretion, is not recommended. Generally, an arbitrator who posts a comment is also expected to vote on the proposal, either at the same time, or at a later time after there has been an opportunity for his or her comments to be addressed. The Arbitration Committee will reevaluate this change of procedures and consider whether any additional changes are warranted in three months.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 14:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Finalizing the changeover to the oversight requests email address

The email address to which requests for oversight should be submitted is oversight-en-wpwikipedia.org. Editors with email enabled may use Special:EmailUser/Oversight.

Further to a previous announcement and to finalize the announced changeover to the above email address, the original oversight-l mailing list shall be set to subscribers only effective 1 September 2011, automatically prompting non-subscribers to email requests to the new address instead.

Individuals who submit requests via direct email should ensure that their address books are updated to the new mailing address.

For the Arbitration Committee, –xeno^talk 04:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Mailing list delays

We are advised that there currently are delays in e-mails to and from WMF mailing lists, including Arbcom-l. Both incoming and outgoing mail to and from the list are affected, including both internal committee communications and mails to or from other editors. The issue will hopefully be resolved shortly but obviously that is not within the Committee's control. In the interim, editors who have e-mailed us and not yet received a response are advised that this may be one of the reasons. (The fact that several arbitrators have had end-of-summer vacations or are about to may be another.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Update: This has since been resolved. –xeno^talk 16:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Audit Subcommittee community member changes

Pursuant to the motion concerning advanced permissions and inactivity, the appointment of Bahamut0013 (talk · contribs) to the Audit Subcommittee is terminated effective 3 September 2011 and his Checkuser and Oversight permissions shall be withdrawn. The committee has been unable to contact Bahamut0013, and this action is taken on the basis that he is not currently active on this project.

AGK (talk · contribs) is appointed in his place in accordance with the April 2011 Audit Subcommittee appointments motion. The Arbitration Committee thanks Bahamut0013 for his contributions to the Audit Subcommittee during his tenure, and thanks AGK for agreeing to accept full membership in the subcommittee for the remainder of Bahamut0013's term.

Supporting motion: Casliber; Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry; David Fuchs; Elen of the Roads; Jclemens; John Vandenberg; Newyorkbrad; PhilKnight; Risker; SirFozzie; Xeno.

Not voting/inactive: Cool Hand Luke; Coren; Iridescent; Kirill Lokshin; Mailer diablo; Roger Davies.

For the Arbitration Committee, –xeno^talk 22:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

oversight-l closed for business

Further to the previous announcement, the oversight-l mailing list has been closed to non-subscribers. It auto-responds to incoming correspondence from non-members with instructions to visit Requests for Oversight to request suppression. The Wikipedia page provides several methods of requesting suppression, including emailing oversight-en-wplists.wikimedia.org, which is an OTRS queue. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs closed

An arbitration case regarding Manipulation of BLPs has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:

1. Editors who edit biographies of living persons and other articles referring to living persons are reminded that all editing of these articles must comply with the biographies of living persons policy and with the principles set forth in this decision;
2. Administrators and other experienced editors are urged to take a proactive approach in addressing violations and alleged violations of the BLP policy, and to watchlist the BLP noticeboard and participate in discussing and resolving issues raised on that noticeboard;
3. To the extent that parties to this case have been engaged in protracted disputes and quarrels with other parties, the feuding parties are urged to avoid any unnecessary interactions with each other, except to the extent necessary for legitimate purposes such as dispute resolution;
4. If disputes concerning editing of biographical articles by parties to this case persist, appropriate dispute resolution methods should be pursued. To the extent possible, such dispute resolution should be led and addressed by editors who have not previously been involved in the disputes. If a specific serious dispute persists and other means of dispute resolution do not resolve them, a new and specifically focused request for arbitration may be filed not less than 30 days from the date of this decision.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking

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

The Date delinking case is amended as follows:

Remedies 16 and 18 (as amended) are terminated, effective immediately. Ohconfucius is reminded that this subject remains within the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee, and that he is expected to abide by all applicable policies and guidelines, especially those concerning the editing and discussion of policies and guidelines, and the use of alternate accounts.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt and Jayen466 closed

An arbitration case regarding the conduct of User:Cirt and User:Jayen466 has been closed and may be viewed at the link above. The following is a summary of enacted remedies:

1. Cirt is topic-banned indefinitely from making any edits to articles related to new religious movements, their adherents, and any related biographies of living people, broadly construed.
2. Cirt is further restricted on biographies of living people if the articles are substantially about, or Cirt's edits introduce material relating to: politics, religion, or social controversy. Cirt is permitted to edit articles incidentally related to such topics provided the articles, and Cirt's edits, are not biographical in nature. The Committee may extend this restriction if BLP-related problems continue, and Cirt may request relaxation of this restriction after one year from this date if there are no further problems.
3. Cirt is desysopped for admitted violations of the neutral point of view and biographies of living people policies. He may reapply for adminship through requests for adminship at any time.
4. Jayen466 is reminded to strictly adhere to dispute resolution processes in any future disputes.
5. Cirt and Jayen466 are subject to an interaction restriction wherein they may not communicate with each other, nor comment on each other, or each other's actions or edits, directly or indirectly, anywhere on Wikipedia. Comments on the same page are permissible provided the previously mentioned restrictions are upheld. Neither party may respond directly to any violations of this or any other remedy, but shall report any violations via email directly to the Arbitration Committee.
6. Any violation of these restrictions may be enforced by block, to be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt and Jayen466#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions.

For the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

2011 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Call for applications

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint additional users to the CheckUser and Oversight teams. Experienced editors are invited to apply for either or both of the permissions, and current holders of either permission are also invited to apply for the other.

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

Current demand for users with regional knowledge

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

If you think you may be suitably qualified, please see the appointments page for further information. The application period is scheduled to close 18 September 2011.

For the Arbitration Committee, –xeno^talk 16:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Appeal to BASC: Iantresman

The Ban Appeals Subcommittee has allowed the appeal of:

Iantresman (talk · contribs)

The text of the decision has been posted on the editor's talk page.

For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 11:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Appeal to BASC: Nelsondenis248

The Ban Appeals Subcommittee has allowed the appeal of:

Nelsondenis248 (talk · contribs)

The text of the decision has been posted on the editor's talk page.

For the Arbitration Committee, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

2011 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Invitation to comment on candidates

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

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

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

The consultation phase is scheduled to end 23:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC), and the appointments are scheduled to be announced by 10 October 2011.

For the Arbitration Committee, –xeno^talk 14:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands closed

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

1. User:Tenmei is indefinitely topic banned from the subject of Senkaku Islands, widely construed. The topic ban includes talk pages, wikipedia space and userspace.
2. Tenmei is advised that his unusual style of communication has not been conducive to resolving this dispute. Accordingly, Tenmei is urged to develop a different style of communication, which is more similar to that used by experienced Wikipedia editors. Until this happens, Tenmei is advised not to engage in topics which are the subject of a dispute.
3. Tenmei is banned for one year.
4. User:Bobthefish2 is topic banned from the subject of Senkaku Islands, widely construed, for one year. The topic ban includes talk pages, wikipedia space and user space.
5. User:STSC is warned to avoid any sexualisation of discussions, especially during disputes.
6. The parties are reminded that attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground may result in the summary imposition of additional sanctions, up to and including a ban from the project.
7. The topic covered by the article currently located at Senkaku Islands, interpreted broadly, is placed under standard discretionary sanctions. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.
8. An uninvolved administrator may, after a warning given a month prior, place any set of pages relating to a territorial dispute of islands in East Asia, broadly interpreted, under standard discretionary sanctions for six months if the editing community is unable to reach consensus on the proper names to be used to refer to the disputed islands.

   While a territorial dispute is subject to discretionary sanctions due to this remedy, any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in these topical areas, after an initial warning.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 21:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

2011 CheckUser and Oversight appointments & personnel changes

The Arbitration Committee has resolved to appoint five editors to the CheckUser team and three editors to the Oversight team pursuant to the CheckUser and Oversight appointment procedures and following the 2011 CUOS appointments process.

Subject to their providing identification satisfactory to the Wikimedia Foundation, the Arbitration Committee hereby resolves to:

(a) appoint the following editors as checkusers:

• AGK (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)^†
• Courcelles (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)^†
• Elockid (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Keegan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)^†
• WilliamH (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

(b) appoint the following editors as oversighters:

• Courcelles (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)^†
• Fluffernutter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• WilliamH (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

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

The committee thanks the other candidates (28bytes, HelloAnnyong, Kww, and Mentifisto); those who applied but were not put forward as candidates; and the community in bringing this appointment process to a successful conclusion.

The committee also recognizes the departures of Dominic and Nishkid64 from their dual roles on the CheckUser and Oversight teams; along with EVula, Howcheng, & Mr.Z-man from the Oversight team; and thanks these editors for their diligent service as functionaries and their extensive contributions elsewhere on the project.

At the request of arbitrator Iridescent, checkuser and oversight permissions will be removed from their account until such time as Iridescent is able to return to active participation.

Supporting motion: Casliber; Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry; Coren; David Fuchs; Jclemens; John Vandenberg; Kirill Lokshin; Mailer diablo; PhilKnight; Newyorkbrad; Roger Davies; Risker; SirFozzie; Xeno

Not voting/inactive: Cool Hand Luke; Elen of the Roads; Iridescent

For the Arbitration Committee, –xeno^talk 13:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

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

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

The topic ban imposed on William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) in the Climate change case is modified, effective immediately. William M. Connolley is permitted to edit within the topic area of Climate change, but is prohibited from editing relating to any living person associated with this topic, interpreted broadly but reasonably. William M. Connolley is reminded to abide by all applicable Wikipedia policies in editing on this topic and that he remains subject either to further action by this Committee or (like all editors in this topic-area) to discretionary sanctions should he fail to do so.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 21:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Omnibus motion amending past cases

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

To simplify enforcement of older sanctions that are, substantively, discretionary sanctions, the committee hereby amends and supersedes the remedies listed below with the following:

Discretionary Sanctions

The topic is placed under discretionary sanctions. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.

where "The topic" is specified in the list of amended remedies below. Any extant sanctions or warnings made according to the older wording found in those decisions (as applicable) remain unaffected.

• Remedy 1.1 of Palestine-Israel articles (All Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted)
• Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 as amended. (Topics related to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts, broadly interpreted)
• Remedy 1 of Macedonia (topics related to the Balkans, broadly interpreted)
• Remedy 1.2 of Climate change (The Climate change topic, broadly interpreted)
• Remedy 1 of Abd-WMC (Cold fusion and related articles)
• Remedy 12 of Digwuren (Topics related to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted)
• Remedy 1 of Gibraltar (Gibraltar or other articles concerning the history, people, or political status of Gibraltar)
• Remedy 1 of Homeopathy (Homeopathy and related articles)
• Remedy 4 of Martinphi-ScienceApologist and remedy 12 of Pseudoscience (Articles relating to pseudoscience, broadly interpreted)
• Remedy 1 of September 11 conspiracy theories (Articles which relate to the events of September 11, 2001, broadly interpreted)
• Remedy 3 of Transcendental Meditation movement (Transcendental meditation or other articles concerning Transcendental meditation and related biographies of living people, broadly interpreted)
• Remedy 13 of Ayn Rand (Ayn Rand or related articles or pages)
• All extant remedies of The Troubles, as amended and clarified (Articles relating to The Troubles, as well as the Ulster banner and British baronets)

For the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 14:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Appeal to BASC: Mìthrandir

The Ban Appeals Subcommittee has allowed the appeal of:

Mìthrandir (talk · contribs)

The text of the decision has been posted on the editor's talk page.

For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 19:13, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Appeal to BASC: ChristiaandeWet

The Ban Appeals Subcommittee has allowed the appeal of:

ChristiaandeWet (talk · contribs)

The text of the decision has been posted on the editor's talk page.

For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 19:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Arbitration Committee/WMF Liaison

In August 2011, the Arbitration Committee and the Wikimedia Foundation jointly agreed to identify liaisons to enhance communication and co-ordination between the Committee and the Foundation. Below is the internal resolution appointing Newyorkbrad as the Arbitration Committee liaison to the WMF.

In order to foster and enhance collaboration between the Wikimedia Foundation and the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee, the committee resolves

i) That the role of Committee liaison to the Wikimedia Foundation shall be a designated point of contact between the Wikimedia Foundation and the Arbitration Committee;

ii) That the liaison shall be appointed by an absolute majority of active, non-recused arbitrators, and may be replaced or removed at any time by an absolute majority of active, non-recused arbitrators;

iii) That the liaison shall not be authorized to make binding decisions on behalf of the Arbitration Committee except as specifically and previously authorized by committee directive.

Support resolution: Casliber; David Fuchs; Jclemens; John Vandenberg; Mailer diablo; Newyorkbrad; PhilKnight; Risker; Roger Davies; Xeno

Support i): Cool Hand Luke (did not vote on other sections)

Oppose resolution: None

Not voting/inactive: Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry; Coren; Elen of the Roads; Iridescent; Kirill Lokshin; SirFozzie

The committee further resolves that upon the passing of this resolution, Newyorkbrad is appointed as the Arbitration Committee liaison to the Wikimedia Foundation effective 18 August 2011 until December 31, 2012, or such time as the role is reassigned by the committee.

Support resolution: Jclemens; Casliber; Cool Hand Luke; John Vandenberg; Mailer diablo; PhilKnight; Risker; Roger Davies; Xeno.

Accept appointment: Newyorkbrad

Oppose resolution: None

Not voting/inactive: Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry; Coren; David Fuchs; Elen of the Roads; Iridescent; Kirill Lokshin; SirFozzie.

Internal resolution passed.

As part of the role of the Liaison, Newyorkbrad and another member of the Committee, Coren, attended at the WMF offices on 4 November 2011 to meet with a number of staff in varying roles in order to discuss multiple issues. A teleconference was also held on the same date with other available arbitrators participating, including Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, Kirill Lokshin, Risker, Roger Davies, and Xeno. Reports of the meetings are now being drafted for discussion amongst the committee as a whole, and the community can anticipate further announcements related to these discussions in the near future.

For the Arbitration Committee, Risker (talk) 08:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Appeal to BASC: Lee Nysted

The Ban Appeals Subcommittee has allowed the appeal of:

Lee Nysted (talk · contribs)

The text of the decision has been posted on the editor's talk page.

For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 20:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Iridescent

Iridescent (talk · contribs) has been a member of the Arbitration Committee since January 2011. During this time, their contributions to the Committee have been thoughtful and valued when they have been able to participate but they have had long periods of inactivity both as an arbitrator and editor because of unavoidable off-wiki commitments. They have had only minimal activity as an arbitrator since June 2011 and have not edited Wikipedia for more than one month.

The Arbitration Policy provides that the Arbitration Committee may remove one of its members who is unable to "participate conscientiously in the Committee's activities and deliberations." However, the Committee would prefer to implement this provision only as a last resort. Recent attempts have been made to contact Iridescent and inquire as to whether they expect soon to be able to return to regular participation as an arbitrator, or alternatively, if they would tender their resignation from the Committee on account of their present unavailability to serve (thereby creating a vacancy that can be filled by the community at the upcoming Arbitration Committee elections).

Having not had success in contacting Iridescent, the Arbitration Committee has resolved to remove Iridescent from the Committee pursuant to Section 1.3 of the Arbitration Policy, based solely on their apparent unavailability to serve and not for any other cause.

The Committee thanks Iridescent for their past service on the committee and their extensive contributions elsewhere on the project.

Supporting resolution: Casliber; Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry; Coren; David Fuchs; Elen of the Roads; Jclemens; John Vandenberg; Kirill Lokshin; Newyorkbrad; PhilKnight; Risker; Roger Davies; SirFozzie; Xeno.

Opposing resolution: Mailer diablo.

Not voting/inactive: Cool Hand Luke.

For the Arbitration Committee, –xeno^talk 22:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

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

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

The editing restriction described in remedy 16.1 ("Scjessey's voluntary editing restriction") of the Climate change decision is terminated, effective on the passage of this motion.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 12:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Appeal to BASC: WalkerThrough

The Ban Appeals Subcommittee has allowed the appeal of:

WalkerThrough (talk · contribs)

The text of the decision has been posted on the editor's talk page.

For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 11:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC) \

(Note: The user was later re-blocked for violation of these terms))

Archived discussion

Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry standing down as an arbitrator

On Wednesday, I was accepted in a full-time job as the Office & Development Manager for Wikimedia UK. This is a permanent role based in London. As there is a potential conflict of interest between the two roles, especially with regard to Arbitration cases and ban appeals that involve UK Chapter members, the Wikimedia UK Board have asked me to step down in order to maintain complete transparency. I agree with their position. It is therefore with great regret that I am announcing my intention to stand down as an arbitrator on 31 December 2011. The Cavalry (Message me) 14:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion closed

An arbitration case regarding all articles related to the subject of Abortion has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• All articles related to the subject of Abortion:

1. shall be semi-protected until November 28, 2014;
2. shall not be moved absent a demonstrable community consensus;
3. are authorized to be placed on Standard discretionary sanctions;

In addition:

1. Editors are reminded to remain neutral while editing;
2. Structured discussion is to take place on names of articles currently located at Opposition to the legalization of abortion and Support for the legalization of abortion, with a binding vote taken one month after the opening of the discussion;
3. User:Orangemarlin is instructed to contact the Arbitration Committee before returning to edit affected articles;
4. User:Michael C Price, User:Anythingyouwant, User:Haymaker, User:Geremia, User:DMSBel are all indefinitely topic-banned; User:Michael C Price and User:Haymaker may appeal their topic bans in one year;
5. User:Gandydancer and User:NYyankees51 are reminded to maintain tones appropriate for collaboration in a sensitive topic area.

For the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

BASC Statistics: April–October 2011

During the period of April through October 2011, the Ban Appeals Subcommittee received a total of 56 completed appeals (this number includes multiple appeals by single users). Of the appeals, 44 were appeals of community-imposed bans, and 2 were an appeal of an ArbCom/AE ban. An additional 10 were appeals of blocks for spam/{{usernameblock}} violations, or other type of appeal (such as appeals from different language wikis.)

A total of 11 appeals were successful, while 7 were handled by the community. Three appellants did not give enough information to make a determination.

For the Arbitration Committee, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

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

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

Remedy 1 of Abortion is amended to the following:

• Any uninvolved administrator may semi-protect articles relating to Abortion and their corresponding talk pages, at his or her discretion, for a period of up to three years from 7 December 2011. Pages semi-protected under this provision are to be logged.

For the Arbitration Committee, Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion