Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 11
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 |
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
This case shall be suspended from December 22nd, 2015 to January 2nd, 2016.
For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 20:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Arbitration motion regarding Nadirali
By motion of the Arbitration Committee at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment:
Nadirali (talk · contribs)'s topic ban from "India, Pakistan and Afghanistan broadly construed" that is part of their unban conditions is suspended for a period of one year. During the period of suspension, this topic ban may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator as an arbitration enforcement action should Nadirali fail to adhere to Wikipedia editing standards in the area previously covered by the topic ban. Appeal of such a reinstatement would follow the normal arbitration enforcement appeals process. After one year from the date of passage of this motion, if the topic ban has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the topic ban will be lifted.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 21:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Oversight permissions removed due to inactivity
In accordance with the standing procedure on inactivity, the oversight permissions of
are removed. The committee thanks them for their service. The committee would also like to thank DoRD (talk · contribs), who recently resigned from the checkuser and oversight teams, for his many years of service.
- Support: Guerillero, Doug Weller, Courcelles, Thryduulf, AGK, Roger Davies, LFaraone, Euryalus
- Oppose: None
- Abstain: None
CU tools restored to User:Beeblebrox
The Arbitration Committee has voted to restore the Checkuser tools to User:Beeblebrox and welcomes him back to the Checkuser team.
- Support: Guerillero, Doug Weller, Courcelles, Thryduulf, Euryalus, DGG, LFaraone, Seraphimblade
- Oppose: None
- Abstain: None
- Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 30#CU tools restored to User:Beeblebrox
Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed
The Arbitration enforcement 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) has been closed, and the following remedies have been enacted:
1.1) The Arbitration Committee confirms the sanctions imposed on Eric Corbett as a result of the Interactions at GGTF case, but mandates that all enforcement requests relating to them be filed at arbitration enforcement and be kept open for at least 24 hours.
3) For his breaches of the standards of conduct expected of editors and administrators, Black Kite is admonished.
6) The community is reminded that discretionary sanctions have been authorised for any page relating to or any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Rich Farmbrough case amended
The committee has resolved by motion that:
- Remedy 2 of the Rich Farmbrough case shall not apply in Rich Farmbrough's user space, his user talk space, or any subpage of Wikipedia:Database reports. Subject to the normal bot policy Rich Farmbrough may use automation in these exempted areas.
For the Arbitration Committee, Mdann52 (talk) 09:03, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 30#Rich Farmbrough case amended
2016 Arbitration Committee
The committee welcomes the following arbitrators following their election by the community. Their term formally begins on 01 January 2016:
- Callanecc
- Casliber
- Drmies
- Gamaliel
- GorillaWarfare
- Keilana (OS but not CU)
- Kelapstick
- Kirill Lokshin (OS but not CU)
- Opabinia regalis
All of the above will be issued with the checkuser and oversight permissions except where noted and pre-existing rights holders. We also thank our outgoing colleagues whose term ends on 31 December 2015:
- AGK
- Euryalus (retaining CU and OS)
- LFaraone (retaining CU and OS)
- NativeForeigner (retaining CU and OS)
- Roger Davies (retaining CU and OS)
- Seraphimblade
- Thryduulf (retaining OS)
The stewards are asked to remove both CU and OS from all of the outgoing arbitrators on 01 January except where explicitly noted above. Outgoing arbitrators are eligible to remain active on cases opened before their term ended; this will be clarified at the proposed decision talk page of affected cases. By their request, all of the outgoing arbitrators (i), except AGK, are remaining on the functionaries' mailing list and (ii), except AGK, are staying on after 31 December to conclude existing business.
For the Arbitration Committee, Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:34, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 30#2016 Arbitration Committee
Catflap08 and Hijiri88 case closed
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
1) Catflap08 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to Nichiren Buddhism and its adherents, broadly construed. Appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.
2.1) Subject to the usual exceptions, Catflap08 is prohibited from making any more than one revert on any one page in any 24-hour period. This applies for all pages on the English Wikipedia, except Catflap08's own user space. This restriction may be appealed to the Committee only after 12 months have elapsed from the closing of this case.
3) Hijiri88 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to Nichiren Buddhism and its adherents, broadly construed. Appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.
4) Hijiri88 is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to Japanese culture. Appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.
5) Subject to the usual exceptions, Hijiri88 is prohibited from making any more than one revert on any one page in any 24-hour period. This applies for all pages on the English Wikipedia, except Hijiri88's own user space. This restriction may be appealed to the Committee only after 12 months have elapsed from the closing of this case.
6.1) TH1980 (talk · contribs) and Hijiri88 are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).
- For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 23:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 30#Catflap08 and Hijiri88 case closed
Return of checkuser and oversight permissions to User:DoRD
The Arbitration Committee is pleased to announce that DoRD is regranted the checkuser and oversight permissions that he resigned earlier this year.
Support: Courcelles, GorillaWarfare, Seraphimblade, Euryalus, Salvio giuliano, Guerillero, LFaraone, DeltaQuad
For the Arbitration Committee,
Palestine-Israel articles case modified
The committee has resolved Palestine-Israel articles 1RR by motion that:
- (1) The General 1RR restriction that is part of the Palestine-Israel articles case is rescinded including all modifications of the remedy.
- (2) In its place, the following remedy is enacted: Editors are limited to one revert per page per day on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Reverts made to enforce the General Prohibition are exempt from this limit. Also, the normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
Passed 10 to 0 by motion on 7:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
For the Arbitration Committee, Mdann52 (talk) 08:13, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
DrChrissy's topic ban which currently states that "DrChrissy (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified plants and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed" is replaced with "DrChrissy is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals, and the companies that produce them, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed."
For the Arbitration Committee Amortias (T)(C) 23:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Soap desysopped and banned
For off-wiki harassment, the administrator permissions of Soap are revoked. Additionally, he is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia.
Support: Courcelles, DGG, Guerillero, Euryalus, Doug Weller, GorillaWarfare, Salvio giuliano, LFaraone, Roger Davies, Seraphimblade
Oppose: DeltaQuad
Abstain: Thryduulf
For the Arbitration Committee;
Courcelles (talk) 01:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 31#Soap desysopped and banned
In response to community feedback regarding ban announcements, the text of the preceding announcement (permalink to original) is hereby replaced with the following:
The Arbitration Committee has been provided evidence that administrator Soap has been engaged in conduct that violates the Wikipedia Harassment Policy. These actions occurred outside of the English Wikipedia. The evidence was provided to the Arbitration committee in confidence; therefore, in compliance with the WMF Privacy Policy and the Access to nonpublic information policy, the Arbitration Committee is unable to reveal additional information regarding the nature of the policy violation(s).
As a result, the administrator permissions of Soap are revoked. Additionally, Soap is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. He may request reconsideration of the ban six months after the original motion was announced, and every six months thereafter. Upon successful appeal of this ban, Soap may only regain his administrative tools following approval from the Arbitration Committee, and a successful Request for Adminship.
Revised text posted by Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
The Devil's Advocate banned
In remedy 8.5 of the GamerGate case, The Devil's Advocate was 'strongly warned that should future misconduct occur in any topic area, he may be banned from the English Wikipedia by motion of the Arbitration Committee.' Accordingly, for continuing harassment of other editors, The Devil's Advocate is banned indefinitely from the English Wikipedia. He may request reconsideration of the ban six months after this motion passes, and every six months thereafter.
Support: DGG, Courcelles, Guerillero, Keilana, Opabinia regalis, Doug Weller, Kirill Lokshin
Recuse: GorillaWarfare, Gamaliel
For the Arbitration Committee,
Keilana (talk) 02:50, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
- Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 32#The Devil's Advocate banned
In response to community feedback regarding ban announcements, the text of the preceding announcement (permalink to original) is hereby replaced with the following:
In remedy 8.5 of the GamerGate case, The Devil's Advocate was strongly warned that should future misconduct occur in any topic area, he may be banned from the English Wikipedia by motion of the Arbitration Committee. In a separate incident occurring since this remedy was enacted, it was found that The Devil's Advocate has engaged in conduct that violates the Wikipedia Harassment Policy. This policy violation arose during a block, and used means outside of Wikipedia. In compliance with the WMF Privacy Policy and the Access to nonpublic information policy, the Arbitration Committee is unable to reveal additional information regarding the nature of the policy violation(s).
As a result, the Devil's Advocate is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. He may request reconsideration of the ban six months after the original motion was announced, and every six months thereafter.
Revised text posted by Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:56, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee Audit Subcommittee (AUSC) disbanded
The Arbitration Committee Audit Subcommittee (AUSC) is hereby disbanded. Any complaints related to misuse of the advanced permissions CheckUser or Oversight (suppression) will henceforth be investigated by the Arbitration Committee as a whole. Complaints can be forwarded to the Arbitration Committee via the Arbitration Committee mailing list (arbcom-l). In the event of a committee member being the subject of the complaint, the complaint may be forwarded to any individual committee member. That committee member will initiate a discussion on one of the alternate mailing lists, with the committee member who is the subject of the complaint unsubscribed from the list for the duration of the discussion. Over the course of the investigation, the Arbitration Committee may draw upon the experience of members of the functionaries team to aid in the investigation.
Support: kelapstick, Doug Weller, Keilana, Drmies, GorillaWarfare, DGG, Opabinia regalis, Kirill Lokshin, Salvio giuliano, Courcelles, Guerillero, Callanecc, Cas Liber
For the Arbitration Committee, Doug Weller talk 16:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Removal of CU/OS tools from the community members of AUSC whose terms have expired
AUSC community members who do not hold CU and OS tools in their own right are given them during their period on AUSC. As their terms have now expired, the checkuser permissions of:
and the oversight permission of:
- Joe Decker (talk · contribs)
are removed. The committee thanks them for their service.
Support: Doug Weller, DGG, Kelapstick, Callanecc, Opabinia regalis, Drmies, Gamaliel, Guerillero, Salvio giuliano
For the Arbitration Committee, Doug Weller talk 16:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
"This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above."
The following remedies have been enacted
4) For consistently poor judgment in undertaking administrative actions following a formal admonishment, Kevin Gorman is desysopped. He may regain the administrative tools at any time via a successful request for adminship. Passed 13 to 2 at 17:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
For the Arbitration Committee Amortias (T)(C) 18:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Arbitration motion regarding genetically modified organisms
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
- The Discretionary Sanctions remedy which currently says that " Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed" are replaced with "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed."
For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 14:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Motion to return Oversight privileges to Floquenbeam
A motion has been posted at Arbitration requests/motions that Floquenbeam (talk · contribs), who resigned from the Arbitration Committee and voluntarily gave up the Oversight permission in July 2014, is re-appointed an Oversighter following a request to the Committee for the permission to be restored.
Comment from the community is encouraged either at the above linked page or via e-mail to the Arbitration Committee if the comment is private or sensitive.
For the Arbitration Committee. Amortias (T)(C) 00:04, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Floquenbeam reappointed an Oversighter
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions that:
Floquenbeam (talk · contribs), who resigned from the Arbitration Committee and voluntarily gave up the Oversight permission in July 2014, is reappointed an Oversighter following a request to the Committee for the permission to be restored.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Future Perfect at Sunrise case request
A motion has been enacted in lieu of a full case. For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 18:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Appointment of Ks0stm as a full clerk
The Arbitration Committee is pleased to announce that Ks0stm (talk · contribs) is returning to the arbitration clerk team as a full clerk, effective immediately. We thank Ks0stm and the entire clerk team for their dedication and helpfulness.
For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Promotion of Amortias and Miniapolis to full clerks
We are pleased to confirm trainees Amortias (talk · contribs) and Miniapolis (talk · contribs) as arbitration clerks, effective immediately.
We also express our thanks and gratitude to all the arbitration clerks for their diligent assistance with the arbitration process. For the Arbitration Committee, --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Motion: Activity
In accordance with the standing procedure on inactivity, the checkuser permissions of Deskana (talk · contribs) are removed. The committee thanks them for their service.
- Supporting: Callanecc, Doug Weller, Drmies, Gamaliel, GorillaWarfare, Guerillero, Keilana, Kelapstick, Kirill Lokshin, Opabinia regalis
For the Arbitration Committee, --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 04:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 32#Motion: Activity
Arbitration motion regarding CheckUser & Oversight inactivity
The following is an ArbCom internal process. It supplements the ArbCom procedure on CheckUser/Oversight permissions and inactivity.
- Arbitrators will check the CheckUser and Oversight statistics at the end of each month to identify functionaries who have not met the activity requirements in the preceding three months.
- If a functionary has not met the requirements, they will be sent an email notification reminding them of the required activity levels and asking if and when they plan to return to activity.
- If within two weeks a functionary does not meet the activity requirements or reply with an acceptable plan to return to activity, an arbitrator will send them a second email notification. This message will alert the functionary that their advanced permission(s) (CheckUser and/or Oversight) will be removed after two weeks unless they respond with a plan to return to activity.
- If an arbitrator objects to a functionary's advanced permission(s) being removed automatically, they may notify the rest of the Arbitration Committee and initiate a discussion.
- If a functionary has not responded to the second notification within two weeks or has not provided a plan to return to activity, and no arbitrator has objected, an arbitrator will post an announcement on the Arbitration Committee noticeboard announcing the change and thanking the functionary for their prior service, and will request removal of the permission(s) at the Stewards' noticeboard.
- If an arbitrator has objected to automatic removal, a motion will be initiated and the Arbitration Committee will be notified via the arbcom-l mailing list. After two weeks the discussion will be closed and the permission(s) removed per the step above unless there are at least three arbitrators opposing removal, in which case it can be left open for more comments or a normal vote can be proposed.
- Supporting: Callanecc, Opabinia regalis, Kelapstick, Kirill Lokshin, Guerillero, Keilana, Gamaliel, GorillaWarfare, Casliber, Doug Weller
- Opposing: Courcelles
- Not voting/Abstaining: DeltaQuad, DGG, Drmies, Salvio giuliano
For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:27, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Palestine-Israel article 3 case amended
The Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) has been amended by motion of the Arbitration Committee as follows:
Remedy 2 (General Prohibition) is replaced with, "All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This prohibition may be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters."
For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 14:06, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Amendment to the Race and intelligence case (Mathsci unbanned)
Following a successful appeal to the Committee the October 2013 amendment to the Race and intelligence case is rescinded and Mathsci (talk · contribs) is unbanned from the English Wikipedia. The unban has been granted on the condition that Mathsci continue to refrain from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to the race and intelligence topic area, broadly construed. This is to be enforced as a standard topic ban. The following editing restrictions are in force indefinitely:
- The two-way interaction bans with The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs) and Cla68 (talk · contribs) enacted in a September 2013 amendment to the Race and intelligence case.
- A two-way interaction ban with Ferahgo the Assassin (talk · contribs) is enacted in accordance with the Race and intelligence case review.
This motion is to be enforced under the enforcement clauses of the Race and intelligence case.
- Support - Callanecc, Courcelles, Doug Weller, Drmies, Gamaliel, GorillaWarfare, Guerillero, Keilana, Kelapstick, Kirill Lokshin, Opabinia regalis
- Abstain - Casliber
- Not voting - DeltaQuad, DGG, Salvio giuliano
For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Motions regarding Extended confirmed protection and arbitration enforcement
The Arbitration Committee is considering a series of motions regarding the 'extendedconfirmed' user group and associated protection levels seeking to determine logistical and administrative issues arising from the implementation of the new usergroup. Your comments would be appreciated at the below link. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 14:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Kharkiv07 appointed as a full clerk
The Arbitration Committee is pleased to announce that Kharkiv07 (talk · contribs) is appointed a full clerk.
We also express our thanks and gratitude to all of the arbitration clerks for their diligent assistance with the arbitration process. The arbitration clerk team is often in need of new members, and any editor who would like to join the clerk team is welcome to apply by e-mail to clerks-l lists.wikimedia.org.
For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 32#Kharkiv07 appointed as a full clerk
Amendment to the Ottava Rima restrictions case (Ottava Rima unbanned)
Following a successful appeal, the amendment to the Ottava Rima restrictions case is rescinded, and Ottava Rima (talk · contribs) is unbanned. His participation on the English Wikipedia is strictly limited to:
- Editing Lamia (poem), its talk page, and any future GA, FA, or peer review of this article
- Drafting articles or edits to articles within his own userspace, which may be moved into the mainspace by other unrestricted editors
- Editing his own user talk page, with the additional restriction that he may not use his talk page to discuss other editors
Additionally, he is limited to one revert on a single page in any 24 hour period (1RR), subject to the standard exemptions. Any edits outside of these boundaries are violations of the unban conditions, as is the use of the Wikipedia email feature.
Anyone found to be goading or baiting him may be two-way interaction banned, as an arbitration enforcement action, for no longer than one month. Enforcement blocks (including of Ottava) may be no longer than three days for the first block, and up to one month for repeated violations.
Should Ottava violate these restrictions he may be blocked, as an arbitration enforcement action, for up to one month for the first violation by a consensus of uninvolved administrators. If, after the first block, he violates the restrictions again, the siteban may be reinstated by a consensus of uninvolved administrators and he is to be blocked indefinitely with no email or talk page access.
- Support – Callanecc, Casliber, DGG, Doug Weller, Drmies, GorillaWarfare, Guerillero, Keilana, Kelapstick, Opabinia regalis, Salvio giuliano
- Oppose – Courcelles
- Not voting - DeltaQuad, Gamaliel, Kirill Lokshin
For the Arbitration Committee, GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Motion: Carl Hewitt unbanned with restrictions
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
In a 2005 arbitration case, User:CarlHewitt - who is the noted computer scientist of that name - was banned from editing content about himself or his own work (Remedy 1) and was placed on probation (Remedy 2). Following the case, he was found to have engaged in repeated sockpuppetry in violation of those restrictions and was indefinitely blocked in 2009.
Remedy 2 of the Carl Hewitt case is rescinded and his indefinite block is lifted. Carl Hewitt is permitted to edit under the following conditions:
- He is restricted to a single account, User:Prof. Carl Hewitt.
- He may not edit logged out. Accidental logged-out edits should be reported promptly to the oversight team.
- He is permitted to edit only the following:
The purpose of this provision is to allow him to make suggestions on the talk pages of his own BLP (Carl Hewitt) and the talk pages of articles about his work. Suggestions should be polite and brief and should not be repetitively reposted if they do not find consensus.
- article talk pages
- user talk pages
- his own userspace
- project discussions and dispute resolution pages specifically concerning him.
- He is reminded that Remedy 1 of the Carl Hewitt case remains in force.
- He may not engage in personal attacks or make personal comments about other editors.
Violations of any of the above may be managed by blocks as arbitration enforcement actions. Disruptive or tendentious contributions by IP users to the articles or talk pages related to Prof. Hewitt may be managed by blocks and/or protection as needed, and editors are encouraged not to engage in conversation with such users. The standard provisions for enforcement and appeals and modifications applies to sanctions enforcing this decision, all sanctions are to be logged on the case page.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Infoboxes arbitration case amended
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by two motions that:
(1) In the 2013 Infoboxes case, User:Pigsonthewing was subject to editing restrictions which were subsequently revised in a case review in March 2015. With this motion, remedies 1.1 and 3 of the 2015 Infoboxes Review are rescinded. Pigsonthewing is cautioned that the topic of infoboxes remains contentious under some circumstances and that he should edit carefully in this area.
(2) With this motion, remedy 2 of the 2015 Infoboxes Review is rescinded.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 05:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 33#Infoboxes arbitration case amended
Arbitration motion restricting Gamaliel
Per his request, communicated off-wiki to the Committee, Gamaliel is indefinitely restricted from taking any action to enforce any arbitration decision within the GamerGate topic, broadly construed. Any violation of this motion must be reported to WP:ARCA. He may appeal this decision after 12 months to the Arbitration Committee.
- Support: Doug Weller, Courcelles, Opabinia regalis, Drmies, DGG, Kelapstick
- Oppose: Salvio giuliano, Casliber, Callanecc, Guerillero
- Recuse: Gamaliel, GorillaWarfare, Keilana, Kirill Lokshin
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:16, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Motion: Oversight block appeals (Oversight-l)
- For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Appeals of blocks that have been marked by an oversighter as oversight blocks should be sent to the oversight team via email (Oversight-l lists.wikimedia.org) to be decided by the English Wikipedia oversighters, or to the Arbitration Committee. Blocks may still be marked by the blocking oversighter as appealable only to the Arbitration Committee, per the 2010 statement, in which case appeals must only be directed to the Arbitration Committee.
Enacted - Miniapolis 15:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Doncram amendment motion
The Doncram arbitration case is amended as follows:
- Remedy 2.1 - General editor probation is rescinded.
- Remedy 2.3 - Article creation restriction is rescinded
- The topic ban imposed by Seraphimblade is rescinded. For clarity, this means that Doncram is permitted to edit existing articles but not create new articles that are related to the National Register of Historic Places, broadly construed.
- The following remedy is added to the case: Doncram (talk · contribs) is indefinitely restricted from creating new pages, except for redirects, in article space which are related to the National Register of Historic Places, broadly construed.
- Passed 10 to 0 by motion at 13:11, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 13:29, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 33#Doncram amendment motion
The arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been passed:
- Wikicology is indefinitely topic-banned from making any edit in any non-talk namespace related to biomedical or public health content, or any other topic within the scope of WP:MEDRS, broadly construed.
- Wikicology is indefinitely topic-banned from uploading any images or other non-text media to the English Wikipedia. In addition, he is indefinitely topic-banned from using on the English Wikipedia any image or other media he has uploaded to any other project, including Commons.
- Wikicology is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. He may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.
- The community is encouraged to make use of the material presented in the Evidence and Analysis of Evidence sections to organize a systematic clean-up effort for Wikicology's past problematic contributions.
- The Committee will, on a best-effort basis, inform representatives of WMF-affiliated projects with which Wikicology has been involved of the outcome of this case.
For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 19:54, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Arbitration motions regarding extended confirmed protection
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
On April 5, the rollout of the new extendedconfirmed user group began. This group is being automatically applied to accounts meeting both of the following criteria: at least 500 edits, registered at least 30 days ago. A corresponding new protection level, currently called "extended confirmed protection", has been implemented that restricts editing to members of this user group.
- Users
- No action is required on the part of any current user. User accounts that meet the criteria will be automatically updated with the new user group on their next edit. User accounts that do not yet meet the criteria will be automatically updated with the new user group when they do qualify.
- The
extendedconfirmeduser group can be added by administrators to accounts that do not yet meet the criteria. A process for requesting this has been set up here, intended primarily to handle the case of publicly identified legitimate alternative accounts of users whose primary accounts do meet the criteria.
- Current uses
- As of this announcement, this protection level is authorized for use in the following areas:
- The Gamergate controversy article and its talk page.[1]
- The Brianna Wu article.[2]
- The Anita Sarkeesian article.[3]
- Selected articles pertaining to Indian castes and their talk pages.[4]
- Any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.[5]
- Any sanctions or other restrictions imposed prior to this motion passing shall remain in force unaffected.
Notes
- ^ As an arbitration enforcement action: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive173#TheRedPenOfDoom.2C_third_filing.
- ^ As an arbitration enforcement action: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log#GamerGate.
- ^ As an arbitration enforcement action: log.
- ^ As an arbitration enforcement action: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive183#Caste articles and talk pages.
- ^ As an Arbitration Committee decision: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3#500/30
- Expectations for use in arbitration enforcement and discretionary sanctions
- Extended confirmed protection may only be applied in response to persistent sockpuppetry or continued use of new, disruptive accounts where other methods (such as semi protection) have not controlled the disruption. This provision does not apply to a page or topic area which has been placed under 30/500 protection by the Arbitration Committee.
- Administrators are not permitted to remove the
extendedconfirmeduser group as a discretionary sanction. - Administrators must not remove the
extendedconfirmeduser group as means of bypassing defined arbitration enforcement procedures (for example, removing the user group as a normal administrative action to avoid banning an editor from the Gamergate controversy article).
For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 17:55, 15 May 2016 (UTC) Edited per clerks-l, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:56, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Announcement regarding Gamaliel
Gamaliel has resigned as an arbitrator because he is currently unable to edit the English Wikipedia and is therefore entirely inactive as an arbitrator. This has come about as a result of circumstances which have been disclosed to the Committee, and which in no way reflect negatively on him. We thank Gamaliel for his service on the 2016 Committee to date and wish him the best.
For the Arbitration Committee, Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:04, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 33#Announcement regarding Gamaliel
An arbitration case regarding Gamaliel and others has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
- Gamaliel is admonished for multiple breaches of Wikipedia policies and guidelines including for disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, removing a speedy deletion notice from a page he created, casting aspersions, and perpetuating what other editors believed to be a BLP violation.
- DHeyward and Gamaliel are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with or discussing each other anywhere on Wikipedia, subject to the usual exemptions.
- DHeyward (talk · contribs) is admonished for engaging in incivility and personal attacks on other editors. He is reminded that all editors are expected to engage respectfully and civilly with each other and to avoid making personal attacks.
- For conduct which was below the standard expected of an administrator — namely making an incivil and inflammatory close summary on ANI, in which he perpetuated the perceived BLP violation and failed to adequately summarise the discussion — JzG is admonished.
- Arkon is reminded that edit warring, even if exempt, is rarely an alternative to discussing the dispute with involved editors, as suggested at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.
- The community is encouraged to hold an RfC to supplement the existing WP:BLPTALK policy by developing further guidance on managing disputes about material involving living persons when that material appears outside of article space and is not directly related to article-content decisions.
- The community is encouraged to hold an RfC regarding whether the leniency for April Fools Day jokes should be continued and if so, what should be allowed.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 03:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Arbitration clerk call for script writer
The Clerks of the Arbitration Committee are looking for a script writer who will work with the clerk team to automate portions of the clerks' procedures. If you are a skilled script writer and are interested in working with us, please email the clerk team at clerks-l lists.wikimedia.org.
For the Clerks of the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 05:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Promotion of Mdann52 to full clerk
We are pleased to confirm trainee Mdann52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a full arbitration clerk, effective immediately.
We also express our thanks and gratitude to all the arbitration clerks for their diligent assistance with the arbitration process. For the Arbitration Committee, Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 33#Promotion of Mdann52 to full clerk
Clerks' script writer appointments
Pursuant to this announcement, the arbitration clerks appoint the following editors as the clerks' script developers:
Future announcements and coordination will occur at the clerks' noticeboard. The clerks would like to thank the script developers in advance. Any editor interested in assisting with automation, as described in this announcement, is welcome to email the clerk team at clerks-l lists.wikimedia.org.
For the Clerks of the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 33#Clerks' script writer appointments
Arbitration Committee motion regarding Malik Shabazz
In August 2015, the administrator privileges of Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) were revoked under the Level I desysop procedure, which is intended as a temporary measure. The Arbitration Committee has satisfied itself that the account was not compromised and that any ongoing disruption at the time has ceased. Accordingly, we affirm that Malik Shabazz may be resysopped at his request at any time.
- Support
- Callanecc, Casliber, Courcelles, DGG, Doug Weller, Drmies, GorillaWarfare, Kelapstick, Kirill Lokshin, Opabinia regalis
- Not voting
- DeltaQuad, Guerillero, Keilana, Salvio giuliano
For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:43, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Arbitration Committee motion amending the Rich Farmbrough arbitration case
By motion of the Arbitration Committee;
The sanctions placed on Rich Farmbrough as part of the Rich Farmbrough arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) are rescinded. For clarity this includes remedy 2 which prohibited Rich Farmbrough from using automation and clause B in the June 2012 amendment.If the bot approval group sees it fit, they may also revoke all previous bot requests without the authorization of the Committee.
It is noted that the original community sanctions are not affected by this motion as they were placed by the community.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 18:41, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Reminder announcement about blocks based on private information
The committee would like to remind administrators of the following provision of the blocking policy:
If a user needs to be blocked based on information that will not be made available to all administrators, that information should be sent to the Arbitration Committee or a Checkuser or oversighter for action. These editors are qualified to handle non-public evidence, and they operate under strict controls. The community has rejected the idea of individual administrators acting on evidence that cannot be peer-reviewed.
If a situation arises in which private evidence (e.g. emails) is relevant, please refer the participants to arbcom (arbcom-l lists.wikimedia.org) or to the functionaries list (functionaries-en
lists.wikimedia.org) for review.
For the Arbitration Committee, Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Arbitration Committee motion amending the GoodDay arbitration case
By motion of the Arbitration Committee:
In addition, the topic ban will be reinstated should GoodDay be validly blocked by any uninvolved administrator for misconduct related to diacritics, broadly construed. Such a reinstatement may only be appealed to the Arbitration Committee. After one year from the date of passage of this motion, if the ban has not been reinstated, or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the topic ban will be vacated.
For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 17:28, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Archived discussion at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay#Amendment request: GoodDay (August 2016)
Arbitration motion regarding Race and intelligence
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
Ferahgo the Assassin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was topic-banned from the race and intelligence topic area in October 2010, site-banned in May 2012, and unbanned with editing restrictions in March 2014.
- The March 2014 requirement that Ferahgo is restricted to "editing articles about the palaeontology of birds and dinosaurs and editing any talk or process pages reasonably and directly associated with improving the quality of those articles" is rescinded. The other restrictions that accompanied the unban remain in force.
- The 2010 topic ban from the race and intelligence topic, originally issued under discretionary sanctions, remains in force and is adopted by the arbitration committee. This topic ban may be appealed via WP:ARCA.
- The two-way interaction ban between Ferahgo and Mathsci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) remains in force.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 02:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
CheckUser and Oversight appointments 2016: Announcement
The Arbitration Committee has resolved to perform a round of Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The arbitrators overseeing this will be DeltaQuad and Opabinia regalis. This year, the usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will be requested to assist in the vetting process.
The Committee is bound by a Wikimedia Foundation policy that only those editors who have passed an RfA or equivalent process may be appointed, therefore only administrators may be considered. The Committee encourages interested administrators to apply, and invites holders of one tool to apply for the other.
The timeline shall be as follows:
- 9th September: Request for candidates to apply.
- 23:59 UTC, 20th September: Candidate submissions close, vetting begins.
- 21st September: The Arbitration Committee and current Functionaries will vet the candidates.
- 23rd September: Vetting ends, successful candidates contacted by the 26th September.
- 26th September: Candidates published on-wiki, community feedback invited.
- 23:59 UTC, 8th October: Community comments end.
- By 19th October: Appointed candidates announced
For the Arbitration Committee, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
CheckUser and Oversight appointments 2016: Reminder
The Arbitration Committee is currently seeking candidates for CheckUser and Oversight appointments. As a reminder to interested editors, completed application questionnaires are due by email at 23:59 UTC, 20 September 2016. Please contact the committee at arbcom-en-c lists.wikimedia.org to request a questionnaire or if you have any questions about the process. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:07, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Modification of block; reminder about unblock appeal channels
Following an appeal to the arbitration committee, TeeTylerToe's block (originating in this ANI thread) is modified to restore talk page access and permit appeals through normal community channels including UTRS and the {{unblock}} template. He is strongly advised to carefully consider the concerns that have been raised about his editing before attempting to appeal. This does not prohibit decline of appeals by any community mechanism or withdrawal of talk page access should problems arise.
The committee emphasizes that block appeals are an important component of community dispute resolution processes and should not be withdrawn without compelling evidence that appeal channels are likely to be abused. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
- Michael Hardy is reminded that:
- Administrators are expected to set an example with their behavior, including refraining from incivility and responding patiently to good-faith concerns about their conduct, even when those concerns are expressed suboptimally.
- All administrators are expected to keep their knowledge of core policies reasonably up to date.
- Further misconduct using the administrative tools will result in sanctions.
- MjolnirPants is reminded to use tactics that are consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and the 4th Pillar when dealing with other users they are in dispute with.
- The Arbitration Committee is reminded to carefully consider the appropriate scope of future case requests. The committee should limit "scope creep" and focus on specific items that are within the scope of the duties and responsibilities outlined in Arbitration Policy.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Functionary team changes
In accordance with the procedures on functionary activity and removal of permissions for inactivity, the CheckUser permission Coren (talk · contribs) are removed. The Committee would also like to acknowledge Euryalus (talk · contribs) who resigned from the oversight team as well as FloNight (talk · contribs) and Roger Davies (talk · contribs) who resigned from the checkuser and oversight teams. The Committee extends its sincere thanks to these users for their years of service.
For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 33#Functionary team changes
Ricky81682 desysoped
For abuse of multiple accounts and failure to remain accountable, Ricky81682 is desysoped and may regain the tools via a successful request for adminship.
- Summary of events
Between July 13, 2016 and August 7th, Ricky:
- Used more than one account to participate in several deletion discussions
- Nominated articles for deletion they had edited through the sockpuppets
- Disrupted several venues with new editor type questions
Some accounts were blocked at the time for separate reasons. In emails with the committee, Ricky has evaded scrutiny and accountability. His explanation did not adequately address the technical and behavioral evidence.
- Support
- DeltaQuad, Salvio, Kirill Lokshin, Casliber, Callanecc, Opabinia regalis, Guerillero, Kelapstick, Doug Weller, GorillaWarfare, Keilana, Courcelles, Drmies
- Not Voting
- DGG
For the Arbitration Committee, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 10:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 33#Ricky81682 desysoped
Removal of advanced permissions – community comments
The Arbitration Committee is seeking community feedback on a proposal to modify the ArbCom procedure on Removal of permissions. Your comments are welcome at the motion page. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 15:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
An arbitration case regarding The Rambling man has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
- The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)'s resignation as an administrator is to be considered under controversial circumstances, and so his administrator status may only be regained via a successful request for adminship.
- The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) is prohibited from insulting and/or belittling other editors. If The Rambling Man finds himself tempted to engage in prohibited conduct, he is to disengage and either let the matter drop or refer it to another editor to resolve. If however, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, The Rambling Man does engage in prohibited conduct, he may be blocked for a duration consistent with the blocking policy. The first four blocks under this provision shall be arbitration enforcement actions and may only be reviewed or appealed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Should a fifth block prove necessary, the blocking administrator must notify the Arbitration Committee of the block via a Request for Clarification and Amendment so that the remedy may be reviewed. The enforcing administrator may also at their discretion fully protect The Rambling Man's talk page for the duration of the block.
Nothing in this remedy prevents enforcement of policy by uninvolved administrators in the usual way.
- The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) and George Ho (talk · contribs) are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).
- George Ho (talk · contribs) is indefinitely restricted from participating in selecting main page content. For clarity, this means he may not participate in:
- Any process in which the content of the main page is selected, including Did you know?, In the news, On this day, Today's featured article, Today's featured list, and Today's featured picture.
- Any process in which possible problems with the content of the main page are reported, including WP:ERRORS and Talk:Main Page.
- Any discussion about the above processes, regardless of venue.
- He may edit articles linked from or eligible to be linked from the main page (e.g., the current featured article) and may participate in content review processes not directly connected to main page content selection (e.g., reviewing Featured article candidates). He may request reconsideration of this restriction twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.
- The community is encouraged to review the selection process for the Did you know and In the news sections of the main page. The community is also reminded that they may issue topic bans without the involvement of the Arbitration Committee if consensus shows a user has repeatedly submitted poor content, performed poor reviews, or otherwise disrupted these processes.
For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 05:00, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
2016 Checkuser and Oversight appointments: Candidates appointed
The Arbitration Committee is pleased to appoint the following users to the functionary team:
- KrakatoaKatie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is appointed as a checkuser and oversighter.
- MusikAnimal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is appointed as a checkuser.
The Committee would like to thank the community and all the candidates for bringing this process to a successful conclusion. The Arbitration Committee welcomes the following users back to the functionary team:
- Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who voluntarily resigned his checkuser and oversight permissions in May 2015 prior to a planned wikibreak, is reappointed as a checkuser and oversighter following a request to the committee for the return of both permissions.
- Ks0stm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was appointed as an oversighter in August 2013 and whose oversight permissions were removed for inactivity in August 2015, is reappointed as an oversighter following a request to the committee for the return of the permission.
Arbitration motion regarding GamerGate
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
In May 2015 administrator Zad68 imposed extended confirmed protection of Talk:Gamergate controversy as a discretionary sanction in response to this AE request. The Arbitration Committee notes that Zad68 is currently inactive so the sanction cannot be modified without consensus or Committee action. Therefore the Committee lifts the discretionary sanction on Talk:Gamergate controversy (not the article) to allow the community to modify the protection level in accordance with the Wikipedia:Protection policy.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Motion regarding Doncram
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
Point 4 (Doncram restricted) of the the motion in May 2016 is suspended for a period of six months. During the period of suspension, this restriction may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator as an arbitration enforcement action should Doncram fail to adhere to Wikipedia editing standards in the National Register of Historic Places topic area, broadly construed. Appeal of such a reinstatement would follow the normal arbitration enforcement appeals process. After six months from the date this motion is enacted, if the restriction has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the restriction will automatically lapse.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:03, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 33#Motion regarding Doncram
Self-nominations for the 2016 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections are open
Self-nominations for the 2016 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections are officially open. The nomination period runs from Sunday 00:00, 6 November (UTC) until Tuesday 23:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC). Editors interested in running should review the eligibility criteria listed at the top of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016/Candidates then create a candidate page following the instructions there. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Cross-posted: For the Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 13:49, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Voting phase open for the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections
Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee Elections is now open through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016. If you wish to participate, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mz7 (talk) 04:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Cross-posted: For the Committee, Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:29, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Temporary CU for WP:ACE2016 scrutineers
For the purpose of scrutineering the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections, stewards User:Einsbor, User:Mardetanha, and User:Stryn, appointed as scrutineers, are granted temporary local CheckUser permissions effective from the time of the passage of this motion until the certification of the election results. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:22, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Motion regarding Darkfrog24
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
In the past year, Darkfrog24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been subject to a series of Arbitration Enforcement actions under the discretionary sanctions authorized in the Article Titles and Capitalisation case. In January 2016, Darkfrog24 was topic-banned from from articles, discussions, and guidelines, explicitly including the manual of style, related to quotation marks and quotation styles, broadly interpreted, following an AE request. In February this topic ban was broadened to encompass the Manual of Style and related topics following another AE request. Later that month, they were blocked indefinitely "until they either understand the terms of the tban or agree to stop disruptively relitigating it" after a third AE request. They were unblocked to participate in an appeal to ARCA in April 2016, which was declined by the Arbitration Committee. The block was lifted again in November 2016 to permit the present ARCA appeal.
The Committee notes that Darkfrog24 disputes some elements of the original AE filings. We emphasize that imposing an AE sanction requires only that a reviewing admin finds sufficient disruption to warrant action and is not an endorsement of every individual claim that may be made by the filer. After review of the current appeal, we find that there is no evidence in favor of lifting or modifying the topic ban, and the disruptive behavior, in the form of repeated relitigation of the circumstances of the topic ban, has continued. The appeal is declined and the block will be reinstated. They may appeal again in three months (one year from the original indefinite block). They are very strongly advised to focus that appeal on their future editing interests in topics well separated from the subjects of their topic ban, and to appeal the topic ban itself only after establishing a successful record of productive contributions in other areas.
- Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 33#Motion regarding Darkfrog24
Motion regarding Fæ
Remedy 5: Fæ banned (March 2013) – in which Fae was unblocked with the conditions that he was topic banned from editing BLPs relating to sexuality, broadly construed
as well as topic banned from images relating to sexuality, broadly construed
– is suspended for a period of six months. During the period of suspension, this restriction may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator as an arbitration enforcement action should Fæ fail to adhere to Wikipedia editing standards in these areas, broadly construed. Appeal of such a reinstatement would follow the normal arbitration enforcement appeals process. After six months from the date this motion is enacted, if the restriction has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the restriction will automatically lapse.
For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 23:48, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
- Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 33#Motion regarding Fæ
The ArbCom election results have been posted. 7 Arbs have been elected in total, all on two year terms. You can review the results in full here.
For the Election Commission, Mdann52 (talk) 22:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Return of checkuser and oversight permissions to FloNight
FloNight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who voluntarily resigned her checkuser and oversight permissions in September 2016, is reappointed as a checkuser and oversighter following a request to the committee for the return of both permissions.
- Support
- Callanecc, DeltaQuad, Doug Weller, Drmies, GorillaWarfare, Guerillero, Kelapstick, Kirill Lokshin, Opabinia regalis, Salvio giuliano
- Not voting
- Courcelles, DGG, Keilana
For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:59, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Arbitration motion regarding Austrian economics
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
Every so often, it becomes reasonable to terminate sanctions that are no longer necessary,
- Remedy 1.1 of the Austrian economics case is rescinded;
- Nothing in this motion provides grounds for appeal of remedies or restrictions imposed while discretionary sanctions for the foregoing case was in force. Such appeals or requests to lift or modify such sanctions may be made under the same terms as any other appeal;
- In the event that disruptive editing resumes in this topic-area, a request to consider reinstating discretionary sanctions in that topic-area may be made on the clarifications and amendments page.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:59, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
2017 Arbitration Committee
The committee welcomes the following new and returning arbitrators following their election by the community. Their two-year terms formally begin on 01 January 2017:
- DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- DGG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Doug Weller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Euryalus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Ks0stm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Mkdw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
All of these arbitrators will also receive (or retain, where applicable) the Checkuser and Oversight permissions. We also thank our outgoing colleagues whose terms end on 31 December 2016:
- Courcelles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Guerillero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Salvio giuliano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Departing arbitrators will retain their Checkuser and Oversight rights and will remain subscribed to the Functionaries' mailing list. In addition, departing arbitrators will be eligible to remain active on any pending arbitration cases that were opened before the end of the their term; if this provision becomes relevant this year, a notation will be made on the relevant case page or pages. For the Arbitration Committee, Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:00, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 33#2017 Arbitration Committee
Motion regarding North8000
North8000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was site-banned in 2014 in the Gun Control case. He was topic-banned from the gun control topic area in the same case. Prior to this, he had been topic-banned from the subject of the Tea Party movement in the Tea Party case in 2013, and had agreed to a one-year voluntary restriction from the homophobia article and its talk page in 2012. North8000 is unbanned with the following restrictions:
- His 2014 topic ban from gun control remains in force.
- His 2013 topic ban from the Tea Party movement is broadened to encompass post-1932 American politics, with the scope defined by the American politics discretionary sanctions introduced in the 2015 American politics 2 case.
- His 2012 restriction from homophobia is adopted by the committee as a topic ban.
- He is restricted to one account.
These restrictions are to be enforced under the standard enforcement and appeals and modifications provisions and may be appealed to the committee after six months.
Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 33#Motion regarding North8000
Arbitration motion regarding Palestine-Israel articles 3
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
Remedy 2 (General Prohibition) is modified to read as follows:
- All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This prohibition is preferably enforced by the use of extended confirmed protection, but where that is not feasible, it may also be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters.
- The sole exceptions to this prohibition are:
- Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the above methods. This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, noticeboard discussions, etc.
- Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles by editors who do not meet the criteria is permitted but not required.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 04:26, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Arbitration motion regarding Palestine-Israel articles
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
The general 1RR restriction in the Palestine-Israel articles case is modified to read as follows:
- Editors are limited to one revert per page per day on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. In addition, editors are required to obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit. Reverts made to enforce the General Prohibition are exempt from the revert limit. Also, the normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Arbitration motion regarding Captain Occam
Captain Occam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was topic-banned from race and intelligence related articles in the Race and Intelligence case in 2010. Captain Occam was blocked for one year as an Arbitration Enforcement action in 2011 under the discretionary sanctions authorized in the Abortion case. In the 2012 Review of the R&I case, Occam and Ferahgo the Assassin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who shared an IP and who were found to be proxying for one another, were both site-banned. Ferahgo was unbanned in March 2014. Following a successful appeal, Captain Occam is unbanned under the following restrictions:
- The scope of his 2010 topic ban is modified from "race and intelligence related articles, broadly construed" to "the race and intelligence topic area, broadly construed".
- He is subject to a two-way interaction ban with Mathsci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).
- If he behaves disruptively in any discussion, any uninvolved administrator may ban him from further participation in that discussion. Any such restriction must be logged on the R&I case page.
Captain Occam and Ferahgo the Assassin are reminded that tag-team editing, account sharing, and canvassing are not permitted. These restrictions are to be enforced under the standard enforcement and appeals and modifications provisions and may be appealed to the committee after six months.
Arbitration motion regarding Race and intelligence
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
Mathsci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was unbanned in April 2016 under the condition that he
refrain from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to the race and intelligence topic area, broadly construed. This restriction is now rescinded. The interaction bans to which Mathsci is a party remain in force.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Return of checkuser and oversight permissions to Yunshui
Yunshui (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), voluntarily retired in November 2015. Their checkuser and oversight permissions were removed without prejudice against requesting reinstatement in the future. They are reappointed as a checkuser and oversighter following a request to the committee for the return of both permissions.
- Support
- GorillaWarfare, Mkdw, Doug Weller, Kelapstick, Newyorkbrad, Opabinia regalis, Euryalus, Drmies, DGG, Casliber, DeltaQuad
- Not voting
- Ks0stm, Kirill Lokshin, Keilana, Callanecc
For the Arbitration Committee, Mkdw talk 16:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Response to the Wikimedia Foundation statement on paid editing and outing
The Arbitration Committee has a number of concerns about the advisory statement about paid editing and private information released by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal team. Although we understand that many within both the WMF and the community want to crack down on undisclosed paid editing in an effective way, several aspects of the statement require awareness and discussion.
Relationship to outing and harassment
The Arbitration Committee, as individuals and as a body, has a great deal of experience with how private information disclosures actually occur in a community setting. The Wikipedia harassment policy, which prohibits the disclosure of other editors' personal information without their consent, reflects over a decade of accumulated experience and institutional knowledge about this precise problem. That knowledge has been hard-won, and in many cases has come at the expense of dedicated and productive volunteers whose personal information was exposed by others. While many of the people who chose to reveal that information strongly believed they were justified in doing so, this does not mitigate the damage they did or the fact that volunteers were hurt as a result of their participation in the project.
The views outlined in this statement are significantly weaker than the protections the community has historically provided against online harassment and disclosure of editors' personal information. We are aware that the Wikimedia Foundation, like the Arbitration Committee and most Wikimedians, is also concerned about the harassment of community members, and we appreciate the Board's statement of a few weeks ago on this issue. We are concerned, however, about tensions between the current statement on paid editing and the Foundation's other work on harassment issues. For example, the Terms of Use FAQ includes "Harassment should also be avoided. For example, under the English Wikipedia policy on harassment, users must not publicly share personal information about other users." The current draft of the harassment training module being developed by the WMF reads in part, "Cases of deliberate PII [personally identifying information] release might include an attempt to 'out' another editor, perhaps to link their account to a purported employer." These materials collectively make clear that releasing personally identifying information about another user without the user's consent should be considered harassment. Except perhaps in extraordinary circumstances, this position has our support.
According to the statement, "if someone is editing for a company and fails to disclose it, an admin properly posting that person’s company where it is relevant to an investigation is helping bring the account into compliance with those requirements." The Arbitration Committee and community policy do not consider posting such information to be a specific responsibility of administrators, nor do we believe that the threat of posting such information should be used as a means to bring editors into compliance. In our opinion, the harassment training material quoted above is correct in defining such posts as inappropriate. Being doxxed and treated in ways the community has defined as harassment is not a reasonable consequence of noncompliance with a website's terms of use, particularly where no distinction is made between isolated, minor, or debatable violations as opposed to pervasive and severe ones.
This statement suggests an almost unbounded exemption to the outing policy to allow people to post public information on any individual they believe is engaging in undisclosed paid editing. Furthermore, the statement does not define or limit what may be considered "public information". Combined with the addendum that this kind of investigation could be applied to address disruption outside of paid editing, such as sockpuppetry, this advice if broadly interpreted would practically nullify the existing anti-outing policy.
Ambiguity of the "paid editing" problem
We are also concerned that the statement does not clarify the existing definition of paid editing, which is vague and susceptible to multiple readings. We understand that the core concern about paid editing involves large-scale enterprises offering paid Wikipedia editing services as a business model, and if it applied exclusively in that context, the recent WMF statement would be much more understandable, although it would still raise issues worthy of discussion. But it is not at all clear that the statement, or the intent underlying it, are limited to that context. If read broadly, the current definition of "paid editing" may include editing for one's employer or an organization one is affiliated with, even if no money changes hands in return for the editing. Moreover, "editing one's employer's article" could mean anything ranging from correcting a typo on the employer's article, at one extreme, to creating or maintaining a blatantly promotional article as part of a PR department's job responsibilities, on the other. It is not clear where on this continuum, if anywhere, a user becomes a "paid editor" whose activities people feel violate the TOU and are subject to exposure. Further to this, the definition of "company" in the statement is unclear. It could refer to either a paid editing business specifically, or refer to any company which is the subject of a Wikipedia article.
There is a difference between a major paid editing ring that has created or is seeking to create hundreds of promotional articles about non-notable subjects as part of a major business enterprise, and other scenarios that could be called "paid editing" which should be discouraged, but not through draconian means. Consider, for example, a hypothetical college student who makes the ill-advised decision to write an article about a friend's company in return for $25. They would be violating the COI policy and the TOU, but are not a major threat to the wiki. We worry that the statement does not include any advice for proportional responses based on the severity or extent of undisclosed paid editing.
Possibility of misuse
The statement also does not take into account the possibility of intentional misuse or gaming to harass innocent editors. We have seen repeated malicious attempts (so-called false flags or "joe-jobs") to incriminate editors for paid editing, and this would make it trivial for harassers to out their targets under the guise of stopping a paid editor. Malicious outing is not a rare occurrence and numerous editors — including several current WMF staff — have been the victims of outing and the threat of it.
Role of the Foundation in developing community policy
Finally, we are concerned about a statement like this posted locally on the project with the perceived force of authority of Wikimedia Legal, even though it has been tagged as an essay and described as advisory, not as policy. We expect that some editors will interpret this as binding and lean on it as a justification to publish information on-wiki that previously was, and still is by policy, prohibited harassment. Any current policies that do not align with the views expressed in this statement will likely be challenged as contradicting Wikimedia Foundation's Legal team. This seems to be a substantial departure from the historic relationship between the Wikimedia Foundation's Legal team and the communities of the projects for which it is responsible, when it comes to matters that are not under Wikimedia Legal's direct purview. The paid editing and harassment policies are up to the local community to decide, and we hope that they will consider the statement carefully when making any changes. In the future, we feel a more discussion-based format such as an RfC would be a better way to provide input on local policies without the risk of statements being interpreted as binding.
Moving forward
The Arbitration Committee appreciates that the Wikimedia Foundation Legal team sought our feedback on an early version of this document, and accepted a portion of that feedback. The committee hopes this feedback is equally welcome. Furthermore we extend an invitation to the Legal team, and to any other interested community member, to commence a request for comments on this matter if they believe any aspect of local policy needs modification, in accordance with the consensus-building method the English Wikipedia has used for many years to develop local policy.
Signed,
- GorillaWarfare
- Mkdw
- Doug Weller
- Opabinia regalis
- kelapstick
- Kirill Lokshin
- DeltaQuad
- Drmies
- Ks0stm
- Keilana
- Casliber
Statements from individual arbitrators may follow.
Statement by Newyorkbrad
I agree with many of the concerns that my fellow arbitrators have raised in their statement above, but am posting separately to frame specific issues requiring discussion and analysis.
Undisclosed paid editing is detrimental to Wikimedia projects. Our editing model relies primarily on volunteers, whose editing decisions are ordinarily not guided by personal financial considerations. Paid editors, on the other hand, may have a financial incentive to disregard basic Wikipedia policies, such as that only notable subjects should have articles, and that all articles must be written neutrally and non-promotionally. The problem is only compounded where the paid editing is undisclosed.
But at the same time, another longstanding and fundamental Wikipedia value is that editors may control how much of their personal identifying information, if any, they wish to share. Disclosing another editor's identifying information without his or her consent, or unnecessarily publicizing such information, is a serious violation of English Wikipedia policy and community expectations. Years of experience confirm that "outing" or "doxing" of editors, or the threat of doing so, drives editors away from contributing, thus damaging both the encyclopedia, and the community that creates and maintains the encyclopedia. To the extent that any exceptions to the anti-"outing" policy can ever be warranted, they would be very rare, and reserved for extraordinary circumstances in which there is no other way to deal with a severe and persistent pattern of grave misconduct.
There is an obvious and long-recognized tension between our policies allowing anonymous editing and those disallowing undisclosed paid editing (and disfavoring undisclosed COI editing more generally). However, policy and community norms ordinarily disallow disclosing other editors' personal information on-wiki as an appropriate means of dealing with user misconduct, whether the misconduct consists of suspected paid editing or anything else.
The WMF legal statement correctly observes that warning or, if necessary, blocking users and modifying or deleting articles is the first step in dealing with inappropriate or promotional articles. However, it goes on to state that "some degree of transparency in investigations" of undisclosed paid editing is warranted. It is not clear how broadly the statement proposes to step away from the anti-"outing"/"doxxing"/disclosure policies that have served English Wikipedia well for the past 15 years, in the interest of combatting paid editing.
Subject to the WMF Office's role in providing guidance regarding legal issues and some basic expectations of user behavior, it is the English Wikipedia community's role to set policy and guidelines for our project—and I believe the WMF recognizes this fact. If the community were to consider modifying policy and practice in this arena, it would have to address at least the following issues:
- The need to distinguish between isolated, minor, or debatable paid editing violations as opposed to severe and pervasive ones. For example, there is a vast difference between a large-scale organization seeking to sell promotional editing services in a for-profit business model, as opposed to a hypothetical college student who might make the ill-advised decision to write articles about local businesses for $25 each to raise tuition or spending money. In doing so, the student would be violating the COI policy and the TOU, but would not be a major threat to the wiki requiring enforcement by draconian means.
- The existing ambiguities within the definition of a "paid editor". If read broadly, the current definition of "paid editing" may include editing for one's employer or an organization one is affiliated with, even if no money changes hands in return for the editing. Moreover, "editing one's employer's article" could mean anything ranging from correcting a typo on the employer's article, at one extreme, to creating or maintaining a blatantly promotional article as part of a PR department's job responsibilities, on the other. It is not clear where on this continuum, if anywhere, a user becomes a "paid editor" whose activities people feel violate the TOU and are subject to exposure. It also is not clear to what extent it is reasonable to expect businesses and organizations to pretend to be indifferent to the content of their articles on Wikipedia, which often will be the number-one ranking search-engine hit for their business or organization, particularly where there are legitimate problems with the contents of the articles.
- What types of information would properly be disclosed in paid editing cases. For example, is the authorized disclosure to be limited only to corporate affiliation as specifically referenced in the WMF statement, as opposed to other personal information? At one point the statement refers to "other information connecting [an] editor to editing an article subject for pay," a very broad phrasing. For example, would it be permitted to link to a posting on an obscure bulletin board that includes an editor's address, phone number, or the like?
- Who, if anyone, would be permitted to decide when circumstances call for such a disclosure. Would it be any editor who takes it upon himself or herself to conduct an "investigation"? (The statement refers in passing to disclosures made by "admins," but English Wikipedia has not defined publicizing information about other editors as either a right or responsibility of adminship.)
- What level, quantity, or quality of evidence would be required before making an on-wiki disclosure or allegation.
- Should the suspected editor be contacted privately before an on-wiki disclosure or allegation is made? If so, how do we avoid having that communication itself be perceived as a threat of outing?
- How do we avoid gaming, or the misuse of a limited authorization of disclosure as a vehicle for bad-faith harassment? (There have already been a series of malicious "joe-job" paid-editing postings placed on other sites in the name of existing Wikipedia editors who do not engage in paid editing and had nothing to do with the postings, which must not become a predicate for posting the already-harassed editor's identifying information on Wikipedia.)
- In summary, how—if at all—could the model contemplated by the WMF statement, under which on-wiki disclosure would be permissible in paid editing investigations, be implemented in a limited, controlled way without practically nullifying the anti-outing policy altogether?
None of us want a Wikipedia overrun by paid promotional editing. But I also hope that few of us want a Wikipedia in which editors' identifying information may be posted on-wiki—if at all—without the utmost of serious consideration and cause.
Statement by Mkdw
- I made an individual statement on 21 January 2017 at Wikipedia talk:Harassment#Break 2 that I wrote to be supplementary to the collective open letter. Here is a copy below:
I think it's fair to say that a many of editors are concerned about undisclosed paid editing and the effect it is having on the English Wikipedia. We have all worked hard to make the English Wikipedia what it is today and to see it being undermined without the means or tools to counter it has been frustrating. To me, the central problem and barrier has been that 'undisclosed paid editing' includes an unreasonably wide range of cases with two types on either end:
- Large scale operations involving sock puppetry, dozens if not hundreds of articles, and an elaborate attempt to willfully circumvent our policies and guidelines
- Single article incidents that possibly involve WP:COI and maybe compensation (vaguely defined)
The second example could be a substitute teacher fixing a typo on an article about the school district in which they work. WMF Legal verified, elsewhere, that such an occasion would constitute undisclosed paid editing (an interpretation I am not sure is represented in the ToU and accompanying FAQ). In this example, the teacher is paid to be a teacher — not for their edits to Wikipedia — but because there is potentially a monetary benefit linked to their edits, according to WMF Legal, this is undisclosed paid editing.
I have absolutely no interest in going after editors even remotely in the same ballpark as the second example — let alone out their personal information (publicly available or not). More importantly, I have deep reservations about the practice of publicly posting any personal information about another editor. A person's digital footprint may include information that is publicly accessible and alone insignificant, but when amalgamated from various sources into one location and then posted to a place with the visibility of Wikipedia, has the potential for real harm. The further notion that this practice could occur during an investigation is equally as disturbing. What happens when an investigation concludes, well after the personal information has been revealed, that there was no wrong-doing or that the information was revealed under false pretexts. It is without question that such a situation could have lasting consequences for the individual whose information was revealed. We cannot expect every editor on the English Wikipedia understand the inherent risk they would putting themselves in by editing.
Something has to be done, but it is not what the WMF Legal is guiding the community towards. I am immensely proud of the work and policies the community has introduced over the years to protect the privacy of individuals in our community. The community decided a long time ago that the WMF's Terms of Use and Privacy Policy protected only the Foundation and more was needed to protect editors from hostile threats. The community has stuck by that decision. Personally, I am not wanting to see these protections disappear and the WMF depart from the longstanding practice to allow local projects to self-govern.
The community has a difficult road ahead; it must decide the fate of how undisclosed paid editing is handled on the English Wikipedia. Whatever that decision, it should align with the community's own core values and principles. Whether this translates to a policy: one that allows functionaries to evaluate privately submitted information (by the community) about undisclosed paid editing and grants functionaries the ability to block for ToU violations; or some other policy that empowers administrators (that I hope still preserves the protections offered by the community to all editors). Mkdw talk 04:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Statement by Euryalus
My views are reflected in the statement by Newyorkbrad.
Some additional general comments:
- The WMF statement is a surprising intervention into what has previously been a community-driven approach to policy development. WP:Harass reflects the community's current consensus on outing; it is clearly imperfect but it's what we as a community have been able to agree on after years of discussion. The WMF traditionally permits individual Wikipedias to develop their own policies within the bounds of common sense and the ToU; it's startling to see this overturned via an implied supervote by the Legal team. Granted the statement is marked as an "essay," but it carries vastly weight than the opinion of any individual editor and has changed the tenor of the policy debate. It would be useful for the WMF to further clarify its role in community policy development, and whether it sees that role as having changed.
- Bluntly, the WMF statement assumes an unrealistic level of good faith in outing attempts. Many functionaries have first-hand experience with good-faith reports of undisclosed paid editing or COI; most also have regular experience with bad-faith outing attempts both on-wiki and by email. Many bad-faith outing attempts are characterised by a disingenuous appeal to policy, and a defence that the author has been driven to out someone by their desperate love of the sanctity of Wikipedia. The WMF statement has good intent, but it opens an entirely new avenue for bad-faith outing claims and magnifies the frequency and risk of editor harassment by trolls. In passing it also appears contradictory to the tighter language in the draft anti-harassment policy being developed on meta.
- The WMF statement lightly passes over the reality that an outing, even if only done once, can have substantial real life impact. As NYB points out, the statement offers no differentiation between organized paid editing rings and the guy who writes something for his small business buddy. It also implies that mistaken identity and "joe jobs" are rare and largely harmless. As the functionaries and Arbcom can attest, these implications are incorrect.
For all that, the statement is what it is, and it's time to move forward on how (or if) to reconcile it with existing policy. A suggested approach:
- Obtain clarity on the questions raised by NYB above;
- Note that enacting the WMF statement would require:
- a) WP:HARASS to permit "outing" to the extent necessary to conduct a good-faith paid editing investigation, and/or
- b) WP:BLOCKEVIDENCE to permit individual admins to block editors on the basis of private evidence provided directly to them and not able to be published for peer review, or identification of an alternative acceptable mechanism for addressing these issues (for example via amendment to WP:Arbpol); and/or
- c) a willingness from the WMF to invest resources in the pursuit of undisclosed paid editing, beyond those presently available to the volunteer community;
- Note that any of the above would require a successful RfC, and that unless/until this occurs the current community policies continue to apply; and
- Separately, consider also whether notability guidelines need amending to set a higher bar for businesses and corporate captains, in order to prevent the current spamming of company screeds and bios by undisclosed paid editing crews. At present, any article that can summon up three or four press release reprints in a trade journal will have a fair chance of surviving AfD. A tougher standard (say, at least 3 full-length articles in mainstream media or similar) would of itself have a major impact on the low-grade UPE we currently see.
As a personal view I do not support an amendment to WP:Harass to legitimize on-wiki outing per the WMF statement, but do believe Arbcom could take a somewhat greater role in receiving and responding to UPE allegations. As above, the WMF could usefully support this role via the allocation of dedicated resources.
And lastly, as a conclusion shamelessly lifted from NYB's statement above: "None of us want a Wikipedia overrun by paid promotional editing. But I also hope that few of us want a Wikipedia in which editors' identifying information may be posted on-wiki—if at all—without the utmost of serious consideration and cause."
This is surely a universal view, and should guide future discussion of this issue. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Statement by DGG
My views are approximately reflected in the statements by Newyorkbrad and Euryalus. More specifically:
I regard paid editing as a threat to an NPOV encyclopedia through the inevitable bias, and as a danger because of the consequent demoralization of the volunteer community. We should ban it altogether if it were feasible to do so, but any such ban would drive it completely underground , removing any possibility of control. The best we can do is force disclosure, which is only effective if we have a workable way of reliably way of identifying Undeclared paid editors (UPE). I regard the WMF statement as a first crude step to developing this capacity. It is a very crude step, that fails to take into account the often-repeated views of the editing community, ignores the comments that arb com has several times made to them on the basis of preliminary versions, and shows a very incomplete understanding of the actual environment on Wikipedia. This comes as no surprise--experience with many issues has clearly shown we must manage our own problems and expect help from the Foundation in only the most drastic circumstances.
Our best course is to regard it as a general statement that is not self-executing, but needs to be taken into account in developing our own guidelines, We are as I see it entitled to have stricter guidelines than the Foundation on both NPOV and privacy--they set only the minimum standards. To emphasise what I consider some key questions raised by NYB and Eurylaus --
(1)we must differentiate between the occasional editor who edits in violation of COI--whom we just need to inform, the individual who sets out to make a business from it without realizing the implications--whom we need to closely monitor to verify compliance, and the determined group of violators who are deliberately trying to subvert our standards on a large scale--whom we need to eliminate. The possibility of harmful outing applies in my view only to the first group, and to some extent the second, but not someone editing in deliberate contempt of our rules.
(2)we need to recognize that we cannot rely on the good judgement of editors in general, or even admins in general. There's a wide range of capabilities, and considerable opportunity for error. Perhaps the best role of arb com is its traditional one, of monitoring admin habaviour.
(3)we need to recognize the possibility for error. Just as we do not always correctly identify sockpuppets, we have so far not been completely successful in identify UPE. For sockpuppets at least we have the occasionally useful tool of checkuser to supplement behavioral evidence. For UPE, we need to develop something to supplement the often deceptive statements of the editor involved, and the difficult of differentiating UPE from a more benign COI. At present, most rings have been detected when they make an error, or incompletely hide their activities, or we receive a usable complaint from their victims. I think we need the possibility of in some cases saying: we will consider you an UPE unless you can show us otherwise. This can include even verifying identity--some cases have been confirmed when they do volunteer their identity and what they say can be proven false.
(4)I am not completely convinced that we have ever actually done harm to an innocent or merely unaware editor by attempts to detect UPE, even when it breaches privacy. Joe jobs and the like have been in other contexts, usually ideological, sometimes interpersonal. The difficulty is to be sure that the person we are investigating is likely to be a major UPE.
(5)We need to supplement action with respect to editors by action with respect to articles. Certainly we do need to tighten the notability requirements for companies and their executives; we also need to dot his for non-profit organizations--some of the the most disruptive paid editing has come from that sector. I'll have a specific proposal ready soon. Additional steps in this direction are:
- a. a rule permitting the speedy deletion of articles mainly written by UPEs, such as we have for blocked sockpupetts.
- b. We need a variety of ways of detecting some of the tricks used to avoid scrutiny, possibly using edit filters. I think people are already working on this.
- c. increasing the requirement for submitting articles. I think we need to suggest a modified version of WP:ACTRIAL, requiring new editors to use Draft space. I'm not proposing anything specific here, because draft space is a bit of a mess at the moment. If necessary, we can even propose ACTRIAL again, hoping that the WMF will see the need of accepting some compromise on "anybody can edit" to avoid even worse compromises of principal. DGG ( talk ) 05:38, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Arbitration motion regarding JustBerry
JustBerry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was unblocked by the Ban Appeals Subcommittee in July 2013 with a one-account restriction. Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, the one-account restriction for JustBerry is rescinded. They are reminded that any alternate accounts and/or bots must adhere to WP:SOCK#LEGIT and WP:BOTPOL.
- Support
- Doug Weller, Drmies, Euryalus, GorillaWarfare, Ks0stm, Mkdw, Newyorkbrad, Opabinia regalis
- Not voting
- Casliber, DGG, DeltaQuad, Keilana, Kirill Lokshin, Callanecc, Kelapstick
For the Arbitration Committee, Mkdw talk 19:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Arbitration motion regarding Ed Poor 2
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
In remedy 1.1 of the 2006 Ed Poor 2 case, Ed Poor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was placed on probation. Under the terms of the probation, he was banned from two topics in 2008 and 2009. The probation and topic bans under its terms are now rescinded.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:37, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Arbitration motion regarding GamerGate
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
The topic-ban placed on NorthBySouthBaranof in the GamerGate case is terminated. Discretionary sanctions remain authorized to address any user misconduct in the relevant topic-area.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 03:07, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Arbitration motion regarding Article titles and capitalization
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
In remedy 4.2 of the 2012 Article titles and capitalisation case, standard discretionary sanctions were authorized
for all pages related to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, broadly construed.By way of clarification, the scope of this remedy refers to discussions about the policies and guidelines mentioned, and does not extend to individual move requests, move reviews, article talk pages, or other venues at which individual article names may be discussed. Disruption in those areas should be handled by normal administrative means.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 03:26, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Arbitration motion regarding Jytdog
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
The topic ban from "all matters related to COI editing" imposed on Jytdog (talk · contribs) as part of the August 2016 unblock conditions is lifted. However, Jytdog is strongly warned any subsequent incident in which you reveal non-public information about another user will result in an indefinite block or siteban by the Arbitration Committee. To avoid ambiguity, "non-public information" includes (but is not limited to) any information about another user including legal names and pseudonyms, workplace, job title, or contact details, which that user has not disclosed themselves on the English Wikipedia or other WMF project.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 34#Arbitration motion regarding Jytdog
Motion on Arbitration Enforcement logging
A motion has been proposed that would modify the method used for logging Arbitration Enforcement sanctions
The motion can be reviewed and commented upon here
Discussion is invited from all interested parties.
For the Arbitration Committee Amortias (T)(C) 21:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
War of the Pacific case closed
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
- Keysanger (talk · contribs) and MarshalN20 (talk · contribs) are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).
- Keysanger (talk · contribs) is warned not to cast aspersions on other editors, or to unnecessarily perpetuate on-wiki battles.
- Where the dispute relates specifically to the interpretation of individual military history sources, the Committee recommends that these disputes in this topic area be formally raised at the Military History Wikiproject talkpage to ensure a wider audience and further expert input. Evident manipulation of sources, or disregard of a MILHIST consensus, should be considered disruptive editing and addressed via regular administrative action where appropriate.
- Where any content dispute involves both Keysanger (talk · contribs) and MarshalN20 (talk · contribs), those editors must seek wider input by raising the matter at any one of: the Military History Wikiproject talkpage, WP:3O, or WP:RFC. Both editors must abide by any subsequent consensus that arises from this process. Disregard of consensus should be considered disruptive editing and addressed via regular administrative action where appropriate. Nothing in this remedy restricts the editing of the disputed topic area by other editors.
For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 18:46, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
- Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 34#War of the Pacific case closed
Magioladitis case closed
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
- The community is encouraged to carefully review the lists of items in AWB's "general fixes" and the Checkwiki project's list of errors to determine whether these items are truly uncontroversial maintenance changes. A suggested approach would be classifying existing fixes as cosmetic or non-cosmetic and thereby identifying fixes that should be ineligible to be applied alone. The groups who currently invest their efforts in maintaining these lists are encouraged to improve their change management practices by soliciting broader community input into the value of adding proposed new items to the lists, and specifically to make their proposals accessible to members of the community who are not bot operators or whose interests are non-technical.
- The community is encouraged to hold an RfC to clarify the nature of "cosmetic" edits and to reevaluate community consensus about the utility and scope of restrictions on such edits. The committee notes that an RfC on this topic is currently under development.
- While the Arbitration Committee has no direct authority over the volunteer developers of open-source tools, we encourage the AWB developers to carefully consider feedback gathered in this case in order to use technical means to avoid problematic edits more effectively.
- The Bot Approvals Group is encouraged to carefully review the proposed scope of any new bot request for approval to ensure that the scope and tasks are clearly defined and will resist scope creep.
- Magioladitis is restricted from making any semi-automated edits which do not affect the rendered visual output of a page. This restriction does not apply to edits which address issues related to accessibility guidelines. Further, Magioladitis may seek consensus to perform a specific type of semi-automated edit that would normally fall under this restriction at the administrators' noticeboard. Any uninvolved administrator may close such a discussion with consensus to perform a specific type of semi-automated edit. All discussions should be logged on the case page, regardless of outcome.
- Magioladitis is reminded that performing the same or similar series of edits in an automated fashion using a bot and in a semi-automated fashion on his main account is acceptable only as long as the edits are not contentious. Should Yobot be stopped or blocked for a series of edits, Magioladitis may not perform the same pattern of edits via semi-automated tools from his main account where this might reasonably be perceived as evading the block. In this circumstance, Magioladitis (like any other editor) should await discussion and consensus as to whether or not the edits are permissible and useful, and resume making such edits through any account only if and when the consensus is favorable.
- Magioladitis is restricted from unblocking their own bot when it has been blocked by another administrator. After discussion with the blocking administrator and/or on the bot owners' noticeboard, the blocking administrator or an uninvolved administrator may unblock the bot.
For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 23:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
- Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 34#Magioladitis case closed
Arbitration motion regarding the logging of sanctions
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
Currently sanctions issued pursuant to any remedy except discretionary sanctions are logged on the case page and discretionary sanctions are logged centrally at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log. From the passing of this motion all arbitration enforcement actions, including sanctions enforcing an Arbitration Committee decision, discretionary sanctions (including appeals and modifications), will be logged together in a centralised log. For this to occur:
- The clerks are authorised to modify the current central log as required (such as moving the log and creating additional sections).
- The sections on logging in the discretionary sanctions page are modified as follows:
- The "Establishment of a central log" section is removed.
- The "Special:Permalink/762659852#Motion January 2015" section is removed.
- The "Logging" section is amended to the following:
Discretionary sanctions are to be recorded on the appropriate page of the centralised arbitration enforcement log. Notifications and warnings issued prior to the introduction of the current procedure on 3 May 2014 are not sanctions and remain on the individual case page logs.
- The following section, titled "Logging", is to be added under the "Enforcement" section of the Arbitration Committee procedures page:
All sanctions and page restrictions must be logged by the administrator who applied the sanction or page restriction at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log. Whenever a sanction or page restriction is appealed or modified, the administrator amending it must append a note recording the amendment to the original log entry.To be valid, sanctions must be clearly and unambiguously labelled as an arbitration enforcement action (such as with "arbitration enforcement", "arb enforcement", "AE" or "WP:AE" in the Wikipedia log entry or the edit summary). If a sanction has been logged as an arbitration enforcement action but has not been clearly labelled as an arbitration enforcement action any uninvolved administrator may amend the sanction (for example, a null edit or reblocking with the same settings) on behalf of the original administrator. Labelling a sanction which has been logged does not make the administrator who added the label the "enforcing administrator" unless there is confusion as to who intended the sanction be arbitration enforcement.
A central log ("log") of all page restrictions and sanctions (including blocks, bans, page protections or other restrictions) placed as arbitration enforcement (including discretionary sanctions) is to be maintained by the Committee and its clerks at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log). The log transcludes annual log sub-pages (e.g. [/2015], [/2014]) in reverse chronological order, with the sub-pages arranged by case. An annual log sub-page shall be untranscluded from the main log page (but not blanked) once five years have elapsed since the date of the last entry (including sanctions and appeals) recorded on it, though any active sanctions remain in force. Once all sanctions recorded on the page have expired or been successfully appealed, the log page shall be blanked. The log location may not be changed without the explicit consent of the committee.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 14:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Arbitration Committee seeking new clerks
The Clerks of the Arbitration Committee are currently looking for a few dependable and mature editors willing to serve as clerks. The responsibilities of clerks include opening and closing arbitration cases and motions; notifying parties of cases, decisions, and other committee actions; maintaining the requests for arbitration pages; preserving order and proper formatting on case pages; and other administrative and related tasks they may be requested to handle by the arbitrators. 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.
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. Best of all, you get a cool fez!
Please email clerks-l lists.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, Kharkiv07 (T) 20:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Arbitration motion to standardise arbitration enforcement procedures
An arbitration motion has been proposed that would amend the discretionary sanctions procedure by moving some of those provisions into the Committee's arbitration enforcement policy to standardise enforcement of all Committee and discretionary sanctions. The community is encouraged to reviewed and commented on the motion here. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
OccultZone siteban rescinded
The indefinite siteban of OccultZone (talk · contribs) imposed in remedy 1 of the "OccultZone and others" arbitration case is rescinded with the following restrictions:
- OccultZone's topic ban from remedy 2 and one account restriction from remedy 3 in the "OccultZone and others" case remain in effect.
- OccultZone is indefinitely topic banned from filing, commenting in or discussing sockpuppet investigations. If OccultZone has a reasonable suspicion that a user may be engaging in sockpuppetry, they should raise the issue with the functionaries, an admin, or a sockpuppet investigations clerk, who can then file a sockpuppet investigation if, in their opinion, one is warranted.
- OccultZone is indefinitely topic banned from making any edits related to, or editing any page about South Asian topics, broadly construed.
- OccultZone is indefinitely subject to a 1RR editing restriction.
- OccultZone is indefinitely restricted from:
- Raising any issue at more than one venue, whatever that venue is (with the exception of bringing a case or clarification/amendment request to ArbCom).
- Raising any issue at a venue other than where it is being discussed.
- For clarity, OccultZone is not restricted from:
- Commenting in multiple venues if an issue is moved (by himself or others).
- Commenting in multiple venues if a single issue has been raised in multiple places by other users.
- Notifying users or pages of discussions in other venues.
These restrictions may be appealed to the Committee in no less than six months.
- Passed 8 to 0 by motion at 17:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 17:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 34#OccultZone siteban rescinded
Standardising arbitration enforcement procedures
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
The following sections are moved (word for word) from the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions procedure to the Committee's procedures page (under the "Enforcement" heading) and as such apply to all arbitration enforcement actions (including discretionary sanctions and actions enforcing arbitration case remedies):
- The "Expectations of administrators" section
- The "Dismissing an enforcement request" section
A note is to be placed prominently on the discretionary sanctions procedure noting that the Enforcement provisions on the Committee's procedures page also apply to the application and enforcement of discretionary sanctions.
The "Appeals and modifications" in the discretionary sanctions procedure is modified to reflect the current version standard provision for appeals and modifications, including changes made to it in future amendments (Template:Arbitration standard provisions may be used).
For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 19:10, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
ARBPIA "consensus" provision modified
The consensus required restriction in the Palestine-Israel articles case is modified to read as follows:
Editors are limited to one revert per page per day on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. In addition, editors are required to obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit.Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours. Reverts made to enforce the General Prohibition are exempt fromthe revert limitthe provisions of this motion. Also, the normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blockedwithout warningby any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.- Passed 9 to 0 by motion at 00:22, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 00:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Arbitration motion regarding The Rambling Man
After discussion with both parties, the Committee resolves that The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) be indefinitely banned from interacting with, or commenting on Bishonen (talk · contribs) anywhere on the English Wikipedia. This is subject to the usual exceptions.
- Support
- Euryalus, DGG, Doug Weller, GorillaWarfare, Opabinia regalis, Mkdw
- Recused
- Casliber, Ks0stm, Newyorkbrad
- Inactive
- DeltaQuad, Drmies, Callanecc, Kelapstick
For the Arbitration Committee, -- Euryalus (talk) 13:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Motion regarding User:1989
User:1989, formerly known as User:Blurred Lines, has been subject to a one-account restriction since 2014. Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, the one-account restriction for 1989 is rescinded. They are reminded that any alternate accounts and/or bots must adhere to WP:SOCK#LEGIT and WP:BOTPOL.
- Support
Opabinia regalis, GorillaWarfare, Doug Weller, Mkdw, Ks0stm, Euryalus, Keilana, DeltaQuad
- Not voting
Casliber, DGG, Kelapstick, Kirill Lokshin, Newyorkbrad
- Inactive
Callanecc, Drmies
Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
- Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 34#Motion regarding User:1989
Arbitration motion regarding discretionary sanctions
Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment:
In the interest of clarity, the discretionary sanctions procedures described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions are modified as follows:
- In the section Appeals by sanctioned editors:
Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages...
- In the section Modifications by administrators:
No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without...
For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 13:56, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Motion: Activity
In accordance with the standing procedure on inactivity, the checkuser and oversight permissions of
are removed. The committee thanks them for their service. Additionally, the checkuser and oversight permissions of
and the checkuser permission of
have been voluntarily relinquished. The committee thanks them for their service.
- Supporting: DGG, Drmies, GorillaWarfare, kelapstick, Ks0stm, Mkdw, Newyorkbrad, Opabinia regalis
For the Arbitration Committee,
GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:24, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 35#Motion: Activity
GoldenRing appointed trainee clerk
The arbitration clerks are excited to welcome GoldenRing (talk · contribs) to the clerk team as a trainee!
The arbitration clerk team is often in need of new members, and any editor who would like to join the clerk team is welcome to apply by e-mail to clerks-l lists.wikimedia.org.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:26, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 35#GoldenRing appointed trainee clerk
Functionary changes (July 2017)
In accordance with the Committee's procedure on functionary activity, the oversight permission of Jdforrester (talk · contribs) is removed.
Additionally, the oversight permission of Fluffernutter (talk · contribs) has been voluntarily relinquished.
The Arbitration Committee thanks them both for their service. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
- Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 35#Functionary changes (July 2017)
Personnel changes in the Checkuser team
Deskana (talk · contribs) is hereby reappointed as a member of the Checkuser team, having previously left the team under good standing in February 2016.
For the Arbitration Committee, GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Mdann52 reappointed an arbitration clerk
The Arbitration Committee is pleased to announce that Mdann52 (talk · contribs) has been reappointed an arbitration clerk after leaving the team in August 2016.
The arbitration clerk team is often in need of new members. Any editor who would like to join the clerk team is welcome to apply by e-mail to clerks-l lists.wikimedia.org.
For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:34, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Soap unbanned
The Arbitration Committee has resolved that:
In 2015, Soap (talk · contribs) was desysopped and banned indefinitely. Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, he is unbanned. As indicated in the original announcement, he may only regain his administrative tools following approval from the Arbitration Committee, and a successful request for adminship.
- Support
- Opabinia regalis, Ks0stm, Kelapstick, Callanecc, Casliber, DGG, Newyorkbrad
- Oppose
- Mkdw, Doug Weller, Drmies, Kirill Lokshin
- Abstain
- GorillaWarfare
- Not voting
- Keliana, Euryalus
For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Kostas20142 appointed trainee clerk
The arbitration clerks are pleased to welcome Kostas20142 (talk · contribs) to the clerk team as a trainee!
The arbitration clerk team is often in need of new members, and any editor who would like to join the clerk team is welcome to apply by e-mail to clerks-l lists.wikimedia.org.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 35#Kostas20142 appointed trainee clerk
CheckUser and Oversight appointments 2017: Announcement
The Arbitration Committee has resolved to perform a round of Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The arbitrators overseeing this will be GorillaWarfare, Ks0stm, and Mkdw. This year, the usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will be requested to assist in the vetting process.
- 1 September: Request for candidates to apply.
- 23:59 UTC, 12 September: Candidate submissions close, vetting begins.
- 13 September: The Arbitration Committee and current Functionaries will vet the candidates.
- 15 September: Vetting ends, successful candidates contacted by 18 September.
- 18 September: Candidates published on-wiki, community feedback invited.
- 23:59 UTC, 29 September: Community comments end.
- By 11 October: Appointed candidates announced
For the Arbitration Committee, GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:29, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
An arbitration case regarding Magioladitis has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
- Magioladitis (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit which only introduces a cosmetic change (that is, where there is no substantive change made in the same edit). However, Magioladitis may make (without a substantive change in the same edit) or bundle (for example, as part of "general fixes") cosmetic changes from his bot account if the bot request for approval specifically allows this. This sanction supersedes remedy 7.1 of the original case.
- Magioladitis is indefinitely prohibited from initiating or participating in any discussion concerning WP:COSMETICBOT, including discussions concerning its impact. Magioladitis may ask specific questions, at the bot noticeboard or bot request for approval, to clarify whether bot tasks he wishes to undertake, or is currently undertaking, are permitted under remedy 1.1 of this case. Once a question has been answered, and discussion closed, by an uninvolved BAG member or administrator, Magioladitis is not permitted to raise the same question again, except in a clarification request if required. This sanction supersedes the community sanction applied in June 2017.
- Magioladitis is indefinitely prohibited from using AWB, or similar tool (such as WPCleaner), on the English Wikipedia. This prohibition does not apply to bots operated by Magioladitis undertaking approved tasks. For clarity, he may discuss AWB and similar tools (notwithstanding his other sanctions), but may not make edits using them (or a derivative) on the English Wikipedia. This sanction supersedes the community sanction applied in July 2017.
- Magioladitis is reminded that accounts making automated edits (bots) must be approved by the bot approvals group before being used. He is indefinitely prohibited from making automated edits from his main (User:Magioladitis) account.
- For consistent poor judgement and failure to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, Magioladitis is desysopped. He may regain the tools at any time through a successful request for adminship.
For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 21:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
2017 checkuser and oversight candidates
The Arbitration Committee invites comments from the community on this year's candidates for the CheckUser and Oversight permissions. The community consultation phase of the 2017 appointment round will run from 18 September to 29 September. Questions for the candidates may be asked at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/2017 CUOS appointments. Comments may be posted there or emailed privately to the arbitration committee at arbcom-en-c lists.wikimedia.org. Thank you! GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
The Rambling Man prohibition amendment
The arbitration committee has resolved by motion that:
Remedy 4 (The Rambling Man prohibited) of the The Rambling Man arbitration case is modified as follows:
- The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) is prohibited from insulting and/or belittling other editors.
is amended to read
- The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) is prohibited from posting speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their general competence.
support: Opabinia regalis, DGG, Doug Weller, Ks0stm, Mkdw, Callanecc, Kelpastick
oppose:
recuse: Newyorkbrad
For the Arbitration Committee, Kostas20142 (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Motion (September 2017)
Remedy 4 (Hijiri88: Topic ban (II)) of the Catflap08 and Hijiri88 arbitration case is suspended for a period of six months. During the period of suspension, this restriction may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator as an arbitration enforcement action should Hijiri88 fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process in the area defined in the topic ban remedy. After six months from the date this motion is enacted, if the restriction has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the restriction will automatically lapse.
- Passed 10 to 0 by motion at 23:19, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 23:30, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
2017 Checkuser and Oversight appointments: Candidates appointed
The Arbitration Committee is pleased to appoint the following users to the functionary team:
- Berean Hunter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is appointed as a checkuser.
- BU Rob13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is appointed as a checkuser.
- NinjaRobotPirate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is appointed as a checkuser.
- Primefac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is appointed as an oversighter.
- Sphilbrick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is appointed as an oversighter.
- There'sNoTime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is appointed as a checkuser and oversighter.
- Zzuuzz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is appointed as a checkuser.
The Committee would like to thank the community and all the candidates for bringing this process to a successful conclusion. The Arbitration Committee also welcomes the following users back to the functionary team:
- Xeno (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who voluntarily resigned his checkuser and oversight permissions in July 2012, is reappointed as an oversighter following a request to the committee for the return of this permission.
For the Arbitration Committee
GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:18, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Arthur Rubin case closed
An arbitration case regarding User:Arthur Rubin has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
- Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs) is desysopped for repeatedly not meeting the community expectations and responsibilities of administrators as outlined in WP:ADMINACCT. He may regain the administrative tools at any time via a successful request for adminship.
For the Arbitration Committee, Mdann52 (talk) 16:35, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 35#Arthur Rubin case closed
Motion: Sexology
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
Remedy 4.1 ("Discretionary sanctions") of the Sexology case is rescinded. Any sanctions or other restrictions imposed under this remedy to date shall remain in force unaffected.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 35#Motion: Sexology
Community feedback: Proposal to modify how and where case requests are filed (subpages)
The Arbitration Committee has discussed modifying how case requests are made and would like community feedback before proceeding further with this change.
Current system
Under the current system, to file a case request a user completes a proforma which adds a new section to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. When a case request is accepted and a case opened, parts of the case request are copied and pasted to the main case page and other parts are copied to the talk page of the main case page. If a case request is declined, it is simply removed from the page and a permanent link to the revision immediately prior to its removal is added to the index.
This system has the benefit of keeping requests centralised and that changes to case requests appear on the watchlists of any editor monitoring Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. However, there are also drawbacks to the current system. Chief among them is that it can be extremely difficult to find diffs of comments made in a case request due to the significant number of edits made to that page. This is especially disadvantageous when cases requests are declined and editors need to ask for help in other locations using evidence or examples from the case request. The (necessary) practice of copying sections of case requests to the case pages also has the added drawback of removing the link between the page history and the content of user's edits. Editors are also unable to effectively draft their request before publishing it as as soon as they complete the proforma, it is published to a highly viewed page.
Proposed system
Under the current proposal, case requests will instead be made at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/CASENAME/Request. A proforma will be created, similar to the current one, which will allow editors to create a request on the appropriate subpage. Once the editor is ready with the request, they will transclude their request to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. This is similar to how the RfA process works. I've written this up in more detail at User:Callanecc/sandbox.
This proposal has the benefit of keeping case request page histories simple, where they can be easily accessed. It will be easier for editors who wish to watch a specific case request as they will be able to monitor a specific /Request subpage rather than needing to sort through every edit to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. A related downside is that editors (such as arbitrators and clerks) who wish to monitor each individual case request will need to manually watchlist each new request. A downside is that there will be an increase in subpages of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case and that some requests may be made but not transcluded/filed. A tracking template which categories case requests will be used (see this example) and clerks will monitor case requests which haven't been filed. If they aren't filed after a specified time period (such as a week) they will be deleted.
General
As part of this proposal, there are no plans to modify any of the following:
- how cases are named.
- how new case requests are handled by the Committee.
- the layout of the main case pages.
The Committee realises that editors wish to see changes in this area, but wishes to addresses these issues one at a time.
Thank you, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:20, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Feedback from the community is welcomed at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 36#Community feedback: Proposal to modify how and where case requests are filed (subpages).
Temporary checkuser permission for election scrutineers
The Arbitration Committee resolves by motion, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions, that:
Temporary Checkuser rights are granted to Matiia, RadiX, Shanmugamp7, and (alternate if necessary) Mardetanha for the purpose of their acting as Scrutineers in the 2017 Arbitration Committee election.
For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 16:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Motion: Crosswiki issues
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
The Arbitration Committee has considered the request for arbitration titled "Crosswiki issues" and decides as follows:
- (A) Whether and how information from Wikidata should be used on English Wikipedia is an ongoing subject of editorial disputes, and is not specifically addressed by current English Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Aspects of these disputes may include disagreements over who should decide whether and when Wikidata content should be included, the standards to be used in making those decisions, and the proper role, if any, of the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) in connection with this issue.
- (B) To allow the English Wikipedia community to decide the policy issues involved, the Arbitration Committee recommends that a request for comment (RfC) be opened.
- (C) While the RfC is being prepared and it is pending, editors should refrain from taking any steps that might create a fait accompli situation (i.e., systematic Wikidata-related edits on English Wikipedia that would be difficult to reverse without undue effort if the RfC were to decide that a different approach should be used).
- (D) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all discussions about the integration of Wikidata on the English Wikipedia for a period of one year from the enactment of this motion, unless ended earlier by the Arbitration Committee.
- (E) Editors should abide by high standards of user conduct, including remaining civil and avoiding personal attacks, in the RfC and in all other comments on Wikidata-related issues. Editors who are knowledgeable and/or passionate about the issues are encouraged to participate and share their expertise and opinions, but no individual editor's comments should overwhelm or "bludgeon" the discussion.
- (F) The request for an arbitration case is declined at this time, but may be reopened if issues suitable for ArbCom remain following the RfC.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 35#Motion: Crosswiki issues
Community consultation: User:Crouch, Swale ban appeal
The Arbitration Committee has received a ban appeal from Crouch, Swale (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and, after internal discussion and discussion with Crouch, Swale, is considering granting their ban appeal with the following conditions:
- Indefinite one account restriction.
- Indefinite topic ban from discussions on geographic naming conventions.
- Indefinite ban on moving or renaming geographic articles.
- Indefinite ban on
new article creationpage creation outside their own user space.
Before moving further with this appeal, such as voting on it, the committee would like community comments regarding whether this user should be unbanned, and on the suitability of the proposed unban conditions. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
2018 Arbitration Committee
The Arbitration Committee welcomes the following new and returning arbitrators following their election by the community. Their two-year terms formally begin on 01 January 2018:
- Alex Shih (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- BU Rob13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Callanecc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- KrakatoaKatie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Opabinia regalis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- RickinBaltimore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Worm That Turned (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
All incoming arbitrators have elected to receive (or retain, where applicable) the checkuser and oversight permissions.
We also thank our outgoing colleagues whose terms end on 31 December 2017:
- Casliber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Drmies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (retaining CU & OS)
- GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (retaining CU & OS)
- Keilana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (retaining OS)
- Kelapstick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Kirill Lokshin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Outgoing arbitrators are eligible to retain the CheckUser and Oversight permissions, remain active on cases accepted before their term ended, and to remain subscribed to the functionaries' and arbitration clerks' mailing lists following their term on the committee. To that effect:
- Stewards are requested to remove the permission(s) noted from the following outgoing arbitrators after 31 December 2017 at their own request:
- Checkuser: Casliber,
Keilana,Kelapstick - Oversight: Casliber, Kelapstick, Kirill Lokshin
- Checkuser: Casliber,
- Outgoing arbitrators are eligible to remain active on cases opened before their term ended if they wish. Whether or not outgoing arbitrators will remain active on any ongoing case(s) will be noted on the proposed decision talk page of affected case(s).
- All outgoing arbitrators will remain subscribed to the functionaries' mailing list, with the exception of Casliber and Kirill Lokshin at their request.
- All outgoing arbitrators will be unsubscribed from the arbitration clerks' mailing list, with the exception of GorillaWarfare and Drmies at their request.
For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:03, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
- Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 36#2018 Arbitration Committee
Crouch, Swale ban appeal
Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions,
Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, Crouch, Swale (talk · contribs)'s site ban is rescinded and the following indefinite restrictions are imposed:
- one account restriction
- topic ban from discussions on geographic naming conventions
- prohibition on moving or renaming pages (except within their own userspace)
- prohibition on creating new pages, including creating articles on pages where one didn't previously exist (except within their own userspace and talk pages of existing pages in any namespace).
The standard provisions on enforcement and appeals and modifications apply to these restrictions. If a fifth is placed under these restrictions, the blocking administrator must notify the Arbitration Committee of the block via a Request for Clarification and Amendment so that the unban may be reviewed. Crouch, Swale may appeal these unban conditions every 6 months from the date this motion passes.
For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 17:40, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 36#Crouch, Swale ban appeal
Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Motion
The arbitration committee has resolved by motion that:
Remedy 3 (Hijiri88: Topic ban (I)) of the Catflap08 and Hijiri88 arbitration case is suspended for a period of six months. During the period of suspension, this restriction may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator, as an arbitration enforcement action, should Hijiri88 fail to adhere to any normal editorial process or expectations in the area defined in the topic ban remedy. After six months from the date this motion is enacted, if the restriction has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed to the Arbitration Committee, the restriction will automatically lapse.
- Passed 8 to 0 with 1 abstention by motion at 12:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
For the Arbitration Committee, Kostas20142 (talk) 14:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 36#Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Motion
Motion: Palestine-Israel articles (January 2018)
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
The General 1RR prohibition of the Palestine-Israel articles arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) is amended to read:
- Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit. Reverts made to enforce the General Prohibition are exempt from the provisions of this motion. Also, the normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Conduct of Mister Wiki editors case closed
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
1) For conduct unbecoming an administrator, Salvidrim! is desysopped. They may regain administrator tools at any time via a successful RfA.
2.1) Salvidrim! is prohibited from reviewing articles for creation drafts, or moving AfC drafts created by other editors into mainspace. This restriction can be appealed in 12 months.
5) Salvidrim! is warned that further breaches of WP:COI will be grounds for sanctions including blocks, in accordance with community policies and guidelines.
6.1) Soetermans is prohibited from reviewing articles for creation drafts, or moving AfC drafts created by other editors into mainspace. This restriction can be appealed in 12 months.
8) Soetermans is warned that further breaches of WP:COI will be grounds for sanctions including blocks, in accordance with community policies and guidelines.
- For the Arbitration Committee, Mdann52 (talk) 19:33, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Arbitration motion regarding discretionary sanctions
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
The Page restrictions section of the discretionary sanctions procedure is modified to the following:
Any uninvolved administrator may impose on any page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict page protection, revert restrictions, prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists), or any other reasonable measure that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project. The enforcing administrator must log page restrictions they place.
Best practice is toEnforcing administrators must add an editnotice to restricted pageswhere appropriate, using the standard template ({{ds/editnotice}}), and should add a notice to the talk page of restricted pages.Editors who ignore or breach page restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator provided that, at the time the editor ignored or breached a page restriction:
- The editor was aware of discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict, and
- There was an editnotice ({{ds/editnotice}}) on the restricted page which specified the page restriction.
Editors using mobile devices may not see edit notices. Administrators should consider whether an editor was aware of the page restriction before sanctioning them.
The Awareness section of the discretionary sanctions procedure is modified to the following:
No editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict. An editor is aware if:
- They were mentioned by name in the applicable Final Decision; or
- They have ever been sanctioned within the area of conflict (and at least one of such sanctions has not been successfully appealed); or
- In the last twelve months, the editor has given and/or received an alert for the area of conflict; or
- In the last twelve months, the editor has participated in any process about the area of conflict at arbitration requests or arbitration enforcement; or
- In the last twelve months, the editor has successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict.
There are additional requirements in place when sanctioning editors for breaching page restrictions.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 15:44, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Community feedback: Proposal on case naming
The Arbitration Committee is currently considering a modification to our procedures on how case requests and arbitration cases are named. We would like community feedback before considering the proposal further.
- Current system
Currently, case requests are named by the filing parties. In theory, the Arbitration Committee or arbitration clerks can rename case requests before they are accepted, but this is rarely done in practice. If an arbitration case is accepted, the Committee chooses a name reflective of the dispute before the case is opened. This can either be the name originally provided by the filing party or a name developed by the Committee that better represents the scope of the case. The major benefit of this system is that ongoing cases are easily identifiable.
- Proposed changes
The following represents a prospective motion that would alter how cases are named.
If a case request is declined, the request will not be named. If a case request is accepted, the Committee will assign a name upon conclusion of the case. Case names will reflect the case's scope, content, and resolution. The Committee will not discuss the naming of a case prior to the case meeting the criteria for closure.
In the past, some editors have been concerned that specific case names have unintentionally biased the result of a case. While this is unproven, any such bias would be eliminated by deferring case naming until after the case was closed. The biggest drawback is that cases will be harder to identify while open. This may result in decreased participation by editors with relevant evidence.
- Notes
The Committee would like to restrict comments at this time to the proposed changes or suggestions directly related to the case naming process. Other issues related to arbitration proceedings may be addressed by the Committee at a later time.
Thank you, ~ Rob13Talk 19:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Feedback from the community is welcomed at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 36#Community feedback: Proposal on case naming.
Arbitration motion regarding Doncram
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
Remedy 5 (SarekOfVulcan–Doncram interaction ban) of the Doncram arbitration case is suspended for a period of six months. During the period of suspension, this restriction may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator as an arbitration enforcement action should either SarekOfVulcan or Doncram fail to adhere to Wikipedia editing standards in their interactions with each other. Appeal of such a reinstatement would follow the normal arbitration enforcement appeals process. After six months from the date this motion is enacted, if the restriction has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the restriction will automatically lapse.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:13, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
- Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 36#Arbitration motion regarding Doncram
Emergency desysop of Denelson83
Denelson83 has been temporarily desyopped because of concerns that the account may be compromised. This was done under emergency procedures and was certified by Arbitrators BU Rob13, KrakatoaKatie and Ks0stm.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Katietalk 03:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 36#Emergency desysop of Denelson83
Community consultation: User:Rationalobserver block appeal
The Arbitration Committee has received a ban appeal from Rationalobserver (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and, after internal discussion and discussion with Rationalobserver, is considering granting their ban appeal with the following conditions:
- Indefinite mutual interaction ban with Godot13.
- Indefinite mutual interaction ban with Montanabw.
- Indefinite topic ban from the WikiCup.
- Indefinite restriction on insulting or commenting on the identity, character or motives of other editors (which may be enforced with IBANs, in addition to blocks).
For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:51, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Arbitration motion regarding Catflap08 and Hijiri88
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
Remedy 5 (Hijiri88: 1RR) of the Catflap08 and Hijiri88 arbitration case is suspended for a period of six months. During the period of suspension, this restriction may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator, as an arbitration enforcement action, should Hijiri88 fail to adhere to any normal editorial process or expectations related to edit-warring or disruptive editing. After six months from the date this motion is enacted, if the restriction has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed to the Arbitration Committee, the restriction will automatically lapse.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Joefromrandb and others case closed
An arbitration case regarding User:Joefromrandb and others has been closed and the final decision is viewable here. The following remedies have been enacted:
- Subject to the usual exceptions, Joefromrandb (talk · contribs) is indefinitely restricted to one revert per page in any 24 hour period.
- For persistent and serious violations of Wikipedia's expected standards of behaviour including edit warring, battleground conduct and incivility, Joefromrandb (talk · contribs) is banned from the English Wikipedia for a period of six months. If problematic behaviour continues after the ban expires, the Arbitration Committee may impose an indefinite site ban or other sanctions by motion in response to a report at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.
- Point 3 of this community restriction from ANI is rescinded.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kostas20142 (talk) 17:13, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
- Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 36#Joefromrandb and others case closed
Community comment requested – ArbCom discretionary sanctions procedure modification
The Arbitration Committee is considering adopting the following change to the Committee's discretionary sanctions procedures to allow the community to consider a discretionary sanction prior to an appeal directly to the Arbitration Committee:
- In the section Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Appeals by sanctioned editors, insert below the existing text:
The editor must request review at AE or AN prior to appealing at ARCA.
- In the section Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Important notes, in the second bullet point:
While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee,Once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
The community is encouraged to provide any comments on the motion page. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:16, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
An arbitration case regarding civility in infobox discussions has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
- Any uninvolved administrator may apply infobox probation as a discretionary sanction. See the full decision for details of infobox probation.
- Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes.
- Cassianto is indefinitely placed on infobox probation.
- The Arbitration Committee recommends that well-publicized community discussions be held to address whether to adopt a policy or guideline addressing what factors should weigh in favor of or against including an infobox in a given article and how those factors should be weighted.
- All editors are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions about infoboxes, and to not turn discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general.
- For canvassing editors to this case, Volvlogia is admonished. They are warned that any further instances of canvassing related to arbitration processes will likely result in sanctions.
For the arbitration committee, GoldenRing (talk) 08:57, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
GoldenRing confirmed as a full clerk
The Arbitration Committee is pleased to confirm trainee clerk GoldenRing (talk · contribs) as a full clerk of the Arbitration Committee.
We also express our thanks and gratitude to the arbitration clerks for their diligent assistance with the arbitration process. The arbitration clerk team is often in need of new members, and any editor who would like to join the clerk team is welcome to apply by e-mail to clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org.
For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 37#GoldenRing confirmed as a full clerk
MapSGV topic ban lifted
The discretionary sanctions appeal by MapSGV is sustained, and the topic-ban imposed on MapSGV on March 2, 2018 is lifted. MapSGV remains on notice that the India/Pakistan topic-area is subject to discretionary sanctions, and is reminded to edit in accordance with all applicable policies.
- Passed 6 to 2 with 1 abstention by motion at 17:35, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 37#MapSGV topic ban lifted
For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 17:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)