Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

New noticeboard open

As part of our overall reform agenda, the Committee has decided to establish a new central noticeboard (this page), which will serve as a forum for arbitration-related announcements, notices, and other discussion.

A resolution authorizing this was passed 9/0, with votes in favor by Carcharoth, Casliber, FT2, John Vandenberg, Kirill Lokshin, Rlevse, Sam Blacketer, Stephen Bain, and Vassyana, and no votes against or abstentions.

For the Committee, Kirill 12:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

New IRC patroller

Wizardman has volunteered to take the role of designated IRC patroller for the Committee; this role was previously held by FT2.

For the Committee, Kirill 12:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Announcement withdrawn. Kirill 20:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

FT2 steps down from ArbCom

FT2 has announced on User talk:Jimbo Wales that he is stepping down as an arbitrator. The Arbitration Committee believes that FT2's decision to leave the committee was the sensible course of action under all the circumstances, and we appreciate his having done so.

Over the past several weeks, and particularly since the new group of arbitrators arrived in late December, the committee has internally discussed various aspects of this matter. Although no arbitration case was pending against FT2, an increasing number of arbitrators had concluded that – in light of the volume of community concerns expressed – FT2's continued participation as an arbitrator had become untenable, and FT2 was advised of this. This does not represent a finding of wrongdoing.

FT2 made valuable contributions during his time on the committee. He is a long-term dedicated Wikipedian and we anticipate that he will remain one, working on other areas of the project. Now that FT2 has left the committee, the Arbitration Clerks have removed him from the list of arbitrators and will recalculate the majorities on pending cases and motions accordingly. Whether to fill the vacant committee seat at this time is a decision for Jimbo Wales.

For the Committee, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 21:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

New mailing list structure

The Committee has decided to implement several changes to its existing mailing list structure:

• The Committee's main mailing list, arbcom-l, will be restricted to sitting arbitrators, the designated mailing list coordinator, and Jimbo Wales.
• The Committee's private wiki will be identically restricted.
• The current "sitting arbitrators only" list will be retained as a backup to arbcom-l, but will not be normally used.
• A new mailing list, functionaries-l, will be created, with membership open to all arbitrators, former arbitrators in good standing, and CheckUser and Oversight operators.

The resolution authorizing this was passed 13/0, with votes in favor by Carcharoth, Casliber, Cool Hand Luke, Coren, FayssalF, FloNight, John Vandenberg, Kirill Lokshin, Newyorkbrad, Rlevse, Roger Davies, Vassyana, and Wizardman, and no votes against or abstentions.

For the Committee, Kirill 23:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Proposal: CheckUser and OverSight permissions

PROPOSAL TEXT

A proposal concerning the appointment of additional editors with CheckUser and Oversight permissions was posted by the committee for discussion on 8 January 2009 and will remain open until 29 January 2009.

For the Committee, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement RfC

The Arbitration Committee has opened a Request for Comment regarding arbitration enforcement, including a review of general and discretionary sanctions. All editors are encouraged to comment and contribute. The Committee will close the RfC one month from its opening. After the closing, the Committee intends to formalize reform proposals within one month.

For the Committee,
Vassyana (talk) 23:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Committee agenda as of January 20

Listed below are the items which currently comprise the agenda of the Arbitration Committee.

Two points that should be kept in mind:

• Several of the measures being considered may require some form of community ratification prior to being fully adopted. The target date for this is not explicitly listed, but can be assumed to occur after the final date for internal Committee deliberations.
• The target dates are not set in stone; while we will make our best effort to meet them, there are any number of unforeseen circumstances which may cause them to change, and they are subject to revision as other issues arise.

The agenda is as follows:

1. Decide on updates to arbitration enforcement procedures
   • Initiate AE RfC by January 21
   • Compile RFC results by February 21
   • Draft reform proposals by March 7
   • Finalize reform proposals by March 21
2. Determine procedure for publishing proposals
   • Decision by January 31
3. Appoint CU & OS operators
   • Finalize election setup by January 31
   • Finalize appointments by February 28
4. Determine case acceptance criteria
   • Decision by January 31
5. Determine procedure for emergency rights removal
   • Draft proposal by January 31
   • Decision by February 14
6. Decide on designating an IRC liaison
   • Compile chanop comments by January 31
   • Decision by February 14
7. Decide on appointing CU & OS auditors
   • Finalize proposal by February 7
   • Finalize appointments by February 28
8. Determine recusal standards
   • Draft proposal by February 7
   • Decision by February 21
9. Determine workshop page structure
   • Decision by February 14
10. Determine how to deal with users leaving during cases
    • Draft proposal by February 14
    • Decision by February 28
11. Decide on acceptance of private evidence
    • Draft proposal by February 14
    • Decision by February 28
12. Prepare updated guide to arbitration
    • Draft by February 21
    • Finalized by March 7
13. Determine how to deal with users returning from bans
    • Draft proposal by February 21
    • Decision by March 7
14. Decide on locations of arbitration pages
    • Draft structure by February 21
    • Decision by March 7
    • Implementation by March 14
15. Move forward on handling civility
    • Detailed agenda by February 28
16. Determine procedure for handling banned user appeals
    • Draft proposal by February 28
    • Decision by March 14
17. Determine approach to considering off-wiki actions
    • Draft proposal by February 28
    • Decision by March 14
18. Determine standards of conduct in requests for arbitration
    • Draft proposal by March 7
    • Decision by March 21
19. Develop an arbitrator recall process
    • Draft proposal by March 7
    • Final proposal by March 21
20. Prepare updated Arbitration Policy
    • Draft by March 7
    • Finalized by March 21
21. Move forward on content dispute resolution
    • Detailed agenda by March 14
22. Decide on using summary motions in rejected cases
    • Draft proposal due March 14
    • Decision due March 21
23. Prepare updated transition document
    • Draft by October 31
    • Finalized by November 30
24. Prepare updated induction document
    • Draft by October 31
    • Finalized by November 30

For the Committee, Kirill 01:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussed here

Motion Re : Bishzilla

The request for arbitration named above has been declined as superseded by motion :

• Bishzilla (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is strongly admonished for her conduct in this matter. She is advised not to block users to force further discussion or action on an issue, nor to increase the pace of an issue, and not to take administrator actions with respect to disputes in which she is involved. Bishzilla is warned that any further such incidents are likely to lead to the suspension or revocation of her administrator privileges.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Mailer Diablo 14:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Clarification by motion relating to arbitration enforcement restriction

The Arbitration Committee has amended the restriction on arbitration enforcement activity in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Motion: re SlimVirgin by successful motion, archived here, to include two clarifications of the initial remedy.

Effective immediately, the restriction applies only to specific administrative actions applied to specific users. It does not apply to notices, editor lists, warnings, broad topic area actions, or other "enforcement actions" that are not specific actions applied to specific editors. This is a provisional measure, pending the resolution of the arbitration enforcement request for comment. Furthermore, the Committee observed that administrators are normally expected to explain their actions, respond to feedback, and otherwise engage in normal discussion and dispute resolution, and that the restriction on arbitration enforcement activity provides no exception to this standard.

For the Arbitration Committee
Daniel (talk) 02:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PHG

The above-linked Arbitration case has been closed and the final decision published.

PHG's mentorship and sourcing arrangement is both revised and extended; the full list of new conditions are available by clicking this link. Furthermore, the original topic ban on editing articles related to medieval or ancient history has been rescinded. PHG is prohibited from editing articles relating to the Mongol Empire, the Crusades, intersections between Crusader states and the Mongol Empire, and Hellenistic India—all broadly defined. This topic ban will last for a period of one year. He is permitted to make suggestions on talk pages, provided that he interacts with other editors in a civil fashion.

Any particular article may be added or removed from PHG's editing restriction at the discretion of his mentor; publicly logged to prevent confusion of the restriction's coverage. The mentor is encouraged to be responsive to feedback from editors in making and reconsidering such actions. Furthermore, the Committee noted that PHG has complied with the Committee's restrictions over the past ten months, and that PHG is encouraged to continue contributing to Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects. PHG should be permitted and encouraged by other editors to write well-sourced suggestions on talkpages, to contribute free-content images to Wikimedia Commons, and to build trust with the community.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

CU and OS elections

The proposal at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight appointments has passed and been made a policy at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight elections. Consequently the first English Wikipedia CU and OS elections will begin this Friday. For details see: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight elections/February 2009 For the arbitration committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 00:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Sade desysopped

Sade (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is desysopped for associations with abusive sockpuppetry and for failing to respond to enquiries from ArbCom.

Arbitrators supporting: Carcharoth, Casliber, Coren, Cool Hand Luke, FloNight, Kirill Lokshin, Rlevse, Roger Davies, Vassyana, Wizardman.

Arbitrators opposing: FayssalF, John Vandenberg, Sam Blacketer, Stephen Bain.

Arbitrators abstaining: none.

Arbitrators not voting: Newyorkbrad, Risker.

— Rlevse • Talk • 01:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

diff of log on meta

Discussion archive

CheckUser and Oversight election policy amended

In light of the concerns expressed by numerous members of the community regarding the voting method selected for the CheckUser and Oversight elections, the Committee has amended the election policy to allow votes both for and against a candidate, and to specify appointments based on percentage of support rather than raw support.

The measure authorizing this amendment was passed 11/0:

• Supporting: Carcharoth, Casliber, Cool Hand Luke, Coren, FloNight, Jayvdb, Kirill Lokshin, Risker, Roger Davies, Sam Blacketer, Wizardman
• Opposing: None
• Abstaining: Vassyana
• Not voting: FayssalF, Newyorkbrad, Rlevse, Stephen Bain

It should additionally be noted that this matter was dealt with on a quite urgent basis, and a number of arbitrators have not yet had the opportunity to enter formal votes on the measure; we expect that the tally above will be updated once this has occurred.

For the Committee, Kirill ^[pf] 04:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

CheckUser and Oversight election

The historic first-ever CheckUser and OverSight election run by the Arbitration Committee has just started. It's taking place here and will run from 00:01 6 February to 23:59 15 February 2009. Editors are welcome to scrutinise the candidates so that those appointed are the best possible people for the job.

For the Arbitration Committee, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 00:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Dmcdevit resumes Oversight and Checkuser access

Dmcdevit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has been reappointed to CheckUser and OverSight by the Arbitration Committee.

Arbitrators supporting: Carcharoth, Casliber, Cool Hand Luke, Coren, FayssalF, FloNight, John Vandenberg, Risker, Rlevse, Roger Davies, Sam Blacketer, Stephen Bain, Vassyana, Wizardman.

Arbitrators opposing: none.

Arbitrators abstaining: none.

Arbitrators not voting: Kirill Lokshin, Newyorkbrad.

For the Arbitration Committee, John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Note: I supported the reappointment on the mailing list; apparently I failed to record my vote in the correct official location (amusing that after all this time I still haven't figured out how to fill out all the forms correctly). For clarity, this is restoration of tools previously held by an editor who decided voluntarily to relinquish them for awhile, and now wishes to resume these duties. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

IRC liaison appointment deferred indefinitely

Because the Committee has received no comments regarding the need for a designated IRC liaison position, and because it appears likely that this position may never have existed in any formal sense, and was merely a term used to refer to individual and informal activities on IRC, the Committee has decided to defer making a formal appointment of an IRC liaison indefinitely. Individual arbitrators will continue their routine participation in IRC management as appropriate.

Passed 8 to 1, with 1 abstention:

• Supporting: Carcharoth, Casliber, Cool Hand Luke, FloNight, Kirill Lokshin, Risker, Vassyana, Wizardman
• Opposing: Stephen Bain
• Abstaining: Jayvdb
• Not voting: Coren, FayssalF, Newyorkbrad, Rlevse, Roger Davies, Sam Blacketer

For the Committee, Kirill ^[pf] 01:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

It seems that the tallies but not the rationales are getting copied here, so to clarify my opposing this announcement, I do not think an appointment should be deferred because I do not think the position exists or ever existed. --bainer (talk) 01:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: Removal of advanced permissions

PROPOSAL TEXT

The Committee has drafted a proposed set of procedures governing the removal of advanced permissions; these are now posted for community feedback at the link above. The discussion will remain open until 28 February 2009.

For the Committee, Kirill ^[pf] 04:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

CheckUser and Oversight election - results

The first CheckUser and Oversight elections ended at 23:59 15 February 2009 (UTC). For this election, there were three Checkuser slots with six vetted candidates and four Oversight slots with seven vetted candidates. The Arbitration Committee have now endorsed the results as follows:

CheckUser appointments

1. Versageek
2. Lucasbfr
3. Kylu

Oversight appointments

1. Luna Santin
2. Mailer diablo
3. Daniel Case
4. EVula

Our thanks go to the unsuccessful candidates – DerHexer, east718, EdJohnston, Kingturtle, MBisanz and NawlinWiki as well as the two who withdrew, Dweller and Lar – for volunteering for these unglamorous yet essential roles.

We also wish to thank the Arbitration Clerks for the courteous and efficient way they have supervised these elections and ST47 for kindly providing updated statistics throughout.

Archived discussion

For the Arbitration Committee,

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Block of Chergles

The Arbitration Committee has recently been alerted to allegations that Chergles (talk · contribs) is the sockpuppet of a multiply banned user. After careful consideration, including a review by several arbitrators and checkusers, the committee has concluded that Chergles is a sockpuppet of Archtransit (talk · contribs). The evidence relied on is clear and convincing, and includes multiple types of checkuser, technical, and behavioral analysis.

Members of the community may recall that Archtransit was desysopped by the Arbitration Committee and banned by the community in February 2008 for egregious misuse of multiple accounts and trolling; including deliberately performing controversial administrator actions involving his own sockpuppet accounts and deliberately wasting very substantial amounts of many other users' time and effort as editors sought to counsel him about his performance of administrator tasks. Evidence was also presented at that time that Archtransit was himself a sockpuppet of long-time community-banned vandal and troll Dereks1x (talk · contribs).

In view of the long-term pattern of behavior, the committee sees no reason to allow this individual to continue editing, particularly as he seems to be preparing for another request for adminship.

Accordingly, the committee has voted to block Chergles as the sockpuppet of a banned user. Any request for unblock must be addressed to the Arbitration Committee.

Passed with twelve supporting, with one abstention:

• Supporting: Carcharoth, Casliber, Cool Hand Luke, Coren, Kirill Lokshin, Newyorkbrad, Risker, Rlevse, Roger Davies, Sam Blacketer, Vassyana, Wizardman.
• Opposing: none
• Abstaining: Jayvdb.
• Not voting: FayssalF, FloNight, Stephen Bain.

For the Committee, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science

The above-linked Arbitration case has been closed and the final decision published.

ScienceApologist is banned from editing any article relating to fringe science topics, broadly construed, for a period of six months. ScienceApologist is free to edit the talk pages of such articles. Pcarbonn is admonished for needlessly stoking the fires of disputes in the area of fringe science, and is encouraged to direct his efforts elsewhere.

All editors in the disputed area are warned that further disruptive editing in the disputed area will be viewed dimly by the Committee, and may lead to further sanctions being imposed. Editors in the disputed area are encouraged to seek to engage in formal mediation to help establish consensus when coverage of fringe science in an article or group of articles is under dispute. While mediation is not binding, editors are further encouraged to abide by the results of mediation (and other dispute resolution).

For the Arbitration Committee, Gazimoff 00:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Committee agenda as of February 26

Listed below are the items which currently comprise the agenda of the Arbitration Committee:

1. Determine procedure for handling banned user appeals
   • Draft proposal by February 28
   • Decision by March 14
2. Decide on updates to arbitration enforcement procedures
   • Draft reform proposals by March 14
   • Finalize reform proposals by March 28
3. Appoint CU & OS auditors
   • Finalize proposal by March 14
   • Finalize appointments by April 4
4. Decide on locations of arbitration pages
   • Draft structure by March 14
   • Decision by March 28
   • Implementation by April 4
5. Determine procedure for emergency rights removal
   • Updated draft by March 21
   • Decision by April 4
6. Determine workshop page structure
   • Decision by March 21
7. Determine case acceptance criteria
   • Draft by March 28 [in arbitration policy]
   • Finalized by April 11 [in arbitration policy]
8. Determine recusal standards
   • Draft by March 28 [in arbitration policy]
   • Finalized by April 11 [in arbitration policy]
9. Determine how to deal with users leaving during cases
   • Draft by March 28 [in arbitration policy]
   • Finalized by April 11 [in arbitration policy]
10. Decide on acceptance of private evidence
    • Draft by March 28 [in arbitration policy]
    • Finalized by April 11 [in arbitration policy]
11. Decide on approach to considering off-wiki actions
    • Draft by March 28 [in arbitration policy]
    • Finalized by April 11 [in arbitration policy]
12. Determine standards of conduct in requests for arbitration
    • Draft by March 28 [in arbitration policy]
    • Finalized by April 11 [in arbitration policy]
13. Decide on using summary motions in rejected cases
    • Draft by March 28 [in arbitration policy]
    • Finalized by April 11 [in arbitration policy]
14. Prepare updated Arbitration Policy
    • Draft by March 28
    • Finalized by April 11
15. Prepare updated guide to arbitration
    • Draft by March 28
    • Finalized by April 11
16. Develop an arbitrator recall process
    • Draft proposal by March 28
    • Final proposal by April 18
17. Determine how to deal with users returning from bans
    • Draft proposal by April 4
    • Decision by April 18
18. Move forward on content dispute resolution
    • Detailed agenda by April 11
19. Move forward on handling civility
    • Detailed agenda by April 11
20. Prepare updated transition document
    • Draft by October 31
    • Finalized by November 30
21. Prepare updated induction document
    • Draft by October 31
    • Finalized by November 30

Key changes from the agenda as of January 20 are as follows:

1. A number of items which we originally intended to handle separately will now be integrated into an overall update of the arbitration policy.
2. The milestones for this arbitration policy update have slipped by three weeks; we do not anticipate having a draft prepared until March 28.
3. The updates to the arbitration guide will now occur simultaneously with the updates to the arbitration policy, as the guide would likely require changes to reflect the policy updates regardless.
4. The highest priority item is now the development of a new ban appeal process, as the effort spent in handling these appeals is preventing the Committee from dealing with other matters.

For the Committee, Kirill ^[pf] 04:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion