Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Arbitration motions regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names

Per these motions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

Discussions relating to the naming of Ireland articles must occur at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration.

Moderators of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration may ban any contributor from the pages within the scope of the WikiProject for up to a month when a contributor is disrupting the collaboration process.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 21:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Motion allowing parties currently banned from I/P articles to comment on naming guidelines for I/P articles

To allow users currently banned from I/P articles to comment on naming guidelines for I/P articles. Conditions are that they may make very short comments in each section once, and may not comment on other users.

Motion failed.

The vote was 0-9-4:

Support: None

Oppose: Carcharoth, Cool Hand Luke, Coren, FloNight, Jayvdb, Kirill Lokshin, Risker, Rlevse, Wizardman

Abstain: Casliber, FayssalF, Newyorkbrad, Vassyana

Not voting: Roger Davies, Stephen Bain

— Coren ^(talk), for the Committee, 00:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Appeals to the Ban Appeals Subcommittee: Aarandir & Anonimu

The Ban Appeals Subcommittee has allowed the appeals of:

• Aarandir (talk · contribs)
• Anonimu (talk · contribs)

The text of the decisions and any associated restrictions have been posted on the applicable user talk pages.

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies ^talk 14:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Nichalp

In response to community concerns about Nichalp (talk · contribs) using an undisclosed account (Zithan (talk · contribs)) for paid editing, and because of Nichalp's failure to reply to the Arbitration Committee's email enquiry about these concerns, Nichalp's bureaucrat, administrator and oversight status, and his access to the associated mailing lists (<functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org> and <oversight-l@lists.wikimedia.org>), are temporarily removed and User:Zithan is indefinitely blocked.

Nichalp is instructed to contact the Arbitration Committee as soon as possible in order to resolve the issues related to his special access privileges and the Zithan account.

The vote was 8-0-1:

Support: Carcharoth, Casliber, Coren, FloNight, Risker, Rlevse, Roger Davies, Wizardman

Oppose: None

Abstain: FayssalF

Not voting: Cool Hand Luke, Jayvdb, Kirill Lokshin, Newyorkbrad, Stephen Bain, Vassyana

— Coren ^(talk), for the Committee, 21:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking

This arbitration case has now closed. The final decision may be reviewed on the case page. A synopsis of the final decision is provided below.

• All mass date delinking is restricted for six months
• Date delinking bots will perform in a manner approved by the Bot Approvals Group.
• Lightmouse (talk · contribs) is: banned for 1 year; topic banned indefinitely; prohibited indefinitely from using automation, from using any account but "Lightmouse"
• Tony1 (talk · contribs) indefinitely banned from editing any policy or guideline page related to article or editing style, as well as any related template page; placed on a 12 month editing restriction
• Greg L (talk · contribs) indefinitely topic banned, placed on a 12 month editing restriction
• Ohconfucius (talk · contribs) is: topic banned indefinitely; prohibited indefinitely from using automation; prohibited indefinitely from using any account but "Ohconfucius"; placed on a12 month editing restriction
• The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) admonished for not pursuing appropriate dispute resolution methods.
• Kotniski (talk · contribs) reminded to pursue appropriate dispute resolution methods, topic banned for 3 months
• Placed on a 12 month editing restriction: Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), 2008Olympian (talk · contribs), Colonies Chris (talk · contribs), SkyWalker (talk · contribs), HJensen (talk · contribs), Dudesleeper (talk · contribs), John (talk · contribs), Tennis expert (talk · contribs), and G-Man (talk · contribs)
• Pmanderson (talk · contribs) is topic banned for 12 months.
• Locke Cole (talk · contribs) is topic banned indefinitely, banned for 6 months, and placed on a 12 month editing restriction
• Kendrick7 (talk · contribs) is topic banned for 12 months
• Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs) admonished for threatening to use his administrator tools to advance his position in a dispute.

Notes: (1) for "topic banned", read "banned from style and editing guidelines, and any related discussions"; (2) an "editing restriction" is a prohibition from reverting any changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline.

For the Arbitration Committee,

AGK 19:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Changes of account name by restricted users

To allow better enforcement of arbitration decisions, the Committee has amended its enforcement procedures to include the following provision:

If an editor is subject to any sort of Arbitration Committee parole or restriction, and wishes to start a new account or to change their username with a suppressed redirect from the old name, they must notify the Committee of this before they proceed with editing under said new account/name. Failure to disclose this, if discovered, is grounds for a ban from the project.

This resolution was adopted by a 10/0 vote, with one abstention:

• Support: Carcharoth, Casliber, Coren, FloNight, John Vandenberg, Kirill Lokshin, Rlevse, Roger Davies, Vassyana, Wizardman
• Oppose: None
• Abstain: Newyorkbrad
• Recused: None
• Not voting: Cool Hand Luke, FayssalF, Risker, Stephen Bain

For the Committee, Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 00:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Statement regarding the Matthew Hoffman case

The present Arbitration Committee has reviewed the Matthew Hoffman case, which took place in December 2007 and January 2008. The Committee has concluded that a series of significant irregularities occurred which, in combination, were prejudicial to Shoemaker's Holiday. These irregularities were that:

• The request for arbitration bypassed preliminary steps in the dispute resolution process, and should not have been accepted as framed;
• A decision in the case was presented for voting prematurely, limiting the ability of the parties to respond;
• Order was not adequately kept on the case pages, allowing them to be used as a platform for attacks;
• The schedule of the proceedings was not clearly communicated to the parties; and
• Correspondence about the case on arbcom-l was handled incorrectly.

This unique confluence of irregularities resulted in a fundamentally flawed process and the present Committee takes this opportunity to apologize to Shoemaker's Holiday and to the community. Further, the Committee has determined that all findings reflecting adversely on Shoemaker's Holiday, under any account name, are nullified. The Committee notes that Shoemaker's Holiday has agreed to consult with the Committee prior to re-seeking adminship.

This statement was adopted by a 8/2 vote, with three abstentions and two recusals:

• Support: Casliber, Cool Hand Luke, FloNight, John Vandenberg, Kirill Lokshin, Risker, Roger Davies, Wizardman
• Oppose: Rlevse, Stephen Bain
• Abstain: Coren, FayssalF, Newyorkbrad
• Recused: Carcharoth, Vassyana
• Not voting: None

For the Committee, Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 00:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

New rules for inactivity on internal resolutions

The Committee has determined that:

(a) Any arbitrator who fails to enter a vote on an internal resolution within one week of the vote having been generally announced on arbcom-l will be considered inactive on that resolution, and will not be counted when determining the majority for the resolution's passage; and

(b) Any arbitrator considered inactive under provision (a) will be so marked when the resolution is published; but

(c) An internal resolution will not come into effect if the total number of arbitrators voting on it is less than an absolute majority of the Committee.

This resolution was adopted by a 10/2 vote, with no abstentions:

• Support: Casliber, Cool Hand Luke, Coren, FloNight, Kirill Lokshin, Newyorkbrad, Risker, Roger Davies, Vassyana, Wizardman
• Oppose: Carcharoth, Rlevse
• Abstain: None
• Recused: None
• Not voting: FayssalF, John Vandenberg, Stephen Bain

For the Committee, Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 01:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

CheckUser and Oversight elections

The Arbitration Committee has determined that a new round of elections for operators of the CheckUser and Oversight tools will be held in the near future.

(I) The timeline of the upcoming elections is as follows:

• June 20 - Announcement of upcoming election and invitation to request applications
• July 1 - Deadline to request applications
• July 3 - Deadline for submission of applications
• June 20 - July 20 - Committee review of submissions
  • Final decisions on vetting of candidates to be made by July 20
• July 21-27 - Preparation for election
  • July 21-22 - Emails to successfully vetted candidates advising them that they may stand for election, ensuring they are still interested and explaining election expectations (including number of positions open)
  • July 21-27 - Nominees may post a brief statement and questions can begin
• July 28 - August 10 - Voting
• August 11-16 - Committee review of results
• August 17 - Announcement of results

(II) Candidates may run for CheckUser, Oversight, or both.

(III) The following modifications are made to the procedure used for the first election:

• The Arbitration Committee reserves the right to rescind or suspend a nomination for checkuser or oversight privileges at any time during the election/appointment process. Nominations will only be rescinded or suspended in exceptional circumstances.
• Successful candidates will have a minimum of 70% support, in keeping with the Wikimedia Foundation Oversight Policy.
• For the purpose of this election, any editor who has 150 mainspace edits prior to June 15, 2009 may vote.
• Nominations will be posted two days before the beginning of voting. Candidates may post a short statement, and editors may pose questions of the candidates during this period. The voting period will be two weeks.

These resolutions were adopted as follows:

I, by a 12/0 vote with no abstentions:

• Support: Carcharoth, Casliber, Cool Hand Luke, Coren, FloNight, John Vandenberg, Kirill Lokshin, Newyorkbrad, Rlevse, Roger Davies, Vassyana, Wizardman
• Oppose: None
• Abstain: None
• Recused: None
• Not voting: FayssalF, Risker, Stephen Bain

II, by a 9/0 vote with no abstentions:

• Support: Carcharoth, Coren, FloNight, John Vandenberg, Kirill Lokshin, Newyorkbrad, Roger Davies, Vassyana, Wizardman
• Oppose: None
• Abstain: None
• Recused: None
• Not voting: Casliber, Cool Hand Luke, FayssalF, Risker, Rlevse, Stephen Bain

III, by an 8/0 vote with no abstentions:

• Support: Casliber, Cool Hand Luke, Coren, FloNight, Kirill Lokshin, Risker, Roger Davies, Wizardman
• Oppose: None
• Abstain: None
• Recused: None
• Not voting: Carcharoth, FayssalF, John Vandenberg, Newyorkbrad, Rlevse, Stephen Bain, Vassyana

For the Committee, Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Procedure for internal resolutions

The Committee has adopted a procedure for proposing and enacting internal resolutions:

1. All internal resolutions will be proposed for voting on the Discussion board of the arbitration wiki, and will be clearly marked with a section header of the form "Proposal: X" in the case of normal resolutions, or "Urgent proposal: X" in the case of urgent resolutions.
2. The coordinating arbitrator will circulate a daily list of open proposals and their current voting status to arbcom-l.
3. When an internal resolution has passed, it will be announced on arbcom-l. The resolution will then be published to the public Committee noticeboard after a 48-hour waiting period (for normal resolutions) or immediately (for urgent resolutions).

The procedure was adopted by an 11/0 vote, with no abstentions or recusals:

• Support: Carcharoth, Casliber, Cool Hand Luke, Coren, FloNight, Kirill Lokshin, Newyorkbrad, Rlevse, Roger Davies, Vassyana, Wizardman
• Oppose: None
• Abstain: None
• Recused: None
• Not voting: FayssalF, John Vandenberg, Risker, Stephen Bain

For the Committee, Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles

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

• Stevertigo (talk · contribs), Sceptre (talk · contribs), ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs), Scjessey (talk · contribs) and Grundle2600 (talk · contribs) are admonished for their edit-warring. Furthermore, they shall be subject to an editing restriction for one year. They are limited to one revert per page per week (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and are required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.
• In addition, Scjessey (talk · contribs) and ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs) are topic-banned from Obama-related articles for six months, including talk pages.
• ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Scjessey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are not to interact with each other, including replying or reverting of each other’s actions. ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Wikidemon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are not to interact with each other, including replying or reverting of each other’s actions.

Non-compliance to the above are grounds for blocking for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling.

• Wikidemon (talk · contribs) is admonished for his part in the edit warring.
• Grsz11 (talk · contribs) and Tarc (talk · contribs) are reminded to be civil when dealing with hot-button and controversial situations.
• Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs) is reminded to be more civil when dealing with users and to not use talk pages as a forum.

The probation on articles relating to Barack Obama will be reviewed by a group of involved and non-involved editors and administrators to see how effective it has been. The process will last two weeks. After the two weeks elapse, the working group will provide their findings to us and the community, and will outline how the article probation will run in the future.

- For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 15:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Oversight-L report for May 2009

An analysis of the Oversight-L mailing list for May 2009 has been completed, the results are posted here.

Discuss

For the Audit Subcommittee, Thatcher 16:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Provisional suspension of community ban: Thekohser

The Arbitration Committee has provisionally suspended the community ban of Thekohser (talk · contribs) and imposed various conditions and restrictions, the terms of which have been posted on the editor's talk page.

Support: Carcharoth, Casliber, Coren, FloNight, John Vanderberg, Kirill Lokshin, Risker, Roger Davies

Oppose: none

Abstain: Cool Hand Luke, FayssalF

Not voting: NewYorkBrad, Rlevse, Stephen Bain, Vassyana, Wizardman

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies ^talk 19:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Second draft of updated arbitration policy

The Committee has prepared a second provisional draft of an updated arbitration policy for community review. All editors are invited to examine the text and to provide any comments or suggestions they may have via one of the two methods specified on the draft page.

Release of this draft was approved by an 8/1 vote, with no abstentions or recusals:

• Support: Carcharoth, FloNight, Kirill Lokshin, Newyorkbrad, Rlevse, Roger Davies, Vassyana, Wizardman
• Oppose: Casliber
• Abstain: None
• Recused: None
• Not voting: Cool Hand Luke, Coren, FayssalF, John Vandenberg, Risker, Stephen Bain

For the Committee, Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 16:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Seeyou

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

Seeyou (talk · contribs) is banned from editing Wikipedia for a period of one year.

- For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 21:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Format of requests for amendment

The Arbitration Committee has determined that all requests for the amendment of closed cases are to be made in a standard format:

A request for amendment of a closed case must clearly state the following:

(a) The name of the case to be amended;

(b) The clause(s) to be modified, referenced by number or section title;

(c) For each clause in (b), the desired modification; and

(d) The rationale for the requested amendment, comprising no more than 1000 words.

Any request which does not comply with these criteria will be summarily removed.

This format was adopted by a 10/0 vote, with no abstentions or recusals

• Support: Carcharoth, Casliber, Coren, FloNight, John Vandenberg, Kirill Lokshin, Rlevse, Roger Davies, Vassyana, Wizardman
• Oppose: None
• Abstain: None
• Recused: None
• Not voting: Cool Hand Luke, FayssalF, Newyorkbrad, Risker, Stephen Bain

For the Committee, Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 15:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Man In Black

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. A Man In Black's (AMiB) administrative privileges are revoked. He may reapply at any time via the usual means (RfA) or by appeal to the Arbitration Committee. AMiB is topic-banned from the Article Rescue Squadron. AMiB is placed on a standard editing restriction for one year. Ikip is warned to refrain from making large-scale edits which may be interpreted as canvassing and from directing rude comments to users with whom he is in dispute. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. AGK 23:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse

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

• Within 15 days of this decision, Mattisse shall, in conjunction with one or more mentors or advisers, submit to this Committee for approval a plan to govern and guide her future editing with the continued assistance of those mentors or advisers. The plan shall seek to preserve Mattisse's valuable and rewarding contributions to Wikipedia while avoiding future disputes and the types of interactions that have been hurtful for herself and others. As a starting point in developing the plan, Mattisse and her mentors or advisors should consider the suggestions made by various users on the workshop page of this case, including but not limited to Mattisse's taking wikibreaks at times of stress, avoiding or limiting Mattisse's participation on certain pages, Mattisse's refraining from making any comments regarding the motivations or good faith of other users, and Mattisse's disengaging from interactions that become stressful or negative. The plan should also address how any lapses by Mattisse from the standards of behavior described in the plan shall be addressed. (Note: As reflected in the findings, Mattisse prepared a plan as required by this paragraph while the proposed decision was pending. See next paragraph.)
• User:Mattisse/Plan (version as of 24 June) is enacted as a baseline. Amendments to the plan may occur by consensus of the mentors, whereby the changes become provisional. At the discretion of the mentors, or if there are significant objections by the community, the provisional changes will be reviewed by the Arbitration Committee at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment.
• Should Mattisse fail to submit a satisfactory plan under remedy 1 within 15 days of this decision, she shall not edit Wikipedia until she does so, except with permission of this Committee. (Note: As reflected in the findings, Mattisse prepared a plan, as required by remedy 1, while the proposed decision was pending. See preceding paragraphs.)

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 04:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Arbitration motion regarding User:Coffee

Per a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

Coffee's administrator privileges are restored, effective immediately. He is reminded to abide by all policies and guidelines governing the conduct of administrators.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 15:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Ban appeal: Betacommand

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

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies ^talk 09:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Advisory Council on Project Development convened

Further information: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Advisory Council on Project Development

The Arbitration Committee, with the endorsement of Jimbo Wales, is convening an advisory group with members invited from across the breadth of Wikipedia. The group will act as an advisory body to the Arbitration Committee and to the community; will consider various issues facing the project and develop ideas, proposals, and recommendations for improving it; and will serve as a forum for the sharing of best practices among the different areas within the project.

The group will not interfere with normal community discussion in any way; since the group will be purely advisory, anything it might recommend will need to achieve consensus normally, as any other proposal would, before it can be implemented. We see this group as a high-level think-tank, coming up with ideas that either the Committee or the community as a whole might choose to pursue. We hope that the concentration of experience and insight in the group's membership will produce discussions with a very high signal-to-noise ratio, and that the differing experiences and perspectives among the members will lead to better-rounded ideas, with fewer flaws caused by certain aspects not having been considered.

The advisory group will also advise the Committee directly, providing us with feedback and ideas from a cross-section of the community that's not otherwise involved in our work.

The group will be provisionally known as the Advisory Council on Project Development, although this is subject to change; editors are invited to send us suggestions for a more permanent name.

At this time, the following editors have accepted invitations to be the founding members of the group:

• Awadewit
• BirgitteSB
• Casliber
• Cla68
• David Fuchs
• DGG
• Drini
• Dweller
• Giano

• Jbmurray
• Jennavecia
• Joopercoopers
• Kirill Lokshin
• MastCell
• MBisanz
• Rootology
• Sam
• Steven Walling

We are still awaiting responses to several additional invitations. We are also looking for a few more members; anyone who would like to be a part of this group is invited to send us a note to that effect.

The initial details of the group's logistics will be announced shortly.

The formation of this group was approved by an 8/3 vote, with two abstentions, no recusals, and two arbitrators considered inactive:

• Support: Cool Hand Luke, Coren, FloNight, John Vandenberg, Kirill Lokshin, Rlevse, Roger Davies, Wizardman
• Oppose: Risker, Stephen Bain, Vassyana
• Abstain: Carcharoth, Casliber
• Recused: None
• Inactive: FayssalF, Newyorkbrad

For the Committee, Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 03:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Provisional suspension of community ban: Betacommand

Motion

That the indefinite community ban of User:Betacommand be suspended for as long as he unconditionally agrees to and fully complies with the terms set out below.

Terms

The Arbitration Committee has decided that the community ban of User:Betacommand be provisionally suspended subject to your unconditional acceptance of and full compliance with the following non-negotiable terms:

1. You edit under only one username and agree to regular checkuser inspection.
2. For one year, you are (i) topic-banned from any non-free-content-related work and related talk pages; (ii) subject to a 0RR restriction on any free-content-image-related work and related talk pages; (iii) prohibited from operating bots or running automated scripts of whatever nature; (iv) prohibited from inducing or attempting to induce others to operate bots or run automated scripts; and (v) subject to an editing throttle of a maximum of four edits every ten minutes (excludes reversion of blatant vandalism). After six months, you may apply to ArbCom for a review of the terms of this condition.
3. You agree (i) to a civility restriction and (ii) to not engage in any form of wikilawyering, broadly interpreted.
4. You agree to mentoring for one year by User:MBisanz and User:Hersfold, who will make monthly progress reports by email to ArbCom. Either mentor may, at his sole discretion, block you for short periods if in his opinion you are in breach of any of these conditions. If either mentor or both mentors withdraw, you will cease all editing until replacement mentors are found. The mentorship will be reviewed, and may be continued, at the end of the first year.

Without prejudice to the foregoing, ArbCom may, at any time, by simple majority vote, reinstate your indefinite community ban by determining by motion of any arbitrator that you are (i) in breach of the spirit or letter of these terms or (ii) engaging in conduct injurious to the encyclopedia.

Support

Casliber, Cool Hand Luke, FayssalF, FloNight, Kirill Lokshin, Risker, Roger Davies, Stephen Bain, Wizardman

Oppose

Rlevse, Vassyana

Abstain

Carcharoth, John Vandenberg, NewYorkBrad

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies ^talk 08:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD#Final_decision

Archived discussion

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

Scuro (talk · contribs) and Jmh649 (talk · contribs) are placed on 1RR with regard to ADHD articles for a period of six months

Scuro (talk · contribs) is placed under mentorship for a period of one year.

Literaturegeek (talk · contribs) is advised to refrain from edit warring.

All involved editors are reminded to be civil and seek assistance in resolving editoral disagreements.

For the Committee MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)