Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Venezuelan politics	25 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation	none	(orig. case)	13 May 2024
Clarification request: Extended confirmed restriction	none	none	29 May 2024
Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads	none	none	4 June 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Motions

Motion on Elen of the Roads

• In light of the situation outlined at the Committee Noticeboard this morning, and pursuant to item 5, Arbitration Policy, "Scope and responsibilities", the checkuser and oversight flags are removed from Elen of the Roads (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). In addition, she is unsubscribed from all arbitration mailing lists, functionaries-en, checkuser-l, and oversight-l, and her access rights to the Arbwiki and Checkuser wiki are revoked. These actions will remain in effect until 1 January 2013. If she is re-elected in the coming elections, access will be restored to her when the newly elected arbitrators are seated. If she is not, the removals will be permanent, and she may only regain the checkuser and oversight flags through the usual processes for gaining such access.

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators, not counting 4 recused. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	6
1–2	5
3–4	4

Support

1. There is no way in good conscience I can put up with someone who is an admitted leaker continuing to have access to the place she has already leaked from. This plugs the hole, while allowing folks to decide if they want to trust her again after this. Note that this can pass on usual "majority of active, non-recused" arbs, whereas a motion to actually remove her would take ten votes. Courcelles 20:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Recuse

1. As a candidate in the current Arbitration Committee election, I have (quite properly) not been privy to the Committee's recent discussions of the issue underying this motion. I am thus recused from this vote at this time, both because of the perceivable conflict of interest if I were to vote on the Committee membership of another candidate, and also because without the benefit of the "c-list" discussion, I could not cast a fully informed vote. For the benefit of my colleagues who are voting and the community, I note that Elen has just posted a statement on her talkpage, whose contents should be carefully reviewed and thought through before any action is taken. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments by arbitrators

I reworded the sentence regarding mailing list access a bit to include the mailing lists dependent on access to advanced permissions; one cannot be subscribed to checkuser-l, for example, if one does not have access to the checkuser flag on at least one wiki or the steward tools. I am withholding voting on this for now, as Elen has indicated that she intends to make a statement soon. However, given the evidence at hand and her comments so far, both public and private, I expect to support this motion. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 21:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Community comments

What about access to the checkuser wiki? Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• That and checkuser-l access are automatically turned on and off with the actual CU flag. (I.e. the Stewards always set up and ensure access is removed as needed when mashing the buttons) Courcelles 21:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I added the checkuser wiki to the list to be clear, but Courcelles is right. Since Elen isn't a checkuser elsewhere, her access would be removed anyway. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 21:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• I find this to be hasty, sad, and frankly frightening. Before she even speaks Elen has been tarred and feathered. In case Elen runs amok in the next few hours before she speaks we have to make sure that she doesn't do, what? I don't condone this kind of hasty action nor do I think this kind of example set by the arbs will serve editors who may or may not be in wiki-trouble. This is not good for Wikipedia, not at all.(olive (talk) 21:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC))
• Elen of the Roads has now released her statement: User talk:Elen of the Roads#View from this bridge. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 21:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
• So, with the candidates auto-recused and Xeno still on his long vacation, there are ten active arbitrators, right? Jeff Kilmar 21:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Making 6 a majority, yes. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 21:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
• While motion to remove access to CU & oversight can be a simple motion, removal of access to arbitration mailing lists and Arbwiki is a suspension from the arbitration committee by any other name, which per policy requires two-thirds of all arbitrators. -- KTC (talk) 21:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Certainly this will include formal banning from Wikipedia for at least a year, yes? 134.241.58.251 (talk) 21:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)