Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard
| Wikipedia Arbitration |
|---|
 |
|
|
| Track related changes |
This noticeboard is for announcements and statements made by the Arbitration Committee. Only members of the Arbitration Committee or the Committee's Clerks may post on this page, but all editors are encouraged to comment on the talk page.
User:Worm That Turned, the newest Arbitration clerk
The Arbitration clerks would like to welcome Worm That Turned to the clerk team as a trainee!
We are still looking for additional volunteers. Users who would like to join the clerk team, whether they be administrators or not, are welcome to apply by sending an email to clerks-l
lists.wikimedia.org. NW (Talk) 20:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Audit Subcommittee vacancies: Call for applications (2012)
The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint at least three non-arbitrator members to the Audit Subcommittee.
The Audit Subcommittee ("AUSC") was established by the Arbitration Committee to investigate complaints concerning the use of CheckUser and Oversight privileges on the English Wikipedia, and to provide better monitoring and oversight of the CheckUser and Oversight positions, and use of the applicable tools.
Matters brought before the subcommittee may be time-sensitive and subcommittee members should be prepared and available to discuss cases promptly so they may be resolved in a timely manner. Sitting subcommittee members are expected to actively participate in AUSC proceedings and may be replaced should they become inactive. All subcommittee members are subject to the relevant local and global policies and guidelines concerning CheckUser and Oversight.
If you think you may be suitably qualified, please see the appointments page for further information. The application period is scheduled to close 31 January 2012.
For the Arbitration Committee, –xenotalk 18:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
New Arbitration Commitee clerks
The Arbitration clerks would like to welcome Guerillero and Mlpearc to the clerk team as trainees! --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 23:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Creation of BASC mailing list
A new mailing list, arbcom-appeals-en† will be created for the use of the Ban Appeals Subcommittee, and all correspondence having to do with appeals will be directed to that list. The initial membership of the new list will include all currently sitting arbitrators.
- Support
- AGK, Casliber, Courcelles, David Fuchs, Elen of the Roads, JClemens, Kirill Lokshin, Philknight, Risker, Roger Davies, SilkTork, SirFozzie
- Oppose
- None
- Not voting
- Hersfold, Newyorkbrad, Xeno
- † Please see the Arbitration Committtee's "Communications and privacy" statement.
An arbitration case regarding Muhammad images has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
- The community is asked to hold a discussion that will establish a definitive consensus on what images will be included in the article Muhammad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and on where the images will be placed within the article. As with all decisions about content, the policies on verifiability and the neutral point of view must be the most important considerations. The editors who choose to participate in this discussion are asked to form an opinion with an open mind, and to explain their decision clearly. Any editor who disrupts this discussion may be banned from the affected pages by any uninvolved administrator, under the discretionary sanctions authorised in this decision. The decision reached in this discussion will be appended to this case within two months from the close of the case.
- Ludwigs2 is prohibited from contributing to any discussion concerning Muhammad.
- Ludwigs2 is banned from the English Wikipedia for one year.
- Tarc is admonished to behave with appropriate professionalism in his contributions to discussions about disputed article content.
- FormerIP is admonished to behave with appropriate professionalism in his contributions to discussions about disputed article content.
- Hans Adler is reminded to engage in discussions about disputed article content with an appropriate degree of civility.
- Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to Muhammad, broadly interpreted.
- The participants in the dispute about depictions of Muhammad are reminded that editors who engage extensively in an intractable dispute can become frustrated, and that it is important to be aware that as editors we are limited in our ability to contribute constructively to a deadlocked disagreement. Our exasperation with a dispute can make us unprofessional or unreceptive to compromise. We therefore encourage the disputants of this case to consider if their participation in the coming community discussion of depictions of Muhammad would be useful, and we remind them that if they disrupt the community discussion they may be banned from the discussion or otherwise sanctioned under the discretionary sanctions provision of this case.
For the Arbitration Committee, Mlpearc (powwow) 16:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Audit Subcommittee appointments (2012): Invitation to comment on candidates
The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint at least three non-arbitrator members to the Audit Subcommittee, and is now seeking comments from the community regarding the candidates who have volunteered for this role.
Interested parties are invited to review the appointments page containing the nomination statements supplied by the candidates and their answers to a few standard questions. Community members may also pose additional questions and submit comments about the candidates on the individual nomination subpages or privately via email to arbcom-en-blists.wikimedia.org.
Following the consultation phase, the committee will take into account the answers provided by the candidates to the questions and the comments offered by the community (both publicly and privately) along with any other relevant factors before making a final decision regarding appointments.
The consultation phase is scheduled to end 23:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC), and the appointments are scheduled to be announced by 29 February 2012.
For the Arbitration Committee, –xenotalk 04:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket
Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions that: The Racepacket case is supplemented as follows:
The Arbitration Committee has determined that, as User:Racepacket has on two occasions on 4 February 2012 breached his interaction ban, he is indefinitely site banned from the English Wikipedia. The user may request that the site ban be reconsidered once a minimum of twelve months have elapsed from the date of this motion passing. In the event that Racepacket violates either the site ban, or the interaction ban, the minimum period before an appeal may be submitted will be reset to twelve months from the date of the violation.
For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 20:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Betacommand 3 closed
An arbitration case regarding Betacommand (Δ) has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
- The existing community sanctions on Betacommand were a valid response by the community to prior problems with Betacommand's editing, and that Betacommand was required to abide by those sanctions if he wished to continue editing. However, given that interpretation and implementation of those sanctions has led to ongoing disputes, the community sanctions are superseded by the more straightforward remedies provided for in this decision.
- Betacommand is banned from Wikipedia for a period of no less than one year.
- After one year has elapsed from the date of his ban, Betacommand may request that the ban be lifted. As part of any such request, Betacommand shall be required to submit a plan outlining his intended editing activity and demonstrating his understanding of and intention to refrain from the actions which resulted in his ban. The Committee shall present this plan to the community for review and comment prior to any modification of Betacommand's ban.
For the Arbitration Committee, --Guerillero | My Talk 01:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Audit Subcommittee report of activity for July 2011 to February 2012
The Audit Subcommittee (AUSC) has published a summary of its activity for July 2011 to February 2012. During this period, the subcommittee received and investigated eight cases relating to the use of CheckUser or Oversight permissions; of these eight cases, one review was requested by another functionary, one review was initiated by a member of the subcommittee, and six were requests by non-functionaries. To read the report, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee/Reports#July 2011 through February 2012.
For the Audit Subcommittee, AGK [•] 23:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Support
- AGK, Jclemens, Keegan, Risker
- Oppose
- None
- Not voting
- David Fuchs
Co-ordinating administrators for Abortion article titles discussion
Pursuant to the remedy at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion#Systematic discussion and voting on article names, the pending structured discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles requires one or more uninvolved administrators to be appointed to co-ordinate and close the final vote of the RFC. We asked Black Kite, EyeSerene, and HJ Mitchell if they would commit to co-ordinate the vote, and they have agreed to do so. We therefore select these administrators to be the administrators appointed by the Committee, in the sense defined in the above remedy. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 09:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- Discuss this (RFC talk page)
An arbitration case regarding Civility enforcement has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
- Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) is desysopped for wheel warring and conduct unbecoming of an administrator, in the face of previous admonishments regarding administrative conduct from the Arbitration Committee. Hawkeye7 may re-apply for the administrator permissions at RFA at any time.
- Thumperward (talk · contribs) is admonished for conduct unbecoming an administrator, and for failing to adequately explain his actions when requested by the community and Arbitration Committee.
- John (talk · contribs) is admonished for reversing another administrator's actions while said actions were under review through community discussion.
- Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from any page whose prefix begins with Wikipedia talk:Requests for Adminship. This remedy explicitly does not prevent him from !voting on RFA's; however, should his contributions to a specific request for adminship become disruptive, any uninvolved admin may ban him from further participation in that specific RFA. Further, Malleus Fatuorm is admonished for repeatedly personalizing disputes and engaging in uncivil conduct, personal attacks, and disruptive conduct.
- Administrators are reminded that blocks should be applied only when no other solution would prove to be effective, or when previous attempts to resolve a situation (such as discussion, warnings, topic bans, or other restrictions) have proven to be ineffective.
- All users are reminded to engage in discussion in a way that will neither disrupt nor lower the quality of such discourse. Personal attacks, profanity, inappropriate use of humour, and other uncivil conduct that leads to a breakdown in discussion can prevent the formation of a valid consensus. Blocks or other restrictions may be used to address repeated or particularly severe disruption of this nature, in order to foster a collaborative environment within the community as a whole.
- The imposition of discretionary sanctions, paroles, and related remedies by the community is done on an ad hoc basis in the absence of clear documented standards. The community is strongly encouraged to review and document standing good practice for such discussions. As a related but distinct issue, the community is encouraged to review and document common good practice for administrators imposing editing restrictions as a condition of an unblock and in lieu of blocks.
- Should any user subject to a restriction or topic ban in this case violate that restriction or ban, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year, with the topic ban clock restarting at the end of the block. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, and thereafter to the Administrators' noticeboard, or to Arbitration Enforcement, or to the Arbitration Committee. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions.
For the Arbitration Committee:
Mlpearc (powwow) 02:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)