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.
|
| Announcement archives: 1 2 |
 | This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. |
Agenda
- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
| Request name | Motions | Initiated | Votes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Persistent WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior in WP:NCROY discussions | 10 May 2024 | 0/4/0 |
| Case name | Closed |
|---|---|
| Conflict of interest management | 13 Apr 2024 |
| Mzajac | 7 May 2024 |
| Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing | none | (orig. case) | 30 April 2024 |
| Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4 | none | (orig. case) | 13 May 2024 |
| Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation | none | (orig. case) | 13 May 2024 |
No arbitrator motions are currently open.
Current agenda
The Committee's current agenda is as follows:
| Review Committee performance (Six-month review) |
|---|
| Milestones: |
|
| Status: |
|
Preparation of fuller report in progress |
| Review mail handling process |
|---|
| Milestones: |
|
| Status: |
|
Documentation of procedures underway |
| Determine workshop page structure |
|---|
| Milestones: |
|
| Status: |
|
No activity at this time |
| Prepare updated arbitration policy |
|---|
| Milestones: |
|
| Status: |
|
Draft #2 published; preparation of draft #3 in progress |
| Rotate Ban Appeals Subcommittee membership |
|---|
| Milestones: |
|
| Status: |
|
No activity at this time |
| Appoint CU & OS auditing subcommittee |
|---|
| Milestones: |
|
| Status: |
|
Election mechanism under discussion |
| Determine updates to arbitration enforcement procedures |
|---|
| Milestones: |
|
| Status: |
|
No activity at this time |
| Develop an arbitrator recall process |
|---|
| Milestones: |
|
| Status: |
|
No activity at this time |
| Determine how to deal with users returning from bans |
|---|
| Milestones: |
|
| Status: |
|
No activity at this time |
| Review clerk procedures |
|---|
| Milestones: |
|
| Status: |
|
No activity at this time |
| Review ban appeals process |
|---|
| Milestones: |
|
| Status: |
|
Internal review in progress |
| Determine approach to dealing with inactive administrators |
|---|
| Milestones: |
|
| Status: |
|
No activity at this time |
| Determine approach to handling civility issues |
|---|
| Milestones: |
|
| Status: |
|
No activity at this time |
| Determine approach to handling vested contributor issues |
|---|
| Milestones: |
|
| Status: |
|
No activity at this time |
| Prepare transition procedure |
|---|
| Milestones: |
|
| Status: |
|
No activity at this time |
| Prepare updated induction document |
|---|
| Milestones: |
|
| Status: |
|
No activity at this time |
Calendar
{{Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Agenda/Calendar/{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}}}
Announcements
Access to CheckUser and Oversight
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion to remove access to CheckUser and Oversight on grounds of inactivity from editors who have not used the tools in the past twelve months. Access may be applied for afresh via CheckUser and Oversight elections. The motion was adopted with 13 arbitrators supporting, and no objections or abstentions.
- Support: Carcharoth, Casliber, Coren, FayssalF, FloNight, Jayvdb, Kirill Lokshin, Risker, Rlevse, Roger Davies, Sam Blacketer, Vassyana, Wizardman
- Oppose: None
- Abstain: None
- Not voting: Cool Hand Luke, NewYorkBrad
For the Arbitration Committee, Roger Davies talk 12:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Request for comments on content dispute resolution
In order to gauge community opinion on the subject and to gather potential ideas for reform, the Committee has opened a request for comments regarding the content dispute resolution process. All editors are invited to present views and proposals on any matter relevant to the resolution of disputes over article content.
The request was approved by an 10/1 vote, with no abstentions:
- Support: Carcharoth, Casliber, FayssalF, FloNight, John Vandenberg, Kirill Lokshin, Rlevse, Roger Davies, Vassyana, Sam Blacketer
- Oppose: Risker
- Abstain: None
- Not voting: Carcharoth, Cool Hand Luke, Coren, Newyorkbrad, Stephen Bain, Wizardman
For the Committee, Kirill [talk] [pf] 20:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Canadian Monkey (talk · contribs), G-Dett (talk · contribs), MeteorMaker (talk · contribs), Nickhh (talk · contribs), Nishidani (talk · contribs), NoCal100 (talk · contribs), and Pedrito (talk · contribs) are prohibited from editing any Arab-Israeli conflict-related article/talk page or discussing on the dispute anywhere else on the project. Jayjg (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is also prohibited from editing in the area of conflict, and he is stripped of his status as a functionary and any and all associated privileged access, including the CheckUser and Oversight tools and the checkuser-l, oversight-l, and functionaries-en mailing lists. Jayjg is also thanked for his years of service.
After six months, these editors may individually ask the Arbitration Committee to lift their editing restrictions after demonstrating commitment to the goals of Wikipedia and ability to work constructively with other editors. However, restrictions may be temporarily suspended for the exclusive purpose of participating in the discussion of draft guidelines for this area.
In the meantime, the community is strongly urged to pursue current discussions to come to a definitive consensus on the preferred current and historical names of the region that is the source of conflict in this case. Note that this must be consistent with current Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources, a neutral point of view, and naming conventions. This decision will be appended onto this case within two months from the close of the case.
For the Arbitration Committee, hmwithτ 17:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Ireland collaboration
The three moderators appointed by the Arbitration Committee for WikiProject Ireland Collaboration are no longer active in the project under that capacity. These disengagements occurred voluntarily and separately under individual conditions without controversy. PhilKnight (talk · contribs), Edokter (talk · contribs), and SebastianHelm (talk · contribs) are all thanked for their hard work and efforts as moderators. In response to the openings, the Committee appoints Masem (talk · contribs) and Xavexgoem (talk · contribs) as moderators, thanking them for taking on this task. A third moderator is not yet appointed, pending discussion with the participants.
For the Committee, --Vassyana (talk) 15:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Notification of motion relating to Baronets naming dispute
The Arbitration Committee, in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Baronets naming dispute, have voted to implement a motion. It can be viewed on the case page by following this link. The motion is as follows:
The community enacted topic ban on Vintagekits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Kittybrewster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is recognized and confirmed. Kittybrewster is admonished to respect community and administrator decisions, including the imposition of sanctions, and directed to utilize the standard channels of appeal and review in cases where he disagrees. Disregard for sanctions, whether imposed by an administrator, the community, or the Arbitration Committee, is grounds for the imposition of escalating blocks and/or further sanctions. Vintagekits and Kittbrewster are indefinitely restricted from moving pages relating to Baronets and Knights, broadly interpreted. They are both restricted from nominating articles created by the other for deletion and more generally warned from unnecessarily interacting with each other, especially where it is likely to be perceived as baiting, trolling, or another form of harassment. BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is admonished not to use administrative tools to further her own position in a dispute. BrownHairedGirl is prohibited indefinitely from taking any administrative action against or in connection with Vintagekits.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, KnightLago (talk) 21:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Oversight usage statistics
The Arbitration Committee has authorised the Audit Subcommittee to release the statistics for use of Oversight for the 6 month period ending 30 Apr 2009. The report is here.
For the Audit Subcommittee, Thatcher 23:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The administrator privileges of Aitias (talk · contribs) are suspended for a period of "time served", i.e. from the date of his return to editing until the close of the case, and are to be restored with the closing of this case. Furthermore, Aitias is admonished for making inappropriate and unnecessarily sarcastic comments and is warned to avoid such comments in the future. Aitias is also prohibited from participating at Requests for rollback and its talk page for a period of six months.
For the Arbitration Committee, [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 13:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is admonished not to use his administrative tools in any situation in which he is involved nor to use them to further his position in a dispute. Abd (talk · contribs) is urged to avoid prolonging disputes by using unproductive methods and advised to clearly and succinctly document previous and current attempts at dispute resolution before escalating to the next stage. Abd is also advised to heed good-faith feedback when handling disputes and to incorporate that feedback.
For the Arbitration Committee, hmwithτ 17:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Standard operating procedure: CheckUser and Oversight
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that editors who hold Oversight and/or Checkuser permissions but who have not used the tool/s for more than twelve months will have access to the tool/s and to the associated mailing list/s removed. For arbitrators, the twelve-month inactivity clock starts on the day they leave office.
- Support: Carcharoth, Casliber, FayssalF, FloNight, Jayvdb, Kirill, Risker, Rlevse, Roger, Sam Blacketer, Wizardman
- Oppose: None
- Abstain: None
- Not voting: Cool Hand Luke, Coren, NewYorkBrad, Stephen Bain, Vassyana
For the Arbitration Committee, Roger Davies talk 10:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Resignation
Some months ago I decided to resign from the committee and return to article editing, notifying the committee privately on 20 February. That resignation now takes effect. Before joining the committee I had used the account Fys for editing which should have been disclosed. Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Committee statement
It recently came to the attention of the Arbitration Committee that arbitrator Sam Blacketer (talk · contribs) has previously edited under the account name Dbiv (talk · contribs) a/k/a Fys (talk · contribs), a former administrator who was desysopped in a Committee decision in 2006. This fact was not known to any of the sitting arbitrators – nor to the best of the committee's knowledge any previous arbitrator – until the past 24-48 hours.
The Committee was in the process of addressing this situation, of which its members had just learned, when Sam Blacketer submitted his resignation as an arbitrator, effective immediately. Under the circumstances, the resignation was accepted. Sam Blacketer has also been removed from the arbcom-l and functionaries-en mailing lists, and his access to the arbitration wiki has been removed. We note that Sam Blacketer never had Oversight or CheckUser privileges, so the issue of his status regarding access to those tools does not arise. The status of his adminship will be decided within the next 24 hours.
This statement was approved by an 11/1 vote, with no abstentions:
- Support: Carcharoth, Casliber, Cool Hand Luke, FloNight, John Vandenberg, Risker, Kirill Lokshin, Newyorkbrad, Rlevse, Stephen Bain, Wizardman
- Oppose: Coren
- Abstain: None
- Not voting: FayssalF, Roger Davies, Vassyana
John Vandenberg, for the Arbitration Committee, 05:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Coren's statement
As the sole dissenter, I felt it important to explain my rationale.
The statement from the Committee is correct, but I opposed it as I feel it is lopsided because it is incomplete. While I agree wholeheartedly that Sam's omission to disclose his past account during his tenure as Arbitrator is unacceptable and is incompatible with maintaining a seat on the committee, I felt it important to underline his excellent work as an Arbitrator. In my opinion, we would be unjust to dismiss over sixteen months of dedication and hard work for the community, even if the circumstances leading to his appointment were tainted by the lack of transparency.
John Vandenberg, for Coren, 05:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Progress of resolution of naming issue for placenames in Israel and Palestine
In relation to remedy 13.1 of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria,
I have requested an update on progress at:
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Placename_guidelines#Current_status
for the proposed guidelines currently located at:
Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Placename guidelines
all input and observations are welcome. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Update
Voting or commenting on each segment of the Proposed guidelines in relation to remedy 13.1 of the recently closed West Bank - Judea and Samaria arbitration case. Please comment here on preferred usage in the West Bank/Judea and Samaria area, to determine consensus by July 13th 2009. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. For misuse of his administrative tools, failure to address the community's concerns, and inappropriate off-wiki behavior, Ryulong (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is desysopped. Mythdon (talk · contribs) is restricted and placed under mentorship for a period of 1 year. Mythdon is also admonished for their harassing behavior on and off-wiki and directed to refrain from contacting Ryulong off-wiki and seeking Ryulong's identity on and off-wiki. All participants of WikiProject Tokusatsu are advised to work on producing a genuine guideline for the articles falling under the scope of the WikiProject. They are urged to work in collaboration with Mythdon while seeking outside advice and help. Other remedies also apply.
For the Arbitration Committee, KnightLago (talk) 20:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
The following motion was carried 9 to 0 (with 2 recusals and 1 abstention) further to this request to amend the Fringe science arbitration case:
- 1) Kaldari, Sceptre, and Durova are granted permission to act as proxies for ScienceApologist by making edits to the optics article, its talk page, and any process pages directly related to the optics featured article drive.
The motion has been entered onto the arbitration case page, at #Further motion following Request for Amendment (May 2009).
For the Arbitration Committee,
AGK 14:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
[Discuss this.]
Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Midnight Syndicate
Per a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification:
The remedies (1 and 2) ordered by this Committee in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Midnight Syndicate are suspended for a period of 90 days. During this period, the editors who were previously restricted by these remedies may edit without topic restriction. However, they are instructed to comply with all applicable Wikipedia policies and guidelines in their editing, particularly those discussed in the original arbitration decision. Each of these editors is also instructed to edit these articles from only a single account.
During the 90-day trial period, should any of the previously restricted editors engage in edit-warring, POV editing, or other misconduct on the articles in question, any uninvolved administrator may reinstate the topic ban against that editor or impose another appropriate sanction. Unless the misconduct is blatant, a warning to the editor should first be given.
As the end of the 90-day period approaches, a request for permanent termination or modification of the remedies may be submitted for consideration by this Committee.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety talk 18:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)'