Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-04-30/Arbitration report
Arbitration Policy – Proposed amendment passes
Pursuant to the policies for changing the arbitration policy (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Ratification and amendment), the community had to decide whether to amend the Arbitration policy or not. Specifically, the proposed amendment had to undergo a community referendum, and would only
enter into force once it receive[d] majority support, with at least one hundred editors voting in favour of adopting it. That referendum was held at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy/Proposed amendment (April 2019), and was closed in favor of the proposed amendment.
Cases and Controversies
A case request was submitted by Robert McClenon on 23 March 2019. The request attracted statements from 28 users, amassing more than 100,000 bytes of content. In the end, however, the committee declined the case request on 4 April 2019, with 2 Arbitrators voting to accept the case while 6 preferred declining it. See the archived discussion here.
As highlighted in this issue's news and notes, this month saw the successful RfA of RexxS following consensus at a bureaucrat chat. However, Pudeo asked the Arbitration Committee to review the 'crat chat, arguing that
The bureaucrats' actions are not within the mandate they have been given and requesting that the Committee
consider 1) affirming the 2015 election reform RfC, 2) review whether Maxim and possibly other bureaucrats acted within policy, and 3) overturning the bureaucrat chat. The Committee voted 10-0 to decline the case. The full case request can be found here.
After a hiatus that lasted over 2 months, the Arbitration Committee opened its second case of the year on 13 April 2019. As of writing, the scope of the case is limited to examining
The administrative conduct of Enigmaman [and] What action is required, if any. See the prior (archived) discussion at ANI here, and the full case itself here.
Arbitration Procedure Amendments
Compromised admin accounts
Last month, Necrothesp's administrative permissions were removed under level 1 procedures "as a suspected compromised account". This month, the committee resolved to return their bit. Furthermore, the Arbitration Committee has taken steps to encourage administrators to improve the security of their accounts.
Back in February, GoldenRing User:Dlthewave/Whitewashing of firearms articles, claiming that this was an Arbitration Enforcement action. The deletion was brought up at Deletion review, during the course of which Bishonen the page so that it could be viewed by non-administrators. At issue was whether deletion is a valid Arbitration Enforcement action, and, separately, whether it was proper to consider overturning an action labeled to be enforcing an arbitration decision at deletion review. To clarify proper procedures in such cases, the Arbitration Committee resolved by motion to amend the Standard provision for appeals and modifications in the Arbitration Procedure. The entire motion is reprinted below.
- By motion, the Arbitration Committee lifted SheriffIsInTown's topic ban from
pages related to conflict between India and Pakistan, subject to a six month probation period
- The Arbitration Committee is getting a new bot to assist its clerks. ArbClerkBot, operated by Bradv, is currently in trial.
- The Committee is discussing two requests for clarification and amendment: one relating to Eastern Europe, and the other dealing with Palestine–Israel articles.