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 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 |
Ankündigungen
Arbitration Committee Elections: last calls for candidates, comments on process
This is a reminder that the nominations phase of the December 2009 elections to select new members of the Arbitration Committee, as well as the Request for Comment on the conditions for the elections and the 2010 Committee, will close on November 24, in one day's time.
If you have been considering running as a candidate in this year's election to the Committee, now is the time to make the decision. It's worth noting that there are twenty-two candidates at the time of writing, six fewer than last year, and so with eight seats available the field is not as competitive as might have been expected. All editors who had made 1,000 mainspace edits by November 10, 2009, are over 18 years of age and of the age of majority in their nation of residence, and are willing to identify themselves to the Wikimedia Foundation are eligible to stand as candidates. You can declare your candidacy by following the instructions at the candidate statements page.
The Request for Comment on the Arbitration Committee covers the conditions for the elections and the Committee in 2010. Specific issues under debate include term lengths, number of seats, election methods, ballot transparency, the tranche system, threshold for successful candidacies and voter eligibility. If you want to participate in the discussion on any of these issues, you have less than a day to have your voice heard. For the coordinators, Skomorokh, barbarian 01:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
This notice is given by an Arbitration clerk, Tiptoety talk 01:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Arbitration Committee Elections: voting now open
Voting is now open in the December 2009 elections to elect new members to the Arbitration Committee. In accordance with the recent Request for Comment on the election process, voting will be done by secret ballot using the SecurePoll extension. Voting will close on 14 December 2009 at 23:59 UTC.
In order to be eligible to vote, an account must have at least 150 mainspace edits on or before 1 November 2009 (check your account). Blocked editors may not vote, and voting with multiple accounts or bot accounts is expressly forbidden. Note that due to technical restrictions, editors who have made more than 150 mainspace edits on or before 1 November 2009 but no longer have access to the account(s) used will not be able to vote. If you have any questions about this, please ask.
For each candidate, voters may choose to Support or Oppose the candidacy, or to remain Neutral (this option has no effect on the outcome). Voting should be done in a single sitting. After your entire vote has been accepted, you may make changes at any time before the close of voting. However, a fresh default ballot page will be displayed and you will need to complete the process again from scratch (for this reason, you are welcome to keep a private record of your vote). Your new ballot page will erase the previous one. You may verify the time of acceptance of your votes at the real-time voting log. Although this election will use secret ballots, and only votes submitted in this way will be counted, you may leave brief comments on the candidates' comment pages and discuss candidates at length on the attached talkpages. For live discussion, join #wikipedia-en-ace on Freenode.
To cast your vote, please proceed here.
For the coordinators, Skomorokh 00:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
(Posted on behalf of the coordinators, Risker (talk) 00:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC))
John Vandenberg's resignation
On the 29th I posted a motion to this noticeboard which contained a statement of fact that the subject objects to. While I believe the outcome was correct, the process and manner in which I delivered it was less than ideal. The Arbitration Committee has since issued a clarification, and then removed and suppressed the motion in an accord between the subject and the Arbitration Committee (brokered by Mike Godwin).
This situation was avoidable, and I apologise for the way that I handled this. I am stepping down as an arbitrator effective immediately. Thank you, John Vandenberg (chat) 14:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
David Gerard: statement by ArbCom
Yesterday, a member of ArbCom deleted and suppressed an announcement and two discussions under the heading of "David Gerard". David had expressed a good faith concern that our original and revised announcements could harm him in real life. Although several arbitrators felt that the announcement was proper, we all agreed that we should do no harm when it comes to living people--including our long-time contributor David Gerard. We reached an agreement where our original remarks would be removed but the removal of his oversight and checkuser rights would remain in force. Although arbitrators were worried that a Streisand-like effect would occur, this suppression was the desire of David Gerard, who felt defamed by the comments, and it is proper under the oversight policy ("Removal of potentially libellous information").
For the Arbitration Committee, Roger Davies talk 20:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- Note: My original recusal was suppressed, so I am re-posting my recusal here for the public record. Carcharoth (talk) 23:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Amendments to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty
Since the close of Tang Dynasty six months ago, Tenmei (talk · contribs) has continued to edit without a mentor, at times violating other restrictions placed upon him as a result of the case. The Arbitration Committee has been unable to find a mentor for this purpose, with Tenmei rejecting one recently proposed mentor. As a result, Tang Dynasty is amended as follows, effective immediately:
- Tenmei (talk · contribs) is required to have at least one volunteer mentor. Until such a mentor is found, Tenmei is banned from all editing except for the express purpose of locating a mentor. During this time, Tenmei is instructed to avoid talking about other editors. (Amends Remedy 2.1, amendment passed 8-0)
- The mentor(s), once found, must be identified to the community as Tenmei's mentors and be willing to be available for others to contact them either publicly or privately. (Passed 8-0)
- Editors are advised to contact the mentors if they come into conflict with Tenmei. (Passed 8-0)
- The restrictions placed on Tenmei in remedy 1.1 are reset, to take effect when a mentor is found and approved by the Arbitration Committee. (Passed 8-0)
- Should Tenmei violate the requirement to have a mentor before contributing, or cause unrest whilst seeking a mentor, Tenmei may be blocked for up to a week for repeated violations. After the fifth block, the maximum block length is extended to one year. (Passed 6-0, two abstentions)
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed, and the final decision may be viewed at the link above.
- Editors of articles related to the topic of socionics are reminded to be civil and seek consensus whenever possible. Editors are encouraged to seek dispute resolution assistance as needed.
- Rmcnew (talk · contribs) and Tcaudilllg (talk · contribs) are indefinitely topic banned from all Socionics-related topics, pages, and discussions, broadly construed.
- Rmcnew (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of six months.
- Tcaudilllg (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of twelve months.
- Users not previously involved in Socionics and Socionics-related articles are asked to give attention to any remaining issues with the articles, including the reliability of sources used. Users should carefully review the articles for adherence to Wikipedia policies and address any perceived or discovered deficiencies. This is not a finding that the articles are or are not satisfactory in their present form, but an urging that independent members of the community examine the matter in light of the case. Participation from uninvolved editors fluent in the Russian language would be especially helpful.
For the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed, and the final decision may be viewed at the link above.
- User:Arab Cowboy is prohibited from making changes to any article about a person with respect to their ethnicity or nationality for one year and is placed on a 1 revert per week restriction for one year.
- User:Supreme Deliciousness is prohibited from making changes to any article about a person with respect to their ethnicity or nationality for one year and is placed on a 1 revert per week restriction for one year.
- Asmahan is placed under article probation for six months.
- Any article within the scope of this case, where an extended dispute related to the national or ethnic identity of an individual is occuring may be placed under article probation by an uninvolved administrator for up to six months.
Uninvolved administrators may perform escalating blocks on editors who do not abide by these remedies.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Seddon talk|WikimediaUK 00:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Arbitration Motions regarding Mattisse
The Arbitration Committee has passed a motion amending Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse The full voting and discussion for the original clarification and motions can be found here
- Mattisse (talk · contribs) is placed under a conduct probation for one year. Any of Mattisse's mentors may impose sanctions on his or her own discretion if, despite being warned or otherwise advised, Mattisse repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to any expected standards of behavior and decorum.
- Editors are reminded that baiting, antagonistic comments, and other such behavior is disruptive. Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to handle such circumstances as they would any other disruptive conduct, including appropriate warnings and advice, short page bans, as well as escalating blocks for repeated or egregious misconduct.
- Editing of the the page User:Mattisse/Monitoring, as well as its talk page and any other pages created for the purposes of carrying out the mentorship, shall be limited to Mattisse (talk · contribs) and her mentors for the duration of the mentorship. Users wishing to comment upon any aspect of the mentorship may contact the mentors directly, or on a subpage designated for such a purpose. Modified by next two motions.
- "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Alerts" will be set up for the community to report issues to the mentors.
- User:Mattisse/Monitoring is moved to "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Monitoring".
For the Arbitration Committee,
Seddon talk|WikimediaUK 14:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
After reviewing User:Jack Merridew's ban at his request, the Arbitration Committee agreed to unblock his account on December 9th, 2008 with the following conditions:
- User:Jack Merridew agrees to edit from one account only "Jack Merridew" on all WMF wikis and unifies that account.
- User:Jack Merridew discloses all prior socks.
- User:Jack Merridew agrees to not edit using open proxies.
- User:Jack Merridew agrees to completely avoid White Cat on Wikipedia English pages. No editing the same pages, no comments about White Cat by name or innuendo. No harassment of White Cat in other venues. This restriction will be interpreted in the broadest way with no allowance for any attempt to skirt the restriction in any manner.
- User:Jack Merridew agrees to avoid all disruptive editing.
- User:Jack Merridew agrees to a one year mentorship by Casliber (talk · contribs), John Vandenberg (talk · contribs) and Moreschi (talk · contribs), who will closely monitor for any contact with White Cat.
- It is specifically noted that this is not a "clear your name" unblock, but rather is done on the recommendation of Wikipedia English administrators that are knowledgeable about Jack Merridew's past disruptive editing and now support his return based on his good editing record on other Foundation wikis where White Cat and Jack Merridew both have accounts.
- Should Jack Merridew violate the restrictions imposed upon him in this decision, he may be blocked for one year by any uninvolved administrator, with any blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion#Log of blocks and bans
Jack Merridew is to be commended for making a clean return from an indefinite ban. On review of the past year, the Arbitration Committee replaces the previous motion with the following conditions:
- User:Jack Merridew agrees to edit from one account only "Jack Merridew" on all WMF wikis with the exception of an additional bot account approved through the regular process, and agrees to not edit using open proxies.
- User:Jack Merridew is to seek out advisers to assist him in transitioning from a formal mentorship to unrestricted editing.
- User:Jack Merridew agrees that the same as any other editor, he is to follow Wikipedia policy and guidelines, and follow dispute resolution processes to resolve editing conflicts with the understanding that misconduct could result in blocks or Community editing restrictions.
- User:Jack Merridew will note his agreement with the terms of this motion on this page.
For the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller (talk) 15:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed, and the final decision may be viewed at the link above.
- User:Ottava Rima is banned from Wikipedia for a period of 1 year.
- User:Moreschi is admonished for posting editor-specific information that directly leads to the private identity of pseudonymous editors.
- The community is strongly encouraged to review and document standing good practice for the imposition of discretionary sanctions, paroles, and related remedies. 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.
For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon talk|WikimediaUK 02:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed, and the final decision may be viewed at the link above.
- User:Piotrus resigned the administrator tools during the case proceedings and may only seek to regain adminship by a new request for adminship or by request to the Arbitration Committee.
- User:Piotrus is banned for three months. At the conclusion of his ban, a one year topic ban on articles about Eastern Europe, their talk pages, and any related process discussion, widely construed, shall take effect.
- User:Digwuren is banned for one year. He is directed to edit Wikipedia from only a single user account, and advise the Arbitration Committee of the name of the account that he will use. Should he not advise the committee by the end of the one year ban, he will remain indefinitely banned until a single account is chosen.
- User:Digwuren is placed on a one year topic ban on articles about Eastern Europe, their talk pages, and any related process discussion, widely construed. This shall take effect following the expiration of both above mentioned bans.
- The following users are topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for one year:
- User:Jacurek is topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for six months.
- User:Tymek is strongly admonished for having shared his account password. He is directed to keep his account for his own exclusive use, and not to allow any other person to use it under any circumstance.
- The editors sanctioned above (Piotrus, Digwuren, Martintg, Tymek, Jacurek, Radeksz, Dc76, Vecrumba, Biruitorul, Miacek) are prohibited from commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with Russavia on any page of Wikipedia, except for purposes of legitimate and necessary dispute resolution.
- All the participants to the mailing list are strongly admonished against coordinating on-wiki behavior off-wiki and directed to keep discussion of editing and dispute resolution strictly on wiki and in public. All editors are reminded that the editorial process and dispute resolution must take place on Wikipedia itself, using the article talk pages and project space for this purpose. No discussion held off-wiki can lead to a valid consensus, the basis of our editorial process. Off-wiki coordination is likely to lead to echo chambers where there is a false appearance of neutrality and consensus.
For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 17:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Arbitration motion regarding GiacomoReturned
Per a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case :
This request for a case is declined. The following note is to be written into the record:
- the related Audit Subcommittee report is endorsed;
- the original events have already generated a disproportionate degree of drama;
- the interests of the project are best served by all concerned completely disengaging.
For the arbitration committee,
Mailer Diablo 12:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Ban Appeal: User:DollyD
This account was created in January 2006 and blocked in August 2008 as a sockpuppet of user:Wroth of Groth, who ran many sockpuppets using "good hand, bad hand" accounts (list). These varied from out and out vandals with frequently obscene usernames to innocuous accounts performing unexceptional edits. User:DollyD's request for unblocking is based on the "roommate defence" (i.e. "it wasn't me, it was a roommate/brother/neighbour" etc.) though they also admit socking with User:HaasSoul and User:Soul Haas. Policy is clear: when it is impossible to determine whose hands were on the keyboard, if two accounts appear to be one, they are treated as one for sanctions purposes. Community input is welcomed.
Roger Davies talk 17:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Arbitration clerks seeking interested users
- Do you consider yourself a good communicator?
- Are you a motivated individual, who is willing to work varying hours?
- Do you enjoy doing thankless work (you are editing Wikipedia, so the answer is yes)?
- Are you interested in the inner workings of the Arbitration Committee?
- Do you want to wear a Fez?
If you answered yes to all the above questions, then Arbitration clerking is for you! And seeing as the clerk corps is currently in the process of vetting new candidates you are encouraged to apply. To do so, simply send us an email at clerks-l
lists.wikimedia.org. In this email, be sure to include your username, what you feel you have to offer the committee, and why you are applying for the position.
Please note: Non-administrators are encouraged to apply.
Tiptoety talk 07:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Update: The clerk corps would like to thank all those that sent in an email of interest. At this time, we are no longer accepting candidates. After a brief internal review takes place, those who sent in an application will be notified via email and an announcement will be made on-wiki. Tiptoety talk 06:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Temporary desysop: User:Secret
Secret (talk · contribs) has been temporarily desyopped because of concerns that the account may be compromised. This was done under emergency procedures and was certified by Arbitrators Risker, FloNight and Roger Davies.
For the Arbitration Committee, Roger Davies talk 20:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Arbitration Committee 2010
FloNight has retired from the Arbitration Committee with effect from 23:59 31 December 2009 (UTC) on the completion of her three-year term as an arbitrator. Our thanks go to her for her careful and devoted work during her incumbency.
Stephen Bain also formally ends his term on 31 December 2009 but, per usual custom and practice, will remain on the committee until all cases in which he has participated close.
Kirill Lokshin and Coren return to the committee following re-election.
The committee also welcomes seven newly-seated arbitrators: Fritzpoll, Mailer diablo, Steve Smith, SirFozzie, Hersfold, KnightLago and Shell Kinney.
A full list of arbitrators may be found here.
For the Arbitration Committee, Roger Davies talk 01:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
User:GlassCobra
GlassCobra's administrator privileges are restored, effective 11 January 2010. He/She is reminded to abide by all policies and guidelines governing the conduct of administrators.
- Support: Carcharoth, Coren, Fritzpoll, Mailer Diablo, Newyorkbrad, Rlevse, Roger Davies, Shell Kinney, SirFozzie, Vassyana, Wizardman
- Oppose: FayssalF, KnightLago, Steve Smith
- Abstain: None
- Recuse: Cool Hand Luke, Kirill, Risker
- Not voting: Hersfold, Stephen Bain.
For the Arbitration Committee, Roger Davies talk 06:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Ban Appeal Subcommittee
The Ban Appeal Subcommittee membership for January 2010 comprises: Fritzpoll, Shell Kinney and SirFozzie.
For the Arbitration Committee, Roger Davies talk 06:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Audit Subcommittee
Three arbitrator members serve staggered six-month terms on the Audit Subcommittee ("AUSC"). One arbitrator vacancy was created by FloNight's retirement from the Arbitration Committee on 31 December 2009 and a second by Newyorkbrad stepping down from the subcommittee with immediate effect. Risker has the third seat. The two vacant seats will be filled by:
- Kirill Lokshin taking a six-month term to replace FloNight and
- Rlevse taking over the unexpired part of Newyorkbrad's term.
The arbitrator members of AUSC (and the end-dates of their respective terms) are therefore: Risker (28 February 2010), Rlevse (30 April 2010) and Kirill Lokshin (30 June 2010). The "at-large" members remain unaffected and are: Dominic, Jredmond, and Tznkai.
For the Arbitration Committee, Roger Davies talk 04:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Emergency desysop: User:Cool3
Cool3 (talk · contribs) has been temporarily desysopped because the account has been certified by checkusers as a confirmed sockpuppet of a banned user, Thekohser. The desysop was done under emergency procedures and was in turn certified by Arbitrators Rlevse, Mailer diablo and SirFozzie.
For the Arbitration Committee, Roger Davies talk 23:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Appeals to BASC: Shamir1 & DollyD
The Ban Appeals Subcommittee has allowed the appeals of:
The text of the decisions and associated restrictions have been posted on the applicable user talk pages.
For the Arbitration Committee, Roger Davies talk 21:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Arbitration clerks
The Arbitration clerks welcome the following users to the clerk team as trainees:
- AlexandrDmitri (talk · contribs)
- Amorymeltzer (talk · contribs)
- DoriSmith (talk · contribs)
- MBK004 (talk · contribs)
The clerk team as well as the committee would also like to congratulate the following clerks who have been confirmed as "full clerks":
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,
Tiptoety talk 04:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong
Per a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:
Imposition of discretionary sanctions
- The Falun Gong decision is modified as follows:
- (a) The article probation clause (remedy #1) is rescinded.
- (b) Standard discretionary sanctions (Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) are authorized for "Falun Gong" and all closely related articles.
- This modification does not affect any actions previously taken under the article probation clause; these actions shall remain in force.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety talk 07:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Vassyana
The Arbitration Committee has, with regret, accepted the resignation of Arbitrator Vassyana, due to off-wiki commitments, and wishes to take this opportunity to thank him for his dedicated service. Vassyana will retain his CheckUser permissions and his status as a Functionary. Roger Davies talk 07:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Motion regarding BLP deletions
The Arbitration Committee has passed a motion in lieu of a full case regarding the BLP deletions request. The text of the motion is as follows:
- That the core principles of the policy on biographies of living people—in particular, neutrality and verifiability—have been set forth by the Wikimedia Foundation as a mandate for all projects;
- That the policy on biographies of living people, and this Committee's ruling in the Badlydrawnjeff case, call for the removal of poorly sourced and controversial content, and places the burden of demonstrating compliance on those who wish to see the content included;
- That unsourced biographies of living people may contain seemingly innocuous statements which are actually damaging, but there is no way to determine whether they do without providing sources;
- That Wikipedia, through the founding principle of "Ignore All Rules", has traditionally given administrators wide discretion to enforce policies and principles using their own best judgment; and
- That administrators have been instructed to aggressively enforce the policy on biographies of living people.
The Committee has determined that:
- The deletions carried out by Rdm2376, Scott MacDonald, and various other administrators are a reasonable exercise of administrative discretion to enforce the policy on biographies of living people.
- The administrators who carried out these actions are commended for their efforts to enforce policy and uphold the quality of the encyclopedia, but are urged to conduct future activities in a less chaotic manner.
- The administrators who interfered with these actions are reminded that the enforcement of the policy on biographies of living people takes precedence over mere procedural concerns.
For the Arbitration Committee,