Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 14

The Arbitration Committee clerks are currently looking for a few dependable and mature editors willing to serve as clerks. The responsibilities of clerks include opening and closing arbitration cases and motions; notifying parties of cases, decisions, and other committee actions; maintaining the requests for Arbitration pages; preserving order and proper formatting on case pages; and other administrative and related tasks they may be requested to handle by the arbitrators. Clerks are the unsung heroes of the arbitration process, keeping track of details to ensure that requests are handled in a timely and efficient manner. Clerks get front-line seats to the political and ethnic warfare that scorches Wikipedia periodically, and, since they aren't arbitrators themselves, are rarely threatened with violence by the participants.

Past clerks have gone on to be (or already were) successful lawyers, naval officers, and Presidents of Wikimedia Chapters. The salary and retirement packages for Clerks rival that of Arbitrators, to boot. Best of all, you get a cool fez!

Please email clerks-llists.wikimedia.org if you are interested in becoming a clerk, and a clerk will reply with an acknowledgement of your message and any questions we want to put to you.

For the Arbitration Committee clerks,  Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment that:

In the Rich Farmbrough case, the revised Finding of Fact 8, enacted on 28 May 2012 is vacated. Nothing in this decision constitutes an endorsement by the Committee of Rich Farmbrough's use of administrative tools to unblock his own accounts.

For the Arbitration Committee, (X! · talk)  · @114  ·  01:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case that:

The Arbitration Committee has considered the request for arbitration concerning Hex (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)'s block of O'Dea (talk · contribs). There is no evidence of a significant, recurring problem with Hex's use of his administrator permissions. However, Hex is:

(A) Reminded that he must obey the community's "involved administrators" policy;

(B) Admonished for blocking O'Dea when no block was appropriate; and

(C) Reminded that he must be fully responsive to valid criticism by the community of his actions.

For the Arbitration Committee, (X! · talk)  · @865  ·  19:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions that:

1) On 27 December 2012, the Arbitration Committee asked the community to hold a discussion concerning the Jerusalem article. The committee also resolved to appoint three uninvolved, experienced editors to decide the result of that request for comment (the "Closers").

• In addition to the three Closers, the committee also appoints at this time a fourth editor as Moderator of the discussion.
• The Moderator will be responsible for assisting the community as it sets up the discussion, supervising the discussion, and ensuring the discussion remains focussed and relevant.
• To enable him to perform these duties, the Moderator may close sub-sections or sub-pages of the discussion pages, and when doing so may direct discussion towards other sections or points.
• The three closers are responsible for determining the result of the community's discussion upon its conclusion.
• The original motion in December included a clause authorising administrators, including the Moderator, to sanction editors for disrupting the process, and that clause remains in effect. The clause that the result of this structured discussion will be binding for three years also remains in effect.

We appoint the following three editors to close the discussion:

1. Keilana (talk · contribs)
2. RegentsPark (talk · contribs)
3. Pgallert (talk · contribs)

We appoint Mr. Stradivarius (talk · contribs) as the discussion moderator.

Our sincerest thanks go to these four editors, for accepting these appointments and for assisting the community in conducting and closing this discussion. We suggest that this discussion be publicised at appropriate community venues, and we invite experienced, uninvolved editors to assist with creating the discussion pages.

For the Arbitration Committee, (X! · talk)  · @239  ·  04:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussion

The Arbitration Committee clerk team would like to welcome Callanecc (talk · contribs), Hahc21 (talk · contribs), and Ks0stm (talk · contribs) as our newest trainees. Additionally, we welcome X! (talk · contribs) back to active status as a trainee.

For the Arbitration Committee clerks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussion

As noted in the Arbitration Committee announcements of 31 December 2012, the Arbitration Committee has initiated a review of advanced permissions. As part of this process, the Arbitration Committee has discussed the assignment of project-specific CheckUser and Oversight tools to WMF staff with the WMF and with the individual staff members (Aaron Schulz and Brion Vibber) who have long held advanced permissions. It was identified that neither Aaron nor Brion requires these accesses in their current WMF staff roles, and both have agreed that these permissions may be withdrawn. Should either of them (or any other WMF staff member) require CheckUser or Oversight tools in the future to carry out their staff responsibilities, the tools will be assigned through WMF processes.

Aaron Schulz first edited Wikipedia in July 2005, and quickly found his niche as a volunteer developer, creator and operator of bots, and editor. He initially joined the WMF as a contract developer, and has gone on to become a full-time software engineer with a range of responsibilities. He was appointed as a CheckUser on English Wikipedia by the Arbitration Committee in May 2007, when he was contracted by the WMF to redesign the CheckUser extension, and he continued on as an active member of the Checkuser team until early 2009. He was assigned Oversight permissions in early 2009 to assist in the testing of the (then) new revision deletion/suppression extension. We thank Aaron for his diligent work as part of the Checkuser team, as well as his work over the years in improving both the CheckUser and Oversight tools.

Brion Vibber has been a member of the Wikipedia community since early 2001, first working on the Esperanto Wikipedia. He worked on localization and unicode in the earliest versions of the software that eventually became the MediaWiki software application that runs all of the WMF projects, and soon became the primary maintainer of the software. He was WMF's Employee #1, and went on to become its first CTO. After a brief sojourn away from the WMF, Brion returned to take on a series of important engineering projects. He is currently Senior Software Architect, Mobile. Brion was the subject of a recent Signpost article that highlights the remarkable extent of his contributions to the Wikimedia movement. In his varying roles with the WMF, he has been responsible for ensuring the maintenance of a vast range of MediaWiki extensions, including CheckUser, the now-deprecated original Oversight extension, and the newer revision deletion/suppression extension. We thank Brion for all that he has done to support the Wikimedia family of projects, and are grateful for his attention to the tools that support our Checkusers and Oversighters.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 06:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussion

For the period 1 January to 30 June 2013, the Ban Appeals Subcommittee will consist of the following arbitrators: AGK, Hersfold, SilkTork, and Timotheus Canens. David Fuchs is the subcommittee coordinator.  Roger Davies ^talk 11:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Asgardian (talk · contribs) was banned for one year in 2010 (see Asgardian). Later in 2010, he was blocked indefinitely for evading his ban. This month, Asgardian appealed his indefinite block to the Ban Appeals Subcommittee. We wish to consult the community about this appeal, and specifically invite comments on two points: (1) Should Asgardian be unblocked? (2) If so, what should be the conditions of his being unblocked?

Asgardian suggested that he could be restricted as follows: be given a "period of probation" for the first three months after being unblocked; be limited to 10 or 15 edits per day; and be made to take on a mentor. The Ban Appeals Subcommittee suggested the following restrictions:

1. Asgardian is prohibited from editing Wikipedia except while logged into his main account, w:User:Asgardian.
2. Asgardian is indefinitely prohibited from making more than one revert per article per week.
3. Asgardian is reminded that he must contribute to Wikipedia in compliance with policy.

Asgardian may be blocked by any administrator if he edits in violation of the above three conditions. After five such blocks, he must be blocked indefinitely. These conditions will be published at the top of Asgardian's talk page, from where he may not remove them until one year has elapsed.

Comments from the community are solicited.

For the Arbitration Committee,
AGK [•] 22:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Supporting motion to hold a community consultation on this appeal:

AGK (proposing), Salvio giuliano, Carcharoth, Worm That Turned, Roger Davies, NuclearWarfare, Timotheus Canens, Coren, and Courcelles.

Opposing:

None.

Recusing/abstaining:

None.

Not voting:

David Fuchs, Hersfold, Kirill Lokshin, Newyorkbrad, Risker, and SilkTork.

The Arbitration Committee thanks the community for their comments, but our decision is to decline Asgardian's appeal. AGK [•] 01:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment that:

1) Standard Discretionary sanctions are authorised with immediate effect for all pages relating to Waldorf education, broadly construed. This supersedes the existing Article Probation remedy set down in Waldorf education, remedy 1 and re-affirmed in the Waldorf education review, remedy 2.

This motion does not affect any actions presently in effect that were taken in enforcement of the old article probation remedy.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussion

The Arbitration Committee is currently considering a motion on withdrawn arbitration case requests. The community may comment on the proposed motion in the community comments section.

For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 21:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

If the filing party of a request for an arbitration case withdraws said request, the request may be removed after 24 hours if:

1. No arbitrator has voted to accept the case; or
2. There are four net votes to decline the case.

In all other circumstances, the request shall remain open until 24 hours after the above circumstances apply, or until the case can be accepted or declined through the procedures outlined in "Opening of proceedings".

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussion

I have just accepted a contractual position with the Wikimedia Foundation, and posted a full disclosure with details and an invitation for community comments here. — Coren ^(talk) 21:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

In early January 2013, the Arbitration Committee reviewed several aspects of the appointment and review processes related to Checkusers, Oversighters and AUSC members, including the appointment extension of advanced permissions to former arbitrators. In preparation for this review, arbitrators retiring as of 31 December 2012 were permitted to retain Checkuser and Oversight permissions at their request on an interim basis until the completion of the review and decisions on next steps. The motions that the Arbitration Committee will vote on are located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions; other motions may be proposed as well. All functionaries and community members are invited to participate in the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Risker (talk • contribs) 02:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Discuss this on the Motions page

Kevin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has unilaterally reversed a block placed by two oversighters relating to the repeated posting of personal information. Kevin failed to obtain agreement for the unblocking from either the oversighters or the Arbitration Committee prior to doing so. Accordingly, Kevin is temporarily desysopped in accordance with Level II procedures for removing administrative tools. The unblock of Cla68 (talk · contribs) is to be reversed until Cla68's appeal is addressed by the Arbitration Committee.

• Support: Carcharoth, Coren, Courcelles, David Fuchs, Hersfold, SilkTork, Timotheus Canens
• Oppose: Newyorkbrad
• Recused: Kirill Lokshin, NuclearWarfare
• Not voting: AGK, Risker, Roger Davies, Worm That Turned
• Inactive: Salvio giuliano

For the Arbitration Committee, T. Canens (talk) 06:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussion

The Arbitration Committee is currently considering a motion on Oversight-related blocks. The community may comment on the proposed motion in the general discussion section.

For the Arbitration Committee, --Guerillero | My Talk 07:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The section entitled "Standard discretionary sanctions" in the Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 case is replaced with the following:

Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related ethnic conflicts, broadly interpreted.

Previous or existing sanctions, warnings, and enforcement actions are not affected by this motion.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Approximately one day ago, the Arbitration Committee made public the following statement on User talk:Russavia. This is a cross-post of that statement, a motion that decided his recent appeal:

On 3 April 2012, Russavia was blocked for six months and topic-banned from all pages and discussions relating to Eastern Europe across all namespaces. On 13 May 2012, the six month block was extended to one year on the basis that this comment—made by Russavia on his talk page while he was blocked—violated his Eastern Europe topic ban. In January 2013, Russavia appealed his block and topic-ban to the Arbitration Committee. The Arbitration Committee accepts his appeal, vacates the six-month block and the one-year block that replaced it, but retains the Eastern Europe topic ban. We remind Russavia that, if he makes any further edits mentioning Polandball and similar cartoons (broadly construed), he will again be in violation of his topic ban and may be summarily re-blocked by any administrator in line with the usual methods of enforcing a discretionary sanction.

• Supporting motion: Coren, NuclearWarfare, Hersfold, SilkTork, AGK (proposing), David Fuchs, Courcelles, and Worm That Turned.
• Opposing: (none).
• Not voting: Carcharoth, Newyorkbrad, Kirill Lokshin, and Roger Davies.
• Inactive: Risker, Salvio guiliano.
• Recused: Timotheus Canens.

I have unblocked your account, but remind you (as explained in the motion) that your earlier topic ban remains in effect and that you may be blocked again if you violate that ban.

For the Arbitration Committee,
AGK [•] 14:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

For the Arbitration Committee,
NW (Talk) 14:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussion

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

On July 19, 2010, the Arbitration Committee issued a statement noting that blocks based on confidential Checkuser information should not be lifted without consulting a Checkuser who has the ability to review said information. Since that time, this has been incorporated into the blocking policy.

While that statement focused primarily on checkuser-based blocks, the Arbitration Committee reminds administrators that they should not be taking any action when they are unable to make themselves fully aware of the circumstances that led to the block under review. Specifically, an oversighter may note that a block should not be lifted without consulting a member of the oversight team; in these situations, administrators are expected to heed this request and not unilaterally remove the block.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussion

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Audit Subcommittee (AUSC) members are provided with Checkuser and Oversight tools in order to carry out their responsibilities. Community appointees to the AUSC are discouraged from routine or regular use of either tool; however, they are permitted to use the tools in order to develop a sufficient skill level to adequately assess the actions of Checkusers and Oversighters, and may assist in addressing time-sensitive situations, or serious backlogs. Community AUSC appointees who held advanced permission(s) prior to their term will retain the permission(s) they held prior to their appointment. Community AUSC appointees who did not hold advanced permissions prior to their term may apply to retain Checkuser and/or Oversight during any Checkuser/Oversight appointment cycle that occurs during their term and, if successfully appointed, will assume their new role at the end of the AUSC term.

The Arbitration Committee confirms the current procedures with respect to advanced permissions and inactivity as approved in March 2011, with the exception of retitling the provision "CheckUser/Oversight permissions and inactivity".

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussion

An arbitration case regarding Doncram has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Doncram is placed under a general probation indefinitely. Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions if, despite being warned, Doncram repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum. These sanctions may include blocks, page or topic bans, instructions to refrain from a particular behavior, or any other sanction that the administrator deems appropriate. Sanctions imposed under this remedy may be appealed as if they were discretionary sanctions. Doncram may not appeal this restriction for one year and is limited to an appeal once every six months thereafter.
2. Doncram is indefinitely restricted from creating new pages, except for redirects, in article space. He may create new content pages in his user space, at Articles for Creation, in a sandbox area within a WikiProject's area, or in similar areas outside of article space. Such pages may only be moved to article space by other users after review. This restriction may be appealed to the Committee after one year.
3. For edit warring with Doncram, SarekOfVulcan is strongly admonished to behave with the level of professionalism expected of an administrator.
4. SarekOfVulcan and Doncram are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with each other (subject to the ordinary exceptions).
5. The question of how substantive the content of a stub must be before it can legitimately be introduced to the mainspace as a stand-alone article cannot be decided by the Arbitration Committee. If the project is to avoid the stub guideline becoming a recurring problem in the future, we suggest to the community that this question may need to be decided through a deliberate attempt at conducting focussed, structured discussions in the usual way.

For the Arbitration Committee, (X! · talk)  · @276  ·  05:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussion

The Arbitration Committee has made public the following statement on User talk:Fæ. This is a cross-post of that statement, a motion that decided his recent appeal:

On 21 July 2012, Fæ was blocked indefinitely and restricted to one account as a result of arbitration. In February 2013, Fæ appealed his block to the Arbitration Committee, declaring his past accounts. The Arbitration Committee accepts his appeal, on the following conditions:

1. Fæ is topic banned from editing BLPs relating to sexuality, broadly construed
2. Fæ is topic banned from images relating to sexuality, broadly construed

Fæ may appeal these topic bans after 1 year.

• Supporting motion: Carcharoth, Coren, David Fuchs, Nuclear Warfare, Newyorkbrad, Risker, SilkTork, Worm That Turned (proposing)
• Opposing: Courcelles
• Not voting: Roger Davies, Timotheus Canens
• Inactive: Hersfold
• Recused: AGK, Salvio guiliano, Kirill Lokshin

For the Arbitration Committee, Worm^TT(talk) 12:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case that:

Based on his commitment not to reverse any block designated as an oversight-based block [1], Kevin's administrator privileges are reinstated, effective immediately. He is strongly admonished for reversing the block and warned to abide by all applicable policies governing the conduct of administrators.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 17:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussion

An arbitration case regarding Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) is strongly admonished for creating multiple copyright violations throughout Wikipedia. He is warned that continued violations of this nature are likely to result in an indefinite block from editing.
2. The Committee acknowledges that Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )'s community-placed topic ban on article creations was a valid and apparently successful attempt, recognizes that this sanction has been violated a number of times, and determines that the topic ban will remain in place and is assumed under the Arbitration Committee's authority.
3. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) is indefinitely prohibited from uploading images or other media files to the English Wikipedia. Should Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) upload a copyright-violating image to the Wikimedia Commons and subsequently make use of that image on the English Wikipedia in any namespace, he may be subject to Arbitration Enforcement.
4. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) is prohibited from linking as a reference any external site to which he has contributed. He may provide such links on the talk pages of articles, so they may be reviewed by other editors for acceptance according to applicable Wikipedia guidelines and policies.

For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ²¹ 00:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussion

The past several months for the Arbitration Committee have been unusually filled with controversy and drama. Throughout these incidents, my colleagues on the Arbitration Committee and I have been doing our utmost to ensure our actions have been in the best interests of the project. As volunteers ourselves, it is often difficult to persevere through the animosity that is directed towards the Committee in response to some of these actions; arbitrators are regularly criticized for their work, and on rare occasion actively threatened. However, we do so because we believe that we are still making a positive difference to the project, even if only in the long term, and that our work is still appreciated by some. Unfortunately, recent events have shaken my confidence in that belief, and have been extremely stressful for me as a result. This, added on top of the everyday stress that comes from being a member of the Arbitration Committee, has built up to the point that Wikipedia is no longer something I have any enjoyment in contributing to.

As a result of this and other reasons I won't go into here, effective immediately, I am resigning my position on the Arbitration Committee and relinquishing all of my user rights, including administrator, bureaucrat, checkuser, edit filter manager, and oversight. I will, however, continue to maintain and support User:HersfoldArbClerkBot and its associated IRC bot, which assist the Arbitration Committee clerk corps.

It has been an honor serving with my fellow Arbitrators, the Functionaries, and the ArbCom Clerks, and I wish them all the best of luck. I also hope that they receive greater support from the community at large, so that they may better exercise the trust the community has placed in them for the good of the project as a whole; please remember that we are all volunteers working towards the same purpose, and while disagreements may arise, there is always time to stand back and attempt to understand one another.

Happy editing, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

It was recently asserted to the Arbitration Committee that Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) has been using an undisclosed alternate account, George Ponderevo (talk · contribs). The Committee has examined the evidence and invited statements from Malleus and George. From these, we have concluded that there is a close link between the two accounts and that there has also been some crossover. The accounts will be marked with a shared IP tag.

• Support: AGK, Carcharoth, Courcelles, David Fuchs, Kirill Lokshin, NuclearWarfare, Risker, Roger Davies, SilkTork, Timotheus Canens, Worm That Turned
• Abstain: Newyorkbrad
• Recused: Coren
• Inactive: Salvio giuliano

For the Arbitration Committee, Carcharoth (talk) 23:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Effective immediately, Coren (talk · contribs) has resigned his membership of the Arbitration Committee. He has also made the following statement:

For the Arbitration Committee,
AGK [•] 22:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussion

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint three non-arbitrator members to the Audit Subcommittee ("AUSC"). The Committee is comprised of six members and is tasked with investigations concerning the use of CheckUser and Oversight privileges on the English Wikipedia. The AUSC also monitors CheckUser and Oversight activity and use of the applicable tools. The current non-arbitrator members are Avraham, MBisanz, and Ponyo, whose terms were to expire on February 28 but were extended with their agreement until April 30 by the Committee.

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 given both CheckUser and Oversight access but are expected to not make regular use of them unless needed. They are subject to the relevant local and global policies and guidelines concerning CheckUser and Oversight.

If you think you may be suitably qualified, please email arbcom-en-clists.wikimedia.org to start the application procedure for an appointment ending 30 June 2014. The application period will close at 23:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC). Further information is also available here.

For the Arbitration Committee,
NW (Talk) 18:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussion

An arbitration case regarding SchuminWeb, and previously suspended by motion, has now closed. The original temporary injuction has been enacted:

[...] Should SchuminWeb decide to resign his administrative tools, the case will be closed and no further action taken. Should SchuminWeb not return to participate in the case within three months [...] the account will be desysopped. If the tools are resigned or removed in either of the circumstances described above, restoration of the tools to SchuminWeb will require a new request for adminship.

For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ²¹ 05:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussion

This is a reminder that the application period for the three non-arbitrator seats on the Audit Subcommittee will close at 23:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC), less than 36 hours from now.

The Audit Subcommittee ("AUSC") is comprised of six members and is tasked with investigations concerning the use of CheckUser and Oversight privileges on the English Wikipedia. The AUSC also monitors CheckUser and Oversight activity and use of the applicable tools. The current non-arbitrator members are Avraham, MBisanz, and Ponyo, whose terms were to expire on February 28 but were extended with their agreement until April 30 by the Committee.

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 given both CheckUser and Oversight access but are expected to not make regular use of them unless needed. They are subject to the relevant local and global policies and guidelines concerning CheckUser and Oversight.

Please note that due to Wikimedia Foundation rules governing access to deleted material, only applications from administrators will be accepted.

If you think you may be suitably qualified, please email arbcom-en-clists.wikimedia.org to start the application procedure for an appointment ending 30 June 2014. Once again, the application period will close at 23:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC). Further information is also available here.

For the Arbitration Committee, T. Canens (talk) 14:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussion

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-clists.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, 17 April 2013 (UTC), and the appointments are scheduled to be announced by 28 April 2013.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 04:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussion

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussion

An arbitration case regarding sexology has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all articles dealing with transgender issues and paraphilia classification (e.g., hebephilia).
2. User:Jokestress and User:James Cantor are banned from interacting with each other, commenting on and/or commenting about each other including their professional lives, works and on-wiki activities. This applies to all namespaces, but excludes dispute resolution that explicitly relates to both parties.
3. User:Jokestress is indefinitely banned from the topic of human sexuality, including biographical articles.

For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 12:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussion

We are pleased to announce that Callanecc, Hahc21, Ks0stm, and X! have been promoted to full Arbitration Committee clerk positions, effective immediately.

We thank the clerk team for their continued assistance to the Committee and its work.

For the Arbitration Committee, Carcharoth (talk) 23:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Effective 1 May 2013, Guerillero (talk · contribs), MBisanz (talk · contribs), and Richwales (talk · contribs) are appointed as community representatives to the Audit Subcommittee (AUSC). The period of appointment will be 1 May 2013 to 30 June 2014. All three have properly identified to the Wikimedia Foundation.

No alternate member of the subcommittee has been designated for this term, but in the event that one of the appointees resigns from the subcommittee for any reason, we may (depending on how long is left of their term of office) appoint one of the other candidates from this round of appointments to the vacant seat, temporarily reduce the size of the subcommittee (to two arbitrators and two community members), or leave the seat vacant. The Arbitration Committee sincerely thanks all of the candidates, as well as the many members of the community who participated in the appointment process for these roles.

The Arbitration Committee also extends its thanks to Avraham (talk · contribs) (Avi), Ponyo (talk · contribs), and MBisanz for agreeing to stay in office past the original length of their term; and to Avi and Ponyo for their service to date.

Support: AGK, Carcharoth, Courcelles, Newyorkbrad, NuclearWarfare, Risker, Salvio giuliano, Timotheus Canens, David Fuchs

Not voting: Kirill Lokshin, Roger Davies, SilkTork, Worm That Turned

For the Arbitration Committee, Risker (talk) 01:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Note to stewards: Appointment to the AUSC includes granting of CheckUser and Oversight permissions to its members, specifically Guerillero (talk · contribs) and Richwales (talk · contribs).

Archived discussion

The Audit Subcommittee has published its annual summary of activity for the period from March 2012 to April 2013:

To read the original copy of this report (and earlier reports), see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee/Reports.

For the Audit Subcommittee, AGK [•] 15:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Discuss this

During the first three months of 2013, the Ban Appeals Subcommittee heard and completed a total of 43 appeals (this number includes multiple appeals by single users). A total of three appeals were granted: Fæ, Int21h, and Russavia. Of the remaining appeals, eleven were either referred to proper venues or were closed as incomplete (the appellants did not respond back to further correspondence or did not provide enough information on which to make a determination.) The median time for processing appeals was 3 days, while the average time was 11 days.

For the Arbitration Committee, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Discuss This

The Arbitration Committee has passed the following motion to accept Cla68 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)'s appeal of his indefinite block for outing other contributors:

Support: Risker (proposing), AGK, Newyorkbrad, Carcharoth, David Fuchs, WormThatTurned, and Timotheus Canens

Oppose: Courcelles, SilkTork, and Salvio giuliano

Not voting: Roger Davies

Recuse: NuclearWarfare, Kirill Lokshin

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 09:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Resolved by motion:

In his evidence submission to this case, Apostle12 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) stated he is immediately retiring from editing Wikipedia:

This will be my last submission. I have decided to place a "Retired" notice on my user page and scramble my password, thus tendering my resignation

Apostle12's conduct was a substantial part of the present arbitration case (Race and politics) and hearing this case in Apostle12's absence would serve no purpose. The committee therefore resolves that:

1. The present arbitration case is suspended for two months (from the date this motion passes).
2. If Apostle12 returns while this case is suspended, arbitration proceedings will resume.
3. If Apostle12 does not return to editing before two months have elapsed: he will be indefinitely prohibited from editing any page relating to "race and politics", broadly construed; and this case will be un-suspended and closed.
4. Apostle12 is directed to inform the Arbitration Committee if he returns to editing the English Wikipedia using any account.

Apostle12 (and all of his accounts, if he has created one or more others at that time) may be indefinitely blocked by any uninvolved administrator if he violates the prohibitions in points 3 or 4 of this motion.

For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 02:26, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussion

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

1) The Tea Party movement case is suspended until the end of June 2013 to allow time for the Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion to attempt to resolve the conflict regarding the Tea Party movement article. Pages relating to the Tea Party movement, in any namespace, broadly construed, are placed under discretionary sanctions until further notice. The Committee will reconvene on 1 July 2013 to determine if the conflict has been resolved; and if not, what further steps the Committee should take.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussion

An arbitration case regarding the article Juan Manuel de Rosas has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Cambalachero is banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the history of Latin America, broadly construed across all namespaces.
2. MarshalN20 is banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the history of Latin America, broadly construed across all namespaces.
3. Lecen is reminded to conduct himself in accordance with Wikipedia's behavioral guidelines.

For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussion

One month ago, the Arbitration Committee voted in a temporary injunction to suspend the case relating to a dispute over Tea Party movement. Today, we have reviewed the dispute and determined that arbitration of the case is still necessary. We will therefore unsuspend the case and resume voting on our proposed decision. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 22:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussion

The terms of the following arbitrator members of the Audit Subcommittee expired at 23:59 (UTC), 30 June 2013:

• AGK (talk · contribs)
• Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs)
• Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs)

The vacated seats will be taken for six-month terms by the following arbitrators with effect from 00:00 (UTC), 1 July 2013:

• AGK (talk · contribs)
• Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs)
• Risker (talk · contribs)

Risker was previously the Subcommittee's coordinator, a non-voting observer who manages the subcommittee's open cases (and liaises between the ArbCom and AUSC), does research for open cases, administers the mailing list, and gives an advisory view on investigations. That role will be filled by NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs).

The Committee is grateful to the participating arbitrators, as well as to the current community representatives, for their service.

For the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 03:01, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussion

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint additional users to the CheckUser and Oversight teams. Experienced editors are invited to apply for either or both of the permissions, and current holders of either permission are also invited to apply for the other.

Successful candidates are likely to be regularly available and already familiar with local and global processes, policies, and guidelines especially those concerning CheckUser and Oversight. CheckUser candidates are expected to be technically proficient, and previous experience with OTRS is beneficial for Oversight candidates. Trusted users who frequent IRC are also encouraged to apply for either permission. All candidates must at least 18 years of age; have attained legal majority in their jurisdiction of residence; and be willing to identify to the Wikimedia Foundation prior to receiving permissions.

If you think you may be suitably qualified, please see the appointments page for further information. The application period is scheduled to close 22 July 2013.

For the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 21:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussion

After thoroughly reading this RfC and the arguments expressed for and against each draft, we have found a consensus for Draft 7 and have decided that it is within our mandate to insert the geographical information from Draft 14 in place of the ellipses of Draft 7. There was a consensus that it is not compliant with NPOV policy to state in the article “Jerusalem is the capital of Israel”, nor is it compliant to state “Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such”. There was no consensus for any phrasing of Jerusalem’s location in either Israel or Palestine.

We have decided to act under the broad mandate given us by the Arbitration Committee to set the first paragraph of the article in stone to best ameliorate the conflict, rather than instigate further conflict and edit-warring over what should replace the ellipses. Therefore, we have set the first paragraph of Jerusalem as follows:

Jerusalem, located on a plateau in the Judean Mountains between the Mediterranean and Dead seas, is one of the oldest cities in the world. It is considered holy to the three major Abrahamic religions—Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Israelis and Palestinians both claim Jerusalem as their capital, as Israel maintains its primary governmental institutions there and the State of Palestine ultimately foresees it as its seat of power; however, neither claim is widely recognized internationally.

To reiterate, this decision is binding for 3 years and no one may add information about Jerusalem’s capital status or location in either Israel or Palestine to the lead.

Thank you for your participation.

Respectfully,

Keilana (talk), Pgallert (talk), and RegentsPark (talk) 18:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussion

This is a reminder that the application period for CheckUser and Oversight appointments runs through this Monday, 22 July 2013.

For the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 01:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussion

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

In March 2013, an administrator notified the editors of Syrian civil war and several associated pages that the topic area fell under the scope of {{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}}, which provides for a blanket one revert per editor per article per day restriction as well as discretionary sanctions. A request for clarification or amendment has now been filed raising the issue of whether the topic-area of the Syrian Civil War falls within the scope of the Arab-Israeli topic-area for purposes of arbitration enforcement.

The Arbitration Committee concludes that the topic of the Syrian Civil War does not fit within the category of Arab-Israeli disputes, although certain specific issues relating to that war would fall within that topic.

However, the administrator action extending discretionary sanctions and the 1RR limitation to Syrian Civil War was taken in good faith. Several editors have commented that the restrictions have been helpful to the editing environment and that they should remain in effect. No one has requested that the Arbitration Committee open a full case to consider the issue.

Accordingly, the existing sanctions and restrictions applied to Syrian Civil War and related articles will continue in effect for a period not to exceed 30 days. During that period, a discussion should be opened on the Administrators' Noticeboard (WP:AN) to determine whether there is consensus to continue the restrictions in effect as community-based restrictions, either as they currently exist or in a modified form. If a consensus is not reached during the community discussion, any editor may file a request for arbitration. In the interim, any notifications and sanctions are to be logged at Talk:Syrian civil war/Log.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussion

The suspended arbitration case regarding Race and politics has now closed in accordance with the motion for suspension and closure. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Apostle12 is indefinitely prohibited from editing any page relating to "race and politics", broadly construed.
2. Apostle12 is directed to inform the Arbitration Committee if he returns to editing the English Wikipedia using any account.
3. Apostle12 (and all of his accounts, if he has created one or more others at that time) may be indefinitely blocked by any uninvolved administrator if he violates these prohibitions.

For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)v

Archived discussion

Deskana (talk · contribs) resigned his access to oversight permissions in December 2012, which he had not used in several months. He has remained an active checkuser, and has recently requested to be reinstated as an oversighter. The Arbitration Committee has granted this request, and thanks Deskana for his many years of service.

• Support: AGK, Courcelles, Kirill Lokshin, Newyorkbrad, NuclearWarfare, Risker, Roger Davies, Worm That Turned
• Oppose: None
• Not voting: David Fuchs, Salvio giuliano, SilkTork, Timotheus Canens
• Inactive: Carcharoth

For the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 02:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussion

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint additional users to the CheckUser and Oversight teams, 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-clists.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 all other relevant factors before making a final decision regarding appointments.

The consultation phase is scheduled to end 23:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC), and the appointments are scheduled to be announced by 24 August 2013.

For the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 16:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Discuss this announcement

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment that:

Not withstanding the sanction imposed on MarshalN20 (talk · contribs) in Argentine History, he may edit Falkland Islands, its talk page, and pages related to a featured article candidacy for the article. This exemption may be withdrawn by Basalisk (talk · contribs) at any time, or by motion of the Arbitration Committee.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussion

An arbitration case regarding Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds has now closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1) For conduct unbecoming an administrator, and for bringing the project into disrepute, Ironholds is desysopped and may regain the tools via a request for adminship.

2.2) For his history of incivility, which includes logging out to engage in vandalism and to make personal attacks on other editors on other Wikimedia projects, Ironholds is strongly admonished.

3) For numerous violations of Wikipedia's norms and policies, Kiefer.Wolfowitz is indefinitely banned from the English Language Wikipedia. He may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:51, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussion

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

1) Cambalachero (talk · contribs) and Lecen (talk · contribs) are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).

2) MarshalN20 (talk · contribs) and Lecen (talk · contribs) are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).

Should one of these users violate this restriction, the user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, then to arbitration enforcement, and then to the Arbitration Committee.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:07, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Following the 2013 CU/OS appointments process, the Arbitration Committee is appointing four (4) editors to the CheckUser team and seven (7) editors to the Oversight team (pursuant to the CU/OS appointment procedures).

Once they have satisfactorily identified to the Wikimedia Foundation, the Arbitration Committee hereby:

(a) appoints the following editors as CheckUsers:

• LFaraone (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Materialscientist (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• NativeForeigner (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Reaper Eternal (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

(b) appoints the following editors as Oversighters:

• DoRD (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Elockid (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Guerillero (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)^†
• Julia W (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Ks0stm (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• LFaraone (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

† This editor is a community member of the Audit Subcommittee, who will retain the specified permission once their subcommittee term ends.

The committee sincerely thanks the other candidates who applied but who on this occasion were unsuccessful and also the community members who participated for their assistance.

The committee also notes inactivity by Elen of the Roads (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as a CheckUser and Oversighter, who has not edited since March 2013. Following several attempts to contact Elen, the Committee is removing her access to the CheckUser and Oversight permissions (and access to the checkuser-l and oversight-l mailing lists, CheckUser wiki, and oversight-en OTRS queue) in line with the functionary inactivity procedures.

Supporting motion^‡: NuclearWarfare, T. Canens, Courcelles, AGK, WormThatTurned, Roger Davies, David Fuchs, Risker, and Kirill Lokshin

Not voting: Salvio giuliano, Newyorkbrad

Inactive: Carcharoth

Abstaining: SilkTork

‡ These arbitrators supported the motion above. Individual Arbitrators may have supported candidates who did not pass, or opposed candidates who did pass.

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 23:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussion

An arbitration case regarding the Tea Party movement has now closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

Pages related to the Tea Party movement, broadly construed, are placed under discretionary sanctions. This sanction supersedes the existing community sanctions.

The current community sanctions are lifted.

Goethean (talk · contribs), North8000 (talk · contribs), Malke 2010 (talk · contribs), Xenophrenic (talk · contribs), Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs), Ubikwit (talk · contribs), Phoenix and Winslow (talk · contribs) are indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to the Tea Party movement, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee after no less than six months have passed from the closing of this case.

Collect (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from all pages relating to the Tea Party movement, broadly construed. This topic ban will expire after six months from the date this case is closed on.

Xenophrenic (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, Collect (talk · contribs) anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).

Snowded (talk · contribs) and Phoenix and Winslow (talk · contribs) are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussion

An arbitration case regarding behaviour around the use of Infoboxes in several articles has now closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from adding, or discussing the addition or removal of, infoboxes.
2. Nikkimaria (talk · contribs) is admonished to behave with the level of professionalism expected of an administrator.
3. Gerda Arendt (talk · contribs) is indefinitely restricted from: adding or deleting infoboxes; restoring an infobox that has been deleted; or making more than two comments in discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article. They may participate in wider policy discussions regarding infoboxes with no restriction, and include infoboxes in new articles which they create.
4. Gerda Arendt (talk · contribs) is admonished for treating Wikipedia as if it were a battleground and advised to better conduct themselves.
5. Smerus (talk · contribs) is reminded to conduct himself in a civil manner.
6. All editors are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions about infoboxes, and to avoid turning discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general.
7. The Arbitration Committee recommends that a well-publicized community discussion be held to address whether to adopt a policy or guideline addressing what factors should weigh in favor of or against including an infobox in a given article.

For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ²¹ 00:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussion

(This is a repeat of an earlier notice.) Since March 2013, various individual members of the Arbitration Committee have been reviewing the existing Discretionary sanctions process, with a view to (i) simplifying its operation and (ii) updating its procedures to reflect various clarification and amendment requests. An updated draft of the procedure is available for scrutiny and discussion here. AGK [•] 16:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Discuss this.

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The ban on interaction between Locke Cole and Netoholic imposed in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Locke_Cole in 2006 is terminated in light of the time that has passed without further problems.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussion

The Arbitration Committee resolves by motion that

In May 2012 (during the Race and intelligence review), the committee prohibited SightWatcher (talk · contribs) from "participating in any discussion concerning the conduct of editors who have worked in the topic" – and therefore from discussing Mathsci's conduct. In October 2012, The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs) and Cla68 (talk · contribs) were banned (by an administrator acting under discretionary sanctions) from interacting with Mathsci. In December 2012, Mathsci was prohibited (again under discretionary sanctions) by an arbitration enforcement administrator from requesting enforcement of these interaction bans without prior permission. The Arbitration Committee has decided to change these from one-way to two-way interaction bans. Accordingly, Mathsci (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from:

• Commenting on, or interacting with, The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs)
• Commenting on, or interacting with, Cla68 (talk · contribs)
• Participating in any discussion concerning the conduct of SightWatcher (talk · contribs).

This motion should be enforced under the enforcement clauses of the Race and intelligence final decision.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussion

The Arbitration Committee clerk team would like to welcome Rschen7754 (talk · contribs) as our newest trainee clerk.

For the Arbitration Committee clerks,

--Guerillero | My Talk 16:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussion

The Arbitration Committee resolves by motion that

The committee has decided to allow an appeal of the sanction imposed upon The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs) on 9 July 2013 under Scientology discretionary sanctions. Therefore, that sanction is vacated with immediate effect.

For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 00:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussion

When I was elected to the Committee at the end of last year, I had every intention of filling out my term. I am no longer able to do so, and thus am resigning as an Arbitrator, CheckUser, and Oversighter. NW (Talk) 16:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussion

The Arbitration Committee resolves by motion that

For posting inappropriate material relating to an editor with whom he is subject to an interaction restriction, Mathsci is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. He may request reconsideration of the ban not less than six months from the date this motion passes.

For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 09:15, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussion

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Hitmonchan (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed.
2. IFreedom1212 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed.
3. Tarc (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed.
4. Josh Gorand (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed.
5. Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed. He is also topic banned from all pages (including biographies) related to leaks of classified information, broadly construed.
6. David Gerard (talk · contribs) is admonished for acting in a manner incompatible with the community's expectations of administrators (see #David Gerard's use of tools).
7. David Gerard (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from using his administrator permissions (i) on pages relating to transgender people or issues and (ii) in situations involving such pages. This restriction may be first appealed after six months have elapsed, and every six months thereafter.
8. The standard discretionary sanctions adopted in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology for (among other things) "all articles dealing with transgender issues" remain in force. For the avoidance of doubt, these discretionary sanctions apply to any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender, including but not limited to Chelsea/Bradley Manning. Any sanctions imposed should be logged at the Sexology case, not this one.
9. All editors, especially those whose behavior was subject to a finding in this case, are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions on Wikipedia, and to avoid commentary that demeans any other person, intentionally or not.

For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 01:41, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussion

By motion of the committee, finding of fact 22, regarding Baseball Bugs, has been replaced by the following:

During the course of the dispute, Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs) frequently accused other participants in the dispute of misconduct [2], [3] [4]; engaged in soapboxing based on his personal view of the article subject's actions [5] [6] [7] [8]; and needlessly personalised the dispute [9].

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 22:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussion

The clerk team would like to officially welcome Bbb23 (talk · contribs) as a trainee clerk.

The past month has seen the resignation of two clerks, we would like to extend our thanks to Guerillero (talk · contribs) and AlexandrDmitri (talk · contribs) for their service to the team and wish them all the best for the future. For the arbitration clerks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:29, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussion

An arbitration case regarding the Ebionites has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Ignocrates (talk · contribs) and John Carter (talk · contribs) are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with each other (subject to the ordinary exceptions).
2. John Carter (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to Ebionites, broadly construed.
3. John Carter (talk · contribs) requested removal of his administrator rights on 1 November 2013, while these arbitration proceedings were in progress (log of removal). John Carter may regain these rights only through a new request for adminship.

For the Arbitration Committee, Bbb23 (talk) 16:51, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussion

For the purpose of these motions there were 11 active arbitrators, so 6 votes was a majority.

i) The Arbitration Committee's attention has been drawn to material authored by Phil Sandifer and published on a site operated by him. The material publicly reveals non-public personal information about a Wikipedia editor with whom Phil Sandifer has been in dispute on-wiki. The committee has been in contact with both parties and has established that the publication of the material was not inadvertent. In breaching policy, Phil Sandifer has engaged in conduct which is (a) unbecoming an administrator and (b) inappropriate for a member of the editing community.

Passed 9 to 2 at 18:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

ii) Accordingly, User:Phil Sandifer is desysopped. He may regain his permissions via a successful RFA.

Passed 8 to 3 at 18:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

iii) Additionally, User:Phil Sandifer is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. He may request reconsideration of the ban no earlier than twelve months from the date on which this motion was passed.

Passed 7 to 3 (with 1 abstention) at 18:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Support (i): Roger Davies, AGK, David Fuchs, Timotheus Canens, Salvio giuliano, Worm That Turned, Risker, Newyorkbrad, SilkTork. Oppose (i): Kirill Lokshin, Carcharoth.

Support (ii): Roger Davies, AGK, Timotheus Canens, Salvio giuliano, Worm That Turned, Risker, Newyorkbrad, SilkTork. Oppose (ii): David Fuchs, Kirill Lokshin, Carcharoth.

Support (iii): Roger Davies, AGK, Timotheus Canens, Salvio giuliano, Worm That Turned, Newyorkbrad, SilkTork. Oppose (iii): David Fuchs, Kirill Lokshin, Carcharoth. Abstain (iii): Risker.

Inactive (i) (ii) (iii): Courcelles.

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 18:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussion

The Arbitration Committee is reviewing its discretionary sanctions system. Many editors kindly participated in a recent consultation for this review. The committee has taken into account all comments made in that consultation, and a second draft has now been published at WP:AC/DSR#Draft v2. Please review the new draft, and feel free to comment at WT:AC/DSR#Draft v2. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 23:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

A motion has been proposed regarding activity levels for holders of both CU and OS tools. if you wish to comment, please join the discussion at the motion on the motions page. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 01:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

For the purpose of scrutineering the 2013 Arbitration Committee elections, stewards User:Mathonius, User:Vituzzu, User:Matanya, and User:Tegel, appointed as scrutineers, are granted temporary local CheckUser permissions effective from the time of the passage of this motion until the certification of the election results.

For the Arbitration Committee, Bbb23 (talk) 17:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussion

FYI ACE 2013's results are over. --Vituzzu (talk) 01:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)  Copied over from talk page.

2014 Arbitration Committee members

With the election concluded and the successful candidates formally appointed, with effect from 00:01 (UTC), 1 January 2014 the Arbitration Committee comprises:

• 28bytes (talk · contribs) - term expires 31 December 2015
• AGK (talk · contribs) – term expires 31 December 2015
• Beeblebrox (talk · contribs) – term expires 31 December 2014
• Carcharoth (talk · contribs) – term expires 31 December 2014
• David Fuchs (talk · contribs) – term expires 31 December 2014
• Floquenbeam (talk · contribs) – term expires 31 December 2015
• GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs) – term expires 31 December 2015
• LFaraone (talk · contribs) – term expires 31 December 2015
• NativeForeigner (talk · contribs) – term expires 31 December 2015
• Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs) – term expires 31 December 2014
• Roger Davies (talk · contribs) – term expires 31 December 2015
• Salvio giuliano (talk · contribs) – term expires 31 December 2014
• Seraphimblade (talk · contribs) – term expires 31 December 2015
• Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs) – term expires 31 December 2014
• Worm That Turned (talk · contribs) – term expires 31 December 2014

Advanced permissions for 2014 Arbitration Committee members

Advanced permissions are authorised as follows for the newly-elected/re-elected arbitrators with immediate effect:

• 28bytes (talk · contribs) – will be assigned CheckUser and Oversight
• Beeblebrox (talk · contribs) – already holds Oversight, will be assigned CheckUser
• Floquenbeam (talk · contribs) – will be assigned CheckUser and Oversight
• GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs) – already holds Oversight, will be assigned CheckUser
• LFaraone (talk · contribs) – already holds CheckUser and Oversight
• NativeForeigner (talk · contribs) – already holds CheckUser, will be assigned Oversight
• Seraphimblade (talk · contribs) – will be assigned CheckUser

Retiring 2013 Arbitration Committee members and changes to their permissions

The following arbitrators are retiring from the Committee on the expiry of their terms at 23:59 (UTC), 31 December 2013. Note that some of them may remain active on cases open at the end of their term, until such time as those cases are completed. The Committee is grateful to them for their service to the Committee and to the community and takes this opportunity to thank them for it.

• Courcelles (talk · contribs)
• Kirill Lokshin (talk · contribs)
• Risker (talk · contribs)
• SilkTork (talk · contribs)

Several retiring arbitrators have indicated they wish to work as functionaries. They will retain access to CheckUser and Oversight pending an upcoming annual review of the Functionaries team by the Committee. However:

• SilkTork (talk · contribs) has already relinquished CheckUser and Oversight.
• Kirill Lokshin (talk · contribs) is relinquishing CheckUser and Oversight at the end of his term.

For the Arbitration Committee, Risker (talk) 14:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussion

An arbitration case about the behaviour of RoslynSKP (talk · contribs) with regards to the use of the terms 'Turkish' to 'Ottoman', has now closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. RoslynSKP (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from changing 'Turkey' or 'Turkish' to 'Ottoman' on any article.
2. RoslynSKP (talk · contribs)'s topic ban from "editing any article relating to Turkish military history in and predating World War I" is suspended and will be unsuspended (and the prohibition will take effect) if any uninvolved administrator blocks RoslynSKP for misconduct relating to Turkish military history. If the block is reversed or repealed by any of the usual community channels of appeal, the topic ban will lapse back into suspension.
3. RoslynSKP is prohibited from making any more than one revert on any one page in any 72-hour period.
4. For a period of one year, RoslynSKP is prohibited from adding maintenance tags, such as {{POV}}, to any article or section of an article without first raising their concern on the talkpage and obtaining the agreement of at least one other editor that the tag is appropriate.
5. Jim Sweeney (talk · contribs) is reminded to avoid edit warring, and to use dispute resolution to assist in resolving disputes.

For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ^{21 Call me Hahc21} 23:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussion

The Committee has resolved by motion that:

In remedy 2 of Argentine History, the following text:

"the history of Latin America, broadly construed across all namespaces."

Is replaced by:

"(A) the political, economic, and military history of Latin America prior to December 1983 and (B) any other aspect of the history of Latin America that is directly related to geopolitical, economic, or military events that occurred before December 1983. This restriction applies across all namespaces."

For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ^{21 Call me Hahc21} 00:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Arbitrator-elect 28bytes (talk · contribs) was elected by the community in this month's election. However, 28bytes has resigned by deciding not to take his seat on 1 January 2014, as was planned. 28bytes' resignation statement can be read on his user talk page.

In light of this resignation, and at 28bytes' request, his subscription to the arbitration, clerk, and functionaries mailing lists have been cancelled, his committee wiki account has been closed, and his checkuser and oversight access rights have been withdrawn. His access to the main mailing list archives had not yet been arranged.

Fourteen arbitrators, not fifteen, will now comprise the 2014 committee.

For the Arbitration Committee,
AGK [•] 13:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussion