Case clerks: Lord Roem ( Talk) & Callanecc ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Carcharoth ( Talk) & GorillaWarfare ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
Track related changes |
After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.
For this case there are 12 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Abstentions | Support votes needed for majority |
---|---|
0 | 7 |
1–2 | 6 |
3–4 | 5 |
If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list.
Under no circumstances may this page be edited, except by members of the Arbitration Committee or the case Clerks. Please submit comment on the proposed decision to the talk page.
Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion. Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.
This case was accepted to consider longstanding issues affecting the English Wikipedia community and the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), which came to a head during the implementation of the Media Viewer extension.
Since then, the following has occurred:
1. The WMF has introduced a new staff user account policy, prohibiting the use of the same account for both work and non-work purposes. With effect from 15 September 2014, staff are required to segregate their work and non-work activities into separate work and non-work accounts, with the work accounts containing the identifier '(WMF)' in the account name.
2. Eloquence ( talk · contribs) has resigned as an administrator on the English Wikipedia. While this does not prevent him holding staff administrative rights on a designated work account, it does mean that as he resigned the tools while an arbitration case was pending, he may only regain administrative rights on his personal non-work account via a successful request for adminship.
3. The WMF has announced a number of initiatives aimed at improving working practices. This includes a new software implementation protocol which provides for incremental roll-outs of upgrades and new features.
In the light of the foregoing, proceedings in this case are suspended for a period of 60 days or until further vote of the Committee.
Watching how things have played out over the last month, I really see the influence of the new executive director at the Foundation. I'm hoping that in 2 months, we'll see the initiatives playing out and we'll be able to close this case. If not, we can carry on with the case. I implore the Foundation to remember who they are working for - For example, the should WMF focus on an obtaining and publishing evidence that new features will have a positive effect. Rather than polls, which show personal bias, the WMF should focus on techniques such as A/B testing based on key metrics to ensure that the right features are enabled.
For now, I'm happy for the committee to watch and wait. WormTT( talk) 09:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
This case was accepted to consider longstanding issues affecting the English Wikipedia community and the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), which came to a head during the implementation of the Media Viewer extension.
Since then, the following has occurred:
1. The WMF has introduced a new staff user account policy, prohibiting the use of the same account for both work and non-work purposes. With effect from 15 September 2014, staff are required to segregate their work and non-work activities into separate work and non-work accounts, with the work accounts containing the identifier '(WMF)' in the account name.
2. Eloquence ( talk · contribs) has resigned as an administrator on the English Wikipedia. While this does not prevent him holding staff administrative rights on a designated work account, it does mean that as he resigned the tools while an arbitration case was pending, he may only regain administrative rights on his personal non-work account via a successful request for adminship.
3. The WMF has announced a number of initiatives aimed at improving working practices. This includes a new software implementation protocol which provides for incremental roll-outs of upgrades and new features.
In the light of the foregoing, proceedings in this case are suspended for sixty days and then closed; in the intervening period, the case may be re-activated either by volition of the committee or if fresh issues arise following a successful request at ARCA.
When I voted to accept this case, I did it because I thought that there needed to be a clarification of what the powers of the community were in relation to the roll-out of unwanted new pieces of software. The problem, of course, was that the Foundation had on more than one occasion unprofessionally shoved untested and/or buggy software down the community's throat, only to then ignore the complaints of those who had to actually work with their flawed "features" (even with the Visual Editor, which was actually breaking the wiki, it took exceptional measures to get the Foundation to listen to the community). Needless to say, this was problematic.
Now, if we are to take the Foundation at their word, it appears that their approach shall in future be more professional; as I said earlier, I am still sceptical, but the fact that we may reopen nostra sponte the case allays most of my worries. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
This case was accepted to consider longstanding issues affecting the English Wikipedia community and the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), which came to a head during the implementation of the Media Viewer extension.
Since then, the following has occurred:
1. The WMF has introduced a new staff user account policy, prohibiting the use of the same account for both work and non-work purposes. With effect from 15 September 2014, staff are required to segregate their work and non-work activities into separate work and non-work accounts, with the work accounts containing the identifier '(WMF)' in the account name.
2. Eloquence ( talk · contribs) has resigned as an administrator on the English Wikipedia. While this does not prevent him holding staff administrative rights on a designated work account, it does mean that as he resigned the tools while an arbitration case was pending, he may only regain administrative rights on his personal non-work account via a successful request for adminship.
3. The WMF has announced a number of initiatives aimed at improving working practices. This includes a new software implementation protocol which provides for incremental roll-outs of upgrades and new features.
In the light of the foregoing, this case is closed as moot.
While considering the issues involved in this case it came to the attention of the committee that there are at least a few other WMF employees who have advanced permissions on non-staff accounts yet do no community-related administrative work, although some do use their local permissions for purposes clearly related to their jobs at the foundation.
In lieu of a full case on the matter the committee will undertake a review of all such accounts and will revoke local privileges from staff who do not use them in their role as members of the community. This is not indicative of any judgement of wrongdoing on the part of these individuals, it is simply an enforcement of our already existing policies regarding admin activity. Any such users may resign at any time before the review is complete and any who do resign or have their permissions revoked may apply for them again at WP:RFA and/or WP:RFB at any time after the review is concluded.
A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.
Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.
1) {text of proposed orders}
1) {text of proposed principle}
2) {text of proposed principle}
3) {text of proposed principle}
4) {text of proposed principle}
5) {text of proposed principle}
6) {text of proposed principle}
7) {text of proposed principle}
8) {text of proposed principle}
9) {text of proposed principle}
10) {text of proposed principle}
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
3) {text of proposed finding of fact}
4) {text of proposed finding of fact}
5) {text of proposed finding of fact}
6) {text of proposed finding of fact}
7) {text of proposed finding of fact}
8) {text of proposed finding of fact}
9) {text of proposed finding of fact}
10) {text of proposed finding of fact}
11) {text of proposed finding of fact}
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) {text of proposed remedy}
2) {text of proposed remedy}
3) {text of proposed remedy}
4) {text of proposed remedy}
5) {text of proposed remedy}
6) {text of proposed remedy}
7) {text of proposed remedy}
8) {text of proposed remedy}
9) {text of proposed remedy}
10) {text of proposed remedy}
11) {text of proposed remedy}
12) {text of proposed remedy}
13) {text of proposed remedy}
0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.
0) Appeals and modifications
|
---|
This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.
Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:
No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:
Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes:
|
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
3) {text of proposed enforcement}
4) {text of proposed enforcement}
Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.
Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.
Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support"). 24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close. The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.
Case clerks: Lord Roem ( Talk) & Callanecc ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Carcharoth ( Talk) & GorillaWarfare ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
Track related changes |
After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.
For this case there are 12 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Abstentions | Support votes needed for majority |
---|---|
0 | 7 |
1–2 | 6 |
3–4 | 5 |
If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list.
Under no circumstances may this page be edited, except by members of the Arbitration Committee or the case Clerks. Please submit comment on the proposed decision to the talk page.
Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion. Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.
This case was accepted to consider longstanding issues affecting the English Wikipedia community and the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), which came to a head during the implementation of the Media Viewer extension.
Since then, the following has occurred:
1. The WMF has introduced a new staff user account policy, prohibiting the use of the same account for both work and non-work purposes. With effect from 15 September 2014, staff are required to segregate their work and non-work activities into separate work and non-work accounts, with the work accounts containing the identifier '(WMF)' in the account name.
2. Eloquence ( talk · contribs) has resigned as an administrator on the English Wikipedia. While this does not prevent him holding staff administrative rights on a designated work account, it does mean that as he resigned the tools while an arbitration case was pending, he may only regain administrative rights on his personal non-work account via a successful request for adminship.
3. The WMF has announced a number of initiatives aimed at improving working practices. This includes a new software implementation protocol which provides for incremental roll-outs of upgrades and new features.
In the light of the foregoing, proceedings in this case are suspended for a period of 60 days or until further vote of the Committee.
Watching how things have played out over the last month, I really see the influence of the new executive director at the Foundation. I'm hoping that in 2 months, we'll see the initiatives playing out and we'll be able to close this case. If not, we can carry on with the case. I implore the Foundation to remember who they are working for - For example, the should WMF focus on an obtaining and publishing evidence that new features will have a positive effect. Rather than polls, which show personal bias, the WMF should focus on techniques such as A/B testing based on key metrics to ensure that the right features are enabled.
For now, I'm happy for the committee to watch and wait. WormTT( talk) 09:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
This case was accepted to consider longstanding issues affecting the English Wikipedia community and the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), which came to a head during the implementation of the Media Viewer extension.
Since then, the following has occurred:
1. The WMF has introduced a new staff user account policy, prohibiting the use of the same account for both work and non-work purposes. With effect from 15 September 2014, staff are required to segregate their work and non-work activities into separate work and non-work accounts, with the work accounts containing the identifier '(WMF)' in the account name.
2. Eloquence ( talk · contribs) has resigned as an administrator on the English Wikipedia. While this does not prevent him holding staff administrative rights on a designated work account, it does mean that as he resigned the tools while an arbitration case was pending, he may only regain administrative rights on his personal non-work account via a successful request for adminship.
3. The WMF has announced a number of initiatives aimed at improving working practices. This includes a new software implementation protocol which provides for incremental roll-outs of upgrades and new features.
In the light of the foregoing, proceedings in this case are suspended for sixty days and then closed; in the intervening period, the case may be re-activated either by volition of the committee or if fresh issues arise following a successful request at ARCA.
When I voted to accept this case, I did it because I thought that there needed to be a clarification of what the powers of the community were in relation to the roll-out of unwanted new pieces of software. The problem, of course, was that the Foundation had on more than one occasion unprofessionally shoved untested and/or buggy software down the community's throat, only to then ignore the complaints of those who had to actually work with their flawed "features" (even with the Visual Editor, which was actually breaking the wiki, it took exceptional measures to get the Foundation to listen to the community). Needless to say, this was problematic.
Now, if we are to take the Foundation at their word, it appears that their approach shall in future be more professional; as I said earlier, I am still sceptical, but the fact that we may reopen nostra sponte the case allays most of my worries. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
This case was accepted to consider longstanding issues affecting the English Wikipedia community and the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), which came to a head during the implementation of the Media Viewer extension.
Since then, the following has occurred:
1. The WMF has introduced a new staff user account policy, prohibiting the use of the same account for both work and non-work purposes. With effect from 15 September 2014, staff are required to segregate their work and non-work activities into separate work and non-work accounts, with the work accounts containing the identifier '(WMF)' in the account name.
2. Eloquence ( talk · contribs) has resigned as an administrator on the English Wikipedia. While this does not prevent him holding staff administrative rights on a designated work account, it does mean that as he resigned the tools while an arbitration case was pending, he may only regain administrative rights on his personal non-work account via a successful request for adminship.
3. The WMF has announced a number of initiatives aimed at improving working practices. This includes a new software implementation protocol which provides for incremental roll-outs of upgrades and new features.
In the light of the foregoing, this case is closed as moot.
While considering the issues involved in this case it came to the attention of the committee that there are at least a few other WMF employees who have advanced permissions on non-staff accounts yet do no community-related administrative work, although some do use their local permissions for purposes clearly related to their jobs at the foundation.
In lieu of a full case on the matter the committee will undertake a review of all such accounts and will revoke local privileges from staff who do not use them in their role as members of the community. This is not indicative of any judgement of wrongdoing on the part of these individuals, it is simply an enforcement of our already existing policies regarding admin activity. Any such users may resign at any time before the review is complete and any who do resign or have their permissions revoked may apply for them again at WP:RFA and/or WP:RFB at any time after the review is concluded.
A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.
Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.
1) {text of proposed orders}
1) {text of proposed principle}
2) {text of proposed principle}
3) {text of proposed principle}
4) {text of proposed principle}
5) {text of proposed principle}
6) {text of proposed principle}
7) {text of proposed principle}
8) {text of proposed principle}
9) {text of proposed principle}
10) {text of proposed principle}
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
3) {text of proposed finding of fact}
4) {text of proposed finding of fact}
5) {text of proposed finding of fact}
6) {text of proposed finding of fact}
7) {text of proposed finding of fact}
8) {text of proposed finding of fact}
9) {text of proposed finding of fact}
10) {text of proposed finding of fact}
11) {text of proposed finding of fact}
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) {text of proposed remedy}
2) {text of proposed remedy}
3) {text of proposed remedy}
4) {text of proposed remedy}
5) {text of proposed remedy}
6) {text of proposed remedy}
7) {text of proposed remedy}
8) {text of proposed remedy}
9) {text of proposed remedy}
10) {text of proposed remedy}
11) {text of proposed remedy}
12) {text of proposed remedy}
13) {text of proposed remedy}
0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.
0) Appeals and modifications
|
---|
This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.
Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:
No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:
Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes:
|
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
3) {text of proposed enforcement}
4) {text of proposed enforcement}
Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.
Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.
Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support"). 24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close. The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.