This is an archive of past discussions. 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 talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 |
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
This case shall be suspended from December 22nd, 2015 to January 2nd, 2016.
For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias ( T)( C) 20:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
By motion of the Arbitration Committee at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment:
Nadirali ( talk · contribs)'s topic ban from "India, Pakistan and Afghanistan broadly construed" that is part of their unban conditions is suspended for a period of one year. During the period of suspension, this topic ban may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator as an arbitration enforcement action should Nadirali fail to adhere to Wikipedia editing standards in the area previously covered by the topic ban. Appeal of such a reinstatement would follow the normal arbitration enforcement appeals process. After one year from the date of passage of this motion, if the topic ban has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the topic ban will be lifted.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 ( T) 21:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
In accordance with the standing procedure on inactivity, the oversight permissions of
are removed. The committee thanks them for their service. The committee would also like to thank DoRD ( talk · contribs), who recently resigned from the checkuser and oversight teams, for his many years of service.
The Arbitration Committee has voted to restore the Checkuser tools to User:Beeblebrox and welcomes him back to the Checkuser team.
The Arbitration enforcement 2 arbitration case ( t) ( ev / t) ( w / t) ( pd / t) has been closed, and the following remedies have been enacted:
1.1) The Arbitration Committee confirms the sanctions imposed on Eric Corbett as a result of the Interactions at GGTF case, but mandates that all enforcement requests relating to them be filed at arbitration enforcement and be kept open for at least 24 hours.
3) For his breaches of the standards of conduct expected of editors and administrators, Black Kite is admonished.
6) The community is reminded that discretionary sanctions have been authorised for any page relating to or any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 ( T) 02:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
The committee has resolved by motion that:
For the Arbitration Committee, Mdann52 ( talk) 09:03, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
The committee welcomes the following arbitrators following their election by the community. Their term formally begins on 01 January 2016:
All of the above will be issued with the checkuser and oversight permissions except where noted and pre-existing rights holders. We also thank our outgoing colleagues whose term ends on 31 December 2015:
The stewards are asked to remove both CU and OS from all of the outgoing arbitrators on 01 January except where explicitly noted above. Outgoing arbitrators are eligible to remain active on cases opened before their term ended; this will be clarified at the proposed decision talk page of affected cases. By their request, all of the outgoing arbitrators (i), except AGK, are remaining on the functionaries' mailing list and (ii), except AGK, are staying on after 31 December to conclude existing business.
For the Arbitration Committee, Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:34, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
1) Catflap08 ( talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to Nichiren Buddhism and its adherents, broadly construed. Appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.
2.1) Subject to the usual exceptions, Catflap08 is prohibited from making any more than one revert on any one page in any 24-hour period. This applies for all pages on the English Wikipedia, except Catflap08's own user space. This restriction may be appealed to the Committee only after 12 months have elapsed from the closing of this case.
3) Hijiri88 ( talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to Nichiren Buddhism and its adherents, broadly construed. Appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.
4) Hijiri88 is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to Japanese culture. Appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.
5) Subject to the usual exceptions, Hijiri88 is prohibited from making any more than one revert on any one page in any 24-hour period. This applies for all pages on the English Wikipedia, except Hijiri88's own user space. This restriction may be appealed to the Committee only after 12 months have elapsed from the closing of this case.
6.1) TH1980 ( talk · contribs) and Hijiri88 are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).
The Arbitration Committee is pleased to announce that DoRD is regranted the checkuser and oversight permissions that he resigned earlier this year.
Support: Courcelles, GorillaWarfare, Seraphimblade, Euryalus, Salvio giuliano, Guerillero, LFaraone, DeltaQuad
For the Arbitration Committee,
Courcelles ( talk) 01:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
The committee has resolved Palestine-Israel articles 1RR by motion that:
Passed 10 to 0 by motion on 7:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
For the Arbitration Committee, Mdann52 ( talk) 08:13, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
DrChrissy's topic ban which currently states that " DrChrissy ( talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified plants and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed" is replaced with "DrChrissy is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals, and the companies that produce them, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed."
For the Arbitration Committee Amortias ( T)( C) 23:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
For off-wiki harassment, the administrator permissions of
Soap are revoked. Additionally, he is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia.
Support: Courcelles, DGG, Guerillero, Euryalus, Doug Weller, GorillaWarfare, Salvio giuliano, LFaraone, Roger Davies, Seraphimblade
Oppose: DeltaQuad
Abstain: Thryduulf
For the Arbitration Committee;
Courcelles ( talk) 01:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
In response to community feedback regarding ban announcements, the text of the preceding announcement (
permalink to original) is hereby replaced with the following:
The Arbitration Committee has been provided evidence that administrator Soap has been engaged in conduct that violates the Wikipedia Harassment Policy. These actions occurred outside of the English Wikipedia. The evidence was provided to the Arbitration committee in confidence; therefore, in compliance with the WMF Privacy Policy and the Access to nonpublic information policy, the Arbitration Committee is unable to reveal additional information regarding the nature of the policy violation(s).
As a result, the administrator permissions of Soap are revoked. Additionally, Soap is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. He may request reconsideration of the ban six months after the original motion was announced, and every six months thereafter. Upon successful appeal of this ban, Soap may only regain his administrative tools following approval from the Arbitration Committee, and a successful Request for Adminship.
Revised text posted by Opabinia regalis ( talk) 07:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
In remedy 8.5 of the GamerGate case,
The Devil's Advocate was 'strongly warned that should future misconduct occur in any topic area, he may be banned from the English Wikipedia by motion of the Arbitration Committee.' Accordingly, for continuing harassment of other editors, The Devil's Advocate is banned indefinitely from the English Wikipedia. He may request reconsideration of the ban six months after this motion passes, and every six months thereafter.
Support: DGG, Courcelles, Guerillero, Keilana, Opabinia regalis, Doug Weller, Kirill Lokshin
Recuse: GorillaWarfare, Gamaliel
For the Arbitration Committee,
Keilana ( talk) 02:50, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
In response to community feedback regarding ban announcements, the text of the preceding announcement ( permalink to original) is hereby replaced with the following:
In remedy 8.5 of the GamerGate case, The Devil's Advocate was strongly warned that should future misconduct occur in any topic area, he may be banned from the English Wikipedia by motion of the Arbitration Committee. In a separate incident occurring since this remedy was enacted, it was found that The Devil's Advocate has engaged in conduct that violates the Wikipedia Harassment Policy. This policy violation arose during a block, and used means outside of Wikipedia. In compliance with the WMF Privacy Policy and the Access to nonpublic information policy, the Arbitration Committee is unable to reveal additional information regarding the nature of the policy violation(s).
As a result, the Devil's Advocate is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. He may request reconsideration of the ban six months after the original motion was announced, and every six months thereafter.
Revised text posted by Opabinia regalis ( talk) 07:56, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee Audit Subcommittee (AUSC) is hereby disbanded. Any complaints related to misuse of the advanced permissions CheckUser or Oversight (suppression) will henceforth be investigated by the Arbitration Committee as a whole. Complaints can be forwarded to the Arbitration Committee via the Arbitration Committee mailing list (arbcom-l). In the event of a committee member being the subject of the complaint, the complaint may be forwarded to any individual committee member. That committee member will initiate a discussion on one of the alternate mailing lists, with the committee member who is the subject of the complaint unsubscribed from the list for the duration of the discussion. Over the course of the investigation, the Arbitration Committee may draw upon the experience of members of the functionaries team to aid in the investigation.
Support: kelapstick, Doug Weller, Keilana, Drmies, GorillaWarfare, DGG, Opabinia regalis, Kirill Lokshin, Salvio giuliano, Courcelles, Guerillero, Callanecc, Cas Liber
For the Arbitration Committee, Doug Weller talk 16:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
AUSC community members who do not hold CU and OS tools in their own right are given them during their period on AUSC. As their terms have now expired, the checkuser permissions of:
and the oversight permission of:
are removed. The committee thanks them for their service.
Support: Doug Weller, DGG, Kelapstick, Callanecc, Opabinia regalis, Drmies, Gamaliel, Guerillero, Salvio giuliano
For the Arbitration Committee, Doug Weller talk 16:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
"This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above."
The following remedies have been enacted
4) For consistently poor judgment in undertaking administrative actions following a formal admonishment, Kevin Gorman is desysopped. He may regain the administrative tools at any time via a successful request for adminship. Passed 13 to 2 at 17:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
For the Arbitration Committee Amortias ( T)( C) 18:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
For the Arbitration Committee, Mini apolis 14:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
A motion has been posted at Arbitration requests/motions that Floquenbeam ( talk · contribs), who resigned from the Arbitration Committee and voluntarily gave up the Oversight permission in July 2014, is re-appointed an Oversighter following a request to the Committee for the permission to be restored.
Comment from the community is encouraged either at the above linked page or via e-mail to the Arbitration Committee if the comment is private or sensitive.
For the Arbitration Committee. Amortias ( T)( C) 00:04, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions that:
Floquenbeam ( talk · contribs), who resigned from the Arbitration Committee and voluntarily gave up the Oversight permission in July 2014, is reappointed an Oversighter following a request to the Committee for the permission to be restored.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 ( T) 00:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
A motion has been enacted in lieu of a full case. For the Arbitration Committee, Mini apolis 18:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee is pleased to announce that Ks0stm ( talk · contribs) is returning to the arbitration clerk team as a full clerk, effective immediately. We thank Ks0stm and the entire clerk team for their dedication and helpfulness.
For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 00:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
We are pleased to confirm trainees Amortias ( talk · contribs) and Miniapolis ( talk · contribs) as arbitration clerks, effective immediately.
We also express our thanks and gratitude to all the arbitration clerks for their diligent assistance with the arbitration process. For the Arbitration Committee, -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
In accordance with the standing procedure on inactivity, the checkuser permissions of Deskana ( talk · contribs) are removed. The committee thanks them for their service.
For the Arbitration Committee, -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 04:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
The following is an ArbCom internal process. It supplements the ArbCom procedure on CheckUser/Oversight permissions and inactivity.
For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 23:27, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
The Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case ( t) ( ev / t) ( w / t) ( pd / t) has been amended by motion of the Arbitration Committee as follows:
Remedy 2 (General Prohibition) is replaced with, "All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This prohibition may be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters."
For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 ( T) 14:06, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Following a successful appeal to the Committee the October 2013 amendment to the Race and intelligence case is rescinded and Mathsci ( talk · contribs) is unbanned from the English Wikipedia. The unban has been granted on the condition that Mathsci continue to refrain from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to the race and intelligence topic area, broadly construed. This is to be enforced as a standard topic ban. The following editing restrictions are in force indefinitely:
This motion is to be enforced under the enforcement clauses of the Race and intelligence case.
For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 12:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee is considering a series of motions regarding the 'extendedconfirmed' user group and associated protection levels seeking to determine logistical and administrative issues arising from the implementation of the new usergroup. Your comments would be appreciated at the below link. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 14:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee is pleased to announce that Kharkiv07 ( talk · contribs) is appointed a full clerk.
We also express our thanks and gratitude to all of the arbitration clerks for their diligent assistance with the arbitration process. The arbitration clerk team is often in need of new members, and any editor who would like to join the clerk team is welcome to apply by e-mail to clerks-llists.wikimedia.org.
For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 10:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Following a successful appeal, the amendment to the Ottava Rima restrictions case is rescinded, and Ottava Rima ( talk · contribs) is unbanned. His participation on the English Wikipedia is strictly limited to:
Additionally, he is limited to one revert on a single page in any 24 hour period ( 1RR), subject to the standard exemptions. Any edits outside of these boundaries are violations of the unban conditions, as is the use of the Wikipedia email feature.
Anyone found to be goading or baiting him may be two-way interaction banned, as an arbitration enforcement action, for no longer than one month. Enforcement blocks (including of Ottava) may be no longer than three days for the first block, and up to one month for repeated violations.
Should Ottava violate these restrictions he may be blocked, as an arbitration enforcement action, for up to one month for the first violation by a consensus of uninvolved administrators. If, after the first block, he violates the restrictions again, the siteban may be reinstated by a consensus of uninvolved administrators and he is to be blocked indefinitely with no email or talk page access.
For the Arbitration Committee, GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
In a 2005 arbitration case, User:CarlHewitt - who is the noted computer scientist of that name - was banned from editing content about himself or his own work (Remedy 1) and was placed on probation (Remedy 2). Following the case, he was found to have engaged in repeated sockpuppetry in violation of those restrictions and was indefinitely blocked in 2009.
Remedy 2 of the Carl Hewitt case is rescinded and his indefinite block is lifted. Carl Hewitt is permitted to edit under the following conditions:
Violations of any of the above may be managed by blocks as arbitration enforcement actions. Disruptive or tendentious contributions by IP users to the articles or talk pages related to Prof. Hewitt may be managed by blocks and/or protection as needed, and editors are encouraged not to engage in conversation with such users. The standard provisions for enforcement and appeals and modifications applies to sanctions enforcing this decision, all sanctions are to be logged on the case page.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by two motions that:
(1) In the 2013 Infoboxes case, User:Pigsonthewing was subject to editing restrictions which were subsequently revised in a case review in March 2015. With this motion, remedies 1.1 and 3 of the 2015 Infoboxes Review are rescinded. Pigsonthewing is cautioned that the topic of infoboxes remains contentious under some circumstances and that he should edit carefully in this area.
(2) With this motion, remedy 2 of the 2015 Infoboxes Review is rescinded.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 05:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Per his request, communicated off-wiki to the Committee, Gamaliel is indefinitely restricted from taking any action to enforce any arbitration decision within the GamerGate topic, broadly construed. Any violation of this motion must be reported to WP:ARCA. He may appeal this decision after 12 months to the Arbitration Committee.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:16, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Appeals of blocks that have been marked by an oversighter as oversight blocks should be sent to the oversight team via email (Oversight-llists.wikimedia.org) to be decided by the English Wikipedia oversighters, or to the Arbitration Committee. Blocks may still be marked by the blocking oversighter as appealable only to the Arbitration Committee, per the 2010 statement, in which case appeals must only be directed to the Arbitration Committee.
Enacted - Mini apolis 15:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
The Doncram arbitration case is amended as follows:
For the Arbitration Committee, Mini apolis 13:29, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
The arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been passed:
For the Arbitration Committee, Mini apolis 19:54, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
On April 5, the rollout of the new extendedconfirmed
user group began. This group is being automatically applied to accounts meeting both of the following criteria: at least 500 edits, registered at least 30 days ago. A corresponding new protection level, currently called "extended confirmed protection", has been implemented that restricts editing to members of this user group.
extendedconfirmed
user group can be added by administrators to accounts that do not yet meet the criteria. A process for requesting this has been set up
here, intended primarily to handle the case of publicly identified
legitimate alternative accounts of users whose primary accounts do meet the criteria.
Notes
extendedconfirmed
user group as a discretionary sanction.extendedconfirmed
user group as means of bypassing defined arbitration enforcement procedures (for example, removing the user group as a normal administrative action to avoid banning an editor from the
Gamergate controversy article).For the Arbitration Committee, Mini apolis 17:55, 15 May 2016 (UTC) Edited per clerks-l, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:56, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Gamaliel has resigned as an arbitrator because he is currently unable to edit the English Wikipedia and is therefore entirely inactive as an arbitrator. This has come about as a result of circumstances which have been disclosed to the Committee, and which in no way reflect negatively on him. We thank Gamaliel for his service on the 2016 Committee to date and wish him the best.
For the Arbitration Committee, Opabinia regalis ( talk) 03:04, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
An arbitration case regarding Gamaliel and others has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 03:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
The Clerks of the Arbitration Committee are looking for a script writer who will work with the clerk team to automate portions of the clerks' procedures. If you are a skilled script writer and are interested in working with us, please email the clerk team at clerks-llists.wikimedia.org.
For the Clerks of the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 05:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
We are pleased to confirm trainee Mdann52 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a full arbitration clerk, effective immediately.
We also express our thanks and gratitude to all the arbitration clerks for their diligent assistance with the arbitration process. For the Arbitration Committee, Opabinia regalis ( talk) 07:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Pursuant to this announcement, the arbitration clerks appoint the following editors as the clerks' script developers:
Future announcements and coordination will occur at the clerks' noticeboard. The clerks would like to thank the script developers in advance. Any editor interested in assisting with automation, as described in this announcement, is welcome to email the clerk team at clerks-llists.wikimedia.org.
For the Clerks of the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
In August 2015, the administrator privileges of Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) were revoked under the Level I desysop procedure, which is intended as a temporary measure. The Arbitration Committee has satisfied itself that the account was not compromised and that any ongoing disruption at the time has ceased. Accordingly, we affirm that Malik Shabazz may be resysopped at his request at any time.
For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 13:43, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
By motion of the Arbitration Committee;
The sanctions placed on Rich Farmbrough as part of the Rich Farmbrough arbitration case ( t) ( ev / t) ( w / t) ( pd / t) are rescinded. For clarity this includes remedy 2 which prohibited Rich Farmbrough from using automation and clause B in the June 2012 amendment.If the bot approval group sees it fit, they may also revoke all previous bot requests without the authorization of the Committee.
It is noted that the original community sanctions are not affected by this motion as they were placed by the community.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 ( T) 18:41, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
The committee would like to remind administrators of the following provision of the blocking policy:
If a user needs to be blocked based on information that will not be made available to all administrators, that information should be sent to the Arbitration Committee or a Checkuser or oversighter for action. These editors are qualified to handle non-public evidence, and they operate under strict controls. The community has rejected the idea of individual administrators acting on evidence that cannot be peer-reviewed.
If a situation arises in which private evidence (e.g. emails) is relevant, please refer the participants to arbcom (arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org) or to the functionaries list (functionaries-enlists.wikimedia.org) for review.
For the Arbitration Committee, Opabinia regalis ( talk) 21:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
By motion of the Arbitration Committee:
In addition, the topic ban will be reinstated should GoodDay be validly blocked by any uninvolved administrator for misconduct related to diacritics, broadly construed. Such a reinstatement may only be appealed to the Arbitration Committee. After one year from the date of passage of this motion, if the ban has not been reinstated, or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the topic ban will be vacated.
For the Arbitration Committee, Mini apolis 17:28, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
Ferahgo the Assassin ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was topic-banned from the race and intelligence topic area in October 2010, site-banned in May 2012, and unbanned with editing restrictions in March 2014.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 02:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has resolved to perform a round of Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The arbitrators overseeing this will be DeltaQuad and Opabinia regalis. This year, the usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will be requested to assist in the vetting process.
The Committee is bound by a Wikimedia Foundation policy that only those editors who have passed an RfA or equivalent process may be appointed, therefore only administrators may be considered. The Committee encourages interested administrators to apply, and invites holders of one tool to apply for the other.
The timeline shall be as follows:
For the Arbitration Committee, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee is currently seeking candidates for CheckUser and Oversight appointments. As a reminder to interested editors, completed application questionnaires are due by email at 23:59 UTC, 20 September 2016. Please contact the committee at arbcom-en-clists.wikimedia.org to request a questionnaire or if you have any questions about the process. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 07:07, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Following an appeal to the arbitration committee, TeeTylerToe's block (originating in this ANI thread) is modified to restore talk page access and permit appeals through normal community channels including UTRS and the {{ unblock}} template. He is strongly advised to carefully consider the concerns that have been raised about his editing before attempting to appeal. This does not prohibit decline of appeals by any community mechanism or withdrawal of talk page access should problems arise.
The committee emphasizes that block appeals are an important component of community dispute resolution processes and should not be withdrawn without compelling evidence that appeal channels are likely to be abused. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 21:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
In accordance with the procedures on functionary activity and removal of permissions for inactivity, the CheckUser permission Coren ( talk · contribs) are removed. The Committee would also like to acknowledge Euryalus ( talk · contribs) who resigned from the oversight team as well as FloNight ( talk · contribs) and Roger Davies ( talk · contribs) who resigned from the checkuser and oversight teams. The Committee extends its sincere thanks to these users for their years of service.
For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 10:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
For abuse of multiple accounts and failure to remain accountable, Ricky81682 is desysoped and may regain the tools via a successful request for adminship.
Between July 13, 2016 and August 7th, Ricky:
Some accounts were blocked at the time for separate reasons. In emails with the committee, Ricky has evaded scrutiny and accountability. His explanation did not adequately address the technical and behavioral evidence.
For the Arbitration Committee, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 10:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee is seeking community feedback on a proposal to modify the ArbCom procedure on Removal of permissions. Your comments are welcome at the motion page. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 15:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
An arbitration case regarding The Rambling man has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
Nothing in this remedy prevents enforcement of policy by uninvolved administrators in the usual way.
For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ( T• C• G• E) 05:00, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee is pleased to appoint the following users to the functionary team:
The Committee would like to thank the community and all the candidates for bringing this process to a successful conclusion. The Arbitration Committee welcomes the following users back to the functionary team:
Opabinia regalis ( talk) 04:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
In May 2015 administrator Zad68 imposed extended confirmed protection of Talk:Gamergate controversy as a discretionary sanction in response to this AE request. The Arbitration Committee notes that Zad68 is currently inactive so the sanction cannot be modified without consensus or Committee action. Therefore the Committee lifts the discretionary sanction on Talk:Gamergate controversy (not the article) to allow the community to modify the protection level in accordance with the Wikipedia:Protection policy.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
Point 4 (Doncram restricted) of the the motion in May 2016 is suspended for a period of six months. During the period of suspension, this restriction may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator as an arbitration enforcement action should Doncram fail to adhere to Wikipedia editing standards in the National Register of Historic Places topic area, broadly construed. Appeal of such a reinstatement would follow the normal arbitration enforcement appeals process. After six months from the date this motion is enacted, if the restriction has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the restriction will automatically lapse.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:03, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Self-nominations for the 2016 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections are officially open. The nomination period runs from Sunday 00:00, 6 November (UTC) until Tuesday 23:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC). Editors interested in running should review the eligibility criteria listed at the top of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016/Candidates then create a candidate page following the instructions there. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 00:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Cross-posted: For the Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 13:49, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee Elections is now open through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016. If you wish to participate, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mz7 ( talk) 04:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Cross-posted: For the Committee, Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:29, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
For the purpose of scrutineering the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections, stewards User:Einsbor, User:Mardetanha, and User:Stryn, 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. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 21:22, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
In the past year, Darkfrog24 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been subject to a series of Arbitration Enforcement actions under the discretionary sanctions authorized in the Article Titles and Capitalisation case. In January 2016, Darkfrog24 was topic-banned from from articles, discussions, and guidelines, explicitly including the manual of style, related to quotation marks and quotation styles, broadly interpreted, following an AE request. In February this topic ban was broadened to encompass the Manual of Style and related topics following another AE request. Later that month, they were blocked indefinitely "until they either understand the terms of the tban or agree to stop disruptively relitigating it" after a third AE request. They were unblocked to participate in an appeal to ARCA in April 2016, which was declined by the Arbitration Committee. The block was lifted again in November 2016 to permit the present ARCA appeal.
The Committee notes that Darkfrog24 disputes some elements of the original AE filings. We emphasize that imposing an AE sanction requires only that a reviewing admin finds sufficient disruption to warrant action and is not an endorsement of every individual claim that may be made by the filer. After review of the current appeal, we find that there is no evidence in favor of lifting or modifying the topic ban, and the disruptive behavior, in the form of repeated relitigation of the circumstances of the topic ban, has continued. The appeal is declined and the block will be reinstated. They may appeal again in three months (one year from the original indefinite block). They are very strongly advised to focus that appeal on their future editing interests in topics well separated from the subjects of their topic ban, and to appeal the topic ban itself only after establishing a successful record of productive contributions in other areas.
Remedy 5: Fæ banned (March 2013) – in which Fae was unblocked with the conditions that he was topic banned from editing BLPs relating to sexuality, broadly construed
as well as topic banned from images relating to sexuality, broadly construed
– is suspended for a period of six months. During the period of suspension, this restriction may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator as an arbitration enforcement action should Fæ fail to adhere to Wikipedia editing standards in these areas, broadly construed. Appeal of such a reinstatement would follow the normal arbitration enforcement appeals process. After six months from the date this motion is enacted, if the restriction has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the restriction will automatically lapse.
For the Arbitration Committee, Mini apolis 23:48, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
The ArbCom election results have been posted. 7 Arbs have been elected in total, all on two year terms. You can review the results in full here.
For the Election Commission, Mdann52 ( talk) 22:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
FloNight ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who voluntarily resigned her checkuser and oversight permissions in September 2016, is reappointed as a checkuser and oversighter following a request to the committee for the return of both permissions.
For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 09:59, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
Every so often, it becomes reasonable to terminate sanctions that are no longer necessary,
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:59, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
The committee welcomes the following new and returning arbitrators following their election by the community. Their two-year terms formally begin on 01 January 2017:
All of these arbitrators will also receive (or retain, where applicable) the Checkuser and Oversight permissions. We also thank our outgoing colleagues whose terms end on 31 December 2016:
Departing arbitrators will retain their Checkuser and Oversight rights and will remain subscribed to the Functionaries' mailing list. In addition, departing arbitrators will be eligible to remain active on any pending arbitration cases that were opened before the end of the their term; if this provision becomes relevant this year, a notation will be made on the relevant case page or pages. For the Arbitration Committee, Opabinia regalis ( talk) 06:00, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
North8000 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was site-banned in 2014 in the Gun Control case. He was topic-banned from the gun control topic area in the same case. Prior to this, he had been topic-banned from the subject of the Tea Party movement in the Tea Party case in 2013, and had agreed to a one-year voluntary restriction from the homophobia article and its talk page in 2012. North8000 is unbanned with the following restrictions:
These restrictions are to be enforced under the standard enforcement and appeals and modifications provisions and may be appealed to the committee after six months.
Opabinia regalis ( talk) 19:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
Remedy 2 (General Prohibition) is modified to read as follows:
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 04:26, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
The general 1RR restriction in the Palestine-Israel articles case is modified to read as follows:
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Captain Occam ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was topic-banned from race and intelligence related articles in the Race and Intelligence case in 2010. Captain Occam was blocked for one year as an Arbitration Enforcement action in 2011 under the discretionary sanctions authorized in the Abortion case. In the 2012 Review of the R&I case, Occam and Ferahgo the Assassin ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who shared an IP and who were found to be proxying for one another, were both site-banned. Ferahgo was unbanned in March 2014. Following a successful appeal, Captain Occam is unbanned under the following restrictions:
Captain Occam and Ferahgo the Assassin are reminded that tag-team editing, account sharing, and canvassing are not permitted. These restrictions are to be enforced under the standard enforcement and appeals and modifications provisions and may be appealed to the committee after six months.
Opabinia regalis ( talk) 05:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
Mathsci ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was unbanned in April 2016 under the condition that he
refrain from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to the race and intelligence topic area, broadly construed. This restriction is now rescinded. The interaction bans to which Mathsci is a party remain in force.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Yunshui ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), voluntarily retired in November 2015. Their checkuser and oversight permissions were removed without prejudice against requesting reinstatement in the future. They are reappointed as a checkuser and oversighter following a request to the committee for the return of both permissions.
For the Arbitration Committee, Mkdw talk 16:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has a number of concerns about the advisory statement about paid editing and private information released by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal team. Although we understand that many within both the WMF and the community want to crack down on undisclosed paid editing in an effective way, several aspects of the statement require awareness and discussion.
The Arbitration Committee, as individuals and as a body, has a great deal of experience with how private information disclosures actually occur in a community setting. The Wikipedia harassment policy, which prohibits the disclosure of other editors' personal information without their consent, reflects over a decade of accumulated experience and institutional knowledge about this precise problem. That knowledge has been hard-won, and in many cases has come at the expense of dedicated and productive volunteers whose personal information was exposed by others. While many of the people who chose to reveal that information strongly believed they were justified in doing so, this does not mitigate the damage they did or the fact that volunteers were hurt as a result of their participation in the project.
The views outlined in this statement are significantly weaker than the protections the community has historically provided against online harassment and disclosure of editors' personal information. We are aware that the Wikimedia Foundation, like the Arbitration Committee and most Wikimedians, is also concerned about the harassment of community members, and we appreciate the Board's statement of a few weeks ago on this issue. We are concerned, however, about tensions between the current statement on paid editing and the Foundation's other work on harassment issues. For example, the Terms of Use FAQ includes "Harassment should also be avoided. For example, under the English Wikipedia policy on harassment, users must not publicly share personal information about other users." The current draft of the harassment training module being developed by the WMF reads in part, "Cases of deliberate PII [personally identifying information] release might include an attempt to 'out' another editor, perhaps to link their account to a purported employer." These materials collectively make clear that releasing personally identifying information about another user without the user's consent should be considered harassment. Except perhaps in extraordinary circumstances, this position has our support.
According to the statement, "if someone is editing for a company and fails to disclose it, an admin properly posting that person’s company where it is relevant to an investigation is helping bring the account into compliance with those requirements." The Arbitration Committee and community policy do not consider posting such information to be a specific responsibility of administrators, nor do we believe that the threat of posting such information should be used as a means to bring editors into compliance. In our opinion, the harassment training material quoted above is correct in defining such posts as inappropriate. Being doxxed and treated in ways the community has defined as harassment is not a reasonable consequence of noncompliance with a website's terms of use, particularly where no distinction is made between isolated, minor, or debatable violations as opposed to pervasive and severe ones.
This statement suggests an almost unbounded exemption to the outing policy to allow people to post public information on any individual they believe is engaging in undisclosed paid editing. Furthermore, the statement does not define or limit what may be considered "public information". Combined with the addendum that this kind of investigation could be applied to address disruption outside of paid editing, such as sockpuppetry, this advice if broadly interpreted would practically nullify the existing anti-outing policy.
We are also concerned that the statement does not clarify the existing definition of paid editing, which is vague and susceptible to multiple readings. We understand that the core concern about paid editing involves large-scale enterprises offering paid Wikipedia editing services as a business model, and if it applied exclusively in that context, the recent WMF statement would be much more understandable, although it would still raise issues worthy of discussion. But it is not at all clear that the statement, or the intent underlying it, are limited to that context. If read broadly, the current definition of "paid editing" may include editing for one's employer or an organization one is affiliated with, even if no money changes hands in return for the editing. Moreover, "editing one's employer's article" could mean anything ranging from correcting a typo on the employer's article, at one extreme, to creating or maintaining a blatantly promotional article as part of a PR department's job responsibilities, on the other. It is not clear where on this continuum, if anywhere, a user becomes a "paid editor" whose activities people feel violate the TOU and are subject to exposure. Further to this, the definition of "company" in the statement is unclear. It could refer to either a paid editing business specifically, or refer to any company which is the subject of a Wikipedia article.
There is a difference between a major paid editing ring that has created or is seeking to create hundreds of promotional articles about non-notable subjects as part of a major business enterprise, and other scenarios that could be called "paid editing" which should be discouraged, but not through draconian means. Consider, for example, a hypothetical college student who makes the ill-advised decision to write an article about a friend's company in return for $25. They would be violating the COI policy and the TOU, but are not a major threat to the wiki. We worry that the statement does not include any advice for proportional responses based on the severity or extent of undisclosed paid editing.
The statement also does not take into account the possibility of intentional misuse or gaming to harass innocent editors. We have seen repeated malicious attempts (so-called false flags or "joe-jobs") to incriminate editors for paid editing, and this would make it trivial for harassers to out their targets under the guise of stopping a paid editor. Malicious outing is not a rare occurrence and numerous editors — including several current WMF staff — have been the victims of outing and the threat of it.
Finally, we are concerned about a statement like this posted locally on the project with the perceived force of authority of Wikimedia Legal, even though it has been tagged as an essay and described as advisory, not as policy. We expect that some editors will interpret this as binding and lean on it as a justification to publish information on-wiki that previously was, and still is by policy, prohibited harassment. Any current policies that do not align with the views expressed in this statement will likely be challenged as contradicting Wikimedia Foundation's Legal team. This seems to be a substantial departure from the historic relationship between the Wikimedia Foundation's Legal team and the communities of the projects for which it is responsible, when it comes to matters that are not under Wikimedia Legal's direct purview. The paid editing and harassment policies are up to the local community to decide, and we hope that they will consider the statement carefully when making any changes. In the future, we feel a more discussion-based format such as an RfC would be a better way to provide input on local policies without the risk of statements being interpreted as binding.
The Arbitration Committee appreciates that the Wikimedia Foundation Legal team sought our feedback on an early version of this document, and accepted a portion of that feedback. The committee hopes this feedback is equally welcome. Furthermore we extend an invitation to the Legal team, and to any other interested community member, to commence a request for comments on this matter if they believe any aspect of local policy needs modification, in accordance with the consensus-building method the English Wikipedia has used for many years to develop local policy.
Signed,
Statements from individual arbitrators may follow.
I agree with many of the concerns that my fellow arbitrators have raised in their statement above, but am posting separately to frame specific issues requiring discussion and analysis.
Undisclosed paid editing is detrimental to Wikimedia projects. Our editing model relies primarily on volunteers, whose editing decisions are ordinarily not guided by personal financial considerations. Paid editors, on the other hand, may have a financial incentive to disregard basic Wikipedia policies, such as that only notable subjects should have articles, and that all articles must be written neutrally and non-promotionally. The problem is only compounded where the paid editing is undisclosed.
But at the same time, another longstanding and fundamental Wikipedia value is that editors may control how much of their personal identifying information, if any, they wish to share. Disclosing another editor's identifying information without his or her consent, or unnecessarily publicizing such information, is a serious violation of English Wikipedia policy and community expectations. Years of experience confirm that "outing" or "doxing" of editors, or the threat of doing so, drives editors away from contributing, thus damaging both the encyclopedia, and the community that creates and maintains the encyclopedia. To the extent that any exceptions to the anti-"outing" policy can ever be warranted, they would be very rare, and reserved for extraordinary circumstances in which there is no other way to deal with a severe and persistent pattern of grave misconduct.
There is an obvious and long-recognized tension between our policies allowing anonymous editing and those disallowing undisclosed paid editing (and disfavoring undisclosed COI editing more generally). However, policy and community norms ordinarily disallow disclosing other editors' personal information on-wiki as an appropriate means of dealing with user misconduct, whether the misconduct consists of suspected paid editing or anything else.
The WMF legal statement correctly observes that warning or, if necessary, blocking users and modifying or deleting articles is the first step in dealing with inappropriate or promotional articles. However, it goes on to state that "some degree of transparency in investigations" of undisclosed paid editing is warranted. It is not clear how broadly the statement proposes to step away from the anti-"outing"/"doxxing"/disclosure policies that have served English Wikipedia well for the past 15 years, in the interest of combatting paid editing.
Subject to the WMF Office's role in providing guidance regarding legal issues and some basic expectations of user behavior, it is the English Wikipedia community's role to set policy and guidelines for our project—and I believe the WMF recognizes this fact. If the community were to consider modifying policy and practice in this arena, it would have to address at least the following issues:
None of us want a Wikipedia overrun by paid promotional editing. But I also hope that few of us want a Wikipedia in which editors' identifying information may be posted on-wiki—if at all—without the utmost of serious consideration and cause.
I think it's fair to say that a many of editors are concerned about undisclosed paid editing and the effect it is having on the English Wikipedia. We have all worked hard to make the English Wikipedia what it is today and to see it being undermined without the means or tools to counter it has been frustrating. To me, the central problem and barrier has been that 'undisclosed paid editing' includes an unreasonably wide range of cases with two types on either end:
The second example could be a substitute teacher fixing a typo on an article about the school district in which they work. WMF Legal verified, elsewhere, that such an occasion would constitute undisclosed paid editing (an interpretation I am not sure is represented in the ToU and accompanying FAQ). In this example, the teacher is paid to be a teacher — not for their edits to Wikipedia — but because there is potentially a monetary benefit linked to their edits, according to WMF Legal, this is undisclosed paid editing.
I have absolutely no interest in going after editors even remotely in the same ballpark as the second example — let alone out their personal information (publicly available or not). More importantly, I have deep reservations about the practice of publicly posting any personal information about another editor. A person's digital footprint may include information that is publicly accessible and alone insignificant, but when amalgamated from various sources into one location and then posted to a place with the visibility of Wikipedia, has the potential for real harm. The further notion that this practice could occur during an investigation is equally as disturbing. What happens when an investigation concludes, well after the personal information has been revealed, that there was no wrong-doing or that the information was revealed under false pretexts. It is without question that such a situation could have lasting consequences for the individual whose information was revealed. We cannot expect every editor on the English Wikipedia understand the inherent risk they would putting themselves in by editing.
Something has to be done, but it is not what the WMF Legal is guiding the community towards. I am immensely proud of the work and policies the community has introduced over the years to protect the privacy of individuals in our community. The community decided a long time ago that the WMF's Terms of Use and Privacy Policy protected only the Foundation and more was needed to protect editors from hostile threats. The community has stuck by that decision. Personally, I am not wanting to see these protections disappear and the WMF depart from the longstanding practice to allow local projects to self-govern.
The community has a difficult road ahead; it must decide the fate of how undisclosed paid editing is handled on the English Wikipedia. Whatever that decision, it should align with the community's own core values and principles. Whether this translates to a policy: one that allows functionaries to evaluate privately submitted information (by the community) about undisclosed paid editing and grants functionaries the ability to block for ToU violations; or some other policy that empowers administrators (that I hope still preserves the protections offered by the community to all editors). Mkdw talk 04:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
My views are reflected in the statement by Newyorkbrad.
Some additional general comments:
For all that, the statement is what it is, and it's time to move forward on how (or if) to reconcile it with existing policy. A suggested approach:
As a personal view I do not support an amendment to WP:Harass to legitimize on-wiki outing per the WMF statement, but do believe Arbcom could take a somewhat greater role in receiving and responding to UPE allegations. As above, the WMF could usefully support this role via the allocation of dedicated resources.
And lastly, as a conclusion shamelessly lifted from NYB's statement above: "None of us want a Wikipedia overrun by paid promotional editing. But I also hope that few of us want a Wikipedia in which editors' identifying information may be posted on-wiki—if at all—without the utmost of serious consideration and cause."
This is surely a universal view, and should guide future discussion of this issue. --
Euryalus (
talk) 23:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
My views are approximately reflected in the statements by Newyorkbrad and Euryalus. More specifically:
I regard paid editing as a threat to an NPOV encyclopedia through the inevitable bias, and as a danger because of the consequent demoralization of the volunteer community. We should ban it altogether if it were feasible to do so, but any such ban would drive it completely underground , removing any possibility of control. The best we can do is force disclosure, which is only effective if we have a workable way of reliably way of identifying Undeclared paid editors (UPE). I regard the WMF statement as a first crude step to developing this capacity. It is a very crude step, that fails to take into account the often-repeated views of the editing community, ignores the comments that arb com has several times made to them on the basis of preliminary versions, and shows a very incomplete understanding of the actual environment on Wikipedia. This comes as no surprise--experience with many issues has clearly shown we must manage our own problems and expect help from the Foundation in only the most drastic circumstances.
Our best course is to regard it as a general statement that is not self-executing, but needs to be taken into account in developing our own guidelines, We are as I see it entitled to have stricter guidelines than the Foundation on both NPOV and privacy--they set only the minimum standards. To emphasise what I consider some key questions raised by NYB and Eurylaus --
(1)we must differentiate between the occasional editor who edits in violation of COI--whom we just need to inform, the individual who sets out to make a business from it without realizing the implications--whom we need to closely monitor to verify compliance, and the determined group of violators who are deliberately trying to subvert our standards on a large scale--whom we need to eliminate. The possibility of harmful outing applies in my view only to the first group, and to some extent the second, but not someone editing in deliberate contempt of our rules.
(2)we need to recognize that we cannot rely on the good judgement of editors in general, or even admins in general. There's a wide range of capabilities, and considerable opportunity for error. Perhaps the best role of arb com is its traditional one, of monitoring admin habaviour.
(3)we need to recognize the possibility for error. Just as we do not always correctly identify sockpuppets, we have so far not been completely successful in identify UPE. For sockpuppets at least we have the occasionally useful tool of checkuser to supplement behavioral evidence. For UPE, we need to develop something to supplement the often deceptive statements of the editor involved, and the difficult of differentiating UPE from a more benign COI. At present, most rings have been detected when they make an error, or incompletely hide their activities, or we receive a usable complaint from their victims. I think we need the possibility of in some cases saying: we will consider you an UPE unless you can show us otherwise. This can include even verifying identity--some cases have been confirmed when they do volunteer their identity and what they say can be proven false.
(4)I am not completely convinced that we have ever actually done harm to an innocent or merely unaware editor by attempts to detect UPE, even when it breaches privacy. Joe jobs and the like have been in other contexts, usually ideological, sometimes interpersonal. The difficulty is to be sure that the person we are investigating is likely to be a major UPE.
(5)We need to supplement action with respect to editors by action with respect to articles. Certainly we do need to tighten the notability requirements for companies and their executives; we also need to dot his for non-profit organizations--some of the the most disruptive paid editing has come from that sector. I'll have a specific proposal ready soon. Additional steps in this direction are:
JustBerry ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was unblocked by the Ban Appeals Subcommittee in July 2013 with a one-account restriction. Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, the one-account restriction for JustBerry is rescinded. They are reminded that any alternate accounts and/or bots must adhere to WP:SOCK#LEGIT and WP:BOTPOL.
For the Arbitration Committee, Mkdw talk 19:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
In remedy 1.1 of the 2006 Ed Poor 2 case, Ed Poor ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was placed on probation. Under the terms of the probation, he was banned from two topics in 2008 and 2009. The probation and topic bans under its terms are now rescinded.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:37, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
The topic-ban placed on NorthBySouthBaranof in the GamerGate case is terminated. Discretionary sanctions remain authorized to address any user misconduct in the relevant topic-area.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 03:07, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
In remedy 4.2 of the 2012 Article titles and capitalisation case, standard discretionary sanctions were authorized
for all pages related to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, broadly construed.By way of clarification, the scope of this remedy refers to discussions about the policies and guidelines mentioned, and does not extend to individual move requests, move reviews, article talk pages, or other venues at which individual article names may be discussed. Disruption in those areas should be handled by normal administrative means.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 03:26, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
The topic ban from "all matters related to COI editing" imposed on Jytdog ( talk · contribs) as part of the August 2016 unblock conditions is lifted. However, Jytdog is strongly warned any subsequent incident in which you reveal non-public information about another user will result in an indefinite block or siteban by the Arbitration Committee. To avoid ambiguity, "non-public information" includes (but is not limited to) any information about another user including legal names and pseudonyms, workplace, job title, or contact details, which that user has not disclosed themselves on the English Wikipedia or other WMF project.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
A motion has been proposed that would modify the method used for logging Arbitration Enforcement sanctions
The motion can be reviewed and commented upon here
Discussion is invited from all interested parties.
For the Arbitration Committee Amortias ( T)( C) 21:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
For the Arbitration Committee, Mini apolis 18:46, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias ( T)( C) 23:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
Currently sanctions issued pursuant to any remedy except discretionary sanctions are logged on the case page and discretionary sanctions are logged centrally at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log. From the passing of this motion all arbitration enforcement actions, including sanctions enforcing an Arbitration Committee decision, discretionary sanctions (including appeals and modifications), will be logged together in a centralised log. For this to occur:
- The clerks are authorised to modify the current central log as required (such as moving the log and creating additional sections).
- The sections on logging in the discretionary sanctions page are modified as follows:
- The " Establishment of a central log" section is removed.
- The " Special:Permalink/762659852#Motion January 2015" section is removed.
- The " Logging" section is amended to the following:
Discretionary sanctions are to be recorded on the appropriate page of the centralised arbitration enforcement log. Notifications and warnings issued prior to the introduction of the current procedure on 3 May 2014 are not sanctions and remain on the individual case page logs.
- The following section, titled "Logging", is to be added under the " Enforcement" section of the Arbitration Committee procedures page:
All sanctions and page restrictions must be logged by the administrator who applied the sanction or page restriction at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log. Whenever a sanction or page restriction is appealed or modified, the administrator amending it must append a note recording the amendment to the original log entry.To be valid, sanctions must be clearly and unambiguously labelled as an arbitration enforcement action (such as with "arbitration enforcement", "arb enforcement", "AE" or "WP:AE" in the Wikipedia log entry or the edit summary). If a sanction has been logged as an arbitration enforcement action but has not been clearly labelled as an arbitration enforcement action any uninvolved administrator may amend the sanction (for example, a null edit or reblocking with the same settings) on behalf of the original administrator. Labelling a sanction which has been logged does not make the administrator who added the label the "enforcing administrator" unless there is confusion as to who intended the sanction be arbitration enforcement.
A central log ("log") of all page restrictions and sanctions (including blocks, bans, page protections or other restrictions) placed as arbitration enforcement (including discretionary sanctions) is to be maintained by the Committee and its clerks at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log). The log transcludes annual log sub-pages (e.g. [/2015], [/2014]) in reverse chronological order, with the sub-pages arranged by case. An annual log sub-page shall be untranscluded from the main log page (but not blanked) once five years have elapsed since the date of the last entry (including sanctions and appeals) recorded on it, though any active sanctions remain in force. Once all sanctions recorded on the page have expired or been successfully appealed, the log page shall be blanked. The log location may not be changed without the explicit consent of the committee.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 ( T) 14:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
The Clerks of the Arbitration Committee 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.
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, Kharkiv07 ( T) 20:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
An arbitration motion has been proposed that would amend the discretionary sanctions procedure by moving some of those provisions into the Committee's arbitration enforcement policy to standardise enforcement of all Committee and discretionary sanctions. The community is encouraged to reviewed and commented on the motion here. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 10:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
The indefinite siteban of OccultZone ( talk · contribs) imposed in remedy 1 of the "OccultZone and others" arbitration case is rescinded with the following restrictions:
These restrictions may be appealed to the Committee in no less than six months.
For the Arbitration Committee, Mini apolis 17:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
The following sections are moved (word for word) from the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions procedure to the Committee's procedures page (under the " Enforcement" heading) and as such apply to all arbitration enforcement actions (including discretionary sanctions and actions enforcing arbitration case remedies):
A note is to be placed prominently on the discretionary sanctions procedure noting that the Enforcement provisions on the Committee's procedures page also apply to the application and enforcement of discretionary sanctions.
The "Appeals and modifications" in the discretionary sanctions procedure is modified to reflect the current version standard provision for appeals and modifications, including changes made to it in future amendments ( Template:Arbitration standard provisions may be used).
For the Arbitration Committee, Mini apolis 19:10, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
The consensus required restriction in the Palestine-Israel articles case is modified to read as follows:
For the Arbitration Committee, Mini apolis 00:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
After discussion with both parties, the Committee resolves that The Rambling Man ( talk · contribs) be indefinitely banned from interacting with, or commenting on Bishonen ( talk · contribs) anywhere on the English Wikipedia. This is subject to the usual exceptions.
For the Arbitration Committee, -- Euryalus ( talk) 13:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
User:1989, formerly known as User:Blurred Lines, has been subject to a one-account restriction since 2014. Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, the one-account restriction for 1989 is rescinded. They are reminded that any alternate accounts and/or bots must adhere to WP:SOCK#LEGIT and WP:BOTPOL.
Opabinia regalis, GorillaWarfare, Doug Weller, Mkdw, Ks0stm, Euryalus, Keilana, DeltaQuad
Casliber, DGG, Kelapstick, Kirill Lokshin, Newyorkbrad
Callanecc, Drmies
Opabinia regalis ( talk) 05:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment:
In the interest of clarity, the discretionary sanctions procedures described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions are modified as follows:
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...
No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without...
For the Arbitration Committee, Mini apolis 13:56, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
In accordance with the standing procedure on inactivity, the checkuser and oversight permissions of
are removed. The committee thanks them for their service. Additionally, the checkuser and oversight permissions of
and the checkuser permission of
have been voluntarily relinquished. The committee thanks them for their service.
For the Arbitration Committee,
GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:24, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
The arbitration clerks are excited to welcome GoldenRing ( talk · contribs) to the clerk team as a trainee!
The arbitration clerk team is often in need of new members, and any editor who would like to join the clerk team is welcome to apply by e-mail to clerks-llists.wikimedia.org.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:26, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
In accordance with the Committee's procedure on functionary activity, the oversight permission of Jdforrester ( talk · contribs) is removed.
Additionally, the oversight permission of Fluffernutter ( talk · contribs) has been voluntarily relinquished.
The Arbitration Committee thanks them both for their service. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 07:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Deskana ( talk · contribs) is hereby reappointed as a member of the Checkuser team, having previously left the team under good standing in February 2016.
For the Arbitration Committee, GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee is pleased to announce that Mdann52 ( talk · contribs) has been reappointed an arbitration clerk after leaving the team in August 2016.
The arbitration clerk team is often in need of new members. Any editor who would like to join the clerk team is welcome to apply by e-mail to clerks-llists.wikimedia.org.
For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 08:34, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has resolved that:
In 2015, Soap ( talk · contribs) was desysopped and banned indefinitely. Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, he is unbanned. As indicated in the original announcement, he may only regain his administrative tools following approval from the Arbitration Committee, and a successful request for adminship.
For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 09:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
The arbitration clerks are pleased to welcome Kostas20142 ( talk · contribs) to the clerk team as a trainee!
The arbitration clerk team is often in need of new members, and any editor who would like to join the clerk team is welcome to apply by e-mail to clerks-llists.wikimedia.org.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has resolved to perform a round of Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The arbitrators overseeing this will be GorillaWarfare, Ks0stm, and Mkdw. This year, the usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will be requested to assist in the vetting process.
For the Arbitration Committee, GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:29, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
An arbitration case regarding Magioladitis has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
For the Arbitration Committee, Mini apolis 21:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee invites comments from the community on this year's candidates for the CheckUser and Oversight permissions. The community consultation phase of the 2017 appointment round will run from 18 September to 29 September. Questions for the candidates may be asked at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/2017 CUOS appointments. Comments may be posted there or emailed privately to the arbitration committee at arbcom-en-clists.wikimedia.org. Thank you! GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
The arbitration committee has resolved by motion that:
Remedy 4 (The Rambling Man prohibited) of the The Rambling Man arbitration case is modified as follows:
is amended to read
support: Opabinia regalis, DGG, Doug Weller, Ks0stm, Mkdw, Callanecc, Kelpastick
oppose:
recuse: Newyorkbrad
For the Arbitration Committee, Kostas20142 ( talk) 16:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Remedy 4 (Hijiri88: Topic ban (II)) of the Catflap08 and Hijiri88 arbitration case is suspended for a period of six months. During the period of suspension, this restriction may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator as an arbitration enforcement action should Hijiri88 fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process in the area defined in the topic ban remedy. After six months from the date this motion is enacted, if the restriction has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the restriction will automatically lapse.
For the Arbitration Committee, Mini apolis 23:30, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee is pleased to appoint the following users to the functionary team:
The Committee would like to thank the community and all the candidates for bringing this process to a successful conclusion. The Arbitration Committee also welcomes the following users back to the functionary team:
For the Arbitration Committee
GorillaWarfare
(talk) 04:18, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
An arbitration case regarding User:Arthur Rubin has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
For the Arbitration Committee, Mdann52 ( talk) 16:35, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
Remedy 4.1 ("Discretionary sanctions") of the Sexology case is rescinded. Any sanctions or other restrictions imposed under this remedy to date shall remain in force unaffected.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has discussed modifying how case requests are made and would like community feedback before proceeding further with this change.
Current system
Under the current system, to file a case request a user completes a proforma which adds a new section to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. When a case request is accepted and a case opened, parts of the case request are copied and pasted to the main case page and other parts are copied to the talk page of the main case page. If a case request is declined, it is simply removed from the page and a permanent link to the revision immediately prior to its removal is added to the index.
This system has the benefit of keeping requests centralised and that changes to case requests appear on the watchlists of any editor monitoring Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. However, there are also drawbacks to the current system. Chief among them is that it can be extremely difficult to find diffs of comments made in a case request due to the significant number of edits made to that page. This is especially disadvantageous when cases requests are declined and editors need to ask for help in other locations using evidence or examples from the case request. The (necessary) practice of copying sections of case requests to the case pages also has the added drawback of removing the link between the page history and the content of user's edits. Editors are also unable to effectively draft their request before publishing it as as soon as they complete the proforma, it is published to a highly viewed page.
Proposed system
Under the current proposal, case requests will instead be made at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/CASENAME/Request. A proforma will be created, similar to the current one, which will allow editors to create a request on the appropriate subpage. Once the editor is ready with the request, they will transclude their request to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. This is similar to how the RfA process works. I've written this up in more detail at User:Callanecc/sandbox.
This proposal has the benefit of keeping case request page histories simple, where they can be easily accessed. It will be easier for editors who wish to watch a specific case request as they will be able to monitor a specific /Request subpage rather than needing to sort through every edit to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. A related downside is that editors (such as arbitrators and clerks) who wish to monitor each individual case request will need to manually watchlist each new request. A downside is that there will be an increase in subpages of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case and that some requests may be made but not transcluded/filed. A tracking template which categories case requests will be used ( see this example) and clerks will monitor case requests which haven't been filed. If they aren't filed after a specified time period (such as a week) they will be deleted.
General
As part of this proposal, there are no plans to modify any of the following:
The Committee realises that editors wish to see changes in this area, but wishes to addresses these issues one at a time.
Thank you, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 11:20, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Feedback from the community is welcomed at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 36#Community feedback: Proposal to modify how and where case requests are filed (subpages).
The Arbitration Committee resolves by motion, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions, that:
Temporary Checkuser rights are granted to Matiia, RadiX, Shanmugamp7, and (alternate if necessary) Mardetanha for the purpose of their acting as Scrutineers in the 2017 Arbitration Committee election.
For the Arbitration Committee, Mini apolis 16:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
The Arbitration Committee has considered the request for arbitration titled "Crosswiki issues" and decides as follows:
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has received a ban appeal from Crouch, Swale ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and, after internal discussion and discussion with Crouch, Swale, is considering granting their ban appeal with the following conditions:
Before moving further with this appeal, such as voting on it, the committee would like community comments regarding whether this user should be unbanned, and on the suitability of the proposed unban conditions. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 08:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee welcomes the following new and returning arbitrators following their election by the community. Their two-year terms formally begin on 01 January 2018:
All incoming arbitrators have elected to receive (or retain, where applicable) the checkuser and oversight permissions.
We also thank our outgoing colleagues whose terms end on 31 December 2017:
Outgoing arbitrators are eligible to retain the CheckUser and Oversight permissions, remain active on cases accepted before their term ended, and to remain subscribed to the functionaries' and arbitration clerks' mailing lists following their term on the committee. To that effect:
For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 04:03, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions,
Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, Crouch, Swale ( talk · contribs)'s site ban is rescinded and the following indefinite restrictions are imposed:
The standard provisions on enforcement and appeals and modifications apply to these restrictions. If a fifth is placed under these restrictions, the blocking administrator must notify the Arbitration Committee of the block via a Request for Clarification and Amendment so that the unban may be reviewed. Crouch, Swale may appeal these unban conditions every 6 months from the date this motion passes.
For the Arbitration Committee, Mini apolis 17:40, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
The arbitration committee has resolved by
motion that:
Remedy 3 (Hijiri88: Topic ban (I)) of the Catflap08 and Hijiri88 arbitration case is suspended for a period of six months. During the period of suspension, this restriction may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator, as an arbitration enforcement action, should Hijiri88 fail to adhere to any normal editorial process or expectations in the area defined in the topic ban remedy. After six months from the date this motion is enacted, if the restriction has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed to the Arbitration Committee, the restriction will automatically lapse.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Kostas20142 (
talk) 14:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
The General 1RR prohibition of the Palestine-Israel articles arbitration case ( t) ( ev / t) ( w / t) ( pd / t) is amended to read:
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
1) For conduct unbecoming an administrator, Salvidrim! is desysopped. They may regain administrator tools at any time via a successful RfA.
2.1) Salvidrim! is prohibited from reviewing articles for creation drafts, or moving AfC drafts created by other editors into mainspace. This restriction can be appealed in 12 months.
5) Salvidrim! is warned that further breaches of WP:COI will be grounds for sanctions including blocks, in accordance with community policies and guidelines.
6.1) Soetermans is prohibited from reviewing articles for creation drafts, or moving AfC drafts created by other editors into mainspace. This restriction can be appealed in 12 months.
8) Soetermans is warned that further breaches of WP:COI will be grounds for sanctions including blocks, in accordance with community policies and guidelines.
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
The Page restrictions section of the discretionary sanctions procedure is modified to the following:
Any uninvolved administrator may impose on any page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict page protection, revert restrictions, prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists), or any other reasonable measure that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project. The enforcing administrator must log page restrictions they place.
Best practice is toEnforcing administrators must add an editnotice to restricted pageswhere appropriate, using the standard template ({{ ds/editnotice}}), and should add a notice to the talk page of restricted pages.Editors who ignore or breach page restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator provided that, at the time the editor ignored or breached a page restriction:
- The editor was aware of discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict, and
- There was an editnotice ({{ ds/editnotice}}) on the restricted page which specified the page restriction.
Editors using mobile devices may not see edit notices. Administrators should consider whether an editor was aware of the page restriction before sanctioning them.
The Awareness section of the discretionary sanctions procedure is modified to the following:
No editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict. An editor is aware if:
- They were mentioned by name in the applicable Final Decision; or
- They have ever been sanctioned within the area of conflict (and at least one of such sanctions has not been successfully appealed); or
- In the last twelve months, the editor has given and/or received an alert for the area of conflict; or
- In the last twelve months, the editor has participated in any process about the area of conflict at arbitration requests or arbitration enforcement; or
- In the last twelve months, the editor has successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict.
There are additional requirements in place when sanctioning editors for breaching page restrictions.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 15:44, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee is currently considering a modification to our procedures on how case requests and arbitration cases are named. We would like community feedback before considering the proposal further.
Currently, case requests are named by the filing parties. In theory, the Arbitration Committee or arbitration clerks can rename case requests before they are accepted, but this is rarely done in practice. If an arbitration case is accepted, the Committee chooses a name reflective of the dispute before the case is opened. This can either be the name originally provided by the filing party or a name developed by the Committee that better represents the scope of the case. The major benefit of this system is that ongoing cases are easily identifiable.
The following represents a prospective motion that would alter how cases are named.
If a case request is declined, the request will not be named. If a case request is accepted, the Committee will assign a name upon conclusion of the case. Case names will reflect the case's scope, content, and resolution. The Committee will not discuss the naming of a case prior to the case meeting the criteria for closure.
In the past, some editors have been concerned that specific case names have unintentionally biased the result of a case. While this is unproven, any such bias would be eliminated by deferring case naming until after the case was closed. The biggest drawback is that cases will be harder to identify while open. This may result in decreased participation by editors with relevant evidence.
The Committee would like to restrict comments at this time to the proposed changes or suggestions directly related to the case naming process. Other issues related to arbitration proceedings may be addressed by the Committee at a later time.
Thank you, ~ Rob13 Talk 19:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Feedback from the community is welcomed at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 36#Community feedback: Proposal on case naming.
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
Remedy 5 (SarekOfVulcan–Doncram interaction ban) of the Doncram arbitration case is suspended for a period of six months. During the period of suspension, this restriction may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator as an arbitration enforcement action should either SarekOfVulcan or Doncram fail to adhere to Wikipedia editing standards in their interactions with each other. Appeal of such a reinstatement would follow the normal arbitration enforcement appeals process. After six months from the date this motion is enacted, if the restriction has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the restriction will automatically lapse.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:13, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Denelson83 has been temporarily desyopped because of concerns that the account may be compromised. This was done under emergency procedures and was certified by Arbitrators BU Rob13, KrakatoaKatie and Ks0stm.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Katie talk 03:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has received a ban appeal from Rationalobserver ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and, after internal discussion and discussion with Rationalobserver, is considering granting their ban appeal with the following conditions:
For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 00:51, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
Remedy 5 (Hijiri88: 1RR) of the Catflap08 and Hijiri88 arbitration case is suspended for a period of six months. During the period of suspension, this restriction may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator, as an arbitration enforcement action, should Hijiri88 fail to adhere to any normal editorial process or expectations related to edit-warring or disruptive editing. After six months from the date this motion is enacted, if the restriction has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed to the Arbitration Committee, the restriction will automatically lapse.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
An arbitration case regarding User:Joefromrandb and others has been closed and the final decision is viewable here. The following remedies have been enacted:
For the Arbitration Committee, Kostas20142 ( talk) 17:13, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee is considering adopting the following change to the Committee's discretionary sanctions procedures to allow the community to consider a discretionary sanction prior to an appeal directly to the Arbitration Committee:
The editor must request review at AE or AN prior to appealing at ARCA.
While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee,Once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
The community is encouraged to provide any comments on the motion page. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:16, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
An arbitration case regarding civility in infobox discussions has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
For the arbitration committee, GoldenRing ( talk) 08:57, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee is pleased to confirm trainee clerk GoldenRing ( talk · contribs) as a full clerk of the Arbitration Committee.
We also express our thanks and gratitude to the arbitration clerks for their diligent assistance with the arbitration process. The arbitration clerk team is often in need of new members, and any editor who would like to join the clerk team is welcome to apply by e-mail to clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org.
For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 10:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
The discretionary sanctions appeal by MapSGV is sustained, and the topic-ban imposed on MapSGV on March 2, 2018 is lifted. MapSGV remains on notice that the India/Pakistan topic-area is subject to discretionary sanctions, and is reminded to edit in accordance with all applicable policies.
For the Arbitration Committee, Mini apolis 17:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. 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 talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 |
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
This case shall be suspended from December 22nd, 2015 to January 2nd, 2016.
For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias ( T)( C) 20:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
By motion of the Arbitration Committee at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment:
Nadirali ( talk · contribs)'s topic ban from "India, Pakistan and Afghanistan broadly construed" that is part of their unban conditions is suspended for a period of one year. During the period of suspension, this topic ban may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator as an arbitration enforcement action should Nadirali fail to adhere to Wikipedia editing standards in the area previously covered by the topic ban. Appeal of such a reinstatement would follow the normal arbitration enforcement appeals process. After one year from the date of passage of this motion, if the topic ban has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the topic ban will be lifted.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 ( T) 21:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
In accordance with the standing procedure on inactivity, the oversight permissions of
are removed. The committee thanks them for their service. The committee would also like to thank DoRD ( talk · contribs), who recently resigned from the checkuser and oversight teams, for his many years of service.
The Arbitration Committee has voted to restore the Checkuser tools to User:Beeblebrox and welcomes him back to the Checkuser team.
The Arbitration enforcement 2 arbitration case ( t) ( ev / t) ( w / t) ( pd / t) has been closed, and the following remedies have been enacted:
1.1) The Arbitration Committee confirms the sanctions imposed on Eric Corbett as a result of the Interactions at GGTF case, but mandates that all enforcement requests relating to them be filed at arbitration enforcement and be kept open for at least 24 hours.
3) For his breaches of the standards of conduct expected of editors and administrators, Black Kite is admonished.
6) The community is reminded that discretionary sanctions have been authorised for any page relating to or any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 ( T) 02:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
The committee has resolved by motion that:
For the Arbitration Committee, Mdann52 ( talk) 09:03, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
The committee welcomes the following arbitrators following their election by the community. Their term formally begins on 01 January 2016:
All of the above will be issued with the checkuser and oversight permissions except where noted and pre-existing rights holders. We also thank our outgoing colleagues whose term ends on 31 December 2015:
The stewards are asked to remove both CU and OS from all of the outgoing arbitrators on 01 January except where explicitly noted above. Outgoing arbitrators are eligible to remain active on cases opened before their term ended; this will be clarified at the proposed decision talk page of affected cases. By their request, all of the outgoing arbitrators (i), except AGK, are remaining on the functionaries' mailing list and (ii), except AGK, are staying on after 31 December to conclude existing business.
For the Arbitration Committee, Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:34, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
1) Catflap08 ( talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to Nichiren Buddhism and its adherents, broadly construed. Appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.
2.1) Subject to the usual exceptions, Catflap08 is prohibited from making any more than one revert on any one page in any 24-hour period. This applies for all pages on the English Wikipedia, except Catflap08's own user space. This restriction may be appealed to the Committee only after 12 months have elapsed from the closing of this case.
3) Hijiri88 ( talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to Nichiren Buddhism and its adherents, broadly construed. Appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.
4) Hijiri88 is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to Japanese culture. Appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.
5) Subject to the usual exceptions, Hijiri88 is prohibited from making any more than one revert on any one page in any 24-hour period. This applies for all pages on the English Wikipedia, except Hijiri88's own user space. This restriction may be appealed to the Committee only after 12 months have elapsed from the closing of this case.
6.1) TH1980 ( talk · contribs) and Hijiri88 are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).
The Arbitration Committee is pleased to announce that DoRD is regranted the checkuser and oversight permissions that he resigned earlier this year.
Support: Courcelles, GorillaWarfare, Seraphimblade, Euryalus, Salvio giuliano, Guerillero, LFaraone, DeltaQuad
For the Arbitration Committee,
Courcelles ( talk) 01:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
The committee has resolved Palestine-Israel articles 1RR by motion that:
Passed 10 to 0 by motion on 7:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
For the Arbitration Committee, Mdann52 ( talk) 08:13, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
DrChrissy's topic ban which currently states that " DrChrissy ( talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified plants and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed" is replaced with "DrChrissy is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals, and the companies that produce them, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed."
For the Arbitration Committee Amortias ( T)( C) 23:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
For off-wiki harassment, the administrator permissions of
Soap are revoked. Additionally, he is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia.
Support: Courcelles, DGG, Guerillero, Euryalus, Doug Weller, GorillaWarfare, Salvio giuliano, LFaraone, Roger Davies, Seraphimblade
Oppose: DeltaQuad
Abstain: Thryduulf
For the Arbitration Committee;
Courcelles ( talk) 01:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
In response to community feedback regarding ban announcements, the text of the preceding announcement (
permalink to original) is hereby replaced with the following:
The Arbitration Committee has been provided evidence that administrator Soap has been engaged in conduct that violates the Wikipedia Harassment Policy. These actions occurred outside of the English Wikipedia. The evidence was provided to the Arbitration committee in confidence; therefore, in compliance with the WMF Privacy Policy and the Access to nonpublic information policy, the Arbitration Committee is unable to reveal additional information regarding the nature of the policy violation(s).
As a result, the administrator permissions of Soap are revoked. Additionally, Soap is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. He may request reconsideration of the ban six months after the original motion was announced, and every six months thereafter. Upon successful appeal of this ban, Soap may only regain his administrative tools following approval from the Arbitration Committee, and a successful Request for Adminship.
Revised text posted by Opabinia regalis ( talk) 07:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
In remedy 8.5 of the GamerGate case,
The Devil's Advocate was 'strongly warned that should future misconduct occur in any topic area, he may be banned from the English Wikipedia by motion of the Arbitration Committee.' Accordingly, for continuing harassment of other editors, The Devil's Advocate is banned indefinitely from the English Wikipedia. He may request reconsideration of the ban six months after this motion passes, and every six months thereafter.
Support: DGG, Courcelles, Guerillero, Keilana, Opabinia regalis, Doug Weller, Kirill Lokshin
Recuse: GorillaWarfare, Gamaliel
For the Arbitration Committee,
Keilana ( talk) 02:50, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
In response to community feedback regarding ban announcements, the text of the preceding announcement ( permalink to original) is hereby replaced with the following:
In remedy 8.5 of the GamerGate case, The Devil's Advocate was strongly warned that should future misconduct occur in any topic area, he may be banned from the English Wikipedia by motion of the Arbitration Committee. In a separate incident occurring since this remedy was enacted, it was found that The Devil's Advocate has engaged in conduct that violates the Wikipedia Harassment Policy. This policy violation arose during a block, and used means outside of Wikipedia. In compliance with the WMF Privacy Policy and the Access to nonpublic information policy, the Arbitration Committee is unable to reveal additional information regarding the nature of the policy violation(s).
As a result, the Devil's Advocate is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. He may request reconsideration of the ban six months after the original motion was announced, and every six months thereafter.
Revised text posted by Opabinia regalis ( talk) 07:56, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee Audit Subcommittee (AUSC) is hereby disbanded. Any complaints related to misuse of the advanced permissions CheckUser or Oversight (suppression) will henceforth be investigated by the Arbitration Committee as a whole. Complaints can be forwarded to the Arbitration Committee via the Arbitration Committee mailing list (arbcom-l). In the event of a committee member being the subject of the complaint, the complaint may be forwarded to any individual committee member. That committee member will initiate a discussion on one of the alternate mailing lists, with the committee member who is the subject of the complaint unsubscribed from the list for the duration of the discussion. Over the course of the investigation, the Arbitration Committee may draw upon the experience of members of the functionaries team to aid in the investigation.
Support: kelapstick, Doug Weller, Keilana, Drmies, GorillaWarfare, DGG, Opabinia regalis, Kirill Lokshin, Salvio giuliano, Courcelles, Guerillero, Callanecc, Cas Liber
For the Arbitration Committee, Doug Weller talk 16:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
AUSC community members who do not hold CU and OS tools in their own right are given them during their period on AUSC. As their terms have now expired, the checkuser permissions of:
and the oversight permission of:
are removed. The committee thanks them for their service.
Support: Doug Weller, DGG, Kelapstick, Callanecc, Opabinia regalis, Drmies, Gamaliel, Guerillero, Salvio giuliano
For the Arbitration Committee, Doug Weller talk 16:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
"This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above."
The following remedies have been enacted
4) For consistently poor judgment in undertaking administrative actions following a formal admonishment, Kevin Gorman is desysopped. He may regain the administrative tools at any time via a successful request for adminship. Passed 13 to 2 at 17:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
For the Arbitration Committee Amortias ( T)( C) 18:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
For the Arbitration Committee, Mini apolis 14:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
A motion has been posted at Arbitration requests/motions that Floquenbeam ( talk · contribs), who resigned from the Arbitration Committee and voluntarily gave up the Oversight permission in July 2014, is re-appointed an Oversighter following a request to the Committee for the permission to be restored.
Comment from the community is encouraged either at the above linked page or via e-mail to the Arbitration Committee if the comment is private or sensitive.
For the Arbitration Committee. Amortias ( T)( C) 00:04, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions that:
Floquenbeam ( talk · contribs), who resigned from the Arbitration Committee and voluntarily gave up the Oversight permission in July 2014, is reappointed an Oversighter following a request to the Committee for the permission to be restored.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 ( T) 00:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
A motion has been enacted in lieu of a full case. For the Arbitration Committee, Mini apolis 18:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee is pleased to announce that Ks0stm ( talk · contribs) is returning to the arbitration clerk team as a full clerk, effective immediately. We thank Ks0stm and the entire clerk team for their dedication and helpfulness.
For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 00:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
We are pleased to confirm trainees Amortias ( talk · contribs) and Miniapolis ( talk · contribs) as arbitration clerks, effective immediately.
We also express our thanks and gratitude to all the arbitration clerks for their diligent assistance with the arbitration process. For the Arbitration Committee, -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
In accordance with the standing procedure on inactivity, the checkuser permissions of Deskana ( talk · contribs) are removed. The committee thanks them for their service.
For the Arbitration Committee, -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 04:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
The following is an ArbCom internal process. It supplements the ArbCom procedure on CheckUser/Oversight permissions and inactivity.
For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 23:27, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
The Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case ( t) ( ev / t) ( w / t) ( pd / t) has been amended by motion of the Arbitration Committee as follows:
Remedy 2 (General Prohibition) is replaced with, "All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This prohibition may be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters."
For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 ( T) 14:06, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Following a successful appeal to the Committee the October 2013 amendment to the Race and intelligence case is rescinded and Mathsci ( talk · contribs) is unbanned from the English Wikipedia. The unban has been granted on the condition that Mathsci continue to refrain from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to the race and intelligence topic area, broadly construed. This is to be enforced as a standard topic ban. The following editing restrictions are in force indefinitely:
This motion is to be enforced under the enforcement clauses of the Race and intelligence case.
For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 12:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee is considering a series of motions regarding the 'extendedconfirmed' user group and associated protection levels seeking to determine logistical and administrative issues arising from the implementation of the new usergroup. Your comments would be appreciated at the below link. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 14:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee is pleased to announce that Kharkiv07 ( talk · contribs) is appointed a full clerk.
We also express our thanks and gratitude to all of the arbitration clerks for their diligent assistance with the arbitration process. The arbitration clerk team is often in need of new members, and any editor who would like to join the clerk team is welcome to apply by e-mail to clerks-llists.wikimedia.org.
For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 10:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Following a successful appeal, the amendment to the Ottava Rima restrictions case is rescinded, and Ottava Rima ( talk · contribs) is unbanned. His participation on the English Wikipedia is strictly limited to:
Additionally, he is limited to one revert on a single page in any 24 hour period ( 1RR), subject to the standard exemptions. Any edits outside of these boundaries are violations of the unban conditions, as is the use of the Wikipedia email feature.
Anyone found to be goading or baiting him may be two-way interaction banned, as an arbitration enforcement action, for no longer than one month. Enforcement blocks (including of Ottava) may be no longer than three days for the first block, and up to one month for repeated violations.
Should Ottava violate these restrictions he may be blocked, as an arbitration enforcement action, for up to one month for the first violation by a consensus of uninvolved administrators. If, after the first block, he violates the restrictions again, the siteban may be reinstated by a consensus of uninvolved administrators and he is to be blocked indefinitely with no email or talk page access.
For the Arbitration Committee, GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
In a 2005 arbitration case, User:CarlHewitt - who is the noted computer scientist of that name - was banned from editing content about himself or his own work (Remedy 1) and was placed on probation (Remedy 2). Following the case, he was found to have engaged in repeated sockpuppetry in violation of those restrictions and was indefinitely blocked in 2009.
Remedy 2 of the Carl Hewitt case is rescinded and his indefinite block is lifted. Carl Hewitt is permitted to edit under the following conditions:
Violations of any of the above may be managed by blocks as arbitration enforcement actions. Disruptive or tendentious contributions by IP users to the articles or talk pages related to Prof. Hewitt may be managed by blocks and/or protection as needed, and editors are encouraged not to engage in conversation with such users. The standard provisions for enforcement and appeals and modifications applies to sanctions enforcing this decision, all sanctions are to be logged on the case page.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by two motions that:
(1) In the 2013 Infoboxes case, User:Pigsonthewing was subject to editing restrictions which were subsequently revised in a case review in March 2015. With this motion, remedies 1.1 and 3 of the 2015 Infoboxes Review are rescinded. Pigsonthewing is cautioned that the topic of infoboxes remains contentious under some circumstances and that he should edit carefully in this area.
(2) With this motion, remedy 2 of the 2015 Infoboxes Review is rescinded.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 05:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Per his request, communicated off-wiki to the Committee, Gamaliel is indefinitely restricted from taking any action to enforce any arbitration decision within the GamerGate topic, broadly construed. Any violation of this motion must be reported to WP:ARCA. He may appeal this decision after 12 months to the Arbitration Committee.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:16, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Appeals of blocks that have been marked by an oversighter as oversight blocks should be sent to the oversight team via email (Oversight-llists.wikimedia.org) to be decided by the English Wikipedia oversighters, or to the Arbitration Committee. Blocks may still be marked by the blocking oversighter as appealable only to the Arbitration Committee, per the 2010 statement, in which case appeals must only be directed to the Arbitration Committee.
Enacted - Mini apolis 15:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
The Doncram arbitration case is amended as follows:
For the Arbitration Committee, Mini apolis 13:29, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
The arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been passed:
For the Arbitration Committee, Mini apolis 19:54, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
On April 5, the rollout of the new extendedconfirmed
user group began. This group is being automatically applied to accounts meeting both of the following criteria: at least 500 edits, registered at least 30 days ago. A corresponding new protection level, currently called "extended confirmed protection", has been implemented that restricts editing to members of this user group.
extendedconfirmed
user group can be added by administrators to accounts that do not yet meet the criteria. A process for requesting this has been set up
here, intended primarily to handle the case of publicly identified
legitimate alternative accounts of users whose primary accounts do meet the criteria.
Notes
extendedconfirmed
user group as a discretionary sanction.extendedconfirmed
user group as means of bypassing defined arbitration enforcement procedures (for example, removing the user group as a normal administrative action to avoid banning an editor from the
Gamergate controversy article).For the Arbitration Committee, Mini apolis 17:55, 15 May 2016 (UTC) Edited per clerks-l, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:56, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Gamaliel has resigned as an arbitrator because he is currently unable to edit the English Wikipedia and is therefore entirely inactive as an arbitrator. This has come about as a result of circumstances which have been disclosed to the Committee, and which in no way reflect negatively on him. We thank Gamaliel for his service on the 2016 Committee to date and wish him the best.
For the Arbitration Committee, Opabinia regalis ( talk) 03:04, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
An arbitration case regarding Gamaliel and others has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 03:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
The Clerks of the Arbitration Committee are looking for a script writer who will work with the clerk team to automate portions of the clerks' procedures. If you are a skilled script writer and are interested in working with us, please email the clerk team at clerks-llists.wikimedia.org.
For the Clerks of the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 05:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
We are pleased to confirm trainee Mdann52 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a full arbitration clerk, effective immediately.
We also express our thanks and gratitude to all the arbitration clerks for their diligent assistance with the arbitration process. For the Arbitration Committee, Opabinia regalis ( talk) 07:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Pursuant to this announcement, the arbitration clerks appoint the following editors as the clerks' script developers:
Future announcements and coordination will occur at the clerks' noticeboard. The clerks would like to thank the script developers in advance. Any editor interested in assisting with automation, as described in this announcement, is welcome to email the clerk team at clerks-llists.wikimedia.org.
For the Clerks of the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
In August 2015, the administrator privileges of Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) were revoked under the Level I desysop procedure, which is intended as a temporary measure. The Arbitration Committee has satisfied itself that the account was not compromised and that any ongoing disruption at the time has ceased. Accordingly, we affirm that Malik Shabazz may be resysopped at his request at any time.
For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 13:43, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
By motion of the Arbitration Committee;
The sanctions placed on Rich Farmbrough as part of the Rich Farmbrough arbitration case ( t) ( ev / t) ( w / t) ( pd / t) are rescinded. For clarity this includes remedy 2 which prohibited Rich Farmbrough from using automation and clause B in the June 2012 amendment.If the bot approval group sees it fit, they may also revoke all previous bot requests without the authorization of the Committee.
It is noted that the original community sanctions are not affected by this motion as they were placed by the community.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 ( T) 18:41, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
The committee would like to remind administrators of the following provision of the blocking policy:
If a user needs to be blocked based on information that will not be made available to all administrators, that information should be sent to the Arbitration Committee or a Checkuser or oversighter for action. These editors are qualified to handle non-public evidence, and they operate under strict controls. The community has rejected the idea of individual administrators acting on evidence that cannot be peer-reviewed.
If a situation arises in which private evidence (e.g. emails) is relevant, please refer the participants to arbcom (arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org) or to the functionaries list (functionaries-enlists.wikimedia.org) for review.
For the Arbitration Committee, Opabinia regalis ( talk) 21:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
By motion of the Arbitration Committee:
In addition, the topic ban will be reinstated should GoodDay be validly blocked by any uninvolved administrator for misconduct related to diacritics, broadly construed. Such a reinstatement may only be appealed to the Arbitration Committee. After one year from the date of passage of this motion, if the ban has not been reinstated, or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the topic ban will be vacated.
For the Arbitration Committee, Mini apolis 17:28, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
Ferahgo the Assassin ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was topic-banned from the race and intelligence topic area in October 2010, site-banned in May 2012, and unbanned with editing restrictions in March 2014.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 02:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has resolved to perform a round of Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The arbitrators overseeing this will be DeltaQuad and Opabinia regalis. This year, the usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will be requested to assist in the vetting process.
The Committee is bound by a Wikimedia Foundation policy that only those editors who have passed an RfA or equivalent process may be appointed, therefore only administrators may be considered. The Committee encourages interested administrators to apply, and invites holders of one tool to apply for the other.
The timeline shall be as follows:
For the Arbitration Committee, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee is currently seeking candidates for CheckUser and Oversight appointments. As a reminder to interested editors, completed application questionnaires are due by email at 23:59 UTC, 20 September 2016. Please contact the committee at arbcom-en-clists.wikimedia.org to request a questionnaire or if you have any questions about the process. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 07:07, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Following an appeal to the arbitration committee, TeeTylerToe's block (originating in this ANI thread) is modified to restore talk page access and permit appeals through normal community channels including UTRS and the {{ unblock}} template. He is strongly advised to carefully consider the concerns that have been raised about his editing before attempting to appeal. This does not prohibit decline of appeals by any community mechanism or withdrawal of talk page access should problems arise.
The committee emphasizes that block appeals are an important component of community dispute resolution processes and should not be withdrawn without compelling evidence that appeal channels are likely to be abused. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 21:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
In accordance with the procedures on functionary activity and removal of permissions for inactivity, the CheckUser permission Coren ( talk · contribs) are removed. The Committee would also like to acknowledge Euryalus ( talk · contribs) who resigned from the oversight team as well as FloNight ( talk · contribs) and Roger Davies ( talk · contribs) who resigned from the checkuser and oversight teams. The Committee extends its sincere thanks to these users for their years of service.
For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 10:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
For abuse of multiple accounts and failure to remain accountable, Ricky81682 is desysoped and may regain the tools via a successful request for adminship.
Between July 13, 2016 and August 7th, Ricky:
Some accounts were blocked at the time for separate reasons. In emails with the committee, Ricky has evaded scrutiny and accountability. His explanation did not adequately address the technical and behavioral evidence.
For the Arbitration Committee, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 10:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee is seeking community feedback on a proposal to modify the ArbCom procedure on Removal of permissions. Your comments are welcome at the motion page. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 15:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
An arbitration case regarding The Rambling man has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
Nothing in this remedy prevents enforcement of policy by uninvolved administrators in the usual way.
For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ( T• C• G• E) 05:00, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee is pleased to appoint the following users to the functionary team:
The Committee would like to thank the community and all the candidates for bringing this process to a successful conclusion. The Arbitration Committee welcomes the following users back to the functionary team:
Opabinia regalis ( talk) 04:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
In May 2015 administrator Zad68 imposed extended confirmed protection of Talk:Gamergate controversy as a discretionary sanction in response to this AE request. The Arbitration Committee notes that Zad68 is currently inactive so the sanction cannot be modified without consensus or Committee action. Therefore the Committee lifts the discretionary sanction on Talk:Gamergate controversy (not the article) to allow the community to modify the protection level in accordance with the Wikipedia:Protection policy.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
Point 4 (Doncram restricted) of the the motion in May 2016 is suspended for a period of six months. During the period of suspension, this restriction may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator as an arbitration enforcement action should Doncram fail to adhere to Wikipedia editing standards in the National Register of Historic Places topic area, broadly construed. Appeal of such a reinstatement would follow the normal arbitration enforcement appeals process. After six months from the date this motion is enacted, if the restriction has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the restriction will automatically lapse.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:03, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Self-nominations for the 2016 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections are officially open. The nomination period runs from Sunday 00:00, 6 November (UTC) until Tuesday 23:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC). Editors interested in running should review the eligibility criteria listed at the top of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016/Candidates then create a candidate page following the instructions there. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 00:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Cross-posted: For the Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 13:49, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee Elections is now open through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016. If you wish to participate, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mz7 ( talk) 04:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Cross-posted: For the Committee, Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:29, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
For the purpose of scrutineering the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections, stewards User:Einsbor, User:Mardetanha, and User:Stryn, 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. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 21:22, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
In the past year, Darkfrog24 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been subject to a series of Arbitration Enforcement actions under the discretionary sanctions authorized in the Article Titles and Capitalisation case. In January 2016, Darkfrog24 was topic-banned from from articles, discussions, and guidelines, explicitly including the manual of style, related to quotation marks and quotation styles, broadly interpreted, following an AE request. In February this topic ban was broadened to encompass the Manual of Style and related topics following another AE request. Later that month, they were blocked indefinitely "until they either understand the terms of the tban or agree to stop disruptively relitigating it" after a third AE request. They were unblocked to participate in an appeal to ARCA in April 2016, which was declined by the Arbitration Committee. The block was lifted again in November 2016 to permit the present ARCA appeal.
The Committee notes that Darkfrog24 disputes some elements of the original AE filings. We emphasize that imposing an AE sanction requires only that a reviewing admin finds sufficient disruption to warrant action and is not an endorsement of every individual claim that may be made by the filer. After review of the current appeal, we find that there is no evidence in favor of lifting or modifying the topic ban, and the disruptive behavior, in the form of repeated relitigation of the circumstances of the topic ban, has continued. The appeal is declined and the block will be reinstated. They may appeal again in three months (one year from the original indefinite block). They are very strongly advised to focus that appeal on their future editing interests in topics well separated from the subjects of their topic ban, and to appeal the topic ban itself only after establishing a successful record of productive contributions in other areas.
Remedy 5: Fæ banned (March 2013) – in which Fae was unblocked with the conditions that he was topic banned from editing BLPs relating to sexuality, broadly construed
as well as topic banned from images relating to sexuality, broadly construed
– is suspended for a period of six months. During the period of suspension, this restriction may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator as an arbitration enforcement action should Fæ fail to adhere to Wikipedia editing standards in these areas, broadly construed. Appeal of such a reinstatement would follow the normal arbitration enforcement appeals process. After six months from the date this motion is enacted, if the restriction has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the restriction will automatically lapse.
For the Arbitration Committee, Mini apolis 23:48, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
The ArbCom election results have been posted. 7 Arbs have been elected in total, all on two year terms. You can review the results in full here.
For the Election Commission, Mdann52 ( talk) 22:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
FloNight ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who voluntarily resigned her checkuser and oversight permissions in September 2016, is reappointed as a checkuser and oversighter following a request to the committee for the return of both permissions.
For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 09:59, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
Every so often, it becomes reasonable to terminate sanctions that are no longer necessary,
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:59, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
The committee welcomes the following new and returning arbitrators following their election by the community. Their two-year terms formally begin on 01 January 2017:
All of these arbitrators will also receive (or retain, where applicable) the Checkuser and Oversight permissions. We also thank our outgoing colleagues whose terms end on 31 December 2016:
Departing arbitrators will retain their Checkuser and Oversight rights and will remain subscribed to the Functionaries' mailing list. In addition, departing arbitrators will be eligible to remain active on any pending arbitration cases that were opened before the end of the their term; if this provision becomes relevant this year, a notation will be made on the relevant case page or pages. For the Arbitration Committee, Opabinia regalis ( talk) 06:00, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
North8000 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was site-banned in 2014 in the Gun Control case. He was topic-banned from the gun control topic area in the same case. Prior to this, he had been topic-banned from the subject of the Tea Party movement in the Tea Party case in 2013, and had agreed to a one-year voluntary restriction from the homophobia article and its talk page in 2012. North8000 is unbanned with the following restrictions:
These restrictions are to be enforced under the standard enforcement and appeals and modifications provisions and may be appealed to the committee after six months.
Opabinia regalis ( talk) 19:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
Remedy 2 (General Prohibition) is modified to read as follows:
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 04:26, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
The general 1RR restriction in the Palestine-Israel articles case is modified to read as follows:
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Captain Occam ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was topic-banned from race and intelligence related articles in the Race and Intelligence case in 2010. Captain Occam was blocked for one year as an Arbitration Enforcement action in 2011 under the discretionary sanctions authorized in the Abortion case. In the 2012 Review of the R&I case, Occam and Ferahgo the Assassin ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who shared an IP and who were found to be proxying for one another, were both site-banned. Ferahgo was unbanned in March 2014. Following a successful appeal, Captain Occam is unbanned under the following restrictions:
Captain Occam and Ferahgo the Assassin are reminded that tag-team editing, account sharing, and canvassing are not permitted. These restrictions are to be enforced under the standard enforcement and appeals and modifications provisions and may be appealed to the committee after six months.
Opabinia regalis ( talk) 05:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
Mathsci ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was unbanned in April 2016 under the condition that he
refrain from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to the race and intelligence topic area, broadly construed. This restriction is now rescinded. The interaction bans to which Mathsci is a party remain in force.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Yunshui ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), voluntarily retired in November 2015. Their checkuser and oversight permissions were removed without prejudice against requesting reinstatement in the future. They are reappointed as a checkuser and oversighter following a request to the committee for the return of both permissions.
For the Arbitration Committee, Mkdw talk 16:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has a number of concerns about the advisory statement about paid editing and private information released by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal team. Although we understand that many within both the WMF and the community want to crack down on undisclosed paid editing in an effective way, several aspects of the statement require awareness and discussion.
The Arbitration Committee, as individuals and as a body, has a great deal of experience with how private information disclosures actually occur in a community setting. The Wikipedia harassment policy, which prohibits the disclosure of other editors' personal information without their consent, reflects over a decade of accumulated experience and institutional knowledge about this precise problem. That knowledge has been hard-won, and in many cases has come at the expense of dedicated and productive volunteers whose personal information was exposed by others. While many of the people who chose to reveal that information strongly believed they were justified in doing so, this does not mitigate the damage they did or the fact that volunteers were hurt as a result of their participation in the project.
The views outlined in this statement are significantly weaker than the protections the community has historically provided against online harassment and disclosure of editors' personal information. We are aware that the Wikimedia Foundation, like the Arbitration Committee and most Wikimedians, is also concerned about the harassment of community members, and we appreciate the Board's statement of a few weeks ago on this issue. We are concerned, however, about tensions between the current statement on paid editing and the Foundation's other work on harassment issues. For example, the Terms of Use FAQ includes "Harassment should also be avoided. For example, under the English Wikipedia policy on harassment, users must not publicly share personal information about other users." The current draft of the harassment training module being developed by the WMF reads in part, "Cases of deliberate PII [personally identifying information] release might include an attempt to 'out' another editor, perhaps to link their account to a purported employer." These materials collectively make clear that releasing personally identifying information about another user without the user's consent should be considered harassment. Except perhaps in extraordinary circumstances, this position has our support.
According to the statement, "if someone is editing for a company and fails to disclose it, an admin properly posting that person’s company where it is relevant to an investigation is helping bring the account into compliance with those requirements." The Arbitration Committee and community policy do not consider posting such information to be a specific responsibility of administrators, nor do we believe that the threat of posting such information should be used as a means to bring editors into compliance. In our opinion, the harassment training material quoted above is correct in defining such posts as inappropriate. Being doxxed and treated in ways the community has defined as harassment is not a reasonable consequence of noncompliance with a website's terms of use, particularly where no distinction is made between isolated, minor, or debatable violations as opposed to pervasive and severe ones.
This statement suggests an almost unbounded exemption to the outing policy to allow people to post public information on any individual they believe is engaging in undisclosed paid editing. Furthermore, the statement does not define or limit what may be considered "public information". Combined with the addendum that this kind of investigation could be applied to address disruption outside of paid editing, such as sockpuppetry, this advice if broadly interpreted would practically nullify the existing anti-outing policy.
We are also concerned that the statement does not clarify the existing definition of paid editing, which is vague and susceptible to multiple readings. We understand that the core concern about paid editing involves large-scale enterprises offering paid Wikipedia editing services as a business model, and if it applied exclusively in that context, the recent WMF statement would be much more understandable, although it would still raise issues worthy of discussion. But it is not at all clear that the statement, or the intent underlying it, are limited to that context. If read broadly, the current definition of "paid editing" may include editing for one's employer or an organization one is affiliated with, even if no money changes hands in return for the editing. Moreover, "editing one's employer's article" could mean anything ranging from correcting a typo on the employer's article, at one extreme, to creating or maintaining a blatantly promotional article as part of a PR department's job responsibilities, on the other. It is not clear where on this continuum, if anywhere, a user becomes a "paid editor" whose activities people feel violate the TOU and are subject to exposure. Further to this, the definition of "company" in the statement is unclear. It could refer to either a paid editing business specifically, or refer to any company which is the subject of a Wikipedia article.
There is a difference between a major paid editing ring that has created or is seeking to create hundreds of promotional articles about non-notable subjects as part of a major business enterprise, and other scenarios that could be called "paid editing" which should be discouraged, but not through draconian means. Consider, for example, a hypothetical college student who makes the ill-advised decision to write an article about a friend's company in return for $25. They would be violating the COI policy and the TOU, but are not a major threat to the wiki. We worry that the statement does not include any advice for proportional responses based on the severity or extent of undisclosed paid editing.
The statement also does not take into account the possibility of intentional misuse or gaming to harass innocent editors. We have seen repeated malicious attempts (so-called false flags or "joe-jobs") to incriminate editors for paid editing, and this would make it trivial for harassers to out their targets under the guise of stopping a paid editor. Malicious outing is not a rare occurrence and numerous editors — including several current WMF staff — have been the victims of outing and the threat of it.
Finally, we are concerned about a statement like this posted locally on the project with the perceived force of authority of Wikimedia Legal, even though it has been tagged as an essay and described as advisory, not as policy. We expect that some editors will interpret this as binding and lean on it as a justification to publish information on-wiki that previously was, and still is by policy, prohibited harassment. Any current policies that do not align with the views expressed in this statement will likely be challenged as contradicting Wikimedia Foundation's Legal team. This seems to be a substantial departure from the historic relationship between the Wikimedia Foundation's Legal team and the communities of the projects for which it is responsible, when it comes to matters that are not under Wikimedia Legal's direct purview. The paid editing and harassment policies are up to the local community to decide, and we hope that they will consider the statement carefully when making any changes. In the future, we feel a more discussion-based format such as an RfC would be a better way to provide input on local policies without the risk of statements being interpreted as binding.
The Arbitration Committee appreciates that the Wikimedia Foundation Legal team sought our feedback on an early version of this document, and accepted a portion of that feedback. The committee hopes this feedback is equally welcome. Furthermore we extend an invitation to the Legal team, and to any other interested community member, to commence a request for comments on this matter if they believe any aspect of local policy needs modification, in accordance with the consensus-building method the English Wikipedia has used for many years to develop local policy.
Signed,
Statements from individual arbitrators may follow.
I agree with many of the concerns that my fellow arbitrators have raised in their statement above, but am posting separately to frame specific issues requiring discussion and analysis.
Undisclosed paid editing is detrimental to Wikimedia projects. Our editing model relies primarily on volunteers, whose editing decisions are ordinarily not guided by personal financial considerations. Paid editors, on the other hand, may have a financial incentive to disregard basic Wikipedia policies, such as that only notable subjects should have articles, and that all articles must be written neutrally and non-promotionally. The problem is only compounded where the paid editing is undisclosed.
But at the same time, another longstanding and fundamental Wikipedia value is that editors may control how much of their personal identifying information, if any, they wish to share. Disclosing another editor's identifying information without his or her consent, or unnecessarily publicizing such information, is a serious violation of English Wikipedia policy and community expectations. Years of experience confirm that "outing" or "doxing" of editors, or the threat of doing so, drives editors away from contributing, thus damaging both the encyclopedia, and the community that creates and maintains the encyclopedia. To the extent that any exceptions to the anti-"outing" policy can ever be warranted, they would be very rare, and reserved for extraordinary circumstances in which there is no other way to deal with a severe and persistent pattern of grave misconduct.
There is an obvious and long-recognized tension between our policies allowing anonymous editing and those disallowing undisclosed paid editing (and disfavoring undisclosed COI editing more generally). However, policy and community norms ordinarily disallow disclosing other editors' personal information on-wiki as an appropriate means of dealing with user misconduct, whether the misconduct consists of suspected paid editing or anything else.
The WMF legal statement correctly observes that warning or, if necessary, blocking users and modifying or deleting articles is the first step in dealing with inappropriate or promotional articles. However, it goes on to state that "some degree of transparency in investigations" of undisclosed paid editing is warranted. It is not clear how broadly the statement proposes to step away from the anti-"outing"/"doxxing"/disclosure policies that have served English Wikipedia well for the past 15 years, in the interest of combatting paid editing.
Subject to the WMF Office's role in providing guidance regarding legal issues and some basic expectations of user behavior, it is the English Wikipedia community's role to set policy and guidelines for our project—and I believe the WMF recognizes this fact. If the community were to consider modifying policy and practice in this arena, it would have to address at least the following issues:
None of us want a Wikipedia overrun by paid promotional editing. But I also hope that few of us want a Wikipedia in which editors' identifying information may be posted on-wiki—if at all—without the utmost of serious consideration and cause.
I think it's fair to say that a many of editors are concerned about undisclosed paid editing and the effect it is having on the English Wikipedia. We have all worked hard to make the English Wikipedia what it is today and to see it being undermined without the means or tools to counter it has been frustrating. To me, the central problem and barrier has been that 'undisclosed paid editing' includes an unreasonably wide range of cases with two types on either end:
The second example could be a substitute teacher fixing a typo on an article about the school district in which they work. WMF Legal verified, elsewhere, that such an occasion would constitute undisclosed paid editing (an interpretation I am not sure is represented in the ToU and accompanying FAQ). In this example, the teacher is paid to be a teacher — not for their edits to Wikipedia — but because there is potentially a monetary benefit linked to their edits, according to WMF Legal, this is undisclosed paid editing.
I have absolutely no interest in going after editors even remotely in the same ballpark as the second example — let alone out their personal information (publicly available or not). More importantly, I have deep reservations about the practice of publicly posting any personal information about another editor. A person's digital footprint may include information that is publicly accessible and alone insignificant, but when amalgamated from various sources into one location and then posted to a place with the visibility of Wikipedia, has the potential for real harm. The further notion that this practice could occur during an investigation is equally as disturbing. What happens when an investigation concludes, well after the personal information has been revealed, that there was no wrong-doing or that the information was revealed under false pretexts. It is without question that such a situation could have lasting consequences for the individual whose information was revealed. We cannot expect every editor on the English Wikipedia understand the inherent risk they would putting themselves in by editing.
Something has to be done, but it is not what the WMF Legal is guiding the community towards. I am immensely proud of the work and policies the community has introduced over the years to protect the privacy of individuals in our community. The community decided a long time ago that the WMF's Terms of Use and Privacy Policy protected only the Foundation and more was needed to protect editors from hostile threats. The community has stuck by that decision. Personally, I am not wanting to see these protections disappear and the WMF depart from the longstanding practice to allow local projects to self-govern.
The community has a difficult road ahead; it must decide the fate of how undisclosed paid editing is handled on the English Wikipedia. Whatever that decision, it should align with the community's own core values and principles. Whether this translates to a policy: one that allows functionaries to evaluate privately submitted information (by the community) about undisclosed paid editing and grants functionaries the ability to block for ToU violations; or some other policy that empowers administrators (that I hope still preserves the protections offered by the community to all editors). Mkdw talk 04:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
My views are reflected in the statement by Newyorkbrad.
Some additional general comments:
For all that, the statement is what it is, and it's time to move forward on how (or if) to reconcile it with existing policy. A suggested approach:
As a personal view I do not support an amendment to WP:Harass to legitimize on-wiki outing per the WMF statement, but do believe Arbcom could take a somewhat greater role in receiving and responding to UPE allegations. As above, the WMF could usefully support this role via the allocation of dedicated resources.
And lastly, as a conclusion shamelessly lifted from NYB's statement above: "None of us want a Wikipedia overrun by paid promotional editing. But I also hope that few of us want a Wikipedia in which editors' identifying information may be posted on-wiki—if at all—without the utmost of serious consideration and cause."
This is surely a universal view, and should guide future discussion of this issue. --
Euryalus (
talk) 23:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
My views are approximately reflected in the statements by Newyorkbrad and Euryalus. More specifically:
I regard paid editing as a threat to an NPOV encyclopedia through the inevitable bias, and as a danger because of the consequent demoralization of the volunteer community. We should ban it altogether if it were feasible to do so, but any such ban would drive it completely underground , removing any possibility of control. The best we can do is force disclosure, which is only effective if we have a workable way of reliably way of identifying Undeclared paid editors (UPE). I regard the WMF statement as a first crude step to developing this capacity. It is a very crude step, that fails to take into account the often-repeated views of the editing community, ignores the comments that arb com has several times made to them on the basis of preliminary versions, and shows a very incomplete understanding of the actual environment on Wikipedia. This comes as no surprise--experience with many issues has clearly shown we must manage our own problems and expect help from the Foundation in only the most drastic circumstances.
Our best course is to regard it as a general statement that is not self-executing, but needs to be taken into account in developing our own guidelines, We are as I see it entitled to have stricter guidelines than the Foundation on both NPOV and privacy--they set only the minimum standards. To emphasise what I consider some key questions raised by NYB and Eurylaus --
(1)we must differentiate between the occasional editor who edits in violation of COI--whom we just need to inform, the individual who sets out to make a business from it without realizing the implications--whom we need to closely monitor to verify compliance, and the determined group of violators who are deliberately trying to subvert our standards on a large scale--whom we need to eliminate. The possibility of harmful outing applies in my view only to the first group, and to some extent the second, but not someone editing in deliberate contempt of our rules.
(2)we need to recognize that we cannot rely on the good judgement of editors in general, or even admins in general. There's a wide range of capabilities, and considerable opportunity for error. Perhaps the best role of arb com is its traditional one, of monitoring admin habaviour.
(3)we need to recognize the possibility for error. Just as we do not always correctly identify sockpuppets, we have so far not been completely successful in identify UPE. For sockpuppets at least we have the occasionally useful tool of checkuser to supplement behavioral evidence. For UPE, we need to develop something to supplement the often deceptive statements of the editor involved, and the difficult of differentiating UPE from a more benign COI. At present, most rings have been detected when they make an error, or incompletely hide their activities, or we receive a usable complaint from their victims. I think we need the possibility of in some cases saying: we will consider you an UPE unless you can show us otherwise. This can include even verifying identity--some cases have been confirmed when they do volunteer their identity and what they say can be proven false.
(4)I am not completely convinced that we have ever actually done harm to an innocent or merely unaware editor by attempts to detect UPE, even when it breaches privacy. Joe jobs and the like have been in other contexts, usually ideological, sometimes interpersonal. The difficulty is to be sure that the person we are investigating is likely to be a major UPE.
(5)We need to supplement action with respect to editors by action with respect to articles. Certainly we do need to tighten the notability requirements for companies and their executives; we also need to dot his for non-profit organizations--some of the the most disruptive paid editing has come from that sector. I'll have a specific proposal ready soon. Additional steps in this direction are:
JustBerry ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was unblocked by the Ban Appeals Subcommittee in July 2013 with a one-account restriction. Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, the one-account restriction for JustBerry is rescinded. They are reminded that any alternate accounts and/or bots must adhere to WP:SOCK#LEGIT and WP:BOTPOL.
For the Arbitration Committee, Mkdw talk 19:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
In remedy 1.1 of the 2006 Ed Poor 2 case, Ed Poor ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was placed on probation. Under the terms of the probation, he was banned from two topics in 2008 and 2009. The probation and topic bans under its terms are now rescinded.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:37, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
The topic-ban placed on NorthBySouthBaranof in the GamerGate case is terminated. Discretionary sanctions remain authorized to address any user misconduct in the relevant topic-area.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 03:07, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
In remedy 4.2 of the 2012 Article titles and capitalisation case, standard discretionary sanctions were authorized
for all pages related to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, broadly construed.By way of clarification, the scope of this remedy refers to discussions about the policies and guidelines mentioned, and does not extend to individual move requests, move reviews, article talk pages, or other venues at which individual article names may be discussed. Disruption in those areas should be handled by normal administrative means.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 03:26, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
The topic ban from "all matters related to COI editing" imposed on Jytdog ( talk · contribs) as part of the August 2016 unblock conditions is lifted. However, Jytdog is strongly warned any subsequent incident in which you reveal non-public information about another user will result in an indefinite block or siteban by the Arbitration Committee. To avoid ambiguity, "non-public information" includes (but is not limited to) any information about another user including legal names and pseudonyms, workplace, job title, or contact details, which that user has not disclosed themselves on the English Wikipedia or other WMF project.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
A motion has been proposed that would modify the method used for logging Arbitration Enforcement sanctions
The motion can be reviewed and commented upon here
Discussion is invited from all interested parties.
For the Arbitration Committee Amortias ( T)( C) 21:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
For the Arbitration Committee, Mini apolis 18:46, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias ( T)( C) 23:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
Currently sanctions issued pursuant to any remedy except discretionary sanctions are logged on the case page and discretionary sanctions are logged centrally at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log. From the passing of this motion all arbitration enforcement actions, including sanctions enforcing an Arbitration Committee decision, discretionary sanctions (including appeals and modifications), will be logged together in a centralised log. For this to occur:
- The clerks are authorised to modify the current central log as required (such as moving the log and creating additional sections).
- The sections on logging in the discretionary sanctions page are modified as follows:
- The " Establishment of a central log" section is removed.
- The " Special:Permalink/762659852#Motion January 2015" section is removed.
- The " Logging" section is amended to the following:
Discretionary sanctions are to be recorded on the appropriate page of the centralised arbitration enforcement log. Notifications and warnings issued prior to the introduction of the current procedure on 3 May 2014 are not sanctions and remain on the individual case page logs.
- The following section, titled "Logging", is to be added under the " Enforcement" section of the Arbitration Committee procedures page:
All sanctions and page restrictions must be logged by the administrator who applied the sanction or page restriction at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log. Whenever a sanction or page restriction is appealed or modified, the administrator amending it must append a note recording the amendment to the original log entry.To be valid, sanctions must be clearly and unambiguously labelled as an arbitration enforcement action (such as with "arbitration enforcement", "arb enforcement", "AE" or "WP:AE" in the Wikipedia log entry or the edit summary). If a sanction has been logged as an arbitration enforcement action but has not been clearly labelled as an arbitration enforcement action any uninvolved administrator may amend the sanction (for example, a null edit or reblocking with the same settings) on behalf of the original administrator. Labelling a sanction which has been logged does not make the administrator who added the label the "enforcing administrator" unless there is confusion as to who intended the sanction be arbitration enforcement.
A central log ("log") of all page restrictions and sanctions (including blocks, bans, page protections or other restrictions) placed as arbitration enforcement (including discretionary sanctions) is to be maintained by the Committee and its clerks at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log). The log transcludes annual log sub-pages (e.g. [/2015], [/2014]) in reverse chronological order, with the sub-pages arranged by case. An annual log sub-page shall be untranscluded from the main log page (but not blanked) once five years have elapsed since the date of the last entry (including sanctions and appeals) recorded on it, though any active sanctions remain in force. Once all sanctions recorded on the page have expired or been successfully appealed, the log page shall be blanked. The log location may not be changed without the explicit consent of the committee.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 ( T) 14:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
The Clerks of the Arbitration Committee 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.
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, Kharkiv07 ( T) 20:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
An arbitration motion has been proposed that would amend the discretionary sanctions procedure by moving some of those provisions into the Committee's arbitration enforcement policy to standardise enforcement of all Committee and discretionary sanctions. The community is encouraged to reviewed and commented on the motion here. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 10:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
The indefinite siteban of OccultZone ( talk · contribs) imposed in remedy 1 of the "OccultZone and others" arbitration case is rescinded with the following restrictions:
These restrictions may be appealed to the Committee in no less than six months.
For the Arbitration Committee, Mini apolis 17:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
The following sections are moved (word for word) from the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions procedure to the Committee's procedures page (under the " Enforcement" heading) and as such apply to all arbitration enforcement actions (including discretionary sanctions and actions enforcing arbitration case remedies):
A note is to be placed prominently on the discretionary sanctions procedure noting that the Enforcement provisions on the Committee's procedures page also apply to the application and enforcement of discretionary sanctions.
The "Appeals and modifications" in the discretionary sanctions procedure is modified to reflect the current version standard provision for appeals and modifications, including changes made to it in future amendments ( Template:Arbitration standard provisions may be used).
For the Arbitration Committee, Mini apolis 19:10, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
The consensus required restriction in the Palestine-Israel articles case is modified to read as follows:
For the Arbitration Committee, Mini apolis 00:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
After discussion with both parties, the Committee resolves that The Rambling Man ( talk · contribs) be indefinitely banned from interacting with, or commenting on Bishonen ( talk · contribs) anywhere on the English Wikipedia. This is subject to the usual exceptions.
For the Arbitration Committee, -- Euryalus ( talk) 13:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
User:1989, formerly known as User:Blurred Lines, has been subject to a one-account restriction since 2014. Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, the one-account restriction for 1989 is rescinded. They are reminded that any alternate accounts and/or bots must adhere to WP:SOCK#LEGIT and WP:BOTPOL.
Opabinia regalis, GorillaWarfare, Doug Weller, Mkdw, Ks0stm, Euryalus, Keilana, DeltaQuad
Casliber, DGG, Kelapstick, Kirill Lokshin, Newyorkbrad
Callanecc, Drmies
Opabinia regalis ( talk) 05:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment:
In the interest of clarity, the discretionary sanctions procedures described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions are modified as follows:
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...
No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without...
For the Arbitration Committee, Mini apolis 13:56, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
In accordance with the standing procedure on inactivity, the checkuser and oversight permissions of
are removed. The committee thanks them for their service. Additionally, the checkuser and oversight permissions of
and the checkuser permission of
have been voluntarily relinquished. The committee thanks them for their service.
For the Arbitration Committee,
GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:24, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
The arbitration clerks are excited to welcome GoldenRing ( talk · contribs) to the clerk team as a trainee!
The arbitration clerk team is often in need of new members, and any editor who would like to join the clerk team is welcome to apply by e-mail to clerks-llists.wikimedia.org.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:26, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
In accordance with the Committee's procedure on functionary activity, the oversight permission of Jdforrester ( talk · contribs) is removed.
Additionally, the oversight permission of Fluffernutter ( talk · contribs) has been voluntarily relinquished.
The Arbitration Committee thanks them both for their service. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 07:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Deskana ( talk · contribs) is hereby reappointed as a member of the Checkuser team, having previously left the team under good standing in February 2016.
For the Arbitration Committee, GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee is pleased to announce that Mdann52 ( talk · contribs) has been reappointed an arbitration clerk after leaving the team in August 2016.
The arbitration clerk team is often in need of new members. Any editor who would like to join the clerk team is welcome to apply by e-mail to clerks-llists.wikimedia.org.
For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 08:34, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has resolved that:
In 2015, Soap ( talk · contribs) was desysopped and banned indefinitely. Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, he is unbanned. As indicated in the original announcement, he may only regain his administrative tools following approval from the Arbitration Committee, and a successful request for adminship.
For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 09:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
The arbitration clerks are pleased to welcome Kostas20142 ( talk · contribs) to the clerk team as a trainee!
The arbitration clerk team is often in need of new members, and any editor who would like to join the clerk team is welcome to apply by e-mail to clerks-llists.wikimedia.org.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has resolved to perform a round of Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The arbitrators overseeing this will be GorillaWarfare, Ks0stm, and Mkdw. This year, the usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will be requested to assist in the vetting process.
For the Arbitration Committee, GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:29, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
An arbitration case regarding Magioladitis has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
For the Arbitration Committee, Mini apolis 21:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee invites comments from the community on this year's candidates for the CheckUser and Oversight permissions. The community consultation phase of the 2017 appointment round will run from 18 September to 29 September. Questions for the candidates may be asked at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/2017 CUOS appointments. Comments may be posted there or emailed privately to the arbitration committee at arbcom-en-clists.wikimedia.org. Thank you! GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
The arbitration committee has resolved by motion that:
Remedy 4 (The Rambling Man prohibited) of the The Rambling Man arbitration case is modified as follows:
is amended to read
support: Opabinia regalis, DGG, Doug Weller, Ks0stm, Mkdw, Callanecc, Kelpastick
oppose:
recuse: Newyorkbrad
For the Arbitration Committee, Kostas20142 ( talk) 16:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Remedy 4 (Hijiri88: Topic ban (II)) of the Catflap08 and Hijiri88 arbitration case is suspended for a period of six months. During the period of suspension, this restriction may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator as an arbitration enforcement action should Hijiri88 fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process in the area defined in the topic ban remedy. After six months from the date this motion is enacted, if the restriction has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the restriction will automatically lapse.
For the Arbitration Committee, Mini apolis 23:30, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee is pleased to appoint the following users to the functionary team:
The Committee would like to thank the community and all the candidates for bringing this process to a successful conclusion. The Arbitration Committee also welcomes the following users back to the functionary team:
For the Arbitration Committee
GorillaWarfare
(talk) 04:18, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
An arbitration case regarding User:Arthur Rubin has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
For the Arbitration Committee, Mdann52 ( talk) 16:35, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
Remedy 4.1 ("Discretionary sanctions") of the Sexology case is rescinded. Any sanctions or other restrictions imposed under this remedy to date shall remain in force unaffected.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has discussed modifying how case requests are made and would like community feedback before proceeding further with this change.
Current system
Under the current system, to file a case request a user completes a proforma which adds a new section to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. When a case request is accepted and a case opened, parts of the case request are copied and pasted to the main case page and other parts are copied to the talk page of the main case page. If a case request is declined, it is simply removed from the page and a permanent link to the revision immediately prior to its removal is added to the index.
This system has the benefit of keeping requests centralised and that changes to case requests appear on the watchlists of any editor monitoring Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. However, there are also drawbacks to the current system. Chief among them is that it can be extremely difficult to find diffs of comments made in a case request due to the significant number of edits made to that page. This is especially disadvantageous when cases requests are declined and editors need to ask for help in other locations using evidence or examples from the case request. The (necessary) practice of copying sections of case requests to the case pages also has the added drawback of removing the link between the page history and the content of user's edits. Editors are also unable to effectively draft their request before publishing it as as soon as they complete the proforma, it is published to a highly viewed page.
Proposed system
Under the current proposal, case requests will instead be made at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/CASENAME/Request. A proforma will be created, similar to the current one, which will allow editors to create a request on the appropriate subpage. Once the editor is ready with the request, they will transclude their request to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. This is similar to how the RfA process works. I've written this up in more detail at User:Callanecc/sandbox.
This proposal has the benefit of keeping case request page histories simple, where they can be easily accessed. It will be easier for editors who wish to watch a specific case request as they will be able to monitor a specific /Request subpage rather than needing to sort through every edit to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. A related downside is that editors (such as arbitrators and clerks) who wish to monitor each individual case request will need to manually watchlist each new request. A downside is that there will be an increase in subpages of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case and that some requests may be made but not transcluded/filed. A tracking template which categories case requests will be used ( see this example) and clerks will monitor case requests which haven't been filed. If they aren't filed after a specified time period (such as a week) they will be deleted.
General
As part of this proposal, there are no plans to modify any of the following:
The Committee realises that editors wish to see changes in this area, but wishes to addresses these issues one at a time.
Thank you, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 11:20, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Feedback from the community is welcomed at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 36#Community feedback: Proposal to modify how and where case requests are filed (subpages).
The Arbitration Committee resolves by motion, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions, that:
Temporary Checkuser rights are granted to Matiia, RadiX, Shanmugamp7, and (alternate if necessary) Mardetanha for the purpose of their acting as Scrutineers in the 2017 Arbitration Committee election.
For the Arbitration Committee, Mini apolis 16:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
The Arbitration Committee has considered the request for arbitration titled "Crosswiki issues" and decides as follows:
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has received a ban appeal from Crouch, Swale ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and, after internal discussion and discussion with Crouch, Swale, is considering granting their ban appeal with the following conditions:
Before moving further with this appeal, such as voting on it, the committee would like community comments regarding whether this user should be unbanned, and on the suitability of the proposed unban conditions. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 08:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee welcomes the following new and returning arbitrators following their election by the community. Their two-year terms formally begin on 01 January 2018:
All incoming arbitrators have elected to receive (or retain, where applicable) the checkuser and oversight permissions.
We also thank our outgoing colleagues whose terms end on 31 December 2017:
Outgoing arbitrators are eligible to retain the CheckUser and Oversight permissions, remain active on cases accepted before their term ended, and to remain subscribed to the functionaries' and arbitration clerks' mailing lists following their term on the committee. To that effect:
For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 04:03, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions,
Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, Crouch, Swale ( talk · contribs)'s site ban is rescinded and the following indefinite restrictions are imposed:
The standard provisions on enforcement and appeals and modifications apply to these restrictions. If a fifth is placed under these restrictions, the blocking administrator must notify the Arbitration Committee of the block via a Request for Clarification and Amendment so that the unban may be reviewed. Crouch, Swale may appeal these unban conditions every 6 months from the date this motion passes.
For the Arbitration Committee, Mini apolis 17:40, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
The arbitration committee has resolved by
motion that:
Remedy 3 (Hijiri88: Topic ban (I)) of the Catflap08 and Hijiri88 arbitration case is suspended for a period of six months. During the period of suspension, this restriction may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator, as an arbitration enforcement action, should Hijiri88 fail to adhere to any normal editorial process or expectations in the area defined in the topic ban remedy. After six months from the date this motion is enacted, if the restriction has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed to the Arbitration Committee, the restriction will automatically lapse.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Kostas20142 (
talk) 14:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
The General 1RR prohibition of the Palestine-Israel articles arbitration case ( t) ( ev / t) ( w / t) ( pd / t) is amended to read:
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
1) For conduct unbecoming an administrator, Salvidrim! is desysopped. They may regain administrator tools at any time via a successful RfA.
2.1) Salvidrim! is prohibited from reviewing articles for creation drafts, or moving AfC drafts created by other editors into mainspace. This restriction can be appealed in 12 months.
5) Salvidrim! is warned that further breaches of WP:COI will be grounds for sanctions including blocks, in accordance with community policies and guidelines.
6.1) Soetermans is prohibited from reviewing articles for creation drafts, or moving AfC drafts created by other editors into mainspace. This restriction can be appealed in 12 months.
8) Soetermans is warned that further breaches of WP:COI will be grounds for sanctions including blocks, in accordance with community policies and guidelines.
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
The Page restrictions section of the discretionary sanctions procedure is modified to the following:
Any uninvolved administrator may impose on any page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict page protection, revert restrictions, prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists), or any other reasonable measure that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project. The enforcing administrator must log page restrictions they place.
Best practice is toEnforcing administrators must add an editnotice to restricted pageswhere appropriate, using the standard template ({{ ds/editnotice}}), and should add a notice to the talk page of restricted pages.Editors who ignore or breach page restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator provided that, at the time the editor ignored or breached a page restriction:
- The editor was aware of discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict, and
- There was an editnotice ({{ ds/editnotice}}) on the restricted page which specified the page restriction.
Editors using mobile devices may not see edit notices. Administrators should consider whether an editor was aware of the page restriction before sanctioning them.
The Awareness section of the discretionary sanctions procedure is modified to the following:
No editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict. An editor is aware if:
- They were mentioned by name in the applicable Final Decision; or
- They have ever been sanctioned within the area of conflict (and at least one of such sanctions has not been successfully appealed); or
- In the last twelve months, the editor has given and/or received an alert for the area of conflict; or
- In the last twelve months, the editor has participated in any process about the area of conflict at arbitration requests or arbitration enforcement; or
- In the last twelve months, the editor has successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict.
There are additional requirements in place when sanctioning editors for breaching page restrictions.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 15:44, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee is currently considering a modification to our procedures on how case requests and arbitration cases are named. We would like community feedback before considering the proposal further.
Currently, case requests are named by the filing parties. In theory, the Arbitration Committee or arbitration clerks can rename case requests before they are accepted, but this is rarely done in practice. If an arbitration case is accepted, the Committee chooses a name reflective of the dispute before the case is opened. This can either be the name originally provided by the filing party or a name developed by the Committee that better represents the scope of the case. The major benefit of this system is that ongoing cases are easily identifiable.
The following represents a prospective motion that would alter how cases are named.
If a case request is declined, the request will not be named. If a case request is accepted, the Committee will assign a name upon conclusion of the case. Case names will reflect the case's scope, content, and resolution. The Committee will not discuss the naming of a case prior to the case meeting the criteria for closure.
In the past, some editors have been concerned that specific case names have unintentionally biased the result of a case. While this is unproven, any such bias would be eliminated by deferring case naming until after the case was closed. The biggest drawback is that cases will be harder to identify while open. This may result in decreased participation by editors with relevant evidence.
The Committee would like to restrict comments at this time to the proposed changes or suggestions directly related to the case naming process. Other issues related to arbitration proceedings may be addressed by the Committee at a later time.
Thank you, ~ Rob13 Talk 19:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Feedback from the community is welcomed at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 36#Community feedback: Proposal on case naming.
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
Remedy 5 (SarekOfVulcan–Doncram interaction ban) of the Doncram arbitration case is suspended for a period of six months. During the period of suspension, this restriction may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator as an arbitration enforcement action should either SarekOfVulcan or Doncram fail to adhere to Wikipedia editing standards in their interactions with each other. Appeal of such a reinstatement would follow the normal arbitration enforcement appeals process. After six months from the date this motion is enacted, if the restriction has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the restriction will automatically lapse.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:13, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Denelson83 has been temporarily desyopped because of concerns that the account may be compromised. This was done under emergency procedures and was certified by Arbitrators BU Rob13, KrakatoaKatie and Ks0stm.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Katie talk 03:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has received a ban appeal from Rationalobserver ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and, after internal discussion and discussion with Rationalobserver, is considering granting their ban appeal with the following conditions:
For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 00:51, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
Remedy 5 (Hijiri88: 1RR) of the Catflap08 and Hijiri88 arbitration case is suspended for a period of six months. During the period of suspension, this restriction may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator, as an arbitration enforcement action, should Hijiri88 fail to adhere to any normal editorial process or expectations related to edit-warring or disruptive editing. After six months from the date this motion is enacted, if the restriction has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed to the Arbitration Committee, the restriction will automatically lapse.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
An arbitration case regarding User:Joefromrandb and others has been closed and the final decision is viewable here. The following remedies have been enacted:
For the Arbitration Committee, Kostas20142 ( talk) 17:13, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee is considering adopting the following change to the Committee's discretionary sanctions procedures to allow the community to consider a discretionary sanction prior to an appeal directly to the Arbitration Committee:
The editor must request review at AE or AN prior to appealing at ARCA.
While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee,Once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
The community is encouraged to provide any comments on the motion page. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:16, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
An arbitration case regarding civility in infobox discussions has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
For the arbitration committee, GoldenRing ( talk) 08:57, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee is pleased to confirm trainee clerk GoldenRing ( talk · contribs) as a full clerk of the Arbitration Committee.
We also express our thanks and gratitude to the arbitration clerks for their diligent assistance with the arbitration process. The arbitration clerk team is often in need of new members, and any editor who would like to join the clerk team is welcome to apply by e-mail to clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org.
For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 10:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
The discretionary sanctions appeal by MapSGV is sustained, and the topic-ban imposed on MapSGV on March 2, 2018 is lifted. MapSGV remains on notice that the India/Pakistan topic-area is subject to discretionary sanctions, and is reminded to edit in accordance with all applicable policies.
For the Arbitration Committee, Mini apolis 17:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)