Arbitration​Committee

Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes

Per motions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions:

1) Herostratus strongly admonished

For failing to adhere to the standard of decorum expected of administrators, and for unblocking himself in direct contravention of blocking policy, Herostratus is strongly admonished.

2) Viridae admonished

For blocking another administrator without full knowledge of the situation at hand, and without attempting to contact the administrator to obtain such knowledge, Viridae is admonished for the poor judgment exercised in this incident.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

Per motions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification:

1) The Arbitration Committee notes that the conditions put forward by remedies during the Ireland article names arbitration case were fulfilled to the Committee's satisfaction and that, as a consequence, remedy 4 ("[...] no further page moves discussions related to these articles shall be initiated for a period of 2 years.") is in force until September 18, 2011.

2) While the related matter of how to refer to Ireland/Republic of Ireland in other places (such as articles) is not directly covered by the aforementioned remedies, the Committee takes notes of the existence of a de facto consensus on the matter owing to the stability of the Ireland manual of style and enjoins the community to avoid needlessly rehashing the disputes.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

• User:ChildofMidnight is banned from Wikipedia for one year.

• User:ChildofMidnight is restricted to editing main (article) space, the talk pages of articles he has edited, Template talk:Did you know, and his own talk and user talk pages only. In all cases he is forbidden from discussing the behavior of other editors, real or perceived, outside of his own user talk page. ChildofMidnight may apply to the Committee for exemptions to this restriction for the purposes of good faith dispute resolution on a case-by-case basis. This remedy is concurrent (and cumulative) with any extant topic bans, and consecutive to any editing ban.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

Per motions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case:

1) The unblock of User:Brews ohare by User:Trusilver was done without the explicit written consent of the Arbitration Committee, or a full and active community discussion as required. The Arbitration Committee explicitly rejects Trusilver's defense of WP:IAR in this situation. However, since the block has since expired, it will not be reapplied. For misuse of his administrator tools, User:Trusilver's administrator rights are revoked. He may regain them through a new WP:RfA or through a request to the Arbitration Committee.

2) The Arbitration Committee modifies the Restriction on arbitration enforcement activity as follows:

Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except:

(a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or

(b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page.

Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee.

Administrators who consistently make questionable enforcement administrative actions, or whose actions are consistently overturned by community or Arbitration Committee discussions may be asked to cease performing such activities or be formally restricted from taking such activities.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

This request has been closed and the final motion is available at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Durova and Shoemaker's Holiday.

The Arbitration Committee notes and deplores the acrimonious nature of the dispute between Shoemaker's Holiday and Durova, and the way it has been needlessly prolonged and intensified on- and off-wiki by both parties, and resolves that:

a) While noting the provisions in paragraph (b):

i) Shoemaker's Holiday shall neither communicate with nor comment upon either directly or indirectly Durova on any page in the English Wikipedia.

ii) Durova shall neither communicate with nor comment upon either directly or indirectly Shoemaker's Holiday on any page in the English Wikipedia.

iii) Both parties are expressly prohibited from responding in kind to perceived violations of sections (i) and (ii) above and should instead report the perceived violation to the Arbitration Committee by email.

b) Both parties may, within reason, comment within the same pages (for example, in the Wikipedia:Featured Pictures topic area and similar) providing their comments do not relate directly or indirectly to the other party. They may also, within reason, revert blatant third-party vandalism to each others' or shared works.

c) Should either Shoemaker's Holiday or Durova violate the letter or spirit of these restrictions, they may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator for short periods of up to one week; after the third such violation, the maximum block length shall be one year. All blocks shall be logged below. Appeals of any blocks may be made to the Arbitration Committee.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

Per a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case:

This case is accepted, but will not be opened unless and until A Nobody (talk · contribs) returns to Wikipedia. If A Nobody does so under any account or I.P., he/she is required to notify the Committee.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

The Arbitration Committee is currently aware of a phishing attempt on admin accounts at a massive scale. The delivery method was done via the "E-mail this user" feature, signing the emails as "The Wikipedia Freedom Fighters". Administrators are urged NOT to reply to any of these emails. A further announcement on this issue will be forthcoming.

For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 10:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

Follow-up

The Arbitration Committee has reviewed a significant amount of information (including information that is covered by the Privacy policy) in relation to the recent use of the Wikimedia interface to send spam emails to a large number of Wikipedia administrators. Based on this review, and with prior episodes in mind, the Committee will be requesting that developers give serious consideration to creating either (a) a reasonable throttle on the number of emails that can be sent from any account over a specific period or (b) a captcha process for sending emails, with the developers identifying preferred methods to address this. While the recent spamming was directed at administrators, it is not the first episode of email spamming in the past year, so it is time to consider preventative measures.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 04:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

1. Brews ohare's topic ban is modified to expire in 90 days from the date that this motion passes. The supplementary restrictions of Brews ohare (namely, restrictions from posting on physics related disputes or the Wikipedia/Wikipedia talk namespaces) will also expire 90 days from the date that this motion passes. Brews ohare is instructed that continued violations of his existing restrictions will lead to the 90 day timer being reset in additional to any discretionary enforcement action taken.
2. Count Iblis, David Tombe, Likebox, and Hell in a Bucket are indefinitely restricted from advocacy for or commenting on Brews ohare, broadly construed. Should any of these editors violate this restriction, they may be blocked for up to 24 hours by any uninvolved administrator. After three blocks, the maximum block length shall rise to one week.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

Per motions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

1) PHG's mentorship is renewed

For the next year:

• Per Honor et Gloria (talk · contribs) is required to use sources that are in English and widely available.
• Per Honor et Gloria may also use sources in French that are widely available—if a special language mentor fluent in French is appointed. The special language mentors selected must be approved by the Arbitration Committee. Mentors shall ensure that Wikipedia's verifiability policy on foreign language sources is followed—that quality English sources and reliably-published translations will be used in preference to foreign language sources and original translations. When Per Honor et Gloria uses sources in languages other than English, he is required to notify his mentor of their use.

and

• Per Honor et Gloria is required to use a mentor to assist with sourcing the articles that he edits. The mentors selected must be approved by the Arbitration Committee. In case of doubt raised by another user in respect of a source, citation, or translation provided by Per Honor et Gloria, the mentors' views shall be followed instead of those of Per Honor et Gloria.

Angusmclellan (talk · contribs) is thanked by the committee for serving admirably as PHG's mentor, and it is hoped that he will continue to serve in that capacity.

2) PHG's topic ban is renewed

ArbCom renews the topic ban from the PHG arbitration. Per Honor et Gloria (talk · contribs) is prohibited from editing articles relating to the Mongol Empire, the Crusades, intersections between Crusader states and the Mongol Empire, and Hellenistic India—all broadly defined. This topic ban will last for a period of one year. He is permitted to make suggestions on talk pages, provided that he interacts with other editors in a civil fashion.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

The Arbitration Committee has determined that there is a need for additional oversighters and checkusers to improve workload distribution and ensure complete, timely response to requests. Beginning today, experienced editors are invited to apply for either or both of the Oversight or CheckUser permissions. Current holders of either permission are also invited to apply for the other. The last day to request an application is April 10, 2010. For more information, please see the election page.

For the Arbitration Committee - KnightLago (talk) 18:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

The Arbitration Committee is pleased to advise that John Vandenberg (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has agreed to resume his previous role as checkuser and oversighter. John elected to take a break from these roles when he resigned as an arbitrator in late 2009, but is now ready to return to these responsibilities.

At the same time, we regret to advise that Thatcher (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has resigned his checkuser and oversight permissions. Thatcher has admirably filled many roles related to the Arbitration Committee over the years, as an outstanding arbitration clerk, a wise and reliable arbitration enforcement administrator, and as a skilled and knowledgeable checkuser and oversighter. He was instrumental in the development of the Audit Subcommittee, and helped to set its parameters as a charter member of the subcommittee. He has been the voice of reason in many discussions, and both the Arbitration Committee and many other areas of the project will miss his well-reasoned input. We thank Thatcher for his many years of dedicated and professional work.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Risker (talk) 01:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

• User:Asgardian is banned from Wikipedia for one year.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 07:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

The Arbitration Committee is pleased to announce the promotion of Amorymeltzer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and AlexandrDmitri (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) from trainee clerks to full clerk status and would like to congratulate them.

For the Arbitration Committee,

SirFozzie (talk) 10:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

Per a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions:

The Arbitration Committee has determined that Altenmann (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has been using multiple accounts to influence discussions, particularly deletion discussions, in a manner contrary to the sockpuppetry policy, using the following accounts:

• Mukadderat (talk · contribs)
• Timurite (talk · contribs)
• Xuz (talk · contribs)
• Dzied Bulbash (talk · contribs)
• Laudak (talk · contribs)
• Twri (talk · contribs).

Further, Altenmann has used his administrator permissions to close deletion discussions in agreement with his personal opinion as expressed by one or more of his alternate accounts.[1],[2]

In particular, Altenmann has also used two or more of his accounts to comment in deletion discussions relating to various phobias, both recently and in the past.[3],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8]. He has used the administrator account to close deletion discussions related to phobias in which he has commented using one or more of his other accounts.[9],[10],[11] The deletion of the Enochlophobia article took place in March 2010.

All of the sockpuppet accounts are now blocked indefinitely. As well, the SemBubenny and Mikkalai (talk · contribs) accounts, which are Altenmann's former usernames, have also been blocked indefinitely. Altenmann is currently blocked indefinitely until the sockpuppetry investigation is complete, at which time an appropriate block length can be ascertained.

Altenmann is currently subject to an Arbitration Committee restriction, issued in March 2009 under his former username of SemBubenny (talk · contribs), that specifically discusses his role in deletion of phobia-related articles.[12] In particular, "SemBebenny is warned that any continuation of the problematic behavior in which he previously engaged, such as a pattern of improper or unexplained deletions or refusals to communicate with editors concerning his administrator actions, is likely to lead to the revocation or suspension of his administrator status without further warnings."

Accordingly, the majority of the Arbitration Committee has voted to approve the immediate removal of administrator permissions from Altenmann for abuse of administrator permissions in violation of an Arbitration Committee remedy, abuse of administrator permissions by closing deletion discussions in which he has commented using one or more alternate accounts, and inappropriate use of alternate accounts in violation of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Approving the desysop are: Coren, Hersfold, KnightLago, Mailer Diablo, Newyorkbrad, Risker, Rlevse, SirFozzie, and Wizardman; with Steve Smith abstaining.

The administrator permissions of Altenmann (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) are removed for abuse of administrator permissions in violation of an Arbitration Committee remedy [13], abuse of administrator permissions by closing deletion discussions in which he has commented using one or more alternate accounts, and inappropriate use of alternate accounts in violation of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Altemann is restricted to one account. He may not change username without the explicit authorization of the Arbitration Committee. Altemann may seek to regain adminship through a request for adminship.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 01:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

Per a request from Offliner (talk · contribs) for public clarification of the rationale behind his ban, the Committee notes the following:

Offliner created a publicly-accessible off-site archive of personal information which had been removed from Wikipedia and that he knew was private and personal information soon to be oversighted, and did not take adequate precautions to ensure that links to this archive would not be distributed (and, in fact, has personally given that link to at least one third party). Links to the archive were subsequently distributed in a public forum, and eventually came to the possession of individuals who used the archived information to harass a Wikipedia editor.

— Coren ^(talk), for the Arbitration Committee, 23:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

During January 2010 the Ban Appeals Subcomittee (BASC) heard 29 appeals, 3 of which were successful. Of the unsuccessful appeals 16 were an appeal of a formal or informal community ban, 6 were an appeal of an ArbCom ban, 1 was an appeal of a AE ban, 1 was an appeal of an autoblock and 2 were handled by the community while the appeal was under consideration. The successful appeals were DollyD, Shamir1 and SirIsaacBrock.

During February 2010, BASC heard 31 appeals, 2 of which were successful. Of the unsuccessful appeals 24 were an appeal of a formal or informal community ban, 2 were an appeal of an ArbCom ban and 3 were an appeal of ArbCom sanctions. The successful appeals were Mjgm84 and WVBluefield.

During March 2010, BASC heard 16 appeals, none of which were successful. Of the unsuccessful appeals 13 were an appeal of a formal or informal community ban, 2 were an appeal of a short block and 1 was an appeal of a block by ArbCom.

For the Arbitration Committee Shell ^babelfish 02:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

Tanthalas39 (talk · contribs) is to be desysopped immediately for wheel warring and unblocking himself, in violation of the policy on sysop tools per the emergency procedures. This desysop is temporary until the entire Commitee has had the opportunity to examine the matter and Tanthalas39 is given an opportunity to explain his actions.

In support: Coren, Rlevse, Shell Kinney

— Coren ^(talk), for the Arbitration Committee, 00:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]