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

Shortcut WP:AC/N This noticeboard is for announcements and statements made by the Arbitration Committee. Only members of the Arbitration Committee or the Committee's Clerks may post on this page, but all editors are encouraged to comment on the talk page.

Announcement archives: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7

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

• All editors who are party to this case are instructed to read the principles, to review their own past conduct in the light of them, and if necessary to modify their future conduct to ensure full compliance with them.
• Editors are reminded that when editing in controversial subject areas it is all the more important to comply with Wikipedia policies. In addition, editors who find it difficult to edit a particular article or topic from a neutral point of view and to adhere to other Wikipedia policies are counselled that they may sometimes need or wish to step away temporarily from that article or subject area, and to find other related but less controversial topics in which to edit.
• Any uninvolved administrator may, in his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor editing Transcendental meditation or other articles concerning Transcendental meditation and related biographies of living people, broadly defined, if, after a warning, that editor repeatedly or seriously violates the behavioural standards or editorial processes of Wikipedia in connection with these articles.
• Uninvolved administrators are invited to monitor the articles in the area of conflict to enforce compliance by editors with, in particular, the principles outlined in this case. Enforcing administrators are instructed to focus on fresh and clear-cut matters arising after the closure of this case rather than on revisiting historical allegations.
• From time to time, the conduct of editors within the topic may be re-appraised by any member of the Arbitration Committee and, by motion of the Arbitration Committee, further remedies may be summarily applied to specific editors who have failed to conduct themselves in an appropriate manner.
• User:Fladrif is (i) strongly admonished for incivility, personal attacks, and assumptions of bad faith; and (ii) subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After three blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month.
• Should any user subject to a restriction or topic ban in this case violate that restriction or ban, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year, with the topic ban clock restarting at the end of the block.

For and on behalf of the Arbitration Committee Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 18:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

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

Remedy 10 of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list ("Radeksz topic banned") is rescinded.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

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

The words "such as Time Cube" are struck from principle #15 of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience ("Obvious pseudoscience"). Finding of fact #9 of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience ("Pseudoscience") is amended to read "Wikipedia contains articles on pseudoscientific ideas which, while notable, have little or no following in the scientific community, often being so little regarded that there is no serious criticism of them by scientific critics."

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

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

Remedy 2 of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf ("re JBsupreme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ) is changed to read "JBsupreme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for six months. Should JBsupreme make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, JBsupreme may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below." The six months starts from the day this motion passes.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

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

Remedy 17 of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list ("Biruitorul topic banned") is lifted.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

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

Amendment 4 to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light ("Brews ohare advocacy restrictions") expired with remedy 4.2 of the same case ("Brews ohare topic banned"), as amended by amendment 3 ("Brews ohare").

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

The Arbitration Committee would like to remind administrators that those with Checkuser permission may sometimes block accounts as a result of findings that involve confidential Checkuser data. When such blocks are appealed, non-Checkuser administrators will generally not be privy to all the information that the Checkuser relied on in deciding to block. Moreover, in many cases the Checkuser may not be able to share such information because doing so would violate the privacy policy.

Therefore, in most cases, appeals from blocks designated as "Checkuser block" should be referred to the Arbitration Committee, which will address such appeals as promptly as possible. If an administrator believes that a Checkuser block has been made in error, the administrator should first discuss the matter with the Checkuser in question, and if a satisfactory resolution is not reached, should e-mail the committee. As appropriate, the matter will be handled by the Ban Appeals Subcommittee, by the Arbitration Committee as a whole, or by an individual arbitrator designated by the committee. When an unblock is appropriate -- either because the reviews disagree with the initial checkuser findings, or for other reasons -- it will be granted.

This policy applies only to blocks designated as "Checkuser blocks", that is as blocks relying on confidential checkuser findings. It does not apply to ordinary blocks by an administrator who happens to be a Checkuser, but is not relying on checkuser data in deciding to block. These blocks may be reviewed on-wiki or on unblock-l, the same as any other block. Checkusers are reminded that because designating a block as a "Checkuser block" means that it cannot be reviewed on-wiki or on unblock-l, this term should only be used when confidential information has been used in the blocking decision.

The Arbitration Committee has also noted that some administrators (other than Checkusers) have occasionally noted when making certain blocks that the block "should be reviewed only by the Arbitration Committee" or "should only be lifted by ArbCom." This notation is appropriate only when the block is based upon a concern that should not be discussed on-wiki but only in a confidential environment. Bases for such a concern could include information whose disclosure would identify anonymous users, could jeopardize a user's physical or mental well-being, or where the underlying block reason would be defamatory if the block proved to be unjustified. In every such case, the Arbitration Committee should be notified immediately by e-mail of the block and of the reasons for it. The designation "block should be reviewed only by ArbCom" should not be used simply to indicate that administrator feels strongly about the block. Where an administrator is unsure, he or she should feel free to email the Arbitration Committee mailing list before blocking.

• Support: Carcharoth, Cool Hand Luke, Coren, Kirill Lokshin, Mailer Diablo, Newyorkbrad, Risker, Rlevse, Roger Davies, Shell Kinney, Sir Fozzie, Steve Smith
• Oppose: none
• Abstain: none

Discuss this

As was previously announced, while the Arbitration Committee appreciates the participation and good faith of everyone involved in the May 2010 elections for CheckUser and Oversight permissions, the overall result was not satisfactory in that important positions necessary to the project could not be filled. There was at the time of the election, and there remains today, a need for multiple additional CU and OS operators to address significant backlogs in these critical areas.

The arbitrators have carefully reviewed the recent request for comments regarding the results of the election. Our evaluation of the community's comments is that they did not indicate a strong consensus for any particular solution to this problem.

The Committee has determined that, until a strong community consensus exists for a workable alternative election system, selection of CheckUser and Oversight operators will once again be made directly by the Committee. There will be a period for community comments to be submitted concerning all proposed candidates, but a formal election will not be held. No additional appointments will be made based on the results of the May 2010 elections.

We again thank everyone who participated in the recent election and in the subsequent request for comments.

• Support: Carcharoth, Cool Hand Luke, Coren, Kirill Lokshin, Mailer Diablo, Newyorkbrad, Risker, Rlevse, Roger Davies, Shell Kinney, Sir Fozzie, Steve Smith
• Oppose: none
• Abstain: none

Discuss this

The Arbitration Committee invites applications for Checkuser or Oversight permissions effective with the posting of this motion. The application period will close at 2359 hours UTC on 1 August 2010. For this round of appointments, only administrators will be considered. Candidates who ran in the May 2010 elections elections are encouraged to apply for consideration in this round of appointments. Administrators who applied for permissions in the round leading to the May 2010 election may email the Committee at arbcom.privilegeswikipedia.org by the close of the application period, expressing continued interest and updating their prior responses or providing additional information. New applicants must email the Committee at arbcom.privilegeswikipedia.org by 30 July 2010 to obtain a questionnaire to complete; this questionnaire must be returned by the close of the application period on 1 August 2010. The Arbitration Committee will review the applications and, on 13 August 2010, the names of all candidates being actively considered for appointment will be posted on-wiki in advance of any selection. The community may comment on these candidates until 2359 on 22 August 2010.

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies ^talk 02:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

Checkuser or Oversight permissions - schedule update

For a variety of reasons, mostly real life related, the names of candidates being considered for appointment will not now be posted on-wiki until after the weekend. The commenting period will be extended appropriately to reflect the later posting. We take this opportunity to apologise for any inconvenience this may cause.  Roger Davies ^talk 21:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

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

Remedy 20 of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list ("Miacek topic banned") is lifted.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 00:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

Ottava Rima (talk · contribs)

The Arbitration Committee does not usually comment publicly on ban appeals unless they are successful; however, in this case, Ottava Rima has publicly posted the text of the email he sent to the committee appealing his ban on an external website, and multiple editors have posted on Ottava Rima's talk page indicating varying degrees of support or opposition to the reinstatement of this user's editing permissions, with or without conditions.

Background

Ottava Rima was banned from English Wikipedia following a self-initiated request for arbitration which closed on 20 December 2009. Findings of fact in this case focused largely on Ottava Rima's difficulty in addressing criticism of his work, his involvement in multiple disputes on a wide range of subjects, his violations of the biography of living persons policy, and his contentions that other editors were acting as meatpuppets for each other in opposition to him. The decision of the Arbitration Committee was to ban Ottava Rima from the English Wikipedia for one year and, in addition, "[s]hould Ottava Rima elect to return to editing Wikipedia, he shall be placed on probation for a period and under conditions to be determined prior to his return to editing." Ottava Rima was given leave to appeal the ban after six months.

The Arbitration Committee has long supported the notion that good work within policy on other Wikimedia Foundation projects will be viewed favorably when an editor's ban or long-term block is appealed to the Committee. In this case, however, it is noted that Ottava Rima is currently under editing restrictions at the sister project Wikimedia Commons[1] following multiple blocks[2], and has also been placed on moderation on the Foundation-L mailing list.[3] In both cases, he has demonstrated behavior similar to that which led to his English Wikipedia ban and, in both cases, the sanctions were instituted in the few weeks before Ottava Rima's ban appeal. This is not the sort of participation in other projects that bodes well for an early return to this project.

Ottava Rima has been in correspondence with the Arbitration Committee (either as a whole or with individual members) periodically throughout his ban, and had earlier proposed a return to editing which was later followed by his ban appeal. His appeal is focused on gaining editing access to a large number of literature-related articles, and named 12 administrators to be assigned directly to "deal" with him, specifying that they would not be "mentors." None of the administrators with whom the Arbitration Committee checked had been approached by Ottava Rima in advance of his ban appeal specific to taking on this role and, in fact, at least one of those named has not been active in the project for many months. Ottava Rima also indicated that he wished for these administrators to act as proxies for him in other areas of the project in which Ottava Rima would not be permitted to participate. Finally, he wished to have an entry in his block log revision deleted; this is inappropriate as the block log accurately reflects the reason for the change in his block status (adding talk page editing restrictions).

Decision

Ottava Rima's actions in other areas under the Wikimedia Foundation umbrella, his communications with this Committee, the content of his ban appeal, and his apparent inability or unwillingness to recognize and correct the behavior that led to his ban, all indicate that he has not yet come to understand the collaborative nature of this project. His request to be unbanned is denied. As he has exercised his option to appeal the ban, his block will now be converted to an indefinite block, reflecting the original remedy restricting him from returning to editing until conditions for his return are determined and approved in advance. He may next appeal his ban after 15 January 2011.

It is noted that this editor has, like tens of thousands of other editors, produced content on other Wikimedia projects with licenses compatible with those of this project. Any editor may of course routinely import any such material to the English Wikipedia providing they either (i) attribute in the edit summary the originating source and include the exact difference of the material imported or (ii) post comparable information on the article's talk page. Editors remain responsible for their own edits, including imported content from other sources.

• Supporting the motion: Carcharoth, Coren, Kirill Lokshin, Mailer Diablo, Newyorkbrad, Risker, Rlevse, Roger Davies, Shell Kinney, SirFozzie
• Opposing the motion: None
• Recused from motion: Cool Hand Luke
• Not voting on motion: FayssalF, KnightLago, Steve Smith

For the Arbitration Committee, SirFozzie (talk) 17:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

The Arbitration Committee accepts, with regret, the resignation of Tznkai (talk · contribs) as a member of the Audit Subcommittee, effective immediately. Tznkai has been a community representative on the AUSC since its creation in 2009, first as an interim appointee and subsequently as a community-elected representative. As well, he has been a long-time Arbitration Clerk, and has been active in arbitration enforcement. We thank Tznkai for his services, and wish him well in his future endeavours, with the hope that he may return to be an active Wikipedian at some point in the future.

Further to the AUSC appointment announcements of November 2009, MBisanz (talk · contribs) is appointed to fill the remainder of Tznkai's term on the Audit Subcommittee.

• Support: Carcharoth, Cool Hand Luke, Kirill Lokshin, Mailer Diablo, Newyorkbrad, Risker, Rlevse, Roger Davies, Shell Kinney, SirFozzie
• Oppose: None
• Not voting: Coren, FayssalF, KnightLago, Steve Smith

In addition, arbitrator KnightLago will be filling the slot now vacant as Kirill Lokshin has come to the end of his term on the AUSC, and SirFozzie has agreed to extend his term to December 31, 2010.

The Arbitration Committee, in consultation with the community and with past and present members of the Audit Subcommittee, will be reviewing the activities and processes of the AUSC through its first year, to identify what improvements can be made. This review will be completed by October 10, prior to the next scheduled round of elections for community representatives to the subcommittee.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Risker (talk) 01:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

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

The Arbitration Committee provisions for the unbanning of Betacommand are amended as follows: Betacommand (talk · contribs), now editing as Δ (talk · contribs), is authorized to operate a single secondary account, Δbot (talk · contribs), only to perform automated tasks directly related to the clerking of sockpuppet investigations only as specified and authorized by the Bot Approvals Group. Any other use of the bot, broadly interpreted, must be specifically authorized in advance by BAG and endorsed by ArbCom.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 07:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

The latest draft of the proposed update to the Arbitration policy is here with discussion of the draft here. All editors are cordially invited to participate.  Roger Davies ^talk 03:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Following the call for applicants, the Arbitration Committee has reviewed applications and is now actively considering the following candidates for Checkuser and Oversight permissions. Unless otherwise stated below, any appointments will come into effect on 1 September 2010.

Checkuser:

• Template:User3-small
• Template:User3-small
• Template:User3-small
• Template:User3-small

Oversight:

• Template:User3-small From December 2010, when he leaves the Wikimedia Foundation's staff.
• Template:User3-small
• Template:User3-small
• Template:User3-small From 10 November 2010, when his term on the Audit Subcommittee ends.
• Template:User3-small

Between now and 23:59 on 25 August 2010 (UTC), the community is invited to comment on the suitability of the candidates. As the primary area of concern is confidence in the candidate's ability to operate within the Wikimedia policy, comments of this nature are best directed to the Committee's mailing list (arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org).

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies ^talk 12:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this