Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Pursuant to this remedy in the recently closed case on West Bank - Judea and Samaria, consensus has been reached on naming guidelines for the West Bank, now located at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (West Bank). Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Roger Davies has stepped down from the Audit Subcommittee (AUSC) with immediate effect and will be replaced by Risker until 19 October 2009 for the unexpired part of the term.

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies ^talk 15:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

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

The arbitration committee advises that one or more neutral admins

chair a new and structured Request for Comment on the disputed naming

guidelines on the Golan Heights within a two month time-frame.

It is recommend that those interested use Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration as a staging post.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 17:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

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

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong#Mythdon restricted and placed under mentorship is vacated and replaced with the following:

Mythdon is placed under conduct probabtion

Mythdon is placed under conduct probation for one year, in relation to WikiProject Tokusatsu and Ryulong, broadly construed. This includes, but is not limited to, edit warring and failing to appropriately pursue dispute resolution and to show better communication skills. Mythdon will still be restricted from making edits such as unnecessary questions and abusive warnings to users' talk pages.

Conduct probation enforcement

Any uninvolved administrator may utilize discretionary sanctions, including topic bans and blocks, to enforce this probation. Acting administrators are encouraged to apply sanctions tailored to the circumstances and context. For the purposes of enforcing this measure, any administrator approached directly by Ryulong for enforcement should not act directly. In such a situation, raise both Ryulong's and Mythdon's conduct in normal venues for review.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 19:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Pursuant to the agenda item Review Committee performance, a half-year summary of arbitration activities has been published at January to June 2009 report. The publication of this summary was approved by an 8/0 vote, with no abstentions, and six arbitrators considered inactive:

• Support: Carcharoth, Casliber, FloNight, John Vandenberg, Risker, Rlevse, Roger Davies, Wizardman
• Oppose: none
• Abstain: none
• Inactive: Cool Hand Luke, Coren, FayssalF, Newyorkbrad, Stephen Bain, Vassyana

For the Arbitration Committee, Carcharoth (talk) 04:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion - Discuss report

The Ban Appeals Subcommittee has allowed the appeals of:

• Melonite (talk · contribs)
• Geologician (talk · contribs)

The text of the decisions and any associated restrictions have been posted on the applicable user talk pages.

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies ^talk 11:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

A motion has been filed concerning Geogre (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions.

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies ^talk 15:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Motion: that ArbCom urgently establish an arbcom-en-b mailing list solely for discussions involving (i) the conduct of an arbcom-l subscriber or (ii) cases, broadly defined, to which an arbcom-l subscriber is a party. In these instances, those arbcom-l subscribers referred to in clause (i) and (ii) would be removed from arbcom-en-b list for the duration of the discussion. Discussion shall be initiated at arbcom-en-b upon the motion of three uninvolved arbitrators.

• Support: Carcharoth, Casliber, FloNight, John Vandenberg, Risker, Rlevse, Roger Davies, Wizardman
• Oppose: Coren, Stephen Bain
• Abstain: none
• Not voting: Cool Hand Luke, FayssalF, NewYorkBrad, Vassyana

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies ^talk 07:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Per motions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions:

1) The Utgard Loki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) account is indefinitely blocked. Geogre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely prohibited from maintaining any other alternate account without disclosing it publicly.

2) Geogre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is strongly admonished for sockpuppeting and his actions related thereto.

3.1) It is beyond doubt that Geogre (talk · contribs) used Utgard Loki (talk · contribs) in a manner which created the illusion of greater support for positions held by Geogre, in breach of the "Voting and other shows of support" and "Avoiding scrutiny" sections of the sock puppetry policy.

3.2) Administrators using a second account in a forbidden manner will be summarily de-sysopped, per the "Administrative sock puppets" section of the sock puppetry policy.

3.3) Geogre is desysopped and may regain adminship via the usual means.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 00:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

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

• The Utgard Loki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) account is to be unblocked and clearly identified as being an alternate account of Geogre. Geogre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) remains indefinitely prohibited from maintaining any other alternate account without disclosing it publicly.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, MBisanz ^talk 01:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

The Committee has amended several remedies of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Obama_articles as follows:

The remedies 4, 5, 9.2, 10.2, and 13 are rewritten as follows: (User) is admonished for his edit-warring. Furthermore, User is subject to an editing restriction for one year. User is limited to one revert per page per week on Obama-related articles (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. Should User exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

The amended decision may be viewed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Obama_articles#Remedies.

On behalf of the Committee. MBisanz ^talk 03:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Per motions of the Arbitration Committee at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions, the administrative permissions of Aitias (talk · contribs · former admin: blocks · protections · deletions · rights · meta · local rights) are removed for disruptive and inappropriate conduct including conduct involving his administrative duties. (Please note that Aitias resigned his tools under a cloud after these motions were passed but prior to their enactment, however this motion and the subsequent note were explicitly requested by the Committee to still be enacted and published.)

Aitias may seek to regain adminship via WP:RFA or by application to the Arbitration Committee. Further, Aitias is restricted to one account and is required to comply with the applicable renaming procedures for restricted users, viewable here, should he rename.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (talk) 04:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

The Arbitration Committee has amended Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong to include the following terms:

Pursuant to the latest developments related to the recent Arbitration case involving Mythdon and Ryulong and discussions on the Arbitration Committee mailing list, the Arbitration Committee has noted that there has been no changes in the behavior of Mythdon since the closure of the Arbitration case:

a) the user has made no effort whatsoever to find a mentor;

b) the user has made no effort whatsoever to engage himself in serious discussions to produce a guideline for the articles falling under the scope of the Tokusatsu WikiProject as directed by this remedy;

c) the user has targetted another Wikipedia area to impose his stance on verifiability disregarding the ArbCom's view concerning his stance on the matter;

d) He recently threatened to mass AfD articles which do not satisfy his standards in terms of reliable sources and verifiability;

Therefore, the Committee has decided to extend the restrictions imposed in order to facilitate more collaboration in the field of conflict and to ensure the smooth running of the project in general and protect other areas in particular. The terms are as follows:

a) Mythdon is prohibited from partcipating at any Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion discussion which involves verifiability and reliable sources. That includes —and is not limited to— the WikiProject Tokusatsu. The restriction is indefinite pending the production of a guideline. Mythdon —as well as everyone else— should respect the terms of the guideline once it is produced;

b) Mythdon is reminded of the importance of participating in a good faith effort to help produce a genuine guideline for the cited WikiProject, including but not limited to verifiability. He is again urged to start working on this guideline;

c) Mythdon is prohibited from making any comment on reliable sources or verifiability unless comments are made at the talk pages of those guidelines and policies, or at the Tokusatsu WikiProject talk pages;

d) all other restrictions imposed during the arbitration case involving him remain in place;

e) in the light of Mythdon's resignation from the WikiProject, the ArbCom notes that any similar behavior which had led to this situation would be dealt with similarly. Therefore and as a preventive measure, restrictions apply to all WikiProjects;

f) should Mythdon violate the above restrictions, any administrator may block him for a period up to two weeks per incident, escalating to one year per incident after the fifth one. Any discussion about possible violations should be held at requests for arbitration enforcement;

g) any further request on this matter should go through requests for arbitration enforcement beforehand. Administrators there are able to help answer any question.

These terms have been appended to the Ryulong case page at "New remedies and enforcement added by motion". The motion and surrounding discussion are archived here.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (talk) 15:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

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

• 1.1) On 21 May, a user added the {{retired}} template to the userpage of another user. An administrator, Bishonen, reverted the addition with the edit summary "Rm 'retired' tag, which is none of [your] business". The user then stated on Bishonen's talk page that "You do not decide what is and what is not my business. Wikipedia is everyone's business..." to which Bishonen replied with "Yes, I do, you little shit. Don't interfere with [another user's] page. Now get lost. Shoo!" The user initiated a discussion about the placement of the tag and Bishonen's comment at the administrators' incidents noticeboard (during which Bishonen made several more condescending remarks towards the user), and as a result of this discussion Jimbo Wales blocked Bishonen for three hours.

• 1.2) Although people do not "own" their user pages, editors should avoid – with certain well-established exceptions (of which adding retirement templates is not one) – making substantial changes to other people's user pages without their consent. The committee notes the user subsequently apologised for his edit.

• 1.3) Bishonen's response to the user was grossly uncivil. Her subsequent comments (on the noticeboard and on her talk page) were condescending and unrepentant. While, in this context, a block may be justified on civility grounds, its delayed timing and short duration - and prior interaction between the blocking and blocked editors - made it controversial. Additionally, the block was placed some time after Bishonen had finished posting, at a time when no ongoing conduct was prevented by the block.

• 1.4) Jimbo Wales did not notify Bishonen immediately of the block, as is required by blocking policy, and it was not until half an hour after announcing it at the incidents noticeboard that he did so. In his announcement of the block on the incidents noticeboard, Jimbo Wales stated "This all seems sadly unbecoming to me, and a direct consequence of our having been too tolerant, for too long, of toxic personalities". Although the use of this latter phrase was later clarified as intending to refer to incivility in general, the phrasing was careless and has been interpreted, reasonably, by some editors as referring to Bishonen.

• 1.5) The Committee acknowledges (i) Bishonen's recognition that "The way I spoke to [the user] was wrong, especially for an admin" and (ii) Jimbo Wales' permanent abdication of the use of the blocking tool. In light of the foregoing, the committee need take no further action at this time.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, MBisanz ^talk 04:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

The {{ArbComOpenTasks}} template has now been revised to include tracking for all public Arbitration Committee activity. The template now includes requests to open cases, the stages for accepted cases, recently closed cases, requests for clarification, requests for amendment, and motions. For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies ^talk 05:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

The August 2009 CheckUser and Oversight elections will end at 23:59 UTC on August 10, in approximately 3.5 hours. Voting is currently underway.

For the Arbitration Committee
Risker (talk) 20:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

During the period 23-31 August 2009, as significant numbers of arbitrators will be travelling, Arbitration Committee business will be conducted at much reduced levels and only urgent new matters will be accepted.

Support: Carcharoth, Casliber, Coren, FloNight, John Vandenberg, Risker, Roger Davies, Wizardman.

Oppose: Rlevse

Abstain: none

Not voting: Cool Hand Luke, FayssalF, Newyorkbrad, Stephen Bain, Vassyana.

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies ^talk 07:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

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

The Arbitration Committee:

1. Finds that the circumstances of The Rambling Man's resignation during the Date delinking case do not preclude his restoration to bureaucrat status by request, in the discretion of the bureaucrats, and that a new request for bureaucratship is not required.
2. Encourages any users concerned that the policies and procedures governing restoration of administrator and bureaucrat privileges following a resignation may be unfair or unclear to convene a community discussion on an appropriate policy page and to seek to develop a community-written policy on these matters.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

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

Having considered the request to lift the remaining restriction (remedy X) in the EK3 case, the Arbitration Committee decides that the request is denied, but that the indefinite nature of the restriction is altered so that the restriction will now expire one year after the enactment of this motion. This expiration date of one year will be reset following any future unsuccessful appeals of this restriction.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 00:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Motion: The Arbitration Committee, on reviewing the results of the August 2009 Checkuser and Oversight elections,

(a) appoints the following editors as checkusers, subject to identification to the Wikimedia Foundation:

• J.delanoy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (already identified)
• Hersfold (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Bjweeks (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (already identified)

(b) appoints the following editors as oversighters, subject to identification to the Wikimedia Foundation:

• Nishkid64 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (current checkuser, already identified)
• Avraham (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (current checkuser, already identified)
• Thatcher (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (current member of the Audit Subcommittee, already identified, to retain oversight permission following the conclusion of his term on that subcommittee)
• Keegan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (already identified)
• Howcheng (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (already identified)
• Dweller (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Mr.Z-man (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (already identified)
• Hmwith (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Happy-melon (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Supporting: Carcharoth, Casliber, Cool Hand Luke, Coren, FayssalF, FloNight, John Vandenberg, Newyorkbrad, Rlevse, Roger Davies, Wizardman
Abstaining: Risker (supervising arbitrator), Stephen Bain
Inactive: Vassyana

The Committee thanks the other candidates (Jennavecia (talk · contribs), SoWhy (talk · contribs), Stifle (talk · contribs), Tiptoety (talk · contribs), and VirtualSteve (talk · contribs)), those who applied but were not put forward as candidates, and the community in bringing this election process to a successful conclusion.

For the Arbitration Committee
Risker (talk) 03:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

The Ban Appeals Subcommittee has allowed the appeals of:

• Keeblesound (talk · contribs)
• Arindamp (talk · contribs)

As a consequence of the Arindamp appeal, the ban subcommittee has also unbanned Mrinal Pandey (talk · contribs) and Carlisle Rodham (talk · contribs). These three users are topic banned from The Indian Institute of Planning and Management for 6 months.

The text of the decisions and any associated restrictions have been posted on the applicable user talk pages.

For the Arbitration Committee,  John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

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

Having considered all the requests for amendment and requests for clarification submitted following the decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking, the Arbitration Committee decides as follows:

(1) All remedies in the decision providing that a specified user is topic-banned from editing or discussing "style and editing guidelines" (or similar wording) are modified by replacing these words with the words "style and editing guidelines relating to the linking or unlinking of dates";

(2) All remedies in the decision providing that a specified user is "prohibited from reversion of changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline" are modified by replacing these words with the words "prohibited from reverting the linking or unlinking of dates";

(3) All editors whose restrictions are being narrowed are reminded to abide by all applicable policies and guidelines in their editing, so that further controversies such as the one that led to the arbitration case will not arise, and any disagreements concerning style guidelines can be addressed in a civil and efficient fashion;

(4) Any party who believes the Date delinking decision should be further amended may file a new request for amendment. To allow time to evaluate the effect of the amendments already made, editors are asked to wait at least 30 days after this motion is passed before submitting any further amendment requests.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 03:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

For the duration of this case, Lapsed Pacifist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is topic banned from articles related to Corrib Gas, broadly defined. Any uninvolved administrator may issue blocks up to 24 hours in duration for violations of this injunction. Attempts to game the injunction may also be taken into consideration.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 21:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

By motion of the Committee at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification,

Remedy 9 in the Obama articles case is replaced by the following (timed to run from the date the case closed):

ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is topic-banned from Obama-related articles for six months, and any related discussions, broadly construed across all namespaces.

For the Arbitration Committee,
AGK 12:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion.

The Arbitration Committee has passed a motion amending the "Locke Cole banned" remedy in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking. The remedy banning Locke Cole (talk · contribs) from editing Wikipedia for six months has been amended as follows:

• Locke Cole is provisionally unbanned effective at the enactment of this motion.
• Should Locke Cole be blocked as a result of violating the three-revert rule, his full editing ban will be reinstated for the remainder of its original duration, until December 14, 2009.
• Locke Cole remains indefinitely topic-banned from style and editing guidelines relating to the linking or unlinking of dates, and any related discussions.
• Locke Cole remains subject to an editing restriction for 12 months (until June 14, 2010), under which he is prohibited from reverting the linking or unlinking of dates.
• Locke Cole is reminded to abide by all applicable policies and guidelines in his editing, so that further controversies such as the one that led to the arbitration case will not arise, and any disagreements concerning style guidelines can be addressed in a civil and efficient fashion.

The discussion and voting on this motion has been archived at the case talk page. Locke Cole's account has been unblocked pursuant to this amendment.

For the Arbitration Committee
Daniel (talk) 03:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

The Arbitration Committee has passed a motion further amending Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong.

Mythdon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned for a period of six months. At the conclusion of the ban period, Mythdon will be on a six-month conduct probationary period, to run under the current restrictions, as set out in Ryulong.

The discussion and voting on this motion has been archived at the case talk page. Mythdon's account has been blocked for a period of six months pursuant to this amendment.

For the Arbitration Committee

Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 00:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

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

194x144x90x118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned for a period of one year.

All editors of the DreamHost article are reminded to abide by Wikipedia's policies of neutral point of view, using reliable and verifiable sources; to engage in civil discussion on the talk page to resolve editorial disputes; and to use the relevant noticeboards and dispute resolution processes to seek external opinions on coverage of matters where the current editors may lack objectivity.

194x144x90x118's account has been blocked for a period of one year pursuant to this case.

For the Arbitration Committee

Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 03:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

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

As a result of this case:

1. The cold fusion article, and parts of any other articles substantially about cold fusion, are placed under discretionary sanctions.
2. Abd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned for a period of three months from Wikipedia, and for a period of one year from the cold fusion article. These bans are to run concurrently. Additionally, Abd is prohibited from participating in discussions about disputes in which he is not one of the originating parties, including but not limited to article talk pages, user talk pages, administrator noticeboards, and any formal or informal dispute resolution, however not including votes or comments at polls. Abd is also admonished for edit-warring on Arbitration case pages, engaging in personal attacks, and failing to support allegations of misconduct.
3. William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)'s administrator rights are revoked. He may apply for their reinstatement at any time via Requests for Adminship or appeal to the Committee. William M. Connolley is also admonished for edit warring on Arbitration case pages.
4. Mathsci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is reminded not to edit war and to avoid personal attacks.
5. The community is urged to engage in a policy discussion and clarify under what circumstances, if any, an administrator may issue topic or page bans without seeking consensus for them, and how such bans may be appealed. This discussion should come to a consensus within one month of this notice.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,

Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Pursuant to ArbCom procedure for immediate temporary desysop, Pastor Theo (talk · contribs) is to have its sysop bit removed immediately as a reincarnation of a community banned editor.

Concurring: Carcharoth, Casliber, Coren, Rlevse, Wizardman

— Coren ^(talk), for the Arbitration Committee, 23:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Confirmation of desysopping

In early September 2009, a sockpuppetry investigation was initiated to compare the Mrs. Wolpoff (talk · contribs) account with community-banned Ecoleetage (talk · contribs), based on information that the two accounts were likely shared by the same person. During the course of this investigation, it became apparent that Mrs. Wolpoff was also editing as administrator Pastor Theo (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), an account that was created a day after Ecoleetage was blocked in January 2009, and which made a successful request for adminship in July 2009.

Further review demonstrated that the Mrs. Wolpoff account and the Pastor Theo account were being used in a way that violated multiple policies, particularly the sock puppetry policy, but also the administrator policy, with both accounts voting in certain community processes, and the administrator account being used to close discussions in which the non-administrator account had participated. As this use of both accounts was occurring as recently as last week, it was deemed necessary to initiate temporary desysopping procedures to prevent further disruption to community consensus discussions such as article deletion discussions and requests for adminship. The results of the investigation have been reviewed by multiple checkusers and arbitrators, and all have come to the same conclusion.

It is outside of the scope of the Arbitration Committee to review the community consensus discussions in which both the Mrs. Wolpoff account and the Pastor Theo account participated; the Committee suggests that the community revisits these issues and makes an appropriate determination as to whether any action is required.

Both the Mrs. Wolpoff account and the Pastor Theo account have been indefinitely blocked, because the parent account Ecoleetage is community-banned. The Pastor Theo account has been desysopped. This notice confirms the status of these accounts.

• Support: Carcharoth, Casliber, Coren, FayssalF, Newyorkbrad, Vassyana
• Not voting: Rlevse, Roger Davies, Stephen Bain
• Recused: Cool Hand Luke, Risker
• Inactive: FloNight, John Vandenberg, Wizardman

For the Arbitration Committee, Carcharoth (talk) 00:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

The Ban Appeal Subcommittee has reviewed the case of this user and considered that a cautious trial of unblocking is feasible. The user is reminded to adhere to the guidelines of harmonious editing. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Arbitration clerk trainees Hersfold, Hmwith, and KnightLago have completed their training and are now full arbitration clerks. The Arbitration Committee thanks them, and all of the other clerks and trainees, for their invaluable and continuing assistance in clerking the arbitration cases and pages. Carcharoth (talk) 02:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Piotrus (talk · contribs) is immediately temporarily desysopped pending complete investigation by the Arbitration Committee of the so-called "Wikipedia statistics" mailing list and its participants. Commentary and evidence should be directed to the committee by email, pending the forthcoming opening of a formal case.

Concurring: Cool Hand Luke, Coren, Vassyana.

— Coren ^(talk), for the Arbitration Committee, 19:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

RMHED is unbanned with the following restrictions.

1. 1RR for three months, except for clear vandalism and BLP problems.
2. No problematic interaction with Aitias for six months. (both directions)
3. Zero socks for 12 months, with a regular sock check performed by a checkuser

Jennavecia, Wehwalt and Canadian Paul will be mentors for the first three months.

For the Ban appeals subcommittee, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

I am hereby making a statement that I did know that Law was the undertow for several months, and apologising to the community for not acting upon it sooner. If there is consensus for my resignation from the committee, then I will do so.

I first got to know the Undertow before the time which saw his editing privileges revoked for 9 months. He was having a rough patch and I talked to him a few times and he picked up and felt better afterwards and was very grateful. I didn't hear from him for some time until he popped up and told me about the Law account. He told me that the issues which had resulted in the ban had been settled.

After this, I tried to persuade him several times to come clean which he deliberated on (as I figured this was the least dramatic way of dealing with the issue). He was at several stages going to retire the Law account, frequently enough for me to desist from pursuing it (combined with a large number of arb-related, wikipedia-related and RL-related issues keeping me very busy). I became aware of the successful RfA and was unhappy about it, and continued talking to him off and on about how to come clean. For the most part, his editing has been very productive. Once the issue with the unblock of Sandstein's block of ChildofMidnight arose, I realised I was put in a spot and confessed to the committee a day ago, after the committee became alerted to the identities by another incident.

Yes, this was a bad decision on my part and I apologise. If that is enough, then I am happy to keep serving as an arbitrator. If people feel that my resignation is warranted, then I'll step aside. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

For October, the Ban Appeal Subcommittee will comprise the following arbitrators: Cool Hand Luke, Coren and Roger Davies.

For the Arbitration Committee

Risker (talk) 06:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

It was brought to my attention this morning, about 9 hours ago, that a functionary had privately informed me on August 21 about the connection between Law and The undertow. The email that I received, which was sent to the audit subcommittee this morning and will be send to arbcom-l shortly, did not spell out the connection explicitly, and I can't be certain that I had even read the email until this morning. The day the original email arrived was the due date for the ERA submission for which I was responsible.

My apologies for adding to the recent confusion, especially to the functionary who believed that they had elevated the matter to the committee appropriately. I dropped the ball, and didn't go back to pick it up once I had more time on my hands. However I never "knew" of the connection, nor have I ever been on friendly terms with either of these accounts. My interaction is limited to actioning an unrelated oversight request from Law, and possibly communications with The undertow on IRC prior to the desysop (I don't have logs). As a result of my position in this matter being complicated by this, I will recuse from any further involvement. If this, or any other error on my part, has resulted in a loss of confidence, I will be happy to submit to a re-election. (see also my recall pledge) John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

• Richard Relucio (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)

The above user is appealing his ban. He appears not to have engaged in sockpuppetry for six months and will accept editing restrictions if allowed to return. Possible restrictions could include:

1. Editor is indefinitely restricted to one account;
2. A three-months topic ban from articles related to Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila broadly defined and thereafter an indefinite 0RR restriction;
3. An indefinite restriction on uploading files (though this could be relaxed later if the editor finds a mentor willing to supervise and advise him on copyright, fair use etc);
4. The community ban may be reimposed at any time by motion of ArbCom if the editor engages in sockpuppetry; behaves disruptively; or fails to comply with the spirit or letter of these terms.

Community comment is welcome.  Roger Davies ^talk 14:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The Ban Appeal Subcommittee of ArbCom has decided that Richard Relucio's indefinite ban is suspended on the following conditions:

1. He is indefinitely restricted to one account;
2. He is topic-banned for three months from articles related to Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila broadly defined and thereafter an indefinite 0RR restriction;
3. He is indefinitely restricted from uploading files (though this could be relaxed later if the editor finds a mentor willing to supervise and advise him on copyright, fair use etc);
4. The community ban may be reimposed at any time by motion of ArbCom if the editor engages in sockpuppetry; behaves disruptively; or fails to comply with the spirit or letter of these terms.

The editor has accepted the conditions by email and will be unblocked shortly.

For ArbCom,  Roger Davies ^talk 14:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

• Betacommand (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)

This user is currently editing under restriction. He has requested permission to install AWB for the sole purpose of clearing CAT:TEMP and the editing throttle not apply to such edits. If granted, his use of AWB will be monitored by his mentors.

Community comment is welcome.  Roger Davies ^talk 14:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The Ban Appeal Subcommittee, having carefully weighed the community's comments, has decided to deny Betacommand's request. The committee's main concern is that Betacommand may not have yet taken on board the lessons of the past and would like to see evidence of an improved, more collegiate, attitude before modifying his editing restrictions. Betacommand may re-apply to the committee, providing both his mentors support and endorse the application, in not less than three months time.

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies ^talk 06:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

In light of the absence of Noloop (talk · contribs) and the indefinite block of WebHamster (talk · contribs), the two primary parties, this case is dismissed. If future problems arise (following the return or unblock of either or both editors), those problems should be dealt with by the opening of a new user conduct request for comment on the editor concerned. Requests for the Arbitration Committee to reopen this case would also be considered.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, KnightLago (talk) 19:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

The process to appoint the three non-arbitrator members of the Audit Subcommittee is underway, with the election itself starting on 30 October. If you think you may be suitably qualified, please see the election pages for the job specification and application arrangements. Applications close 22 October 2009.

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies ^talk 21:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Decided on 11 October 2009 :

In a series of motions, the Arbitration Committee addressed the matter of a blocked user (The undertow) operating under a new identity (Law) that successfully gained adminship. The Committee also examined the actions of three editors who assisted this new identity gain adminship, despite knowing that the individual was circumventing a block.

Motions: Law & The undertow

The Arbitration Committee has been informed that Law (talk · contribs) is an alternate account of The undertow (talk · contribs), and this has been confirmed with the user involved. User:Law has now resigned his administrator tools.[1] At the time that the User:Law account was created, User:The undertow was subject to an Arbitration Committee block.

• General motion: The Arbitration Committee notes the resignation of administrator tools by Law, and further notes that this resignation is under controversial circumstances. The user is restricted to one account, The undertow. He is required to notify the Arbitration Committee in advance should he wish to change usernames or create a new account, in accordance with Arbitration Committee enforcement procedures initiated in June 2009.[2]
• The undertow is banned 6 months: The undertow is banned from Wikipedia for six months.

Motions: Disclosure of known alternate accounts

In response to a case request submitted by User:Jehochman the committee decided to reject the case and instead deal with the matter by motion.

• GlassCobra: GlassCobra (talk · contribs) nominated Law (talk · contribs) for adminship. Law was an undisclosed account of previously 9-month blocked and desysopped editor The undertow (talk · contribs), and GlassCobra made his nomination while aware of that fact and without disclosing it. GlassCobra has since agreed that this was a breach of trust incompatible with his holding the position of an ArbCom clerk and has resigned from that post at the Committee's request. GlassCobra has apologized, pledged not to repeat such an error, and is willing to accept a sanction.
• GlassCobra admonished: GlassCobra is strongly admonished for having knowingly promoted the request for adminship of an editor he knew was using an undisclosed alternate account. He was aware that knowledge of the former account's history would materially affect the request, and displayed poor judgment by failing to disclose that information along with his support.
• GlassCobra desysopped: GlassCobra is desysopped for having knowingly promoted the request for adminship of an editor he knew was using an undisclosed alternate account. He was aware that knowledge of the former account's history would materially affect the request, and breached the community's trust by failing to disclose that information along with his support. Adminship may be regained by request to the arbitration committee or via the usual means.
• Jayron32 admonished: Jayron32 (talk · contribs) is strongly admonished for having knowingly promoted the request for adminship of an editor he knew was using an undisclosed alternate account. He was aware that knowledge of the former account's history would materially affect the request, and displayed poor judgment by failing to disclose that information along with his support.
• Jennavecia admonished: Jennavecia (talk · contribs) is strongly admonished for having knowingly promoted the request for adminship of an editor she knew was using an undisclosed alternate account. She was aware that knowledge of the former account's history would materially affect the request, and displayed poor judgment by failing to disclose that information along with her support.
• Jennavecia's resignation: Jennavecia resigned her status as an administrator on October 9, 2009, while this matter was pending. Per normal practice regarding resignation under controversial circumstances, she may apply at requests for adminship or to the Arbitration Committee for the restoration of her administrator status at any time.
• Administrators reminded and encouraged: Administrators are reminded that while they have no obligation to enforce any particular rule, they do have an obligation to refrain from violating or assisting in the violation of community or ArbCom imposed sanctions, as with any other editor. Administrators who choose not to address block evasion themselves by blocking the new account, are strongly encouraged to notify Arbcom or checkusers of apparent ban or block evasion when they become aware of it. It is in the best interests of the project and the user(s) involved to address these situations early.

For the Arbitration Committee, Manning (talk) 15:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Clerk note - a previous version of this notice incorrectly listed a motion which had, in fact, not passed. This was an administrative error on my part and has since been rectified at all relevant locations. Manning (talk) 00:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

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

All articles related to Corrib gas controversy and the Shell to Sea campaign are placed under probation. All fall under the one-revert rule, and a stricter rather than laxer interpretation of addition of and removal of unsourced content.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk · contribs) is strongly admonished for edit warring and is topic banned, indefinitely, from articles related to the Corrib gas project, broadly defined. He is also subject to an editing restriction for one year, namely is limited to one revert per page per week (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.

While GainLine (talk · contribs) is admonished for vandalising BLPs and sockpuppetry, he is also commended for desisting from early problematic behaviours and encouraged to pursue appropriate dispute resolution methods, and seek administrator intervention when required.

Non-compliance to any of the above editing restrictions may result in a block, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year.

- For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 08:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

A temporary injunction has been enacted in the above linked case banning David Tombe (talk · contribs) from further participation on the case pages and talk pages, for repeated disruption of the case proceedings. He may submit further evidence, proposals, and comments to the Arbitration Committee directly by email. The full text of this injunction may be seen here. For the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

The process to appoint the three non-arbitrator members of the Audit Subcommittee is underway. If you are suitably qualified, please see the election pages for the job specification and application arrangements. Applications close 22 October 2009.

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies ^talk 19:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Time is rapidly running out. The closing date for completed applications is 23:59 (UTC) 22 October 2009. If you are interested in becoming one of the three non-arbitrator members of the Audit Subcommittee, see the election pages now for the job specification and application details.

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies ^talk 17:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

This arbitration case has been closed, and the final decision may be viewed at the link above.

• All editors are reminded to be civil at all times and seek consensus where possible, and encouraged pursue dispute resolution when necessary.
• Brews ohare (talk · contribs) is warned for his conduct in this dispute, and placed under a general probation for one year, under which any uninvolved administrator may impose sanctions if Brews ohare fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia or general editing and behavioral guidelines, policies, and expectations, despite warnings.
• David Tombe (talk · contribs) is also warned for his conduct in this dispute and during the course of the arbitration case, and is placed under the same general probation but for an indefinite duration. David Tombe may not appeal his probation for one year, and is limited to one appeal every six months thereafter.
• Both Brews ohare and David Tombe are banned from all physics-related pages and topics, broadly construed, for twelve months.
• Violations of the topic bans or general sanctions may be enforced by blocks of up to a week in length for repeated violations, to increase to one year after the third block. All blocks and other sanctions applied should be logged on the case page here.

For the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

From time to time, concerns have been raised that Raul654 has misused his checkuser tools and has made drastically excessive rangeblocks, in the topic area of global warming. The Audit Subcommittee has conducted a thorough review of Raul654's use of the tools and has concluded that these concerns were justified.

In a recent e-mail to the Arbitration Committee, Raul654 has acknowledged that he may have overreacted and overused his tools, and noted that since the Audit Subcommittee investigation began he has limited his use of tools in this area. Raul654 has expressed a willingness to address the issues and, in particular, (i) to resign his access to the checkuser and oversight tools (the latter on grounds of inactivity), and the associated mailing lists; and (ii) to refrain from taking any administrator actions in connection with the topic area of global warming, broadly defined, or in connection with user conduct relating to that topic area.

Based on the report of the Audit Subcommittee, the evidence before it, and the response from Raul654, the Arbitration Committee accepts (i) Raul654's resignation as a checkuser and oversighter, effective immediately; and (ii) Raul654's proposed restriction on his future use of administrative tools in the topic area of global warming, as outlined above, which becomes binding, also effective immediately.

The Arbitration Committee thanks the members of the Audit Subcommittee for their conscientious and detailed report, and their recommendations on this matter.

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies ^talk 15:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

The Arbitration Committee has passed a motion further amending Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking.

Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll, Wikipedia talk:Full-date unlinking bot#RFC, and Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Full-date unlinking bot indicate that Full-date unlinking bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) fulfills the requirement for "a Community approved process for the mass delinking" in "1.3 Mass date linking" and the requirement for "[d]ate delinking bots [performing] in a manner approved by the Bot Approvals Group" in "2.1 Date delinking bots". The Committee thanks the participants for their efforts and encourages them to continue with their constructive work and consensus building.

The discussion and voting on this motion has been archived at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking#Date_delinking_bots_2.

For the Arbitration Committee, Manning (talk) 10:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Alison (talk · contribs) has now returned to active participation as a checkuser and oversighter after an extended break, following discussion with the Arbitration Committee. She is working closely with the checkuser and oversight teams to become more familiar with the changes in performance standards that have been put in place over the last several months.

FT2 (talk · contribs) has elected to take a break from Checkuser/Oversight and administrator activity for an indefinite period. He will remain a participant and list administrator on the Functionaries-L mailing list during his break, but has requested temporary removal of his various tools during this period for security reasons.[3]

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 04:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

User:Mitchazenia was desysopped in April 2009 by motion, specifying that he may regain the tools by application to the Arbitration Committee. He has now asked that he be resysopped and after careful consideration the committee has agreed to his request.

• Support: Coren, FloNight, John Vandenberg, Rlevse, Roger Davies, Vassyana, Wizardman
• Oppose: None
• Abstain: Carcharoth
• Not voting: Newyorkbrad, Stephen Bain
• Inactive: Cool Hand Luke, FayssalF, Risker

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies ^talk 20:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

The candidates standing in the Audit Subcommittee elections are: Dominic, Frank, Jredmond, KillerChihuahua, MBisanz and Tznkai.

• Supervising arbitrator: Roger Davies
• Technical administrator: Happy-melon
• Scrutineers (stewards): Erwin, Thogo, Mike.lifeguard, and Mardetanha.

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies ^talk 02:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

The election, using SecurePoll, has now started. You may:

• Visit the election "home page" for an overview;
• Review the candidate's statements: Dominic • Frank • Jredmond • KillerChihuahua • MBisanz • Tznkai;
• Or go straight to your personal voting page: here to cast your votes.

The election closes at 23:59 (UTC) on 8 November 2009.

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies ^talk 07:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

1. Ban Appeal Subcommittee (November)

For November, the Ban Appeal Subcommittee comprises Coren, FloNight and Roger Davies.

2. Audit Subcommittee arbitrator seat re-allocation

The impending appointment of three "at large" members of AUSC coincides with the scheduled end of the AUSC arbitrator terms. For continuity, two of the arbitrator terms will be extended, with a staggered rotation of one arbitrator change every two months in future. Accordingly:

• John Vandenberg's current term is extended until 31 December 2009.
• Risker's current term is extended until 28 February 2010.
• Newyorkbrad succeeds FloNight, with effect 1 November 2009 to 30 April 2010.

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies ^talk 06:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

There's only one day to go! The Audit Subcommittee election, using SecurePoll, closes at 23:59 (UTC) 8 November. Three community members will be appointed to supervise use of the CheckUser and OverSight tools. If you wish to vote you must do so urgently. Here's how:

• Visit the election "home page" for an overview;
• Review the candidate's statements: Dominic • Frank • Jredmond • KillerChihuahua • MBisanz • Tznkai;
• Or go straight to your personal voting page: here.

For the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 16:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

In an amendment motion filed concerning the ADHD case, the Arbitration Committee has passed the following:

• Scuro (talk · contribs) is topic banned from all pages, topics, and discussions related to attention-deficit hyperactivity, broadly defined, for twelve months.

Passed 6 to 1, with 1 abstention, 8 November 2009

For the Arbitration Committee, Manning (talk) 01:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Nominations are now open for candidates to run in the Arbitration Committee elections of December 2009 (WP:ACE2009). In order to be eligible to run, editors must have 1,000 mainspace edits, be at least 18 years of age, and be of legal age in their place of residence; note also that successful candidates must identify to the Wikimedia Foundation before taking their seats. Nominations will be accepted from today, November 10, through November 24, with voting scheduled to begin on December 1. To submit your candidacy, proceed to the candidate statements page. The conditions of the election are currently under discussion; all editors are encouraged to participate. For the coordination cabal,  Skomorokh, barbarian  01:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Notice added by clerk Manning (talk) 02:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The final votes for the AUSC Elections - held 00:01 30 October to 23:59 8 November (UTC) - are as follows:

Candidate	Support	Oppose	Net	Total	Percentage
Dominic	195	67	128	262	74.43%
Jredmond	140	52	88	192	72.92%
Tznkai	182	85	97	267	68.16%
MBisanz	202	95	107	297	68.01%
Frank	96	93	3	189	50.79%
KillerChihuahua	126	136	-10	262	48.09%

A total of 370 editors voted, including one banned user whose votes were struck. The tallies above have been certified by email to ArbCom by the scrutineers, who will append their signatures below in due course.

1. Results certified by: Erwin (talk) 09:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Results certified by: Mardetanha ^talk 22:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
3. Results certified by:  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 22:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
4. Results certified by: --Thogo (Talk) 22:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Appointment motions

1. That when appointing the successful candidates, a fourth is nominated as an alternate should any retire prior to the next election.

With thirteen arbitrators, seven is a majority.

Support: Carcharoth, Coren, John Vandenberg, FloNight, Newyorkbrad, Risker, Rlevse, Roger Davies, Stephen Bain, Vassyana and Wizardman.

Oppose: None.

Abstain: None

Not voting: Cool Hand Luke, FayssalF.

2. That Dominic, Jredmond and Tznkai be appointed to the Audit Subcommittee and that, because of the close vote, MBisanz be invited to serve as an alternate member.

With thirteen arbitrators, and three inactive, six is a majority.

Support: Carcharoth, Coren, FloNight, Newyorkbrad, Risker, Rlevse, Roger Davies.

Oppose: Stephen Bain, John Vandenberg.

Abstain: None.

Not voting: Wizardman.

Inactive: Cool Hand Luke, FayssalF, Vassyana.

3. That, while noting that seven voting members prevents deadlocks and that the subcommittee will have a majority of directly elected members, the Arbitration Committee recommends that the Audit Subcommittee determine its own procedure with regard to voting rights of alternate members.

With thirteen arbitrators, and three arbitrators inactive, six is a majority.

Support: Carcharoth, Coren, FloNight, Newyorkbrad, Rlevse, Roger Davies, Stephen Bain.

Oppose: None.

Abstain as AUSC members: John Vandenberg, Risker.

Not voting: Wizardman.

Inactive: Cool Hand Luke, FayssalF, Vassyana.

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies ^talk 21:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Belated support for items 2 and 3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Votes updated accordingly.  Roger Davies ^talk 22:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Interested editors are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. SecurePoll was recently used in the Audit Subcommittee election, and has been proposed for use for the upcoming Arbitration Committee election at this current request for comment (RFC). Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Dougweller (talk) 09:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The Audit Subcommittee has decided that the alternate member (currently user:MBisanz) of the Audit Subcommittee will not receive list membership and should not be given the Oversight or Checkuser permissions as an alternate member. Barring any unforeseen events, the Arbitration Committee will appoint the alternate member in the event of a vacancy.

For the Audit Subcommittee, --Tznkai (talk) 06:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

This notice is given by a clerk, on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Tiptoety ^talk 18:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

This is a reminder that the nominations phase of the December 2009 elections to select new members of the Arbitration Committee, as well as the Request for Comment on the conditions for the elections and the 2010 Committee, will close on November 24, in one day's time.

If you have been considering running as a candidate in this year's election to the Committee, now is the time to make the decision. It's worth noting that there are twenty-two candidates at the time of writing, six fewer than last year, and so with eight seats available the field is not as competitive as might have been expected. All editors who had made 1,000 mainspace edits by November 10, 2009, are over 18 years of age and of the age of majority in their nation of residence, and are willing to identify themselves to the Wikimedia Foundation are eligible to stand as candidates. You can declare your candidacy by following the instructions at the candidate statements page.

The Request for Comment on the Arbitration Committee covers the conditions for the elections and the Committee in 2010. Specific issues under debate include term lengths, number of seats, election methods, ballot transparency, the tranche system, threshold for successful candidacies and voter eligibility. If you want to participate in the discussion on any of these issues, you have less than a day to have your voice heard. For the coordinators,  Skomorokh, barbarian  01:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

This notice is given by an Arbitration clerk, Tiptoety ^talk 01:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Voting is now open in the December 2009 elections to elect new members to the Arbitration Committee. In accordance with the recent Request for Comment on the election process, voting will be done by secret ballot using the SecurePoll extension. Voting will close on 14 December 2009 at 23:59 UTC.

In order to be eligible to vote, an account must have at least 150 mainspace edits on or before 1 November 2009 (check your account). Blocked editors may not vote, and voting with multiple accounts or bot accounts is expressly forbidden. Note that due to technical restrictions, editors who have made more than 150 mainspace edits on or before 1 November 2009 but no longer have access to the account(s) used will not be able to vote. If you have any questions about this, please ask.

For each candidate, voters may choose to Support or Oppose the candidacy, or to remain Neutral (this option has no effect on the outcome). Voting should be done in a single sitting. After your entire vote has been accepted, you may make changes at any time before the close of voting. However, a fresh default ballot page will be displayed and you will need to complete the process again from scratch (for this reason, you are welcome to keep a private record of your vote). Your new ballot page will erase the previous one. You may verify the time of acceptance of your votes at the real-time voting log. Although this election will use secret ballots, and only votes submitted in this way will be counted, you may leave brief comments on the candidates' comment pages and discuss candidates at length on the attached talkpages. For live discussion, join #wikipedia-en-ace on Freenode.

To cast your vote, please proceed here.

For the coordinators,  Skomorokh  00:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

(Posted on behalf of the coordinators, Risker (talk) 00:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC))

Discuss this on the Arbitration Committee Elections talk page

On the 29th I posted a motion to this noticeboard which contained a statement of fact that the subject objects to. While I believe the outcome was correct, the process and manner in which I delivered it was less than ideal. The Arbitration Committee has since issued a clarification, and then removed and suppressed the motion in an accord between the subject and the Arbitration Committee (brokered by Mike Godwin).

This situation was avoidable, and I apologise for the way that I handled this. I am stepping down as an arbitrator effective immediately. Thank you, John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Yesterday, a member of ArbCom deleted and suppressed an announcement and two discussions under the heading of "David Gerard". David had expressed a good faith concern that our original and revised announcements could harm him in real life. Although several arbitrators felt that the announcement was proper, we all agreed that we should do no harm when it comes to living people--including our long-time contributor David Gerard. We reached an agreement where our original remarks would be removed but the removal of his oversight and checkuser rights would remain in force. Although arbitrators were worried that a Streisand-like effect would occur, this suppression was the desire of David Gerard, who felt defamed by the comments, and it is proper under the oversight policy ("Removal of potentially libellous information").

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies ^talk 20:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Note: My original recusal was suppressed, so I am re-posting my recusal here for the public record. Carcharoth (talk) 23:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Since the close of Tang Dynasty six months ago, Tenmei (talk · contribs) has continued to edit without a mentor, at times violating other restrictions placed upon him as a result of the case. The Arbitration Committee has been unable to find a mentor for this purpose, with Tenmei rejecting one recently proposed mentor. As a result, Tang Dynasty is amended as follows, effective immediately:

• Tenmei (talk · contribs) is required to have at least one volunteer mentor. Until such a mentor is found, Tenmei is banned from all editing except for the express purpose of locating a mentor. During this time, Tenmei is instructed to avoid talking about other editors. (Amends Remedy 2.1, amendment passed 8-0)
• The mentor(s), once found, must be identified to the community as Tenmei's mentors and be willing to be available for others to contact them either publicly or privately. (Passed 8-0)
• Editors are advised to contact the mentors if they come into conflict with Tenmei. (Passed 8-0)
• The restrictions placed on Tenmei in remedy 1.1 are reset, to take effect when a mentor is found and approved by the Arbitration Committee. (Passed 8-0)
• Should Tenmei violate the requirement to have a mentor before contributing, or cause unrest whilst seeking a mentor, Tenmei may be blocked for up to a week for repeated violations. After the fifth block, the maximum block length is extended to one year. (Passed 6-0, two abstentions)

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

This arbitration case has been closed, and the final decision may be viewed at the link above.

• Editors of articles related to the topic of socionics are reminded to be civil and seek consensus whenever possible. Editors are encouraged to seek dispute resolution assistance as needed.
• Rmcnew (talk · contribs) and Tcaudilllg (talk · contribs) are indefinitely topic banned from all Socionics-related topics, pages, and discussions, broadly construed.
• Rmcnew (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of six months.
• Tcaudilllg (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of twelve months.
• Users not previously involved in Socionics and Socionics-related articles are asked to give attention to any remaining issues with the articles, including the reliability of sources used. Users should carefully review the articles for adherence to Wikipedia policies and address any perceived or discovered deficiencies. This is not a finding that the articles are or are not satisfactory in their present form, but an urging that independent members of the community examine the matter in light of the case. Participation from uninvolved editors fluent in the Russian language would be especially helpful.

For the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

This arbitration case has been closed, and the final decision may be viewed at the link above.

• User:Arab Cowboy is prohibited from making changes to any article about a person with respect to their ethnicity or nationality for one year and is placed on a 1 revert per week restriction for one year.
• User:Supreme Deliciousness is prohibited from making changes to any article about a person with respect to their ethnicity or nationality for one year and is placed on a 1 revert per week restriction for one year.
• Asmahan is placed under article probation for six months.
• Any article within the scope of this case, where an extended dispute related to the national or ethnic identity of an individual is occuring may be placed under article probation by an uninvolved administrator for up to six months.

Uninvolved administrators may perform escalating blocks on editors who do not abide by these remedies.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 00:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

The Arbitration Committee has passed a motion amending Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse The full voting and discussion for the original clarification and motions can be found here

• Mattisse (talk · contribs) is placed under a conduct probation for one year. Any of Mattisse's mentors may impose sanctions on his or her own discretion if, despite being warned or otherwise advised, Mattisse repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to any expected standards of behavior and decorum.
• Editors are reminded that baiting, antagonistic comments, and other such behavior is disruptive. Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to handle such circumstances as they would any other disruptive conduct, including appropriate warnings and advice, short page bans, as well as escalating blocks for repeated or egregious misconduct.
• Editing of the the page User:Mattisse/Monitoring, as well as its talk page and any other pages created for the purposes of carrying out the mentorship, shall be limited to Mattisse (talk · contribs) and her mentors for the duration of the mentorship. Users wishing to comment upon any aspect of the mentorship may contact the mentors directly, or on a subpage designated for such a purpose. Modified by next two motions.
• "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Alerts" will be set up for the community to report issues to the mentors.
• User:Mattisse/Monitoring is moved to "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Monitoring".

For the Arbitration Committee,

Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 14:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

After reviewing User:Jack Merridew's ban at his request, the Arbitration Committee agreed to unblock his account on December 9th, 2008 with the following conditions:

1. User:Jack Merridew agrees to edit from one account only "Jack Merridew" on all WMF wikis and unifies that account.
2. User:Jack Merridew discloses all prior socks.
3. User:Jack Merridew agrees to not edit using open proxies.
4. User:Jack Merridew agrees to completely avoid White Cat on Wikipedia English pages. No editing the same pages, no comments about White Cat by name or innuendo. No harassment of White Cat in other venues. This restriction will be interpreted in the broadest way with no allowance for any attempt to skirt the restriction in any manner.
5. User:Jack Merridew agrees to avoid all disruptive editing.
6. User:Jack Merridew agrees to a one year mentorship by Casliber (talk · contribs), John Vandenberg (talk · contribs) and Moreschi (talk · contribs), who will closely monitor for any contact with White Cat.
7. It is specifically noted that this is not a "clear your name" unblock, but rather is done on the recommendation of Wikipedia English administrators that are knowledgeable about Jack Merridew's past disruptive editing and now support his return based on his good editing record on other Foundation wikis where White Cat and Jack Merridew both have accounts.
8. Should Jack Merridew violate the restrictions imposed upon him in this decision, he may be blocked for one year by any uninvolved administrator, with any blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion#Log of blocks and bans

---

Jack Merridew is to be commended for making a clean return from an indefinite ban. On review of the past year, the Arbitration Committee replaces the previous motion with the following conditions:

1. User:Jack Merridew agrees to edit from one account only "Jack Merridew" on all WMF wikis with the exception of an additional bot account approved through the regular process, and agrees to not edit using open proxies.
2. User:Jack Merridew is to seek out advisers to assist him in transitioning from a formal mentorship to unrestricted editing.
3. User:Jack Merridew agrees that the same as any other editor, he is to follow Wikipedia policy and guidelines, and follow dispute resolution processes to resolve editing conflicts with the understanding that misconduct could result in blocks or Community editing restrictions.
4. User:Jack Merridew will note his agreement with the terms of this motion on this page.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller (talk) 15:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

This arbitration case has been closed, and the final decision may be viewed at the link above.

• User:Ottava Rima is banned from Wikipedia for a period of 1 year.
• User:Moreschi is admonished for posting editor-specific information that directly leads to the private identity of pseudonymous editors.
• The community is strongly encouraged to review and document standing good practice for the imposition of discretionary sanctions, paroles, and related remedies. The community is encouraged to review and document common good practice for administrators imposing editing restrictions as a condition of an unblock and in lieu of blocks.

For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 02:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

This arbitration case has been closed, and the final decision may be viewed at the link above.

• User:Piotrus resigned the administrator tools during the case proceedings and may only seek to regain adminship by a new request for adminship or by request to the Arbitration Committee.
• User:Piotrus is banned for three months. At the conclusion of his ban, a one year topic ban on articles about Eastern Europe, their talk pages, and any related process discussion, widely construed, shall take effect.
• User:Digwuren is banned for one year. He is directed to edit Wikipedia from only a single user account, and advise the Arbitration Committee of the name of the account that he will use. Should he not advise the committee by the end of the one year ban, he will remain indefinitely banned until a single account is chosen.
• User:Digwuren is placed on a one year topic ban on articles about Eastern Europe, their talk pages, and any related process discussion, widely construed. This shall take effect following the expiration of both above mentioned bans.
• The following users are topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for one year:

• User:Biruitorul, User:Dc76, User:Martintg, User:Miacek, User:Radeksz, User:Vecrumba, User:Tymek

• User:Jacurek is topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for six months.
• User:Tymek is strongly admonished for having shared his account password. He is directed to keep his account for his own exclusive use, and not to allow any other person to use it under any circumstance.
• The editors sanctioned above (Piotrus, Digwuren, Martintg, Tymek, Jacurek, Radeksz, Dc76, Vecrumba, Biruitorul, Miacek) are prohibited from commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with Russavia on any page of Wikipedia, except for purposes of legitimate and necessary dispute resolution.
• All the participants to the mailing list are strongly admonished against coordinating on-wiki behavior off-wiki and directed to keep discussion of editing and dispute resolution strictly on wiki and in public. All editors are reminded that the editorial process and dispute resolution must take place on Wikipedia itself, using the article talk pages and project space for this purpose. No discussion held off-wiki can lead to a valid consensus, the basis of our editorial process. Off-wiki coordination is likely to lead to echo chambers where there is a false appearance of neutrality and consensus.

For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 17:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

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

This request for a case is declined. The following note is to be written into the record:

1. the related Audit Subcommittee report is endorsed;
2. the original events have already generated a disproportionate degree of drama;
3. the interests of the project are best served by all concerned completely disengaging.

For the arbitration committee,
Mailer Diablo 12:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

• DollyD (talk · contribs · count · logs)

This account was created in January 2006 and blocked in August 2008 as a sockpuppet of user:Wroth of Groth, who ran many sockpuppets using "good hand, bad hand" accounts (list). These varied from out and out vandals with frequently obscene usernames to innocuous accounts performing unexceptional edits. User:DollyD's request for unblocking is based on the "roommate defence" (i.e. "it wasn't me, it was a roommate/brother/neighbour" etc.) though they also admit socking with User:HaasSoul and User:Soul Haas. Policy is clear: when it is impossible to determine whose hands were on the keyboard, if two accounts appear to be one, they are treated as one for sanctions purposes. Community input is welcomed.

 Roger Davies ^talk 17:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

• Do you consider yourself a good communicator?
• Are you a motivated individual, who is willing to work varying hours?
• Do you enjoy doing thankless work (you are editing Wikipedia, so the answer is yes)?
• Are you interested in the inner workings of the Arbitration Committee?
• Do you want to wear a Fez?

If you answered yes to all the above questions, then Arbitration clerking is for you! And seeing as the clerk corps is currently in the process of vetting new candidates you are encouraged to apply. To do so, simply send us an email at clerks-llists.wikimedia.org. In this email, be sure to include your username, what you feel you have to offer the committee, and why you are applying for the position.

Please note: Non-administrators are encouraged to apply.

Tiptoety ^talk 07:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Update: The clerk corps would like to thank all those that sent in an email of interest. At this time, we are no longer accepting candidates. After a brief internal review takes place, those who sent in an application will be notified via email and an announcement will be made on-wiki. Tiptoety ^talk 06:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Secret (talk · contribs) has been temporarily desyopped because of concerns that the account may be compromised. This was done under emergency procedures and was certified by Arbitrators Risker, FloNight and Roger Davies.

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies ^talk 20:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion