Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13

2020 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: announcement

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint additional editors to the Checkuser and Oversight teams. The arbitrators overseeing this will be Bradv, KrakatoaKatie, and Xeno.

The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will assist in the vetting process.

This year's timeline is as follows:

  • 7 September to 19 September: Candidates may self-nominate by contacting the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-en-c@wikimedia.org.
  • 20 September to 23 September: The Arbitration Committee and Functionaries will vet the candidates.
  • 24 September to 26 September: The committee will notify candidates going forward for community consultation and create the candidate subpages containing the submitted nomination statements.
  • 27 September to 7 October: Nomination statements will be published and the candidates are invited to answer questions publicly. The community is invited and encouraged to participate.
  • By 14 October: Appointments will be announced.

For the Arbitration Committee, Katietalk 22:58, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 47#2020 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: announcement

Proposed motion for amendment to arbitration procedures: prohibition of multiple roles

The Arbitration Committee is considering a motion to amend its procedures to prohibit sitting arbitrators from serving as members of the Ombuds Commission or the WMF Case Review Committee in accordance with a community RfC. Comments on the motion are welcome at the motion page. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:19, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 47 § Proposed motion for amendment to arbitration procedures: prohibition of multiple roles

Arbitration motion regarding an amendment to arbitration procedures: prohibition of multiple roles

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Based on the outcome of the community discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC: Multiple roles for active arbitrators, the Arbitration Committee procedures are amended by adding a new Section 1.6, providing:

To avoid any potential conflicts of interest, current arbitrators may not serve as members of either the Ombuds Commission or the WMF Case Review Committee while serving as arbitrators.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 16:55, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 47 § Arbitration motion regarding an amendment to arbitration procedures: prohibition of multiple roles

Proposed arbitration motion regarding Abortion 1RR

The Arbitration Committee is considering a motion to formally vacate general 1RR sanctions in the Abortion topic area, leaving the existing standard discretionary sanctions scheme in place. Community statements are welcome at the clarification request. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:39, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 47 § Proposed arbitration motion regarding Abortion 1RR

Temporary change to email address for Oversight

The OTRS system is going to undergo major upgrades starting in a few hours, and lasting 2-3 days. In the interim, to ensure that Oversight is still available to the community, the email address has temporarily been changed to oversight-l@lists.wikimedia.org, which is usually the private, non-archiving mailing list used by oversighters to discuss requests. Additional moderators will be on duty during this time. The email address attached to User:Oversight has been changed over, and people are urged to use that method for making oversight requests. Other pages that contain the email address will also be modified.

On behalf of the Oversight team, Risker (talk) 00:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Noting that the OTRS upgrade has now been completed, and everything is now being returned to normal.
  • On behalf of the Oversight team, Risker (talk) 15:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 47 § Temporary change to email address for Oversight

Functionary applications closing soon

Applications to join the CheckUser and Oversight teams will close September 19 at 2359 UTC. Those interested should contact the Arbitration Committee by sending a request to arbcom-en-c@wikimedia.org.

Katietalk 13:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 47 § Functionary applications closing soon

Arbitration motion regarding Abortion

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The one-revert restriction on all articles related to abortion, authorized by the community here and modified by the Arbitration Committee in the Abortion arbitration case, is formally taken over by the committee and vacated. Discretionary sanctions remain authorized for all pages related to abortion, broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 47 § Arbitration motion regarding Abortion

2020 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Community consultation phase open

The community consultation portion of the functionary appointment process is now open. Editors may ask up to two (2) questions of each candidate (similar to RFA rules). However, since this is a consultation and not a !vote, please refrain from phrasing comments in a support/oppose/neutral fashion.

The Arbitration Committee invites editors to comment and ask questions until 23:59 UTC on October 7, 2020.

Katietalk 19:06, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 47 § 2020 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Community consultation phase open

Changes to functionary team

At his request by email to the committee, the CheckUser and Oversight permissions of Yunshui are removed. The Arbitration Committee sincerely thanks Yunshui for his long service as a functionary.

Katietalk 14:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 47 § Changes to functionary team

Arbitration motion regarding Portals

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Remedies 1 & 2 of the Portals case are temporarily lifted, only at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BrownHairedGirl 2 and related pages, and only until the conclusion of the RfA process.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 47 § Arbitration motion regarding Portals

2020 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Candidates appointed

The Arbitration Committee is pleased to appoint the following users to the functionary team:

The Committee thanks the community and all of the candidates for helping to bring this process to a successful conclusion.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Katietalk 03:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 47 § 2020 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Candidates appointed

Anti-harassment RfC closed

In a prior case, the Arbitration Committee mandated that a request for comment be held on how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future. This request for comment has now been closed with the following summary:

In this RFC the community was asked to weigh in on 8 topics of concern regarding Wikipedia editors ("editors"), the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom), Trust & Safety (T&S), and the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF). There were common themes presented across some of the questions, so if a related question contains similar themes that will be indicated in parentheses (e.g. "Q1"). Please note that while there may be proposals listed that arose during this discussion, any significant/policy changes to ArbCom must go through the standard processes as described in the Overview.

One of the overarching themes of responses to the questions was that ArbCom will always be under some form of scrutiny or displeasure from certain areas of the community. However, since they were elected to be trusted members of the community, they should do their best knowing that a majority of users supported their term when they were elected (Q1). However, that does not mean they should be entirely absent from ArbCom proceedings (Q6) or jump too quickly to conclusions when it comes to the presumption of innocence (Q5).

Q1, on the matter of private evidence impacting sanctions
ArbCom, by its very nature, will occasionally have cases that involve private evidence - be it email correspondence or links to off-wiki websites - that cannot be publicly displayed in the public-facing case evidence. This private evidence is of most concern when it is the sole (or majority) reason for a case being opened and/or sanctions being filed; multiple examples were given where the results of a case were given without one being formally opened on-wiki, or where supposedly "private" information was actually present in diffs on-wiki the entire time.
While many agreed that private evidence should stay private, there were a few main suggestions regarding how ArbCom should deal with private information:
  • ArbCom should disclose if/when private information is being used to inform the case
  • ArbCom should "categorise" any private evidence so interested parties would know the provenance of said information
  • ArbCom should open a public case report, even if the evidence is 100% private, so that editors are aware that a discussion is taking place
  • ArbCom should only use private information when absolutely necessary - if sanctions and/or findings of fact can be based on public/on-wiki evidence, then that should be prioritised (Q2)
Q2, on fear of retaliation
To summarize multiple editors' opinions in this section, "there is no easy solution" to the issue of retaliation as a result of harassment and subsequent case filing. That being said, many of the editors agreed that if the information is public then the case should be handled publicly and not behind closed doors (Q1). Additionally, admins should be more willing to do what is necessarily “lower down” in places like ANI, and bump cases to ArbCom after these interventions are shown to be ineffective (Q7). While there was a suggestion for some form of intermediate location for cases to be handled between ANI and ArbCom, there was no significant agreement on what that should look like; among the ideas were bringing back RFC/U, having some form of formal mediation process between the users (Q8), or having the functionaries act as some form of private investigators vetting private information before it reaches ArbCom.
One supported suggestion was to allow third-party filings to ArbCom in an effort to minimize retaliation on the harassed/concerned editor.
Q3, on responding to allegations
This question follows on rather heavily from Q2, but focused more on the accused rather than the complainant. Many editors agreed that evidence should not be kept secret from the accused, except when it comes down to the safety of the complainant; if there are specific threats and/or information that could be used in retaliation, T&S should be contacted first (Q8). If there is private information, the complainant should be asked what information they would be willing to release publicly.
While the idea that "innocent until proven guilty" (Q5) was used a lot, significantly more people indicated that we (Wikipedia or ArbCom) are not a legal system, and so that should not be assumed; principles, not any specific rule or formulae should be used in relation to the accused. However, it was felt that there is an imbalance between accuser and accused, and that mediation (Q2, Q8) may be helpful to level that imbalance.
Q4, on unsubstantiated claims
This question had a fairly straight-forward consensus; all editors should be treated with respect and politeness, but there is nothing either the community or ArbCom can do to interrupt the "unpleasant dynamic" of unsubstantiated complaints and filings. A certain amount of "tough skin" is needed to edit Wikipedia, but ArbCom should not be used as therapy.
Q5, on plausible deniability
As mentioned in Q3, there is no "right" to a presumption of innocence. That being said, there was expressed a concern that there should not be any sanction unless there is a clear violation of policy; off-wiki links with no verification should be treated carefully. As every case is different, it is difficult if not impossible to write "rules" around this issue; ArbCom should use common sense and deal with limited available evidence on a case-by-case basis
Q6, on the arbitration environment
There was a fairly consistent response to this question advocating for more/better patrolling of ArbCom proceedings, in particular by the clerks. This includes word limits, lack of diffs (especially when accusations are made), and civility/arguing concerns; clerks should also be doing a better job of communicating with those who have "broken" the rules to get clarifications and/or indicate that their edits were removed for technical/procedural reasons rather than any sort of "point of view" suppression.
One supported proposal was to have ArbCom cases written in "c2:DocumentMode", where a case is presented more like an article (with clerks summarizing and updating a single document) and less like a half-threaded discussion between members (which can become heated/unproductive)
Q7, on unblockables
Much like Q2, there is no clear definition or easy solution to "unblockables"; everyone is cantankerous at some point, and we should all be treated equally. Opinions were highly variable, including many that felt there are no changes needed or that everything should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, but the following were some of the most prevalent suggestions among the participants:
  • Admonishments and/or final warnings should be much more frequent, and actually enforced
  • Blocks should be handed out more frequently, but only as short-term blocks
  • Users with multiple (but un-sanctioned) cases at ANI, and/or those with lengthy block logs, should be looked at by ArbCom
  • More admin cases should be brought before ArbCom
Q8, on the relationship with T&S
Editors strongly feel that en-wiki issues should be handled "in-house", and only matters that affect the real world (Q2, Q3) should be passed to T&S. A better/improved dialogue between ArbCom and the WMF is also desired, with the Foundation and T&S passing along en-wiki-specific information to ArbCom to handle.
There was a desire from some editors, expressed in this section as well in previous sections, for the WMF to hire/find/create resources and training for mediation and dispute resolution, which would hopefully mitigate some of the most prevalent civility/harassment issues present on Wikipedia.

To reiterate, this close summarizes the opinions and feelings of those who participated, and are not binding; any proposals or suggestions that change policy will still need to go through the formal procedures as outlined in the Overview.

Signed,

Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 02:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 47 § Anti-harassment RfC closed

Temporary checkuser privileges for scrutineers

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

On recommendation of the Electoral Commission, temporary English Wikipedia checkuser privileges are granted to stewards Mardetanha, Martin Urbanec, and Tks4Fish solely for the purpose of their acting as scrutineers in the 2020 Arbitration Committee election.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 20:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 47 § Temporary checkuser privileges for scrutineers

Arbitration motion regarding Horn of Africa

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

This case request is provisionally resolved by motion as follows:

Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes) for a trial period of three months and until further decision of this Committee. After March 1, 2021 (or sooner if there is good reason), any editor may ask that this request be reopened for the purpose of evaluating whether the discretionary sanctions have been effective and should be made permanent or if a full case should be accepted to consider different or additional remedies.

For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:05, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 47 § Arbitration motion regarding Horn of Africa

Arbitration motion regarding Antisemitism in Poland

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Remedy 4b of Antisemitism in Poland ("Volunteer Marek topic-banned") is rescinded.

For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:36, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 47 § Arbitration motion regarding Antisemitism in Poland

2021 Arbitration Committee

The Arbitration Committee welcomes the following new and returning arbitrators following their election by the community. The two-year terms of these arbitrators formally begin on 01 January 2021:

All incoming arbitrators have elected to receive (or retain, where applicable) the CheckUser and Oversight permissions.

We also thank our outgoing colleagues whose terms end on 31 December 2020:

Outgoing arbitrators are eligible to retain the CheckUser and Oversight permissions, remain active on cases accepted before their term ended, and to remain subscribed to the functionaries' and arbitration clerks' mailing lists following their term on the committee. To that effect:

  • Stewards are requested to remove the permission(s) noted from the following outgoing arbitrators after 31 December 2020 at their own request:
    Oversight: Joe Roe
  • Outgoing arbitrators are eligible to remain active on cases opened before their term ended if they wish. Whether or not outgoing arbitrators will remain active on any ongoing case(s) will be noted on the proposed decision talk page of affected case(s).
  • All outgoing arbitrators will remain subscribed to the functionaries' mailing list
  • DGG, Joe Roe, and Mkdw will be unsubscribed from the arbitration clerks' mailing list at their request.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Katietalk 01:56, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 47 § 2021 Arbitration Committee

Motion: The Rambling Man topic ban lifted enacted

A motion regarding The Rambling Man case at Requests for Clarification and Amendment has been enacted after it reached majority support. The motion is as follows:

The Rambling Man topic ban from the Did You Know? process (Remedy 9 in The Rambling Man case) is lifted, subject to a probationary period lasting six months from the date this motion is enacted. During this period, any uninvolved administrator may re-impose the topic ban as an arbitration enforcement action, subject to appeal only to the Arbitration Committee. If the probationary period elapses without incident, the topic ban is to be considered permanently lifted.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 09:38, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 47 § Motion: The Rambling Man topic ban lifted enacted

Luxofluxo unblocked

Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, Luxofluxo (talk · contribs) is unblocked subject to a one-account restriction and a topic ban from European Schools. These restrictions may be appealed on-wiki after 6 months. For the Arbitration Committee, Maxim(talk) 00:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 47 § Luxofluxo unblocked

Tendering resignation (Xeno)

I have very recently accepted an upcoming role with the Foundation to help facilitate the second phase of the meta:Universal Code of Conduct consultations investigating key enforcement questions. To protect the integrity of internal committee deliberations, I am humbly tendering my resignation from the Arbitration Committee.

Strong community governance is paramount to the ongoing health and longevity of our projects. My goal will be to ensure community concerns are clearly communicated and considered by the drafting committee while working to demonstrate that community enforcement mechanisms can adequately handle the additional burdens that may be placed on the Foundation and project volunteers by public policy changes.

I enjoyed working with last year's committee and look forward to serving the community in this more focused role. I hope that you will be willing to share with me any general or specific concerns concerning the Universal Code of Conduct, especially as it relates to enforcement. I will act as a conduit for community ideas, questions, and change requests.

Please feel free to let me know if you have any questions.

–xenotalk 01:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion this

Changes to functionary team

At his own request, the Oversight permission of Someguy1221 are removed.

In addition, in accordance with the policy on CheckUser and Oversighter inactivity, the CheckUser rights of Berean Hunter are removed.

The Arbitration Committee sincerely thanks Someguy1221 and Berean Hunter for their service as functionaries.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Katietalk 15:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 47 § Changes to functionary team

Change to the Checkuser team

Following a request to the Committee, the CheckUser permissions of Ivanvector (talk · contribs) have been restored. For the Arbitration Committee, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 47 § Change to the Checkuser team

Motion: American politics 2 (1992 cutoff) enacted

A motion regarding the American politics 2 case has been enacted after it reached majority support following a Request for Amendment. The motion is as follows:

Remedy 1.2 of the American politics 2 case ("Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff)") is retitled "Discretionary sanctions (1992 cutoff)" and amended by replacing the words "post-1932 politics of the United States" with "post-1992 politics of the United States". Any sanctions or other restrictions imposed under the discretionary sanctions authorization to date shall remain in force unaffected.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 22:33, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 47 § Motion: American politics 2 (1992 cutoff) enacted

Flyer22 and WanderingWanda case dismissed

The Committee has received word that Flyer22 Frozen (talk · contribs) has passed away. Accordingly, the currently open case is dismissed. We would like to express our heartfelt condolences to the family of Flyer22.

Passed 9 to 0 on 17:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

For the Arbitration Committee, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 47 § Flyer22 and WanderingWanda case dismissed

Donald1972 unblocked

Following an appeal to the Arbitration Committee, Donald1972 (talk · contribs) has been unblocked, subject to a restriction from editing the Matthias Laurenz Gräff article. Maxim(talk) 01:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 47 § Donald1972 unblocked

Motion: MONGO (alt) enacted

A motion regarding the MONGO case has been enacted after it reached majority support following a Amendment request. The motion is as follows:

Remedy 1 of the MONGO case ("Links to ED") is amended to read, "Links to, and/or content from, Encyclopædia Dramatica may be removed wherever found on Wikipedia, absent explicit consensus for their inclusion."

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 09:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 47 § Motion: MONGO (alt) enacted

Proposed changes to how Workshops in cases are run and used

Several motions have been proposed on the Committee's public motions page relating to Case Workshops. These proposed motions change how Workshops are run and used, including making it optional. These motions will modify the Arbitration Committee's procedures. Editors are welcome and encouraged to make comments in the "Community discussion" sections for each motion. A running total of votes for each motion can be viewed in the implementation notes section. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 20:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss the motions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions § Case Workshops. Discuss this notice at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 47 § Proposed changes to how Workshops in cases are run and used

GeneralNotability appointed trainee clerk

The Arbitration clerks are pleased to welcome GeneralNotability (talk · contribs) to the clerk team as a trainee!

The Arbitration clerk team is often in need of new members, and any editor who would like to join the clerk team is welcome to apply by email to clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 00:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 47 § GeneralNotability appointed trainee clerk

Gender and sexuality standard discretionary sanctions authorized

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

In order to promote consistency and reduce confusion, the arbitration clerks are directed to create a new arbitration case page under the name Gender and sexuality, with the following sole remedy: "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people." For the avoidance of doubt, GamerGate is considered a gender-related dispute or controversy for the purposes of this remedy.

Clause (i) of Remedy 1.1 of the GamerGate case ("Discretionary sanctions") is rescinded. Sanctions previously issued in accordance with Remedy 1.1 of the GamerGate case will from this time on be considered Gender and sexuality sanctions. This motion does not invalidate any action previously taken under the GamerGate discretionary sanctions authorization.

In order to preserve previous clarifications about the scope of these discretionary sanctions:

  1. Gender and sexuality discretionary sanctions apply to any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender.
  2. Gender and sexuality discretionary sanctions apply to any discussion regarding systemic bias faced by female editors or article subjects on Wikipedia, including any discussion involving the Gender Gap Task Force.
  3. Remedy 15 of the Manning naming dispute case ("Discretionary sanctions applicable"), as amended, is rescinded.
  4. The final clause of the February 2019 Manning naming dispute motion (adding an amendment to the Interactions at GGTF case) is rescinded.

The index of topics with an active discretionary sanctions provision will be updated with the new title, but previous references to GamerGate need not be updated. The arbitration enforcement log, however, should be updated for the current year. For prior years, the new name should be noted along with the old one. The arbitration clerks are also directed to update templates and documentation pages with the new name as appropriate. This motion should be recorded on the case pages of the GamerGate case, the new Gender and sexuality case, the Manning naming dispute case, and the Interactions at GGTF case.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 01:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 47 § Gender and sexuality standard discretionary sanctions authorized

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan closed

An arbitration case regarding Kurds and Kurdistan has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

  • Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed.
  • GPinkerton (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • GPinkerton (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles related to Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • Thepharoah17 (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles related to Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • عمرو بن كلثوم (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles related to Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles related to Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • Paradise Chronicle is warned to avoid casting aspersions and repeating similar uncollegial conduct in the future.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 14:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 47 § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan closed

Level 1 desysop of DYKUpdateBot

Under the Level 1 desysopping procedures, the administrator permissions of DYKUpdateBot (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) have been temporarily removed as a suspected compromised account.

Supporting: Barkeep49, Bradv, CaptainEek, Maxim, Worm That Turned

For the Arbitration Committee, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:24, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 47 § Level 1 desysop of DYKUpdateBot

Restoration of privileges to DYKUpdateBot

DYKUpdateBot (talk · contribs) is granted administrative permissions on the English Wikipedia following the securing of its passwords by the operator.

For the Arbitration Committee, – bradv🍁 23:18, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 47 § Restoration of privileges to DYKUpdateBot

Motion: Timetable and case structure enacted

A motion has modified the internal procedures of the Arbitration Committee. The motion was enacted after it reached majority support on the the committee's public motions page. The Arbitration Committee intend to incorporate the analysis of evidence into the evidence phase. The committee also intends to make workshops optional, such as in cases where the conduct of one or two editors is being examined. The section which has been added to the procedures page reads:

Once a case has been accepted, the Arbitration Committee will instruct the clerks on the name, structure, and timetable for a case so they may create the applicable pages. The name is for ease of identification only and may be changed by the Committee at any time. The Committee will designate one or more arbitrators to be drafting arbitrator(s) for the case, to ensure it progresses, and to act as a designated point of contact for any matters arising.

The standard structure of a case will include the following phases and timetable:

  1. An evidence phase that lasts two weeks from the date of the case pages opening;
  2. A workshop phase, that ends one week after the evidence phase closes;
  3. A proposed decision which is published within one week of the workshop phase closing.

The timetable and structure of the case may be adjusted (e.g. a phase may be extended, closed early, added or removed) by the initiative of the Committee, at the discretion of the drafting arbitrator(s) during the case. Drafting arbitrator(s) shall also have broad authority to set case-specific rules regarding the running of the phases (e.g. enforce threaded discussions, set a word limit for participants in the workshop phase) to enforce the expectation of behavior during a case. Parties to the case may also petition for changes to the timetable and structure for a case.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 00:11, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 47 § Motion: Timetable and case structure enacted

Arbitration motion regarding Kurds and Kurdistan

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The phrase "articles related to" in the topic bans for GPinkerton, Thepharoah17, عمرو بن كلثوم, and Supreme Deliciousness are struck, to clarify that the bans are not limited to article-space.

For the Arbitration Committee, GeneralNotability (talk) 02:16, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 47 § Arbitration motion regarding Kurds and Kurdistan

SethRuebens unblocked

Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, SethRuebens is unblocked subject to a (1) one-account restriction, (2) a ban from directly editing Britannia (TV series), and (3) a requirement to disclose any relevant conflicts of interest. For the Arbitration Committee, Maxim(talk) 19:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 47 § SethRuebens unblocked

J-Man11 unblocked

Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, J-Man11 (talk · contribs) is unblocked subject to a one-account restriction. Maxim(talk) 17:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 47 § J-Man11 unblocked

Motion regarding Tenebrae

Due to a conflict of interest, User:Tenebrae is indefinitely banned from any mainspace edits related to Frank Lovece or Maitland McDonagh, broadly construed. Violations will be enforced by escalating blocks. They may request edits on talkpages. This restriction may be appealed in six months. For the Arbitration Committee, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 47 § Motion regarding Tenebrae

Jessiemay1984 unblocked

Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, Jessiemay1984 (talk · contribs) is unblocked subject to a one-account restriction. Maxim(talk) 15:18, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 47 § Jessiemay1984 unblocked

2021 discretionary sanctions review: community consultation

Editors are invited to provide feedback in the discretionary sanctions community consultation, which is open until April 25, 2021.

This consultation is part of the Arbitration Committee's revision process for the discretionary sanctions procedure, which sets forth a special set of rules that apply in topic areas defined by the Arbitration Committee. The purpose of this revision process is to simplify and clarify the procedure and resolve problems with the current system of discretionary sanctions.

For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 47 § 2021 discretionary sanctions review: community consultation

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS closed

The final decision in the RexxS arbitration case has been made and the case subsequently was closed. The final decision is viewable on the main case page. One remedy was passed as part of the final decision, which is included below:

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 23:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS closed

Universal Code of Conduct open letter

A majority of the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee has signed the open letter from arbitration committees to the Board of Trustees on the Universal Code of Conduct. This follows a months-long drafting process between the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee and the arbitration committees of other projects. For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:33, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 47 § Universal Code of Conduct open letter

Appeals report

The Arbitration Committee will be periodically publishing statistics about private appeals in an effort to increase transparency at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Appeals. The first such report, covering January to March 2021 has been published. For the Arbitration Committee, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 47 § Appeals report

Arbitration motion regarding Carlossuarez46

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The "Carlossuarez46" request for arbitration is accepted. Given that Carlossuarez46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has retired from the English Wikipedia, this case will be opened but suspended for a period of three months, during which time Carlossuarez46 will be temporarily desysopped.

If Carlossuarez46 should return to active editing on the English Wikipedia during this time and request that this case be resumed, the Arbitration Committee shall unsuspend the case by motion and it will proceed through the normal arbitration process. Such a request may be made by email to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org or at the clerks' noticeboard.

If such a request is not made within three months of this motion, this case shall be automatically closed, and Carlossuarez46 shall remain desysopped. Carlossuarez46 may regain the administrative tools at any time only via a successful request for adminship.

For the Arbitration Committee, GeneralNotability (talk) 02:37, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 47 § Arbitration motion regarding Carlossuarez46
The suspended case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Carlossuarez46. For the Arbitration Committee, GeneralNotability (talk) 00:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Motion regarding retaining personal identifying information

The Arbitration Committee has passed the following motion:

Information disclosed to the Arbitration Committee should be retained no longer than necessary. In order to further this goal, the committee will, beginning in April of each year, examine the information stored on the Arbitration Committee wiki. In general, information is considered no longer necessary if the user has not edited under any account for a significant number of years or if the reason for the private information to be held has passed. In these cases, the information should be removed from the relevant page, or the page deleted. It is noted that some information is retained for the purposes of stopping sockpuppetry and, where possible, this should be stored at the checkuser wiki and that technical limitations of wiki software would potentially allow information to be accessed again in the future.

For the Arbitration Committee, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § Motion regarding retaining personal identifying information

Arbitration motion regarding Antisemitism in Poland

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Remedy 5 of the Antisemitism in Poland case ("Article sourcing expectations") is amended to read as follows: The Arbitration Committee advises that administrators may impose "reliable-source consensus required" as a discretionary sanction on all articles on the topic of Polish history during World War II (1933-45), including the Holocaust in Poland. On articles where "reliable-source consensus required" is in effect, when a source that is not a high quality source (an article in a peer-reviewed scholarly journals, an academically focused book by a reputable publisher, and/or an article published by a reputable institution) is added and subsequently challenged by reversion, no editor may reinstate the source without first obtaining consensus on the talk page of the article in question or consensus about the reliability of the source in a discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.

For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:49, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § Arbitration motion regarding Antisemitism in Poland

Changes to functionary team

At his request by email to the committee, the CheckUser permissions of DGG are removed. The Arbitration Committee sincerely thanks DGG for his service as a CheckUser. Maxim(talk) 13:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § Changes to functionary team

Uhooep unblocked

Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, Uhooep (talk · contribs) is unblocked, subject to a one-account restriction. Maxim(talk) 18:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § Uhooep unblocked

COVID-19 discretionary sanctions authorised

The Arbitration Committee has authorised standard discretionary sanctions for the area of COVID-19 which supersede the community-authorised general sanctions for the same topic area by motion following a case request. The motion is as follows:

The case request is accepted under the title COVID-19 and resolved by motion with the following remedy:

Discretionary sanctions

(i) The community COVID-19 general sanctions are hereby rescinded and are replaced by standard discretionary sanctions, which are authorized for all edits about, and all articles related to, COVID-19, broadly construed.

(ii) All sanctions in force when this remedy is enacted are endorsed and will become standard discretionary sanctions governed by the standard procedure from the moment of enactment.

(iii) Notifications issued under COVID-19 general sanctions become alerts for twelve months from their date of issue, then expire.

(iv) All existing and past sanctions and restrictions placed under COVID-19 general sanctions will be transcribed by the arbitration clerks in the arbitration enforcement log.

(v) Any requests for enforcement that may be open when this remedy is enacted shall proceed, but any remedy that is enacted should be enacted as a discretionary sanction.

(vi) Administrators who have enforced the COVID-19 general sanctions are thanked for their work and asked to continue providing administrative assistance enforcing discretionary sanctions and at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 23:57, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § COVID-19 discretionary sanctions authorised

Ritchie333 and Praxidicae interaction ban modified

Following a now closed amendment request, the Arbitration Committee resolved by motion that:

In the interest of furthering discussion around the UCOC, admin sanctions, and other such reforms, the interaction ban between Praxidicae and Ritchie333 is amended after the last sentence to add Parties may discuss the existence of the ban, and examine its implications, but remain forbidden from discussing each other and interacting with each other.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 20:10, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § Ritchie333 and Praxidicae interaction ban modified

TheresNoTime permissions restored

Following a request to the committee, the CheckUser and Oversight permissions of TheresNoTime (talk · contribs) are restored.

Supporting: Barkeep49, Beeblebrox, Bradv, CaptainEek, Casliber, KrakatoaKatie, L235, Primefac, SoWhy, Worm That Turned

For the Arbitration Committee,

– bradv🍁 02:38, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § TheresNoTime permissions restored

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Carlossuarez46 closed

An arbitration case regarding User:Carlossuarez46 has now closed. The Arbitration Committee resolved by motion in April to suspend the case, which could be unsuspended if Carlossuarez46 requested it within three months. Because Carlossuarez46 has not requested that the case be unsuspended, the case has been automatically closed. The motion which has now closed the case is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Carlossuarez46#Motion: Suspended case (3 months).

For the Arbitration Committee, GeneralNotability (talk) 03:10, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Carlossuarez46 closed

Remedy 5 of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case clarified

The committee has clarified by motion Remedy 5 of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case following an amendment request. The motion is as follows:

The phrase "other internal project discussions", as used in Remedy 5 of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case ("ARBPIA General Sanctions"), shall be construed to include requested moves.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 19:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § Remedy 5 of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case clarified

CodeLyoko reappointed as a trainee clerk

The arbitration clerks are pleased to welcome back CodeLyoko (talk · contribs) after a period of inactivity to the clerk team as a trainee!

The arbitration clerk team is often in need of new members, and any editor who would like to join the clerk team is welcome to apply by email to clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 11:03, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § CodeLyoko reappointed as a trainee clerk

changes to Oversight team

In accordance with the Committee's standing procedure on functionary inactivity, the Oversight permissions of ST47 (talk · contribs) are removed. The Committee extends its appreciation for ST47's service as an Oversighter.

Katietalk 19:45, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § changes to Oversight team

Firefly appointed trainee clerk

The Arbitration clerks are pleased to welcome Firefly (talk · contribs) to the clerk team as a trainee!

The Arbitration clerk team is often in need of new members, and any editor who would like to join the clerk team is welcome to apply by email to clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 22:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § Firefly appointed trainee clerk

Statement regarding Flyer22 Frozen

Earlier this year, the Arbitration Committee dismissed a case involving Flyer22 Frozen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) after receiving a credible report that that editor had passed away. Members of the community expressed condolences and Flyer22 was added to the "Deceased Wikipedians" page [1].

The Arbitration Committee subsequently received off-wiki correspondence alleging that Flyer22 had not actually died and explaining the senders' basis for reaching that conclusion. The Committee takes this issue seriously and looked into it as thoroughly as we could within the bounds of appropriateness.

We must ask editors to bear in mind that while the Arbitration Committee can be privy to some evidence that cannot be shared on-wiki, such as checkuser findings, the scope of our responsibilities and authority is still limited. We are a committee of volunteers who are elected to help solve disputes arising on a website. Our authority and responsibilities do not include conducting forensic investigations off of the site. For example, in connection with the current allegations, someone sent us documentation purporting to reveal the identity of Flyer22, and suggested that we investigate, perhaps even reaching out to that person and members of their family to determine whether and when the identified person had passed away. It would not be appropriate for the Arbitration Committee or anyone else to do these things, and we have not and will not do so.

It is, however, possible to take action with regard to the SPI relating to accounts that have edited in recent months. The following have been blocked following traditional SPI investigations:

The editing by these accounts is improper independent of the circumstances concerning Flyer22. Accordingly, these accounts have been blocked. The person or persons behind these accounts is required to cease editing. Any concerns about further accounts may be posted to an as-yet-to-be created SPI page that the committee should have posted shortly, or e-mailed to the Arbitration Committee.

This is a difficult situation for many Wikipedians. Some key facts still are not known, and behind every username there is a real person. We ask that everyone please treat it with sensitivity, proportionality, and decorum.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Beeblebrox (talk) 23:04, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § Statement regarding Flyer22 Frozen

2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: announcement

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint additional editors to the Checkuser and Oversight teams. The arbitrators overseeing this will be Bradv and KrakatoaKatie. The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will assist in the vetting process. This year's timeline is as follows:

  • 6 September to 18 September: Candidates may self-nominate by contacting the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-en-c@wikimedia.org.
  • 19 September to 23 September: The Arbitration Committee and Functionaries will vet the candidates.
  • 24 September to 26 September: The committee will notify candidates going forward for community consultation and create the candidate subpages containing the submitted nomination statements.
  • 27 September to 6 October: Nomination statements will be published and the candidates are invited to answer questions publicly. The community is invited and encouraged to participate.
  • By 17 October: Appointments will be announced.

For the Arbitration Committee, Katietalk 11:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: announcement

Changes to functionary team

Following a request to the committee, the Oversight permissions of Callanecc are restored.

Katietalk 13:09, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § Changes to functionary team

Motion to standardize Extended Confirmed restrictions

A motion has been made to amend the Arbitration Committee's procedures to standardize the extended confirmed restriction. Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Extended confirmed restriction omnibus motion for more information or if you wish to comment. For the Arbitration Committee, Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide 03:06, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § Motion to standardize Extended Confirmed restrictions

Changes to functionary team (2)

At his request by email to the committee, the Oversight permissions of Mkdw are removed. The Arbitration Committee sincerely thanks Mkdw for his service as an Oversighter. Maxim(talk) 13:36, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § Changes to functionary team (2)

Extended confirmed restriction omnibus motion

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

In order to standardize the extended confirmed restriction, the following subsection is added to the "Enforcement" section of the Arbitration Committee's procedures:

Extended confirmed restriction

The Committee may apply the "extended confirmed restriction" to specified topic areas. When such a restriction is in effect in a topic area, only extended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area, subject to the following provisions:

A. The restriction applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area, broadly construed, with the following exceptions:
1. Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Should disruption occur on "Talk:" pages, administrators may take enforcement actions described in "B" or "C" below. However, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even within the "Talk:" namespace. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs, and noticeboard discussions.
2. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.
B. If a page (other than a "Talk:" page) mostly or entirely relates to the topic area, broadly construed, this restriction is preferably enforced through extended confirmed protection, though this is not required.
C. On any page where the restriction is not enforced through extended confirmed protection, this restriction may be enforced by other methods, including page protection, reverts, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters.
D. Reverts made solely to enforce this restriction are not considered edit warring.

Remedy 7 of the Antisemitism in Poland case ("500/30 restriction") is retitled "Extended confirmed restriction" and amended to read as follows:

Extended confirmed restriction

7) The extended confirmed restriction is imposed on edits and pages related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland, broadly construed. Standard discretionary sanctions as authorized by the Eastern Europe arbitration case remain in effect for this topic area.

Remedy 5 of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case (ARBPIA General Sanctions) is amended by replacing item B with the following:

Extended confirmed restriction: The extended confirmed restriction is imposed on the area of conflict.

For the Arbitration Committee, SQLQuery Me! 10:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § Extended confirmed restriction omnibus motion

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian politics closed

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

  • (i) The community-authorized general sanctions for post-1978 Iranian politics are hereby superseded and replaced by standard discretionary sanctions, which are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.
    (ii) All sanctions in force when this remedy is enacted are endorsed and will become standard discretionary sanctions governed by the standard procedure from the moment of enactment.
    (iii) Notifications issued under Post-1978 Iranian politics general sanctions become alerts for twelve months from their date of issue, then expire.
    (iv) All existing and past sanctions and restrictions placed under post-1978 Iranian politics general sanctions will be transcribed by the arbitration clerks in the arbitration enforcement log.
    (v) Any requests for enforcement that may be open when this remedy is enacted shall proceed, but any remedy that is enacted should be enacted as a discretionary sanction.
    (vi) Administrators who have enforced the Post-1978 Iranian politics general sanctions are thanked for their work and asked to continue providing administrative assistance enforcing discretionary sanctions and at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
  • Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to take appropriate actions (pursuant to the discretionary sanctions authorization) to facilitate consensus through moderation of any Requests for Comments (RfC). These actions may include, but are not limited to:
    • moratoriums up to one year on initiating RfCs on a particular dispute,
    • word and/or diff limits on all RfC participants,
    • bans on editors who have disrupted consensus-finding from participation in a particular RfC, and
    • sectioned commenting rules in RfCs.
  • BarcrMac (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • Idealigic (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • Mhhossein (talk · contribs) is warned against a battleground mentality and further incivility.
  • Mhhossein (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from People's Mujahedin of Iran (MEK), broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • Stefka Bulgaria (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • Vice regent (talk · contribs) is warned against a battleground mentality.

For the Arbitration Committee, GeneralNotability (talk) 16:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian politics closed

MJL appointed trainee clerk

The Arbitration clerks are pleased to welcome MJL (talk · contribs) to the clerk team as a trainee!

The Arbitration clerk team is often in need of new members, and any editor who would like to join the clerk team is welcome to apply by email to clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 22:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § MJL appointed trainee clerk

2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Community consultation phase open

The community consultation portion of the functionary appointment process is now open. Editors may ask up to two (2) questions of each candidate (similar to RFA rules). However, since this is a consultation and not a !vote, please refrain from phrasing comments in a support/oppose/neutral fashion.

The Arbitration Committee invites editors to comment and ask questions until 23:59 UTC on October 6, 2020.

Primefac (talk) 00:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Community consultation phase open

2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: candidates appointed

The Arbitration Committee is pleased to welcome the following editors to the functionary team:

The committee thanks all members of the community who participated and helped bring this process to a successful conclusion.

Katietalk 04:44, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: candidates appointed

Eostrix Blocked

The Arbitration Committee has determined through private evidence, including evidence from the checkuser tool, that Eostrix (talk · contribs) (a current RfA candidate) is a sockpuppet of Icewhiz (talk · contribs). Accordingly, the Committee has resolved that Eostrix be indefinitely blocked. For the Arbitration Committee, Beeblebrox (talk) 01:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § Eostrix Blocked

GeneralNotability promoted to full clerk

The Arbitration Committee is pleased to announce that GeneralNotability (talk · contribs) has been appointed a full clerk, effective immediately, concluding his successful traineeship.

The arbitration clerk team is often in need of new members, and any editor who would like to join the clerk team is welcome to apply by e-mail to clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org.

For the Arbitration Committee, Maxim(talk) 13:02, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § GeneralNotability promoted to full clerk

Temporary checkuser privileges for scrutineers

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

On recommendation of the Electoral Commission, temporary English Wikipedia checkuser privileges are granted to stewards Sotiale, Martin Urbanec, and Tks4Fish solely for the purpose of their acting as scrutineers in the 2021 Arbitration Committee election.

For the Arbitration Committee, Maxim(talk) 17:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § Temporary checkuser privileges for scrutineers

Level 1 desysop of Epbr123

Under the Level 1 desysopping procedures, the administrator permissions of Epbr123 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) have been temporarily removed as a suspected compromised account.

Supporting: CaptainEek, Casliber, Maxim

For the Arbitration Committee, Maxim(talk) 02:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § Level 1 desysop of Epbr123

Arbitration motion regarding Horn of Africa

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion to amend the case Horn of Africa as follows:

The already authorized standard discretionary sanctions for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes), broadly construed, are made permanent. The committee declines to open a full case. Any further amendments or requests for clarification should be made following the normal method.

For the Arbitration Committee, firefly ( t · c ) 16:32, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § Arbitration motion regarding Horn of Africa

Épine unblocked

Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, Épine (talk · contribs) is unblocked, subject to a one-account restriction. --BDD (talk) 20:17, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § Épine unblocked

Changes to the Functionaries email list

Following a review of current practices involving email lists, the Arbitration Committee has decided that the functionaries email list (functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org) will no longer be set to accept incoming email aside from list members and WMF staff. For private concerns other than those requiring oversight, please contact the Arbitration Committee directly.

For the Arbitration Committee, Primefac (talk) 13:54, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § Changes to the Functionaries email list

El Sandifer unbanned

The Arbitration Committee has accepted El Sandifer (talk · contribs)'s appeal of her ban imposed by motion of the Arbitration Committee (permalink). The Committee has determined that the ban is no longer necessary, and has accordingly resolved to grant the appeal.

Support: Barkeep49, Beeblebrox, CaptainEek, Casliber, Newyorkbrad, Primefac, SoWhy, Worm That Turned

Oppose: BDD, Bradv, David Fuchs, KrakatoaKatie, L235, Maxim

For the Arbitration Committee, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:17, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § El Sandifer unbanned

2022 Arbitration Committee

The Arbitration Committee welcomes the following new and returning arbitrators following their election by the community. The two-year terms of these arbitrators formally begin on 1 January 2022:

All incoming arbitrators have elected to receive the checkuser and oversight permissions.

We also thank our outgoing colleagues whose terms end on 31 December 2021:

Outgoing arbitrators are eligible to retain the CheckUser and Oversight permissions, remain active on cases accepted before their term ended, and to remain subscribed to the functionaries' and arbitration clerks' mailing lists following their term on the committee. To that effect:

  • Stewards are requested to remove the permission(s) noted from the following outgoing arbitrators after 31 December 2021 at their own request:
    CheckUser: Casliber, David Fuchs, Newyorkbrad, SoWhy
    Oversight: Casliber, David Fuchs, Newyorkbrad, SoWhy
  • Outgoing arbitrators are eligible to remain active on cases opened before their term ended if they wish. Whether or not outgoing arbitrators will remain active on any ongoing case(s) will be noted on the proposed decision talk page of affected case(s).
  • All outgoing arbitrators will remain subscribed to the functionaries' mailing list
  • David Fuchs will be unsubscribed from the arbitration clerks' mailing list at his request.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Maxim(talk) 16:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § 2022 Arbitration Committee

Amortias re-appointed as full clerk

The Arbitration Committee is pleased to announce that Amortias (talk · contribs) will be rejoining the arbitration clerk team as a full clerk. We express our thanks to the clerks for the work they do in ensuring that the arbitration process operates smoothly. If you are interested in joining the team as a trainee, please read through the information page and send an email to clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org.

For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:08, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § Amortias re-appointed as full clerk

Arbitration motion regarding Scientology

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion to amend the case Scientology as follows:

Remedy 2 of the Scientology arbitration case, "Church of Scientology IP addresses blocked", is hereby rescinded. Any remaining blocks currently in force may be lifted or appealed according to the unblocking policy.

For the Arbitration Committee, firefly ( t · c ) 18:55, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § Arbitration motion regarding Scientology

Arbitration motion regarding American politics 2

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Atsme's topic ban from post-WWII Anti fascism in the United States is provisionally lifted for a period of twelve months. If at any point before 1 January 2023 an uninvolved administrator feels that Atsme is not able to edit productively in this area, they may re-impose the topic ban.

For the Arbitration Committee, –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 21:28, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § Arbitration motion regarding American politics 2

Arbitration motions from the declined case request Warsaw concentration camp

The Arbitration Committee has declined the case request Warsaw concentration camp and has resolved through several motions that:

This request for arbitration is resolved as follows:
  1. The request for an arbitration case to resolve the issue of a potential conflict of interest as originally posted is declined, as the community has resolved the issue presented.
  2. The request for an arbitration case as subsequently revised to address misconduct in the topic area of the Holocaust in Poland is declined at this time, based on the terms of this motion.
  3. Editors are reminded that standard discretionary sanctions and special sourcing restrictions remain in effect for articles relating to the Holocaust in Poland. These provisions are to be interpreted and enforced with the goal of ensuring that Wikipedia's coverage of this important and sensitive topic is fairly and accurately presented based on the most reliable sources available, while maintaining a reasonable degree of decorum and collaboration among editors.
  4. Requests to enforce the discretionary sanctions or sourcing restrictions should be posted to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard (AE) for evaluation by uninvolved administrators. The sanctions and restrictions should be interpreted and enforced so as to promote our content-quality and user-conduct expectations. Enforcement discussions should focus on the accuracy of our articles and the well-being of our editors, not on procedural technicalities beyond those necessary to ensure fairness.
    As an alternative to AE, editors may make enforcement requests directly to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA. The committee will consider presented evidence and statements before deciding by motion what, if any, actions are necessary to enforce proper conduct in the topic area.
  5. The community, particularly including any editors with subject-matter knowledge who have not previously been active in this topic-area, is urged to carefully review the accuracy and sourcing of our articles on the Holocaust in Poland and related topics, with the goal of identifying and addressing any deficiencies that might exist, and implementing any other improvements that may be possible. Appropriate user-conduct is required during all discussions that are part of any such review.
  6. Editors in good standing who have withdrawn from editing in this topic-area, who are prepared to abide by all the relevant policies and expectations, are invited to return to editing.
  7. Should further alleged misconduct affecting our articles on the Holocaust in Poland take place, or be discovered, a new request for arbitration may be filed. The request for arbitration, and any responses to it, should identify specific instances of misconduct that is affecting the content of or editing environment on these articles. Reasonable extensions of the word limits, where warranted, will be afforded to allow the presentation of relevant and significant evidence. In addition to the usual processes, a consensus of administrators at AE may refer complex or intractable issues to the Arbitration Committee for resolution at ARCA, at which point the committee may resolve the request by motion or open a case to examine the issue. In the event that an arbitration case is opened, the Committee will give serious consideration to requests to hold part or all of the case in camera.
  8. Editors are reminded that Wikipedia discussions are about forming a consensus, not convincing everyone to agree. Discussion is an important part of how consensus is reached on Wikipedia and everyone should have the opportunity to express their views, within reasonable limits. It may be taken as disruptive to attempt stalling out the consensus-building process by repeatedly stating an opinion or with repeated demands for re-explanation of that which has already been clearly explained.
  9. Editors participating in Arbitration Committee proceedings are reminded that they are subject to high standards of behavior. Editors are required to act with appropriate decorum. While grievances must often be aired during proceedings, editors are expected to air them without being incivil or engaging in personal attacks, and to respond calmly to allegations. Accusations of misbehavior must be supported by clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Statements containing private or sensitive information should be submitted to the Arbitration Committee by email and are subject to the arbitration policy's provisions on admissibility of evidence.

Jehochman (talk · contribs) is admonished for behavior during this case request which fell short of the expectations for administrators and for the behavior of all editors participating in an Arbitration Committee proceeding. Specifically, Jehochman proxied for a globally banned harasser by posting on their behalf a denial of harassment and unsupported claims of collusion among editors in this topic area [2] and for casting aspersions at another editor for userboxes shown on their userpage [3]. The Arbitration Committee acknowledges that Jehochman has since apologized for these comments and has since been desysopped at his request. [4]

MyMoloboaccount (talk · contribs) is warned against casting aspersions towards other editors [5]. This warning should be considered as a sanction for the purposes of awareness in the topic areas of Eastern Europe and the Holocaust in Poland.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 14:46, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § Arbitration motions from the declined case request Warsaw concentration camp

Arbitration motion regarding Crouch, Swale

Following an amendment request, the committee has resolved by motion that:

Crouch, Swale's editing restrictions, previously modified in 2019, are modified as follows: He may create at most one new mainspace article per month through any process. He is not required to use the Articles for Creation process, and is not permitted to use it to exceed this rate. This restriction includes the creation of new content at a title that is a redirect or disambiguation page. This supersedes the second bullet point of the 2019 motion. Additionally, he may move userspace or draftspace pages to mainspace for the purpose of creating his one article per month, as an exception to his page move restriction. His restriction on frequency of appeals remains in force.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 23:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § Arbitration motion regarding Crouch, Swale

Discretionary sanctions topic area changes

In a process that began last year with WP:DS2021, the Committee is evaluating Discretionary Sanctions (DS) in order to improve it. A larger package of reforms is slated for sometime this year. From the work done so far, it became clear a number of areas may no longer need DS or that some DS areas may be overly broad. This discussion is intended to focus on those areas. Community feedback is invited and welcome at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions § Discretionary sanctions topic area changes

Miki Filigranski unblocked

Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, Miki Filigranski (talk · contribs) is unblocked, subject to a one-account restriction and one-revert rule. --BDD (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § Miki Filigranski unblocked

Changes to functionary team

In accordance with the policy on CheckUser and Oversighter inactivity, the CheckUser and Oversight rights of Callanecc are removed.

The Arbitration Committee sincerely thanks Callanecc for his service as a functionary.

For the Arbitration Committee, Maxim(talk) 15:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § Changes to functionary team

General comment regarding appeals to the Arbitration Committee

This announcement is a general comment from the Arbitration Committee concerning situations in which ArbCom grants an appeal from a sanction. While the vast majority of appeals that ArbCom receives are of Checkuser blocks, it also reviews sanctions imposed by ArbCom itself, Oversight blocks, and situations involving matters unsuitable for public discussion.

By granting an appeal, ArbCom is expressing that, based on the information available to it, it believes that the problems that led to the sanction are unlikely to recur. Granting an appeal does not necessarily mean that the initial decision that resulted in the sanction was incorrect at the time, unless the appeal announcement specifically says so. The rationales for granting appeals are, in general, the same as those arising from on-wiki process, but for reasons of privacy or jurisdiction, the appeal is heard by ArbCom.

An editor whose appeal was accepted by ArbCom remains subject to all applicable policies, guidelines, and community expectations, the same as any other editor. If there is new misconduct after the successful appeal, the editor may be (re)sanctioned no differently than any other editor. It is not necessary for sanctioning administrators to consult ArbCom in such cases, but if a question or concern arises, they are free to do so.

ArbCom will continue to consult with the community, or to have appeals posted for review by the community, in appropriate cases. Such consultations are of particular use where community members are likely to have relevant information or experience that may be unavailable to the arbitrators.

For the arbitration committee, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § General comment regarding appeals to the Arbitration Committee

Arbitration motions regarding discretionary sanctions topics

As part of its ongoing discretionary sanctions modernization effort, the Arbitration Committee has resolved through a series of motions that:

Remedy 7 of the Senkaku Islands case ("Discretionary sanctions") is rescinded. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the discretionary sanctions authorization remain in force and are governed by the discretionary sanctions procedure.

— Motion regarding "Senkaku islands"

The first sentence of the January 2013 motion in the Waldorf education case (authorizing discretionary sanctions) is stricken. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the discretionary sanctions authorization remain in force and are governed by the discretionary sanctions procedure.

— Motion regarding "Waldorf education"

The first sentence of the January 2014 motion in the Ancient Egyptian race controversy case (authorizing discretionary sanctions) is stricken. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the discretionary sanctions authorization remain in force and are governed by the discretionary sanctions procedure.

— Motion regarding "Ancient Egyptian race controversy"

Remedy 4.1 of the Scientology case ("Discretionary sanctions authorised") is rescinded. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the discretionary sanctions authorization remain in force and are governed by the discretionary sanctions procedure.

— Motion regarding "Scientology"

The January 2015 motion in the Landmark Worldwide case (authorizing discretionary sanctions) is rescinded. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the discretionary sanctions authorization remain in force and are governed by the discretionary sanctions procedure.

— Motion regarding "Landmark worldwide"
  1. Remedy 5 of the Neuro-linguistic programming case ("Mentorship") is rescinded.
  2. Remedy 2.1 of the Occupation of Latvia case ("Article probation") is rescinded.
  3. Remedy 2 of the Shiloh case ("Article-related Probation") is rescinded.
  4. Remedy 14.3 of the Obama articles case ("Articles semi-protected") is rescinded.
  5. The Arbitration Committee clarifies that the article probation referenced in Finding of Fact 3 of the Obama articles case ("Articles placed on probation") and subject to review in Remedy 1.1 of the Obama articles case ("Article probation review") is no longer in effect pursuant to a March 2015 community discussion, but related articles may be covered by remedies in the American politics 2 case.

Any actions previously taken in accordance with the foregoing remedies remain in force, and appeals and modifications therefrom shall be governed by the standard procedure for arbitration enforcement appeals.

— Motion regarding "Article probation revocation"

Remedy 7 of the Transcendental Meditation movement case ("Standard discretionary sanctions") is rescinded. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the discretionary sanctions authorization remain in force and are governed by the discretionary sanctions procedure.

— Motion regarding "Transcendental Meditation movement"
Remedies 6, 7, and 8 of the Asmahan case (relating to article probation and discretionary sanctions) are rescinded.
Remedy 2 of the Waterboarding case ("General restriction") is rescinded. Where appropriate, the discretionary sanctions authorized in the American politics 2 case may continue to be used.

Any actions previously taken in accordance with the foregoing remedies remain in force, and appeals and modifications therefrom shall be governed by the standard procedure for arbitration enforcement appeals.

— Motion regarding "Obsolete probation-like sanctions"

For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:35, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § Arbitration motions regarding discretionary sanctions topics
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_13&oldid=1075143247"