Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Arbitration​Committee

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

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

Arbitration motion regarding a case request about User:YellowMonkey

Passed by a vote of 8-2 at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case:

The Arbitration Committee has considered the request for arbitration (filed 30 November 2010) concerning administrator actions by YellowMonkey, which followed a request for comment on similar issues (certified 23 November). Although YellowMonkey responded to the original issues raised in the request for comment, he has not edited since 24 November 2010 (six days before the arbitration request was filed) and has not yet been afforded the opportunity to address the new issues raised in the request for comment or in this arbitration request. Accordingly, the arbitration request is declined as premature, and those wishing to engage in dispute resolution on this matter (including YellowMonkey) are directed to the request for comment or other appropriate venues.

For the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 21:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Personnel changes effective 1 January 2011

Effective 1 January 2011, the Arbitration Committee membership is as follows:

• Casliber (talk · contribs)
• Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk · contribs)
• Cool Hand Luke (talk · contribs)
• Coren (talk · contribs)
• David Fuchs (talk · contribs)
• Elen of the Roads (talk · contribs)
• Iridescent (talk · contribs)
• Jclemens (talk · contribs)
• John Vandenberg (talk · contribs)
• Kirill Lokshin (talk · contribs)
• Mailer diablo (talk · contribs)
• Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs)
• PhilKnight (talk · contribs)
• Risker (talk · contribs)
• Roger Davies (talk · contribs)
• Shell Kinney (talk · contribs)
• SirFozzie (talk · contribs)
• Xeno (talk · contribs)

The following new arbitrators are granted both CheckUser and Oversight permissions, per their request:

• Casliber (talk · contribs) (Arbcom-related use only)
• Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk · contribs)
• Elen of the Roads (talk · contribs)
• Iridescent (talk · contribs) (Arbcom-related use only)
• Jclemens (talk · contribs)
• PhilKnight (talk · contribs)
• Xeno (talk · contribs) (Arbcom-related use only)

The Arbitrator members of the Audit Subcommittee (AUSC) are:

• Xeno
• Jclemens
• Risker

The members of the Ban Appeals Subcommittee (BASC) for the first three months of 2011 are:

• Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry
• PhilKnight
• Cool Hand Luke
• Shell Kinney will continue as co-ordinator of this subcommittee.

The following members of the Arbitration Committee are retiring as of 1 January 2011:

• Carcharoth (talk · contribs)
• FayssalF (talk · contribs)
• KnightLago (talk · contribs)

The Arbitration Committee expresses its thanks to all three for their service throughout their respective terms. KnightLago and Carcharoth may elect to remain active on the two requests for arbitration that are currently open, and will notify the clerks directly of their intentions.

With respect to CheckUser and Oversight permissions:

• KnightLago will continue with both CheckUser and Oversight permissions
• Carcharoth has requested that his CheckUser and Oversight permissions be removed
• FayssalF's CheckUser permissions are removed due to inactive status

In addition:

• FloNight (talk · contribs) is granted extension of Oversight and CheckUser permissions until further notice.
• Bastique (talk · contribs) is granted Oversight permissions further to the Arbitration Committee announcement posted 27 August 2010.

We thank all members, past and present, of the Arbitration Committee and the Functionaries group for their continued support and effort on behalf of Wikipedia over the past year.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Risker (talk) 23:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Change in status - Arbitration Committee clerk

This serves to confirm that NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs) is formally appointed as a full clerk to the Arbitration Committee. NuclearWarfare has been acting in this role for an extended period, and has been amongst the most active members of the clerking cadre. The Committee appreciates his continued diligence in this area.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Risker (talk) 19:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Arbitration Clerks Seeking New Volunteers

The Arbitration Committee clerks are currently looking for a few dependable and mature editors willing to serve as clerks. The responsibilities of clerks are simple—opening, closing, passing and declining cases and motions; maintaining the requests for Arbitration pages; and preserving order and proper formatting on cases. Clerks are the unsung heroes of the arbitration process, keeping track of details to ensure that requests are handled in a timely and efficient manner. Clerks get front-line seats to the political and ethnic warfare that scorches Wikipedia periodically, and, since they aren't arbitrators themselves, are rarely threatened with violence by the participants.

Past clerks have gone on to be (or already were) successful lawyers, naval officers, and Presidents of Wikimedia Chapters. The salary and retirement packages for Clerks rival that of Arbitrators, to boot.

Please email clerks-llists.wikimedia.org if you are interested in becoming a clerk, and a clerk will reply with an acknowledgement of your message and any questions we want to put to you.

For the Arbitration Committee clerks,
NW (Talk) 20:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria

At Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment, the Arbitration Committee reviewed a request by User:Jayjg to remove editing restrictions placed on him in the abovementioned case. By a vote of 12-0, the Committee passed the following motion:

In view of his compliance with Remedy 11 of the West Bank - Judea and Samaria case, the editing restrictions placed on Jayjg (talk · contribs) in that same case are lifted effective at the passage of this motion. Jayjg is reminded that articles in the area of conflict, which is identical to the area of conflict as defined by the Palestine-Israel articles case, remain the subject of discretionary sanctions; should he edit within this topic area, those discretionary sanctions continue to apply.

For the Arbitration Committee,
NW (Talk) 18:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Ban appeal by User:Turbotad

The Arbitration Committee en banc has allowed the appeal of:

• Turbotad (talk · contribs · logs)

The details of the decision have been posted on the editor's talk page.

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger ^talk 10:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Sanctions appeal by User:Koavf

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

The restrictions placed upon Koavf (talk · contribs) in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Koavf and in User:Koavf/Community sanction are terminated, effective immediately. Koavf is reminded to edit in the future in full accordance with all Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

For the Arbitration Committee,
NW (Talk) 05:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II

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

• Communicat (talk · contribs) is prohibited from editing or commenting on articles about World War II or the Aftermath of World War II. This prohibition is of indefinite duration, but may be appealed to the Committee by Communicat after six months;
• Communicat is placed under a behavioral editing restriction for a period of one year.

For the Arbitration Committee,
AGK [•] 15:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

User:X!, our new Arbitration clerk

The Arbitration clerks would like to welcome User:X! to the clerk team as a trainee!

At the same time, the call for volunteers that we issued last week is still applicable. Users who would like to join the clerk team, whether they be administrators or not, are welcome to apply by sending an email to [email protected]. NW (Talk) 17:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Appeal to BASC: SanchiTachi

The Ban Appeals Subcommittee has allowed the appeal of:

• SanchiTachi (talk · contribs)

The text of the decision has been posted on the editor's talk page.

For the Arbitration Committee, Shell ^babelfish 19:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Request for comments on the Audit Subcommittee

The Arbitration Committee has conducted an internal review of the Audit Subcommittee and is now seeking comment from the community, in particular about the subcommittee's effectiveness to date and ongoing representation from community delegates ("at-large members").

As the October 2009 election yielded few candidates relative to the number of seats available, it has been suggested that filling the non-arbitrator positions by appointment after community consultation (similar to the previous round of CU/OS appointments) would attract a greater number of suitably qualified candidates.

It has also been suggested that greater numbers of community delegates be appointed to ensure adequate ongoing community representation. Should a sufficient number of suitable candidates apply, the committee will appoint three "primary members" along with a number of "standby members" (who will also receive the CheckUser and Oversight privileges) and would stand in should a primary member become inactive or be unable to hear a particular case.

Comments are invited about the above, as well as any other general comments about the Audit Subcommittee. The Arbitration Committee would like to thank outgoing community members Dominic, Jredmond, and MBisanz for their patience and continued participation on the subcommittee while this review process is ongoing.

The next call for applications is provisionally scheduled for 20 February 2011.

For the Arbitration Committee, –xeno^talk 18:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Changes in CheckUser/Oversight permissions

Effective 1 February 2011, Keegan (talk · contribs) returns to the ranks of Oversighters. Keegan took a leave of absence from this responsibility while he was a WMF Community Associate during the recent successful fundraising drive.

At the completion of his term as a member of the WMF Ombudsman Commission, Lar (talk · contribs) will be returning to the ranks of CheckUsers. On behalf of the English Wikipedia, we thank Lar for taking on this appointment and representing this and other projects on the Commission.

FloNight (talk · contribs) has accepted an appointment to the Ombudsman Commission effective February of this year. We congratulate FloNight on her appointment, and thank her for representing this and other projects on the Commission. During her term as a member of the Commission, FloNight's permissions will change to global permissions, and she will not be acting as a local CheckUser or Oversighter.

For the Arbitration Committee, Risker (talk) 23:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Ban appeal by Justanother / Justallofthem

The Arbitration Committee has allowed the appeal of:

• Justanother (talk · contribs)

who has elected to edit as:

• Lyncs (talk · contribs)

The text of the decision has been posted on Lync's talk page.

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger ^talk 13:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list that: The Eastern European mailing list case is supplemented as follows:

The topic ban placed upon Piotrus (talk · contribs) in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European mailing list and subsequent motions is lifted, effective immediately. Piotrus is reminded that further disruption related to this case may result in the topic ban or other remedies being re-imposed by the Committee.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller (talk) 09:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Arbitration motions regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking

The Arbitration Committee has considered and passed 2 motions regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking. They are listed below:

By a vote of 12-0:

Remedy 18 of the Date delinking case, which limits Ohconfucius (talk · contribs) to using a single account, is amended by adding the sentence: "He may also use a separate bot account for any bot task or tasks approved by the bot approvals group."

By a separate vote of a 12-0:

Remedy 7.1 of the Date delinking case, which as originally written prohibited Lightmouse (talk · contribs) from utilizing any automation on Wikipedia, is amended by adding the words "except for a bot task or group of related tasks authorized by the bot approvals group." Remedy 8, which limited Lightmouse to using a single account, is amended by adding the sentence: "He may also use a separate bot account for any bot task or group of related tasks approved by the bot approvals group."

For the Arbitration Committee,
NW (Talk) 15:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question closed

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

1. Standard discretionary sanctions are enacted for all articles related to the Shakespeare authorship question;
2. NinaGreen (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year;
3. NinaGreen is topic-banned indefinitely from editing any article relating (broadly construed) to the Shakespeare authorship question, William Shakespeare, or Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford;
4. The Arbitration Committee endorses the community sanction imposed on Smatprt (talk · contribs). Thus, Smatprt remains topic-banned from editing articles relating to William Shakespeare, broadly construed, for one year from November 3, 2010.

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 20:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity closed

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

1. Standard discretionary sanctions are enacted for all articles related to Longevity (broadly interpreted);
2. Ryoung122 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from editing, commenting on, or otherwise participating in any Wikipedia process related to articles about longevity (broadly interpreted);
3. John J. Bulten (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year;
4. WikiProject World's Oldest People is urged to seek experienced Wikipedia editors who will act as mentors to the project and assist members in improving their editing and their understanding of Wikipedia policies and community norms;
5. Within seven days of the conclusion of this case, all parties must either delete evidence sub-pages in their user space or request deletion of them using the {{db-author}} or {{db-self}} template.

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 22:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Audit Subcommittee vacancies: Call for applications

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint at least three non-arbitrator members to the Audit Subcommittee.

The Audit Subcommittee ("AUSC") was established by the Arbitration Committee to investigate complaints concerning the use of CheckUser and Oversight privileges on the English Wikipedia, and to provide better monitoring and oversight of the CheckUser and Oversight positions, and use of the applicable tools.

Matters brought before the subcommittee may be time-sensitive and subcommittee members should be prepared and available to discuss cases promptly so they may be resolved in a timely manner. Sitting subcommittee members are expected to actively participate in AUSC proceedings and may be replaced should they become inactive. All subcommittee members are subject to the relevant local and global policies and guidelines concerning CheckUser and Oversight.

If you think you may be suitably qualified, please see the appointments page for further information. The application period is scheduled to close 7 March 2011.

For the Arbitration Committee, –xeno^talk 23:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

User:Rodhullandemu

Rodhullandemu (talk · contribs)

Background

This user has engaged in conduct unbecoming an administrator including: placing blocks and page protections when involved; engaging in personal attacks and incivility; as well as feuding and edit-warring.

Motion

Rodhullandemu's administrator status is revoked. He may apply for adminship at a future date by the usual means to the community.

Support motion

Casliber, Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, Coren, Elen of the Roads, Jclemens, John Vandenberg, Kirill, PhilKnight, Risker, Roger Davies, Shell Kinney, SirFozzie, Xeno

Oppose motion

none

Not voting or inactive on motion

Cool Hand Luke, David Fuchs, Iridescent, Mailer diablo, Newyorkbrad

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger ^talk 02:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Arbitration motion regarding User:Rodhullandemu

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

[T]he 26 February 2011 motion posted to the Arbitration Committee noticeboard ("Rodhullandemu's administrator status is revoked. He may apply for adminship at a future date by the usual means to the community.") is rescinded and replaced with a temporary injunction suspending Rodhullandemu's administrative privileges for the duration of the case [opened 7 March 2011].

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 04:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Arbitration motion regarding Ebionites 2

Per an interim motion:

The request for arbitration is accepted (titled Ebionites 2). However, the case will be held in abeyance for four weeks to allow mediation to proceed. After four weeks, or earlier if the mediation is closed as unsuccessful, the Committee will reexamine the situation to determine whether the case will proceed or be dismissed.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller (talk) 14:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Audit Subcommittee appointments: Invitation to comment on candidates

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint at least three non-arbitrator members to the Audit Subcommittee, and is now seeking comments from the community regarding the candidates who have volunteered for this role.

Interested parties are invited to review the appointments page containing the nomination statements supplied by the candidates and their answers to a few standard questions. Community members may also pose additional questions and submit comments about the candidates on the individual nomination subpages or privately via email to arbcom-en-blists.wikimedia.org.

Following the consultation phase, the committee will take into account the answers provided by the candidates to the questions and the comments offered by the community (both publicly and privately) along with any other relevant factors before making a final decision regarding appointments.

The consultation phase is scheduled to end 23:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC), and the appointments are scheduled to be announced by 31 March 2011.

For the Arbitration Committee, –xeno^talk 00:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kehrli 2 closed

An arbitration case regarding Kehrli (talk · contribs) has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedy has been enacted:

• Kehrli (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from metrology-related articles, broadly defined, including talk pages and discussions.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Monty Hall problem closed

An arbitration case regarding Monty Hall problem has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following is a summary of the sanctions that were enacted:

• Standard discretionary sanctions are enacted for all articles related to Monty Hall problem (broadly interpreted)
• Glkanter is banned from Wikipedia for one year, and is further subject to an indefinite topic ban on subjects related to the Monty Hall Problem.
• Nijdam is topic banned from the subject of the Monty Hall problem for a period of one year.
• Rick Block is restricted to 1RR on the Monty Hall article for a period of one year.

For the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 00:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Advanced permissions and inactivity

Access to CheckUser and Oversight permissions is given sparingly. The permissions reflect the high trust placed in the holder but are not granted in perpetuity and holders are expected to use them regularly for the benefit of the project.

Accordingly, the minimum activity level for each tool (based on the preceding three months' activity) shall be five logged actions, including at least one community-requested logged action. Examples of community-requested actions include suppression requests via the oversight-en-wp OTRS queue; CheckUser requests through Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, those stemming from account creation requests, those made in response to threads at an administrative noticeboard, or posted on a CheckUser's personal user talk page. These activity requirements do not apply to: (a) sitting members of the Arbitration Committee; (b) holders using the permissions for audit purposes (such as members of the Audit Subcommittee); or (c) holders who have temporarily relinquished access, including CheckUsers or Oversighters who accept appointment to the Ombudsman Commission.

Holders of the permissions are also expected to:

1. Remain active on the English Wikipedia unless they have previously notified the Arbitration Committee of a significant expected absence and its likely duration.
2. Consider temporarily relinquishing their permission(s) for planned prolonged periods of inactivity.
3. Reply within seven days to email communications from either the Audit Subcommittee or the Arbitration Committee about their use of the permissions.

Holders who do not comply with the activity and expectation requirements – or who mark their accounts "semi-retired", "retired", or "inactive", or who announce their effective retirement by other means – may have their permissions removed by the Arbitration Committee. Prior to removal of access, two attempts will be made to contact the holder using the email address they provided to the Committee.

Permissions will usually be reinstated on the following bases:

• Temporarily relinquished permissions will normally be promptly restored provided no issues have arisen in the interim.
• Permissions removed for unannounced inactivity will normally be restored once (a) a satisfactory explanation for the unannounced inactivity has been given and (b) satisfactory assurances about future activity levels have been received.

Requests for reinstatement for any other reason will be considered on a case by case basis.

Note that Stewards and Wikimedia Foundation staff granted CheckUser and Oversight permissions by the WMF are outside of the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee.

Approved by motion of the Arbitration Committee

Suppporting the motion: David Fuchs, John Vandenberg, Kirill Lokshin, Mailer diablo, Newyorkbrad, PhilKnight, Risker, Roger Davies, Shell Kinney, SirFozzie, Xeno

Abstaining: Jclemens

Not voting: Casliber, Cool Hand Luke, Coren, Elen of the Roads, Iridescent

Inactive: Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry

For the Arbitration Committee, Risker (talk) 17:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Audit Subcommittee appointments (2011)

Effective 1 April 2011, Bahamut0013 (talk · contribs), Courcelles (talk · contribs), and Keegan (talk · contribs) are appointed as community representatives to the Audit Subcommittee. The period of appointment will be 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2012. AGK (talk · contribs) is designated as an alternate member of the subcommittee and will become a full member should one of the appointees resign their role during the term. The Arbitration Committee thanks all of the candidates, as well as the many members of the community who participated in the appointment process for these roles.

The Arbitration Committee also extends its thanks to Dominic (talk · contribs), Jredmond (talk · contribs), and MBisanz (talk · contribs), whose terms in office were extended so that an orderly transfer of responsibility could occur. Dominic will return to his previous role as a CheckUser and Oversighter; MBisanz will assume his role as an Oversighter. The Committee also thanks former subcommittee member Tznkai (talk · contribs), who was one of the original appointees to the Committee in 2009, and resigned in August 2010.

Support: Coren, David Fuchs, Elen of the Roads, PhilKnight, Jclemens, John Vandenberg, Mailer diablo, Newyorkbrad, Kirill Lokshin, Risker, Roger Davies, Shell Kinney, Xeno

Oppose: None

Abstain: None

Not voting: Casliber, Cool Hand Luke, Iridescent

Inactive: Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, Sir Fozzie

For the Arbitration Committee, –xeno^talk 16:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

BASC Statistics

During January, February and March 2011 the Ban Appeals Subcomittee (BASC) heard 21 appeals, 4 of which were successful. The successful appeals were Turbotad, Frieds02, SanchiTachi, and Justallofthem.

For the Arbitration Committee, PhilKnight (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Internal teams

To help ensure that all matters brought before the Arbitration Committee are addressed appropriately, certain arbitrators have volunteered to assume responsibility for various specific functions. A list of these arbitrators and the relevant areas is provided below for information purposes. Please note that, except for the formal subcommittees (WP:AUSC and WP:BASC), these assignments are informal and simply for purposes of internal coordination. Routine day-to-day changes will not necessarily be publicly announced. Coordination assignments are not exclusive and, except for recusals or inactive periods, all arbitrators may participate equally in all aspects of the Committee's work.

Incoming mail team

• Role: Expediting mail handling by providing initial responses; and triage of incoming mail.
• Team members: David Fuchs, Elen of the Roads, Iridescent, Jclemens, Mailer diablo, Roger Davies

Case management team

• Role: Overseeing requests for arbitration, opened cases, requests for clarification and amendment; monitoring Arbitration Enforcement.
• Team members: Cool Hand Luke, Elen of the Roads, Kirill Lokshin, Newyorkbrad, Roger Davies

Ban Appeals support team

• Role: assisting the Ban Appeals Subcommittee, with administration, statistics and correspondence.
• Team members: David Fuchs, Iridescent, Shell Kinney

Higher permissions team

• Role: coordination in selection of Oversighters, CheckUsers, and community AUSC representatives; working with the Audit Subcommittee; liaising with holders of higher permissions.
• Team members: Casliber, Risker, Xeno

Technical team

• Role: technical issues with the mailing list, the ArbCom private wiki, and related matters.
• Team members: Coren, John Vandenberg, Xeno

Overall internal coordination: Roger Davies, Kirill Lokshin

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger ^talk 09:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Henri Coanda closed

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

• Lsorin (talk · contribs) is prohibited from editing or commenting on articles about the Coandă-1910 aircraft, its inventor Henri Coandă, or the history of the jet engine. This topic-ban shall be effective indefinitely, but Lsorin may request that it be terminated or modified after at least six months have elapsed. In considering any such request, the Committee will give significant weight to whether Lsorin has established an ability to edit collaboratively and in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines in other topic-areas of the project.

• The topic-ban imposed in this decision applies to all pages in all namespaces. However, the topic-ban does not preclude Lsorin from (1) responding to good-faith, reasonable inquiries from other editors on his user talkpage seeking information about the Coandă-1910, as long as Lsorin does not misuse this permission; (2) participating in the arbitration enforcement discussion of any allegation that he violated the topic-ban; or (3) posting an authorized request for the lifting or modification of the topic-ban after the specified time period has elapsed.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Criteria for appointment to the Audit Subcommittee

To enhance the transparency of the Audit Subcommittee appointment process, the Committee has decided to publish the criteria used for appointment. For the appointments made last month, the criteria were as follows:

A candidate for the Audit Subcommittee will be appointed if:

1. No serious concerns in relation to privacy violations or other breach of trust have been raised; and
2. The candidate has been supported by at least 80% of the arbitrator votes cast.

In the event of there being more candidates meeting this standard than there are vacancies, candidates will be ranked by percentage of support. If this still results in a tie for the last available place(s), the number of support votes will be used to break the tie. If this does not break the tie, a runoff election will be held.

The fourth ranked candidate passing criteria (1) and (2) will remain an alternate, to be appointed if one of the appointed candidates retires before the end of his/her term.

These criteria were approved by a resolution of the Arbitration Committee:

Supporting: David Fuchs; Elen of the Roads; Iridescent; John Vandenberg; Kirill Lokshin; Mailer diablo; Newyorkbrad; PhilKnight; Risker; Roger Davies; Shell Kinney; Xeno

Not voting: Casliber; Cool Hand Luke; Coren; Jclemens

Inactive: SirFozzie; Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry

Unless announced otherwise, these criteria will be used for future appointments to the Audit Subcommittee.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Updated procedures for arbitrator activity and voting

The Arbitration Committee has updated its procedures for determining arbitrator activity and voting thresholds. The updated procedures are as follows:

Arbitrator activity

Arbitrators are presumed active unless they are on a wikibreak, have not participated in arbitration within the past week, or have informed the Committee of their absence. An inactive arbitrator may become active by voting on any aspect of a proceeding. An active arbitrator may become inactive by so stating, in which case their votes will be struck through and discounted.

Unannounced arbitrator absence

Any arbitrator who has not given prior notice of absence and who fails to post to the usual venues for seven consecutive days is deemed inactive in all matters with, where practical, retrospective effect to the date of the last known post.

Calculation of votes

Arbitrator votes are calculated on the following basis:

1. Each active, non-recused arbitrator may cast one vote; and
2. Recused, abstaining, and inactive arbitrators are discounted.

The following expressions are used, with the following meanings:

• "Four net votes": the number of votes to support or accept is at least four greater than the number of votes to oppose or decline.
• "Absolute majority": the number of votes to support or accept is greater than 50% of the total number of arbitrators, not including any arbitrators who are recused, abstaining, or inactive.

These procedures were approved by a resolution of the Arbitration Committee:

Supporting: Casliber; David Fuchs; Jclemens; John Vandenberg; Kirill Lokshin; Newyorkbrad; Risker; Roger Davies; Shell Kinney; Xeno

Not voting: Cool Hand Luke; Coren; Elen of the Roads; Iridescent; Mailer diablo; PhilKnight

Inactive: Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry

The updated procedures replace the previously published procedures for "Inactivity on internal resolutions" and "Unannounced arbitrator absence".

For the Arbitration Committee, Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Changes requested to the checkuser and oversight permissions

In order to remove the technical limitation that checkusers and oversighters must also be administrators to review deleted content, the deletedhistory, deletedtext, and browsearchive rights should be added to the oversight and checkuser permission groups.

Supporting: Cool Hand Luke; Coren; David Fuchs; Elen of the Roads; Jclemens; John Vandenberg; Kirill Lokshin; Newyorkbrad; PhilKnight; Risker; Shell Kinney; Roger Davies; Xeno

Not voting or inactive: Casliber; Iridescent; Mailer diablo; Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry; SirFozzie

For the Arbitration Committee, –xeno^talk 14:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Target timetable for cases

The Arbitration Committee has adopted a guideline providing a default timetable for the progression of cases, as follows:

Default case timetables

To expedite case handling, the target times are as follows:

1. The evidence phase lasts two weeks from the date of the case pages opening;
2. The workshop phase ends one week after the evidence phase closes;
3. The proposed decision is finalised within one week of the workshop phase closing.

The target times may be lengthened or shortened by initiative of the Committee, at the discretion of the drafting arbitrator(s), or at the request of one of the parties.

This guideline was approved by a resolution of the Arbitration Committee:

Supporting: David Fuchs, Elen of the Roads, Jclemens, John Vandenberg, Kirill Lokshin, PhilKnight, Risker, Roger Davies, Shell Kinney, Xeno

Abstaining: Casliber, Newyorkbrad

Not voting/inactive: Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, Cool Hand Luke, Coren, Iridescent, Mailer diablo, SirFozzie

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies ^talk 05:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence

By vote at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification, a majority of the Arbitration Committee has voted to amend the above case:

That the following replace the terms in Remedy 5.1:

Editors reminded and discretionary sanctions (amended)

5.2) Both experienced and new editors contributing to articles relating to the area of conflict (namely, the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed) are reminded that this is a highly contentious subject and are cautioned that to avoid disruption they must adhere strictly to fundamental Wikipedia policies, including but not limited to: maintaining a neutral point of view; avoiding undue weight; carefully citing disputed statements to reliable sources; and avoiding edit-warring and incivility.

To enforce the foregoing, Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for any editor making any edit relating to the area of conflict anywhere on Wikipedia.

Sanctions may not be imposed for edits made prior to the passing of this motion but warnings may be given and should be logged appropriately.

All sanctions imposed under the original remedy shall continue in full force.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Arbitration procedures

The Committee has adopted the following, for incorporation into its Procedures.

Expectation of prior dispute resolution

The Committee usually expects editors to have exhausted the previous steps in the dispute resolution process before proceeding to arbitration. Exceptions include cases:

1. Where the case involves allegations of administrator misconduct or an unusually divisive dispute among administrators;
2. Where there has already been extensive discussion with wide community participation; or
3. Where there is good reason to believe that engaging in the earlier steps of the dispute resolution process would not be productive.

Opening of proceedings

A request will proceed to arbitration if it meets all of the following criteria:

1. Its acceptance has been supported by at least four net votes;
2. More than 24 hours have elapsed since the request passed the four net vote threshold; and
3. More than 48 hours have elapsed since the request was filed.

A proceeding may be opened earlier, waiving provisions 2 and 3 above, if a majority of arbitrators support fast-track opening in their acceptance votes. Once the Committee has accepted a request, a clerk will create the applicable case pages, and give the proceeding a working title. The title 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 draft the case, to ensure it progresses, and to act as designated point of contact for any matters arising.

Expectation of participation in proceedings

Editors named as parties to an arbitration case, and duly notified of it, are expected to participate in the proceeding. Any editor named as a party to a case, or whose conduct otherwise comes under scrutiny during the course of a case, will be notified of this by the Committee or its clerks, and, except in exceptional circumstances, will be given a minimum of seven days to respond, calculated from the date the case opened or the date on which they are notified, whichever is later.

If a party fails to respond within a reasonable time of being notified, or explicitly refuses to participate in the case, or leaves Wikipedia just before or during the proceedings, the Committee may, at its discretion: (i) dismiss the case either in its entirety or only insofar as that party is concerned; (ii) suspend the case; (iii) continue the case regardless; or (iv) close the case by motion.

Actions by parties to a proceeding

If an administrator who is a party to a case resigns their permissions just before or during the case affecting them, they are not entitled to reinstatement under standard resysopping procedures, but are required, unless otherwise directed by the Committee, to submit a new request for adminship.

Submission of evidence

Evidence submissions are expected to be succinct and to the point. By default, they are limited to about 500 words and about 50 difference links and must be posted on the applicable case pages. The submission of evidence via sub-pages in userspace is prohibited. Editors wishing to submit over-length evidence must request the approval of the drafting arbitrator(s) prior to posting it. Unapproved over-length evidence and inappropriate material/links may be removed or redacted by the clerks.

Voting on proposed decisions

For standard hearings, proposed decisions will be posted in the form of "Principles", "Findings of Fact", "Remedies" and "Enforcement", with a separate vote for each provision. Where several substantive matters are combined in a single provision, they will be split into separate provisions for voting at the request of any arbitrator.

The final decision will consist of all proposed provisions which were passed by an absolute majority.

Motions to close

Once voting on a proposed decision appears to have ended, an arbitrator will move to close the case. To be adopted, a motion to close requires the support of the lesser of (i) four net votes or (ii) an absolute majority.

A final consideration period of at least 24 hours will usually elapse between the casting of the fourth net vote to close the case and the implementation of any remedies. However, closure may be fast-tracked if (i) all clauses pass unanimously or (ii) an absolute majority vote in the motion to do so.

Motions to dismiss

If, at any time, the Committee determines by an absolute majority that (i) issuing a formal decision serves no useful purpose; (ii) a majority decision is not achievable; or (iii) a case may best be resolved by a single motion rather than a full decision; it may close, dismiss or otherwise resolve the case by motion.

The procedures were adopted by resolution of the Arbitration Committee:

Support

Casliber, Cool Hand Luke, David Fuchs, Iridescent, Jclemens, John Vandenberg, Kirill Lokshin, Mailer diablo, Newyorkbrad, PhilKnight, Risker, Roger Davies, Shell Kinney, SirFozzie, Xeno

Oppose/Abstain

None

Inactive/Not voting

Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry; Coren, Elen of the Roads

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies ^talk 07:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this