Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 14

Arbitration motion regarding Ancient Egypt

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized with immediate effect for all pages relating to Ancient Egyptian race controversy and associated articles, broadly construed. This supersedes the existing article probation remedy enacted in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann#Article probation. This motion does not affect any actions presently in effect that were taken in enforcement of the old article probation remedy.

For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ^{21 Call me Hahc21} 02:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Nightscream closed

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

For repeatedly violating the policy on administrator involvement, Nightscream's administrative privileges are revoked. Should he wish to regain administrator status in the future, he may file a new request for adminship.

For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 01:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Promotion of clerk Rschen7754

We are pleased to confirm trainee Rschen7754 (talk · contribs) as an arbitration clerk, effective immediately.

We also express our thanks and gratitude to Rschen and all the other arbitration clerks for their diligent assistance with the arbitration process. 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-llists.wikimedia.org.

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 23:22, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Approved by: AGK, LFaraone, Timotheus Canens, Beeblebrox, GorillaWarfare, Floquenbeam, Salvio giuliano, Roger Davies, Seraphimblade.

Archived discussion

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel closed

An arbitration case about the behaviour of Kafziel (talk · contribs) with regards to the Articles for Creation process, has now closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. For conduct unbecoming an administrator by failing to respond appropriately, respectfully and civilly to good faith enquiries about his administrative actions, Kafziel (talk · contribs) is desysopped and may regain the tools via a request for adminship. The user may not seek advanced positions in an alternative account unless he links such account to his Kafziel account.
2. For his battlefield mentality in areas relating to Articles for Creation, Hasteur (talk · contribs) is admonished.

For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ^{21 Call me Hahc21} 20:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Arbitration motion regarding Increase of protection on article protected under WP:OFFICE action

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Kww is admonished for knowingly modifying a clearly designated Wikimedia Foundation Office action, which he did in the absence of any emergency and without any form of consultation, and is warned that he is subject to summary desysopping if he does this again. Because the request for arbitration filed by Kww seeks review of Office actions, it is outside the purview of the Arbitration Committee and accordingly the request is declined.

For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ^{21 Call me Hahc21} 00:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Discuss this

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 include opening and closing arbitration cases and motions; notifying parties of cases, decisions, and other committee actions; maintaining the requests for Arbitration pages; preserving order and proper formatting on case pages; and other administrative and related tasks they may be requested to handle by the arbitrators. 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. Best of all, you get a cool fez!

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, Rschen7754 04:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Archived discussion

New trainees

The clerks team would like to welcome Rockfang and Sphilbrick as trainees! --Rschen7754 16:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Arbitration Request/Kevin Gorman Motion Passed

A motion that was proposed for the Arbitration Request initiated on February 17, 2014 has passed. The motion can be found here. The following is the text of the motion:

• The committee notes that it is not in dispute that User:Kevin Gorman has acted out of process and in a manner which is incompatible with the standards to which administrators are held.
• The committee notes and accepts Kevin Gorman's assurances that he has learned by his mistakes and will not repeat them.
• Kevin Gorman is strongly admonished.
• The request shall be filed as "Kevin Gorman".
• The request for a full case is declined.

For the Arbitration Committee, Rockfang (talk) 01:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Arbitration motion regarding the Toddst1 request for arbitration

The following motion proposed regarding the Toddst1 request for arbitration has been passed:

The "Toddst1" request for arbitration is accepted, but a formal case will not be opened unless and until Toddst1 returns to active status as an administrator. If Toddst1 resigns his administrative tools or is desysopped for inactivity the case will be closed with no further action. Toddst1 is instructed not to use his admin tools in any way while the case is pending; doing so will be grounds for summary desysopping.

For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 15:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Discuss this

Arbitration motions regarding Ryulong

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Motion 1

The following sanction is vacated with immediate effect.

3) Should Ryulong be found to be seeking or requesting any administrative action on IRC against users with whom he is in dispute, he may be reported to ANI or the Arbitration Enforcement page.

Motion 2

During the original case Ryulong was admonished for excessive off-wiki requests of an inappropriate nature in remedy 3b, which reads in part:

(B) For contacting administrators in private to seek either blocks on users he is in dispute with, or the performance of other administrative actions. Any further occurrence would lead to sanctions.

The admonishment is left in place as warning not to return to the excessive and/or inappropriate behavior of the past, but the final sentence "Any further occurrence would lead to sanctions." is to be stricken.

For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 17:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Archived discussion

February 2014 functionary changes

In accordance with the standing procedure on inactivity,

1. The checkuser and oversight permissions of Fred Bauder (talk · contribs) are removed.
2. The checkuser permissions of Jdforrester (talk · contribs) are removed. (His oversight permissions are not.)

At his own request, the checkuser permissions of Frank (talk · contribs) have also been removed. Frank has let the committee know he currently has little time to contribute as a functionary, but may return later in the year.

The committee sincerely thanks all three functionaries for their years of service, and all the current checkuser and oversight permission holders for the invaluable contributions they make as functionaries.

Approved by: AGK, LFaraone, T. Canens, Carcharoth, Roger Davies, Worm That Turned, Floquenbeam, David Fuchs, NativeForeigner, and Beeblebrox; none objecting.

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 22:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Arbitration motion regarding Clarification request: BLP special enforcement

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

• By way of clarification, the formal warning issued by Kevin Gorman was out of process and therefore has no effect. The provisions of WP:BLPBAN will be reviewed by the Arbitration Committee and where necessary updated.

For the Arbitration Committee,--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Discretionary sanctions review. Comments welcome on Draft v3

The Arbitration Committee has recently been conducting a review of the discretionary sanctions system. You may wish to comment on the newest (third) draft update to the system, which has just been posted to the review page. Comments are welcome on the review talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 00:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Will Beback ban appeal

By motion, the ban of Will Beback (talk · contribs) has been suspended by the Arbitration Committee, subject to restrictions set out on their talk page.

• Support: Beeblebrox, Carcharoth, David Fuchs, Floquenbeam, GorillaWarfare, LFaraone, NativeForeigner, Newyorkbrad, Roger Davies, Seraphimblade, Worm That Turned
• Oppose: AGK, Timotheus Canens
• Not voting: Salvio giuliano

For the Arbitration Committee, Carcharoth (talk) 02:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Ferahgo the Assassin ban appeal

By motion, the ban of Ferahgo the Assassin (talk · contribs) has been suspended by the Arbitration Committee, subject to restrictions set out on their talk page.

• Support: Beeblebrox, Carcharoth, David Fuchs, Floquenbeam, GorillaWarfare, LFaraone, NativeForeigner, Newyorkbrad, Roger Davies, Salvio giuliano, Seraphimblade, Timotheus Canens, Worm That Turned
• Oppose: AGK

For the Arbitration Committee, Carcharoth (talk) 03:03, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Arbitration motion regarding Clarification request: Rich Farmbrough

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

In order to resolve the enforcement request referred to us, the committee resolves that:

1. Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs) has violated his restriction against automated editing. That restriction clearly required he "make only completely manual edits" and hence the prohibition applies regardless of namespace.
2. Accordingly, Rich Farmbrough is warned that the committee is likely to take a severe view of further violations, and may consider replacing his automation restriction with a site ban.

For the Arbitration Committee, --S Philbrick(Talk) 16:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics closed

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

1. Pages related to the Austrian school of economics and the Ludwig von Mises Institute, broadly construed, are placed under discretionary sanctions. This sanction supersedes the existing community sanctions.
2. Steeletrap (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from editing articles and other pages relating to the Austrian school of economics, the Ludwig von Mises Institute, or persons associated with them, either living or deceased. Steeletrap may request the lifting or modification of this topic-ban not less than one year from the close of this case.
3. SPECIFICO (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from editing articles and other pages relating to the Ludwig von Mises Institute or persons associated with it, either living or deceased. This topic-ban does not extend to articles concerning Austrian economics but not related to the Ludwig von Mises Institute; however, should SPECIFICO edit problematically in the broader area, the topic-ban may be broadened if necessary through the discretionary sanctions. SPECIFICO may request the lifting or modification of this topic-ban not less than one year from the close of this case.
4. Carolmooredc (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from editing articles and other pages relating to the Austrian school of economics, the Ludwig von Mises Institute, or persons associated with them, either living or deceased. Carolmooredc may request the lifting or modification of this topic-ban not less than one year from the close of this case.
5. Editors who have not previously been involved in editing the articles at issue in this case are urged to review these articles to ensure that they are in compliance with the applicable policies and best practices, including neutrality and the policies governing biographical content.

For the Arbitration Committee, Rockfang (talk) 23:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Archived discussion

User:Asgardian ban appeal

By motion, the ban of Asgardian (talk · contribs) has been suspended by the Arbitration Committee, subject to restrictions set out on their talk page and at WT:BASC.

• Support: AGK, Beeblebrox, David Fuchs, NativeForeigner, Timotheus Canens, Worm That Turned
• Oppose:
• Not voting: GorillaWarfare, LFaraone, Newyorkbrad, Salvio giuliano, Seraphimblade
• Inactive: Carcharoth, Floquenbeam, Roger Davies

For the Arbitration Committee, Worm^TT(talk) 12:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control closed

The above named arbitration case has closed, and final decisions are now available at the link above. The following remedies were passed:

1. Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for any edit about, and for all pages relating to, gun control;
2. AndyTheGrump (talk · contribs) is reminded that further edit-warring as well as incivility will likely result in serious sanctions;
3. Gaijin42 (talk · contribs), Justanonymous (talk · contribs), and ROG5728 (talk · contribs) are topic-banned from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, gun control;
4. Goethean (talk · contribs) reminded that further incivility as well as unnecessary antagonism may result in sanctions;
5. North8000 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely site-banned from the English Language Wikipedia; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed. The twelve-month period of the ban under this remedy is reset if new infringements of the sock puppetry policy occur. In addition, North8000 (talk · contribs) is also indefinitely topic-banned from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, gun control. The topic ban that North8000 was subject to due to the Tea Party case remains in force.

The topic-ban remedies passed in this case may not be appealed for at least twelve months, and another twelve months must pass for each subsequent appeal.

For the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 20:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Archived discussion

User:Nadirali ban appeal

By motion, the ban of Nadirali (talk · contribs) has been suspended by the Arbitration Committee, subject to restrictions set out on their talk page and at WT:BASC.

• Support: AGK, Beeblebrox, David Fuchs, GorillaWarfare, NativeForeigner, Newyorkbrad, Roger Davies, Seraphimblade, Worm That Turned
• Oppose: Floquenbeam
• Not voting: Timotheus Canens, LFaraone, Salvio giuliano
• Inactive: Carcharoth

For the Arbitration Committee, Worm^TT(talk) 07:55, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee voting on procedures is in progress

The Arbitration Committee is voting on changes to ArbCom procedures at:

• Motion: Discretionary sanctions (2014)
• Motion: Appeals and modifications
• Motion: DS (2014) housekeeping provisions

This is an informational post, per requirements of Modification of procedures --S Philbrick(Talk) 15:25, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Motion adopting new Discretionary sanctions procedure

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion:

That the updated Discretionary sanctions procedure supersedes and replaces all prior discretionary sanction provisions with immediate effect.

The updated Discretionary sanctions procedure can be read at the Motions page.

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 21:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Motion adopting new Appeals and modifications procedure

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion:

That the updated Appeals and modifications provision become the standard provision and replace all prior discretionary sanction appeal provisions with immediate effect.

The updated Appeals and modifications provision is as follows:

Appeals and modifications

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
3. submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without:

1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Important notes:

1. For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

2. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
3. These provisions apply only to discretionary sanctions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.

Old enforcement provisions will need to be replaced with this new procedure. Due to the number of changes that must be made, implementation of this motion will take several days from today.

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 21:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Arbitration motion regarding Falun Gong 2 (User:Ohconfucius)

The Arbitration Committee has superseded the topic ban imposed on Ohconfucius (talk · contribs) in the Falun Gong 2 case by motion:

The Committee resolves that remedy 2 (Ohconfucius topic-banned) in the Falun Gong 2 arbitration case is suspended for the period of one year from the date of passage of this motion. During the period of suspension, any uninvolved administrator may, as an arbitration enforcement action, reinstate the topic ban on Ohconfucius should Ohconfucius fail to follow Wikipedia behavior and editing standards while editing in the topic area covered by the suspended restriction. In addition, the topic ban will be reinstated should Ohconfucius be validly blocked by any uninvolved administrator for misconduct in the topic area covered by the suspended restriction. Such a reinstatement may be appealed via the normal process for appealing arbitration enforcement actions. After one year from the date of passage of this motion, if the ban has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the topic ban will be repealed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Arbitration Motion regarding Fæ

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion:

Notwithstanding the existing restrictions on his editing, Fæ is permitted to edit regarding images of sexuality in ancient and medieval times, up to A.D. 1000. This permission may be withdrawn at any time by further motion of this Committee.

For the Arbitration Committee, --S Philbrick(Talk) 16:32, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Archived discussion

User:GoodDay ban appeal

By motion, the ban of GoodDay (talk · contribs) has been suspended by the Arbitration Committee, subject to restrictions set out on their talk page and at WT:BASC.

• Support: David Fuchs, GorillaWarfare, NativeForeigner, Salvio giuliano, Seraphimblade, Worm That Turned
• Oppose:
• Abstain: Beeblebrox, Floquenbeam
• Not voting: AGK, Timotheus Canens, LFaraone, Newyorkbrad
• Inactive: Carcharoth, Roger Davies

For the Arbitration Committee, Worm^TT(talk) 08:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Arbitration Committee review of procedures (CU & OS)

By resolution of the committee, our rules and internal procedures are currently being reviewed with the community. You are very welcome to participate at WT:AC/PRR. Information on the review is at WP:AC/PRR. The current phase of the review is examining the committee's procedures concerning advanced permissions (and the appointment and regulation of permissions holders). AGK [•] 11:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Participate in this review

Arbitration motion involving COFS

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by Motion

Remedy 7 of the COFS arbitration case is vacated with immediate effect. Any extant enforcement actions taken under the remedy remain in force, and shall be treated as if they were imposed under standard discretionary sanctions authorized by remedy 4.1 of the Scientology case.

Archived discussion

Archived discussion

For the Arbitration Committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 13:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Motion: Use of advanced permissions by AUSC members

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions that:

Audit Subcommittee (AUSC) members are provided with the CheckUser and suppression tools in order to carry out their responsibilities. Historically, community appointees to the AUSC were discouraged from routine or regular use of either tool. Since appropriate procedures exist for excluding arbitrator or community AUSC members from cases in which they may be involved, there is not a compelling reason to continue to prohibit use of the CheckUser or suppression tools.

As such, members of the AUSC are explicitly permitted to use their advanced permissions for non-AUSC-related actions as allowed by the appropriate policies surrounding each permission, as members of the functionaries team. This is without regard to the presence of a backlog or time-sensitive situation.

For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 17:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Motion: AUSC term extensions

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions that:

An extension to the terms of the current members of the Audit Subcommittee (AUSC) is authorised until 00:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC), to allow a functioning subcommittee until appointments are finalised. AUSC members may choose whether they wish to stay on until that period or retire with an effective date of their original term's terminus. As always, the Arbitration Committee thanks the community Audit Subcommittee members for their service.

For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 17:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics closed

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

1) In addition to any sanctions stemming directly from this decision, any new areas of conflict which involve contemporary American political and social issues may be placed under standard discretionary sanctions by the Committee without the need for a full case. Requests for new sanctions may be made at WP:ARCA. In evaluating such a request, the Committee will consider factors such as the length and severity of editor-behavior issues in the topic area, whether other remedies have proved inadequate to address the issues, and relevant community input

2) Arzel (talk · contribs) is limited to one revert of any specific edit every seven days, excepting unambiguous vandalism. If he should violate this sanction he may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator. This restriction may not be appealed for one year, and appeals will be limited to one every six months thereafter.

3) Arzel (talk · contribs) is warned that continuing to personalize or politicize content disputes is disruptive to the project, and continuing behavior of this nature may lead to further sanctions, up to and including a ban from the project.

For the Arbitration Committee, S Philbrick(Talk) 14:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Arbitration motion regarding Amendment request: Abortion

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions that:

The indefinite topic-ban of Haymaker (talk · contribs) from the abortion-related pages is lifted.

For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:07, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Arbitration amendment to Argentine History

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Notwithstanding the sanction imposed on MarshalN20 (talk · contribs) in Argentine History, he may edit United States, its talk page, and pages related to a featured article candidacy for the article. This exemption may be withdrawn at any time by motion of the Arbitration Committee.

The closed amendment request may be reviewed on the case talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Floquenbeam's resignation

I gave my colleagues a heads up yesterday, but I'm posting here to let everyone know I'm resigning from ArbCom, effective immediately.

I shouldn't have run for ArbCom. First, it turns out I don't have the temperament for it. Second, in spite of the caveat in my nomination statement about the relatively limited time I would spend on ArbCom business, real life has intervened and I'm finding myself with even less time available than I thought I would have, and much, much less time to devote to it than it deserves. And third, I find it depressing, sucking what joy I had left for the place completely out of my soul.

My plan was to stick it out until the fall, and then resign in time for the position to be filled in the next election. I think it's better that I accelerated that, and resign sooner. It won't affect the committee much, as I'm hardly active anyway, and it will do wonders for my peace of mind.

My apologies for not really pulling my weight. I'm leaving with a tremendous respect for the amount of time and effort the other Arbs put into this, and will at least know better than to snark from the sidelines now that I'm a civilian again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Audit Subcommittee vacancies: Call for applications (2014)

The Arbitration Committee is appointing three non-arbitrators to the Audit Subcommittee ("AUSC"). AUSC audits and inspects all use of the CheckUser and Oversight privileges on the English Wikipedia. The outgoing members will depart on 27 August, and nominations for their replacements are being accepted. Their replacements will serve until 31 August 2015.

AUSC members must be trustworthy independent thinkers. Volunteers will be subject to community comments and questions before the committee decides who to appoint.

If you think you may be suitably qualified, please email arbcom-en-clists.wikimedia.org to start the application procedure. Applications will be accepted through to 23:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC). Further information is available here.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Worm^TT(talk) 09:29, 16 July 2014 (UTC) prose edited: AGK [•] 15:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Audit Subcommittee vacancies: last call for applications

This is a reminder that the application period for the three non-arbitrator seats on the Audit Subcommittee will close at 23:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC).

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint three non-arbitrator members to the Audit Subcommittee ("AUSC"). The Committee is comprised of six members and is tasked with investigations concerning the use of CheckUser and Oversight privileges on the English Wikipedia. The AUSC also monitors CheckUser and Oversight activity and use of the applicable tools. The current non-arbitrator members are Guerillero, MBisanz, and Richwales, whose terms were to expire on June 30 2014 but were extended until August 27 2014 by the Committee.

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 given both CheckUser and Oversight access. They are subject to the relevant local and global policies and guidelines concerning CheckUser and Oversight.

Please note that due to Wikimedia Foundation rules governing access to deleted material, only applications from administrators will be accepted.

If you think you may be suitably qualified, please email arbcom-en-clists.wikimedia.org with your nomination statement to start the application procedure for an appointment ending 31 August 2015. The application period will close at 23:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC). Further information is also available here.

For the Arbitration Committee, Worm^TT(talk) 10:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Audit Subcommittee appointments (2014): 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-clists.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, 12 August 2014 (UTC), and the appointments are scheduled to be announced by 27 August 2014.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Worm^TT(talk) 08:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration amendment to Tea Party movement

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Remedy 8.1 (Arthur Rubin topic banned) in the Tea Party movement case is suspended for the period of one year from the date of passage of this motion. During the period of suspension, any uninvolved administrator may as an arbitration enforcement action reinstate the topic ban for failure to follow Wikipedia's standards of conduct in the area previously covered by the ban. Such reinstatement may be appealed via the normal appeals process for arbitration enforcement actions. At one year from the date of passage of this motion, if the ban has not been reinstated or any reinstatements were successfully appealed, the topic ban will be lifted permanently.

The following restriction is enacted: Arthur Rubin is restricted indefinitely to one revert per page per week in the area of the Tea Party movement. Enforcement of this restriction shall be per the enforcement provisions in the Tea Party movement case and any enforcement actions shall be logged at the same case page. This restriction may be appealed after no less than one year from the date of passage of this motion, and if unsuccessful no less than one year following the decline of that or any subsequent appeal.

Any sanctions or other restrictions imposed under this case to date shall remain in force unaffected.

The closed amendment request may be reviewed on the case talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, --S Philbrick(Talk) 18:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Audit Subcommittee appointments (2014)

Effective 27 August 2014, Callanecc (talk · contribs), Joe Decker (talk · contribs), and MBisanz (talk · contribs) are appointed as community representatives to the Audit Subcommittee, subject to their compliance with the provisions of the Access to nonpublic data policy. The period of appointment will be 27 August 2014 to 31 August 2015.

DeltaQuad (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 sincerely 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 Richwales (talk · contribs), Guerillero (talk · contribs), and MBisanz (talk · contribs) for agreeing to stay in office past the original length of their term; and to the outgoing auditors, Richwales and Guerillero, for their service to date.

For the Arbitration Committee,
AGK [•] 19:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Support: Timotheus Canens, Salvio giuliano, Carcharoth, Seraphimblade, NativeForeigner, GorillaWarfare, Beeblebrox, Worm That Turned, David Fuchs, AGK, Newyorkbrad, Roger Davies

Not voting: LFaraone

None opposed or abstaining.

Archived discussion

Arbitration amendment to Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion to amend the Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al arbitration case:

The second sentence of remedy 1 of the Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al case, currently reading:

In view of his previous desysopping, he may not request to have his adminship restored.

is vacated and replaced with the following:

Guanaco may regain the tools via a new request for adminship.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC

The Arbitration Committee has resolved motion to suspend the Media Viewer RfC case:

This case was accepted to consider longstanding issues affecting the English Wikipedia community and the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), which came to a head during the implementation of the Media Viewer extension.

Since then, the following has occurred:

1. The WMF has introduced a new staff user account policy, prohibiting the use of the same account for both work and non-work purposes. With effect from 15 September 2014, staff are required to segregate their work and non-work activities into separate work and non-work accounts, with the work accounts containing the identifier '(WMF)' in the account name.

2. Eloquence (talk · contribs) has resigned as an administrator on the English Wikipedia. While this does not prevent him holding staff administrative rights on a designated work account, it does mean that as he resigned the tools while an arbitration case was pending, he may only regain administrative rights on his personal non-work account via a successful request for adminship.

3. The WMF has announced a number of initiatives aimed at improving working practices. This includes a new software implementation protocol which provides for incremental roll-outs of upgrades and new features.

In the light of the foregoing, proceedings in this case are suspended for sixty days and then closed; in the intervening period, the case may be re-activated either by volition of the committee or if fresh issues arise following a successful request at ARCA.

For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon ^talk 00:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Remedies 1 and 1.1 in the Waldorf education case (Pete K banned/Pete K ban clarified) are stricken. In lieu of these remedies, the following restriction is enacted: Pete K is topic banned indefinitely from the subject of Waldorf education, broadly construed. Enforcement of this provision shall be per the enforcement provisions in the Waldorf education case and shall be logged at the same case page. This restriction may be appealed to the Committee no less than one year from the date it is enacted, and if such appeal is unsuccessful no less than one year after the decline of the most recent failed appeal.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy closed

An arbitration case with regards to the Banning Policy, has now closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. For actions discussed within this case, as well as past history of disruption for which he has been sanctioned, Tarc (talk · contribs) is subject to an indefinite editing restriction. Tarc may not edit any administrative noticeboards, nor User talk:Jimbo Wales, aside from the normal exceptions.
2. Tarc (talk · contribs) is prohibited from reinstating edits or comments that were made or apparently made by a banned user and were reverted for that reason by another editor, regardless of any exception to the applicable policy that might otherwise apply. He is also admonished for disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, particularly since he continued even after the disruption was apparent. Tarc is warned that he is likely to be blocked for a long time and/or banned from the project, without further warning, if he does this sort of thing again.
3. Smallbones (talk · contribs) is warned to refrain from edit warring and needlessly inflammatory rhetoric in the future. Further instances of similar misconduct may result in serious sanctions.
4. Hell in a Bucket (talk · contribs) is warned to refrain from edit warring and needlessly inflammatory rhetoric in the future. Further instances of similar misconduct may result in serious sanctions.

For the Arbitration Committee, → Call me Hahc21 17:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Archived discussion

RFC on reform/restructuring of WP:BASC

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BASC reform 2014. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC closed

The Media Viewer RfC arbitration case is closed following a suspension period of 60 days. The following considerations were taken by the Committee:

1. The WMF has introduced a new staff user account policy, prohibiting the use of the same account for both work and non-work purposes. With effect from 15 September 2014, staff are required to segregate their work and non-work activities into separate work and non-work accounts, with the work accounts containing the identifier '(WMF)' in the account name.
2. Eloquence (talk · contribs) has resigned as an administrator on the English Wikipedia. While this does not prevent him holding staff administrative rights on a designated work account, it does mean that as he resigned the tools while an arbitration case was pending, he may only regain administrative rights on his personal non-work account via a successful request for adminship.
3. The WMF has announced a number of initiatives aimed at improving working practices. This includes a new software implementation protocol which provides for incremental roll-outs of upgrades and new features.

For the Arbitration Committee, → Call me Hahc21 00:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Personnel changes in the Oversight team

Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk · contribs) is hereby reappointed as a member of the Oversight team, following a leave of absence from the role due to lack of time.

Richwales (talk · contribs), formerly a member of the Audit Subcommittee, is hereby appointed as a member of the Oversight team.

For the Arbitration Committee, LFaraone 01:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Archived discussion

New appointment to the Oversight team

In compliance with the relevant policy, as a sitting arbitrator, Seraphimblade (talk · contribs) is hereby appointed as a member of the Oversight team.

• Support: GorillaWarfare, Newyorkbrad, Timotheus Canens, LFaraone, Beeblebrox, Salvio giuliano, Roger Davies, AGK, Carcharoth, Worm That Turned.
• Not voting: David Fuchs, NativeForeigner.
• Recused: Seraphimblade.

For the Arbitration Committee, Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Discuss this

Proposed change to Arbitration Committee internal procedures

The Arbitration Committee is currently considering a change to its internal rules and procedures regarding arbitrator requests for self-assignment of CheckUser or Oversight permissions. The proposed motion can be viewed on this page, community members are invited to comment on the motion in the appropriate section on that page. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:18, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Discuss this

CheckUser for 2014 Election Scrutineers

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

For the purpose of scrutineering the 2014 Arbitration Committee elections, stewards User:Matanya, User:Barras, and User:Trijnstel, appointed as scrutineers, are granted temporary local CheckUser permissions effective from the time of the passage of this motion until the certification of the election results.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Arbitration motion amending and rescinding some discretionary sanctions remedies

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Following a request to amend several prior decisions to terminate discretionary sanctions provisions that may no longer be necessary,

1. Remedy 14 of the Ayn Rand case is rescinded;
2. Remedy 5 of the Monty Hall problem case is rescinded;
3. Remedy 1 of the Longevity case is rescinded;
4. The discretionary sanctions authorised explicitly for the Cold fusion 2 and the Homeopathy cases are rescinded. The discretionary sanctions authorised for the Pseudoscience and "Fringe science" cases continue to apply. Additionally, Remedy 14 of the Pseudoscience case is amended by replacing the word "articles" with the word "pages" for consistency;
5. Remedy 5 of the Tree shaping case is rescinded;
6. Remedy 10 of the Gibraltar case is rescinded;
7. Nothing in this motion provides grounds for appeal of remedies or restrictions imposed while discretionary sanctions for the foregoing cases were in force. Such appeals or requests to lift or modify such sanctions may be made under the same terms as any other appeal;
8. In the event that disruptive editing resumes in any of these topic-areas, a request to consider reinstating discretionary sanctions in that topic-area may be made on the clarifications and amendments page.
9. A record of topics for which discretionary sanctions have been authorised and subsequently terminated is to be established and maintained on the discretionary sanctions main page.

The archived copy of the amendment request and discussion can be viewed here. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:03, 30 November 2014 (UTC)\

Archived discussion

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions at GGTF closed

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

1. Editors topic banned by the Committee under this remedy are prohibited on the English Wikipedia from: (i) editing the pages of the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) discussing the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) participating in any process broadly construed to do with these topics. An uninvolved admin may remove any comments that breach this remedy, and impose blocks as necessary. The Committee's standard provisions on enforcement of arbitration provisions and appeals and modifications of arbitration enforcements apply.
2. Carolmooredc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely topic banned from the Gender gap topic.
3. For her actions discussed in this case, Carolmooredc is indefinitely banned from the English Language Wikipedia. She may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
4. Eric Corbett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely topic banned from the Gender gap topic.
5. Eric Corbett agrees to a restriction prohibiting him from shouting at, swearing at, insulting and/or belittling other editors. The restriction comes into immediate effect on the passing of this motion.

   If Eric Corbett finds himself tempted to engage in prohibited conduct, he is to disengage and either let the matter drop or refer it to another editor to resolve.

   If however, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, Eric Corbett does engage in prohibited conduct, he may be blocked. The first two such blocks shall be of 72 hours duration, increasing thereafter for each subsequent breach to one week, one month, and three months. Any blocks under this provision are arbitration enforcement actions and may only be reviewed or appealed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Should a fifth block (three months) prove necessary, the blocking administrator must notify the Arbitration Committee of the block via a Request for Clarification and Amendment so that the remedy may be reviewed.

   The enforcing administrator may also at their discretion fully protect Eric Corbett's talk page for the duration of the block.

   Nothing in this remedy prevents enforcement of policy by uninvolved administrators in the usual way.

6. Neotarf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely topic banned from the Gender gap topic. Neotarf is also warned that complaints about usernames should be made through appropriate channels and that further accusations, as well as unnecessary antagonism, may result in sanctions.
7. For their actions discussed in this case, and in particular for adopting a consistently hostile attitude to other contributors, Neotarf is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. They may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
8. Sitush (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is warned not to create articles regarding editors he is in dispute with.
9. Sitush and Carolmooredc are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).
10. The Arbitration Committee endorses the community-imposed one-way interaction ban preventing SPECIFICO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) from interacting with Carolmooredc.[1][2] It is converted to an Arbitration Committee-imposed ban, and enforcement of the ban should be discussed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. SPECIFICO is cautioned that if they continue to disrupt and breach restrictions, they may be subject to increasingly severe sanctions.
11. Two kinds of pork (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely topic banned from the Gender gap topic.
12. Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for pages relating to the Gender gap task force. The availability of sanctions is not intended to prevent free and candid discussion on these pages, but sanctions should be imposed if an editor severely or persistently disrupts the discussion.

For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 08:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement (Xenophrenic)

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Remedy 7.1 ("Xenophrenic topic-banned") and Remedy 7.2 ("Xenophrenic interaction ban with Collect") of the Tea Party movement decision are suspended. These remedies may be enforced under the relevant enforcement provision, but effective the passage of this motion they shall only be enforced for edits by Xenophrenic (talk · contribs) that, in the enforcing administrator's judgement, would have been considered disruptive for some other reason than that they breached the remedy had it not been suspended.

Enforcement action taken pursuant to the foregoing may be appealed in the ordinary way to a consensus view of uninvolved administrators. If no such enforcement action is taken (or all such actions are taken and successfully appealed) by 01 January 2015, on that date the remedies will become formally vacated by this motion, and the case pages then amended by the clerks in the usual way. If an appeal of such enforcement action is pending on 01 January 2015, the remedies will become formally vacated only if the appeal is successful. If enforcement action is taken and an appeal is rejected, the remedies shall become unsuspended and a request for their amendment may not be re-submitted to the committee until six months have elapsed from the passage of this motion.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Archived discussion

2015 Arbitration Committee

The committee welcomes the following arbitrators following their election by the community. Their term formally begins on 01 January 2015:

• Courcelles
• DeltaQuad
• DGG
• Dougweller
• Euryalus
• Guerillero
• Salvio giuliano
• Thryduulf
• Yunshui

All of the above will be issued with the checkuser and oversight permissions (excepting some who are pre-existing holders). We also thank our outgoing colleagues whose term ends on 31 December 2014:

• Beeblebrox (retaining OS)
• Carcharoth
• David Fuchs (retaining CU, OS)
• Newyorkbrad
• Timotheus Canens (retaining CU, OS)
• Worm That Turned (retaining OS)

The stewards are directed to remove both CU and OS from all of the outgoing arbitrators on 01 January except where explicitly noted above. Outgoing arbitrators are eligible to remain active on cases opened before their term ended; this will be clarified at the proposed decision talk page of affected cases. By their request, all of the outgoing arbitrators (i) except Carcharoth are remaining on the functionaries' mailing list and (ii) except Worm That Turned are staying on after 31 December to conclude existing business.

For the Arbitration Committee,
AGK [•] 10:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Desysopping of User:Secret

It has come to the committee's attention that on 09 December 2014, Secret (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) used the revision deletion (RevDel) function to hide the log entry for an indefinite block he originally carried out.

The revision deletion policy states that log redaction using RevDel is intended solely for material that is "grossly offensive" and content that is "grossly improper" (cf. WP:RVDL#Misuse). The committee has enquired with Secret as to why he deleted this log entry, and having considered his response remains unsatisfied that he had legitimate grounds to overrule policy in this way. We have decided not to give detail on the response he gave to the committee, because it relies fundamentally on information that is sensitive and not suitable for public release.

This instance of misjudgement is not isolated. The committee previously set aside concerns, without taking action, over an indefinite block one year ago by Secret. On that occasion, he improperly assigned to an indefinite block the special status of "arbitration enforcement block" (thereby preventing other administrators from reversing it under the normal processes). The committee set aside its concerns over that action because Secret retired shortly after the incident, but he regained the tools afterwards. We are therefore proceeding in this case on the assumption that he will at some point in the future request his tools be restored.

Administrators are expected to exercise care, good judgement, and to be accountable. For breaching these expectations without good reason, Secret's administrator permissions are removed with immediate effect. He may regain these permissions only by application at requests for adminship (RFA).

For the Arbitration Committee,
AGK [•] 19:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Support: AGK, Salvio guiliano, Worm That Turned, David Fuchs, GorillaWarfare, Roger Davies, LFaraone, Beeblebrox, Timotheus Canens, Carcharoth, NativeForeigner.

Oppose: None. Not voting: Newyorkbrad, Seraphimblade.

Simpler process for submitting a request for arbitration

Submitting a request for arbitration is now easier; simply click a link in the page header and complete the form that appears. The case request will be added at the bottom of the page. The process for clarification and amendment requests is currently unchanged. For the arbitration clerks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:20, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda closed

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

1.1) For his violations of the standards of conduct expected of administrators, DangerousPanda (talk · contribs) is desysopped. He may regain the tools at any time via a successful request for adminship.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark Worldwide closed

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

1.1) The committee cautions the parties involved that standard discretionary sanctions may be authorised by the committee in future – for any edit about, and for all pages relating to, Landmark Worldwide – and by motion after application at a later time.

2) Parties to the case are reminded to base their arguments in reliable, independent sources and to discuss changes rather than revert on sight.

6) The Arbitration Committee urges that editors having no prior editing history on Landmark Worldwide and no strong views on the underlying controversy review and edit this article, helping to ensure that our policies governing neutral point of view and reliable sources are followed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus closed

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

6) Fearofreprisal (talk · contribs) is warned to not engage in personal attacks or cast aspersions of bias and intent against other editors.

7) The Arbitration Committee endorses the community-imposed topic ban preventing Fearofreprisal (talk · contribs) from editing Historicity of Jesus.[3] It is converted to an Arbitration Committee-imposed ban affecting the Historicity of Jesus, broadly construed, and enforcement of the ban should be discussed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Fearofreprisal is cautioned that if they disrupt and breach restrictions, they may be subject to increasingly severe sanctions. They may appeal this ban to the Committee in no less than twelve months time.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The Fæ case is amended to add Remedy 2.1 as follows: "Notwithstanding remedy 2, Fæ is permitted to operate bot accounts, edits from which are only to be made in accordance with Bot Approvals Group approved tasks, or an authorised trial of one."

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture case request closed by motion

The Arbitration Committee has closed a case request by motion with the following remedy being enacted:

In lieu of a full case, the Arbitration Committee authorises standard discretionary sanctions for any edit about, and for all pages relating to Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Any sanctions that may be imposed should be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture. The Committee urges interested editors to pursue alternative means of dispute resolution such as RFC's or requests for mediation on the underlying issues. If necessary, further requests concerning this matter should be filed at the requests for clarification and amendment page.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Draft motion for establishing a central DS log

The Committee is inclined towards establishing a central log for discretionary sanctions and would welcome comments and suggestions.

Draft motion establishing a central log for discretionary sanctions

Establishment of a central log

A central log ("log") of all sanctions placed under the discretionary sanctions procedure is to be established by the Arbitration clerks on a page designated for that purpose (Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log). The log transcludes annual log sub-pages (e.g. [/Log/2015], [/Log/2014]) in reverse chronological order, with the sub-pages arranged by topic, then by month within each topic. An annual log sub-page may be courtesy blanked once five calendar years have elapsed since the date of the imposition of the last sanction recorded on it. Notifications and warnings issued prior to the introduction of the current procedure on 3 May 2014 are not sanctions and remain on the individual case page logs.

Amendments to the discretionary sanctions procedure

1. Additional section to be added

The "Establishment of a central log" text above is to be added to the foot of procedure page, with a heading of "Motion <date>", with the date being the date of enactment.

2, The "Authorisation" section is amended with the following addition:

"Where there is a conflict between any individual provision authorising standard discretionary sanctions for an area of conflict and any provision in the standard procedure, the provision in the standard procedure will control."

3. The "Guidance for editors" section is amended with the following addition:

"The availability of discretionary sanctions is not intended to prevent free and candid discussion, but sanctions can be imposed if an editor severely or persistently disrupts discussion."

4. The "Alerts" subsection is amended with the following addition:

"An editor who has an unexpired alert in one area under discretionary sanctions may be sanctioned for edits in another separate but related topic, also under discretionary sanctions, provided the nature, or the content, of the edits in the two topics are similar."

5. The "Logging" subsection is amended with the following replacements:

Replace: "All sanctions and page restrictions must be logged on the pages specified for the purpose in the authorising motion or decision."

With: "All sanctions and page restrictions must be logged on the central log, currently /Log."

Replace: "The log location may not be changed without the consent of the committee."

With: "The log location may not be changed without the explicit consent of the committee."

For the Committee,  Roger Davies ^talk 09:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion to establish a central log for discretionary sanctions and associated amendments

The Arbitration Committee is currently voting on a motion to establish a central location for the logging of discretionary sanctions procedures and amendments associated with this change. Comments from community members are welcome in the applicable section. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Central log for discretionary sanctions

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Motion text

Establishment of a central log

A central log ("log") of all sanctions placed under the discretionary sanctions procedure is to be established by the Arbitration clerks on a page designated for that purpose (Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log). The log transcludes annual log sub-pages (e.g. [/Log/2015], [/Log/2014]) in reverse chronological order, with the sub-pages arranged by topic, then by month within each topic. An annual log sub-page shall be courtesy blanked once five years have elapsed since the date of the imposition of the last sanction recorded on it, though any active sanctions remain in force. Notifications and warnings issued prior to the introduction of the current procedure on 3 May 2014 are not sanctions and remain on the individual case page logs.

Associated amendments to the discretionary sanctions procedure

1. Additional section to be added

The "Establishment of a central log" text above is to be added to the foot of procedure page, with a heading of "Motion <date>", with the date being the date of enactment.

2. The "Authorisation" section is amended with the following addition:

"Where there is a conflict between any individual provision authorising standard discretionary sanctions for an area of conflict and any provision in the standard discretionary sanctions procedure, the provision in the standard procedure will control."

3. The "Guidance for editors" section is amended with the following addition:

"The availability of discretionary sanctions is not intended to prevent free and candid discussion, but sanctions may be imposed if an editor severely or persistently disrupts discussion."

4. The "Alerts" subsection is amended with the following addition:

"An editor who has an unexpired alert in one area under discretionary sanctions may be sanctioned for edits in another separate but related topic, which is also under discretionary sanctions, provided the nature or the content of the edits – broadly but reasonably construed – in the two topics are similar."

5. The "Logging" subsection is amended with the following replacements:

Replace: "All sanctions and page restrictions must be logged on the pages specified for the purpose in the authorising motion or decision."

With: "All sanctions and page restrictions must be logged on the central log, currently /Log."

Replace: "The log location may not be changed without the consent of the committee."

With: "The log location may not be changed without the explicit consent of the committee."

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Arbitration Clerks Seeking New Volunteers

The Arbitration Committee clerk team is currently looking for a few dependable and mature editors (adminship not needed) willing to serve as clerks. The responsibilities of clerks include opening and closing arbitration cases and motions; notifying parties of cases, decisions, and other committee actions; maintaining the requests for Arbitration pages; preserving order and proper formatting on case pages; and other administrative and related tasks they may be requested to handle by the arbitrators.

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. Best of all, you get a cool fez!

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 we will get back to you with some questions. If you have any questions you'd like an answer to before applying please feel free to ask on the clerks noticeboard or any current clerk.

For the Arbitration Committee clerks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this

Promotion of clerk Sphilbrick

We are pleased to confirm trainee Sphilbrick (talk · contribs) as an arbitration clerk, effective immediately.

We also express our thanks and gratitude to Sphilbrick and all the other arbitration clerks for their diligent assistance with the arbitration process. 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-llists.wikimedia.org.

Approved by: Courcelles, DGG, Dougweller, Euryalus, Guerillero, GorillaWarfare, Salvio giuliano, Roger Davies, Seraphimblade, Thryduulf.

For the Arbitration Committee, Courcelles 08:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark Worldwide

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The following remedy is added to the Landmark Worldwide case: Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for the topic of Landmark Worldwide, broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Statement on the GamerGate case

The Arbitration Committee has published a statement on the GamerGate case.

For Wikipedia to be the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, it is essential that the editing experience is civil. Wikipedia is a reference work, not a battlefield. In recent months, the atmosphere surrounding the Gamergate controversy article on the English Wikipedia has resembled the latter. This atmosphere has been disruptive to the experience for editors and was damaging to the English Wikipedia project as a whole. The English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee accepted a case on user conduct in the Gamergate controversy article and related articles, including biographies of those related to the topic.

Our preliminary decision found that many contributors were in violation of English Wikipedia policies on user conduct. The proposed decision imposes broad sanctions against a wide range of individuals, however this decision is subject to change, and proposed sanctions have not taken effect. These sanctions are intended to allow the restoration of normal editing processes to the topic area and facilitate constructive contributions. Our investigation and findings do not pass judgement on the content or quality of the articles in question.

About the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee

The Arbitration Committee deals with editor conduct on the English Wikipedia. Its members are volunteer editors elected by the Wikipedia community. The role of the Committee is to restore normal, amicable editing processes when those processes have been disrupted by disputes. It does so through hearing cases and issuing rulings, and when appropriate, removing disruptive parties.

The mandate of the Arbitration Committee extends only to editor conduct. Wikipedia policies prohibit the Committee from making editorial decisions about article content. When deciding cases, the Committee does not rule on the content of articles, or make judgements on the personal views of parties to the case. Although sometimes described as Wikipedia’s Supreme Court by the press, the Committee applies Wikipedia policies and guidelines rather than legal principles.

Preliminary findings regarding the GamerGate case under consideration

The Arbitration Committee is in the process of hearing a case on the conduct and interactions between editors contributing to the Gamergate controversy article and related pages. The Committee agreed to hear the case to examine user conduct and to attempt to reduce the level of disruption around the topic on Wikipedia. There have been a number of articles about this case in the press of late, some of which mischaracterise the Committee, its process, and outcomes of this case. We would like to clarify the Committee’s purpose, process, and preliminary findings. The two primary issues in the case at hand are the behaviour of editors as they have engaged in the development of the Gamergate controversy article, and the application of the Wikipedia policy of neutral point of view.

Status of the decision

Last Monday (19 January 2015), a subset of Committee members posted a proposed decision on the case. This proposal was not a final decision.

For each case it hears, the Arbitration Committee selects drafting arbitrators: several members of the Committee who, often with input from the rest of the Committee, review the evidence presented and offer preliminary findings. Once the proposed decision has been posted, other Committee members are invited to add additional findings and remedies, and edit existing ones. The proposal may be reworked or revised, and new measures may be voted on. If there is a consensus among committee members, the preliminary decision may be restructured entirely.

Sanctions in the proposed decision do not take effect until the Arbitration Committee votes to close the case, at which point the passing principles, findings, and remedies are posted in the final decision section. Contrary to what has been reported, the Arbitration Committee frequently hears and approves appeals of sanctions and other remedies when they are found to no longer be necessary.

Findings on editor conduct

From the creation of the Gamergate controversy article, many Wikipedia editors have held differing views about how the controversy should best be represented. These discussions grew increasingly heated, and certain editors were identified for potentially violating established English Wikipedia conduct policies, as defined by the broader editor community. The Arbitration Committee agreed to hear the case to attempt to reduce the level of disruption in the topic.

The Committee’s preliminary findings have been represented in some media stories as targeting feminist editors and attempting to prevent their contributions to gender-related topics. This is inaccurate. The findings of the Arbitration Committee deal exclusively with the documented conduct of editors on the English Wikipedia. They do not consider editor opinion, identity, affiliation, or beliefs, nor do they take into consideration an editor’s actions or affiliations outside of their participation on English Wikipedia, unless those actions are directly related to facilitating disruption on the encyclopedia. The Arbitration Committee does not and cannot take a stance on the content of articles, nor on broader issues such as the Gamergate controversy itself.

An accurate characterization of the Arbitration Committee’s preliminary decision is as follows. The Committee found that editors on various sides of the discussion violated community policies and guidelines on conduct. The Committee’s preliminary decision currently includes broad recommendations for, and endorsements of, community sanctions and topic bans for editors on various sides of the dispute. These include:

• 11 topic bans applied to editors on various sides of the dispute,
• an endorsement of 40 or so existing community sanctions on combative parties on various sides,
• roughly 100 community warnings/notifications,
• an extension of all community topic bans and restrictions from editing articles related to the Gamergate controversy article to include restriction from participation in any gender-related dispute, for editors on various sides, and
• the introduction of discretionary sanctions for any gender-related dispute, which can be imposed by any uninvolved administrator when useful for stabilising a topic, empowering the community to deal with disruption quickly.

The current majorities on the proposed decision are not in favour of banning any editors from Wikipedia.

Neutral point of view

The Arbitration Committee does not address the content of Wikipedia articles. As such, the preliminary decision by the Committee is not a referendum on the content, perspective, or neutrality of the Gamergate controversy article. The Committee does not endorse or censure the content in the article in question.

However, the Committee understands that the editor conduct issues under review are related to efforts by those with conflicting opinions of the topics relating to the Gamergate controversy article to influence the content of related Wikipedia articles. The English Wikipedia has robust policies and guidelines designed to address precisely such situations. The preliminary findings of the Committee reiterate the existence and importance of these existing policies and guidelines, and invite the participation of neutral editors and administrators in the maintenance and development of the articles in question.

These include:

• a reminder to editors about existing provisions of the English Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons, for the purpose of addressing "drive-by" abuse,
• an invitation for neutral editors to participate in the topic,
• an invitation for uninvolved administrators to participate in dispute resolution, and
• a reminder for administrators on appropriate actions pertaining to biographies of living persons.

---

Please direct press enquiries about this case to the Arbitration Committee via email. For the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organisation that hosts and supports the projects of the Wikimedia movement, see their press room.

For the Arbitration Committee, LFaraone 03:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes

Resolved by motion that: The Committee will conduct a Review focusing on matters broadly arising from the Infoboxes case. Evidence will be invited specific to the following point:

1. Are the sanctions of Pigsonthewing in the infoboxes case fit for purpose or should they be revised?

Procedure: The Review will be a simplified form of a full case, the named party being User:Pigsonthewing. Any editor may give evidence providing their evidence is directly relevant to the numbered points above; is supported where appropriate with diffs; and complies with the usual evidence length requirements. The evidence phase lasts for ten days and will be followed by a decision on the substantive issues by motion. No workshop will be held, though relevant comments may be made on the /Review talk page.

For the Arbitration Committee, --S Philbrick(Talk) 15:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate closed

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

1.1)

(i) The community Gamergate general sanctions are hereby rescinded and are replaced by standard discretionary sanctions, which are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all 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 Gamergate general sanctions become alerts for twelve months from the date of enactment of this remedy, then expire. The log of notifications will remain on the Gamergate general sanction page.

(iv) All existing and past sanctions and restrictions placed under Gamergate general sanctions will be transcribed by the arbitration clerks in the central discretionary sanctions 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 Gamergate general sanctions are thanked for their work and asked to continue providing administrative assistance enforcing discretionary sanctions and at Arbitration enforcement.

1.2)

Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to monitor the articles covered by discretionary sanctions in this case to ensure compliance. To assist in this, administrators are reminded that:

(i) Accounts with a clear shared agenda may be blocked if they violate the sockpuppetry policy or other applicable policy;

(ii) Accounts whose primary purpose is disruption, violating the policy on biographies of living persons, or making personal attacks may be blocked indefinitely;

(iii) There are special provisions in place to deal with editors who violate the BLP policy;

(iv) The default position for BLPs, particularly for individuals whose noteworthiness is limited to a particular event or topic, is the presumption of privacy for personal matters;

(v) Editors who spread or further publicize existing BLP violations may be blocked;

(vi) Administrators may act on clear BLP violations with page protections, blocks, or warnings even if they have edited the article themselves or are otherwise involved;

(vii) Discretionary sanctions permit full and semi-page protections, including use of pending changes where warranted, and – once an editor has become aware of sanctions for the topic – any other appropriate remedy may be issued without further warning.

The Arbitration Committee thanks those administrators who have been helping to enforce the community general sanctions, and thanks, once again, in advance those who help enforce the remedies adopted in this case.

2.1) Any editor subject to a topic-ban in this decision is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, (a) Gamergate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. These restrictions may be appealed to the Committee only after 12 months have elapsed from the closing of this case.

4.1) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

5.1) Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

5.3) Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely banned from the English Language Wikipedia. They may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

6.2) TaraInDC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished for treating Wikipedia as if it were a battleground and advised to better conduct themselves.

7.2) Tarc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

7.3) Tarc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is strongly warned that should future misconduct occur in any topic area, he may be banned from the English Wikipedia by motion of the Arbitration Committee.

8.2) The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

8.3) Subject to the usual exceptions, The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited from making any more than one revert on any one page in any 48-hour period. This applies for all pages on the English Wikipedia, except The Devil's Advocate's own user space. This restriction may be appealed to the Committee only after 12 months have elapsed from the closing of this case.

8.4) Subject to the usual exceptions, The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely prohibited from editing any administrative or conduct noticeboard (including, but not limited to; AN, AN/I, AN/EW, and AE), except for threads regarding situations that he was directly involved in when they were started. This restriction may be appealed to the Committee only after 12 months have elapsed from the closing of this case.

8.5) The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is strongly warned that should future misconduct occur in any topic area, he may be banned from the English Wikipedia by motion of the Arbitration Committee. Further, the committee strongly suggests that The Devil's Advocate refrains from editing contentious topic areas in the future.

9) TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished for treating Wikipedia as if it were a battleground and advised to better conduct themselves.

10.1) The Arbitration Committee endorses the community-imposed topic ban preventing Tutelary (talk · contribs) from editing under the Gamergate general sanctions. This ban is converted to an Arbitration Committee-imposed ban. Tutelary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

12) The Arbitration Committee endorses the community-imposed topic bans preventing ArmyLine (talk · contribs), DungeonSiegeAddict510 (talk · contribs), and Xander756 (talk · contribs) from editing under the Gamergate general sanctions. The topic bans for these three editors are converted to indefinite restrictions per the standard topic ban.

13) The Arbitration Committee endorses the community-imposed topic ban preventing Titanium Dragon (talk · contribs) from editing under BLP enforcement. This ban is converted to an Arbitration Committee-imposed ban. Titanium Dragon is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

14.1) Loganmac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

15) Willhesucceed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

18) The Arbitration Committee urges that knowledgeable and non-conflicted users not previously involved in editing GamerGate-related articles, especially GamerGate-related biographies of living people, should carefully review them for adherence to Wikipedia policies and address any perceived or discovered deficiencies. This is not a finding that the articles are or are not satisfactory in their present form, but an urging that independent members of the community examine the matter in light of the case.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Archived discussion

CheckUser and Oversight appointments 2015: Announcement

The Arbitration Committee has resolved to perform a round of Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The arbitrators overseeing this will be Courcelles, DeltaQuad, and Thyrduulf. This year, the usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will be requested to assist in the vetting process.

The Committee is bound by a Wikimedia Foundation policy that only those editors who have passed an RFA or equivalent process may be appointed, therefore only administrators may be considered. The Committee encourages interested administrators to apply, and invites holders of one tool to apply for the other.

The timeline shall be as follows:

• 1 February: Request for candidates to apply.
• 17 February: Candidate submissions close, vetting begins.
• 17-27 February: The Arbitration Committee and current Functionaries will vet the candidates.
• 28 February: Vetting ends, successful candidates contacted by 1 March
• 4 March: Candidates published on-wiki, community feedback invited
• 18 March: Community comments end.
• By 31 March: Appointed candidates announced

At the same time, the coordinating arbitrators will undertake to contact inactive functionaries, encouraging them to become more active or alternatively to resign if they are unwilling to commit to increasing their activity levels. If individuals do not respond, or respond in manner that is not indicative of increased activity, removals will be announced at the same time as the new appointments.

For the Arbitration Committee; Courcelles 01:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this

Arbitration motion regarding Argentine History February 2015

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Notwithstanding other restrictions on their editing, Cambalachero is permitted to edit all content on the articles Raúl Alfonsín, Carlos Menem, Fernando de la Rúa, Adolfo Rodríguez Saá, Eduardo Duhalde, Néstor Kirchner, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner and Pope Francis; as well as their talk pages. They may also make any edits reasonably necessary for those articles to go through the good article, peer review, or featured article processes. If Cambalachero engages in misconduct in respect of any of these articles, this exemption may be revoked either in part or in whole by an uninvolved administrator. Any subsequent appeal should be made at the requests for clarification and amendment page. The administrator must log the revocation on the Argentine history case page, together with a rationale supported by diffs.

For the arbitration committee--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Personnel changes in the Oversight team

Snowolf (talk · contribs) is hereby reappointed as a member of the Oversight team, having previously left the team under good standing in December 2013.

For the Arbitration Committee, LFaraone 16:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Archived discussion

New arbitration clerk trainees

The arbitration clerks are pleased to welcome Becky Sayles (talk · contribs), Lixxx235 (talk · contribs) and Robert McClenon (talk · contribs) to the arbitration clerk team as trainees. For the arbitration clerks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions at GGTF

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions at GGTF is amended as follows:

1. The provisions in the "Scope of topic bans" remedy are rescinded and replaced with: "Editors topic banned by the Committee under this remedy are prohibited on the English Wikipedia from editing any pages relating to or making any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed. An uninvolved admin may remove any comments that breach this remedy, and impose blocks as necessary. The Committee's standard provisions on enforcement of arbitration provisions and appeals and modifications of arbitration enforcements apply."
2. The terms of the "Discretionary sanctions" remedy are rescinded and replaced with: "Discretionary sanctions are authorised for any page relating to or any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed ."
3. All sanctions already issued under earlier versions of these provisions remain in force.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The remedy "Mythdon further restricted (4 August 2009)" is revoked. Mythdon is instead restricted as follows for the longer of one year or 500 edits. If, in the opinion of any uninvolved administrator, Mythdon: a) behaves disruptively at XFD discussions;

b) unreasonably nominates multiple articles for deletion; or

c) unreasonably places maintenance tags on multiple articles;

then Mythdon may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (talk) As a courtesy, please ping me when replying. 07:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Archived discussion

CheckUser and Oversight appointments 2015: Second Call For Candidates

The Arbitration Committee is seeking more candidates for the currently ongoing Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The deadline for completed applications to be returned to the Committee is 2359 UTC on 17 February. As there is a questionnaire to complete, interested administrators are encouraged to contact arbcom-en-clists.wikimedia.org soon.

For the Arbitration Committee; Courcelles 16:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione closed

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

1) Wifione (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from editing any pages relating to or making any edit about:

1. any Indian commercial organisation founded after 1915;
2. any Indian educational institution founded after 1915;
3. biographies of any living or recently deceased person associated with (i) or (ii)

and is restricted to one account.

2.1) Wifione may only regain administrative tools via a successful request for adminship.

3) Wifione (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. They may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (talk) As a courtesy, please ping me when replying. 17:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Arzel (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from editing any page about or making any edit related to the politics of the United States, broadly construed, across all namespaces. This restriction is enforceable by any uninvolved administrator per the standard provisions. Arzel may request reconsideration of this remedy twelve months after the passing of this motion.

For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 23:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

On 11 February 2015, Coffee (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked an editor relying on the discretionary sanctions provisions for Eastern Europe. As a discretionary sanctions block it was out of process as the editor had not been pre-notified of discretionary sanctions for the topic. Accordingly, the prohibitions on modification do not apply and the block may be modified by any uninvolved administrator. Coffee is advised to better familiarize themselves with the discretionary sanctions provisions before using this process again.

For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 00:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Toddst1 closed

The Toddst1 arbitration case is closed following Toddst1 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) being desysopped for inactivity, pursuant to the following motion of the Committee:

The "Toddst1" request for arbitration is accepted, but a formal case will not be opened unless and until Toddst1 returns to active status as an administrator. If Toddst1 resigns his administrative tools or is desysopped for inactivity the case will be closed with no further action. Toddst1 is instructed not to use his admin tools in any way while the case is pending; doing so will be grounds for summary desysopping.

For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 02:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Review closed

The Infoboxes arbitration review has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Remedy 1.1 of the original Infoboxes case is rescinded. In its place, the following is adopted: Pigsonthewing is indefinitely restricted from adding an infobox to any article.
2. Remedy 1 of the 2005 Pigsonthewing case is rescinded. The following is enacted as a restriction of this review: If Pigsonthewing behaves disruptively in any discussion; any uninvolved administrator may ban Pigsonthewing from further participation in that discussion. Any such restriction must be logged on the main case page of this review.
3. Notwithstanding remedy 1.1 of this review, Pigsonthewing may include an infobox in articles he has himself created within the prior fortnight.

For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 21:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity_and_Sexuality closed

An arbitration request regarding actions of some editors in the Christianity and Sexuality topic has now closed and the decision can be read here. The following remedies have been put in place:

1. User:Esoglou and User:Padresfan94 have been site banned. Both users may appeal their bans after one year.
2. User:Roscelese is indefinitely restricted from making more than one revert per page per day (except for indisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. They are also prohibited from making rollback-style reverts without providing an explanation, and from engaging in conduct that casts aspersions or personalises disputes.
3. User:Dominus Vobisdu is admonished for edit warring. In addition, they are restricted to one revert per page per day, and are required to discuss content reversions on the article talk page. This restriction may be appealed after twelve months.

For the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC).

Archived discussion

2015 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Final chance to comment on candidates

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint additional users to the CheckUser and Oversight teams, and the community comments phase of the process is approaching conclusion.

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-clists.wikimedia.org.

Those who have not commented yet, are encouraged to do so over the next few days.

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 all other relevant factors before making a final decision regarding appointments.

The consultation phase is scheduled to end 23:59, 18 March (UTC), and the appointments are scheduled to be announced by 31 March 2015.

For the Arbitration Committee, Courcelles (talk) 07:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

2015 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Invitation to comment on candidates

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint additional users to the CheckUser and Oversight teams, 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 pages or privately via email to arbcom-en-clists.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 all other relevant factors before making a final decision regarding appointments.

The consultation phase is scheduled to end 23:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC), and the appointments are scheduled to be announced by 31 March 2015.

For the Arbitration Committee, Courcelles (talk) 06:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this

New trainee clerk

On behalf of the arbitration clerk team I'd like to welcome Liz (talk · contribs) who has just joined us as a trainee. For the arbitration clerks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Checkuser and Oversight appointments 2015: Voting on the candidates

Following community consultation, the Arbitration Committee is now voting on appointments to the Checkuser and Oversight roles at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions. Comments are welcomed at that page.

For the Arbitration Committee;

Courcelles (talk) 19:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion: Dreadstar desysopped

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

For conduct unbecoming an administrator, namely

1. sending an insulting e-mail to an editor he had just sanctioned,
2. edit warring on an article and then protecting his preferred version, and
3. lifting an arbitration enforcement block out of process,

Dreadstar (talk · contribs) is desysopped. He may regain the tools at any time via a successful request for adminship.

For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 22:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Archived discussion

2015 Checkuser and Oversight appointments: Candidates appointed

Following community consultation and voting. the Arbitration Committee is pleased to appoint the following users to the Functionary team.

• Callanecc (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is appointed as Checkuser and Oversighter to continue after his term on the Audit Subcommittee expires

• Mike V (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is appointed as Checkuser and Oversighter.

• Bbb23 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is appointed as a Checkuser.

• The following users are appointed as Oversighters:

• GB fan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Keilana (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Kelapstick (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Lankiveil (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Ronhjones (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

• The Committee thanks J.delanoy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for his years of service as a Checkuser, who has recently resigned from the role.

The Committee would like to thank the community and all the candidates for bringing this process to a successful conclusion.

For the Arbitration Committee;

Courcelles (talk) 02:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others

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

1. Collect is banned from any page relating to or making any edit about US politics or US political figures, in any namespace. This ban may be appealed no earlier than 18 months after its adoption.

2. Collect is indefinitely limited to one revert per article in any 24 hour period. This restriction excepts the reversal of unambiguous vandalism.

For the committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 01:58, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 28#Wikipedia:Arbitration.2FRequests.2FCase.2FCollect_and_others

Temporary injunction regarding open OccultZone and others arbitration case

The Arbitration Committee has passed the following temporary injunction, to expire at the closure of the OccultZone and others arbitration case:

OccultZone is prohibited from personally approaching any user in relation to any matter raised in this case via Wikipedia email, IRC, on their user talk pages, or any other off-wiki method without obtaining the express permission of the Committee on-wiki. This restriction will expire after the case has been closed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 22:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 28#Temporary injunction regarding open OccultZone and others arbitration case

User:AntonioMartin desysopped

For violation of policy in relation to the account User:Le Pato Frances; AntonioMartin is desysopped. They may only regain the tools through a successful request for adminship.

Supporting: Courcelles, Doug Weller, GorillaWarfare, Guerillero, LFaraone, Roger Davies, Salvio giuliano, Seraphimblade, Yunshui

For the Arbitration Committee;

Courcelles (talk) 17:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 28#User:AntonioMartin desysopped

Arbitration motion regarding the Infoboxes arbitration case

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

I) Remedy 3.2 of the Infoboxes case is suspended.

II) For a six-month period Gerda Arendt may not add or restore, except for the usual exemptions, an Infobox to any article she did not create, without first either a) obtaining a clear consensus to do so on the article talkpage, or b) her proposal on the article talk page attracting no comments for 72 hours.

III) During this six-month period, she must not, in the opinion of a consensus of administrators at the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard, disrupt any discussion concerning infoboxes.

IV) Gerda Arendt may be blocked for violation of parts II and III. Any such block shall cause remedy 3.2 to be unsuspended; if this is done, the blocking administrator must make the committee aware.

V) If after six months Gerda Arendt has not been blocked under this motion, remedy 3.2 as well as this motion shall automatically lapse.

For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:24, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 28#Arbitration motion regarding the Infoboxes arbitration case

Changes to the arbitration clerk team

The arbitration clerks are pleased to welcome Jim Carter (talk · contribs) as a trainee clerk. Robert McClenon (talk · contribs) resigned as a clerk in the last month and the clerks thank him for his contribution to the team. For the arbitration clerks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks#Changes to the arbitration clerk team

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone and others closed

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

1. User:OccultZone is banned indefinitely from English Wikipedia. They may appeal the ban after twelve months, and every six months thereafter.
2. User:OccultZone is also topic banned from making edits related to a) sexual assault or b) crime on the Indian Subcontinent, both broadly construed.
3. User:OccultZone is indefinitely limited to operating a single account.

For the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:29, 3 June 2015 (UTC).

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#OccultZone and others

Temporary injunction regarding open Lightbreather arbitration case

The Arbitration Committee has enacted the following temporary injunction, to expire at the closure of the Lightbreather arbitration case:

Lightbreather and Scalhotrod are placed under a temporary full interaction ban (sans the usual exceptions). They may comment on each other only on matters directly affecting this case and only on the relevant Workshop or Arbitration case talk pages. They may comment on allegations of off-wiki misconduct only by email and such emails must be directed only to the Arbitration Committee. This temporary restriction may be enforced by any clerk or administrator by means of immediate redaction of potentially problematic material and blocks of up to seventy-two hours. Appeals may be made only by the sanctioned user(s), are to be made to the Arbitration Committee only by email. This temporary restriction will expire when the case closes and supersedes any other provisions regarding permissibility of comments.

For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 17:26, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 28#Temporary injunction regarding open Lightbreather arbitration case

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sockpuppet investigation block closed

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

1. The CheckUser permissions of Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk · contribs) are revoked. He may seek to regain them only by the usual appointment methods.
2. The oversight permissions of Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk · contribs) are revoked. He may seek to regain them only by the usual appointment methods.
3. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk · contribs) is desysopped. He may regain the tools at any time through a successful request for adminship.

For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 17:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 28#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sockpuppet investigation block closed

Promotion of clerk L235

We are pleased to confirm trainee L235 (talk · contribs) as an arbitration clerk, effective immediately.

We also express our thanks and gratitude to L235 and all the other arbitration clerks for their diligent assistance with the arbitration process. 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-llists.wikimedia.org.

For the Arbitration Committee, --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 06:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 29#Promotion of clerk L235

Changes to the Audit Subcommittee (AUSC)

The terms of the following arbitrator members of the Audit Subcommittee will expire at 23:59 (UTC), 30 June 2015:

• Courcelles (talk · contribs)
• Doug Weller (talk · contribs)
• Guerillero (talk · contribs)

The vacated seats will be taken for six-month terms by the following arbitrators with effect from 00:01 (UTC), 1 July 2015:

• Doug Weller (talk · contribs)
• LFaraone (talk · contribs)
• Roger Davies (talk · contribs)

The Committee is grateful to the participating arbitrators, as well as to the current community representatives, for their service. The current community seats on the AUSC expire on 31 August 2015. More information on the selection process for the 2015-2016 community auditors will be announced by 1 July 2015.

For the Arbitration Committee, --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 28#Changes to the Audit Subcommittee (AUSC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 closed

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

1. Remedy 1 of the American Politics case is rescinded. In its place, the following is adopted: standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people.
2. Ubikwit (talk · contribs) is banned from any page relating to or making any edit about post-1932 politics of the United States, and closely related people, in any namespace. This ban may be appealed no earlier than 18 months after its adoption.
3. MONGO (talk · contribs) is admonished for adding to the hostility in the topic area.

For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 19:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 28#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 closed

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Technical 13 closed

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

1. Technical 13's indefinite block is converted to an indefinite ban imposed by the Arbitration Committee. Technical 13 may appeal this ban at any time to the Arbitration Committee if he wishes to return to editing.
2. Technical 13 is limited to one account, and may not edit through any account other than "Technical 13". He is explicitly denied the right to any sort of clean start.

For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 29#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Technical 13 closed

Temporary injunction regarding the restoration of Scott's admin privileges

The Arbitration Committee requests that restoration of adminship for Scott requested at the bureaucrats' noticeboard be suspended while the Committee communicates with him.

Supporting: Seraphimblade, Thryduulf, Courcelles, Salvio giuliano, NativeForeigner, Euryalus, LFaraone, Doug Weller, Yunshui, DeltaQuad

Recusing: GorillaWarfare Abstaining: Roger Davies

For the Arbitration Committee, Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:12, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 29#Temporary injunction regarding the restoration of Scott's admin privileges

Rescinding the temporary injunction regarding the restoration of Scott's admin privileges

The committee has resolved most of the concerns raised, and after discussing the remaining issue directly with Scott, his replies have satisfied us. The Arbitration Committee thus rescinds its temporary injunction dated 1 July 2015 at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Supporting: Doug Weller, Salvio giuliano, Seraphimblade, NativeForeigner, Yunshui, Euryalus, LFaraone, AGK

Opposing: Thryduulf, Courcelles, DGG, DeltaQuad

Abstaining: Roger Davies

Recusing: GorillaWarfare

For the Arbitration Committee, Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 29#Rescinding the temporary injunction regarding the restoration of Scott's admin privileges

Motion passed in AE arbitration case granting amnesty and rescinding previous temporary injunction

On 5 July, 2015, the following motion was passed and enacted:

1. Paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Arbitration Committee's motion of 29 June 2015 about the injunction and reporting breaches of it are hereby rescinded.
2. The Arbitration Committee hereby declares an amnesty covering:
   1. the original comment made by Eric Corbett on 25 June 2015 and any subsequent related comments made by him up until the enactment of this current motion; and
   2. the subsequent actions related to that comment taken by Black Kite, GorillaWarfare, Reaper Eternal, Kevin Gorman, GregJackP and RGloucester before this case was opened on 29 June 2015.

Posted by Arbitration Clerk User:Penwhale at 12:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC) on behalf of Arbitration Committee

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 29#Motion passed in AE arbitration case granting amnesty and rescinding previous temporary injunction

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather closed

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

1. Lightbreather (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is site-banned. She may request reconsideration of the ban no earlier than one year after it is enacted.
2. Lightbreather (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely topic-banned from the Gun control topic, broadly construed.
3. Lightbreather (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is restricted to editing from one account. She must obtain the Committee's prior approval if she wishes to edit from a different account. She is prohibited from making edits without logging in.
4. Subject to the usual exceptions, Lightbreather is prohibited from making any more than one revert to any page, except Lightbreather's own user space, in any 24-hour period.
5. Lightbreather (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is restricted to editing articles, their talk pages, and Lightbreather's user and user talk pages. Further, she may not edit articles in topics from which she is banned. She may post elsewhere only to respond to unambiguous criticism of her in dispute resolution fora. The default interaction-ban exceptions remain in place but improper use of them by Lightbreather is sanctionable as an i-ban evasion. Should Lightbreather wish to initiate action against any user for whatever reason she may do so only by email to the Arbitration Committee.
6. All interactions bans (i-bans) affecting Lightbreather are taken over by the Arbitration Committee and placed under the committee's direct jurisdiction. The default i-ban exceptions remain in place but improper use of them by Lightbreather is sanctionable as an i-ban evasion. For consistency and ease of administration, the i-bans may be enforced by any uninvolved administrator as an arbitration enforcement action but any resultant appeals may be made only to the committee and only by email. For the avoidance of doubt, this paragraph applies to the following interaction bans:
   1. Mike Searson (one-way)
   2. Hell in a Bucket (two-way)
   3. Eric Corbett (two-way)
   4. Sitush (one-way)
   5. Scalhotrod (two-way)
7. The community is invited to create and maintain a page containing practical advice and guidance on dealing with serious harassment.
8. The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on improved trust and safety policies for the site.[4], [5] and the community is urged to offer what assistance it can.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 29#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather closed

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man closed

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

1. Kww (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s administrator permissions are revoked. He may regain the tools at any time through a successful request for adminship

2. Kww (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s edit filter manager permission is revoked. He may only regain them as follows: If he is desysopped as a result of this case, and is later successful at regaining the administrator tools through a successful request for adminship, this restriction will automatically expire. If he is not desysopped as a result of this case, he may appeal this remedy after 12 months to the Arbitration Committee.

3. The community is encouraged to establish a policy or guideline for the use of edit filters, and a process by which existing and proposed edit filters may be judged against these.

For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC) Corrected. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:26, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 29#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man closed

Level 1 desysop of Malik Shabazz

Under the Level 1 desysopping procedures the administrator permissions of Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) have been temporarily removed. This is temporary until the entire Committee has had time to review the situation. Discussion is continuing at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case at the present time.

Supporting: Courcelles, Guerillero, GorillaWarfare, Seraphimblade, and LFaraone.

For the Arbitration Committee;

Courcelles (talk) 02:22, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 29#Level 1 desysop of Malik Shabazz

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement closed

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

1. The Arbitration Committee delegates the drafters of this case to amend and clarify the text of the policy at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions and the text on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement to bring them in line with the clarifications contained in this decision.

For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 29#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement closed

Arbitration motion regarding Malik Shabazz case request

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The [Malik Shabazz] case is accepted with the aim of reviewing and if necessary modifying by motion existing sanction provisions in the prior Palestine-Israel articles case.

This case may be found at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3 . For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 16:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 29#Arbitration motion regarding Malik Shabazz case request

Coat of Many Colours

Coat of Many Colours (talk · contribs) is hereby banned from the English Wikipedia. For the Arbitration Committee, --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Supporting: Courcelles, DGG, Doug Weller, Euryalus, GorillaWarfare, Guerillero, LFaraone, Seraphimblade, Thryduulf, Yunshui

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 29#Coat of Many Colours

Motion: Longevity

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to longevity, broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 22:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 29#Motion: Longevity

Motion: Activity

In accordance with the standing procedure on inactivity, the checkuser permissions of:

• Amalthea (talk · contribs)
• David Fuchs (talk · contribs)

and the oversight permissions of:

• David Fuchs (talk · contribs)
• Ks0stm (talk · contribs)

are removed. The committee thanks them for their many years of service. For the Arbitration Committee, --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Supporting: AGK, Courcelles, Doug Weller, Euryalus, GorillaWarfare, Guerillero, LFaraone, NativeForeigner, Roger Davies, Thryduulf

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 29#Motion: Activity

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody

This post is to inform the English Wikipedia editing community that the Checkuser team has identified a very large group of socks creating promotional articles, inserting promotional external links, and otherwise editing disruptively on this project. The investigation is named "Orangemoody" because this was the first sock identified.

During the course of this investigation, evidence has been identified that this group is editing for profit (i.e., that they are paid editors). Only a few of the accounts have made any disclosure related to paid editing, and those which did failed to make complete disclosures. The investigation began in early July. Many functionaries have participated in the investigation and identification of accounts, as well as the review of articles created by the accounts. The Community Advocacy department of the WMF is also an active participant, focusing on issues best addressed by WMF staff.

Graphic image illustrating the close interlacing of sock accounts. Yellow bubbles represent IP addresses, and green bubbles represent accounts.

It is important to note that the 381 accounts identified in this investigation are only those that were editing from the end of April to early August. This reflects the time-limited availability of checkuser data. Many of the identified accounts were editing before that time, and the nature and quality of the edits suggests that this paid editing scheme had been in place for some time before it was fortuitously identified. The WMF in particular will continue its liaison with article subjects, and will be reviewing data to determine further steps that are not directly available to the community.

The socks

There are 381 socks currently being blocked as a result of this investigation. All of the socks are linked by both technical data and behavioural evidence. The list of socks has been posted at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody/Accounts. All of these blocks are checkuser blocks. They are being performed by EgressBot using a standardized block summary and user talk page template, so that reviewing administrators and editors will be able to identify that they are part of this group. A copy of the block summary and template is posted on the page listing the identified socks. Unblock requests can be brought to the attention of checkusers; this can be done by posting a link at the SPI talk page. It will take the blocking bot approximately an hour to complete all of the blocks; if for other behavioural reasons an administrator needs to block any of the accounts in the interim, the block will be superseded by the bot with the applicable summary and template. The same will apply to any accounts that have already been blocked.

The socks all exhibit at least one of the following behavioural traits:

• "Article creation" socks create articles in draft space or user space mainly based on submissions to Articles for creation that had been declined, or articles that had been added to article space and deleted as being too promotional. These articles do not give proper attribution to the original authors. There are occasional variations to this process. Most of the articles created in this way have been moved to article space; a few are still in draft or user space.
• "Helper" socks will usually complete a series of useless edits in order to be autoconfirmed. They then continue making gnoming-type edits that will periodically include the addition of spammy external links. Some of these socks also participate in Page Curation, and they will “mark reviewed” articles created by the other socks.
  • Examples of "useless edits" include adding {{italictitle}} or wiki-linking words like Asia and United States, or making minor formatting changes.
• The groups are not entirely distinct and some socks have acted as both article creators and helpers.

Paid editing

Early in the sockpuppetry investigation, it became apparent that several of the articles and the individual socks were tied to deletion discussions, OTRS comments, and complaints directed at specific administrators, where allegations of either demands for payment or complaints that articles were being deleted despite payment were made. The WMF Community Advocacy team were contacted, and User:Jalexander-WMF and User:Kalliope_(WMF) have both been directly involved in working with article subjects and complainants. The work being done by this socking group is unsolicited.

The editing pattern has been identified as follows:

• An AfC draft is declined, usually because of notability concerns or excessively promotional content. There are variations on this, including deletion of articles in article space for similar reasons.
• An Orangemoody sock begins work on the article, usually based on the original contributor’s content, and develops it sufficiently to prepare it for a move to article space
  • In some cases, the sock will create a redirect page with the article being redirected to another topic. Most of these redirects are very implausible
• External contact is made with the article subject and/or the original draft/article creator. An offer is made to publish the article in article space for a fee. The person making the contact will usually claim to be an experienced editor or administrator. The names of genuine editors and administrators are often used (for example, the names of administrators who have deleted related material), and this has been reported to this noticeboard in the past.
• Money is exchanged. The article is moved to article space. It will frequently be marked reviewed by another sock, sometimes with the addition of tags.
• Some time later the article subject or person who has paid for the article to be moved to mainspace is then contacted again and advised that, for a specific monthly fee ($30/month in examples that have been confirmed), the “editor” will continue to protect the article from vandalism and prevent its deletion, claiming that they had previously done that without charge.

The use of declined drafts (and in some cases deleted articles) to identify and approach potential clients is a new wrinkle in the way paid editing is being conducted. The return to demand further money to "protect" the article is also significant, and we do have examples of socks proceeding to request deletion of pages.

The articles

The list of articles created by the socks is located at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody/Articles. This list is not considered complete; due to time constraints, there may be additional articles created by these socks that are not included here. Most articles relate to businesses, businesspeople, or “artists”.

Review of this list of articles reveals that the overwhelming majority of them would qualify for deletion under one or more speedy deletion criteria. In this specific case, however, in order to prevent article subjects from continued shakedowns by bad actors who are causing significant harm to the reputation of this project, the articles are all being deleted. It is important to break the cycle of payment demands, and to make it clear that the Wikipedia community, and not a small group of paid editor accounts, controls the content of this project. This mass deletion is without prejudice to recreation by experienced Wikipedians who believe that the subject is sufficiently notable for an article. We emphasize again that all indications are that the editing was not solicited by the article subjects.

Because so many of the articles contain unattributed material and/or copyvios, administrators are urged NOT to undelete articles or move them to userspace.

What the community can do to help

• Review the edits of the sock accounts for quality and for spam links, and make repairs as needed
• Review the edits of the sock accounts for any undeleted article creations. It may be appropriate to delete these articles as well
• Continue to be vigilant for allegations of similar schemes
• Review the list of deleted articles and consider creating new, well-sourced, independently written versions of articles about notable subjects. Some suggestions have been made at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody/Articles
• A special OTRS queue, info-orangemoodywikipedia.org, has been set up. Please feel free to refer any complaints from article subjects to this email address. The English Wikipedia Volunteer Response Team will work with the subjects, and this queue will be monitored as well by WMF’s Community Advocacy team if further assistance is needed.
• Please be kind to the article subjects. They too are victims in this situation.

On behalf of the Functionary team, Risker (talk) 23:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Cross-posted from the original. In my personal capacity, --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive274#Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody

Arbitration motion regarding Argentine History

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Remedy 2 (MarshalN20 topic banned) of the Argentine History case is suspended for a period of one year. During the period of suspension, this topic ban may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator as an arbitration enforcement action should MarshalN20 (talk · contribs) fail to adhere to Wikipedia editing standards in the area previously covered by the topic ban. Appeal of such a reinstatement would follow the normal arbitration enforcement appeals process. After one year from the date of passage of this motion, if the topic ban has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the topic ban will be lifted.

For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 29#Arbitration motion regarding Argentine History

Arbitration motion regarding Christianity and Sexuality

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Remedy 2 (Roscelese restricted) of the Christianity and Sexuality case is modified to read the following: Roscelese (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to the following restrictions. Other than in cases of indisputable vandalism or BLP violations, they are indefinitely prohibited from:

• making more than one revert per page per day, and are required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page;
• making rollback-type reverts that fail to provide an explanation for the revert;
• Roscelese (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely prohibited from engaging in conduct which, in the opinion of any uninvolved administrator, casts aspersions, or personalises disputes.

These restrictions may be appealed to the committee twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter. Should Roscelese breach any of these restrictions, she may be blocked for per the standard Enforcement provision below.

For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 03:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 29#Arbitration motion regarding Christianity and Sexuality

Four motions about Discretionary Sanctions and Article Probations

I have posted four motions to alleviate overlap in our existing sanctions and to retire the last of the article probations. The community is asked to comment on them. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:46, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Indefinite ban of Tarc

The committee has resolved by off-wiki motion that:

For continued serious breaches of policy, including off-wiki harassment, Tarc (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned.

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 22:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Support

AGK, Courcelles, DeltaQuad, Doug Weller, Salvio giuiliano, Thryduulf, Yunshui

Abstain

DGG, Guerillero

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 29#Indefinite ban of Tarc

Arbitration motion regarding Liancourt Rocks

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

1. Remedy 3 of the Liancourt Rocks case is rescinded.
2. In its place, Standard Discretionary sanctions are authorised with immediate effect for all pages relating to the Liancourt Rocks;
3. Nothing in this motion provides grounds for appeal of remedies or restrictions imposed while the article probation for the foregoing case was in force. Such appeals or requests to lift or modify such sanctions may be made under the same terms as any other appeal.

For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 10:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 29#Arbitration motion regarding Liancourt Rocks

Arbitration clerks seeking new volunteers

The Clerks of the Arbitration Committee are currently looking for a few dependable and mature editors willing to serve as clerks. The responsibilities of clerks include opening and closing arbitration cases and motions; notifying parties of cases, decisions, and other committee actions; maintaining the requests for arbitration pages; preserving order and proper formatting on case pages; and other administrative and related tasks they may be requested to handle by the arbitrators. 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.

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. Best of all, you get a cool fez!

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 clerks, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 10:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 29#Arbitration clerks seeking new volunteers

Arbitration motion regarding Asgardian

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The topic ban from Marvel Comics portion of Asgardian's unblock condition is suspended for a period of one year. During the period of suspension, this topic ban may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator as an arbitration enforcement action should Asgardian (talk · contribs) fail to adhere to Wikipedia editing standards in the area previously covered by the topic ban. Appeal of such a reinstatement would follow the normal arbitration enforcement appeals process. After one year from the date of passage of this motion, if the topic ban has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the topic ban will be lifted.

For the Arbitration Committee, Jim Carter 15:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 29#Arbitration motion regarding Asgardian

Promotion of Liz to full clerk

The Arbitration Committee is pleased to announce that Liz is promoted to full clerk, effective immediately. We thank Liz and the entire clerk team for their dedication and helpfulness.

For the Arbitration Committee; Courcelles (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 29#Promotion of Liz to full clerk

Arbitration proposed regarding giving Philippe CheckUser and Oversight tools

A motion has been proposed by the Committee to give Philippe (talk · contribs) CheckUser and Oversight tools. Community comments are welcome on the motions page. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Motion: AUSC Extension

The Arbitration Committee is currently examining several reforms of the Audit Subcommittee and asks for community input on how they would like to see the Subcommittee function in the future. Because of this, the current Audit Subcommittee (AUSC) members' terms are hereby extended to 23:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC).

Supporting: AGK, Doug Weller, GorillaWarfare, Guerillero, LFaraone, NativeForeigner, Salvio giuliano, Thryduulf, Yunshui

Opposing: Courcelles

For the Arbitration Committee, --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 29#Motion: AUSC Extension

Philippe appointed as Checkuser and Oversighter

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion;

Philippe (talk · contribs), who recently retired from the post of Director of Community Advocacy at the Wikimedia Foundation, is appointed as a CheckUser and Oversighter. Philippe has experience using both tools both on the English Wikipedia and others, including supporting the community in the WikiPR case and the recent Orangemoody incident.

Support:Doug Weller, Thryduulf, Yunshui, Salvio giuliano, LFaraone, Seraphimblade, Courcelles, Guerillero, Roger Davies, DeltaQuad.

Oppose: None

Abstain: NativeForeigner

For the Arbitration Committee; Courcelles (talk) 04:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 29#Philippe appointed as Checkuser and Oversighter

Arbitration temporary injunction for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case

The Arbitration Committee has enacted the following temporary injunction, to expire at the closure of the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case:

1. Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to to genetically modified organisms and agricultural biotechnology, including glyphosate, broadly interpreted, for as long as this arbitration case remains open. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.
2. Editors are prohibited from making more than one revert per page per day within the topic area found in part 1 of this injunction, subject to the usual exemptions.

For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 10:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 29#Arbitration temporary injunction for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case

New arbitration trainee clerks

The arbitration clerks would like to welcome Amortias (talk · contribs), JoeSperrazza (talk · contribs), and Miniapolis (talk · contribs) to the arbitration clerk team as trainees. For the arbitration clerks, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 02:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 29#New arbitration trainee clerks

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Gaijin42 (talk · contribs)'s topic ban from gun control-related edits imposed as Remedy 4 of the Gun control case is suspended for a period of one year. During the period of suspension, this topic ban may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator as an arbitration enforcement action should Gaijin42 fail to adhere to Wikipedia editing standards in the area previously covered by the topic ban. Appeal of such a reinstatement would follow the normal arbitration enforcement appeals process. After one year from the date of passage of this motion, if the topic ban has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the topic ban will be lifted.

For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 16:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 29#Gun control amendment

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Remedy 2.2 of the Richard Arthur Norton (1958 - ) case is struck and replaced by:

2.3) Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ("RAN") is indefinitely prohibited from:

Creating any articles or draft articles in any namespace.

Moving any page into the article namespace from any other namespace.

Other editors may move pages created or substantially edited by RAN, but only if they explicitly take responsibility for any copyright violations on that page.

This remedy may be appealed after the later of 6 months and when all draft articles he has authored, in his userspace and in the draft namespace, have been verified free of copyright violations and moved to the article namespace by other editors or deleted. In order for appeals of this remedy to be considered, he shall be required to submit evidence of substantial work on his part towards resolving the Contributor Copyright Investigations (CCI) filed against him, most particularly the one focused on his text contributions.

Any article or draft article created contrary to this restriction will result in a block, initially of at least one month and then proceeding per the enforcement provisions. The article or draft article may be speedily deleted under criterion G5 by any administrator.

Any page moves made contrary to this restriction may be enforced by blocks per the enforcement provisions. The page move may be reversed by any editor able to do so.

For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 17:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )October 2015

Level II desysop of Yngvadottir

For reversing an arbitration enforcement block out of process, Yngvadottir (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is desysoped. They may only regain adminship after a successful RfA.

Supporting: Courcelles, Thryduulf, Seraphimblade, Guerillero, Salvio giuliano, LFaraone

Opposing: None

Recusing: GorillaWarfare

Inactive: AGK, Euryalus, Roger Davies, DeltaQuad

For the Arbitration Committee, Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 30#Level II desysop of Yngvadottir

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt and Jayen466

Notwithstanding other restrictions on his editing, Cirt (talk · contribs) may edit the article Typewriter in the Sky, its talk page, and pages related to a peer review, good article or featured article candidacy for the article. This exemption may be revoked by any uninvolved administrator as an arbitration enforcement action should Cirt fail to adhere to Wikipedia editing standards while editing under the exemption. Appeal of such a revocation would be through the normal arbitration enforcement appeals process.

For the Arbitration Committee Amortias (T)(C) 01:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 29#Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt and Jayen466

Arbitration motion regarding overlap of sanctions

To prevent confusion and overlap between existing sanctions,

1. Remedy 2 of the Bluemarine case is rescinded. The discretionary sanctions authorised for the American Politics 2 case and the Editing of Biographies of Living Persons case continue to apply in this topic area;
2. Remedy 2.1 of the Election case is rescinded. The discretionary sanctions authorised for the American Politics 2 case continue to apply in this topic area;
3. Remedies 4 and 5 of the Free Republic case are rescinded. The discretionary sanctions authorised for the American Politics 2 case continue to apply in this topic area;
4. Remedy 1 of the Neuro-linguistic programming case is rescinded. The discretionary sanctions authorised for the Pseudoscience case continue to apply in this topic area;
5. Remedy 1.1 of the Tea Party Movement case is rescinded. The discretionary sanctions authorised for the American Politics 2 case continue to apply in this topic area;
6. Nothing in this motion provides grounds for appeal of remedies or restrictions imposed while discretionary sanctions or article probations for the foregoing cases were in force. Such appeals or requests to lift or modify such sanctions may be made under the same terms as any other appeal.

For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 14:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Overlap of sanctions

Level I Desysop of Seemingly Compromised Accounts

The seemingly compromised accounts User:OhanaUnited and User:Salvidrim! are temporarily desysoped in accordance with Level I procedures for removing administrative tools.

Supporting: NativeForeigner, Roger Davies, Euryalus, DeltaQuad

Opposing: None

Abstaining: None

For the Arbitration Committee, NativeForeigner ^Talk 09:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 30#Level I Desysop of Seemingly Compromised Accounts

Resysop of User:Salvidrim!

The Level I desysop of Salvidrim! (talk · contribs) is reversed. They may request to be resysoped at their earliest convenience on the Bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Supporting: DeltaQuad, Doug Weller, Euryalus, GorillaWarfare, Guerillero, LFaraone, Seraphimblade.

Opposing: None

Abstaining: None

For the Arbitration Committee, --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 19:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 30#Level I Desysop of Seemingly Compromised Accounts

Resysop of User:OhanaUnited

The Level I desysop of OhanaUnited (talk · contribs) is reversed. They may request to be resysoped at their earliest convenience on the Bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Supporting: Courcelles, DeltaQuad, Doug Weller, Euryalus, GorillaWarfare, Guerillero, Salvio giuliano, Seraphimblade, Thryduulf

Opposing: None

Abstaining: None

For the Arbitration Committee, --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 21:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 30#Level I Desysop of Seemingly Compromised Accounts

November 2015 functionary changes

Following his resignation from the Arbitration Committee for personal reasons, the CheckUser and Oversight permissions of Yunshui (talk · contribs) are removed, without prejudice against his requesting reinstatement in the future. We thank him for his service.

For the Arbitration Committee;

LFaraone 20:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 30#November 2015 functionary changes

Emails to ArbCom - Delay

Any emails that were received before 03h00 UTC on 13 November 2015 may be subject to additional moderation delays. The WMF notified the Arbitration Committee of an internal security breach and had reset our moderation passwords. Within an hour and a half of receiving the email (received ~05h00), the Arbitration Committee changed those passwords again to make sure only ArbCom members have access to the moderation queue. This requires some additional time to redistribute the moderation passwords, causing potential delays in the Committee receiving the email. This delay should be no longer than 48 hours, and should only affect ArbCom emails for a few days at most. If you urgently need Arbitration Committee attention, please use the email interface or contact an online arbitrator directly.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Neelix Arbitration case

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

This case was opened to address the behavior of Neelix (talk · contribs), a long-time editor and administrator. Neelix has subsequently resigned as an administrator and acknowledged that he may not regain administrator status without a new, successful request for adminship.[6]. In addition, an extensive community discussion on the incidents noticeboard has resulted in a one-year topic ban from Neelix's creating redirects.

Under these circumstances, this case is closed without further action. The restriction already imposed at ANI remains in force. Neelix is strongly counseled to take the concerns expressed by the community into account in his future editing, and cautioned that he may be subject to additional sanctions if problems recur.

Discuss This

For the Arbitration Committee Amortias (T)(C) 23:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion to disband the Ban Appeals Subcommittee

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions that:

1. With immediate effect, the Ban Appeals Subcommittee is disbanded. The associated mailing list is to be shut and associated Wikipedia pages marked {{historical}}.
2. Any ban appeals of whatever nature open at the time of the passing of this motion will be handled by the Arbitration Committee until the appeal has run its course.
3. The Arbitration Committee will, for the time being, take appeals (i) from editors who are subject to an {{OversightBlock}} or a {{Checkuserblock}}; (ii) from editors who are blocked for reasons that are unsuitable for public discussion; and (iii) from editors blocked or banned by Arbitration and Arbitration Enforcement decisions.

For the Arbitration committee, Miniapolis 15:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Archived discussion

BASC reform motion

An arbitration motion proposing a major overhaul of the current BASC system has been proposed. Comments are welcome at that location. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Community comments (BASC Reform)

The motion to reform the Ban Appeals Subcommittee has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Ban Appeals Subcommittee#BASC reform motion. For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 16:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 30#Motion: BASC reform (November 2015)

Motion to disband BASC proposed

A second arbitration motion has been proposed which would disband the BASC. Comments from the community are welcome. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:51, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Community comments (BASC disbanded)

Arbitration motion regarding the Ban Appeals Subcommittee

The Arbitration Committee has resolved that:

1. With immediate effect, the Ban Appeals Subcommittee is disbanded. The associated mailing list is to be shut and associated Wikipedia pages marked {{historical}}.
2. Any ban appeals of whatever nature open at the time of the passing of this motion will be handled by the Arbitration Committee until the appeal has run its course.
3. The Arbitration Committee will, for the time being, take appeals (i) from editors who are subject to an {{OversightBlock}} or a {{Checkuserblock}}; (ii) from editors who are blocked for reasons that are unsuitable for public discussion; and (iii) from editors blocked or banned by Arbitration and Arbitration Enforcement decisions.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed motion granting temporary CheckUser

An arbitration motion has been proposed granting temporary local CheckUser permissions to three stewards for the purposes of scrutineering the 2015 Arbitration Committee elections. Community comments are welcome at the motions page. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 03:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Community comments (ACE2015 scrutineers' local CU permissions)

E-cigs case closed

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

1. General Sanctions for the Electronic Cigarette topic area are rescinded. In its place, standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for the Electronic Cigarette topic area, broadly construed.
2. Discretionary Sanctions are explicitly extended for the Electronic Cigarettes topic area. Specifically, single purpose accounts may be topic banned or blocked (indefinite or otherwise), if in the view of an uninvolved administrator, they are being disruptive in the topic area.
3. Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to monitor the articles covered by discretionary sanctions in this case to ensure compliance. To assist in this, administrators are reminded that accounts with a clear shared agenda may be blocked if they violate the sockpuppetry policy or other applicable policy; accounts whose primary purpose is disruption or making personal attacks may be blocked indefinitely; discretionary sanctions permit full and semi-page protections, including use of pending changes where warranted, and – once an editor has become aware of sanctions for the topic – any other appropriate remedy may be issued without further warning. The Arbitration Committee thanks those administrators who have been helping to enforce the community general sanctions, and thanks, once again, in advance those who help enforce the remedies adopted in this case.
4. QuackGuru (talk · contribs) is warned that continuing to engage in a pattern of disruption to Wikipedia will result in further sanctions.
5. CFCF (talk · contribs) is restricted to one revert per article per every 72 hour period in the Electronic Cigarette topic area, broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 21:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 30#E-cigs case closed

Arbitration motion regarding Removal of Unused Sanctions

Resolved by motion of the Arbitration Committee, that: Every so often, it becomes reasonable to terminate sanctions that are no longer necessary,

1. Remedy 1 of the Lapsed Pacifist 2 case is rescinded;
2. Remedy 2 of the Mantanmoreland case is rescinded;
3. Remedy 1 of the Waterboarding case is rescinded;
4. Remedy 1 of the Vivaldi case is rescinded;
5. Nothing in this motion provides grounds for appeal of remedies or restrictions imposed while article probations for the foregoing cases were in force. Such appeals or requests to lift or modify such sanctions may be made under the same terms as any other appeal;
6. In the event that disruptive editing resumes in any of these topic-areas, a request to consider reinstating discretionary sanctions in that topic-area may be made on the clarifications and amendments page.

For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (alt / t / c / ping in reply) 21:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 30#Arbitration motion regarding Removal of Unused Sanctions

Temporary CU for 2015 Arbitration Committee election scrutineers

For the purpose of scrutineering the 2015 Arbitration Committee elections, stewards Mardetanha, Shanmugamp7, and Einsbor, appointed as scrutineers, are granted temporary local CheckUser permissions effective from the time of the passage of this motion until the certification of the election results.

For the Arbitration Committee; Courcelles (talk) 22:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 30#Temporary CU for 2015 Arbitration Committee election scrutineers

Palestine-Israel articles 3 case closed

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

1. All anonymous IP editors and accounts with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This prohibition may be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of Pending Changes, and appropriate edit filters.
2. Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to monitor the articles covered by discretionary sanctions in the original Palestine-Israel case to ensure compliance. To assist in this, administrators are reminded that:

• Accounts with a clear shared agenda may be blocked if they violate the sockpuppetry policy or other applicable policy;
• Accounts whose primary purpose is disruption, violating the policy on biographies of living persons, or making personal attacks may be blocked indefinitely;
• There are special provisions in place to deal with editors who violate the BLP policy;
• Administrators may act on clear BLP violations with page protections, blocks, or warnings even if they have edited the article themselves or are otherwise involved;
• Discretionary sanctions permit full and semi-page protections, including use of pending changes where warranted, and – once an editor has become aware of sanctions for the topic – any other appropriate remedy may be issued without further warning.

For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 16:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 30#Palestine-Israel articles 3 case closed

ArbCom election results live

Hi all,

Just a note to say the ArbCom election have now concluded, and results have been posted. 9 Arbs have been elected in total, 8 on two-year terms and 1 on a one-year term. You can review the results in full here.

For the Election Commission, Mdann52 (talk) 19:21, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Mdann52 appointed trainee clerk

The arbitration clerks would like to welcome Mdann52 (talk · contribs) to the arbitration clerk team as a trainee. For the arbitration clerks, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 04:49, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 30#New trainee clerks (December 2015)

Genetically modified organisms case closed

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

1) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed.

2) Editors are prohibited from making more than one revert per page per day on any page relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed and subject to the usual exemptions.

3) Jytdog and DrChrissy are placed indefinitely under a two-way interaction ban.

7) DrChrissy is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified plants and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.

8) Jytdog is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.

9) Jytdog is admonished for their poor civility in relation to the locus of this case.

11) SageRad is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.

12) Wuerzele is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 20:42, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 30#Genetically modified organisms case closed

Kharkiv07 appointed as a trainee clerk

The arbitration clerks would like to welcome Kharkiv07 (talk · contribs) to the arbitration clerk team as a trainee. For the arbitration clerks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 30#New trainee clerks (December 2015)