This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

FloNight has retired from the Arbitration Committee with effect from 23:59 31 December 2009 (UTC) on the completion of her three-year term as an arbitrator. Our thanks go to her for her careful and devoted work during her incumbency.

Stephen Bain also formally ends his term on 31 December 2009 but, per usual custom and practice, will remain on the committee until all cases in which he has participated close.

Kirill Lokshin and Coren return to the committee following re-election.

The committee also welcomes seven newly-seated arbitrators: Fritzpoll, Mailer diablo, Steve Smith, SirFozzie, Hersfold, KnightLago and Shell Kinney.

A full list of arbitrators may be found here.

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies ^talk 01:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Archived discussion

ArbCom decision to desysop

GlassCobra's administrator privileges are restored, effective 11 January 2010. He/She is reminded to abide by all policies and guidelines governing the conduct of administrators.

• Support: Carcharoth, Coren, Fritzpoll, Mailer Diablo, Newyorkbrad, Rlevse, Roger Davies, Shell Kinney, SirFozzie, Vassyana, Wizardman
• Oppose: FayssalF, KnightLago, Steve Smith
• Abstain: None
• Recuse: Cool Hand Luke, Kirill, Risker
• Not voting: Hersfold, Stephen Bain.

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies ^talk 06:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Archived discussion

The Ban Appeal Subcommittee membership for January 2010 comprises: Fritzpoll, Shell Kinney and SirFozzie.

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies ^talk 06:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Three arbitrator members serve staggered six-month terms on the Audit Subcommittee ("AUSC"). One arbitrator vacancy was created by FloNight's retirement from the Arbitration Committee on 31 December 2009 and a second by Newyorkbrad stepping down from the subcommittee with immediate effect. Risker has the third seat. The two vacant seats will be filled by:

• Kirill Lokshin taking a six-month term to replace FloNight and
• Rlevse taking over the unexpired part of Newyorkbrad's term.

The arbitrator members of AUSC (and the end-dates of their respective terms) are therefore: Risker (28 February 2010), Rlevse (30 April 2010) and Kirill Lokshin (30 June 2010). The "at-large" members remain unaffected and are: Dominic, Jredmond, and Tznkai.

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies ^talk 04:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Cool3 (talk · contribs) has been temporarily desysopped because the account has been certified by checkusers as a confirmed sockpuppet of a banned user, Thekohser. The desysop was done under emergency procedures and was in turn certified by Arbitrators Rlevse, Mailer diablo and SirFozzie.

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies ^talk 23:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Archived discussion

The Ban Appeals Subcommittee has allowed the appeals of:

• Shamir1 (talk · contribs)
• DollyD (talk · contribs)

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

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies ^talk 21:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Archived discussion

The Arbitration clerks welcome the following users to the clerk team as trainees:

• AlexandrDmitri (talk · contribs)
• Amorymeltzer (talk · contribs)
• DoriSmith (talk · contribs)
• MBK004 (talk · contribs)

The clerk team as well as the committee would also like to congratulate the following clerks who have been confirmed as "full clerks":

• Dougweller (talk · contribs)
• Lankiveil (talk · contribs)
• Seddon (talk · contribs)

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,

Tiptoety ^talk 04:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Archived discussion

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

Imposition of discretionary sanctions

The Falun Gong decision is modified as follows:

(a) The article probation clause (remedy #1) is rescinded.

(b) Standard discretionary sanctions (Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) are authorized for "Falun Gong" and all closely related articles.

This modification does not affect any actions previously taken under the article probation clause; these actions shall remain in force.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 07:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Archived discussion

The Arbitration Committee has, with regret, accepted the resignation of Arbitrator Vassyana, due to off-wiki commitments, and wishes to take this opportunity to thank him for his dedicated service. Vassyana will retain his CheckUser permissions and his status as a Functionary.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Archived discussion

The Arbitration Committee has passed a motion in lieu of a full case regarding the BLP deletions request. The text of the motion is as follows:

For the Arbitration Committee,

Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 19:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Three arbitrator members serve staggered six-month terms on the Audit Subcommittee ("AUSC"). One arbitrator vacancy has been created by Rlevse stepping down from the Subcommittee with immediate effect, because of unanticipated commitments. The vacant seat has been filled by SirFozzie. The arbitrator members of AUSC (and the end-dates of their respective terms) are therefore: Risker (28 February 2010), Kirill Lokshin (30 June 2010), and SirFozzie (31 July 2010). The "at-large" members remain unaffected and are: Dominic, Jredmond, and Tznkai.

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies ^talk 20:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Archived discussion

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

• User:Tothwolf is subject to an editing restriction for six months. Should Tothwolf make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Tothwolf may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

• User:JBsupreme is warned to refrain from incivility and personal attacks.

• User:Miami33139 and and User:JBsupreme are reminded to observe deletion best practices when nominating articles for deletion, including the consideration of alternatives to deletion such as merging articles or curing problems through editing.

• The parties in particular, and other editors generally, are reminded to observe at all times Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on dealing with harassed editors and on handling conflicts of interest.

• Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After five blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf#Log of blocks and bans.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller (talk) 21:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Archived discussion

The Ban Appeals Subcommittee has allowed the appeal of:

• Green Squares (talk · contribs)

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

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies ^talk 06:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Archived discussion

With the conclusion of the Tothwolf case, which he drafted, Stephen Bain has now retired as an arbitrator. His term formally ended on 31 December 2009 but, by long tradition, he remained on the committee until all matters in which he had participated had concluded. He has relinquished his CheckUser and OverSight permissions but remains on the Functionaries mailing list. The Arbitration Committee thanks Stephen for his hard work over the past two years.

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies ^talk 16:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Archived discussion

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

1) Exception to topic ban

Brews ohare (talk · contribs) is permitted to participate in featured article candidacy discussions for "Speed of light" for the sole purpose of discussing the images used in the article. This shall constitute an exception to the topic ban imposed on him (remedy #4.2).

2) Second exception to topic ban

Brews ohare (talk · contribs) is permitted to edit images used in the "Speed of light" article to address issues regarding the images that arise in connection with the article's featured article candidacies. This shall constitute an exception to the topic ban imposed on him (remedy #4.2).

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Archived discussion

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

1) Topic ban narrowed

The topic ban applied to Radeksz (talk · contribs) is amended. Radeksz may edit the articles listed here solely to add references and to make such incidental changes as may be necessary to bring the article into compliance with the sources used. In the event that any such edits become contentious, Radeksz is expected to cease involvement in the relevant article.

2) Tagging and categorizing of unreferenced Poland-related BLPs allowed

The topic ban applied to Radeksz (talk · contribs) is amended. Radeksz may create a category for unreferenced Polish-related biographies of living persons, tag articles for inclusion in that category, and announce the category's existence at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 10:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Archived discussion

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

Malik Shabazz, Xavexgoem, and Durova are authorized to act as proxies for Piotrus by editing, at his direction, the Lech Wałęsa article, its talk page, and any process pages directly related to its nomination for Good Article status.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 10:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Archived discussion

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

Summary motion in lieu of a full case:

1. Key principle:

   Administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to lead by example and follow Wikipedia policies. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this as administrators are not expected to be perfect though they are expected to learn from experience and from justified criticisms of their actions. However, consistently or egregiously poor judgment or sustained disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with this trusted role and administrators who repeatedly engage in inappropriate activity may be desysopped by the Arbitration Committee.

2. Summary of evidence:

   (i) Craigy144 has repeatedly posted text and images which do not fully comply with the relevant policies.

   (ii) Craigy144's actions have received much comment but he/she has failed to respond to it.

   (iii) Craigy144 has not so far responded to this Request for Arbitration nor provided an explanation for his/her conduct.

3. Remedy:

   Craigy144 is temporarily desysopped until such time as he/she provides the committee with a satisfactory explanation of his/her conduct.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 20:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Archived discussion

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

1) Abd and William M. Connolley prohibited from interacting
Abd (talk · contribs) and William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) shall not interact with each other, nor comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about each other, on any page in Wikipedia. Should either editor do so, he may be blocked by any administrator for a short time, up to one week.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Taxman (talk · contribs) and Sam Korn (talk · contribs) are now withdrawn from the ranks of oversighters, after an extended period of inactivity in this role. The Arbitration Committee extends its thanks to each of them for their diligent efforts as long-serving functionaries.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 02:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Archived discussion

The Ban Appeals Subcommittee has allowed the appeal of:

• Mjgm84 (talk · contribs)

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

For the Arbitration Committee, Shell ^babelfish 03:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Archived discussion

The Ban Appeals Subcommittee has allowed the appeal of:

• Offliner (talk · contribs)

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

For the Arbitration Committee, Shell ^babelfish 22:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Archived discussion

After being blocked, Roux (talk · contribs) sent the blocking admin an email calling him an obscenity. The block may be reviewed by the community in ordinary fashion. Roux is, of course, free to contact unblock-en-l if he is dissatisfied.

For the Arbitration Committee, Cool Hand Luke 16:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Archived discussion

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

• As User:MZMcBride resigned his adminship while a request for arbitration was pending against him, he may regain adminship only through a new request for adminship or by application to this Committee. To the extent MZMcBride requests that he be allowed to regain adminship by simple request to a bureaucrat, his request is denied, in large measure because his conduct would likely have led to a significant sanction against him had he not resigned;

• MZMcBride is admonished for failing to learn from the lessons of the past and for creating avoidable drama;

• MZMcBride is admonished for facilitating vandalism by a banned user.

For the Arbitration Committee, -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 21:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Archived discussion

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Editors are reminded to keep in mind Wikipedia policies, and seek content-dispute resolution if collaboration between editors breaks down. Editors are also reminded to continue editing in good faith. No enforcement motions are included in the final decision, but a request may be made to reopen the case should the situation deteriorate.

For the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC).

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

1) Topic ban narrowed (Radeksz)

The topic ban applied to Radeksz (talk · contribs) is amended. Radeksz may edit articles in Category:Poland related unreferenced BLP as of February 8, 2010, solely to add references and to make such incidental changes as may be necessary to bring the article into compliance with the sources used. In the event that any such edits become contentious, Radeksz is expected to cease involvement in the relevant article.

2) Topic ban narrowed (Martintg)

The topic ban applied to Martintg (talk · contribs) is amended. Martintg may edit the articles listed here solely to add references and to make such incidental changes as may be necessary to bring the article into compliance with the sources used. In the event that any such edits become contentious, Martintg is expected to cease involvement in the relevant article.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Archived discussion

The Ban Appeals Subcommittee has allowed the appeal of:

• WVBluefield (talk · contribs)

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

For the Arbitration Committee, Shell ^babelfish 23:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Archived discussion

It is with great regret that the Arbitration Committee has accepted the resignation of Fritzpoll (talk · contribs). The Committee extends its thanks to Fritzpoll for all of his work, both with the Arbitration Committee, and as a longtime Wikipedia contributor and administrator. We wish him the best in his future activities.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Rlevse has replaced Fritzpoll on the Ban Appeal Subcommittee. Its current membership is therefore: Shell Kinney, SirFozzie and Rlevse.

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies ^talk 07:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Per motions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions:

1) Herostratus strongly admonished

For failing to adhere to the standard of decorum expected of administrators, and for unblocking himself in direct contravention of blocking policy, Herostratus is strongly admonished.

2) Viridae admonished

For blocking another administrator without full knowledge of the situation at hand, and without attempting to contact the administrator to obtain such knowledge, Viridae is admonished for the poor judgment exercised in this incident.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Per motions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification:

1) The Arbitration Committee notes that the conditions put forward by remedies during the Ireland article names arbitration case were fulfilled to the Committee's satisfaction and that, as a consequence, remedy 4 ("[...] no further page moves discussions related to these articles shall be initiated for a period of 2 years.") is in force until September 18, 2011.

2) While the related matter of how to refer to Ireland/Republic of Ireland in other places (such as articles) is not directly covered by the aforementioned remedies, the Committee takes notes of the existence of a de facto consensus on the matter owing to the stability of the Ireland manual of style and enjoins the community to avoid needlessly rehashing the disputes.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Archived discussion

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

• User:ChildofMidnight is banned from Wikipedia for one year.

• User:ChildofMidnight is restricted to editing main (article) space, the talk pages of articles he has edited, Template talk:Did you know, and his own talk and user talk pages only. In all cases he is forbidden from discussing the behavior of other editors, real or perceived, outside of his own user talk page. ChildofMidnight may apply to the Committee for exemptions to this restriction for the purposes of good faith dispute resolution on a case-by-case basis. This remedy is concurrent (and cumulative) with any extant topic bans, and consecutive to any editing ban.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Per motions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case:

1) The unblock of User:Brews ohare by User:Trusilver was done without the explicit written consent of the Arbitration Committee, or a full and active community discussion as required. The Arbitration Committee explicitly rejects Trusilver's defense of WP:IAR in this situation. However, since the block has since expired, it will not be reapplied. For misuse of his administrator tools, User:Trusilver's administrator rights are revoked. He may regain them through a new WP:RfA or through a request to the Arbitration Committee.

2) The Arbitration Committee modifies the Restriction on arbitration enforcement activity as follows:

Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except:

Administrators who consistently make questionable enforcement administrative actions, or whose actions are consistently overturned by community or Arbitration Committee discussions may be asked to cease performing such activities or be formally restricted from taking such activities.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Motion 2 was vacated in a further 2014 motion by 12 to 0, 21:27, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

This request has been closed and the final motion is available at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Durova and Shoemaker's Holiday.

The Arbitration Committee notes and deplores the acrimonious nature of the dispute between Shoemaker's Holiday and Durova, and the way it has been needlessly prolonged and intensified on- and off-wiki by both parties, and resolves that:

a) While noting the provisions in paragraph (b):

i) Shoemaker's Holiday shall neither communicate with nor comment upon either directly or indirectly Durova on any page in the English Wikipedia.

ii) Durova shall neither communicate with nor comment upon either directly or indirectly Shoemaker's Holiday on any page in the English Wikipedia.

iii) Both parties are expressly prohibited from responding in kind to perceived violations of sections (i) and (ii) above and should instead report the perceived violation to the Arbitration Committee by email.

b) Both parties may, within reason, comment within the same pages (for example, in the Wikipedia:Featured Pictures topic area and similar) providing their comments do not relate directly or indirectly to the other party. They may also, within reason, revert blatant third-party vandalism to each others' or shared works.

c) Should either Shoemaker's Holiday or Durova violate the letter or spirit of these restrictions, they may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator for short periods of up to one week; after the third such violation, the maximum block length shall be one year. All blocks shall be logged below. Appeals of any blocks may be made to the Arbitration Committee.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Archived discussion

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

This case is accepted, but will not be opened unless and until A Nobody (talk · contribs) returns to Wikipedia. If A Nobody does so under any account or I.P., he/she is required to notify the Committee.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Archived discussion

The Arbitration Committee is currently aware of a phishing attempt on admin accounts at a massive scale. The delivery method was done via the "E-mail this user" feature, signing the emails as "The Wikipedia Freedom Fighters". Administrators are urged NOT to reply to any of these emails. A further announcement on this issue will be forthcoming.

For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 10:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Follow-up

The Arbitration Committee has reviewed a significant amount of information (including information that is covered by the Privacy policy) in relation to the recent use of the Wikimedia interface to send spam emails to a large number of Wikipedia administrators. Based on this review, and with prior episodes in mind, the Committee will be requesting that developers give serious consideration to creating either (a) a reasonable throttle on the number of emails that can be sent from any account over a specific period or (b) a captcha process for sending emails, with the developers identifying preferred methods to address this. While the recent spamming was directed at administrators, it is not the first episode of email spamming in the past year, so it is time to consider preventative measures.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 04:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

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

1. Brews ohare's topic ban is modified to expire in 90 days from the date that this motion passes. The supplementary restrictions of Brews ohare (namely, restrictions from posting on physics related disputes or the Wikipedia/Wikipedia talk namespaces) will also expire 90 days from the date that this motion passes. Brews ohare is instructed that continued violations of his existing restrictions will lead to the 90 day timer being reset in additional to any discretionary enforcement action taken.
2. Count Iblis, David Tombe, Likebox, and Hell in a Bucket are indefinitely restricted from advocacy for or commenting on Brews ohare, broadly construed. Should any of these editors violate this restriction, they may be blocked for up to 24 hours by any uninvolved administrator. After three blocks, the maximum block length shall rise to one week.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Per motions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

1) PHG's mentorship is renewed

For the next year:

• Per Honor et Gloria (talk · contribs) is required to use sources that are in English and widely available.
• Per Honor et Gloria may also use sources in French that are widely available—if a special language mentor fluent in French is appointed. The special language mentors selected must be approved by the Arbitration Committee. Mentors shall ensure that Wikipedia's verifiability policy on foreign language sources is followed—that quality English sources and reliably-published translations will be used in preference to foreign language sources and original translations. When Per Honor et Gloria uses sources in languages other than English, he is required to notify his mentor of their use.

and

• Per Honor et Gloria is required to use a mentor to assist with sourcing the articles that he edits. The mentors selected must be approved by the Arbitration Committee. In case of doubt raised by another user in respect of a source, citation, or translation provided by Per Honor et Gloria, the mentors' views shall be followed instead of those of Per Honor et Gloria.

Angusmclellan (talk · contribs) is thanked by the committee for serving admirably as PHG's mentor, and it is hoped that he will continue to serve in that capacity.

2) PHG's topic ban is renewed

ArbCom renews the topic ban from the PHG arbitration. Per Honor et Gloria (talk · contribs) is prohibited from editing articles relating to the Mongol Empire, the Crusades, intersections between Crusader states and the Mongol Empire, and Hellenistic India—all broadly defined. This topic ban will last for a period of one year. He is permitted to make suggestions on talk pages, provided that he interacts with other editors in a civil fashion.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Archived discussion

The Arbitration Committee has determined that there is a need for additional oversighters and checkusers to improve workload distribution and ensure complete, timely response to requests. Beginning today, experienced editors are invited to apply for either or both of the Oversight or CheckUser permissions. Current holders of either permission are also invited to apply for the other. The last day to request an application is April 10, 2010. For more information, please see the election page.

For the Arbitration Committee - KnightLago (talk) 18:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Archived discussion

The Arbitration Committee is pleased to advise that John Vandenberg (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has agreed to resume his previous role as checkuser and oversighter. John elected to take a break from these roles when he resigned as an arbitrator in late 2009, but is now ready to return to these responsibilities.

At the same time, we regret to advise that Thatcher (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has resigned his checkuser and oversight permissions. Thatcher has admirably filled many roles related to the Arbitration Committee over the years, as an outstanding arbitration clerk, a wise and reliable arbitration enforcement administrator, and as a skilled and knowledgeable checkuser and oversighter. He was instrumental in the development of the Audit Subcommittee, and helped to set its parameters as a charter member of the subcommittee. He has been the voice of reason in many discussions, and both the Arbitration Committee and many other areas of the project will miss his well-reasoned input. We thank Thatcher for his many years of dedicated and professional work.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Risker (talk) 01:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Archived discussion

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

• User:Asgardian is banned from Wikipedia for one year.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 07:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Archived discussion

The Arbitration Committee is pleased to announce the promotion of Amorymeltzer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and AlexandrDmitri (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) from trainee clerks to full clerk status and would like to congratulate them.

For the Arbitration Committee,

SirFozzie (talk) 10:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Archived discussion

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

The Arbitration Committee has determined that Altenmann (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has been using multiple accounts to influence discussions, particularly deletion discussions, in a manner contrary to the sockpuppetry policy, using the following accounts:

• Mukadderat (talk · contribs)
• Timurite (talk · contribs)
• Xuz (talk · contribs)
• Dzied Bulbash (talk · contribs)
• Laudak (talk · contribs)
• Twri (talk · contribs).

Further, Altenmann has used his administrator permissions to close deletion discussions in agreement with his personal opinion as expressed by one or more of his alternate accounts.[1],[2]

In particular, Altenmann has also used two or more of his accounts to comment in deletion discussions relating to various phobias, both recently and in the past.[3],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8]. He has used the administrator account to close deletion discussions related to phobias in which he has commented using one or more of his other accounts.[9],[10],[11] The deletion of the Enochlophobia article took place in March 2010.

All of the sockpuppet accounts are now blocked indefinitely. As well, the SemBubenny and Mikkalai (talk · contribs) accounts, which are Altenmann's former usernames, have also been blocked indefinitely. Altenmann is currently blocked indefinitely until the sockpuppetry investigation is complete, at which time an appropriate block length can be ascertained.

Altenmann is currently subject to an Arbitration Committee restriction, issued in March 2009 under his former username of SemBubenny (talk · contribs), that specifically discusses his role in deletion of phobia-related articles.[12] In particular, "SemBebenny is warned that any continuation of the problematic behavior in which he previously engaged, such as a pattern of improper or unexplained deletions or refusals to communicate with editors concerning his administrator actions, is likely to lead to the revocation or suspension of his administrator status without further warnings."

Accordingly, the majority of the Arbitration Committee has voted to approve the immediate removal of administrator permissions from Altenmann for abuse of administrator permissions in violation of an Arbitration Committee remedy, abuse of administrator permissions by closing deletion discussions in which he has commented using one or more alternate accounts, and inappropriate use of alternate accounts in violation of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Approving the desysop are: Coren, Hersfold, KnightLago, Mailer Diablo, Newyorkbrad, Risker, Rlevse, SirFozzie, and Wizardman; with Steve Smith abstaining.

The administrator permissions of Altenmann (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) are removed for abuse of administrator permissions in violation of an Arbitration Committee remedy [13], abuse of administrator permissions by closing deletion discussions in which he has commented using one or more alternate accounts, and inappropriate use of alternate accounts in violation of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Altemann is restricted to one account. He may not change username without the explicit authorization of the Arbitration Committee. Altemann may seek to regain adminship through a request for adminship.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 01:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Per a request from Offliner (talk · contribs) for public clarification of the rationale behind his ban, the Committee notes the following:

Offliner created a publicly-accessible off-site archive of personal information which had been removed from Wikipedia and that he knew was private and personal information soon to be oversighted, and did not take adequate precautions to ensure that links to this archive would not be distributed (and, in fact, has personally given that link to at least one third party). Links to the archive were subsequently distributed in a public forum, and eventually came to the possession of individuals who used the archived information to harass a Wikipedia editor.

— Coren ^(talk), for the Arbitration Committee, 23:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Archived discussion

During January 2010 the Ban Appeals Subcomittee (BASC) heard 29 appeals, 3 of which were successful. Of the unsuccessful appeals 16 were an appeal of a formal or informal community ban, 6 were an appeal of an ArbCom ban, 1 was an appeal of a AE ban, 1 was an appeal of an autoblock and 2 were handled by the community while the appeal was under consideration. The successful appeals were DollyD, Shamir1 and SirIsaacBrock.

During February 2010, BASC heard 31 appeals, 2 of which were successful. Of the unsuccessful appeals 24 were an appeal of a formal or informal community ban, 2 were an appeal of an ArbCom ban and 3 were an appeal of ArbCom sanctions. The successful appeals were Mjgm84 and WVBluefield.

During March 2010, BASC heard 16 appeals, none of which were successful. Of the unsuccessful appeals 13 were an appeal of a formal or informal community ban, 2 were an appeal of a short block and 1 was an appeal of a block by ArbCom.

For the Arbitration Committee Shell ^babelfish 02:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Tanthalas39 (talk · contribs) is to be desysopped immediately for wheel warring and unblocking himself, in violation of the policy on sysop tools per the emergency procedures. This desysop is temporary until the entire Committee has had the opportunity to examine the matter and Tanthalas39 is given an opportunity to explain his actions.

In support: Coren, Rlevse, Shell Kinney

— Coren ^(talk), for the Arbitration Committee, 00:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Follow-up review

(All times are UTC.)

At 00:45 on 4 May 2010, two arbitrators independently notified the rest of the Arbitration Committee that Tanthalas39 (talk · contribs) had unblocked himself at 00:39 following a block of Tanthalas39 that had been carried out at 00:36. After the self-unblock, Tanthalas39 had further proceeded at 00:40 to block the administrator who had blocked him. Since the self-unblock combined with the block of the blocking administrator was a clear case of wheel-warring and misuse of the administrator tools, Level I procedures for expedited temporary desysopping were initiated to prevent further disruptive use of the administrator tools by Tanthalas39.

The required three arbitrators supported the temporary desysopping, as detailed in the procedures, and Tanthalas39 was desysopped at 01:01 with the formal request at the permissions board at Meta made at 01:07. The required announcements and notifications were made, and an earlier question from Tanthalas39 was replied to at 01:10, explaining the options for him to contest the desysopping and make a statement and present evidence.

Following this, the rest of the currently active members of the Arbitration Committee reviewed the situation (as stated in the initial announcement). To date, no communications have been received from Tanthalas39 following the 01:10 4 May 2010 notification. Accordingly, the Committee find that the actions by Tanthalas39 did not constitute acceptable conduct for an administrator, and the temporary desysopping is confirmed.

Tanthalas39 may seek re-instatement of sysop rights by appeal to the Arbitration Committee or by a new request for adminship.

• Support: Carcharoth, Coren, KnightLago, Mailer diablo, Newyorkbrad, Risker, Shell Kinney, SirFozzie
• Not voting: Kirill Lokshin, Rlevse, Roger Davies
• Inactive: Cool Hand Luke, FayssalF, Hersfold, Steve Smith, Wizardman

For the Arbitration Committee, Carcharoth (talk) 01:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Archived discussion

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

1) Tenmei (talk · contribs) may edit Wikipedia under the guidance of his self-declared mentors (Nihonjoe (talk · contribs), Kraftlos (talk · contribs), Coppertwig (talk · contribs), Leujohn (talk · contribs), Jmh649 (talk · contribs), McDoobAU93 (talk · contribs)). The period of mentorship will last six months from the date on which this motion passes, although it may be extended with the agreement of Tenmei and one or more mentors. Tenmei is strongly encouraged to seek advice and guidance from his mentors regularly. Should they deem it necessary, Tenmei's mentors may return to the Arbitration Committee for clarification of any editing restrictions or questions with respect to the terms of mentorship. Editors who come into conflict with Tenmei are advised to contact the mentor(s) either publicly or via email.

2) Tenmei is reminded of the remedies from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty that apply to him. Specifically:

• Tenmei is topic-banned from Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty for a period of six months. He is permitted to comment on the talkpage, so long as he does so in a civil fashion. (The six-month period will commence from the date on which this motion passes.)
• Tenmei is instructed not to interact with or comment with regard to Teeninvestor or Caspian blue on any page of Wikipedia, except in the course of legitimate dispute resolution initiated by others.

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK 15:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• Archived discussion

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

The current editing restriction affecting Piotrus (talk · contribs) is to be amended to allow Piotrus to raise issues and discuss improvements to articles otherwise under the ban on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland talk page.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Archived discussion

When I originally ran for the arbitration committee at the end of 2008, I ran under one promising a reversal of arbcom's slowness and inactivity. I like to believe that I accomplished this as an arb in 2009. However, looking back at what I have done as an arb in 2010, I see that I have done very little, instead working in other areas of Wikipedia. Essentially, I've become the very thing I ran against. As a result, I cannot in good conscience remain an arbitrator, and announce my resignation. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 06:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Archived discussion

This arbitration case has been closed. The following remedies have been enacted:

• User:Alastair Haines is banned from editing Wikipedia for a period of one year, and thereafter pending further direction of the Arbitration Committee under remedy 2.
• Should Alastair Haines wish to return to editing Wikipedia after one year, he shall first communicate with the Arbitration Committee and provide a satisfactory assurance that he will refrain from making any further legal threats against other editors or against the Wikimedia Foundation. Should Alastair Haines, after being permitted to return, again make a legal threat or a statement that may reasonably be construed as a legal threat, he may be blocked for an appropriate period of time by any uninvolved administrator.
• To assist Alastair Haines in disengaging from Wikipedia, the case pages relating to this arbitration and all related pages have been courtesy blanked. As appropriate, other pages reflecting controversies to which Alastair Haines was a party may also be courtesy-blanked, particularly where the discussion is no longer relevant to ongoing editing issues. In addition, if Alastair Haines so requests, his username (and hence the username associated with his edits in page histories) may be changed to another appropriate username other than his real name. Editors who have been in conflict with Alastair Haines are strongly urged to make no further reference to him on-wiki following his departure.

For the Arbitration Committee, ---- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 12:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Beginning 15 May 2010, the English Wikipedia Oversight mailing list will be migrating to the OTRS mail management system hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation. The primary purpose of this move is to better track requests as they come in, and to ensure timely and consistent responses. This move comes after the German and French oversight lists moved to OTRS in the past year; both have found that it has assisted them in better responding to requests. Over the next week or so, oversighters who have not used OTRS before will be learning the fine points of that system, but the Oversight team will endeavour to maintain adequate responses to the system. The team has also prepared an introductory manual to assist with the transition, which discusses use of both the OTRS system and the Oversight tools.

The major effect on non-Oversighters will be the change in email address to which requests should be sent. When that change is made, we will widely publish the new email address for everyone's information, and we will encourage regular correspondents, particularly recent change patrollers and new page patrollers, to update their contact lists. The current Oversight-L mailing list will remain accessible for approximately two weeks after the changeover; after that, it will become a closed list where oversighters will discuss complex cases or review best practices.

For the Arbitration Committee and the Oversight team,
Risker (talk) 04:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Archived discussion

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

• Any uninvolved administrator may, in his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor editing Gibraltar or other articles concerning the history, people, or political status of Gibraltar if, after a warning, that editor repeatedly or seriously violates the behavioral standards or editorial processes of Wikipedia in connection with these articles.
• Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard) or the Arbitration Committee.
• Gibnews (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from editing the Gibraltar article and other articles concerning the history, people, and political status of Gibraltar, broadly construed, for one year. Should Gibnews return to editing relating to Gibraltar following this period, he is reminded to edit in accordance with the principles discussed in this decision and will be subject to the discretionary sanctions remedy should he fail to do so.
• Gibnews is strongly warned that nationally or ethnically offensive comments are prohibited on Wikipedia and that substantial sanctions, up to a ban from the site, will be imposed without further warning in the event of further violations.
• Justin A Kuntz (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from editing Gibraltar and other articles concerning the history, people, and political status of Gibraltar, broadly construed, for three months. Should Justin A Kuntz return to editing relating to Gibraltar following this period, he is reminded to edit in accordance with the principles discussed in this decision and will be subject to the discretionary sanctions remedy should he fail to do so.
• Ecemaml (talk · contribs) is admonished for having, at times, assumed bad faith and edited tendentiously concerning the history and political status of Gibraltar.
• Editors are reminded that when editing in subject areas of bitter and long-standing real-world conflict, it is all the more important to comply with Wikipedia policies such as assuming good faith of all editors including those on the other side of the real-world dispute, writing with a neutral point of view, remaining civil and avoiding personal attacks, utilizing reliable sources for contentious or disputed assertions, and resorting to dispute resolution where necessary.
• Any editor who is closely associated with a particular source or website relating to the subject of Gibraltar or any other article is reminded to avoid editing that could be seen as an actual or apparent attempt to promote that source or website or to give it undue weight over other sources or website in an article's references or links. To avoid even the appearance of impropriety, it may be best in these circumstances to mention the existence of the source or website on the talkpage, and allow the decision whether to include it in the article to made by others.

For the Arbitration Committee, ---- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 23:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Archived discussion

My activity levels of late have been extremely low, due to obligations related to my employment and college studies. I do not see that this is likely to change significantly during the foreseeable future, and if it does, it is likely to last for only a short period. I do not feel as though my inactivity levels are fair to my colleagues on the Committee, and do not wish to burden them any further. Additionally, I need to be able to focus my attentions more on these real-life areas. As a result, I am announcing my resignation as a member of the Arbitration Committee, effective immediately, and will also be requesting on Meta that my access to the Checkuser and Oversight tools be removed. I wish those remaining with the Committee the best of luck as they continue their work. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Archived discussion

The CheckUser and Oversight election has now opened. Any editor who has made at least 150 mainspace edits prior to the first announcement of the election may vote. The voting will close at one minute past 23:59 UTC on 27 May 2010.

Direct link to the voting pages

Discuss the election here

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 05:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

During April 2010, the Ban Appeals Subcommittee (BASC) heard 13 appeals none of which were successful. Of the unsuccessful appeals 6 were an appeal of a formal or informal community ban, 1 was an appeal of an ArbCom ban, 2 were an appeal of a AE ban and 4 were appeals of short blocks which were directed to more appropriate block appeal methods. Two of the appeals were closed early due to a community review which rendered the appeal moot.

For the Arbitration Committee Shell ^babelfish 09:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Archived discussion

A Nobody (talk · contribs) is banned indefinitely from Wikipedia. This ban will be lifted and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Nobody opened at such time as A Nobody agrees to participate in that case.

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

For the Arbitration Committee, Steve Smith (talk) 22:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Archived discussion

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

• Russavia (talk · contribs) is prohibited from commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with editors from the EEML case, except in the case of necessary dispute resolution.
• Vlad fedorov (talk · contribs), Ellol (talk · contribs), and YMB29 (talk · contribs) are banned from editing articles about the Soviet Union and former Soviet Republics, and all related articles, broadly construed, for a period of no less than 6 months. At the end of 6 months, they may each apply to have their ban reviewed by the Arbitration Committee.
• Biophys (talk · contribs) is banned from editing articles about the Soviet Union and former Soviet Republics, and all related articles, broadly construed, for a period of no less than 1 year. At the end of 1 year, Biophy may apply to have the ban reviewed by the Arbitration Committee.
• Consecutive to that topic ban, Biophys is restricted to 1 revert per week per article in the topic area for 1 year.
• Russavia and Vlad federov are admonished for posting personal information of other editors.
• Editors wishing to edit in the areas dealt with in this case are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. An editor unable or unwilling to do so may wish to restrict their editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Archived discussion

I am pleased to advise you that, effective immediately, requests for oversight/suppression will be accepted using the OTRS system. Please bear with us as the Oversight team becomes accustomed to this new method of receiving and replying to requests. We will strive to maintain timely service.

If you have found yourself reporting concerns to the oversight mailing list, please take a moment to add the new email address to your list of contacts: oversight-en-wpwikipedia.org

We look forward to continuing to work with the community in protecting the privacy of editors and others.

For the Oversight team,
Risker (talk) 04:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Below are the results of the elections for CheckUser and Oversight permissions conducted in May 2010:

CheckUser results

Note: 393 users participated in this election

Oversight results

Note: 368 users participated in this election

Discussion

In order for candidates to be successful, they must achieve support at a level greater than 70%. Support percentage is calculated as Support votes/(Support + Oppose votes), with neutral votes not affecting the total. This is the first CheckUser/Oversight election to use the SecurePoll process.

The election process has yielded only one successful CheckUser candidate, and no successful Oversight candidates. This outcome is not satisfactory, in that crucial roles within the project cannot be filled. The Arbitration Committee will be examining alternatives to this method of granting CheckUser and Oversight permissions over the coming weeks. Community input would be appreciated.

Motion

Amalthea (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is granted CheckUser permissions, pending identification in accordance with WMF identification policy.

The Arbitration Committee thanks all of the candidates who stood in this election, as well as all of the editors who applied for candidacy.

Support: Carcharoth, Cool Hand Luke, Coren, Kirill, KnightLago, Mailer Diablo, Newyorkbrad, Risker, Rlevse, Roger Davies, Shell Kinney, Sir Fozzie, Steve Smith. (None opposed, recused or abstained.)

For the Arbitration Committee,

Risker (talk) 03:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Request for Comment

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

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

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

Archived discussion

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

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

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

Archived discussion

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

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

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

Archived discussion

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

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

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

Archived discussion

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

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

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

Archived discussion

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

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

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

Archived discussion

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

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

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

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

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

Archived discussion

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

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

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

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

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

Archived discussion

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

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

Archived discussion

Checkuser or Oversight permissions - schedule update

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

Archived discussion

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

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

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

Archived discussion

Ottava Rima (talk · contribs)

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

Background

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

The Arbitration Committee has long supported the notion that good work within policy on other Wikimedia Foundation projects will be viewed favorably when an editor's ban or long-term block is appealed to the Committee. In this case, however, it is noted that Ottava Rima is currently under editing restrictions at the sister project Wikimedia Commons[14] following multiple blocks[15], and has also been placed on moderation on the Foundation-L mailing list.[16] In both cases, he has demonstrated behavior similar to that which led to his English Wikipedia ban and, in both cases, the sanctions were instituted in the few weeks before Ottava Rima's ban appeal. This is not the sort of participation in other projects that bodes well for an early return to this project.

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

Decision

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

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

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

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

Archived discussion

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

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

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

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

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

For the Arbitration Committee,

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

Archived discussion

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

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

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

Archived discussion

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

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

Checkuser:

• Frank (talk · contribs · logs)
• MuZemike (talk · contribs · logs)
• Tiptoety (talk · contribs · logs)
• Tnxman307 (talk · contribs · logs)

Oversight:

• Bastique (talk · contribs · logs) From December 2010, when he leaves the Wikimedia Foundation's staff.
• Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · logs)
• LessHeard vanU (talk · contribs · logs)
• MBisanz (talk · contribs · logs) From 10 November 2010, when his term on the Audit Subcommittee ends.
• Phantomsteve (talk · contribs · logs)

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

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

Update on Checkuser and Oversight appointment process

Following the call for applicants (19 July) and the initial call for comments on the candidates (16 August), this notice is a second call for comments from the community on the suitability of the candidates for the September 2010 appointments for checkuser and oversight permissions. The Arbitration Committee is continuing to review and collate the comments received so far. If you have not done so already, please send in your comments before 23:59 on 25 August 2010 (UTC). Further details and the contact e-mail address are in the section immediately preceding this one.

For the Arbitration Committee, Carcharoth (talk) 21:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Archived discussion

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

Brews ohare (talk · contribs) is topic banned from all physics-related pages, topics and discussions, broadly construed, for twelve months.

For the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 16:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Archived discussion

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

• Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for "race and intelligence" and all closely related articles.
• The following editors are topic-banned from race and intelligence articles, broadly construed:
  • Mathsci (by consent)
  • David.Kane
  • Captain Occam
  • Mikemikev
• Mikemikev, who was indefinitely blocked as a result of an ANI discussion during the case proceedings, is site-banned for 12 months. Until his ArbCom ban expires, he may only appeal his block to the Arbitration Committee, via the Ban Appeals Subcommittee. After 12 months, he may choose to appeal the ban to either the Arbitration Committee or to the community.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,

NW (Talk) 22:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Following the call for applicants (19 July); the initial call for comments (16 August); and the second call for comments (21 August); the Arbitration Committee has completed its review and endorses the following candidates for the following permissions (unless otherwise stated below, any appointments will come into effect on 1 September 2010):

Checkuser:

• Frank (talk · contribs · logs)
• MuZemike (talk · contribs · logs)
• Tiptoety (talk · contribs · logs)
• Tnxman307 (talk · contribs · logs)

Oversight:

• Bastique (talk · contribs · logs) From December 2010.
• Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · logs)
• LessHeard vanU (talk · contribs · logs)
• MBisanz (talk · contribs · logs) From 10 November 2010.
• Phantomsteve (talk · contribs · logs)

Additional Checkuser appointment:

• Hersfold (talk · contribs · logs) Routine return of the tools, following a Wiki-break

Arbitrators voting to endorse the appointments: Carcharoth, Cool Hand Luke, Coren, Kirill Lokshin, KnightLago, Mailer diablo, Newyorkbrad, Shell Kinney, SirFozzie, Risker, Roger Davies

Arbitrators voting to not endorse: none.

Arbitrators not voting: FayssalF, Rlevse, Steve Smith

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies ^talk 05:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Marskell (talk · contribs) is desysopped as he is no longer in control of his account per the interim desysop procedures. This desysop shall remain in place until such a time as Marskell is able to demonstrate to the Committee that he has regained control of his account.

In support: Carcharoth, Kirill Lokshin, KnightLago

For the Arbitration Committee, KnightLago (talk) 22:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification that: The Date delinking case is supplemented as follows:

Nonwithstanding remedies #7.1 and #8, Lightmouse (talk · contribs) is permitted to use his Lightbot (talk · contribs) account for a single automation task authorized by the Bot Approvals Group. "Automation" is to be interpreted broadly to refer to any automated or semi-automated tools whatsoever.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller (talk) 13:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification that:
1) Tothwolf (talk · contribs · logs), Miami33139 (talk · contribs · logs) and JBsupreme (talk · contribs · logs) are banned from interacting with each other, broadly construed. This includes things like not editing each other's userspace, not becoming involved directly with each other in discussions, and not nominating articles for deletion which another one has started. This does not prohibit commenting in the same discussion without directly interacting or editing the same articles so long as they are not directly in conflict. They may request enforcement of this restriction at the Arbitration Enforcement board or by email to the Arbitration mailing list; they may not request enforcement or action against each other for any other reason or at any other venue. Attempts to game this restriction should be treated as a violation of the restriction.

2) Miami33139 (talk · contribs · logs) is subject to an editing restriction for six months. Should Miami33139 make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith or disruptive to deletion discussions, Miami33139 may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement portion of the case. The six months starts from the day this motion passes.

3) Remedy 2 (already updated once) is changed to "JBsupreme (talk · contribs · logs) is subject to an editing restriction for six months. Should JBsupreme make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, or disruptive to deletion discussions, JBsupreme may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below." The six months is reset to start from the day this motion passes.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller (talk) 15:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Archived discussion

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

Remedy 7 of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list "Martintg topic banned") is replaced with the following:

Martintg (talk · contribs) is topic banned from articles about national, cultural, or ethnic disputes within Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about these topics, until December 22, 2010 (one year from the closing of the original case).

For the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller (talk) 18:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Archived discussion

The Audit Subcommittee is a subcommittee of the Arbitration Committee, tasked to review and act upon concerns and complaints about checkuser and oversight activities received from the community. Membership consists of three community representatives elected by the community, who serve one-year terms; and three arbitrators, who rotate through this assignment for approximately six months.

In advance of the scheduled election/appointment of community representatives to the Audit Subcommittee, a summary of activity has been posted on the subcommittee's report page.

The community is invited to discuss this report, as well as preferred methods and terms for the selection of community representatives to participate in the audit process. The result of the discussion will inform the Arbitration Committee on how best to proceed before progressing to another election cycle.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 19:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Archived discussion

My term as an arbitrator member of the Audit Subcommittee expires on September 30, 2010. The Arbitration Committee has selected Coren to succeed me as a member of this subcommittee effective October 1, 2010.

For the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

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

• A specially-tailored version of discretionary sanctions is authorized for the entire topic area of climate change. Enforcement requests are to be submitted to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, which is to replace Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement.
• Experienced administrators, and especially checkusers, are requested to closely monitor new accounts that edit inappropriately in the topic area.
• Within seven days of this remedy passing, all parties must either delete evidence sub-pages or request deletion of them.
• The following editors are banned from the topic area of climate change, and may not appeal this ban until at least six months after the closure of this case (and no more often than every three months thereafter);

• The following users have accepted binding voluntary topic bans;
  • Scjessey [17]
  • KimDabelsteinPetersen [18]
• The following administrators are explicitly restricted from applying discretionary sanctions as authorized in this case, as is any other administrator fitting the description of an involved administrator;
  • Stephan Schulz
  • Lar

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,
Dougweller (talk) 14:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Polargeo (talk · contribs) relinquished his administrator permissions on 1 October 2010, with a request on Meta.[19] Since that time, through a series of SPI requests and other investigations, it has emerged that Polargeo has created and/or used at least ten alternate accounts in a manner neither consistent with Wikipedia's policies nor meeting the minimum standards expected of administrators. Accordingly, the Committee has determined that, should Polargeo wish to regain administrator permissions, he must successfully complete a request for adminship.

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies ^talk 03:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrators supporting

Carcharoth, Coren, Kirill Lokshin, KnightLago, Mailer Diablo, Risker, Rlevse, Roger Davies, Shell Kinney, SirFozzie

Arbitrators opposing

None

Arbitrators abstaining or recusing

None

Arbitrators not voting

FayssalF, Newyorkbrad

Inactive arbitrators

Cool Hand Luke, Steve Smith

Archived discussion

Preparations are underway for the annual elections to the Arbitration Committee, due to take place mid-November to mid-December. Provisional election pages have been set up based on the model of the 2009 elections, which were conducted using the SecurePoll secret ballot system. The proposed timetable allows for a 10-day nomination period (from Sunday November 14 to Tuesday November 23), a 10-day voting period (Friday November 26 to Monday December 6), and a subsequent period for the vote to be audited by independent scrutineers.

Until the call for nominations on November 14, the parameters of the election are open to community examination and feedback. A draft set of nine general questions to be posed to each candidate has been established (voters will also be able to ask unique questions of individual candidates). Editors interested in helping to organise the elections are encouraged to sign up as volunteer coordinators.

Working as an arbitrator is an important and demanding role, and there is perennial need for new volunteers to take it on. This year, 10 arbitrators are expected to be chosen; experienced and committed editors are urged to seriously consider standing.

Discuss this at the election talkpage.

For the coordinators, Skomorokh 11:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

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

• Stevertigo (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for one year. If Stevertigo wishes to return to editing Wikipedia, he must first work with the Arbitration Committee to an establish a set of probation criteria. He may do this no earlier than six months after the closure of the case, and no more than every six months thereafter.
• Stevertigo is required to cite a published source for any material he adds to an article. Should he fail to do so, any editor may remove the material without prejudice. Should he cite a source that is subsequently determined not to support the material added, he may be blocked for a period of up to one week for each infraction.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,

NW (Talk) 20:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Archived discussion

The Arbitration Committee has selected arbitrator Mailer diablo to fill the vacancy that currently exists on the Ban Appeals Subcommittee. This appointment will continue at least until the end of this year. After the upcoming elections, the Committee (including the new arbitrators) will review and update the subcommittee memberships.

For the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

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

The existing topic ban imposed in the PHG arbitration on Per Honor et Gloria (talk · contribs) is extended indefinitely. Accordingly, this user is prohibited from editing articles relating to the Mongol Empire, the Crusades, intersections between Crusader states and the Mongol Empire, all broadly defined. He is permitted to make suggestions on talk pages, provided that he interacts with other editors in a civil fashion. Per Honor et Gloria may appeal this sanction no more than once every six months, starting six months from the passing of this motion.

For the Arbitration Committee,
NW (Talk) 14:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Remedy #17 ("Ohconfucius automation") of the Date delinking case is terminated, effective immediately, and Ohconfucius (talk · contribs) is permitted to use automation subject to normal community guidelines.

Passed by motion 7 to 0 with 1 recusal at 14:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller (talk) 14:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Archived discussion

By motion, the Arbitration Committee has amended remedies 3.1 and 3.2.1 of the Climate change case to read as follows:

• 3.1) Editors topic-banned by the Committee under this remedy are prohibited from (i) editing articles about Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages; (ii) editing biographies of living people associated with Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages; (iii) participating in any process broadly construed on Wikipedia particularly affecting these articles; and (iv) initiating or participating in any discussion substantially relating to these articles anywhere on Wikipedia, even if the discussion also involves another issue or issues.
• 3.2.1) Editors topic banned under this decision may apply to the Committee to have the topic ban lifted or modified after demonstrating their commitment to the goals of Wikipedia and their ability to work constructively with other editors. Applications will be considered no earlier than six months after the close of this case, and additional reviews will be done, unless the Committee directs otherwise in individual instances, no more frequently than every three months thereafter.

— Coren ^(talk), for the Committee, 21:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Discuss

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

Remedy 3 of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list ("Piotrus topic banned") is replaced with the following:

Piotrus (talk · contribs) is topic banned from articles about national, cultural, or ethnic disputes within Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about these topics until March 22, 2011 (the date on which the topic ban imposed in the original decision was to expire).

For the Arbitration Committee,
NW (Talk) 17:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Nominations are now open for candidates to run in the 2010 Arbitration Committee Elections.

To become an arbitrator is to take on an important and demanding role, and there is perennial need for new volunteers to step forward. This year, an unprecedented 11 arbitrators are expected to be chosen. Nomination is open to any editor in good standing over the age of 18, who is of legal age in their place of residence, and who has made at least 1,000 mainspace edits before the opening of the nomination period; candidates are not required to be administrators or to have any other special permissions. Experienced and committed editors are urged to seriously consider standing. Thoughts and advice from past and present members of the Arbitration Committee are available at the following pages:

• October 2010 Signpost interview: "So what is being an arbitrator actually like?"
• Arbitrator Risker's "Thoughts for Arbitration Committee Candidates"

Nominations will be accepted from today, 14 November 2010 through 23 November 2010, with voting scheduled to begin on 26 November. To submit your candidacy, proceed to the candidates page and follow the instructions given. For the coordinators, Skomorokh 00:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

This will serve to inform the community of personnel changes in the Checkuser and Oversight teams.

Mackensen (talk · contribs) is stepping down as a checkuser. Mackensen is a former member of the Arbitration Committee and retained his advanced permissions after the end of his term. He served as one of the founding members of the Audit Subcommittee and helped to establish its parameters and processes, serving on the subcommittee until mid-November 2009. He stepped down as an oversighter earlier this year, and is now stepping down as a checkuser, as his focus on Wikipedia has increasingly returned to content development and improvement. As a former arbitrator, Mackensen will remain a member of the Functionaries-en-L mailing list. We thank Mackensen for his longtime participation in all of these functionary roles, and for his continued commitment to all aspects of the project.

Vassyana (talk · contribs) is a former arbitrator who stepped down in January of 2010, but retained Checkuser permissions. Luna Santin (talk · contribs) is one of the first community-elected checkusers and oversighters. Neither Vassyana nor Luna Santin have been active on Wikipedia in their functionary roles for more than six months, and attempts to contact them via email have been unsuccessful. Because of this, the Arbitration Committee is withdrawing checkuser and oversight permissions, as applicable. Requests for reinstatement may be made to the Arbitration Committee. We thank both Vassyana and Luna Santin for their longterm commitment to Wikipedia in the various roles that they have assumed over their several years of volunteering, and hope that they are both enjoying success in whatever new endeavours they are participating in.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 21:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Archived discussion

The Speed of light case is supplemented as follows:

Brews ohare (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.

Passed by motion 8 to 1 at 14:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,

Dougweller (talk) 15:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

As the community staff member responsible for verification, I have been asked to post the WMF procedure for verifying identification that is provided to us for the purpose of access to restricted tools and elections.

Identification that is faxed to WMF with my attention on it is brought immediately to me. Identification that is emailed to the secure-info email address is accessible to only two people: myself and my designee, Megan Hernandez (who is a community officer, currently assigned to our fundraising department). I selected her as my designee because of my deep trust in her judgment (in fundraising she has access to all manner of confidential material, and I've seen the great care with which she handles it). All employees who handle this information, myself included, were subject to background checks.

Once we verify that the identification is for someone who is of legal age we update the Identification Noticeboard, and any physical copies are shredded; any virtual copies are removed from the mailbox and destroyed. WMF does not retain copies of emails in that box, nor is that box accessible to anyone else.

To the best of my knowledge, this represents both the current and past procedures for handling this data. I am unaware of any other procedure, and can't imagine a situation in which the Foundation would mandate that this information be kept or disclosed. In fact, if I were ordered to disclose any such information, I would not do so. Though I know the real names of many editors, I make it a personal policy to not address them using that name unless given permission to do so, or until introduced to them using that name. Both Megan and I have the highest regard for personal privacy.

Respectfully submitted,
Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 07:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Archived discussion

For a variety of reasons, none of which is very interesting, I do not feel able to complete my term on the Arbitration Committee, and am therefore resigning. I will also be relinquishing the checkuser and oversight permissions, as well as my membership on the functionaries mailing list. My apologies for weaselling out of a two year commitment less than halfway through, but under the circumstances I thought it preferable to the alternative. Steve Smith (talk) 05:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Voting is now open in the November-December 2010 elections to elect new members to the Arbitration Committee. Voting will be conducted using the Securepoll extension and will close on Sunday 5 December 2010 at 23:59 (UTC).

In order to be eligible to vote, an account must have had made at least 150 mainspace edits on or before 1 November 2010 (check your account). Blocked editors may not vote, and voting with multiple accounts or bot accounts is expressly forbidden. Note that due to technical restrictions, editors who have made more than 150 mainspace edits on or before 1 November 2009 but no longer have access to the account(s) used will not be able to vote. If you have any questions about this, please ask on the election talkpage.

For each candidate, voters may choose to Support or Oppose the candidacy, or to remain Neutral (this option has no effect on the outcome). Voting must be done in a single sitting, with a verdict made on every candidate. After your entire vote has been accepted, you may make changes at any time before the close of voting. However, a fresh default ballot page will be displayed and you will need to complete the process again from scratch (for this reason, you are welcome to keep a private record of your vote), as your new ballot page will erase the previous one. You may verify the time of acceptance of your votes at the real-time voting log. Although this election will use secret ballots, and only votes submitted in this way will be counted, voters are invited to question and discuss the candidates throughout the election.

To cast your vote, please proceed here.

For the coordinators, Skomorokh 00:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The Ban Appeals Subcommittee has allowed the appeal of:

• Spartan (talk · contribs)

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

For the Arbitration Committee, Shell ^babelfish 21:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Background note (not part of what was voted on): This statement was released after discussions following this post by User:GiacomoReturned on 26 November 2010.

The Arbitration Committee has conducted a comprehensive review of the arbitration wiki security arrangements, with the following results:

• The "disabled" accounts belonging to arbitrators whose access was removed prior to May 2009 were verified to have been completely unusable from the time they were disabled; there is no risk that any of these accounts were used to access the wiki.
• The "inactive" and renamed accounts belonging to arbitrators whose access was removed after May 2009 remained theoretically accessible due to an inconsistency in MediaWiki's handling of account flags; we have no evidence that any were actually accessed, and all have now been fully disabled.
• A flaw in the email watchlist feature that could let inactive accounts continue to receive watchlist updates was discovered and fixed.
• Several flaws in the error messages returned have been identified and are currently being dealt with.
• The developers have provided a tool that allows us to fully disable accounts without developer assistance.
• The developers are making further security enhancements based on their recommendations and the community's proposals.
• There is no evidence that GiacomoReturned successfully retrieved any materials from the wiki.
• A banned user attempted to gain access around the same time that GiacomoReturned did; again, there is no evidence that any materials were successfully retrieved.

The Committee notes that it would have been significantly more appropriate for concerns about any security flaws to have been brought to our attention privately for remedy rather than pointing them out prominently on-wiki and potentially bringing them to the attention of thousands of people.

A separate review of content is underway; to date, ~35% of pages have been deleted as unnecessary, redundant, or obsolete.

• Supporting: Carcharoth, Cool Hand Luke, Coren, Kirill Lokshin, KnightLago, Mailer diablo, Newyorkbrad, Risker, Roger Davies, Shell Kinney, SirFozzie
• Not voting: FayssalF

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger ^talk 18:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Archived discussion

The Ban Appeals Subcommittee has suspended the ban of:

• Wiarthurhu (talk · contribs)

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

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger ^talk 09:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

The Ban Appeals Subcommittee has allowed the appeal of:

• Jahnbon (talk · contribs)

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

For the Arbitration Committee, Shell ^babelfish 15:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Archived discussion

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

Remedy 6 ("Mathsci topic-banned by mutual consent") of the Race and Intelligence case is terminated, effective immediately.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,
NW (Talk) 21:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Archived discussion

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

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

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

Archived discussion

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

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

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

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

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

• Xeno
• Jclemens
• Risker

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

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

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

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

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

With respect to CheckUser and Oversight permissions:

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

In addition:

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

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

For the Arbitration Committee,

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

Archived discussion