Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Access to CheckUser and Oversight

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion to remove access to CheckUser and Oversight on grounds of inactivity from editors who have not used the tools in the past twelve months. Access may be applied for afresh via CheckUser and Oversight elections. The motion was adopted with 13 arbitrators supporting, and no objections or abstentions.

  • Support: Carcharoth, Casliber, Coren, FayssalF, FloNight, Jayvdb, Kirill Lokshin, Risker, Rlevse, Roger Davies, Sam Blacketer, Vassyana, Wizardman
  • Oppose: None
  • Abstain: None
  • Not voting: Cool Hand Luke, NewYorkBrad

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies talk 12:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Request for comments on content dispute resolution

In order to gauge community opinion on the subject and to gather potential ideas for reform, the Committee has opened a request for comments regarding the content dispute resolution process. All editors are invited to present views and proposals on any matter relevant to the resolution of disputes over article content.

The request was approved by an 10/1 vote, with no abstentions:

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

For the Committee, Kirill [talk] [pf] 20:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

RFAR/West Bank - Judea and Samaria

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Canadian Monkey (talk · contribs), G-Dett (talk · contribs), MeteorMaker (talk · contribs), Nickhh (talk · contribs), Nishidani (talk · contribs), NoCal100 (talk · contribs), and Pedrito (talk · contribs) are prohibited from editing any Arab-Israeli conflict-related article/talk page or discussing on the dispute anywhere else on the project. Jayjg (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is also prohibited from editing in the area of conflict, and he is stripped of his status as a functionary and any and all associated privileged access, including the CheckUser and Oversight tools and the checkuser-l, oversight-l, and functionaries-en mailing lists. Jayjg is also thanked for his years of service.

After six months, these editors may individually ask the Arbitration Committee to lift their editing restrictions after demonstrating commitment to the goals of Wikipedia and ability to work constructively with other editors. However, restrictions may be temporarily suspended for the exclusive purpose of participating in the discussion of draft guidelines for this area.

In the meantime, the community is strongly urged to pursue current discussions to come to a definitive consensus on the preferred current and historical names of the region that is the source of conflict in this case. Note that this must be consistent with current Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources, a neutral point of view, and naming conventions. This decision will be appended onto this case within two months from the close of the case.

For the Arbitration Committee, hmwithτ 17:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Ireland collaboration

The three moderators appointed by the Arbitration Committee for WikiProject Ireland Collaboration are no longer active in the project under that capacity. These disengagements occurred voluntarily and separately under individual conditions without controversy. PhilKnight (talk · contribs), Edokter (talk · contribs), and SebastianHelm (talk · contribs) are all thanked for their hard work and efforts as moderators. In response to the openings, the Committee appoints Masem (talk · contribs) and Xavexgoem (talk · contribs) as moderators, thanking them for taking on this task. A third moderator is not yet appointed, pending discussion with the participants.

For the Committee, --Vassyana (talk) 15:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Notification of motion relating to Baronets naming dispute

The Arbitration Committee, in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Baronets naming dispute, have voted to implement a motion. It can be viewed on the case page by following this link. The motion is as follows:

The community enacted topic ban on Vintagekits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Kittybrewster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is recognized and confirmed. Kittybrewster is admonished to respect community and administrator decisions, including the imposition of sanctions, and directed to utilize the standard channels of appeal and review in cases where he disagrees. Disregard for sanctions, whether imposed by an administrator, the community, or the Arbitration Committee, is grounds for the imposition of escalating blocks and/or further sanctions. Vintagekits and Kittbrewster are indefinitely restricted from moving pages relating to Baronets and Knights, broadly interpreted. They are both restricted from nominating articles created by the other for deletion and more generally warned from unnecessarily interacting with each other, especially where it is likely to be perceived as baiting, trolling, or another form of harassment. BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is admonished not to use administrative tools to further her own position in a dispute. BrownHairedGirl is prohibited indefinitely from taking any administrative action against or in connection with Vintagekits.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, KnightLago (talk) 21:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Oversight usage statistics

The Arbitration Committee has authorised the Audit Subcommittee to release the statistics for use of Oversight for the 6 month period ending 30 Apr 2009. The report is here.

For the Audit Subcommittee, Thatcher 23:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Requests for arbitration/Aitias

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The administrator privileges of Aitias (talk · contribs) are suspended for a period of "time served", i.e. from the date of his return to editing until the close of the case, and are to be restored with the closing of this case. Furthermore, Aitias is admonished for making inappropriate and unnecessarily sarcastic comments and is warned to avoid such comments in the future. Aitias is also prohibited from participating at Requests for rollback and its talk page for a period of six months.

For the Arbitration Committee, [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 13:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

RFAR/Abd and JzG

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is admonished not to use his administrative tools in any situation in which he is involved nor to use them to further his position in a dispute. Abd (talk · contribs) is urged to avoid prolonging disputes by using unproductive methods and advised to clearly and succinctly document previous and current attempts at dispute resolution before escalating to the next stage. Abd is also advised to heed good-faith feedback when handling disputes and to incorporate that feedback.

For the Arbitration Committee, hmwithτ 17:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Standard operating procedure: CheckUser and Oversight

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that editors who hold Oversight and/or Checkuser permissions but who have not used the tool/s for more than twelve months will have access to the tool/s and to the associated mailing list/s removed. For arbitrators, the twelve-month inactivity clock starts on the day they leave office.

  • Support: Carcharoth, Casliber, FayssalF, FloNight, Jayvdb, Kirill, Risker, Rlevse, Roger, Sam Blacketer, Wizardman
  • Oppose: None
  • Abstain: None
  • Not voting: Cool Hand Luke, Coren, NewYorkBrad, Stephen Bain, Vassyana

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies talk 10:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Resignation

Some months ago I decided to resign from the committee and return to article editing, notifying the committee privately on 20 February. That resignation now takes effect. Before joining the committee I had used the account Fys for editing which should have been disclosed. Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Committee statement

It recently came to the attention of the Arbitration Committee that arbitrator Sam Blacketer (talk · contribs) has previously edited under the account name Dbiv (talk · contribs) a/k/a Fys (talk · contribs), a former administrator who was desysopped in a Committee decision in 2006. This fact was not known to any of the sitting arbitrators – nor to the best of the committee's knowledge any previous arbitrator – until the past 24-48 hours.

The Committee was in the process of addressing this situation, of which its members had just learned, when Sam Blacketer submitted his resignation as an arbitrator, effective immediately. Under the circumstances, the resignation was accepted. Sam Blacketer has also been removed from the arbcom-l and functionaries-en mailing lists, and his access to the arbitration wiki has been removed. We note that Sam Blacketer never had Oversight or CheckUser privileges, so the issue of his status regarding access to those tools does not arise. The status of his adminship will be decided within the next 24 hours.

This statement was approved by an 11/1 vote, with no abstentions:

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

John Vandenberg, for the Arbitration Committee, 05:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Coren's statement

As the sole dissenter, I felt it important to explain my rationale.

The statement from the Committee is correct, but I opposed it as I feel it is lopsided because it is incomplete. While I agree wholeheartedly that Sam's omission to disclose his past account during his tenure as Arbitrator is unacceptable and is incompatible with maintaining a seat on the committee, I felt it important to underline his excellent work as an Arbitrator. In my opinion, we would be unjust to dismiss over sixteen months of dedication and hard work for the community, even if the circumstances leading to his appointment were tainted by the lack of transparency.

John Vandenberg, for Coren, 05:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Progress of resolution of naming issue for placenames in Israel and Palestine

In relation to remedy 13.1 of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria,
I have requested an update on progress at:

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Placename_guidelines#Current_status

for the proposed guidelines currently located at:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Placename guidelines

all input and observations are welcome. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Update

Voting or commenting on each segment of the Proposed guidelines in relation to remedy 13.1 of the recently closed West Bank - Judea and Samaria arbitration case. Please comment here on preferred usage in the West Bank/Judea and Samaria area, to determine consensus by July 13th 2009. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Ryulong

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. For misuse of his administrative tools, failure to address the community's concerns, and inappropriate off-wiki behavior, Ryulong (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is desysopped. Mythdon (talk · contribs) is restricted and placed under mentorship for a period of 1 year. Mythdon is also admonished for their harassing behavior on and off-wiki and directed to refrain from contacting Ryulong off-wiki and seeking Ryulong's identity on and off-wiki. All participants of WikiProject Tokusatsu are advised to work on producing a genuine guideline for the articles falling under the scope of the WikiProject. They are urged to work in collaboration with Mythdon while seeking outside advice and help. Other remedies also apply.

For the Arbitration Committee, KnightLago (talk) 20:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science amended

The following motion was carried 9 to 0 (with 2 recusals and 1 abstention) further to this request to amend the Fringe science arbitration case:

  • 1) Kaldari, Sceptre, and Durova are granted permission to act as proxies for ScienceApologist by making edits to the optics article, its talk page, and any process pages directly related to the optics featured article drive.

The motion has been entered onto the arbitration case page, at #Further motion following Request for Amendment (May 2009).

For the Arbitration Committee,
AGK 14:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Midnight Syndicate

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

The remedies (1 and 2) ordered by this Committee in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Midnight Syndicate are suspended for a period of 90 days. During this period, the editors who were previously restricted by these remedies may edit without topic restriction. However, they are instructed to comply with all applicable Wikipedia policies and guidelines in their editing, particularly those discussed in the original arbitration decision. Each of these editors is also instructed to edit these articles from only a single account.

During the 90-day trial period, should any of the previously restricted editors engage in edit-warring, POV editing, or other misconduct on the articles in question, any uninvolved administrator may reinstate the topic ban against that editor or impose another appropriate sanction. Unless the misconduct is blatant, a warning to the editor should first be given.

As the end of the 90-day period approaches, a request for permanent termination or modification of the remedies may be submitted for consideration by this Committee.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety talk 18:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)'

Archived discussion

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand

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

The topic ban imposed on TallNapoleon (talk · contribs) (see WP:RANDARB#TallNapoleon topic-banned and warned) is removed. In place of a mainspace topic ban, TallNapoleon is subject to a zero-revert restriction (0RR) on Ayn Rand and related articles for the remainder of the six-month duration. He is instructed to seek talk page consensus before undertaking any potentially controversial edits. TallNapoleon is encouraged to continue his efforts to develop a functional consensus and improve articles related to the subject.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety talk 22:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)'

Archived discussion

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

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

In remedy 1.1 ("Area of conflict") of the West Bank - Judea and Samaria case, "... the Palestine/Israel dispute ..." is replaced with "... the Arab-Israeli conflict ...".

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety talk 23:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)'

Discuss this

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following editors are subjected to bans/topic-bans/restrictions as listed below :

#Editors marked in * have since contacted the Committee.

Any editor who is subject to remedies in this proceeding, or who wishes to edit from an open proxy, is restricted to a single current or future account to edit Scientology-related topics and may not contribute to the topic as anonymous IP editors. Editors topic banned by remedies in this proceeding are prohibited (i) from editing articles related to Scientology or Scientologists, broadly defined, as well as the respective article talk pages and (ii) from participating in any Wikipedia process relating to those articles. Editors topic banned above may apply to have the topic ban lifted 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 no more frequently than every six months thereafter.

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, ban any editor from editing within the Scientology topic. Prior to topic banning the editor, the administrator will leave a message on the editor's talk page, linking to this paragraph, warning the editor that a topic ban is contemplated and outlining the behaviours for which it is contemplated. If the editor fails to heed the warning, the editor may be topic banned, initially, for three months, then with additional topic bans increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. Any editor who, in the judgment of an uninvolved administrator, is (i) focused primarily on Scientology or Scientologists and (ii) clearly engaged in promoting an identifiable agenda may be topic-banned for up to one year.

All IP addresses owned or operated by the Church of Scientology and its associates, broadly interpreted, are to be blocked as if they were open proxies. Any current or future editor who, after this decision is announced, makes substantial edits to any Scientology-related articles or discussions on any page is directed to edit on these from only a single user account, which shall be the user's sole or main account, unless the user has previously sought and obtained permission from the Arbitration Committee to operate a legitimate second account. They shall edit in accordance to Wikipedia policies and refrain from advocacy, to disclose on the relevant talk pages any circumstances (but not including personal identifying information) that constitute or may reasonably be perceived as constituting a conflict of interest with respect to that page, and not through a proxy configuration.

- For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 01:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Ban Appeal Sub Committee - amending procedure

Procedure

It has been resolved that instead of replacing all three arbitrators each quarter, one arbitrator is replaced each month.

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

The members of the sub committee for June are: Casliber, FayssalF and Roger.

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies talk 23:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Unexpected arbitrator absence

Note: this reduces the existing traditional period of unexpected absence from fourteen to seven days.

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

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

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies talk 23:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

User:Guido den Broeder banned

User:Guido den Broeder has been banned from editing en.wiki by arbcom for editing incompatible with our project. The vote was 10-0-1:

Support: Casliber, Coren, FayssalF, FloNight, Jayvdb, Kirill Lokshin, Risker, Rlevse, Roger Davies, Wizardman
Oppose: None
Abstain: Cool Hand Luke
Not voting: Carcharoth, Newyorkbrad, Stephen Bain, Vassyana
For the committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 11:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine

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

The topic ban placed on Benjiboi (talk · contribs) in relation to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine is rescinded.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety talk 18:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)'

Archived discussion

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2

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

  • All editors on Macedonia-related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions and Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts noticeboard (WP:ECCN), especially since there are significant problems in reaching consensus.
  • All articles related to Macedonia (defined as any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to Macedonia, Macedonia nationalism, Greece related articles that mention Macedonia, and other articles in which how Macedonia will be referred to is an issue) fall under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned. Editors enforcing a case where a binding Stalemate resolution has been found are exempt from 1RR.
  • The following users have been banned from Wikipedia : Avg (talk · contribs)one year, ΚΕΚΡΩΨ (talk · contribs)one year, and Reaper7 (talk · contribs)six months .
  • The following users have been topic-banned from Macedonia-related articles and their talk pages, as defined in All related articles under 1RR: Avg (talk · contribs)indefinitely, ΚΕΚΡΩΨ (talk · contribs)indefinitely, Reaper7 (talk · contribs)one year and, SQRT5P1D2 (talk · contribs)one year.
  • The Committee takes note that ChrisO (talk · contribs) has resigned his administrator status while this case was pending, but also notes that he is desysopped as a result of the above case. ChrisO may obtain the tools back via the usual means or by request to the Arbitration Committee.
  • Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is strongly admonished for displaying a long pattern of incivil, rude, offensive, and insulting behavior towards other editors and failure to address the community's concerns in this regard. Because of this Future Perfect at Sunrise is subject to an editing restriction for one year, and is desysopped for three months as a consequence of poor user conduct and misuse of administrative tools. After three months, his administrator access will be automatically restored.
  • Single-purpose accounts are strongly advised to edit in accordance with WP:SPA and other Wikipedia policies. Diversifying one's topics of interest is also encouraged.
  • Abuse filter 119, as currently configured, logs all changes involving the word "Macedonia" but does not block any edits. The community is strongly advised to consider adding a new abuse filter criterion; any instances of changing the word "Macedonia" to "FYROM" (the five-letter acronym, not the full phrase) shall be prevented.
  • Within seven days of the closure of this case, a discussion is to be opened to consider the preferred current and historical names for the four entities known as Macedonia. The discussion will end one month after it is opened.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety talk 21:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty

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

Tenmei (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty for a period of six months. He is permitted to comment on the talkpage, provided that he does so in a civil fashion. He is instructed not to interact with or comment with regard to Teeninvestor (talk · contribs) or Caspian blue (talk · contribs) on any page of Wikipedia (except in the course of legitimate dispute resolution initiated by others or his mentors). Tenmei shall also be assigned one or more volunteer mentors. Other remedies also apply.

The parties are instructed to carefully review the principles and findings contained in this decision. Each of the parties is strongly urged to conform his or her future behavior to the principles set forth in this decision. Should the remedies fail to improve the situation described in this decision, after a reasonable time, an application may be made to reopen the case and impose other remedies as may be necessary.

- For the Committee, Mailer Diablo 22:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_3&oldid=1190130853"