Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Arbitration​Committee

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

Announcement archives:

• 0 (2008-12 – 2009-01)
• 1 (to 2009-02)
• 2 (to 2009-05)
• 3 (to 2009-06)
• 4 (to 2009-07)
• 5 (to 2009-12)
• 6 (to 2010-12)
• 7 (to 2011-12)
• 8 (to 2012-12)
• 9 (to 2013-12)
• 10 (to 2015-12)
• 11 (to 2018-04)
• 12 (to 2020-08)
• 13 (to 2023-03)
• 14 (to present)

Motions regarding discretionary sanctions and Falun Gong 2

Pursuant to two motions voted on at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, the following actions have been taken:

• Mandated external review (MER) has been explicitly adopted as a form of discretionary sanctions. In brief, editors subject to MER are restricted from making more than minor changes to an article in the area of conflict without first gathering consensus on the article's talk page.
• Users Homunculus, Ohconfucius, and Colipon, who were subjected to MER in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun Gong 2, may only appeal their sanctions to the Arbitration Committee. Editors who are sanctioned by individual administrators in the future may appeal the sanction as they would any discretionary sanction.

For the Arbitration Committee,
NW (Talk) 16:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles

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

Remedy 5 (Standard discretionary sanctions) of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles is amended as follows:

The words "and British baronets" are stricken from this remedy. The Committee reserves the right to restore sanctions to this area by motion, should a pattern of editing problems re-emerge. Existing sanctions which were placed prior to this amendment remain in effect (and unmodified) until they expire or are lifted via the normal appeals process.

For the Arbitration Committee, --Guerillero | My Talk 19:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Arbitration motion regarding User:GregJackP

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment that: The Climate change case is supplemented as follows:

The restriction imposed on GregJackP (talk · contribs) in the Climate change case and the supplementary restriction relating to New Religious movements imposed by the Ban Appeals Subcommittee on 17 March 2012 as a condition of unblocking are hereby lifted.

For the Arbitration Committee, --Guerillero | My Talk 22:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment that: The Race and Intelligence case is supplemented as follows:

Banned editors and their sockpuppets have long caused disruption to both the Race and Intelligence topic ("R&I") and editors associated with it.

The Committee notes that the applicable policy provides:

• banned editors are prohibited from editing pages on Wikipedia;
• the posts of a banned user may be reverted on sight by any editor;
• any editor who restores the reverted post/s of a banned editor accepts full responsibility for the restored material.

To reduce disruption, the Committee resolves that no editor may restore any reverted edit made by a banned editor:

• which was posted within the R&I topic or
• which relates, directly or indirectly, to either the R&I topic or to any editor associated with the R&I topic.

Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised to enforce the foregoing in respect of any editor restoring any reverted post.

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

For the Arbitration Committee, --Guerillero | My Talk 23:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2

By a vote of 9-0, the Arbitration Committee has passed the following motion:

Remedy 1.1 of the Sathya Sai Baba 2 arbitration case is suspended for three months. During this period, Andries may edit within this topic area, provided that he carefully abides by all applicable policies. After three months, Andries may request that the topic-ban remedy be vacated permanently.

For the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 21:07, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Proposed motion on "net four votes" rule

A motion on the "net four votes" rule has been proposed. Editors may comment in the Community comments concerning motion section.

For the Arbitration Committee --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 22:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Motion on "net four votes" rule

By a vote of 11-1-1 (support/oppose/abstentions), the Committee has amended its procedures regarding the opening of proceedings. The text of the new rule is as follows:

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

1. Its acceptance has been supported by either of (i) four net votes or (ii) an absolute majority of active, non-recused arbitrators;
2. More than 24 hours have elapsed since the request came to satisfy the above provision; and
3. More than 48 hours have elapsed since the request was filed.

A proceeding may be opened earlier, waiving provisions 2 and 3 above, if a majority of arbitrators support fast-track opening in their acceptance votes.

Once the Committee has accepted a request, a clerk will create the applicable case pages, and give the proceeding a working title. The title is for ease of identification only and may be changed by the Committee at any time. The Committee will designate one or more arbitrators to draft the case, to ensure it progresses, and to act as designated point of contact for any matters arising.

For the Arbitration Committee --Lord Roem (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this