Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard
| Wikipedia Arbitration |
|---|
 |
|
|
| Track related changes |
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.
Firefly promoted to full clerk
The Arbitration Committee is pleased to announce that Firefly (talk · contribs) has been appointed a full clerk, effective immediately, concluding his successful traineeship.
The arbitration clerk team is often in need of new members, and any editor who meets the expectations for appointment and would like to join the clerk team is welcome to apply by e-mail to clerks-l
lists.wikimedia.org.
For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:42, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 49 § Firefly promoted to full clerk
An arbitration case regarding User:Geschichte has now closed. The Arbitration Committee resolved by motion in March to suspend the case, which could be unsuspended if Geschichte requested it within three months. Because Geschichte has not requested that the case be unsuspended, the case has been automatically closed. The motion which has now closed the case is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Geschichte#Motion:_Open_and_suspend_case_(1)_2.
For the arbitration committee, GeneralNotability (talk) 20:56, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Geschichte closed
An arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
- 7&6=thirteen (talk · contribs) is topic banned from deletion discussions, broadly construed.
- Johnpacklambert (talk · contribs) is banned from taking the following actions: (1) participating in deletion discussions, broadly construed; (2) proposing an article for deletion ("PRODing"), but not contesting a proposed deletion ("de-PRODing"); and (3) turning an article into a redirect.
- Lugnuts (talk · contribs) is warned against making personal attacks, engaging in battleground behavior in deletion discussions, and other disruptive deletion behavior.
- Lugnuts is banned from taking the following actions: (1) participating in deletion discussions, broadly construed; (2) contesting a proposed deletion ("de-PRODing"); and (3) creating articles that comprise less than 500 words, including converting redirects into articles.
- Lugnuts is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia.
- TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) is topic banned from deletion discussions, broadly construed.
- The Arbitration Committee requests comment from the community on how to handle mass nominations at Articles for Deletion.
For the Arbitration Committee, -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing closed
Special Circumstances Blocks
In 2010, the Arbitration Committee released a statement about checkuser blocks and the ways that they may be contested and appealed. In that statement, the committee also addressed the rare practice of blocks that are designated as appealable only to the Arbitration Committee. Much has changed since that time, including the introduction of Oversight Blocks and the assumption of responsibility by the Wikimedia Foundation over some kinds of child protection matters. Accordingly, we would like to update our prior guidance.
- Off-wiki evidence of sockpuppetry, undeclared paid editing, or other spam concerns: The Arbitration Committee has previously established special VRTS email queues accessible to all checkusers where private information relating to such concerns should be sent. Checkusers may issue blocks or take other measures based on information received in these queues. Concerns should be sent to:
- paid-en-wp
wikipedia.org – for undisclosed paid editing and spam concerns. Any resulting blocks will be labeled as paid editing or spam blocks and give the VRTS ticket number. - checkuser-en-wpwikipedia.org – for other checkuser-related concerns. If checkuser data is used as part of a block's justification, the block may be labeled as a checkuser block. Otherwise, any resulting blocks should give the appropriate block rationale and give the VRTS ticket number.
- paid-en-wp
- Editors who should be oversight blocked: Evidence should be passed to the oversight team, who will decide whether any block is necessary under policy.
- Highly sensitive and private information: If a potential block is based on highly sensitive information (e.g. a block of an account believed to be, but not actually confirmed as, a public figure), the information can be sent directly to the Arbitration Committee (arbcom-enwikimedia.org) for consideration. This is true even if it falls into one of the categories above. The Committee may evaluate the submission and resolve the report itself or decide that it is actually appropriate for consideration by another group or on-wiki.
Administrators should contact the appropriate group rather than issue a block covered above. In unusual and/or extraordinary circumstances, an administrator may decide to ignore all rules and place a block appealable only to the Arbitration Committee without first consulting one of the groups mentioned above. In this case, it remains the responsibility of the administrator to immediately contact the Arbitration Committee with the appropriate evidence and reasoning for the block (see also the 2012 reminder on this topic).
For the Arbitration Committee, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:44, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Deletion RfC moderator appointments
As part of the Conduct in deletion-related editing case, the Arbitration Committee decided to request community comments on issues related to mass nominations at Articles for Deletion in a discussion to be moderated and closed by editors appointed by the committee.
Valereee (talk · contribs) and Xeno (talk · contribs) are appointed as co-moderators for the discussion. The co-moderators will jointly exercise the responsibilities assigned by the 2 August 2022 decision, which remains in full effect. The panel of three closing editors will be announced on a later date.
Wugapodes (talk · contribs) will serve as their committee liaison. The committee liaison will facilitate communication between the co-moderators and the full committee to ensure the process is carried out efficiently.
The Arbitration Committee sincerely thanks the co-moderators for accepting their appointments and assisting the community in holding this discussion.
For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)