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)

Arbitration motion restricting Gamaliel

Per his request, communicated off-wiki to the Committee, Gamaliel is indefinitely restricted from taking any action to enforce any arbitration decision within the GamerGate topic, broadly construed. Any violation of this motion must be reported to WP:ARCA. He may appeal this decision after 12 months to the Arbitration Committee.

Support: Doug Weller, Courcelles, Opabinia regalis, Drmies, DGG, Kelapstick

Oppose: Salvio giuliano, Casliber, Callanecc, Guerillero

Recuse: Gamaliel, GorillaWarfare, Keilana, Kirill Lokshin

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:16, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion restricting Gamaliel

Motion: Oversight block appeals (Oversight-l)

Original discussion

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	8
1–2	7
3–4	6

Appeals of blocks that have been marked by an oversighter as oversight blocks should be sent to the oversight team via email (Oversight-llists.wikimedia.org) to be decided by the English Wikipedia oversighters, or to the Arbitration Committee. Blocks may still be marked by the blocking oversighter as appealable only to the Arbitration Committee, per the 2010 statement, in which case appeals must only be directed to the Arbitration Committee.

Enacted - Miniapolis 15:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Motion: Oversight block appeals (Oversight-l)

Doncram amendment motion

The Doncram arbitration case is amended as follows:

• Remedy 2.1 - General editor probation is rescinded.
• Remedy 2.3 - Article creation restriction is rescinded
• The topic ban imposed by Seraphimblade is rescinded. For clarity, this means that Doncram is permitted to edit existing articles but not create new articles that are related to the National Register of Historic Places, broadly construed.
• The following remedy is added to the case: Doncram (talk · contribs) is indefinitely restricted from creating new pages, except for redirects, in article space which are related to the National Register of Historic Places, broadly construed.

Passed 10 to 0 by motion at 13:11, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 13:29, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Doncram amendment motion

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology closed

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

1. Wikicology is indefinitely topic-banned from making any edit in any non-talk namespace related to biomedical or public health content, or any other topic within the scope of WP:MEDRS, broadly construed.
2. Wikicology is indefinitely topic-banned from uploading any images or other non-text media to the English Wikipedia. In addition, he is indefinitely topic-banned from using on the English Wikipedia any image or other media he has uploaded to any other project, including Commons.
3. Wikicology is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. He may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.
4. The community is encouraged to make use of the material presented in the Evidence and Analysis of Evidence sections to organize a systematic clean-up effort for Wikicology's past problematic contributions.
5. The Committee will, on a best-effort basis, inform representatives of WMF-affiliated projects with which Wikicology has been involved of the outcome of this case.

For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 19:54, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology closed

Arbitration motions regarding extended confirmed protection

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

On April 5, the rollout of the new extendedconfirmed user group began. This group is being automatically applied to accounts meeting both of the following criteria: at least 500 edits, registered at least 30 days ago. A corresponding new protection level, currently called "extended confirmed protection", has been implemented that restricts editing to members of this user group.

Users

• No action is required on the part of any current user. User accounts that meet the criteria will be automatically updated with the new user group on their next edit. User accounts that do not yet meet the criteria will be automatically updated with the new user group when they do qualify.
• The extendedconfirmed user group can be added by administrators to accounts that do not yet meet the criteria. A process for requesting this has been set up here, intended primarily to handle the case of publicly identified legitimate alternative accounts of users whose primary accounts do meet the criteria.

Current uses

• As of this announcement, this protection level is authorized for use in the following areas:
  • The Gamergate controversy article and its talk page.
  • The Brianna Wu article.
  • The Anita Sarkeesian article.
  • Selected articles pertaining to Indian castes and their talk pages.
  • Any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
• Any sanctions or other restrictions imposed prior to this motion passing shall remain in force unaffected.

Notes

Expectations

• Extended confirmed protection may only be applied in response to persistent sockpuppetry or continued use of new, disruptive accounts where other methods (such as semi protection) have not controlled the disruption. This provision does not apply to a page or topic area which has been placed under 30/500 protection by the Arbitration Committee.
• Administrators are not permitted to remove the extendedconfirmed user group as a discretionary sanction.
• Administrators must not remove the extendedconfirmed user group as means of bypassing defined arbitration enforcement procedures (for example, removing the user group as a normal administrative action to avoid banning an editor from the Gamergate controversy article.

For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 17:55, 15 May 2016 (UTC) Edited per clerks-l, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:56, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motions regarding extended confirmed protection