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.
Declaration of possible conflict of interest
I have just accepted a contractual position with the Wikimedia Foundation, and posted a full disclosure with details and an invitation for community comments here. — Coren (talk) 21:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Motions with respect to functionaries
In early January 2013, the Arbitration Committee reviewed several aspects of the appointment and review processes related to Checkusers, Oversighters and AUSC members, including the appointment extension of advanced permissions to former arbitrators. In preparation for this review, arbitrators retiring as of 31 December 2012 were permitted to retain Checkuser and Oversight permissions at their request on an interim basis until the completion of the review and decisions on next steps. The motions that the Arbitration Committee will vote on are located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions; other motions may be proposed as well. All functionaries and community members are invited to participate in the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Risker (talk • contribs) 02:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
User:Kevin's unblock of User:Cla68
Kevin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has unilaterally reversed a block placed by two oversighters relating to the repeated posting of personal information. Kevin failed to obtain agreement for the unblocking from either the oversighters or the Arbitration Committee prior to doing so. Accordingly, Kevin is temporarily desysopped in accordance with Level II procedures for removing administrative tools. The unblock of Cla68 (talk · contribs) is to be reversed until Cla68's appeal is addressed by the Arbitration Committee.
- Support: Carcharoth, Coren, Courcelles, David Fuchs, Hersfold, SilkTork, Timotheus Canens
- Oppose: Newyorkbrad
- Recused: Kirill Lokshin, NuclearWarfare
- Not voting: AGK, Risker, Roger Davies, Worm That Turned
- Inactive: Salvio giuliano
For the Arbitration Committee, T. Canens (talk) 06:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Arbitration motion under consideration regarding Oversight-related blocks
The Arbitration Committee is currently considering a motion on Oversight-related blocks. The community may comment on the proposed motion in the general discussion section.
For the Arbitration Committee, --Guerillero | My Talk 07:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
The section entitled "Standard discretionary sanctions" in the Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 case is replaced with the following:
- Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related ethnic conflicts, broadly interpreted.
Previous or existing sanctions, warnings, and enforcement actions are not affected by this motion.
For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Unblock of Russavia
Approximately one day ago, the Arbitration Committee made public the following statement on User talk:Russavia. This is a cross-post of that statement, a motion that decided his recent appeal:
On 3 April 2012, Russavia was blocked for six months and topic-banned from all pages and discussions relating to Eastern Europe across all namespaces. On 13 May 2012, the six month block was extended to one year on the basis that this comment—made by Russavia on his talk page while he was blocked—violated his Eastern Europe topic ban. In January 2013, Russavia appealed his block and topic-ban to the Arbitration Committee. The Arbitration Committee accepts his appeal, vacates the six-month block and the one-year block that replaced it, but retains the Eastern Europe topic ban. We remind Russavia that, if he makes any further edits mentioning Polandball and similar cartoons (broadly construed), he will again be in violation of his topic ban and may be summarily re-blocked by any administrator in line with the usual methods of enforcing a discretionary sanction.
- Supporting motion: Coren, NuclearWarfare, Hersfold, SilkTork, AGK (proposing), David Fuchs, Courcelles, and Worm That Turned.
- Opposing: (none).
- Not voting: Carcharoth, Newyorkbrad, Kirill Lokshin, and Roger Davies.
- Inactive: Risker, Salvio guiliano.
- Recused: Timotheus Canens.
I have unblocked your account, but remind you (as explained in the motion) that your earlier topic ban remains in effect and that you may be blocked again if you violate that ban.
For the Arbitration Committee,
AGK [•] 14:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
For the Arbitration Committee,
NW (Talk) 14:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Arbitration motion regarding Oversight-related blocks
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
On July 19, 2010, the Arbitration Committee issued a statement noting that blocks based on confidential Checkuser information should not be lifted without consulting a Checkuser who has the ability to review said information. Since that time, this has been incorporated into the blocking policy.
While that statement focused primarily on checkuser-based blocks, the Arbitration Committee reminds administrators that they should not be taking any action when they are unable to make themselves fully aware of the circumstances that led to the block under review. Specifically, an oversighter may note that a block should not be lifted without consulting a member of the oversight team; in these situations, administrators are expected to heed this request and not unilaterally remove the block.
For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC)