| Wikipedia Arbitration |
|---|
 |
|
| Track related changes |
This noticeboard is for announcements and statements made by theArbitration Committee. Only members of the Arbitration Committee or the Committee'sclerks may post on this page, but all editors are encouraged to comment on thetalk page.
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
The editing restrictions placed onFerahgo the Assassin (talk ·contribs) asunban conditions in March 2014 andmodified by motion in September 2016 are modified as follows:
These modifications will be subject to a probationary period lasting six months from the date this motion is enacted. During this period, any uninvolved administrator may re-impose the former editing restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action, subject to appeal only to the Arbitration Committee. If the probationary period elapses without incident, the above modifications are to be considered permanently enacted.
For the Arbitration Committee,GoldenRing (talk)11:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Arbitration Committee feel it is appropriate to elaborate on the reasons forAlex Shih's departure. Whilst Alex Shih was a member of the Committee, he held the Checkuser right. Both his use of the tool and his disclosure on-wiki of non-public information breached theWikipedia:Checkuser policy multiple times. In addition, arbitrators felt that he had committed other breaches of confidentiality in his use of private information received whilst on the Arbitration Committee. In August 2018, the Committee confronted Alex Shih with these concerns. Shortly afterwards, Alexresigned from the Committee and gave up the Checkuser and Oversight user rights. The Arbitration Committee considers this resignation to have been under controversial circumstances. The matter was also referred to themeta:Ombudsman Commission by a group of functionaries including several arbitrators when the extent of the actions came to light.
For the Arbitration CommitteeWormTT(talk)19:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Arbitration Committee has resolved bymotion that:
For the Arbitration Committee,Bradv🍁02:42, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
An arbitration case regardingGiantSnowman has now closed, and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedy has been enacted:
GiantSnowman is admonished for overuse of the rollback and blocking functions, and reminded to"lead by example" and "strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy"; to"respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions and to justify them when needed"; to not use admin tools in"cases in which they have been involved" including "conflicts with an editor" and "disputes on topics"; to"treat newcomers with kindness and patience"; and to apply these principles in all interactions with all editors. GiantSnowman is placedunder review indefinitely; during the review, with theexception of obvious vandalism, he is subject to the following restrictions:
- He may not revert another editor's contribution without providing an explanation in the edit summary. This includes use of MediaWiki's rollback function, any tool or script that provides a similar function, and any manual revert without an edit summary. Default edit summaries, such as those provided by the undo function or Twinkle's rollback feature, are not sufficient for the purpose of this sanction
- He may not block an editor without first using at least three escalating messages and template warnings
- He may not consecutively block an editor; after one block he is advised to consult with another admin or bring the matter to the attention of the community
- He may not place a warning template on an editor's talk page without having first placed an appropriate self-composed message containing links to relevant policies and guidelines
- He may not place more than five consecutive warning templates or messages; after which he is advised to consult with another admin
- He may not use MassRollback.js
Violations may be reported by any editor toWP:AE. GiantSnowman may appeal any or all of these sanctions, including the review itself, directly to the Arbitration Committee at any time.
For the Arbitration Committee,Bradv🍁18:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved bymotion atWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment:
The restriction on page creation imposed onCrouch, Swale (talk ·contribs) as part of their unban conditions in January 2018 is modified as follows:
For the Arbitration Committee,Bradv🍁22:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Arbitration Committee has resolved bymotion that:
The "Alex Shih" request for arbitration is accepted. Given thatAlex Shih (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) hasretired from the English Wikipedia, this case will be opened but suspended for a duration not to exceed one year, during which time Alex Shih will be temporarily desysopped.
If Alex Shih should return to active editing on the English Wikipedia during this time and request that this case be resumed, the Arbitration Committee shall unsuspend the case by motion and proceed through the normal arbitration process. Such a request may be made by email toarbcom-en
wikimedia.org or at theClerks' noticeboard.
If such a request is not made within one year of the "Alex Shih" case being opened and suspended, this case shall be automatically closed, and Alex Shih shall remain desysopped. He may regain the administrative tools at any time via a successfulrequest for adminship.
For the Arbitration Committee --Cameron11598(Talk)05:54, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In anearly 2017 RfC, the community endorsed the view that private evidence related to abusivepaid editing should be submitted privately to relevant people when there are concerns related toprivacy or outing. To better allow the functionary team to investigate instances of abusive paid editing where private evidence is a factor, the Arbitration Committee has established the paid-en-wp OTRS queue to receive such private evidence. The email address associated with this queue ispaid-en-wpwikipedia.org. The queue will be reviewed by a subset of arbitrators and interested local CheckUsers, who will investigate all reports and take any necessary action.
This queue is not a replacement for existing community processes to address abusive paid editing. In particular, all public evidence related to abusive paid editing should continue to be submitted at the appropriate community noticeboards, such asWikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Private reports that do not contain private evidence or can be sufficiently handled by existing community processes will be redirected accordingly. Reports will also be redirected to the Arbitration Committee as a whole, where appropriate.
Further, the checkuser-en-wp OTRS queue has been established to allow private requests for CheckUser to be sent to the local CheckUser team. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent tocheckuser-en-wpwikipedia.org rather than the functionaries-en list. Similar to the above, all private requests that can be sufficiently handled by existing community processes, such asWP:SPI, will be redirected accordingly.
The Arbitration Committee would like to note that the creation of these queues was endorsed by the 2018 Arbitration Committee, with the announcement delayed into the new year as the queues were organized and created.
For the Arbitration Committee,~Rob13Talk16:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There'sNoTime (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA) self-requested removal of their advanced permissions on11 December 2018. By There'sNoTime's request, theircheckuser andoversight permissions are restored by the committee, effective immediately.
For the Arbitration Committee,AGK ■22:30, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Arbitration Committee has resolved bymotion that:
AtAmendment II inEastern Europe,Eastern Europe is replaced as text byEastern Europe or the Balkans.Remedy 3 inMacedonia is superseded by this amendment.
For the Arbitration Committee,Kevin (akaL235 ·t ·c)23:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
By motion, in accordance withthe Committee's procedure on functionary permissions and inactivity, the CheckUser and Oversight permissions ofKs0stm (talk ·contribs) are removed.
At their own request, the CheckUser permission ofKeegan (talk ·contribs) and the Oversight permission ofSphilbrick (talk ·contribs) are removed.
The Arbitration Committee sincerely thanks Keegan, Ks0stm, and Sphilbrick for their service. The Committee is also grateful to the current CheckUser and Oversight permission holders for their invaluable contributions as functionaries.
For the Arbitration Committee,Katietalk00:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]