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.
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
1) For conduct unbecoming an administrator, Salvidrim! is desysopped. They may regain administrator tools at any time via a successful RfA.
2.1) Salvidrim! is prohibited from reviewing articles for creation drafts, or moving AfC drafts created by other editors into mainspace. This restriction can be appealed in 12 months.
5) Salvidrim! is warned that further breaches of WP:COI will be grounds for sanctions including blocks, in accordance with community policies and guidelines.
6.1) Soetermans is prohibited from reviewing articles for creation drafts, or moving AfC drafts created by other editors into mainspace. This restriction can be appealed in 12 months.
8) Soetermans is warned that further breaches of WP:COI will be grounds for sanctions including blocks, in accordance with community policies and guidelines.
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
The Page restrictions section of the discretionary sanctions procedure is modified to the following:
Any uninvolved administrator may impose on any page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict page protection, revert restrictions, prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists), or any other reasonable measure that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project. The enforcing administrator must log page restrictions they place.
Best practice is toEnforcing administrators must add an editnotice to restricted pageswhere appropriate, using the standard template ({{ds/editnotice}}), and should add a notice to the talk page of restricted pages.Editors who ignore or breach page restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator provided that, at the time the editor ignored or breached a page restriction:
- The editor was aware of discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict, and
- There was an editnotice ({{ds/editnotice}}) on the restricted page which specified the page restriction.
Editors using mobile devices may not see edit notices. Administrators should consider whether an editor was aware of the page restriction before sanctioning them.
The Awareness section of the discretionary sanctions procedure is modified to the following:
No editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict. An editor is aware if:
- They were mentioned by name in the applicable Final Decision; or
They have ever been sanctioned within the area of conflict (and at least one of such sanctions has not been successfully appealed); or In the last twelve months, the editor has given and/or received an alert for the area of conflict; or In the last twelve months, the editor has participated in any process about the area of conflict at arbitration requestsorarbitration enforcement; or In the last twelve months, the editor has successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict. There are additional requirements in place when sanctioning editors for breaching page restrictions.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 15:44, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Arbitration Committee is currently considering a modification to our procedures on how case requests and arbitration cases are named. We would like community feedback before considering the proposal further.
Currently, case requests are named by the filing parties. In theory, the Arbitration Committee or arbitration clerks can rename case requests before they are accepted, but this is rarely done in practice. If an arbitration case is accepted, the Committee chooses a name reflective of the dispute before the case is opened. This can either be the name originally provided by the filing party or a name developed by the Committee that better represents the scope of the case. The major benefit of this system is that ongoing cases are easily identifiable.
The following represents a prospective motion that would alter how cases are named.
If a case request is declined, the request will not be named. If a case request is accepted, the Committee will assign a name upon conclusion of the case. Case names will reflect the case's scope, content, and resolution. The Committee will not discuss the naming of a case prior to the case meeting the criteria for closure.
In the past, some editors have been concerned that specific case names have unintentionally biased the result of a case. While this is unproven, any such bias would be eliminated by deferring case naming until after the case was closed. The biggest drawback is that cases will be harder to identify while open. This may result in decreased participation by editors with relevant evidence.
The Committee would like to restrict comments at this time to the proposed changes or suggestions directly related to the case naming process. Other issues related to arbitration proceedings may be addressed by the Committee at a later time.
Thank you, ~ Rob13Talk 19:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Feedback from the community is welcomed at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Community feedback: Proposal on case naming.
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
Remedy 5 (SarekOfVulcan–Doncram interaction ban) of the Doncram arbitration case is suspended for a period of six months. During the period of suspension, this restriction may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator as an arbitration enforcement action should either SarekOfVulcan or Doncram fail to adhere to Wikipedia editing standards in their interactions with each other. Appeal of such a reinstatement would follow the normal arbitration enforcement appeals process. After six months from the date this motion is enacted, if the restriction has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the restriction will automatically lapse.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:13, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Denelson83 has been temporarily desyopped because of concerns that the account may be compromised. This was done under emergency procedures and was certified by Arbitrators BU Rob13, KrakatoaKatie and Ks0stm.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Katietalk 03:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
