Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Arbitration​Committee

Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:

• All editors who are party to this case are instructed to read the principles, to review their own past conduct in the light of them, and if necessary to modify their future conduct to ensure full compliance with them.
• Editors are reminded that when editing in controversial subject areas it is all the more important to comply with Wikipedia policies. In addition, editors who find it difficult to edit a particular article or topic from a neutral point of view and to adhere to other Wikipedia policies are counselled that they may sometimes need or wish to step away temporarily from that article or subject area, and to find other related but less controversial topics in which to edit.
• Any uninvolved administrator may, in his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor editing Transcendental meditation or other articles concerning Transcendental meditation and related biographies of living people, broadly defined, if, after a warning, that editor repeatedly or seriously violates the behavioural standards or editorial processes of Wikipedia in connection with these articles.
• Uninvolved administrators are invited to monitor the articles in the area of conflict to enforce compliance by editors with, in particular, the principles outlined in this case. Enforcing administrators are instructed to focus on fresh and clear-cut matters arising after the closure of this case rather than on revisiting historical allegations.
• From time to time, the conduct of editors within the topic may be re-appraised by any member of the Arbitration Committee and, by motion of the Arbitration Committee, further remedies may be summarily applied to specific editors who have failed to conduct themselves in an appropriate manner.
• User:Fladrif is (i) strongly admonished for incivility, personal attacks, and assumptions of bad faith; and (ii) subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After three blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month.
• Should any user subject to a restriction or topic ban in this case violate that restriction or ban, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year, with the topic ban clock restarting at the end of the block.

For and on behalf of the Arbitration Committee Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 18:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

Per a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

Remedy 10 of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list ("Radeksz topic banned") is rescinded.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

Per a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

The words "such as Time Cube" are struck from principle #15 of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience ("Obvious pseudoscience"). Finding of fact #9 of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience ("Pseudoscience") is amended to read "Wikipedia contains articles on pseudoscientific ideas which, while notable, have little or no following in the scientific community, often being so little regarded that there is no serious criticism of them by scientific critics."

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

Per a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

Remedy 2 of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf ("re JBsupreme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ) is changed to read "JBsupreme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for six months. Should JBsupreme make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, JBsupreme may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below." The six months starts from the day this motion passes.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

Per a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

Remedy 17 of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list ("Biruitorul topic banned") is lifted.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

Following a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

Amendment 4 to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light ("Brews ohare advocacy restrictions") expired with remedy 4.2 of the same case ("Brews ohare topic banned"), as amended by amendment 3 ("Brews ohare").

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

The Arbitration Committee would like to remind administrators that those with Checkuser permission may sometimes block accounts as a result of findings that involve confidential Checkuser data. When such blocks are appealed, non-Checkuser administrators will generally not be privy to all the information that the Checkuser relied on in deciding to block. Moreover, in many cases the Checkuser may not be able to share such information because doing so would violate the privacy policy.

Therefore, in most cases, appeals from blocks designated as "Checkuser block" should be referred to the Arbitration Committee, which will address such appeals as promptly as possible. If an administrator believes that a Checkuser block has been made in error, the administrator should first discuss the matter with the Checkuser in question, and if a satisfactory resolution is not reached, should e-mail the committee. As appropriate, the matter will be handled by the Ban Appeals Subcommittee, by the Arbitration Committee as a whole, or by an individual arbitrator designated by the committee. When an unblock is appropriate -- either because the reviews disagree with the initial checkuser findings, or for other reasons -- it will be granted.

This policy applies only to blocks designated as "Checkuser blocks", that is as blocks relying on confidential checkuser findings. It does not apply to ordinary blocks by an administrator who happens to be a Checkuser, but is not relying on checkuser data in deciding to block. These blocks may be reviewed on-wiki or on unblock-l, the same as any other block. Checkusers are reminded that because designating a block as a "Checkuser block" means that it cannot be reviewed on-wiki or on unblock-l, this term should only be used when confidential information has been used in the blocking decision.

The Arbitration Committee has also noted that some administrators (other than Checkusers) have occasionally noted when making certain blocks that the block "should be reviewed only by the Arbitration Committee" or "should only be lifted by ArbCom." This notation is appropriate only when the block is based upon a concern that should not be discussed on-wiki but only in a confidential environment. Bases for such a concern could include information whose disclosure would identify anonymous users, could jeopardize a user's physical or mental well-being, or where the underlying block reason would be defamatory if the block proved to be unjustified. In every such case, the Arbitration Committee should be notified immediately by e-mail of the block and of the reasons for it. The designation "block should be reviewed only by ArbCom" should not be used simply to indicate that administrator feels strongly about the block. Where an administrator is unsure, he or she should feel free to email the arbitration committee mailing list before blocking.

• Support: Carcharoth, Cool Hand Luke, Kirill Lokshin, Mailer Diablo, Newyorkbrad, Risker, Rlevse, Roger Davies, Shell Kinney, Sir Fozzie, Steve Smith
• Oppose: none
• Abstain: none
• Not voting: Coren

Discuss this