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

As noted in the Arbitration Committee announcements of 31 December 2012, the Arbitration Committee has initiated a review of advanced permissions. As part of this process, the Arbitration Committee has discussed the assignment of project-specific CheckUser and Oversight tools to WMF staff with the WMF and with the individual staff members (Aaron Schulz and Brion Vibber) who have long held advanced permissions. It was identified that neither Aaron nor Brion requires these accesses in their current WMF staff roles, and both have agreed that these permissions may be withdrawn. Should either of them (or any other WMF staff member) require CheckUser or Oversight tools in the future to carry out their staff responsibilities, the tools will be assigned through WMF processes.

Aaron Schulz first edited Wikipedia in July 2005, and quickly found his niche as a volunteer developer, creator and operator of bots, and editor. He initially joined the WMF as a contract developer, and has gone on to become a full-time software engineer with a range of responsibilities. He was appointed as a CheckUser on English Wikipedia by the Arbitration Committee in May 2007, when he was contracted by the WMF to redesign the CheckUser extension, and he continued on as an active member of the Checkuser team until early 2009. He was assigned Oversight permissions in early 2009 to assist in the testing of the (then) new revision deletion/suppression extension. We thank Aaron for his diligent work as part of the Checkuser team, as well as his work over the years in improving both the CheckUser and Oversight tools.

Brion Vibber has been a member of the Wikipedia community since early 2001, first working on the Esperanto Wikipedia. He worked on localization and unicode in the earliest versions of the software that eventually became the MediaWiki software application that runs all of the WMF projects, and soon became the primary maintainer of the software. He was WMF's Employee #1, and went on to become its first CTO. After a brief sojourn away from the WMF, Brion returned to take on a series of important engineering projects. He is currently Senior Software Architect, Mobile. Brion was the subject of a recent Signpost article that highlights the remarkable extent of his contributions to the Wikimedia movement. In his varying roles with the WMF, he has been responsible for ensuring the maintenance of a vast range of MediaWiki extensions, including CheckUser, the now-deprecated original Oversight extension, and the newer revision deletion/suppression extension. We thank Brion for all that he has done to support the Wikimedia family of projects, and are grateful for his attention to the tools that support our Checkusers and Oversighters.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 06:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion

For the period 1 January to 30 June 2013, the Ban Appeals Subcommittee will consist of the following arbitrators: AGK, Hersfold, SilkTork, and Timotheus Canens. David Fuchs is the subcommittee coordinator.  Roger Davies ^talk 11:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

Asgardian (talk · contribs) was banned for one year in 2010 (see Asgardian). Later in 2010, he was blocked indefinitely for evading his ban. This month, Asgardian appealed his indefinite block to the Ban Appeals Subcommittee. We wish to consult the community about this appeal, and specifically invite comments on two points: (1) Should Asgardian be unblocked? (2) If so, what should be the conditions of his being unblocked?

Asgardian suggested that he could be restricted as follows: be given a "period of probation" for the first three months after being unblocked; be limited to 10 or 15 edits per day; and be made to take on a mentor. The Ban Appeals Subcommittee suggested the following restrictions:

1. Asgardian is prohibited from editing Wikipedia except while logged into his main account, w:User:Asgardian.
2. Asgardian is indefinitely prohibited from making more than one revert per article per week.
3. Asgardian is reminded that he must contribute to Wikipedia in compliance with policy.

Asgardian may be blocked by any administrator if he edits in violation of the above three conditions. After five such blocks, he must be blocked indefinitely. These conditions will be published at the top of Asgardian's talk page, from where he may not remove them until one year has elapsed.

Comments from the community are solicited.

For the Arbitration Committee,
AGK [•] 22:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion

Supporting motion to hold a community consultation on this appeal:

AGK (proposing), Salvio giuliano, Carcharoth, Worm That Turned, Roger Davies, NuclearWarfare, Timotheus Canens, Coren, and Courcelles.

Opposing:

None.

Recusing/abstaining:

None.

Not voting:

David Fuchs, Hersfold, Kirill Lokshin, Newyorkbrad, Risker, and SilkTork.

Result of appeal

The Arbitration Committee thanks the community for their comments, but our decision is to decline Asgardian's appeal. AGK [•] 01:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment that:

1) Standard Discretionary sanctions are authorised with immediate effect for all pages relating to Waldorf education, broadly construed. This supersedes the existing Article Probation remedy set down in Waldorf education, remedy 1 and re-affirmed in the Waldorf education review, remedy 2.

This motion does not affect any actions presently in effect that were taken in enforcement of the old article probation remedy.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

The Arbitration Committee is currently considering a motion on withdrawn arbitration case requests. The community may comment on the proposed motion in the community comments section.

For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 21:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

If the filing party of a request for an arbitration case withdraws said request, the request may be removed after 24 hours if:

1. No arbitrator has voted to accept the case; or
2. There are four net votes to decline the case.

In all other circumstances, the request shall remain open until 24 hours after the above circumstances apply, or until the case can be accepted or declined through the procedures outlined in "Opening of proceedings".

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this