Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 14

Arbitration Clerks Seeking New Volunteers

The Arbitration Committee clerks are currently looking for a few dependable and mature editors willing to serve as clerks. The responsibilities of clerks include opening and closing arbitration cases and motions; notifying parties of cases, decisions, and other committee actions; maintaining the requests for Arbitration pages; preserving order and proper formatting on case pages; and other administrative and related tasks they may be requested to handle by the arbitrators. Clerks are the unsung heroes of the arbitration process, keeping track of details to ensure that requests are handled in a timely and efficient manner. Clerks get front-line seats to the political and ethnic warfare that scorches Wikipedia periodically, and, since they aren't arbitrators themselves, are rarely threatened with violence by the participants.

Past clerks have gone on to be (or already were) successful lawyers, naval officers, and Presidents of Wikimedia Chapters. The salary and retirement packages for Clerks rival that of Arbitrators, to boot. Best of all, you get a cool fez!

Please email clerks-llists.wikimedia.org if you are interested in becoming a clerk, and a clerk will reply with an acknowledgement of your message and any questions we want to put to you.

For the Arbitration Committee clerks,  Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough

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

In the Rich Farmbrough case, the revised Finding of Fact 8, enacted on 28 May 2012 is vacated. Nothing in this decision constitutes an endorsement by the Committee of Rich Farmbrough's use of administrative tools to unblock his own accounts.

For the Arbitration Committee, (X! · talk)  · @114  ·  01:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Arbitration motion regarding User:Hex

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case that:

The Arbitration Committee has considered the request for arbitration concerning Hex (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)'s block of O'Dea (talk · contribs). There is no evidence of a significant, recurring problem with Hex's use of his administrator permissions. However, Hex is:

(A) Reminded that he must obey the community's "involved administrators" policy;

(B) Admonished for blocking O'Dea when no block was appropriate; and

(C) Reminded that he must be fully responsive to valid criticism by the community of his actions.

For the Arbitration Committee, (X! · talk)  · @865  ·  19:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions that:

1) On 27 December 2012, the Arbitration Committee asked the community to hold a discussion concerning the Jerusalem article. The committee also resolved to appoint three uninvolved, experienced editors to decide the result of that request for comment (the "Closers").

• In addition to the three Closers, the committee also appoints at this time a fourth editor as Moderator of the discussion.
• The Moderator will be responsible for assisting the community as it sets up the discussion, supervising the discussion, and ensuring the discussion remains focussed and relevant.
• To enable him to perform these duties, the Moderator may close sub-sections or sub-pages of the discussion pages, and when doing so may direct discussion towards other sections or points.
• The three closers are responsible for determining the result of the community's discussion upon its conclusion.
• The original motion in December included a clause authorising administrators, including the Moderator, to sanction editors for disrupting the process, and that clause remains in effect. The clause that the result of this structured discussion will be binding for three years also remains in effect.

We appoint the following three editors to close the discussion:

1. Keilana (talk · contribs)
2. RegentsPark (talk · contribs)
3. Pgallert (talk · contribs)

We appoint Mr. Stradivarius (talk · contribs) as the discussion moderator.

Our sincerest thanks go to these four editors, for accepting these appointments and for assisting the community in conducting and closing this discussion. We suggest that this discussion be publicised at appropriate community venues, and we invite experienced, uninvolved editors to assist with creating the discussion pages.

For the Arbitration Committee, (X! · talk)  · @239  ·  04:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussion

New Trainee Clerks

The Arbitration Committee clerk team would like to welcome Callanecc (talk · contribs), Hahc21 (talk · contribs), and Ks0stm (talk · contribs) as our newest trainees. Additionally, we welcome X! (talk · contribs) back to active status as a trainee.

For the Arbitration Committee clerks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Changes in Advanced Permissions - 15 January 2013

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)

Archived discussion

Ban Appeals Subcommittee appointments

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)

Archived discussion

BASC: Asgardian appeal

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)

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)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education

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)

Archived discussion

Arbitration motion under consideration regarding withdrawn case requests

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)

Arbitration motion regarding withdrawn case requests

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)

Archived discussion

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)

• Discuss this on the Motions page

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)

Archived discussion

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)

Archived discussion

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)

Archived discussion

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)

Archived discussion

Arbitration motions with respect to functionaries

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Audit Subcommittee (AUSC) members are provided with Checkuser and Oversight tools in order to carry out their responsibilities. Community appointees to the AUSC are discouraged from routine or regular use of either tool; however, they are permitted to use the tools in order to develop a sufficient skill level to adequately assess the actions of Checkusers and Oversighters, and may assist in addressing time-sensitive situations, or serious backlogs. Community AUSC appointees who held advanced permission(s) prior to their term will retain the permission(s) they held prior to their appointment. Community AUSC appointees who did not hold advanced permissions prior to their term may apply to retain Checkuser and/or Oversight during any Checkuser/Oversight appointment cycle that occurs during their term and, if successfully appointed, will assume their new role at the end of the AUSC term.

The Arbitration Committee confirms the current procedures with respect to advanced permissions and inactivity as approved in March 2011, with the exception of retitling the provision "CheckUser/Oversight permissions and inactivity".

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram closed

An arbitration case regarding Doncram has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Doncram is placed under a general probation indefinitely. Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions if, despite being warned, Doncram repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum. These sanctions may include blocks, page or topic bans, instructions to refrain from a particular behavior, or any other sanction that the administrator deems appropriate. Sanctions imposed under this remedy may be appealed as if they were discretionary sanctions. Doncram may not appeal this restriction for one year and is limited to an appeal once every six months thereafter.
2. Doncram is indefinitely restricted from creating new pages, except for redirects, in article space. He may create new content pages in his user space, at Articles for Creation, in a sandbox area within a WikiProject's area, or in similar areas outside of article space. Such pages may only be moved to article space by other users after review. This restriction may be appealed to the Committee after one year.
3. For edit warring with Doncram, SarekOfVulcan is strongly admonished to behave with the level of professionalism expected of an administrator.
4. SarekOfVulcan and Doncram are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with each other (subject to the ordinary exceptions).
5. The question of how substantive the content of a stub must be before it can legitimately be introduced to the mainspace as a stand-alone article cannot be decided by the Arbitration Committee. If the project is to avoid the stub guideline becoming a recurring problem in the future, we suggest to the community that this question may need to be decided through a deliberate attempt at conducting focussed, structured discussions in the usual way.

For the Arbitration Committee, (X! · talk)  · @276  ·  05:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Unblock of Fæ

The Arbitration Committee has made public the following statement on User talk:Fæ. This is a cross-post of that statement, a motion that decided his recent appeal:

On 21 July 2012, Fæ was blocked indefinitely and restricted to one account as a result of arbitration. In February 2013, Fæ appealed his block to the Arbitration Committee, declaring his past accounts. The Arbitration Committee accepts his appeal, on the following conditions:

1. Fæ is topic banned from editing BLPs relating to sexuality, broadly construed
2. Fæ is topic banned from images relating to sexuality, broadly construed

Fæ may appeal these topic bans after 1 year.

• Supporting motion: Carcharoth, Coren, David Fuchs, Nuclear Warfare, Newyorkbrad, Risker, SilkTork, Worm That Turned (proposing)
• Opposing: Courcelles
• Not voting: Roger Davies, Timotheus Canens
• Inactive: Hersfold
• Recused: AGK, Salvio guiliano, Kirill Lokshin

For the Arbitration Committee, Worm^TT(talk) 12:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Motion to return Kevin's administrator rights

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case that:

Based on his commitment not to reverse any block designated as an oversight-based block [1], Kevin's administrator privileges are reinstated, effective immediately. He is strongly admonished for reversing the block and warned to abide by all applicable policies governing the conduct of administrators.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 17:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) closed

An arbitration case regarding Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) is strongly admonished for creating multiple copyright violations throughout Wikipedia. He is warned that continued violations of this nature are likely to result in an indefinite block from editing.
2. The Committee acknowledges that Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )'s community-placed topic ban on article creations was a valid and apparently successful attempt, recognizes that this sanction has been violated a number of times, and determines that the topic ban will remain in place and is assumed under the Arbitration Committee's authority.
3. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) is indefinitely prohibited from uploading images or other media files to the English Wikipedia. Should Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) upload a copyright-violating image to the Wikimedia Commons and subsequently make use of that image on the English Wikipedia in any namespace, he may be subject to Arbitration Enforcement.
4. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) is prohibited from linking as a reference any external site to which he has contributed. He may provide such links on the talk pages of articles, so they may be reviewed by other editors for acceptance according to applicable Wikipedia guidelines and policies.

For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ²¹ 00:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Resignation

The past several months for the Arbitration Committee have been unusually filled with controversy and drama. Throughout these incidents, my colleagues on the Arbitration Committee and I have been doing our utmost to ensure our actions have been in the best interests of the project. As volunteers ourselves, it is often difficult to persevere through the animosity that is directed towards the Committee in response to some of these actions; arbitrators are regularly criticized for their work, and on rare occasion actively threatened. However, we do so because we believe that we are still making a positive difference to the project, even if only in the long term, and that our work is still appreciated by some. Unfortunately, recent events have shaken my confidence in that belief, and have been extremely stressful for me as a result. This, added on top of the everyday stress that comes from being a member of the Arbitration Committee, has built up to the point that Wikipedia is no longer something I have any enjoyment in contributing to.

As a result of this and other reasons I won't go into here, effective immediately, I am resigning my position on the Arbitration Committee and relinquishing all of my user rights, including administrator, bureaucrat, checkuser, edit filter manager, and oversight. I will, however, continue to maintain and support User:HersfoldArbClerkBot and its associated IRC bot, which assist the Arbitration Committee clerk corps.

It has been an honor serving with my fellow Arbitrators, the Functionaries, and the ArbCom Clerks, and I wish them all the best of luck. I also hope that they receive greater support from the community at large, so that they may better exercise the trust the community has placed in them for the good of the project as a whole; please remember that we are all volunteers working towards the same purpose, and while disagreements may arise, there is always time to stand back and attempt to understand one another.

Happy editing, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement regarding Malleus Fatuorum and George Ponderevo

It was recently asserted to the Arbitration Committee that Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) has been using an undisclosed alternate account, George Ponderevo (talk · contribs). The Committee has examined the evidence and invited statements from Malleus and George. From these, we have concluded that there is a close link between the two accounts and that there has also been some crossover. The accounts will be marked with a shared IP tag.

• Support: AGK, Carcharoth, Courcelles, David Fuchs, Kirill Lokshin, NuclearWarfare, Risker, Roger Davies, SilkTork, Timotheus Canens, Worm That Turned
• Abstain: Newyorkbrad
• Recused: Coren
• Inactive: Salvio giuliano

For the Arbitration Committee, Carcharoth (talk) 23:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Coren's resignation

Effective immediately, Coren (talk · contribs) has resigned his membership of the Arbitration Committee. He has also made the following statement:

Being on ArbCom is a thankless job. In theory, they are the group of editors entrusted by the community to do all of the dirty behind the scenes work that the community cannot, or should not, handle. To protect the project from the worst problems; be it intractable disputes, privacy-related matters, or even cases of actually dangerous people trying to do harm to the project or its contributors.

In theory.

I suppose it should come as no surprise that a group that is elected in a political context will eventually evolve(?) to become politicized. That it has become so, however, means that it can no longer do the job it was ostensibly elected for.

What should be healthy debate on how to handle matters has become filibustering and tactical maneuvers to gain the upper hand. What should be a concern for basic fairness and propriety has degenerated into bickering about the "Image" of the committee with little or no concern for the project's fate. Trying our damn best to do the Right Thing has been obsoleted in favour of trying to get reelected.

I knew the committee was ailing when I ran again (it was obvious even from the sidelines). I did not, could not guess how bad a turn it had taken. Despite the valiant efforts of some of its members, the institution is moribund, and cancerous. I have neither the time, the energy, nor the desire to battle with the committee; I ran to help to project, not play politician.

I remain hopeful that the positive forces within the committee might set matters right eventually, but I no longer expect it.

— Coren ^(talk) 22:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

For the Arbitration Committee,
AGK [•] 22:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Audit Subcommittee vacancies: Call for applications (2013)

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint three non-arbitrator members to the Audit Subcommittee ("AUSC"). The Committee is comprised of six members and is tasked with investigations concerning the use of CheckUser and Oversight privileges on the English Wikipedia. The AUSC also monitors CheckUser and Oversight activity and use of the applicable tools. The current non-arbitrator members are Avraham, MBisanz, and Ponyo, whose terms were to expire on February 28 but were extended with their agreement until April 30 by the Committee.

Matters brought before the subcommittee may be time-sensitive and subcommittee members should be prepared and available to discuss cases promptly so they may be resolved in a timely manner. Sitting subcommittee members are expected to actively participate in AUSC proceedings and may be replaced should they become inactive. All subcommittee members are given both CheckUser and Oversight access but are expected to not make regular use of them unless needed. They are subject to the relevant local and global policies and guidelines concerning CheckUser and Oversight.

If you think you may be suitably qualified, please email arbcom-en-clists.wikimedia.org to start the application procedure for an appointment ending 30 June 2014. The application period will close at 23:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC). Further information is also available here.

For the Arbitration Committee,
NW (Talk) 18:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SchuminWeb closed

An arbitration case regarding SchuminWeb, and previously suspended by motion, has now closed. The original temporary injuction has been enacted:

[...] Should SchuminWeb decide to resign his administrative tools, the case will be closed and no further action taken. Should SchuminWeb not return to participate in the case within three months [...] the account will be desysopped. If the tools are resigned or removed in either of the circumstances described above, restoration of the tools to SchuminWeb will require a new request for adminship.

For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ²¹ 05:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussion