Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard
| Wikipedia Arbitration |
|---|
 |
|
|
| Track related changes |
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.
Discretionary sanctions topic area changes
In a process that began last year with WP:DS2021, the Committee is evaluating Discretionary Sanctions (DS) in order to improve it. A larger package of reforms is slated for sometime this year. From the work done so far, it became clear a number of areas may no longer need DS or that some DS areas may be overly broad. This discussion is intended to focus on those areas. Community feedback is invited and welcome at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Discuss this at: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions § Discretionary sanctions topic area changes
Miki Filigranski unblocked
Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, Miki Filigranski (talk · contribs) is unblocked, subject to a one-account restriction and one-revert rule. --BDD (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48 § Miki Filigranski unblocked
Changes to functionary team
In accordance with the policy on CheckUser and Oversighter inactivity, the CheckUser and Oversight rights of Callanecc are removed.
The Arbitration Committee sincerely thanks Callanecc for his service as a functionary.
For the Arbitration Committee, Maxim(talk) 15:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
General comment regarding appeals to the Arbitration Committee
This announcement is a general comment from the Arbitration Committee concerning situations in which ArbCom grants an appeal from a sanction. While the vast majority of appeals that ArbCom receives are of Checkuser blocks, it also reviews sanctions imposed by ArbCom itself, Oversight blocks, and situations involving matters unsuitable for public discussion.
By granting an appeal, ArbCom is expressing that, based on the information available to it, it believes that the problems that led to the sanction are unlikely to recur. Granting an appeal does not necessarily mean that the initial decision that resulted in the sanction was incorrect at the time, unless the appeal announcement specifically says so. The rationales for granting appeals are, in general, the same as those arising from on-wiki process, but for reasons of privacy or jurisdiction, the appeal is heard by ArbCom.
An editor whose appeal was accepted by ArbCom remains subject to all applicable policies, guidelines, and community expectations, the same as any other editor. If there is new misconduct after the successful appeal, the editor may be (re)sanctioned no differently than any other editor. It is not necessary for sanctioning administrators to consult ArbCom in such cases, but if a question or concern arises, they are free to do so.
ArbCom will continue to consult with the community, or to have appeals posted for review by the community, in appropriate cases. Such consultations are of particular use where community members are likely to have relevant information or experience that may be unavailable to the arbitrators.
For the arbitration committee, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § General comment regarding appeals to the Arbitration Committee
Arbitration motions regarding discretionary sanctions topics
As part of its ongoing discretionary sanctions modernization effort, the Arbitration Committee has resolved through a series of motions that:
Remedy 7 of the Senkaku Islands case ("Discretionary sanctions") is rescinded. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the discretionary sanctions authorization remain in force and are governed by the discretionary sanctions procedure.
The first sentence of the January 2013 motion in the Waldorf education case (authorizing discretionary sanctions) is stricken. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the discretionary sanctions authorization remain in force and are governed by the discretionary sanctions procedure.
The first sentence of the January 2014 motion in the Ancient Egyptian race controversy case (authorizing discretionary sanctions) is stricken. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the discretionary sanctions authorization remain in force and are governed by the discretionary sanctions procedure.
Remedy 4.1 of the Scientology case ("Discretionary sanctions authorised") is rescinded. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the discretionary sanctions authorization remain in force and are governed by the discretionary sanctions procedure.
The January 2015 motion in the Landmark Worldwide case (authorizing discretionary sanctions) is rescinded. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the discretionary sanctions authorization remain in force and are governed by the discretionary sanctions procedure.
- Remedy 5 of the Neuro-linguistic programming case ("Mentorship") is rescinded.
- Remedy 2.1 of the Occupation of Latvia case ("Article probation") is rescinded.
- Remedy 2 of the Shiloh case ("Article-related Probation") is rescinded.
- Remedy 14.3 of the Obama articles case ("Articles semi-protected") is rescinded.
- The Arbitration Committee clarifies that the article probation referenced in Finding of Fact 3 of the Obama articles case ("Articles placed on probation") and subject to review in Remedy 1.1 of the Obama articles case ("Article probation review") is no longer in effect pursuant to a March 2015 community discussion, but related articles may be covered by remedies in the American politics 2 case.
Any actions previously taken in accordance with the foregoing remedies remain in force, and appeals and modifications therefrom shall be governed by the standard procedure for arbitration enforcement appeals.
Remedy 7 of the Transcendental Meditation movement case ("Standard discretionary sanctions") is rescinded. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the discretionary sanctions authorization remain in force and are governed by the discretionary sanctions procedure.
Remedies 6, 7, and 8 of the Asmahan case (relating to article probation and discretionary sanctions) are rescinded. Remedy 2 of the Waterboarding case ("General restriction") is rescinded. Where appropriate, the discretionary sanctions authorized in the American politics 2 case may continue to be used.Any actions previously taken in accordance with the foregoing remedies remain in force, and appeals and modifications therefrom shall be governed by the standard procedure for arbitration enforcement appeals.
For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:35, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motions regarding discretionary sanctions topics
Arbitration motion regarding HazelBasil and SquareInARoundHole
For intractable differences of opinions and conduct both on- and off-wiki, the Committee resolves that HazelBasil (talk · contribs) and SquareInARoundHole (talk · contribs) are placed under an indefinite interaction ban, pursuant to the standard exceptions. This also precludes SquareInARoundHole from editing the Ashley Gjøvik article.
In addition, for comments and conduct made both on- and off-wiki, HazelBasil is indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia.
For the Arbitration Committee, Primefac (talk) 19:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)