This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Miniapolis (talk | contribs) at 00:32, 19 May 2017. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 00:32, 19 May 2017 by Miniapolis (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
ArbitrationCommittee
| Misplaced Pages Arbitration |
|---|
 |
| Open proceedings |
| Active sanctions |
| Arbitration Committee |
Audit
|
| 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.
Announcement archives:- 0 (2008-12 – 2009-01)
- 1 (to 2009-02)
- 2 (to 2009-05)
- 3 (to 2009-06)
- 4 (to 2009-07)
- 5 (to 2009-12)
- 6 (to 2010-12)
- 7 (to 2011-12)
- 8 (to 2012-12)
- 9 (to 2013-12)
- 10 (to 2015-12)
- 11 (to 2018-04)
- 12 (to 2020-08)
- 13 (to 2023-03)
- 14 (to present)
Arbitration Committee seeking new clerks
The Clerks of the Arbitration Committee 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.
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-l
lists.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, Kharkiv07 (T) 20:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
- Archived discussion at: Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 34#Arbitration Committee seeking new clerks
Arbitration motion to standardise arbitration enforcement procedures
An arbitration motion has been proposed that would amend the discretionary sanctions procedure by moving some of those provisions into the Committee's arbitration enforcement policy to standardise enforcement of all Committee and discretionary sanctions. The community is encouraged to reviewed and commented on the motion here. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
OccultZone siteban rescinded
The indefinite siteban of OccultZone (talk · contribs) imposed in remedy 1 of the "OccultZone and others" arbitration case is rescinded with the following restrictions:
- OccultZone's topic ban from remedy 2 and one account restriction from remedy 3 in the "OccultZone and others" case remain in effect.
- OccultZone is indefinitely topic banned from filing, commenting in or discussing sockpuppet investigations. If OccultZone has a reasonable suspicion that a user may be engaging in sockpuppetry, they should raise the issue with the functionaries, an admin, or a sockpuppet investigations clerk, who can then file a sockpuppet investigation if, in their opinion, one is warranted.
- OccultZone is indefinitely topic banned from making any edits related to, or editing any page about South Asian topics, broadly construed.
- OccultZone is indefinitely subject to a 1RR editing restriction.
- OccultZone is indefinitely restricted from:
- Raising any issue at more than one venue, whatever that venue is (with the exception of bringing a case or clarification/amendment request to ArbCom).
- Raising any issue at a venue other than where it is being discussed.
- For clarity, OccultZone is not restricted from:
- Commenting in multiple venues if an issue is moved (by himself or others).
- Commenting in multiple venues if a single issue has been raised in multiple places by other users.
- Notifying users or pages of discussions in other venues.
These restrictions may be appealed to the Committee in no less than six months.
- Passed 8 to 0 by motion at 17:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 17:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- Archived discussion at: Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 34#OccultZone siteban rescinded
Standardising arbitration enforcement procedures
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
The following sections are moved (word for word) from the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions procedure to the Committee's procedures page (under the "Enforcement" heading) and as such apply to all arbitration enforcement actions (including discretionary sanctions and actions enforcing arbitration case remedies):
- The "Expectations of administrators" section
- The "Dismissing an enforcement request" section
A note is to be placed prominently on the discretionary sanctions procedure noting that the Enforcement provisions on the Committee's procedures page also apply to the application and enforcement of discretionary sanctions.
The "Appeals and modifications" in the discretionary sanctions procedure is modified to reflect the current version standard provision for appeals and modifications, including changes made to it in future amendments (Template:Arbitration standard provisions may be used).
For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 19:10, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- Archived discussion at: Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 34#Standardising arbitration enforcement procedures
ARBPIA "consensus" provision modified
The consensus required restriction in the Palestine-Israel articles case is modified to read as follows:
Editors are limited to one revert per page per day on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. In addition, editors are required to obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit.Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours. Reverts made to enforce the General Prohibition are exempt fromthe revert limitthe provisions of this motion. Also, the normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blockedwithout warningby any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.- Passed 9 to 0 by motion at 00:22, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 00:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- Discuss this at: Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#ARBPIA "consensus" provision modified