Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

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: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6

Agenda

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Venezuelan politics	25 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	Motion	(orig. case)	30 April 2024
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation	none	(orig. case)	13 May 2024
Clarification request: Extended confirmed restriction	none	none	29 May 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Current agenda

The Committee's current agenda is as follows:

Review Committee performance (Six-month review)
Milestones:
Executive summary published 22 July 2009 Full version due for publication 22 August 2009 Depending on feedback will open on RFC in September 2009
Status:
Preparation of fuller report in progress

Review mail handling process
Milestones:
Documentation of procedures underway Documentation completion date: August 15
Status:
Documentation of procedures underway

Determine workshop page structure
Milestones:
Publication of recommendations for discussion by 30 September
Status:
No activity at this time

Prepare updated arbitration policy
Milestones:
Prepare updated draft #3 and publish it for discussion by 15 September Referendum on draft #3 (date to be announced) Prepare updated guide to arbitration after referendum
Status:
Draft #2 published; preparation of draft #3 in progress

Rotate Ban Appeals Subcommittee membership
Milestones:
Rotate one member by August 1 Rotate one member by September 1 Rotate one member by October 1 Rotate one member by November 1 Rotate one member by December 1
Status:
No activity at this time

Appoint CU & OS auditing subcommittee
Milestones:
Determine election mechanism by August 15
Status:
Election mechanism under discussion

Determine updates to arbitration enforcement procedures
Milestones:
Decide on reform proposals by September 5 Implement reforms by September 19
Status:
No activity at this time

Develop an arbitrator recall process
Milestones:
Prepare proposal by September 5 Decide on proposal by September 26
Status:
No activity at this time

Determine how to deal with users returning from bans
Milestones:
Prepare proposal by September 12 Decide on proposal by October 3
Status:
No activity at this time

Review clerk procedures
Milestones:
Conduct review by September 19
Status:
No activity at this time

Review ban appeals process
Milestones:
Internal review underway Six-month review in October 2009 Consider options for public ban appeals in October 2009
Status:
Internal review in progress

Determine approach to dealing with inactive administrators
Milestones:
Deferred to October 2009, not pressing
Status:
No activity at this time

Determine approach to handling civility issues
Milestones:
Open public RFC by October 3 Compile RFC results by October 24 Prepare further proposals by November 7
Status:
No activity at this time

Determine approach to handling vested contributor issues
Milestones:
Open public RFC by October 3 Compile RFC results by October 24 Prepare further proposals by November 7
Status:
No activity at this time

Prepare transition procedure
Milestones:
Prepare draft procedure by October 31 Prepare final procedure by November 30
Status:
No activity at this time

Prepare updated induction document
Milestones:
Prepare draft by October 31 Prepare final version by November 30
Status:
No activity at this time

Discuss the agenda

Calendar

{{Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Agenda/Calendar/{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}}}

Announcements

Arbitration Committee motion regarding Locke Cole

The Arbitration Committee has passed a motion amending the "Locke Cole banned" remedy in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking. The remedy banning Locke Cole (talk · contribs) from editing Wikipedia for six months has been amended as follows:

• Locke Cole is provisionally unbanned effective at the enactment of this motion.
• Should Locke Cole be blocked as a result of violating the three-revert rule, his full editing ban will be reinstated for the remainder of its original duration, until December 14, 2009.
• Locke Cole remains indefinitely topic-banned from style and editing guidelines relating to the linking or unlinking of dates, and any related discussions.
• Locke Cole remains subject to an editing restriction for 12 months (until June 14, 2010), under which he is prohibited from reverting the linking or unlinking of dates.
• Locke Cole is reminded to abide by all applicable policies and guidelines in his editing, so that further controversies such as the one that led to the arbitration case will not arise, and any disagreements concerning style guidelines can be addressed in a civil and efficient fashion.

The discussion and voting on this motion has been archived at the case talk page. Locke Cole's account has been unblocked pursuant to this amendment.

For the Arbitration Committee
Daniel (talk) 03:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Arbitration Committee motion regarding Mythdon

The Arbitration Committee has passed a motion further amending Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong.

Mythdon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned for a period of six months. At the conclusion of the ban period, Mythdon will be on a six-month conduct probationary period, to run under the current restrictions, as set out in Ryulong.

The discussion and voting on this motion has been archived at the case talk page. Mythdon's account has been blocked for a period of six months pursuant to this amendment.

For the Arbitration Committee

Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 00:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/194x144x90x118

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

194x144x90x118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned for a period of one year.

All editors of the DreamHost article are reminded to abide by Wikipedia's policies of neutral point of view, using reliable and verifiable sources; to engage in civil discussion on the talk page to resolve editorial disputes; and to use the relevant noticeboards and dispute resolution processes to seek external opinions on coverage of matters where the current editors may lack objectivity.

194x144x90x118's account has been blocked for a period of one year pursuant to this case.

For the Arbitration Committee

Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 03:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley

This arbitration case has been closed, and the final decision is available in full at the link above.

As a result of this case:

1. The cold fusion article, and parts of any other articles substantially about cold fusion, are placed under discretionary sanctions.
2. Abd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned for a period of three months from Wikipedia, and for a period of one year from the cold fusion article. These bans are to run concurrently. Additionally, Abd is prohibited from participating in discussions about disputes in which he is not one of the originating parties, including but not limited to article talk pages, user talk pages, administrator noticeboards, and any formal or informal dispute resolution, however not including votes or comments at polls. Abd is also admonished for edit-warring on Arbitration case pages, engaging in personal attacks, and failing to support allegations of misconduct.
3. William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)'s administrator rights are revoked. He may apply for their reinstatement at any time via Requests for Adminship or appeal to the Committee. William M. Connolley is also admonished for edit warring on Arbitration case pages.
4. Mathsci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is reminded not to edit war and to avoid personal attacks.
5. The community is urged to engage in a policy discussion and clarify under what circumstances, if any, an administrator may issue topic or page bans without seeking consensus for them, and how such bans may be appealed. This discussion should come to a consensus within one month of this notice.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,

Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Removal of administrative access

Pursuant to ArbCom procedure for immediate temporary desysop, Pastor Theo (talk · contribs) is to have its sysop bit removed immediately as a reincarnation of a community banned editor.

Concurring: Carcharoth, Casliber, Coren, Rlevse, Wizardman

— Coren ^(talk), for the Arbitration Committee, 23:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Confirmation of desysopping

In early September 2009, a sockpuppetry investigation was initiated to compare the Mrs. Wolpoff (talk · contribs) account with community-banned Ecoleetage (talk · contribs), based on information that the two accounts were likely shared by the same person. During the course of this investigation, it became apparent that Mrs. Wolpoff was also editing as administrator Pastor Theo (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), an account that was created a day after Ecoleetage was blocked in January 2009, and which made a successful request for adminship in July 2009.

Further review demonstrated that the Mrs. Wolpoff account and the Pastor Theo account were being used in a way that violated multiple policies, particularly the sock puppetry policy, but also the administrator policy, with both accounts voting in certain community processes, and the administrator account being used to close discussions in which the non-administrator account had participated. As this use of both accounts was occurring as recently as last week, it was deemed necessary to initiate temporary desysopping procedures to prevent further disruption to community consensus discussions such as article deletion discussions and requests for adminship. The results of the investigation have been reviewed by multiple checkusers and arbitrators, and all have come to the same conclusion.

It is outside of the scope of the Arbitration Committee to review the community consensus discussions in which both the Mrs. Wolpoff account and the Pastor Theo account participated; the Committee suggests that the community revisits these issues and makes an appropriate determination as to whether any action is required.

Both the Mrs. Wolpoff account and the Pastor Theo account have been indefinitely blocked, because the parent account Ecoleetage is community-banned. The Pastor Theo account has been desysopped. This notice confirms the status of these accounts.

• Support: Carcharoth, Casliber, Coren, FayssalF, Newyorkbrad, Vassyana
• Not voting: Rlevse, Roger Davies, Stephen Bain
• Recused: Cool Hand Luke, Risker
• Inactive: FloNight, John Vandenberg, Wizardman

For the Arbitration Committee, Carcharoth (talk) 00:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Trial unblock of User:Life

The Ban Appeal Subcommittee has reviewed the case of this user and considered that a cautious trial of unblocking is feasible. The user is reminded to adhere to the guidelines of harmonious editing. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Full clerkships

Arbitration clerk trainees Hersfold, Hmwith, and KnightLago have completed their training and are now full arbitration clerks. The Arbitration Committee thanks them, and all of the other clerks and trainees, for their invaluable and continuing assistance in clerking the arbitration cases and pages. Carcharoth (talk) 02:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Eastern European mailing list

Piotrus (talk · contribs) is immediately temporarily desysopped pending complete investigation by the Arbitration Committee of the so-called "Wikipedia statistics" mailing list and its participants. Commentary and evidence should be directed to the committee by email, pending the forthcoming opening of a formal case.

Concurring: Cool Hand Luke, Coren, Vassyana.

— Coren ^(talk), for the Arbitration Committee, 19:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Unban of RMHED

RMHED is unbanned with the following restrictions.

1. 1RR for three months, except for clear vandalism and BLP problems.
2. No problematic interaction with Aitias for six months. (both directions)
3. Zero socks for 12 months, with a regular sock check performed by a checkuser

Jennavecia, Wehwalt and Canadian Paul will be mentors for the first three months.

For the Ban appeals subcommittee, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Apology from Casliber

I am hereby making a statement that I did know that Law was the undertow for several months, and apologising to the community for not acting upon it sooner. If there is consensus for my resignation from the committee, then I will do so.

I first got to know the Undertow before the time which saw his editing privileges revoked for 9 months. He was having a rough patch and I talked to him a few times and he picked up and felt better afterwards and was very grateful. I didn't hear from him for some time until he popped up and told me about the Law account. He told me that the issues which had resulted in the ban had been settled.

After this, I tried to persuade him several times to come clean which he deliberated on (as I figured this was the least dramatic way of dealing with the issue). He was at several stages going to retire the Law account, frequently enough for me to desist from pursuing it (combined with a large number of arb-related, wikipedia-related and RL-related issues keeping me very busy). I became aware of the successful RfA and was unhappy about it, and continued talking to him off and on about how to come clean. For the most part, his editing has been very productive. Once the issue with the unblock of Sandstein's block of ChildofMidnight arose, I realised I was put in a spot and confessed to the committee a day ago, after the committee became alerted to the identities by another incident.

Yes, this was a bad decision on my part and I apologise. If that is enough, then I am happy to keep serving as an arbitrator. If people feel that my resignation is warranted, then I'll step aside. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Ban Appeal Subcommittee: October

For October, the Ban Appeal Subcommittee will comprise the following arbitrators: Cool Hand Luke, Coren and Roger Davies.

For the Arbitration Committee

Risker (talk) 06:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Apology from John Vandenberg

It was brought to my attention this morning, about 9 hours ago, that a functionary had privately informed me on August 21 about the connection between Law and The undertow. The email that I received, which was sent to the audit subcommittee this morning and will be send to arbcom-l shortly, did not spell out the connection explicitly, and I can't be certain that I had even read the email until this morning. The day the original email arrived was the due date for the ERA submission for which I was responsible.

My apologies for adding to the recent confusion, especially to the functionary who believed that they had elevated the matter to the committee appropriately. I dropped the ball, and didn't go back to pick it up once I had more time on my hands. However I never "knew" of the connection, nor have I ever been on friendly terms with either of these accounts. My interaction is limited to actioning an unrelated oversight request from Law, and possibly communications with The undertow on IRC prior to the desysop (I don't have logs). As a result of my position in this matter being complicated by this, I will recuse from any further involvement. If this, or any other error on my part, has resulted in a loss of confidence, I will be happy to submit to a re-election. (see also my recall pledge) John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

BASC: Richard Relucio appeal

• Richard Relucio (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)

The above user is appealing his ban. He appears not to have engaged in sockpuppetry for six months and will accept editing restrictions if allowed to return. Possible restrictions could include:

1. Editor is indefinitely restricted to one account;
2. A three-months topic ban from articles related to Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila broadly defined and thereafter an indefinite 0RR restriction;
3. An indefinite restriction on uploading files (though this could be relaxed later if the editor finds a mentor willing to supervise and advise him on copyright, fair use etc);
4. The community ban may be reimposed at any time by motion of ArbCom if the editor engages in sockpuppetry; behaves disruptively; or fails to comply with the spirit or letter of these terms.

Community comment is welcome.  Roger Davies ^talk 14:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The Ban Appeal Subcommittee of ArbCom has decided that Richard Relucio's indefinite ban is suspended on the following conditions:

1. He is indefinitely restricted to one account;
2. He is topic-banned for three months from articles related to Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila broadly defined and thereafter an indefinite 0RR restriction;
3. He is indefinitely restricted from uploading files (though this could be relaxed later if the editor finds a mentor willing to supervise and advise him on copyright, fair use etc);
4. The community ban may be reimposed at any time by motion of ArbCom if the editor engages in sockpuppetry; behaves disruptively; or fails to comply with the spirit or letter of these terms.

The editor has accepted the conditions by email and will be unblocked shortly.

For ArbCom,  Roger Davies ^talk 14:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Betacommand: relaxation of editing restrictions

• Betacommand (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)

This user is currently editing under restriction. He has requested permission to install AWB for the sole purpose of clearing CAT:TEMP and the editing throttle not apply to such edits. If granted, his use of AWB will be monitored by his mentors.

Community comment is welcome.  Roger Davies ^talk 14:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The Ban Appeal Subcommittee, having carefully weighed the community's comments, has decided to deny Betacommand's request. The committee's main concern is that Betacommand may not have yet taken on board the lessons of the past and would like to see evidence of an improved, more collegiate, attitude before modifying his editing restrictions. Betacommand may re-apply to the committee, providing both his mentors support and endorse the application, in not less than three months time.

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies ^talk 06:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noloop

In light of the absence of Noloop (talk · contribs) and the indefinite block of WebHamster (talk · contribs), the two primary parties, this case is dismissed. If future problems arise (following the return or unblock of either or both editors), those problems should be dealt with by the opening of a new user conduct request for comment on the editor concerned. Requests for the Arbitration Committee to reopen this case would also be considered.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, KnightLago (talk) 19:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Three Audit Subcommittee vacancies: Call for applications

The process to appoint the three non-arbitrator members of the Audit Subcommittee is underway, with the election itself starting on 30 October. If you think you may be suitably qualified, please see the election pages for the job specification and application arrangements. Applications close 22 October 2009.

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies ^talk 21:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Motions: Law/The Undertow and Disclosure of known alternate accounts

Decided on 11 October 2009 :

In a series of motions, the Arbitration Committee addressed the matter of a blocked user (The undertow) operating under a new identity (Law) that successfully gained adminship. The Committee also examined the actions of three editors who assisted this new identity gain adminship, despite knowing that the individual was circumventing a block.

Motions: Law & The undertow

The Arbitration Committee has been informed that Law (talk · contribs) is an alternate account of The undertow (talk · contribs), and this has been confirmed with the user involved. User:Law has now resigned his administrator tools.[1] At the time that the User:Law account was created, User:The undertow was subject to an Arbitration Committee block.

• General motion: The Arbitration Committee notes the resignation of administrator tools by Law, and further notes that this resignation is under controversial circumstances. The user is restricted to one account, The undertow. He is required to notify the Arbitration Committee in advance should he wish to change usernames or create a new account, in accordance with Arbitration Committee enforcement procedures initiated in June 2009.[2]
• The undertow is banned 6 months: The undertow is banned from Wikipedia for six months.

Motions: Disclosure of known alternate accounts

In response to a case request submitted by User:Jehochman the committee decided to reject the case and instead deal with the matter by motion.

• GlassCobra: GlassCobra (talk · contribs) nominated Law (talk · contribs) for adminship. Law was an undisclosed account of previously 9-month blocked and desysopped editor The undertow (talk · contribs), and GlassCobra made his nomination while aware of that fact and without disclosing it. GlassCobra has since agreed that this was a breach of trust incompatible with his holding the position of an ArbCom clerk and has resigned from that post at the Committee's request. GlassCobra has apologized, pledged not to repeat such an error, and is willing to accept a sanction.
• GlassCobra admonished: GlassCobra is strongly admonished for having knowingly promoted the request for adminship of an editor he knew was using an undisclosed alternate account. He was aware that knowledge of the former account's history would materially affect the request, and displayed poor judgment by failing to disclose that information along with his support.
• GlassCobra desysopped: GlassCobra is desysopped for having knowingly promoted the request for adminship of an editor he knew was using an undisclosed alternate account. He was aware that knowledge of the former account's history would materially affect the request, and breached the community's trust by failing to disclose that information along with his support. Adminship may be regained by request to the arbitration committee or via the usual means.
• Jayron32 admonished: Jayron32 (talk · contribs) is strongly admonished for having knowingly promoted the request for adminship of an editor he knew was using an undisclosed alternate account. He was aware that knowledge of the former account's history would materially affect the request, and displayed poor judgment by failing to disclose that information along with his support.
• Jennavecia admonished: Jennavecia (talk · contribs) is strongly admonished for having knowingly promoted the request for adminship of an editor she knew was using an undisclosed alternate account. She was aware that knowledge of the former account's history would materially affect the request, and displayed poor judgment by failing to disclose that information along with her support.
• Jennavecia's resignation: Jennavecia resigned her status as an administrator on October 9, 2009, while this matter was pending. Per normal practice regarding resignation under controversial circumstances, she may apply at requests for adminship or to the Arbitration Committee for the restoration of her administrator status at any time.
• Administrators reminded and encouraged: Administrators are reminded that while they have no obligation to enforce any particular rule, they do have an obligation to refrain from violating or assisting in the violation of community or ArbCom imposed sanctions, as with any other editor. Administrators who choose not to address block evasion themselves by blocking the new account, are strongly encouraged to notify Arbcom or checkusers of apparent ban or block evasion when they become aware of it. It is in the best interests of the project and the user(s) involved to address these situations early.

For the Arbitration Committee, Manning (talk) 15:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Clerk note - a previous version of this notice incorrectly listed a motion which had, in fact, not passed. This was an administrative error on my part and has since been rectified at all relevant locations. Manning (talk) 00:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lapsed Pacifist 2

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

All articles related to Corrib gas controversy and the Shell to Sea campaign are placed under probation. All fall under the one-revert rule, and a stricter rather than laxer interpretation of addition of and removal of unsourced content.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk · contribs) is strongly admonished for edit warring and is topic banned, indefinitely, from articles related to the Corrib gas project, broadly defined. He is also subject to an editing restriction for one year, namely is limited to one revert per page per week (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.

While GainLine (talk · contribs) is admonished for vandalising BLPs and sockpuppetry, he is also commended for desisting from early problematic behaviours and encouraged to pursue appropriate dispute resolution methods, and seek administrator intervention when required.

Non-compliance to any of the above editing restrictions may result in a block, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year.

- For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 08:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Temporary Injunction: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light

A temporary injunction has been enacted in the above linked case banning David Tombe (talk · contribs) from further participation on the case pages and talk pages, for repeated disruption of the case proceedings. He may submit further evidence, proposals, and comments to the Arbitration Committee directly by email. The full text of this injunction may be seen here. For the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Three Audit Subcommittee vacancies: Urgent call for applications

The process to appoint the three non-arbitrator members of the Audit Subcommittee is underway. If you are suitably qualified, please see the election pages for the job specification and application arrangements. Applications close 22 October 2009.

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies ^talk 19:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Audit Subcommittee elections: Urgent! Final call for applications

Time is rapidly running out. The closing date for completed applications is 23:59 (UTC) 22 October 2009. If you are interested in becoming one of the three non-arbitrator members of the Audit Subcommittee, see the election pages now for the job specification and application details.

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies ^talk 17:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light

This arbitration case has been closed, and the final decision may be viewed at the link above.

• All editors are reminded to be civil at all times and seek consensus where possible, and encouraged pursue dispute resolution when necessary.
• Brews ohare (talk · contribs) is warned for his conduct in this dispute, and placed under a general probation for one year, under which any uninvolved administrator may impose sanctions if Brews ohare fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia or general editing and behavioral guidelines, policies, and expectations, despite warnings.
• David Tombe (talk · contribs) is also warned for his conduct in this dispute and during the course of the arbitration case, and is placed under the same general probation but for an indefinite duration. David Tombe may not appeal his probation for one year, and is limited to one appeal every six months thereafter.
• Both Brews ohare and David Tombe are banned from all physics-related pages and topics, broadly construed, for twelve months.
• Violations of the topic bans or general sanctions may be enforced by blocks of up to a week in length for repeated violations, to increase to one year after the third block. All blocks and other sanctions applied should be logged on the case page here.

For the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Raul654

From time to time, concerns have been raised that Raul654 has misused his checkuser tools and has made drastically excessive rangeblocks, in the topic area of global warming. The Audit Subcommittee has conducted a thorough review of Raul654's use of the tools and has concluded that these concerns were justified.

In a recent e-mail to the Arbitration Committee, Raul654 has acknowledged that he may have overreacted and overused his tools, and noted that since the Audit Subcommittee investigation began he has limited his use of tools in this area. Raul654 has expressed a willingness to address the issues and, in particular, (i) to resign his access to the checkuser and oversight tools (the latter on grounds of inactivity), and the associated mailing lists; and (ii) to refrain from taking any administrator actions in connection with the topic area of global warming, broadly defined, or in connection with user conduct relating to that topic area.

Based on the report of the Audit Subcommittee, the evidence before it, and the response from Raul654, the Arbitration Committee accepts (i) Raul654's resignation as a checkuser and oversighter, effective immediately; and (ii) Raul654's proposed restriction on his future use of administrative tools in the topic area of global warming, as outlined above, which becomes binding, also effective immediately.

The Arbitration Committee thanks the members of the Audit Subcommittee for their conscientious and detailed report, and their recommendations on this matter.

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies ^talk 15:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Arbitration Committee motion regarding Date delinking

The Arbitration Committee has passed a motion further amending Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking.

Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll, Wikipedia talk:Full-date unlinking bot#RFC, and Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Full-date unlinking bot indicate that Full-date unlinking bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) fulfills the requirement for "a Community approved process for the mass delinking" in "1.3 Mass date linking" and the requirement for "[d]ate delinking bots [performing] in a manner approved by the Bot Approvals Group" in "2.1 Date delinking bots". The Committee thanks the participants for their efforts and encourages them to continue with their constructive work and consensus building.

The discussion and voting on this motion has been archived at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking#Date_delinking_bots_2.

For the Arbitration Committee, Manning (talk) 10:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this