Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 14) (bot |
m Adjusting links to archived content |
||
| (69 intermediate revisions by 15 users not shown) | |||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
}} |
}} |
||
| ⚫ | |||
== Proposed motion to create Reliable source consensus-required restriction procedures and add the restriction to the Lithuania topic area == |
|||
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by [[Special:Permalink/1219893542#Sri_Lanka_motion|motion]], in resolution of [[Special:Permalink/1219893542#Designating_Sri_Lanka_as_a_contentious_topic|a case request]], that: |
|||
The Arbitration Committee is considering '''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Motion: Reliable source consensus-required restriction|a motion]]''' to amend the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Modification_of_procedures|procedures]] and to extend reliable source requirements to Lithuania as a topic area. Comments are welcome at the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment_request:_Antisemitism_in_Poland|relevant request for clarification]]. |
|||
{{ivmbox|1=This case request is resolved by motion as follows: |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | : Archived discussion at: '''{{slink|Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 51| |
||
Sri Lanka, broadly construed, is designated as a contentious topic.}} |
|||
== Arbitration motion regarding reliable source consensus-required restrictions == |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by [[Special:Permalink/1193639157#Motion: Reliable source consensus-required restriction|motion]] that: |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
{{ivmbox|1=Clerks are instructed to add a new section, entitled "Reliable source consensus-required restriction" to the Enforcement section of the [[WP:ARBPROC|Arbitration Procedures]] with the following text: |
|||
<blockquote>The Committee may apply the "Reliable source consensus-required restriction" to specified topic areas. For topic areas with this restriction, when a source that is not an article in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal, an academically focused book by a reputable publisher, and/or an article published by a reputable institution is removed from an article, no editor may reinstate the source without first obtaining consensus on the talk page of the article in question or consensus about the reliability of the source in a discussion at the [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard|Reliable Sources Noticeboard]]. Administrators may enforce this restriction with page protections, topic bans, or blocks; enforcement decisions should consider not merely the severity of the violation but the general disciplinary record of the editor in violation.</blockquote> |
|||
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland#Article_sourcing_expectations|Remedy 5 of ''Antisemitism in Poland'']] is superseded by the following restriction: |
|||
<blockquote>All articles and edits in the topic area of Polish history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland are subject to a "reliable source consensus-required restriction".</blockquote> |
|||
[[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe]] is amended to include the following restriction: |
|||
<blockquote>All articles and edits in the topic area of Lithuania history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Lithuania are subject to a "reliable source consensus-required restriction."</blockquote> |
|||
Clerks are instructed to link to the Arbitration Procedures in the two restrictions above and are empowered to make other changes necessary to implement this new enforcement procedure.}} |
|||
For the Arbitration Committee,<br /> –<span style="font-family:CG Times, times">[[User:MJL|<span style="color:black">MJL</span>]] [[User talk:MJL|‐'''Talk'''‐]]<sup>[[User:MJL/P|☖]]</sup></span> 21:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
== Dovidroth unbanned == |
|||
== Proposed motions on email canvassing == |
|||
Following a successful appeal of his [[Special:Permalink/1197461960#Dovidroth|site ban]] to the Arbitration Committee, {{user|Dovidroth}} is unbanned. The [[Special:Permalink/1197461960#Dovidroth_topic_ban|topic ban]], which was passed at the same time as the site ban, remains in force. |
|||
The Arbitration Committee is considering a '''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Motions:_PIA_Canvassing|series of proposed motions]]''' related to allegations of inappropriate email canvassing within the Israel-Palestine topic area in violation of Wikipedia policy. Community statements and evidence submissions are welcome at the above link, or by email to {{arbcom-en}} if information cannot be posted publicly. For the Arbitration Committee, '''[[User:L235|KevinL]]''' (<small>aka</small> [[User:L235|L235]] '''·''' [[User talk:L235#top|t]] '''·''' [[Special:Contribs/L235|c]]) 21:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
Support: Barkeep49, Guerillero, HJ Mitchell, Maxim, Primefac, Sdrqaz, ToBeFree |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by [[Special:Permalink/1194194627#Motion:_GiantSnowman_restrictions_amended_(January_2024)|motion]] that: |
|||
{{ivmbox|1=Remedy 1.2 of the ''GiantSnowman'' case ("GiantSnowman admonished and placed under review") is amended to read as follows: |
|||
<blockquote> |
|||
1.2) GiantSnowman is admonished for overuse of the rollback and blocking functions, and reminded to [[w:WP:ADMINCOND|"lead by example" and "strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy"]]; to [[w:WP:ADMINACCT|"respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions and to justify them when needed"]]; to not use admin tools in [[w:WP:INVOLVED|"cases in which they have been involved" including "conflicts with an editor" and "disputes on topics"]]; to [[w:WP:BITE|"treat newcomers with kindness and patience"]]; and to apply these principles in all interactions with all editors. |
|||
Oppose: Firefly, Moneytrees |
|||
With the exception of obvious vandalism or obvious violations of the policy on biographies of living persons: |
|||
* GiantSnowman is prohibited from reverting another editor's contribution without providing an explanation in the edit summary. Default edit summaries provided by MediaWiki or user scripts are not sufficient for the purpose of this restriction. For the avoidance of doubt, use of MediaWiki rollback with an edit summary via a user script such as [[w:User:DannyS712/AjaxRollbackSummary|this one]], or via massRollback.js, is permitted. |
|||
* GiantSnowman is prohibited from blocking an editor who has not been recently warned for the conduct in question. For the purposes of this restriction, "recently" is assumed to be within 7 days. |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
Violations may be reported by any editor to [[w:WP:AE|the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard]]. GiantSnowman may [[w:WP:ARCA|appeal these restrictions directly to the Arbitration Committee]] at any time. |
|||
: Archived discussion at: '''{{slink|Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 51|Dovidroth unbanned}}'''<!-- [[User:ArbClerkBot|ArbClerkBot]] ([[User talk:ArbClerkBot|talk]]) 15:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes--> |
|||
</blockquote>}} |
|||
== Changes to the functionaries team, May 2024 == |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | |||
Following a request to the Arbitration Committee, the Oversight access of [[User:Dreamy Jazz|Dreamy Jazz]] is removed. The Committee sincerely thanks Dreamy Jazz for their service as a member of the Oversight team. |
|||
On behalf of the Committee, [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 14:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
== [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mzajac]] closed == |
|||
An arbitration case regarding [[User:Mzajac]] has now closed. The Arbitration Committee resolved by motion in February to suspend the case, which could be unsuspended if Mzajac requested it within three months. Because Mzajac has not requested that the case be unsuspended, the case has been automatically closed. The motion which has now closed the case is [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mzajac#Motion to suspend]]. |
|||
For the Arbitration Committee, [[User:Aoidh|Aoidh]] ([[User talk:Aoidh|talk]]) 21:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
Latest revision as of 18:20, 12 May 2024
| 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.
Arbitration motion regarding Sri Lanka
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion, in resolution of a case request, that:
This case request is resolved by motion as follows:
Sri Lanka, broadly construed, is designated as a contentious topic.
For the Arbitration Committee, firefly ( t · c ) 14:38, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 51 § Arbitration motion regarding Sri Lanka
Dovidroth unbanned
Following a successful appeal of his site ban to the Arbitration Committee, Dovidroth (talk · contribs) is unbanned. The topic ban, which was passed at the same time as the site ban, remains in force.
Support: Barkeep49, Guerillero, HJ Mitchell, Maxim, Primefac, Sdrqaz, ToBeFree
Oppose: Firefly, Moneytrees
For the Arbitration Committee, Maxim (talk) 15:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 51 § Dovidroth unbanned
Changes to the functionaries team, May 2024
Following a request to the Arbitration Committee, the Oversight access of Dreamy Jazz is removed. The Committee sincerely thanks Dreamy Jazz for their service as a member of the Oversight team.
On behalf of the Committee, Primefac (talk) 14:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 51 § Changes to the functionaries team, May 2024
An arbitration case regarding User:Mzajac has now closed. The Arbitration Committee resolved by motion in February to suspend the case, which could be unsuspended if Mzajac requested it within three months. Because Mzajac has not requested that the case be unsuspended, the case has been automatically closed. The motion which has now closed the case is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mzajac#Motion to suspend.
For the Arbitration Committee, Aoidh (talk) 21:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)