Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-07-31/Arbitration report: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m m |
m Protected "Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-07-31/Arbitration report": old newspaper articles don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor ([Edit=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (indefinite) [Move=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (indefinite)) |
||
| (9 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<noinclude>{{Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:Signpost-header|||}}</noinclude> |
<noinclude>{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/RSS description|1=''Race and politics'' case closes: The case ''Race and politics'' was closed, while three other cases remain open.}}{{Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:Signpost-header|||}}</noinclude> |
||
{{Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:Signpost-article-start|{{{1|''Race and politics'' case closes }}}|By [[User:Neotarf|Neotarf]]| 1 August 2013}} |
{{Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:Signpost-article-start|{{{1|''Race and politics'' case closes }}}|By [[User:Neotarf|Neotarf]]| 1 August 2013}} |
||
The case |
The case ''Race and politics'' was closed. The workshop phase continues for ''Infoboxes''. The workshop phase closes in ''Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds''. Voting on the proposed decision continues in the ''Tea Party movement'' case. |
||
=== Closed cases === |
=== Closed cases === |
||
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_politics |''Race and politics'']] brought by [[user:UseTheCommandLine|UseTheCommandLine]] and dealing with sourcing methods in articles pertaining to race politics, was closed after being suspended for a two-month period, to see if an editor central to the case, [[User: Apostle12| Apostle12]], would return |
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_politics |''Race and politics'']] brought by [[user:UseTheCommandLine|UseTheCommandLine]] and dealing with sourcing methods in articles pertaining to race politics, was closed after being suspended for a two-month period, to see if an editor central to the case, [[User: Apostle12| Apostle12]], would return. The user did not return, a topic ban was imposed with regards to any page relating to "race and politics", and the user was directed to inform the committee if he returns to editing. |
||
=== Open cases === |
=== Open cases === |
||
==== [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes|''Infoboxes'']] ==== |
==== [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes|''Infoboxes'']] ==== |
||
This case, brought by [[User:Ched|Ched]], involves the issue of who should make the decision to include an infobox in an article and to determine its formatting (right margin, footer, both, etc) -- whether the preferences of the original author should be taken into consideration, if the decision should be made by various WikiProjects |
This case, brought by [[User:Ched|Ched]], involves the issue of who should make the decision to include an infobox in an article and to determine its formatting (right margin, footer, both, etc) -- whether the preferences of the original author should be taken into consideration, if the decision should be made by various WikiProjects to promote uniformity between articles, or whether each article should be decided on a case-by-case basis after discussion. It also involves what is perceived by some to be an aggressive addition or reverting of infoboxes to articles without discussion by some editors, in areas where they do not normally edit. Areas that have seen disputes over infoboxes include opera, the Classical Music and Composers project, and Featured Articles. |
||
The evidence phase of the case closed 31 July, the workshop closes 7 August, and a proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 14 August 2013. |
The evidence phase of the case closed 31 July, the workshop closes 7 August, and a proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 14 August 2013. |
||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
* ''' Amendment request: Argentine History''': A [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment_request:_Argentine_History|request]] was made by [[User: MarshalN20|MarshalN20]] for an amendment to a topic ban for history-related sections of the Falkland Islands article. |
* ''' Amendment request: Argentine History''': A [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment_request:_Argentine_History|request]] was made by [[User: MarshalN20|MarshalN20]] for an amendment to a topic ban for history-related sections of the Falkland Islands article. |
||
* ''' Clarification request: Argentine History''': A [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Argentine_history|request]] was made by [[User: Cambalachero | Cambalachero ]] for a clarification of whether a topic ban on pages related to the history of Latin America applies to articles about recent politics or a brief mention of historical context in non-historical articles. |
* ''' Clarification request: Argentine History''': A [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Argentine_history|request]] was made by [[User: Cambalachero | Cambalachero ]] for a clarification of whether a topic ban on pages related to the history of Latin America applies to articles about recent politics or a brief mention of historical context in non-historical articles. |
||
* '''Clarification request: Scientology:''' A [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Scientology clarification request] was brought by [[User:Sandstein]] in response to a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive805#Abuse_of_admin_powers_and_Violation_of_WP:INVOLVED_by_User:Sandstein discussion] on the administrator's incidents noticeboard. The request seeks to clarify the role of discretionary sanctions and [[WP:OUTING|outing ]] after discretionary sanctions for the [[WP:ARBSCI| ''Scientology']] case were applied to two editors who posted a link on Sandstein's talk page to an old Arbcom case that contained an editor's previous username. A [//en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=565487423&oldid=565487249 proposal] has been made to [[:wikt:vacate|vacate]] the sanction against one of the editors, and to impose a sanction regarding harassment. A discretionary sanction prohibiting onwiki publication of alleged real names of the named editor would be imposed, and all users who contributed to the discussions at either ANI or the clarification request [//en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&diff=564577881&oldid=564558633 would be notified] of the new discretionary sanction. The notifications would be appealable. |
* '''Clarification request: Scientology:''' A [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Scientology clarification request] was brought by [[User:Sandstein]] in response to a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive805#Abuse_of_admin_powers_and_Violation_of_WP:INVOLVED_by_User:Sandstein discussion] on the administrator's incidents noticeboard. The request seeks to clarify the role of discretionary sanctions and [[WP:OUTING|outing ]] after discretionary sanctions for the [[WP:ARBSCI| ''Scientology'']] case were applied to two editors who posted a link on Sandstein's talk page to an old Arbcom case that contained an editor's previous username. A [//en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=565487423&oldid=565487249 proposal] has been made to [[:wikt:vacate|vacate]] the sanction against one of the editors, and to impose a sanction regarding harassment. A discretionary sanction prohibiting onwiki publication of alleged real names of the named editor would be imposed, and all users who contributed to the discussions at either ANI or the clarification request [//en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&diff=564577881&oldid=564558633 would be notified] of the new discretionary sanction. The notifications would be appealable. |
||
<noinclude>{{Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:Signpost-article-comments-end||2013-07- |
<noinclude>{{Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:Signpost-article-comments-end||2013-07-24|2013-08-07}}</noinclude> |
||
[[Category:Wikipedia Signpost archives 2013-07|31 Arbitration]] |
|||
Latest revision as of 01:59, 6 January 2024
Arbitration report
Race and politics case closes
The case Race and politics was closed. The workshop phase continues for Infoboxes. The workshop phase closes in Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds. Voting on the proposed decision continues in the Tea Party movement case.
Closed cases
Race and politics brought by UseTheCommandLine and dealing with sourcing methods in articles pertaining to race politics, was closed after being suspended for a two-month period, to see if an editor central to the case, Apostle12, would return. The user did not return, a topic ban was imposed with regards to any page relating to "race and politics", and the user was directed to inform the committee if he returns to editing.
Open cases
This case, brought by Ched, involves the issue of who should make the decision to include an infobox in an article and to determine its formatting (right margin, footer, both, etc) -- whether the preferences of the original author should be taken into consideration, if the decision should be made by various WikiProjects to promote uniformity between articles, or whether each article should be decided on a case-by-case basis after discussion. It also involves what is perceived by some to be an aggressive addition or reverting of infoboxes to articles without discussion by some editors, in areas where they do not normally edit. Areas that have seen disputes over infoboxes include opera, the Classical Music and Composers project, and Featured Articles. The evidence phase of the case closed 31 July, the workshop closes 7 August, and a proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 14 August 2013.
This case, brought by Mark Arsten, involves a dispute between Kiefer Wolfowitz and Ironholds, the original account of Wikimedia Foundation employee Oliver Keyes, that began on-wiki and escalated in off-wiki forums, ending with statements that could be interpreted as threats of violence. The evidence phase of the case closed 26 July, the workshop closes 2 August, and a proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2013.
This case involving a US political group, brought by KillerChihuahua, is now unsuspended, after a moderated discussion failed to agree on the ground rules for such a discussion. Voting continues on the proposed decision.
Other requests and committee action
- Amendment request: Argentine History: A request was made by MarshalN20 for an amendment to a topic ban for history-related sections of the Falkland Islands article.
- Clarification request: Argentine History: A request was made by Cambalachero for a clarification of whether a topic ban on pages related to the history of Latin America applies to articles about recent politics or a brief mention of historical context in non-historical articles.
- Clarification request: Scientology: A clarification request was brought by User:Sandstein in response to a discussion on the administrator's incidents noticeboard. The request seeks to clarify the role of discretionary sanctions and outing after discretionary sanctions for the Scientology case were applied to two editors who posted a link on Sandstein's talk page to an old Arbcom case that contained an editor's previous username. A proposal has been made to vacate the sanction against one of the editors, and to impose a sanction regarding harassment. A discretionary sanction prohibiting onwiki publication of alleged real names of the named editor would be imposed, and all users who contributed to the discussions at either ANI or the clarification request would be notified of the new discretionary sanction. The notifications would be appealable.
Discuss this story
A few of Oliver Keyes's WP:IRC comments were discussed by a leading newspaper, which also quoted Sue Gardner, in a discussion of on-line misogyny:
Keyes uses the accounts User:Ironholds and User:Okeyes (WMF). Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]