Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions

Edit links
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GorillaWarfare (talk | contribs) at 04:37, 6 February 2015 (propose motion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Anachronist   16 June 2024 0/5/0
Rio Grande 223   19 June 2024 0/3/0
[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Venezuelan politics 25 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation none (orig. case) 7 June 2024
Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads none none 4 June 2024
Amendment request: India-Pakistan none (orig. case) 7 June 2024
Clarification request: Contentious topics restrictions none none 10 June 2024
Amendment request: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland none (orig. case) 21 June 2024
Motion name Date posted
Motion: Interactions at GGTF (amend scope) 5 February 2015
Motion: Two kinds of pork banned 6 February 2015

Motions


Motion: Interactions at GGTF (amend scope)

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions at GGTF is amended as follows:

  1. The provisions in the "Scope of topic bans" remedy are rescinded and replaced with: "Editors topic banned by the Committee under this remedy are prohibited on the English Wikipedia from editing any pages relating to or making any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed. An uninvolved admin may remove any comments that breach this remedy, and impose blocks as necessary. The Committee's standard provisions on enforcement of arbitration provisions and appeals and modifications of arbitration enforcements apply."
  2. The terms of the "Discretionary sanctions" remedy are rescinded and replaced with: "Discretionary sanctions are authorised for any page relating to or any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed ."
  3. All sanctions already issued under earlier versions of these provisions remain in force.
Support
  1. To sync the topic bans and discretionary sanctions, and to broaden the scope of the discretionary sanctions. Please copy-edit as necessary,  Roger Davies talk 01:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This should have been done months ago --Guerillero | My Talk 02:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I already made my argument for this over at ARCA. Courcelles 02:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved the "broadly construed" language out to cover all three clauses. Courcelles 02:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    For discussion, I'm not entirely sure clause iii actually adds much not covered under i and ii, but no harm in making it explicit, either, I guess. Courcelles 02:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Yes, the language should be the same DGG ( talk ) 03:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Dougweller (talk) 12:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
Recuse

Discussion by arbitrators

  • Just in case anyone is wondering where the "The availability of sanctions is not intended to prevent free and candid discussion on these pages, but sanctions should be imposed if an editor severely or persistently disrupts the discussion." from the original remedy has gone, it's since been incorporated into the DS procedural main page (first sentence of Guidance for editors).  Roger Davies talk 12:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given this is largely an internal-facing remedy, rather than one likely to be invoked for article content, wouldn't be a bad idea to state it explicitly here, even redundantly. Courcelles 17:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Community comments

Motion: Two kinds of pork banned

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions at GGTF is amended as follows:

  1. For egregious violation of civility, violation of their topic ban ([1][2]), and continued inability to constructively contribute to the encyclopedia ([3] (summary)), Two kinds of pork (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from the English Language Wikipedia. They may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
Support
  1. As proposer. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
Recuse
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions&oldid=645851199"