User talk:MJL/P

Arbitration motion regarding American politics 2

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Atsme's topic ban from post-WWII Anti fascism in the United States is provisionally lifted for a period of twelve months. If at any point before 1 January 2023 an uninvolved administrator feels that Atsme is not able to edit productively in this area, they may re-impose the topic ban.

For the Arbitration Committee, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:28, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding American politics 2

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing closed

An arbitration case regarding Skepticism and coordinated editing has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

Rp2006 (talk · contribs) is warned against a battleground mentality and further incivility.
Rp2006 is indefinitely topic banned from edits related to living people associated with or of interest to scientific skepticism, broadly construed. This topic ban may be appealed after six months have elapsed and every six months thereafter.
A. C. Santacruz (talk · contribs) is reminded to remain collegial in editing and interacting with others.
Roxy the dog (talk · contribs) is warned to remain collegial in editing and interacting with others.
GSoW is advised that a presence on English Wikipedia, perhaps as its own WikiProject or as a task force of WikiProject Skepticism, will create more transparency and lessen some of the kinds of suspicion and conflict that preceded this case. It could also provide a place for the GSoW to get community feedback about its training which would increase its effectiveness.
Editors are reminded that discretionary sanctions for biographies of living people have been authorized since 2014.

For the Arbitration Committee, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing closed

Arbitration motion regarding clerk terms

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The Arbitration Committee procedures is amended to add a new section "Clerks" (level 2) and a subsection entitled "Terms" with the following text:

Trainee clerks will have a term of up to 1 year after their appointment as a trainee to be promoted to full clerk. This term may be extended by the Committee.
Full clerks will be asked to confirm their desire to stay a clerk every 2 years, from the date they were appointed as a full clerk. There are no term limits for full clerks.

For the Arbitration Committee, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:21, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding clerk terms

Arbitration motion regarding St Christopher

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Remedy 2 of the St Christopher case ("Single-purpose accounts restrained") is rescinded. Any actions previously taken in accordance with this remedy remain in force.

For the Arbitration Committee, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding St Christopher

Notification of administrators without tools

	Greetings, MJL. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title: Wikipelli Silver seren
Thank you for supporting this effort. Your contributions are an integral part of overall success, and an example for others to follow. To stop receiving these notifications, remove your name from the list.

Tol Bot (talk) 20:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of administrators without tools

	Greetings, MJL. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title: John of Reading
Thank you for supporting this effort. Your contributions are an integral part of overall success, and an example for others to follow. To stop receiving these notifications, remove your name from the list.

Tol Bot (talk) 20:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

pre-RfC mass-article creation discussion has begun

As part of the Conduct in deletion-related editing case, the Arbitration Committee decided to request community comments on issues related to mass nominations at Articles for Deletion in a discussion to be moderated and closed by editors appointed by the committee.

Workshopping for the first of two discussions (which focuses on mass article creation) has begun and feedback can be given at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale. As previously announced, Valereee and Xeno will be co-moderating these discussions.

For the Arbitration Committee, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:08, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § pre-RfC mass-article creation discussion has begun

Board of Trustees election

Thank you for supporting the NPP initiative to improve WMF support of the Page Curation tools. Another way you can help is by voting in the Board of Trustees election. The next Board composition might be giving attention to software development. The election closes on 6 September at 23:59 UTC. View candidate statement videos and Vote Here. MB 03:54, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration motion regarding Climate change

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Remedy 8.1 of the Muhammad images case ("Discretionary sanctions") is rescinded two months after this motion is enacted. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the discretionary sanctions authorization remain in force and are governed by the discretionary sanctions procedure.

For the Arbitration Committee, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding Climate change

Arbitration motion regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

In order to reaffirm the independence of the RfC authorized by the Conduct in deletion-related editing case, and to ratify the moderators' decision to hold two sequential RfCs, Remedy 11 ("Request for Comment") is amended as follows:

The second point is amended to read as follows: "The moderator(s), with community feedback, will be responsible for developing the questions presented. The moderator(s) may decide to split the questions over two sequential requests for comment; in the event that they choose to do so, the closing panel will close both RfCs. In the event that a member of the closing panel is no longer available to close the second request for comment, that member will be replaced by the Arbitration Committee upon request."
The sixth point is amended to read as follows: "Any appeals of a moderator decision ~~or of the panel close~~ may only be made to the Arbitration Committee at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. The community retains the ability to amend the outcomes of the RfC through a subsequent community-wide request for comment."

For the Arbitration Committee, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:47, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing

Notification of administrators without tools

	Greetings, MJL. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title: Elli
Thank you for supporting this effort. Your contributions are an integral part of overall success, and an example for others to follow. To stop receiving these notifications, remove your name from the list.

Tol Bot (talk) 20:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Scottywong closed

The arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Scottywong has now closed, and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

For failure to meet the conduct standards expected of an administrator, Scottywong's administrative user rights are removed. Scottywong may regain them at any time via a successful request for adminship.
Scottywong (talk · contribs) and ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk · contribs) are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).

For the Arbitration Committee, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:24, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Scottywong closed

Arbitration motion regarding Unused Contentious Topics

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by a series of motions that:

Motions that passed

Remedy 1 of Editor conduct in e-cigs articles ("Contentious topic designation") is rescinded. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the contentious topic authorization remain in force and are governed by the procedures.

The final remedy of Liancourt Rocks ("Contentious topic designation") is rescinded. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the contentious topic authorization remain in force and are governed by the procedures.

Remedy 1 of Longevity ("Contentious topic designation") is rescinded. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the contentious topic authorization remain in force and are governed by the procedures.

Remedy 2 of Medicine ("Contentious topic designation") is rescinded. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the contentious topic authorization remain in force and are governed by the procedures.

Remedy 2 of September 11 conspiracy theories ("Contentious topic designation") is rescinded due to the topic area being covered by the post-1992 American Politics contentious topic. All actions taken under the rescinded authorization remain in force and are governed by the procedures.

Remedy 1 of Shakespeare authorship question ("Contentious topic designation") is rescinded. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the contentious topic authorization remain in force and are governed by the procedures.

The following remedies from Macedonia 2 are rescinded:

Remedy 3.1 (All related articles under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned)
Remedy 6 (Stalemate resolution)
Remedy 30 (Administrative supervision)

Editors are reminded that Eastern Europe and the Balkans, broadly construed, continues to be a contentious topic.

Remedy 6 of the The Troubles case ("One-revert rule") is amended to read as follows:

A one revert restriction (1RR), subject to the usual exceptions, is applied to all pages relating to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding Unused Contentious Topics

Arbitration motion regarding reliable source consensus-required restrictions

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Clerks are instructed to add a new section, entitled "Reliable source consensus-required restriction" to the Enforcement section of the Arbitration Procedures with the following text:

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 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.

Remedy 5 of Antisemitism in Poland is superseded by the following restriction:

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".

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe is amended to include the following restriction:

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."

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,
–MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding reliable source consensus-required restrictions