Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee: Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
→top: +capt |
Reverted to revision 852893284 by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk): Not appropriate. (TW) |
||
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
|archive = Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Archive %(counter)d |
|archive = Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Archive %(counter)d |
||
}} |
}} |
||
[[File:Arbitration Committe Motto Recriminate a bit.gif|thumb|right|Unofficial anagram of the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee]] |
|||
== Status on an ArbCom decision == |
== Status on an ArbCom decision == |
Revision as of 14:50, 2 August 2018
Use this page to discuss information on the page (and subpages) attached to this one. This includes limited discussion of the Arbitration Committee itself, as a body. Some things belong on other pages:
|
![]() | This Arbitration Committee has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
Track related changes |
Status on an ArbCom decision
I checked Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Magioladitis but I can't find which of the Remedies werε implemennted ανδ which were not. How can I check the status of these remedies? -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- They were all implemented by virtue of having passed. As for their status, they're all still active, save for "Community encouraged to review policy on cosmetic edits", which pretty much happened and is a settled question now. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, the last one (5.3.2). Where did it happen? How did the ArbCom implement this? Was there any call for centralised discussion? Same for 5.3.1. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- ARBCOM may not impose anything upon the community. ARBCOM encouraged it. Whether or not the community does it is up to the community. It happened (incompletely) with WP:CHECKWIKI at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Check Wikipedia/Archive 3#Identifying cosmetic fixes. For AWB there is T138977, T100443, any of these and various other open tickets. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:58, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- ArbCom imposed restrictions to editors i.e. to community. Moreover, how the ARBCOM communicates with the community? -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- Of course ArbCom can impose restrictions on editors when necessary, that is its purpose and its remit. What it cannot do is make or change policy, or force the community to hold an RfC to make or change policy. It can recommend that the community review its policy, which is what happened in that case. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- So, did my actions actually helped in reviewing and changing the policy on "cosmetic fixes"? That's nice news! But ,I think the discussion still remained between a few people. Is there any way to make this known to widr audience and attact more people on discussing these matters? As said before this discussion still it is incomplete and since we had a second ArbCom case with almost the same people involved, we should proceed further in order to rresolve this in an even better way. The AWB requests were mainly by me or before this Arbcom case which also shows how valuable was this case and the one that proceded this in resolving a longstanind issue in the community. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 23:51, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- Recall that 14 CHECKWIKI errors still remain in unknown status. If we resolve this, we can go back to ArbCom case and reexamine my case too. Recall that we also have a new watchlist system which is near to the one I described in the ArbCom cases. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:54, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note that Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Magioladitis 2#COSMETICBOT-discussion prohibition (1) remains in effect. isaacl (talk) 23:58, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- The ArbCom has to resolve this then. The remedies of cases were posed more than a year ago. Does 2.1 of case 2 affect CHECKWIKI project too? -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:03, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- Insofar as it explicitly prohibits you from discussing COSMETICBOT, yes. It has been in force since the case. It is still in force. It will remain in force for the foreseeable future until it is explicitly rescinded by the Arbitration Committe.
- You were warned about potentially violating your restriction less than two weeks ago in a discussion just a little ways up this page, and here you are circling the same point yet again. If you say one more word about COSMETICBOT, or the impact of your cosmetic edits, I will block you for violating your restrictions despite ample warning. Please don't make me do that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- The ArbCom has to resolve this then. The remedies of cases were posed more than a year ago. Does 2.1 of case 2 affect CHECKWIKI project too? -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:03, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note that Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Magioladitis 2#COSMETICBOT-discussion prohibition (1) remains in effect. isaacl (talk) 23:58, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- Of course ArbCom can impose restrictions on editors when necessary, that is its purpose and its remit. What it cannot do is make or change policy, or force the community to hold an RfC to make or change policy. It can recommend that the community review its policy, which is what happened in that case. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Don't know if this is the right place to ask this but an editor has placed ArbCom notices articles that didn't have them before...
I am wondering if this is appropriate/accepted-practice (or not). One of the talk page is Talk:Sergei Skripal and here is the edit history, the other two can be found in the editor's contributions history. Can anyone (not just an ArbCom member or an admin) place these notices on talk pages? Couldn't find the answer so I thought I'd ask here. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 16:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- Usually an admin does it but afaik there's no restriction on anyone else doing it. If you disagree, discuss or follow normal dispute resolution procedures, but it's honesty not a huge deal. Just having the template there doesn't do anything; the enforcing administrator will make a call as to whether specific edits fall in DS topics whether or not there's a template. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:53, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
- That's always been my interpretation but I'd like to hear some Arbs confirm it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:38, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure this was discussed somewhere in the last few months... But here is a statement from an arbitrator in 2016: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Archive 18#Who can put discretionary sanctions notices on an article's talk page? isaacl (talk) 00:23, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
- I went from that link back to links located there, which led me to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Alerts, which I think answers this question officially. It begins:
Any editor may advise any other editor that discretionary sanctions are in force for an area of conflict.
I think that's the answer. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:54, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
- I went from that link back to links located there, which led me to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Alerts, which I think answers this question officially. It begins:
- I'm pretty sure this was discussed somewhere in the last few months... But here is a statement from an arbitrator in 2016: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Archive 18#Who can put discretionary sanctions notices on an article's talk page? isaacl (talk) 00:23, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
- That's always been my interpretation but I'd like to hear some Arbs confirm it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:38, 27 July 2018 (UTC)