→Arbitration motion regarding RfC moderation: Adding links to talk page sections (bot) |
→Arbitration motion regarding RfC moderation: motion passed |
||
| Line 79: | Line 79: | ||
For the Arbitration Committee, [[User:GoldRomean|GoldRomean]] ([[User talk:GoldRomean|talk]]) 23:32, 4 April 2026 (UTC) |
For the Arbitration Committee, [[User:GoldRomean|GoldRomean]] ([[User talk:GoldRomean|talk]]) 23:32, 4 April 2026 (UTC) |
||
: Discuss this at: '''{{slink|Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard|Arbitration motion regarding RfC moderation}}'''<!-- [[User:ArbClerkBot|ArbClerkBot]] ([[User talk:ArbClerkBot|talk]]) 23:32, 4 April 2026 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes--> |
: Discuss this at: '''{{slink|Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard|Arbitration motion regarding RfC moderation}}'''<!-- [[User:ArbClerkBot|ArbClerkBot]] ([[User talk:ArbClerkBot|talk]]) 23:32, 4 April 2026 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes--> |
||
==Arbitration motion regarding COIVRT block appeals== |
|||
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by [[Special:Permalink/1347145693#COIVRT block appeals|motion]] that: |
|||
{{ivmbox|{{slink|Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Handling of block and ban appeals}} is amended to read: |
|||
{{tqb|The Arbitration Committee hears appeals from editors who are blocked or banned: {{ordered list|type=lower-alpha |
|||
|by arbitration decisions; |
|||
|as arbitration enforcement actions; |
|||
|based on [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Oversight blocks|oversighted evidence]]; |
|||
|based on [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy#CheckUser blocks|CheckUser evidence]], where checkusers disagree on the interpretation of that evidence; |
|||
|based on evidence [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Conflict of interest reports#Blocks|from the conflict of interest VRT queue]], where members with access to the queue disagree on the interpretation of that evidence or believe the request would be better handled by the Arbitration Committee; and |
|||
|for reasons that are otherwise unsuitable for public discussion. |
|||
}} |
|||
It is expected that [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy#CheckUser blocks|CheckUser]] and [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Conflict of interest reports#Blocks|conflict of interest VRT]] blocks are by default appealed on-wiki; however, the Arbitration Committee may hear appeals of such blocks if there are compelling reasons to hear an appeal in private. |
|||
}} |
|||
Administrators are advised that blocks labelled as conflict of interest VRT (COIVRT) blocks may not be lifted or loosened without the express written consent of someone with access to the queue or the Arbitration Committee. Like with [[WP:OSBL|oversight]] and [[WP:CUBL|checkuser]] blocks, administrators loosening or lifting COIVRT blocks out of process may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped. |
|||
}} |
|||
For the Arbitration Committee, [[User:Sennecaster|<span style="color:var(--color-content-added,#006400)">Sennecaster</span>]] ([[User talk:Sennecaster|<span style="color:var(--color-emphasized,#101418)">Chat</span>]]) 00:41, 6 April 2026 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 00:41, 6 April 2026
| Wikipedia Arbitration |
|---|
| 👁 Image |
|
| 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.
An arbitration case regarding User:Pbsouthwood has now closed. The Arbitration Committee resolved by motion in December of 2025 to suspend the case, which could be unsuspended if Pbsouthwood requested it within three months. Because Pbsouthwood 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/Pbsouthwood#Pbsouthwood: Motion to suspend.
For the Arbitration Committee, EggRoll97 (talk) 00:15, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[]
- Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 53 § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Pbsouthwood closed
OS rolling appointment application – March 2026
The Arbitration Committee has received an application for oversight permissions from Kj cheetham (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and has reviewed it in consultation with the functionaries team. The committee invites the community to evaluate the candidacy and comment on the talk page of this noticeboard until 23:59, 28 March 2026 (UTC). For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:45, 21 March 2026 (UTC)[]
- Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 53 § OS rolling appointment application – March 2026
Appeals of COIVRT blocks
There is currently a proposal to change the Arbitration Committee's procedures to clarify when the Committee hears appeals from editors blocked as part of the conflict of interest VRT queue. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions § COIVRT block appeals. For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:26, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[]
- Archived discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 53 § Appeals of COIVRT blocks
Arbitration motion regarding the standardization of "broadly construed" wording
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
Because contentious topics and the extended-confirmed restriction are broadly construed unless otherwise specified, the following are amended by removing the words broadly construed
:
- Remedy 3 of Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 ("Contentious topic designation")
- Remedy 4.1 of Abortion ("Contentious topic designation")
- Remedy 1.2 of American politics 2 ("Contentious topic designation")
- Remedy 1 of Article titles and capitalisation 2 ("Manual of Style and article titles contentious topic scope amended")
- Remedy 2 of Acupuncture ("Contentious topic designation")
- Remedy 1 of COVID-19 ("Contentious topic designation")
- Remedy 12 of Eastern Europe ("Contentious topic designation")
- Remedy 1 of Genetically modified organisms ("Contentious topic designation")
- Remedy 1 of Iranian politics ("Contentious topic designation")
- Remedy 1 of Kurds and Kurdistan ("Contentious topic designation")
- Remedy 14 of Pseudoscience ("Contentious topic designation")
- Remedy 1c of Indian military history ("Arbitration Committee assumes WP:GSCASTE and unifies South Asian WP:CTOPS")
- Remedy 5 of The Troubles ("Contentious topic designation")
- Remedy 7 of Antisemitism in Poland ("Extended confirmed restriction")
- Remedy 3 of Indian military history ("Caste-related topics in South Asia extended-confirmed restriction")
- The contentious topic designation in Horn of Africa
Remedy 4 of Palestine-Israel articles 4 and remedy 14 of Pseudoscience ("Definition of the 'area of conflict'" and "Contentious topic designation", respectively) are amended by removing the words broadly interpreted
.
This motion is for the sake of consistent language only. It does not change what is covered by the above remedies and motions.
For the Arbitration Committee, GoldRomean (talk) 19:22, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[]
- Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding the standardization of "broadly construed" wording
Temporary injunction concerning Maghreb
The Arbitration Committee has enacted the following temporary injunction:
With the exception of arbitration pages, Bananakingler (talk · contribs), M.Bitton (talk · contribs), and Skitash (talk · contribs) are topic banned from the Maghreb region and banned from interacting with one another, both broadly construed. This temporary injunction automatically expires when this case is closed.
For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:36, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[]
- Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Temporary injunction concerning Maghreb
Changes to the functionaries team, March 2026
Following private and public consultations, the Arbitration Committee is pleased to appoint Kj cheetham (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) to the oversight team.
The committee thanks the editors who participated in the consultation.
Additionally, at their request, the checkuser and oversight permissions of Giraffer (talk · contribs) are removed. The Arbitration Committee sincerely thanks Giraffer for their service as a checkuser and oversighter.
For the Arbitration Committee, Izno (talk) 03:06, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[]
- Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Changes to the functionaries team, March 2026
Arbitration motion regarding RfC moderation
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
Remedy 3 of Iranian politics ("RfC moderation") is terminated. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the remedy remain in force and are governed by the contentious topic procedure.
For the Arbitration Committee, GoldRomean (talk) 23:32, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[]
- Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding RfC moderation
Arbitration motion regarding COIVRT block appeals
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Handling of block and ban appeals is amended to read:
The Arbitration Committee hears appeals from editors who are blocked or banned:
- by arbitration decisions;
- as arbitration enforcement actions;
- based on oversighted evidence;
- based on CheckUser evidence, where checkusers disagree on the interpretation of that evidence;
- based on evidence from the conflict of interest VRT queue, where members with access to the queue disagree on the interpretation of that evidence or believe the request would be better handled by the Arbitration Committee; and
- for reasons that are otherwise unsuitable for public discussion.
It is expected that CheckUser and conflict of interest VRT blocks are by default appealed on-wiki; however, the Arbitration Committee may hear appeals of such blocks if there are compelling reasons to hear an appeal in private.
Administrators are advised that blocks labelled as conflict of interest VRT (COIVRT) blocks may not be lifted or loosened without the express written consent of someone with access to the queue or the Arbitration Committee. Like with oversight and checkuser blocks, administrators loosening or lifting COIVRT blocks out of process may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.
For the Arbitration Committee, Sennecaster (Chat) 00:41, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[]