This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched
|
Case clerk: Dreamy Jazz ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: BDD ( Talk) & Primefac ( Talk) & Maxim ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
In "Prior dispute resolution", the three examples not linked to an archive page have all been archived at /Archive328
.
Tantusar (
talk) 08:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Could an clerk try trim Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_86#PhD_candidate_as_a_reliable_source_for_a_denial_of_Syrian_Kurdistan_against_the_views_o multiple_professors_stating_otherwise? under Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan#Prior dispute resolution? Right now its so long it runs out of the content area on my screen. Asartea Talk | Contribs 12:36, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by BDD ( talk) 17:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
The phrase "articles related to" in the topic bans for GPinkerton, Thepharoah17, عمرو بن كلثوم, and Supreme Deliciousness are struck, to clarify that the bans are not limited to article-space.
Enacted - GeneralNotability ( talk) 02:02, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Supreme Deliciousness at 16:26, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
It has now been over 1 year since the topic ban was implanted. I have read everything in the arbitration case and the Principles: [1] and I promise to follow the principles and rules. I am asking for the topic ban to me removed as it is not needed. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 16:26, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Barkeep49, its best to use modern academic sources as much as possible, and if older historical sources are used for some information, for example for a historical perspective, then that info should be presented as being from that specific historical source. Any edits in the topic area must be based on a reliable source, this also includes discussions at the talkpage. Furthermore I can tell you right now that I have 0% interest to participate in any kind of uncivil discussion with anyone at any talkpage. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 18:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
BDD, in the case of the A-I conflict then there is an overwhelming large majority worldview that the occupied territories Israel captured in 1967 are not part of Israel, this includes the UN, EU and other large international organizations. I believe it is npov to follow this large majority worldview and not present the occupied territories as part of Israel. Sources for this can be easily obtained but I don't believe its appropriate to ad sources for this large worldview every time I edit within the A-I conflict for obvious reasons. If someone disputes this, then I can show them high quality sources at the talkpage.
In the case of "Kurds and Kurdistan", because of what happened last year with the arb case and the behavior of some people, then I should be extra careful to avoid any issue, so I plan to always use a high quality academic source when I make edits within the topic area, or as I said above for historical info properly attribute it to the historical source. I believe in some instances a reliable well known news agency could also be used for some info but its a case by case basis. If any other editor objects to any edit I make then obviously it would have to be discussed at the talkpage in a calm and civil way with good sources until the issue is settled. If someone is uncivil then that person can be brought to Enforcement and be blocked/banned, so I don't believe there will be a problem now. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 17:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
WormTT, I will be more careful in which sources I use in the topic area. DS is also in effect now so any disruption by anyone, and that person can be brought to enforcement and the problem will be settled there quickly. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 16:17, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
Supreme Deliciousness' topic ban from Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed is lifted subject to a probationary period lasting twelve months from the date this motion is enacted. During this period, any uninvolved administrator may re-impose the topic ban as an arbitration enforcement action, subject to appeal only to the Arbitration Committee. If the probationary period elapses without incident, the topic ban is to be considered permanently lifted.
For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Enacted - GeneralNotability ( talk) 15:55, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched
|
Case clerk: Dreamy Jazz ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: BDD ( Talk) & Primefac ( Talk) & Maxim ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
In "Prior dispute resolution", the three examples not linked to an archive page have all been archived at /Archive328
.
Tantusar (
talk) 08:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Could an clerk try trim Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_86#PhD_candidate_as_a_reliable_source_for_a_denial_of_Syrian_Kurdistan_against_the_views_o multiple_professors_stating_otherwise? under Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan#Prior dispute resolution? Right now its so long it runs out of the content area on my screen. Asartea Talk | Contribs 12:36, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by BDD ( talk) 17:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
The phrase "articles related to" in the topic bans for GPinkerton, Thepharoah17, عمرو بن كلثوم, and Supreme Deliciousness are struck, to clarify that the bans are not limited to article-space.
Enacted - GeneralNotability ( talk) 02:02, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Supreme Deliciousness at 16:26, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
It has now been over 1 year since the topic ban was implanted. I have read everything in the arbitration case and the Principles: [1] and I promise to follow the principles and rules. I am asking for the topic ban to me removed as it is not needed. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 16:26, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Barkeep49, its best to use modern academic sources as much as possible, and if older historical sources are used for some information, for example for a historical perspective, then that info should be presented as being from that specific historical source. Any edits in the topic area must be based on a reliable source, this also includes discussions at the talkpage. Furthermore I can tell you right now that I have 0% interest to participate in any kind of uncivil discussion with anyone at any talkpage. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 18:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
BDD, in the case of the A-I conflict then there is an overwhelming large majority worldview that the occupied territories Israel captured in 1967 are not part of Israel, this includes the UN, EU and other large international organizations. I believe it is npov to follow this large majority worldview and not present the occupied territories as part of Israel. Sources for this can be easily obtained but I don't believe its appropriate to ad sources for this large worldview every time I edit within the A-I conflict for obvious reasons. If someone disputes this, then I can show them high quality sources at the talkpage.
In the case of "Kurds and Kurdistan", because of what happened last year with the arb case and the behavior of some people, then I should be extra careful to avoid any issue, so I plan to always use a high quality academic source when I make edits within the topic area, or as I said above for historical info properly attribute it to the historical source. I believe in some instances a reliable well known news agency could also be used for some info but its a case by case basis. If any other editor objects to any edit I make then obviously it would have to be discussed at the talkpage in a calm and civil way with good sources until the issue is settled. If someone is uncivil then that person can be brought to Enforcement and be blocked/banned, so I don't believe there will be a problem now. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 17:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
WormTT, I will be more careful in which sources I use in the topic area. DS is also in effect now so any disruption by anyone, and that person can be brought to enforcement and the problem will be settled there quickly. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 16:17, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
Supreme Deliciousness' topic ban from Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed is lifted subject to a probationary period lasting twelve months from the date this motion is enacted. During this period, any uninvolved administrator may re-impose the topic ban as an arbitration enforcement action, subject to appeal only to the Arbitration Committee. If the probationary period elapses without incident, the topic ban is to be considered permanently lifted.
For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Enacted - GeneralNotability ( talk) 15:55, 20 March 2022 (UTC)