Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2020-05-31/Discussion report
In today's world, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2020-05-31/Discussion report is a topic that has become relevant in various aspects of daily life. Both on a personal and professional level, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2020-05-31/Discussion report has generated great interest and debate among experts and the general population. With the advancement of technology and globalization, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2020-05-31/Discussion report has become a topic of constant discussion, as its impact becomes increasingly evident in different areas. In this article, we will further explore the role of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2020-05-31/Discussion report today and its influence on different aspects of society.
Discussion report
WMF's Universal Code of Conduct
Wikimedia Foundation moves forward with plans to create Universal Code of Conduct
Village Pump discussion concerning "WMF Board Authorises Universal Code of Conduct and non-local sanctions of those who breach them"
In brief
- Taiwan – a long RfC on the official name
- UTRS – on the future and use of the Unblock Ticket Request System
Follow-ups
- The left sidebar update RfC is in the process of being closed as of press time.
- The April Fools' RfC has had a few more proposals closed, with the proposal to "restrict all April Fools activities apart from WP:AFMP to subpages of Wikipedia:April Fools" was unsuccessful, and the proposal to require the April Fools' Main Page to be tagged with a {{humor}}-like template closed as no consensus. The proposals to ban joke XfDs and edit warring on the prank log page are still open.
- There was no consensus on WT:NFC on whether fair-use SVGs should be banned, and the policy regarding non-free SVGs was left unchanged.
- MOS:ACCESSIBILITY now has a recommendation that tables have captions, following a successful RfC on this question.
- Consensus was reached to remove the {{current event}} template from coronavirus-related pages.
- The proposal to create a "main page editor" group failed, with opposers citing security risks as well as the fact that editors would be granted access to the
protectandeditprotectedrights while not being permitted by policy to fully use them. - The bureaucrat activity RfC produced a result of no consensus. The community was closely divided on the issue, with 45 supports and 40 opposes.
Discuss this story