Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-09-06/Arbitration report: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
Ncmvocalist (talk | contribs) more |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<noinclude>{{Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:Signpost-header|||}}</noinclude> |
<noinclude>{{Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:Signpost-header|||}}</noinclude> |
||
{{Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:Signpost-article-start|Dispute Resolution|By [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]]|September 6, 2010}} |
{{Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:Signpost-article-start|Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution|By [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]]|September 6, 2010}} |
||
The [[WP:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee]] opened no cases this week, leaving one open. |
The [[WP:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee]] opened no cases this week, leaving one open. |
||
Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
=== Open cases === |
=== Open cases === |
||
====[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change|Climate change]] (''Week 13'')==== |
====[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change|Climate change]] (''Week 13'')==== |
||
This case |
This case resulted from the merging of several Arbitration requests on the same topic into a single case, and the failure of a related [[Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/RFC|request for comment]] to make headway. [{{fullurl:Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-08-23/Arbitration_report|action=historysubmit&diff=381058910&oldid=381038448}} Innovations] have been introduced for this case, including special [{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case|oldid=367510662}} rules of conduct] that were put in place at the start. However, the handling of the case has been criticized by some participants; for example, although the evidence and workshop pages were closed for an extended period, no proposals were posted on the proposed decision page and participants were prevented from further discussing their case on the case pages ([[Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-08-16/Arbitration_report|Signpost coverage]]) |
||
The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision|proposed decision]] drafted by [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]], [[User:Risker|Risker]], and [[User:Rlevse|Rlevse]] sparked a large quantity of unstructured discussion, much of which consisted of concerns about the proposed decision ([[Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-08-23/Arbitration_report| |
The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision|proposed decision]] drafted by [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]], [[User:Risker|Risker]], and [[User:Rlevse|Rlevse]] sparked a large quantity of unstructured discussion, much of which consisted of concerns about the proposed decision (see also [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-08-23/Arbitration_report|''Signpost'' coverage]]). A number of users, including participants and arbitrator [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]], have made the discussion more structured, but the quantity of discussion has continued to increase significantly. Arbitrators continued to make modifications to the proposed decision this week; drafter Rlevse [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision&diff=prev&oldid=382356399 said] that arbitrators are trying to complete the proposed decision before the date of this report. |
||
=== Motions === |
|||
*'''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list|Eastern European mailing list]]''': A motion was recently [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration_motion_regarding_Wikipedia:Arbitration.2FRequests.2FCase.2FSpeed_of_light|passed]] to amend the restriction that was imposed on [[User:Marting|Marting]] at the conclusion of the case. Marting is now banned from topics concerning national, cultural, or ethnic disputes within Eastern Europe (previously, this topic ban concerned all Eastern Europe topics). |
|||
*'''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Date delinking|Date delinking]]''': A motion was recently [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration_motion_regarding_Wikipedia:Arbitration.2FRequests.2FCase.2FSpeed_of_light|passed]] to permit [[User:Lightmouse|Lightmouse]] to use his [[User:Lightbot|Lightbot]] account for a single automation task authorized by the [[WP:BAG|Bot Approvals Group]]. |
|||
=== Other === |
=== Other === |
Revision as of 03:04, 5 September 2010
Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution
The Arbitration Committee opened no cases this week, leaving one open.
Open cases
Climate change (Week 13)
This case resulted from the merging of several Arbitration requests on the same topic into a single case, and the failure of a related request for comment to make headway. Innovations have been introduced for this case, including special rules of conduct that were put in place at the start. However, the handling of the case has been criticized by some participants; for example, although the evidence and workshop pages were closed for an extended period, no proposals were posted on the proposed decision page and participants were prevented from further discussing their case on the case pages (Signpost coverage)
The proposed decision drafted by Newyorkbrad, Risker, and Rlevse sparked a large quantity of unstructured discussion, much of which consisted of concerns about the proposed decision (see also Signpost coverage). A number of users, including participants and arbitrator Carcharoth, have made the discussion more structured, but the quantity of discussion has continued to increase significantly. Arbitrators continued to make modifications to the proposed decision this week; drafter Rlevse said that arbitrators are trying to complete the proposed decision before the date of this report.
Motions
- Eastern European mailing list: A motion was recently passed to amend the restriction that was imposed on Marting at the conclusion of the case. Marting is now banned from topics concerning national, cultural, or ethnic disputes within Eastern Europe (previously, this topic ban concerned all Eastern Europe topics).
- Date delinking: A motion was recently passed to permit Lightmouse to use his Lightbot account for a single automation task authorized by the Bot Approvals Group.
Discuss this story
Congratulations to all successful candidates. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I generally support the actions of the Arbitration Committee, but it seems more and more that their actions are taken in secret, rather than in the open where the collaborative nature of a wiki can examine them. Now, we are told of an action, and that the action is not suitable for discussion, but not even told why it's not suitable. Is it for privacy reasons? For matters of national security? We don't know, and so we have no way of judging whether the ArbCom is acting responsibly. Powers T 12:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]