Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-05-21/Arbitration report

Arbitration report

No open arbitration cases pending

No pending cases

The closure of Rich Farmbrough last week marked the closure of the last open case before the Arbitration Committee. This has happened on only two occasions in the recent history of the committee—besides the instance in 2010, there was at least one period in early 2009 when there were no open cases.

However, full cases are not the entirety of the committee's workload. A total of six requests for amendments and two requests for clarification are still actively being discussed by arbitrators; and ban appeals, among other issues, are handled on their off-wiki mailing list.

One request for arbitration—a request for a full case—was filed a day after the last open case was closed. However, that request was unanimously rejected by arbitrators due to the lack of prior attempts at dispute resolution.

Automation restriction debate

A request to amend the just-completed Rich Farmbrough case was filed 19 May by editor Nobody Ent, seeking a modification of the restriction on the use of automation in Rich's edits. "The restriction as currently written is overly broad and vague," Nobody Ent wrote, "even a template is a type of automation and is therefore included in the scope of the remedy as currently written." Arbitrator Jclemens stated the request is a strawman. "We can deal with specific requests for clarification that pose real problems."

Arbitrator AGK concurred with Jclemens' position, to the dismay of commenting editor Hammersoft: "The restriction isn't so clear as Jclemens seems to think it is ... there's apparently still uncertainty as to whether Twinkle or Huggle qualify as 'automation'".

Jclemens answered that criticism in his opening remarks by arguing that "in the context of the case, automation is clearly intended to be that allowing an editor to modify multiple articles or other pages in rapid succession."

← Previous "Arbitration report"

Next "Arbitration report" →

In this issue

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

You gonna mention that, as a result of this vague ruling, RF had his rollback right removed by clerk Guerillero and then restored by AGK? That I amended my statement with diffs showing arb com members are all over the map on what the heck it means? Or that SilkTork commented he was interested in discussing an amendment? Nobody Ent 00:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, the story is a brief and general one about the work of Arbcon. A particular case gets only a mention and its deep ramifications, if any, don't belong here. Jim.henderson (talk) 10:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So why briefly quote only 2 of the 4 arbitrators who have replied? NPOV doesn't apply here? Nobody Ent 10:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was written by Lord Roem, who is now an arb clerk. Rich Farmbrough, 21:01, 26 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

This is a newsletter, not a wikipedia article. NPOV does not apply. Journalistic ethics do apply, but they do not necessitate objectivity. Drorzm (talk) 22:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In another amendment, the Arbs seem to be agreeing to re-write the decision. Not amend it, but re-write it. If they want to issue a statement damning me, because they did not do quite a good enough job in the Proposed decision, then let them do so, but to re-write the decision is absurd. Doubly absurd when they have locked the talk page. Triply absurd when they refused to accept my summing up in defence. Rich Farmbrough, 12:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Ah. So, the complaint is, the story says too much. My error; I thought it was a complaint about saying too little. Yes, it's too long. Jim.henderson (talk) 21:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure we cover what matters to you — leave a suggestion.

Home

About