Jump to content

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-09-03/Arbitration report

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Signpost
← Back to Contents
View Latest Issue


Arbitration report

Media viewer case is suspended

Contribute  —  
Share this
By Guerillero

On 1 September, the Arbitrators voted to suspend the Media Viewer case for 60 days. After the suspension period is up, the case is to be closed unless the committee votes otherwise. The case suspension comes in response to several new initiatives and policies announced by the Wikimedia Foundation that may make the case moot. In the same motion, the committee declared that Eloquence's resignation of the administrator right was "under a cloud" and that he can only regain the right through another RfA.

Audit Subcommittee appointments

The Arbitrators voted to appoint Callanecc (talk · contribs), Joe Decker (talk · contribs) and MBisanz (talk · contribs), with DeltaQuad (talk · contribs) as the alternate, to the 2014 Audit Subcommittee.

← Previous "Arbitration report"
Next "Arbitration report" →
+ Add a comment

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.

For the benefit of English readers could you avoid the use of "moot" to mean "irrelevant" in future? In English usage it still means what it has always meant, a matter for debate. Tim riley talk 09:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. I wrote this up in about 15 minutes and I didn't think that it was going to go out this week, since it was a Friday. --Guerillero | My Talk 20:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "new initiatives and policies" links "that may make the case moot" are about making WMF employees have to edit under separate accounts for official versus personal edits. Why did this article decide to be vague instead of explicit on that? The problems addressed by the case also seems to be of much larger scope and separate accounts is only a partial solution so I don't see how it makes the case irrelevant. Jason Quinn (talk) 10:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The author (a sitting arb) wrote conservatively rather than address the rather large elephant occupying the WMF home office in San Francisco. I'd've rather read about ARBCOM's reluctance to rebuke WMF staff but we've poured enough gasoline on that fire, already. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting here that Guerillero is not a current member of the arbitration committee, nor has he ever been (he was a community representative on the Audit Subcommittee until recently). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. I was thinking of GorillaWarfare. My mistake. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:27, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated above, this was a quick draft that I wasn't totally happy with. There are several things that I wanted to add that didn't get put in by publication time. Next week's report should be better. --Guerillero | My Talk 20:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


The Signpost needs your help putting together the next issue.
Retrieved from "https://en.luquay.com/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-09-03/Arbitration_report&oldid=1193873440"