Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-10-17/Arbitration report

Arbitration report

Case requests on ethnic strife and a WikiProject declined, Abortion case stalls but topic bans look to be lightened on amendment

Share this

No cases were closed or opened this week, leaving one open. The Arbitration Committee declined two requests for new cases, on Azerbaijan-Armenia-Iran-Turkey, deciding that the existing discretionary sanctions/arbitration enforcement regime is sufficient, and on WikiProject Conservatism, because of a perceived lack of prior dispute resolution; the WikiProject was unsuccessfully nominated for deletion around the same time (see "News and Notes").

It is still possible to submit evidence and proposals in the Abortion case. Nearly 70 kb of text has been contributed, but at the time of writing the last edit to the evidence page^[1] was over three weeks ago.

Clarifications and amendments

A request to amend the Digwuren case has been made to allow for editors topic-banned from arbitration enforcement to participate in the Mediation Cabal case Holodomor. Arbitrators were divided as to whether the request ought to have been submitted at the Arbitration Enforcement forum itself, but seemed open to deferring to the judgement of the mediator who submitted the amendment request.

Discussion surrounding a request to amend last year's contentious Climate change case to lift the topic ban on William M. Connolley entered its second week. While arbitrators again appear open to granting some measure of leniency, some sought greater acknowledgement of the rationale of the original decision and the events leading up to it from the topic-banned editor. A motion to lift the climate change topic-ban on William M. Connolley while retaining the prohibition of his editing articles on living people related to the topic area has attracted five support votes, one oppose, and one neutral from the participating Committee members at the time of writing.

Correction

^ A previous version of this article erroneously stated that it was the case's workshop page that had not been edited in three weeks.

← 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.

Of course NPOV doesn't apply to Signpost, but should you really call WikiProject Conservatism "a WikiProject in disrepute". ? Maybe "in dispute" would be better? Rich Farmbrough, 12:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- That wording may have been a little strong, on reflection. This issue was written and edited under serious time and manpower pressure as I and many of our other regular journalists are currently unable to contribute to a normal extent; I apologise. Skomorokh
  - Although normally I wouldn't edit the arbitration report, given that Skomorokh agrees it should be changed, I'll copyedit the wording. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep up with The Signpost on Twitter, Facebook or Mastodon.

Home

About