Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-06-25/Arbitration report

Arbitration report

Three open cases

Open cases

Fæ (Week 5)

The case concerns alleged misconduct by Fæ, brought by MBisanz. Proposed decisions are due tomorrow (Tuesday 26 June).

In response to a Workshop proposal calling for his desysopping, Fæ's administrator rights were removed at his request on 18 June; he has declared he will not pursue RfA until June 2013, and that should another user nominate him and he feels confident to run, he will launch a reconfirmation RfA rather than requesting the tools back without community process.

Falun Gong 2 (Week 4)

From the article Falun Gong: practitioners protest outside the Zhongnanhai compound

The case was referred to the committee by Timotheus Canens, after TheSoundAndTheFury filed a "voluminous AE request" concerning behavioural issues in relation to Ohconfucius, Colipon, and Shrigley. The accused deny his claims and decried TheSoundAndTheFury for his alleged "POV-pushing". According to TheSoundAndTheFury, the problem lies not with "these editors' points of view per se "; rather, it is "fundamentally about behaviour".

Proposed decisions are due by 30 June.

Perth (Week 2)

The case, filed by P.T. Aufrette, concerns the suitability of the new move review forum, after a contentious requested move discussion (initiated by the filer) was closed as successful by JHunterJ; the close was a matter of much contention, with allegations that the move was not supported by consensus. After a series of reverts by Deacon of Pndapetzim, Kwamikagami and Gnangarra, the partiality of JHunterJ's decision was discussed, as was the intensity of Deacon of Pndapetzim's academic interests in the topic.

Evidence submissions and proposed decisions are due 28 June and 12 July, respectively.

← 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.

The proposed decision dates are a joke. There's no point in mentioning them, because they're never met. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It might be an idea to not include the "due by" as it seems like it's forcing a deadline. But I still think an ETA is nice. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 03:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Far worse without an intended deadline. Do you not remember the bloated text and five-month cases, old-style? Tony (talk) 06:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just writing based on how LR used to do so. Also, the dates given are the actual deadlines IIRC. James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 2:14pm • 04:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's your Signpost. You can help us.

Home

About