Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-04-08/Arbitration report

Arbitration report

Subject experts needed for Argentine History

Open cases

Argentine History

The arbitration committee is looking for expertise in Argentina and the Spanish language for a case involving former Argentinean president Juan Manuel de Rosas (1793–1877).

In the case, brought by Lecen, an editor is accused of systematically skewing several articles, as well as Spanish language sources, in order to portray a brutal dictator as a democratic leader, in keeping with the political motives of Argentinian "nationalists" or "revisionists".

Uninvolved editors with subject-matter expertise are invited to participate in the evidence and workshop phases of the case, to help determine "whether the allegations of use of highly disreputable and unreliable sources, quotation of Spanish-language sources incompletely or out of context, and the like appear to have merit."

The evidence stage is scheduled to close 12 April 2013, and a proposed decision is scheduled for 26 April 2013, though these dates may be extended by the recent floods in Buenos Aires, which have adversely affected an editor involved in the case.

Sexology

This case, brought by Mark Arsten, was opened over a dispute about transgenderism topics that began off-wiki. The evidence phase was scheduled to close March 7, 2013, with a proposed decision due to be posted by March 29.

Tea Party movement

This case was brought to the Committee by KillerChihuahua, who alleges the discussion over this American political group has degenerated into incivility. Evidence for the case was due by March 20, 2013, and a proposed decision scheduled for April 3, 2013.

Other requests and committee action

Request for clarification: Transcendental meditation movement A request for clarification was made by Keithbob regarding the transcendental meditation movement, which is under discretionary sanctions. Clarification is requested of whether sanctions apply to all articles in the topic area or only articles that have a tag, and a related question of whether a tag is necessary on the talk page of an article where no problem has arisen. Also under discussion is who may impose sanctions and who may place tags.
Amendment request: Rich Farmbrough: An amendment request made by Rich Farmbrough to amend a motion in an arbitration case involving automated edits was declined. While the request was still in progress, the requester was blocked for one year after an arbitration enforcement request, which also involved automated edits. After Farmbrough was blocked, an error was discovered in the links he had posted as evidence; he had posted the same link three times. The corrected links were then posted. Farmbrough’s block limits him to his user pages and does not allow him to comment further on arbitration pages, but some discussion was carried to Farmbrough’s talk page, as well as the talk page of the blocking administrator.
Request for amendment: GoodDay: An amendment request made by GoodDay to lift an editing restriction related to diacritics was declined.
Procedural issues at Arbitration Enforcement: A request for clarification has been brought by Gatoclass regarding whether an administrator can "act in a request" involving 1RR restrictions, whether an administrator can act when an editor has not received a formal warning, whether an administrator can adjudicate in an appeal if they adjudicated in the decision that led to the appeal, and whether an administrator can issue a warning before consensus on a request has been reached.
Monty Hall problem: An amendment request has been made to the committee by Martin Hogbin for amendment of the remedies, including removal of discretionary sanctions.
Clarification request: Climate change: A clarification request filed by NewsAndEventsGuy, requesting clarification of who can post arbitration enforcement notices to talk pages and add to the notifications, blocks, bans, and sanctions log was closed. Since the original question dealt with a missing section, the request was closed and questions involving discretionary sanctions were moved elsewhere.
Clarification request: Discretionary sanctions appeals procedure: A request to clarify the appeal process for discretionary sanctions warnings was filed by Sandstein

← Previous "Arbitration report"

Next "Arbitration report" →

In this issue

Arbitration report

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 in the Sexology case was posted on April 3 and this report is dated April 8, yet only the due date for the decision is mentioned. Is the publication deadline so far in advance that a description of the proposed decision could not be included? EdChem (talk) 12:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't this the same exact thing from last week? Inkbug (talk) 13:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Edchem, yes, sort of; and Inkbug, no. This week's report was submitted earlier than usual because of the breaking story on the French wikipedia. But in the Sexology case, there is still little to report; no findings of fact or remedies have passed as yet. The committee has acted on other requests, and those are reported. As always, those who want more detailed information are free to click on the links and read for themselves. —Neotarf (talk) 17:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Get the latest headlines on your user page — just add {{Signpost-subscription}}.

Home

About