Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-01-09/Arbitration report

Four open cases, proposed decision in Betacommand 3

The

A proposed decision was posted by arbitrator

This open case, which has already attracted a great deal of attention (see previous Signpost coverage), entered its second week of evidence submissions. A total of 39 editors have submitted evidence, totalling more than 270 diffs. Due to the complexity of the case, arbitrator Risker has suggested extending the evidence deadline to 15 January (next Sunday). In parallel with the great deal of evidence, 21 users have offered proposals on the workshop page.

The current date set for the posting of a proposed decision is 26 January.

This case is moving towards the workshop phase, with the first-ever public posting of an arbitrator's viewpoints during the case itself. Drafter

This open case is close to the posting of a proposed decision by one of the drafters. Arbitrator Roger Davies wrote on the workshop talk page that a proposed decision will be posted in the coming days. He indicated that the proposal will eventually be opened for "public comment" before the start of voting.

• A
  Request for Amendment, seeking to modify the remedy in the Abortion case
  , remains pending.
• The Committee voted (12-0) to desysop User:Malcolm due to disruptive socking.
• Worm That Turned was named a new trainee Arbitration clerk.

← Previous "Arbitration report"

Next "Arbitration report" →

In this issue

9 January 2012 (all comments)

Technological roadmap

News and notes

In the news

WikiProject report

Featured content

Arbitration report

Technology 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.

• Kudos to Anthony/AGK for taking the bull by the horns. I hope that his public discussion of the Muhammed Images case inspires emulation among other members of ArbCom. Here's hoping this case can be wrapped up efficiently and definitively — two adverbs not used in connection with ArbCom over the past year. I have hope. Carrite (talk) 01:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It is a little sad to see an Arb case (Betacommand 3) which arose from a request to review whether a proposed task fell under the terms of a previous ArbCom editing restriction, having such draconian suggested remedies as bans. Rich Farmbrough, 18:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  
  • Honestly, CBM's evidence looks pretty damning to me. Your "evidence" lacks diffs entirely. What were they supposed to do? --NYKevin @068, i.e. 00:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]