Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-01-17/Arbitration report: Difference between revisions
Ncmvocalist (talk | contribs) please stop tag teaming |
Ohconfucius (talk | contribs) reworded clumsy prose |
||
(8 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
=== Open cases === |
=== Open cases === |
||
====[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question|Shakespeare authorship question]] (Week 1)==== |
====[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question|Shakespeare authorship question]] (Week 1)==== |
||
<span class="plainlinks"> |
<span class="plainlinks">The filer, {{user|LessHeard vanU}}, alleged that there was a sustained and possibly [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_European_mailing_list#Improper_coordination|coordinated]] [[WP:BATTLE|campaign]] to have of the article, [[Shakespeare authorship question]], reflect a certain [[Wikipedia:Pov|point of view]]. Concerns about [[WP:TE|tendentious editing]], [[WP:OWN|ownership]], and [[WP:OUT|attempted outing]] were also raised. Drafter [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=408207221&oldid=408198312 noted] that evidence should be submitted within a week, and set 30 January 2011 as target date for a decision.</span> |
||
:''Update: |
:''Update: an [[Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-01-17/Arbitration_report|extension]] of one week has been provided for evidence submissions and the target date for a decision.'' |
||
====[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity|Longevity]] (Week 8)==== |
====[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity|Longevity]] (Week 8)==== |
||
<span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FCase%2FLongevity%2FEvidence&action=historysubmit&diff=408113818&oldid=406091644 Further evidence submissions] were made during the week, including shortly after the evidence phase was set to close (see ''Signpost'' coverage from [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-01-10/Arbitration_report|11 January 2011]]). Since |
<span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FCase%2FLongevity%2FEvidence&action=historysubmit&diff=408113818&oldid=406091644 Further evidence submissions] were made during the week, including shortly after the evidence phase was set to close (see ''Signpost'' coverage from [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-01-10/Arbitration_report|11 January 2011]]). Since 25 November 2010, no editors have submitted any proposals in the workshop. During the week, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FCase%2FLongevity%2FWorkshop&action=historysubmit&diff=408140597&oldid=398736634 analysis of evidence] was received from one party, but no [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity/Workshop#Proposed_final_decision|proposed final decisions]] were received from any editor.</span> |
||
<small>''The information reflects the state of cases at the time of publication.''</small> |
|||
<noinclude>{{Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:Signpost-article-comments-end||2011-01-10|2011-01-24}}</noinclude> |
<noinclude>{{Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:Signpost-article-comments-end||2011-01-10|2011-01-24}}</noinclude> |
Revision as of 01:47, 20 January 2011
New case: Shakespeare authorship question; lack of recent input in Longevity case
The Arbitration Committee opened one new case. Two cases are now open.
Open cases
Shakespeare authorship question (Week 1)
The filer, LessHeard vanU (talk · contribs), alleged that there was a sustained and possibly coordinated campaign to have of the article, Shakespeare authorship question, reflect a certain point of view. Concerns about tendentious editing, ownership, and attempted outing were also raised. Drafter Newyorkbrad noted that evidence should be submitted within a week, and set 30 January 2011 as target date for a decision.
- Update: an extension of one week has been provided for evidence submissions and the target date for a decision.
Longevity (Week 8)
Further evidence submissions were made during the week, including shortly after the evidence phase was set to close (see Signpost coverage from 11 January 2011). Since 25 November 2010, no editors have submitted any proposals in the workshop. During the week, analysis of evidence was received from one party, but no proposed final decisions were received from any editor.
The information reflects the state of cases at the time of publication.
Discuss this story
(od) I've thought for some time, and this week's copy highlights it, that there's way too much weight placed on arbitration when the community is dealing with many similar matters itself. I don't know how many editors are blocked/topic-banned at AN/I, AE or AN3RR but it must be many times greater than those sanctioned by ArbCom. One of my colleagues mentioned the other day that it seems particularly unfair that an editor finds himself plastered all over SignPost if it's an arbitration matter but nothing is reported if it's a community sanction. Something wrong here. surely? Roger talk 13:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Roger, I actually have considered that at one point, but I always came back to a few different (yet similar) points regarding why The Signpost has historically focused on arbitration. Arbitration is:
I do remember hearing an argument from someone (during an off-wiki discussion) that what is "wrong" with Wikipedia is all of these points, and that one of the users who is responsible for this fate is Wikipedia's founder as it was based on his vision and structure. That is something I don't know. What I do think is that it is these same points that make arbitration distinct from the other measures/steps/processes, and it is that distinction which keeps the report/focus limited. Hope that helps. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While they're different processes—ArbCom and ANI—they have evolved in relation to each other, and as arbitrator Roger Davies pointed out in an earlier Signpost story, ArbCom now takes on fewer cases (but bigger and far more difficult). I suspect AR was first conceived before ANI took on so much of the easier, less complicated matters ArbCom had dealt with in the early days.
These are good reasons to spread our wings to encompass mentions of what we deem is of community importance/interest at ANI, and perhaps occasionally more than mentions. It would minimise the exposure of any one individual or case, through dilution, as it were; and it would lessen the need to pad the AR with repeats of case backgrounds week after week. The page name could be changed to reflect the increased scope, which would attract considerable reader interest. While this would require more journalistic resources, it would be a neat structure for sharing and alternating week by week by Nmcvocalist and Ohconfucius, and other willing editors.
What does HaeB, the Managing Editor, think about the issue? Tony (talk) 01:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We didn't have to seek an act of parliament to redesign the "F and A" page, did we? I suggest that if people here are generally in agreement, a section at the bottom, simply listing and linking to community bans at ANI be included as a trial, say, for a month or so. Tony (talk) 12:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If this was but a mere redesigning, I would not have mentioned RfC; it is more than just a formality. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Arbcomm should have no special privilege for determining what goes into the SP. If arbs don't like the coverage of arbcomm, that is probably a good sign William M. Connolley (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]