Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-03-11/Arbitration report
Discuss this story
The draft summary of the Doncram case does not summarize it accurately, IMO. I would say something like "This case, brought by SarekOfVulcan, involves a long history of disputes related to content, particularly over articles created from an external database using a user-created script. There were also allegations of harassment."
In the second and third paragraphs about the Doncram case, I think it may be premature to say that arbs have agreed on findings or have passed remedies. They could still change their minds. If my impressions of the status is correct, revise the wording to something like "arbitrators appear to have agreed on several findings of fact" and "several proposed remedies have received enough votes to pass".
The drafts regarding the Richard Arthur Norton and Tea Party cases inaccurately state that a decision is scheduled for a certain date. Change that wording to "a proposed decision is [or "was"] scheduled to be posted on [date]." --Orlady (talk) 01:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Good heavens, I had no idea anyone paid any attention to these rough drafts. The Doncram writeup has now been expanded with direct quotations from the decisions (and as of now, the case has been closed).
- You can pretty much assume that once a case goes to arbitration there has been some acrimony. It isn't my intention to reproduce every argument given in evidence, or to emphasize one argument over another, but rather to report the arbs' findings in the dispute. But since "harassment" allegations were specifically mentioned in the "findings of fact", that has now been added.
- The dates are taken dates from the ARBCOM open tasks template labeled "Arbitration Committee Proceedings" on the request page and were accurate as of the time they were posted. I know at one time there was a bug in the evidence page that incremented the date at the top of the page every day, but that seems to be working now. It does appear that the Doncram case has been running behind the published schedule. —Neotarf (talk) 09:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
WRT the Richard Arthur Norton case; while some of the evidence is deleted (and thus only viewable by admins), much of the evidence is available in page histories, and some deleted pages have been undeleted and blanked for the time of this case. I don't think it is correct to state that participation is limited to administrators, although it is admittedly easier for them to get the full picture. Fram (talk) 08:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you, I have updated this to reflect the information on the evidence page. —Neotarf (talk) 09:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- Comment The summary of the "Doncram" case seems to accept SarekOfVulcan's initial statement in the case, and it fails to even mention beliefs and allegations by some (me especially) that there has been long-running bullying and harassment by editor Orlady and SarekOfVulcan. A news story should comment that there were allegations of bullying and harassment in the case, IMO. Also, nothing has been remanded to the community, the decisions are not final; the case is not over. --doncram 15:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- By the time a case goes to arbitration, there are often many allegations, not to mention provocations and annoyances. This report is not meant to chronicle all the ping-pong arguments back and forth, but rather the findings of the committee. In your case however, the arbs saw fit to call attention to your allegations as something they were particularly unhappy about; I have now quoted their "finding of fact" about that.
- I don't think it can be wrong to state before or after the case, accurately, that I and others discussed the topics of bullying and harassment, and I think it is newsworthy that the arbitrators basically chose not to endorse that view based on the evidence they considered. So I think your revised story is better for that, actually.