New case on AE sanction handling; AUSC candidates; proposed decision in Kehrli 2 and Monty Hall problem
The Committee opened one new case during the week. Four cases are currently open.
This case will review the handling of AE sanctions (including the classification, imposition and reversal of such sanctions, the relevant processes, and whether administrators who regularly work in this area are appropriately receptive to feedback from uninvolved users). The case will also examine concerns about the conduct of certain editors in the pseudoscience topic area - a topic area which was subject to an arbitration case in 2006. During the week, 61 kilobytes was submitted as on-wiki evidence by 11 editors.
During the week, another 28 kilobytes of content was submitted as on-wiki evidence, while proposals were also submitted in the workshop.
During the week, another 5 kilobytes of content was submitted as on-wiki evidence, while several comments were also submitted in the workshop. Yesterday, drafter Elen of the Roads submitted a proposed decision on-wiki for arbitrators to vote on. Proposals being considered include rulings concerning four editors, as well as a discretionary sanctions scheme.
During the week, drafter David Fuchs submitted a proposed decision on-wiki for arbitrators to vote on. Proposals being considered include a ruling concerning a single editor.
An interim motion was passed: a case which was accepted and titled as "Ebionites 2" has been put on hold to permit mediation to proceed. On 5 April 2011, or earlier if the mediation is closed as unsuccessful, the Committee will reexamine the situation to determine whether the case should be opened or dismissed.
Seeking to appoint at least three non-arbitrator members to the Wikipedia:Audit Subcommittee (AUSC) (cf. Signpost coverage), the Committee released the names of the candidates being considered for these positions.
The six candidates being actively considered for these positions are:
The Community may pose questions to the candidates, and submit comments about the candidates on the individual nomination subpages (or privately via email to email@example.com) until 23:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC). The Community has been invited to review the candidates' nomination statements, the questions that have been posed to the candidates, as well as the answers (if any) that the candidates have provided.
What do you think of The Signpost
? Share your feedback.