Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-06-18/Arbitration report

Arbitration report

Three open cases, GoodDay case closed

Open cases

Fæ (Week 4)

The case concerns alleged misconduct by Fæ. MBisanz claims that Fæ "has rendered himself unquestionable and unaccountable" regarding his conduct because he responds rudely and personally attacks those who question him. MBisanz alleges that Fæ mischaracterises commentary about his on-wiki conduct as harassment and while Fæ has been mistreated off-wiki and possibly on, his violent responses to on-wiki commentary "has become the issue itself."

Proposed decisions are due by 26 June. Clerks have been authorised to remove uncivil comments and accusations where there are no diffs to support them; the users responsible will receive a single warning. If further incidences occur, clerks may block the user for a period of time at their discretion. Users are reminded that no speculation is allowed, and submissions must be factual and direct; where submissions contradict those of other editors, sufficient diffs must be provided.

Falun Gong 2 (Week 3)

The case was referred to the committee by Timotheus Canens, after TheSoundAndTheFury filed a "voluminous AE request" concerning behavioural issues in relation to Ohconfucius, Colipon, and Shrigley. The accused editors have denied his claims and decried TheSoundAndTheFury for his alleged "POV-pushing". According to TheSoundAndTheFury, the problem lies not with "these editors' points of view per se "; rather, it is "fundamentally about behaviour".

Proposed decisions are due to be made by 30 June.

Perth (Week 1)

The newly opened case filed by P.T. Aufrette concerns the suitability of the new move review forum, after a contentious requested move discussion (initiated by the filer) was closed as successful by JHunterJ, and several views suggested that the move was not supported by consensus. After a series of reverts by Deacon of Pndapetzim, Kwamikagami and Gnangarra, the partiality of JHunterJ's decision was discussed, as was Deacon of Pndapetzim's own academic interests.

Evidence submissions and proposed decisions are due on 28 June and 12 July, respectively.

Closed cases

GoodDay

GoodDay has been indefinitely prohibited from making any edits or participating in discussion concerning diacritics anywhere on the English Wikipedia. The topic ban includes the conversion of any diacritical mark to its basic glyph on any article or page (broadly construed) and any edit that adds an unaccented variation of a name or word as an alternative to diacritics. GoodDay was warned that should additional violations of Wikipedia's conduct policies (especially of the nature recorded as findings of fact) occur, stronger sanctions (up to a ban from the project) may be imposed without further warning from the committee.

← Previous "Arbitration report"

Next "Arbitration report" →

In this issue

18 June 2012 (all comments)

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.

Perth

I agree that there wasn't a clear consensus on the Perth moves, but simply saying that there wasn't a clear consensus doesn't sound very impartial to me. Perhaps "in spite of what opponents said was a lack of a clear consensus"? Nyttend (talk) 02:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly agree with Nyttend's suggestion. The current wording is clearly not impartial. Jenks24 (talk) 03:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you check the RM itself, it was almost 50/50 either way, so there wasn't clear consensus for or against the move, therefore, it should have been closed as no consensus rather than as "moved". James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 5:54pm • 07:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you know this already, but RMs are definitely not vote counts, so even if a RM is split 50/50 there can still be clear consensus (and it was actually more like 60/40, but *shrug*). As can be seen by the move review there are plenty of editors not involved in the discussion who think the close was acceptable. Clearly you have an opinion on the close, but this sort of editorialising is really not acceptable, especially in the arbitration report. I'm going to ping the editor about this. Jenks24 (talk) 08:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on the matter, please keep assumptions out of this, I was merely stating that from casual observation that it appeared to be no-consensus. If this offends you, I'll happily change it. James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 9:16pm • 11:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I've made a fuss about this and perhaps my comment above was more strongly worded than it needed to be. To be clear, though, a statement like "there wasn't clear consensus for or against the move" is an opinion. Jenks24 (talk) 22:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although Jenks24 participated in the RM (in support of a move) and subsequently in the MRV (endorsing the move & RM close made by JHunterJ), several editors who have (or by their own admission, would have) voted in support of a move, found that there was no consensus supporting JHunterJ's actions. In that context, I don't think the suggestion of 'opponents' would have been any more accurate, if it were considered appropriate (also, their bolded remarks in the MRV don't talk about a mere lack of clarity). What is unambiguous is that several users came to a view that the move/close was not supported by consensus and this has (in large part) given rise to the examination during arbitration, so I've made an amendment to that effect in the interim. If James or The Ed have a problem with the substance of the edit, they can tweak further. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your wording is clearly better than what I suggested. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 18:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. Let's not tar and feather the reporter, though – he called it as he saw it, with no ill intent intended. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ncm, I agree with the edit you made to the report and the majority of your comment here. Ed, yes I understand and am grateful to the Signpost editors who do a tough and often thankless job. If any of my comments implied ill intent on James's part, I apologise unreservedly. Jenks24 (talk) 22:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, I do see what you are saying and I understand. No harm done. James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 5:34pm • 07:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The whole thing should be rewritten with the case focus, not Ncmvocalist's subsequent focus. The case is about wheel warring, not the suitability of the new move review forum. But the RM wasn't 50/50, the move review upheld the consensus (consensus of the editors & applicable guidelines), the new RM was even less 50/50, and no one "found" there was no consensus, although several editors opined that they disagreed with that conclusion. Unless by "found" you mean "thought". -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the case has almost nothing to do with the suitability of move review or how terrible JHunterJ's original close was; the way it is worded now really gives the wrong idea. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The move review process, in fact, isn't even within the scope of the current case. The sole thing being considered are the actions which took place *after* the initial move (noting that it's since been through Move review and then another RM which basically endorsed the original close.) Orderinchaos 19:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost needs your help putting together the next issue.

Home

About