Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-05-31/Arbitration report

Arbitration report

ArbCom forges ahead

Cases

The Committee declined two cases on May 2, the first focusing on SashiRolls and the second relating to Future Perfect at Sunrise. It also declined a dispute over bad music.
Last month, the Arbitration Committee opened Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Enigmaman. On May 6 the case was closed, with Enigmaman being desysopped.
The Committee ends the month with two open cases: Rama and Canadian politics.

ARCA

As of publication, the Committee has four open requests for clarification or amendment: a request for clarification regarding Palestine–Israel articles, a request for clarification regarding BLP issues on British politics articles, an amendment request relating to DS alerts, and an amendment request regarding Arbitration Enforcement decisions.

Team shake-up

This month, BU Rob13 decided to step down from the Arbitration Committee, as well as "semi-retire" from Wikipedia as a whole. On a brighter note, Bradv was appointed as a full clerk of the Committee. The bot that they have created, ArbClerkBot, was also approved by the Bot Approvals Group.

In the aftermath of the Committee's amendment to its standard provision for appeals and modifications, Ivanvector decided to resign as a checkuser.

Both BU Rob13 and Ivanvector have written essays related to their decisions:

User:BU Rob13/AGF applies to everyone – BU Rob13 reminds editors that they should also assume good faith on the part of the Arbitration Committee
User:Ivanvector/2019 Arbitration Committee protest – Ivanvector is officially protesting the Arbitration Committee

← Previous "Arbitration report"

Next "Arbitration report" →

In this issue

31 May 2019 (all comments)

Arbitration report

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.

It's worth noting that the essay I wrote was written well before my resignation, and did not make up a majority of my reason for resigning. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to tell us, but if you are willing to, we would all like to know the reasons. Even a vague overview like "80% personal reasons" or "50% disagreement with certain directions the committees is going" or "if you refuse to use the oxford comma, I refuse to work with you" would be interesting. Just a suggestion. "I choose to get into my reasons" is fine too. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:06, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think it would be particularly productive to share my reasons, so I'm declining to do so. The only things I've said/will say is that it's not personal, and that the community's conduct toward arbitrators has played a role (though a minority one) in my decision-making. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:39, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost is written by editors like you – join in!

Home

About