Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-02-20/Arbitration report
Discuss this story
Last I checked, the civility enforcement case hasn't actually been formally closed, isn't it a bit premature to announce it has been? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Ealdgyth! As I noted elsewhere, the 24 hour period after four net votes to close is to be triggered in about two hours from now. I thought it prudent to just put the news in this report. Lord Roem (talk) 23:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- I changed it to "almost" because I believe the Signpost shouldn't "make" news. Also, I added some specifics to the information provided because hardly anyone reads the arbcom stuff and the Signpost should (in my view) provide readers with specific decisions that can inform their own editing. Some of the civility case proposed decisions apply to all editors, not just admins. Anyone is free to remove my additions! Mathew Townsend (talk) 23:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hello MathewTownsend! I agree with all of your changes to put more specifics in. As to "making news", I do not think that is entirely accurate. With four net votes to close and all arbitrators voting on all proposals, the way the decision stands now will clearly be the final decision. A two-hour difference between that announcement and the formal posting of closure, in my mind, is negligible. Thanks for your copyedits! Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 23:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- It's just that the arbs said somewhere that they were hoping a few more would vote (there are four who are not recused or inactive but who haven't voted, I believe.) So isn't like announcing a man has been executed two hours before his execution time? (A dramatic example for sure, and I hope I'm not violating a civility rule!) Mathew Townsend (talk) 23:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, yes, yes, I completely understand your position. I think though, for the purpose of the newsmagazine the Signpost acts as (where we publish once a week and are not a continuum of constant news updates), a slight early report (two hours) should be excused. However, where it to be a report on executing an editor...
Lord Roem (talk) 00:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, yes, yes, I completely understand your position. I think though, for the purpose of the newsmagazine the Signpost acts as (where we publish once a week and are not a continuum of constant news updates), a slight early report (two hours) should be excused. However, where it to be a report on executing an editor...
- It's just that the arbs said somewhere that they were hoping a few more would vote (there are four who are not recused or inactive but who haven't voted, I believe.) So isn't like announcing a man has been executed two hours before his execution time? (A dramatic example for sure, and I hope I'm not violating a civility rule!) Mathew Townsend (talk) 23:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hello MathewTownsend! I agree with all of your changes to put more specifics in. As to "making news", I do not think that is entirely accurate. With four net votes to close and all arbitrators voting on all proposals, the way the decision stands now will clearly be the final decision. A two-hour difference between that announcement and the formal posting of closure, in my mind, is negligible. Thanks for your copyedits! Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 23:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- Is it explained anywhere on wp what the specific differences are between being "reminded" and "warned" and "admonished"? Mathew Townsend (talk) 15:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)