Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-07-18/Arbitration report

Arbitration report

Motion passed to amend 2008 case: topic ban and reminder

Open case

MickMacNee (Week 5)

(See earlier Signpost coverage for the background to this case.) An additional 4 kilobytes was submitted in on-wiki evidence.

Closed case

Tree shaping (Week 12)

See last week's Signpost coverage for a summary of the case, the effect of the decision, and what it tells us.

Motion

Betacommand 2: at the conclusion of this case in 2008, a remedy was passed noting that the Committee expected that the disputes and disruption underlying the case would cease. The remedy also noted that in the event of non-compliance, or a continued pattern of disputes, the Committee would feel it necessary to impose sanctions. Pursuant to the remedy, and mindful of the recent and current disputes surrounding the user in many fora, the committee indefinitely topic-banned Δ (formerly known as Betacommand) from making any edit enforcing the non-free content criteria, broadly construed. User:Δ was also formally reminded of the civility restriction and other terms of the provisional suspension of the user's community ban, which remain in force.

← Previous "Arbitration report"

Next "Arbitration report" →

In this issue

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.

I have a strong opinion on the motions, and I'm sure many, many other users have strong opinions on the motions. Let's keep them off this page please. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Sven. This has become a running trend with the Signpost. Either make a separate section and label it clearly as "Editorial Opinion" or keep that stuff out.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this current report includes opinion, I don't see it -- though I haven't checked the linked information, which may show bias, perhaps. (I did check the history of this page and its talk page in case the "opinion" had already been edited, but I didn't see it there either.) Mark Hurd (talk) 02:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mean people have strong opinions about tree shaping? And they've been ranting about it here? I'm truly sorry. -- llywrch (talk) 04:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Explore Wikipedia history by browsing The Signpost archives.

Home

About