Jump to content

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-09-04/Arbitration report

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Signpost
← Back to Contents
View Latest Issue


Arbitration report

Manning naming dispute case opens; Tea Party case closes; Infoboxes nears completion

Contribute  —  
Share this
By Neotarf

The dispute over the title for the Manning article escalated quickly to arbitration levels, as the Bradley/Chelsea Manning naming dispute case was accepted for arbitration. The Tea Party movement case has closed, with topic bans and interaction bans passed for several users. The Infoboxes case nears completion, as the committee continues to fine-tune topic ban proposals.

Open cases

Manning naming dispute

The Manning naming dispute case, brought by TParis has been accepted for arbitration. The case involves the move of the Bradley Manning article to Chelsea Manning, after Manning’s attorney announced Manning’s wish to be known as Chelsea. The case is to focus on conduct and WP:BLP issues. The evidence phase closes 19 September 2013, the workshop phase closes 26 September 2013, and a proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 3 October 2013.

Infoboxes

The Infoboxes case nears completion as several findings of fact and topic ban proposals have garnered enough votes for passage, and discussion continues on a final topic ban proposal.

Closed cases

Tea Party movement

Findings of fact related to conduct were passed for Goethean, North8000, Malke 2010, Arthur Rubin, Phoenix and Winslow, Xenophrenic, Collect, Ubikwit, and Snowded, and associated topic bans were passed for Goethean, North8000, Malke 2010, Arthur Rubin, Phoenix and Winslow, Xenophrenic, Collect, and Ubikwit, as well as interaction bans between Xenophrenic/Collect and Snowded/Phoenix and Winslow. Community sanctions on the case were lifted, and superseded by discretionary sanctions.

Other requests and committee action

  • Amendment request: Scientology: An request made by The Devil's Advocate requests the lifting of a restriction imposed after the mention of an editor's previous username, an adjustment to the log of warnings about discretionary sanctions stating that the claims of misconduct underlying the warnings were invalid, and restoration of an oversighted edit to avoid the appearance of misconduct implied by a suppressed edit.
  • Amendment request: Locke Cole arbitration case: A request was made by Locke Cole for the lifting of a 7-year-old interaction ban.
  • Clarification request: Pseudoscience#Principles: A request was made by IRWolfie- for clarification of the {{ArbComPseudoscience}} template.
← Previous "Arbitration report"
Next "Arbitration report" →
+ Add a comment

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.
The "Tea Party movement" result has been appealed by several editors, citing the violation of stated ArbCom procedures, the apparent possibility that several members simply ignored the evidence and workshop phases according to one arbitrator, and that the "accused" were, in some cases, estopped from even commenting on the "findings of fact" concerning themselves. The discussions are at User Talk:Jimbo Wales and at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Collect (talk) 11:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Make sure we cover what matters to you – leave a suggestion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-09-04/Arbitration_report&oldid=1193871750"