Arbitration report

The Report On Lengthy Litigation

The Arbitration Committee closed one case and opened four others this week.

Closed cases

New cases

Four cases were opened this week; all are in the evidence phase.

Evidence phase

Voting phase

Motion to close

There are currently no motions to close on the table.

+ 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.
==Title of this section==

This is a valuable set of information. However, I would like to suggest a change in its title. It is currently titled: "The Report On Lengthy Litigation." The word litigation seems wrong here. Litigation refers to "legal proceedings." Legal is usually taken to mean "pertaining to law."

The article refers primarily, as far as I can tell to Wikipedia arbitration cases. Arbitration and litigation are two different processes. While arbitration can be a step in legal proceedings, such is not the case here (I hope). In Wikipedia's case, the cases pertain to policies and guidelines and members' ability to adhere to them.

How about changing the title of this section of Signpost to "The Report on Arbitration Cases"? If the subject matter is broader than arbitration, the title could be: "The Report on Arbitration and other Disputes." or something similar. Sunray 01:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TROAC? TROAAOD? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As has been pointed out a number of times, the title and acronym are rather tongue-in-cheek. Don't take them too seriously, and certainly don't try to apply excessively literal and inflexible meaning to them. The use of the word litigation is by way of analogy. In the context of Wikipedia itself, arbitration has as much in common with legal proceedings as the Signpost has in common with a newspaper. --Michael Snow 21:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. If we didn't call it "litigation", we couldn't use the acronym "T.R.O.L.L". —this is messedrocker (talk) 05:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ha. Very clever. I will read Signpost less seriously henceforth. Sunray 07:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]



       

The Signpost · written by many · served by Sinepost V0.9 · 🄯 CC-BY-SA 4.0