Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution

The Arbitration Committee opened no cases this week, leaving two open.

Open cases

Climate change (Week 8): Special rules of conduct were put in place for this arbitration. The case resulted from the merging of several Arbitration requests on the same topic matter into a single case, and the failure of a related request for comment to make headway. Although the case is still technically open, the workshop phase was closed on July 19 for at least 48 hours to give a break to all participants while arbitrators think about a proposed decision. Last week, participants requested an update on when to expect a proposed decision, but no specific target date has been set. The case has made no visible on-wiki progress for the past two weeks.

Race and intelligence (Week 9): This case concerns accusations of incivility, disruptive editing, and tag-teaming to control the content on articles related to race and intelligence. Following a number of delays (see Signpost coverage from June 28, July 5, July 12), the case moved to the proposed decision phase. The proposed decision that was drafted by Coren has sparked several concerns among participants and non-participants (example). The case remains in the proposed decision phase, as other proposals by other arbitrators are being considered.

Motion

A motion was passed in relation to Betacommand, who is now editing as Δ: he has been permitted to perform automated tasks in relation to SPI clerking only as specified and authorised by the bot approvals group. He is not permitted to use the bot for any other purpose, unless he has received explicit permission from the bot approvals group and endorsement by the Committee.

Other

Applications for CheckUser and Oversight permissions have now closed. The Committee is reviewing a total of 27 different applications that were received. In two weeks, The Signpost will publish the names of applicants being actively considered for appointment.

Update: The Signpost regrets to inform readers of an inaccuracy in this week's issue - in fact, the Committee did not receive 27 different applications. When arbitrators were requested to reveal the "total number" of "CU/OS applications...ArbCom received", arbitrator KnightLago responded by saying that 27 "inquires" were received, and has since clarified that at this time, there was no intention of revealing the total number of applications received. Asked by the journalist about the reason for withholding that information, KnightLago responded that there "is no compelling basis to release the number now".

← Previous "Arbitration report"

Next "Arbitration report" →

In this issue

2 August 2010 (all comments)

Arbitration report

Technology 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.

Headlines

Are the backronyms really necessary? Are you saying the demographic for the Signpost is the Beavis and Butt-head crowd? Tho better than the old TROLL one, why not just use descriptive headers like on 07-19? -- Jeandré (talk), 2010-08-03t15:40z

There is a related discussion here. Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that the comments at that discussion, combined with what I've heard off-wiki, were unanimous in dropping the "litigation" and "troll" part *for the views that supported a change to the original "The Report on Lengthy Litigation" title* - but there's been a fairly even split as to what type of header would otherwise be preferred *some preference was expressed for dispute resolution, some to abandon the acronyms for descriptive headers, some to keep the original, etc.*. More feedback is welcome, desired, and needed on many levels so that I'm not restricted on what I can do by the subject of this report - at the end of the day, I'm trying to give readers what they want (be it in what information readers wish to find out about, what matters readers want to look into a little bit more after reading this report, or even what headers readers prefer). Feedback is all that I'm using to accomplish this, and more feedback at that discussion (about the headers of the report) would be appreciated. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you are summarizing that discussion accurately: The comments by Pretzels and NuclearWarfare clearly supported keeping the "T.R.O.L.L.".

I left the new title in place when publishing this issue, but it should also be noted that the extra "and" is a bit ugly - it actually gives "TaLDR", not "TLDR". How about just dropping the "and"?

Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right; have corrected what should have written with *asterisks*. I was thinking of dropping the and, but was trying to be consistent with the Tech report's brion (which has an "and" after Repairs), though the header for this week's Tech Report was changed since the last time I checked. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're hitting a good balance between objective, good-quality reporting and a pleasant read - it would be a shame to upset that by removing what are only harmless jokes. I like the Signpost's slightly offbeat personality! — Pretzels^Hii! 18:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the TLDR thing is funny, without being obtrusive. --Pres N 21:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^ ditto; it made me smile :). Not seeing why other users find it problematic. AGK 14:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration is not litigation, so dropping 'litigation' from the title is an improvement. –xeno^talk 14:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What we call arbitration is nothing like Arbitration either, so not much improvement there. Skomorokh 14:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't want to get into a tricky and lengthy debate regarding it, but is it not a process through which two or more parties use an arbitrator or arbiter in order to resolve a dispute ? –xeno^talk 14:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is not. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]