The Arbitration Committee opened no new cases, leaving one open.
This case resulted from the merging of several Arbitration requests on the same topic into a single case, and the failure of a related request for comment to make headway. Innovations have been introduced for this case, including special rules of conduct that were put in place at the start. However, the handling of the case has been criticized by some participants; for example, although the evidence and workshop pages were closed for about five weeks, during this time, no proposals were posted on the proposed decision page and participants were prevented from further discussing their case on the case pages (see earlier Signpost coverage).
The proposed decision, drafted by Newyorkbrad, Risker, and Rlevse, sparked a large quantity of unstructured discussion, much of it comprising concerns about the proposed decision (see earlier Signpost coverage). A number of users, including participants and arbitrator Carcharoth, made the discussion more structured, but the quantity of discussion has continued to increase significantly. Rlevse had said that arbitrators were trying to complete the proposed decision before September 6, but it was later made clear that he will no longer be voting on this decision. This week, arbitrators made further additions to the proposed decision.
Earlier this week, arbitrators provided their first responses to the request to reimpose an Eastern European topic ban on Radeksz. As reported earlier, the proposed topic ban was originally imposed at the conclusion of the case, but was lifted three months ago by the Committee. Arbitrator SirFozzie warned that most “drastic action” may result if there is no improvement in the topic area, and echoed this in response to the Piotrus request (see below). Arbitrator KnightLago stated that there was a “growing tiredness within the Arbitration Committee for all things EEML related” which "confused" an editor a bit. Other arbitrators asked participants to read and consider both arbitrator's comments.
Earlier this week, Piotrus filed a request for his Eastern Europe topic ban to be lifted. This amendment request is identical to the request which was filed in July (see earlier Signpost coverage) – in that request, this statement (by former arbitrator Charles Matthews), and this statement, persuaded the majority of the Committee to oppose modifying the restrictions. However, arbitrator Newyorkbrad is again considering a motion to partially lift the effect of the restriction.
At the time of writing, no further progress has been made on this clarification request since last week’s Signpost coverage concerning discretionary sanctions. In response to arbitrator Newyorkbrad's question of whether anything further is being requested, the filer confirmed that arbitrators have not responded to, or not answered multiple questions that the filer asked.
At the time of writing, no further progress has been made on this amendment request - to impose a topic ban on Ferahgo the Assassin from race and intelligence related articles. Although an arbitrator stated that he would support a topic ban, no arbitrator has cast formal on-wiki votes for the proposal yet.
The Community has been invited to comment on the Wikipedia:Audit Subcommittee (AUSC); in particular, the preferred methods of selecting community representatives, and the duration of time they would serve. “The result of the discussion will inform the Arbitration Committee on how best to proceed before progressing to another election cycle.” AUSC is a subcommittee of the Arbitration Committee which should review and act upon concerns received by the community about CheckUser and Oversight activities. Currently, AUSC consist of three community representatives elected by the community, who serve one-year terms, and three arbitrators who rotate every six months or so. A summary of AUSC’s activity has also been posted for comment.
Discuss this story
Regarding the description of the motion about my person, I am puzzled that it is focusing on two critical comments regarding a failed motion from three months ago. As of this moment, regarding the current motion, at least six editors have expressed their support for it (the failed request had seven supportive comments). Further, while it is true that a similar motion failed three months ago, the reading of arbitrator comments suggests to me that the major concern about the request back then was that it was premature, and they themselves suggested it should be revisited "Possibly another month or two" (at mid-length of the remedy). Finally, I wonder why there are no references to a series of successful motions by me narrowing this particular topic ban or by others in the EE area? By focusing on the criticism and failed motion only, I do not believe this report if neutral. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Climate Change arbitration has made further changes this week, which I think could have been mentioned. In particular the focus of findings has been on "Battlefield conduct", and the focus of remedies introduced in recent days has been on the highly comprehensive "Remedy 3" topic ban. This would ban the named individual from editing any page, including article, talk and project page within the topic area, subject only to direct appeal to the Committee. As well as being proposed for all editors previously considered for a topic ban, it has been proposed for Minor4th, ATren, Hipocrite, Cla68, Scjessey, GregJackP, A Quest for Knowledge, KimDabelsteinPetersen, and Verbal, all of whom are new to the remedies list. Remedies have also been proposed to manage the proliferation of evidence pages in userspace related to the case. The arbitration case is said to be "winding down". --TS 22:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]