Update – injunction from last week has expired

The Arbitration Committee opened no new cases. Two cases are currently open.

Open cases

During the week, further proposals were submitted in the proposed decision for arbitrators to vote on.

During the week, drafter Elen of the Roads submitted additional proposals in the workshop which received comments from arbitrators and parties to the case.

Injunction

Update

The Committee has clarified that the injunction included in last week's Signpost coverage may now be regarded as expired. This is because an arbitration case will not be opened, and pending changes are not enabled on any main namespace pages [1].

← Previous "Arbitration report"

Next "Arbitration report" →

In this issue

30 May 2011 (all comments)

News and notes

In the news

WikiProject report

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 injunction included in last week's Signpost coverage" -- that's a very cryptic way to describe it. So cryptic, I was compelled to follow the link to understand what this was about. Turns out this refers to the "Preliminary injunction regarding pending changes and biographies of living persons", otherwise known as the latest chapter in the dispute over Pending changes. I suspect that the ArbCom seriously considered taking on this long-running dispute, took one look at the latest go-around, & grabbed the first excuse to drop the matter. (I'll stop here before I add my opinion about Pending changes.) -- llywrch (talk) 06:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you say, briefly, what each arbitration case is basically about? I mean, what is the basic dispute about? Thanks -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See earlier reply. The regular readers need to come to some agreement on what they don't want (or in this case, want). Compare last year's coverage with this year's coverage - is that what you were after? Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"how about [...] links to previous reports; or automatically hidden transcluded pages being previous case reports?" -- Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost#Only new info in arbitration reports? -- Jeandré, 2011-06-06t13:16z

Ah thank you for that (I think I was away at the time that was posted); for this week (starting 6 June) where the cases are in week 6, I included a link to week 1. Will look into this suggestion more over the next couple of months (and will at least trial the transclusion suggestion during that time). Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]