Ohconfucius sanctions removed, Cirt/Jayen466 closure, and a call for CU/OS applications

Two cases are currently open:

• Senkaku Islands, which looks at the behavior of editors involved in a dispute over whether the naming of the articles Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute is neutral, moved into its fourth week. It is alleged that the content dispute has been exacerbated by disruptive editing.
• Abortion, a dispute over the lead sentence of Abortion and the naming of abortion-related articles, also said to have been exacerbated by disruptive editing, similarly moved into its fourth week.

There are pending requests for clarification for three cases: Transcendental Meditation movement (since August 26), Digwuren (since August 24), and Ireland article names (since August 19). There are also two cases with pending requests for amendment: Race and intelligence (since September 3) and Russavia-Biophys.

The two-year-old date-delinking case, concerning the automated removal of date-autoformatting in articles while the relevant WP:MOSNUM guideline was still in flux, has now been amended. Ohconfucius, who was sanctioned in the original case, requested that the last remaining sanctions be removed, arguing they were outdated and that this was a matter of simple housekeeping. Arbitrator opinion was cautious: Jclemens wrote that "The last time we lifted sanctions on an editor sanctioned under this case, I regretted it, because the future behavior in the area was problematic." Risker was strongly of the view that "this should be going in the opposite direction". However, Xeno felt that, if there were any current issues, they appeared to be outside of the intent of the original sanctions and agreed with Ohconfucius that rescinding those was simply housekeeping—an opinion that carried the day 8 to 5.

In addition to the remedies covered last week, Cirt has also been desysopped (for "admitted violations of the neutral point of view and biographies of living people policies"), but may reapply for adminship by filing a new request for adminship at any time. This additional remedy eventually passed 6 to 5 in support; Cirt has since said that he is "not considering" applying for his admin bit back at this time.

The committee announced today that they were seeking applications from suitably qualified users to serve on the CheckUser and Oversight teams. Editors were encouraged to self-nominate by emailing arbcom-en-blists.wikimedia.org. The application period is scheduled to close on 18 September 2011; then the committee will review the applications to decide which candidates will move forward to the community consultation phase. Of note, the committee indicated that due to "increasing activity from the South Asian, Southeast Asian, or Middle Eastern regions, CheckUser applications are particularly sought from people ... familiar with the ISPs and typical editing patterns of any of these regions." Further information on the process is available on a special 2011 CheckUser/Oversight appointments page.

← Previous "Arbitration report"

Next "Arbitration report" →

In this issue

12 September 2011 (all comments)

News and notes

In the news

WikiProject report

Featured content

Arbitration report

Technology report

Opinion essay

+ 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.

Usernames in headlines.

I think it would be more appropriate if editors weren't directly referred to in headlines. –xeno^talk 22:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...? It's a bit difficult not to refer to editors at all. Or do you mean just the negative items, such as desysoppings (which everyone agrees are normally regrettable)? - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 23:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes. "Date delinking case amended; Cirt-Jayen466 case closed; call for CU/OS applications" would have worked (if not have been as eye catching - trade-off, I suppose). –xeno^talk 23:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The headline wasn't inherently problematic, these types of headlines have been used in the past and few concerns were raised. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 9:09am • 23:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than "X desysopped", you could use the generic term "Admin desysopped".. the person is named in the story, it's a double hit to have it in the headline, but that's just my opinion. SirFozzie (talk) 23:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that works. Similar thing was done with Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-02-28/Arbitration report, rather than putting the administrators' name prominently in the headline. –xeno^talk 23:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree strongly with Xeno here. It's a news forum, the users were newsmakers this week. At the very least, we can all be thankful that the headlines are rarely blatantly incorrect, distortions, or flamboyant dramamongering, like the headers often are on Tabloids, or worse, the AN/I and Village Pump threads. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Naming in the headline goes to hundreds of talk pages and remains there. It's potentially way out of balance. I agree with Fozzie. Tony (talk) 08:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm boldly replacing title with "Cirt/Jayen577 closure". I strongly disagree with naming only one editor in a resolution that involves two. Now, would somebody change the front page title? In both editions? I mean, dang.--Lexein (talk) 09:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no point in changing anything, because the damage is done on the talk-page subs notice on talk pages. Tony (talk) 09:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't the headlines mostly transcluded? –xeno^talk 13:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly, but not entirely. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 13:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree - I actually read this because "Ohconfucius" was mentioned on my talk page and they've been mass changing access dates despite a lack of agreement that the formatting should change. -- Jeandré, 2011-09-13t20:34z

Arbitary break

Okay, I have to note that personally I preferred the title as it was, but obviously othe rpeople feel differently. Therefore I propose titles of the form "admin desysopped" unless prior consent is obtained to directly name participants. In the meantime, I will write to Cirt with an apology. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 11:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put Cirt's name down here then. Desysopping Cirt is COMPLETE BULLSHIT and it's time to clean house at ArbCom in the next election. Carrite (talk) 21:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]