ArbCom narrowly rejects application to open new case

This week by the numbers; edits and page views.

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 fifth 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 fifth 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 is also one case with a pending request for amendment: Russavia-Biophys.

Committee twice declines to arbitrate administrator

On 23 August, La goutte de pluie resigned her position as an administrator as the result of a community recall process. KuduIO requested arbitration regarding her editing some weeks ago, alleging that she had abused her position of trust. This week, the original request for arbitration was officially declined by the committee, 3 to 5. The main voice for the arbitrators moving to decline was PhilKnight, who argued that the community could (and was) handling the situation by itself and ArbCom did not need to intervene. The same day the request was archived, a new request was submitted by OpenInfoForAll, which was speedily declined with OpenInfoForAll's consent a day later.

← Previous "Arbitration report"

Next "Arbitration report" →

In this issue

19 September 2011 (all comments)

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 headline is extremely misleading. ArbCom did not "narrowly reject" the request for arbitration: it requires a net four votes in support of a request to open a new case and the first request was declined after it actually failed to get to more arbitrators voting to accept than to decline after ten days. Furthermore, the few support votes were in favour of a motion, rather than a full case. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 12:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not realise that anything more than a simple majority was required, so yes, I agree, the subtitle is indeed wrong, and it is also wrong if, as you say, opening a case was never really the question. Nonetheless, I wouldn't characterise it as "extremely misleading", becuase it is, in essence, vaguely correct, Arbitrators declined to arbitrate, but not unanimously. You can still change it if you wish, though. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 16:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article text is misleading - La goutte de pluie was recalled before I submitted the RFAR. — Kudu ^~I/O~ 20:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the graph is slightly misleading (kidding ;)). The horizontal axis is the date, right? I suggest you add the month number and "Date" below, moving "Page views for case pages" above the graph. I also suggest separate lines for the different cases, but keep the legend as it is with the circles. -- Jeandré, 2011-09-23t12:40z