No pending or open arbitration cases

No pending cases

The closure of Fæ two weeks ago marked the closure of the last open case before the Committee. This has only happened on three occasions: in 2009, 2010 and in May of this year. At the time of writing, the Committee has no requests for arbitration before it.

Arbitration cases do not form all of the Committee's workload, however, as two requests for clarification and one request for amendment are being discussed.

Other requests and motions

Arbitrator Kirill Lokshin proposed a motion for a procedure on the alteration of an editor's previous username(s) in arbitration decisions to reflect their name change(s). Any instances appearing within the:

enforcement log may be updated by any uninvolved administrator on request;

text of a finding or remedy may be updated by the clerks on request; and

evidence submissions of a case or other preliminary documents may be updated by the clerks with the committee's prior approval.

A significant body of arbitrators have opposed the motion labelling the motion's stipulations "dogmatic and inflexible" and "administration creep". Arbitrator Elen of the Roads proposed making it a policy that clerks update records upon being made aware of a name change. Concerns about such a move would then be raised to the Committee accordingly. The suggested change to the motion also requires the editor-in-question to inform the Committee beforehand.

The Devil's Advocate initiated an amendment request for the controversial Race and intelligence case. The request calls for the amendment of review remedies 1.1, 6.1 and 7.1.

Amendment 1 concerns 6.1 and 7.1; calls for the modification of SightWatcher's and TrevelyanL85A2's indefinite omni-namespace edit and discussion ban from Race and intelligence topics, including participation in discussions concerning topic-editor conduct, to be a standard topic ban from Race and intelligence-related edits (broadly construed) with a clearly-defined route for appeal of the sanction.

Amendment 2 concerns 1.1; calls for the modification of Mathsci's admonishment for engaging in battlefield conduct to include an explicit warning that further battleground conduct (towards editors) related to the topic will be "cause for discretionary sanctions."

← Previous "Arbitration report"

Next "Arbitration report" →

In this issue

6 August 2012 (all comments)

Op-ed

News and notes

Arbitration 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.

This request for amendment to a recent arbcom review has been under discussion for over a month. At a fairly early stage Newyorkbrad and other arbitrators rejected both amendments, so it is unhelpul to list the amendments here. Arbitrators have also pointed out the time consumed and disruption caused by restoring edits made by a particular community banned user and in initiating subsequent discussions concerning the edits of that banned user. It has been suggested that a motion be passed which would address these issues in this particular case: a precise motion has not yet been formulated. Please look more carefully at the responses of arbitrators before sending out this report. Mathsci (talk) 05:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere have they rejected the amendments. Roger and Brad are the only Arbs who have given any substantive comment on the case and neither of them have even commented on the amendments I have requested. They have mentioned the possibility of a motion that, in Brad's wording, would say to editors involved in the case that they are "not to reinstate any comments by the banned users that may be removed by others, regardless of any claimed justification for doing so under any policy or guideline" and that this could be made enforceable with blocks. Obviously, such a thing should be mentioned in the report since it would be an unprecedented restriction regarding a divisive matter within the editing community.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Devil's Advocate's comments here are unreliable and appear to have been added in bad faith. Please could those preparing the report confer directly with arbitrators before proceeding? The Devil's Advocate's account is not currently in good standing; within the last month he has received several warnings from arbitrators about his dealings with banned and topic-banned editors. Mathsci (talk) 08:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mathsci, disparaging someone's character or perceived motivation to try to undermine the credibility of their stance on an issue is an ad hominem attack, which is a logical fallacy. Cla68 (talk) 00:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not omitting something because you believe it to be grossly inaccurate as that would damage the integrity of this report. It will continue to be included for as long as the amendment request continues, as it covers an important and controversial topic. You have a clear COI here and I have personally gone through these C&A requests myself, nowhere have I seen formal voting, so please do not spread misinformation. The content I have included are the requests submitted for review by the Committee, nowhere have I mentioned that these were motions which are due for resolution. James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 10:09pm • 12:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On a lighter note, is it me or is there something odd about the sentence that starts with my name. Would "proposed making it a policy that clerks will update records..." read better? Just a thought. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my apologies for that. Fixed the wording as per your suggestion :) James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 4:12pm • 06:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where was the recent passed amendment to the South Asia dispute? Discretionary sanctions were added. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]