Sexology closed; two open cases

The Sexology case, which was covered in detail in last week's "Arbitration report", closed shortly after publication with no changes. Two cases remain open.

In the case, brought by Lecen, an editor is accused of systematically skewing several articles involving former Argentine president Juan Manuel de Rosas to portray a brutal dictator as a democratic leader, in keeping with the political motives of Argentine "nationalists" or "revisionists".

The evidence stage was scheduled to close 12 April 2013, the workshop stage on 19 April, and a proposed decision was scheduled for 26 April.

This case was brought to the Committee by KillerChihuahua, who alleges the discussion over this American political group has degenerated into incivility. Evidence for the case was due by 20 March 2013, the workshop was to close on 27 March, and a proposed decision was scheduled for 3 April.

• Arbitration clerk promotions: Callanecc, Hahc21, Ks0stm, and X! were promoted to full Arbitration Committee clerk positions, effective immediately.
• Audit subcommittee appointments: Guerillero, MBisanz, and Richwales were appointed as community representatives to the Audit Subcommittee for one-year terms, from 1 May 2013 to 30 June 2014.
• Audit subcommittee annual report: The audit subcommittee has published its annual report for the period ending April 2013.
• Clarification request: WP:ARBPIA/Jerusalem: Advice was sought by Sm8900 over a committee-mandated RFC that appeared to have bogged down.
• Clarification request: Scientology: Prioryman seeks to clarify the scope of discretionary sanctions in Scientology-related articles.
• Clarification request: TimidGuy ban appeal: A 29 April 2013 request, initiated by MastCell requests the release of voting information for the rejection of Will Beback's ban appeal, or failing that, an explanation of why such information cannot be provided.
• Clarification request: TimidGuy ban appeal: A 5 April 2013 request, brought by IRWolfie-, seeking to clarify the relationship between privacy and conflict of interest in a situation where employees of a transcendental meditation institute may be editing an article related to that institute, was closed, with the advice that a tension between anonymous editing and conflict of interest (COI) disclosures does exist, that editors should disclose COI on a topic in advance of editing, that editors with specialized knowledge about a topic can be valuable in writing the article, and that administrators at WP:MED may be of assistance in evaluating any civil POV pushing.
• Clarification request: Discretionary sanctions appeals procedure: A request to clarify the appeal process for discretionary sanctions warnings was filed by Sandstein.

← Previous "Arbitration report"

Next "Arbitration report" →

In this issue

29 April 2013 (all comments)

News and notes

In the media

Featured content

WikiProject report

Traffic report

Arbitration report

Recent research

Technology report

+ 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.

It was User:MastCell that brought forwards the TM discussion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thank you. Neotarf (talk) 13:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes. And I didn't bring the request to "clarify the relationship between privacy and conflict of interest in a situation where employees of a transcendental meditation institute may be editing an article related to that institute." (I think we should clarify that issue, but I'm not under any illusions that ArbCom is going to do so, least of all in a clarification request). I simply requested a tally of how the Arbs voted on Will Beback's ban appeal. That's all. (I wouldn't have even bothered to do that much, except that an Arb actually encouraged me to.) I didn't ask for Will to be un-banned. I didn't ask for any action to be taken against accounts with a COI. I didn't ask for anything except a simple show of hands. Obviously, it was a mistake - either I didn't clearly express what I was asking for, or people simply filled in the blanks with a lot of mistaken assumptions (not just the Signpost, but also many of the Arbs themselves). Whatever. MastCell ^Talk 15:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see what happened. There are actually two requests with the same name, the first one filed on April 5 by IRWolfie-, closed April 25, and now archived here, and the second brought on April 29 by MastCell, which is the current request. The report has been updated to reflect both requests. —Neotarf (talk) 03:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]