Catching up on arbitration

Arbitration report

Catching up on arbitration

Contribute —

Share this

By GamerPro64

For this issue of the Arbitration Report: We recap the decisions the Committee has made from 14 January to now.

Recap

On 14 January, the Arbitration Committee decided to disband the Arbitration Committee Audit Subcommittee (AUSC) with a 13–0 vote. Complaints related to misuse of CheckUser or oversight will from now on be investigated by the Committee as a whole. As a result of the disbanding of AUSC, MBisanz and Joe Decker had their CheckUser permissions removed, while Joe Decker also lost his oversight permission.

After having been open for over a month, the Kevin Gorman case closed on 18 January, with the remedy of having Kevin Gorman be desysopped.

Floquenbeam was reappointed as an oversighter on 26 January after resigning from the Arbitration Committee and giving up their permission back in July 2014.

The Arbitration Committee amended the scope of the discretionary sanctions remedy of the GMO case on 19 January. The remedy, which previously said, "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed", now reads, "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed."

Ks0stm, Amortias and Miniapolis are all now full clerks, bringing the total to nine clerks as of 3 February.

Next "Arbitration report" →

In this issue

3 February 2016 (all comments)

Arbitration report

Traffic 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 2016 Committee appears to be favoring the idea of dealing with matters as quickly as possible—for the first time in recent memory, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Current is completely devoid of on-wiki arbitration proceedings. A notable event that's absent from this report was the way ArbCom handled the Future Perfect at Sunrise request, just barely declining the case by a vote of 6-7, favoring a motion instead by vote of 7-5. I suspect that had this been the 2015 Committee, we might very well be dealing with a full case right now. Mz7 (talk) 03:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't know how to write up that request. I agree that a case should have been made. GamerPro64 03:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yup, without a doubt. I am not one to readily and openly express misgivings about the mops, but I have to say it seems beyond question to my experience that Future Perfect and TheRamblingMan are amongst the most problematic admins we have had in many years, albeit in very different ways (one is horrifically uncivil but has never so much as twitched towards abusing his tools, whereas the other is generally fairly civil, but has shown a regular and increasing propensity for using their tools in and WP:involved manner to win disputes). When those two began circling each-other, it was obvious that things were about to get really ugly for everyone in their general radius of operation, but the one silver lining that I could see to the situation was that ArbCom's bright light would inevitably be shown on the situation and the above issues hopefully addressed, by desysops if necessary. I have to agree that the decline of this obvious case of a mutual display of conduct unbefitting two admins, which reflects very poorly on the admin corps and the community at large, can only really be explained by timidity in the new committee so soon after it's reconstitution. More's the pity--who knows where this goes now... Snow ^{let's rap} 08:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Want the latest Signpost delivered to your talk page each month?

Home

About