Four open cases, Betacommand case deadlocked, Muhammad images close near

TheArbitration Committee opened no new cases this week, nor closed any, leaving four open. All information is as at the time of writing.

The Betacommand 3 case remained at theproposed decision phase this week. Originally the case was opened to address the multitude of sanctions in effect on the editor. None of the proposed remedies, ranging from site bans to editing restrictions, has garnered adequate support to pass.

This open case entered its third week. The case, which is one of the most active at present, was initially opened due to the actions of several administrators in relation to a user who was blocked over perceived incivility. Substantial activity took place in both theevidence andworkshop pages, on which multiple users presented evidence and proposals. The current date set for the posting of a proposed decision has been extended to 29 January.

The case was opened to address which depictions ofMuhammad, if any, are appropriate to display in the respective articles, and has had substantial activity in its fourth week. DrafterAGK recently postedan outline of the proposed decision. In the outline, he noted several principles and findings of fact, as well as remedies that includediscretionary sanctions, topic and/or site bans, as well as admonishments. The full proposed decision is expected to be posted over the next few days.

This open case continued into its fifth week. It was brought to the Committee by the editor to appeal their site ban that was imposed by Jimmy Wales. The expected proposed decision, as mentioned inpreviousSignpost coverage, is yet to be posted. Discussion has continued on the workshop and workshop talk pages over the past week.

• ARequest for Amendment, seeking to modify the remedy in theAbortion case, remains pending.

←Previous "Arbitration report"

Next "Arbitration report" →

In this issue

16 January 2012(all comments)

Special report

Sister projects

News and notes

WikiProject report

Featured content

Arbitration report

Technology report

+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

These comments are automaticallytranscluded from this article'stalk page. To follow comments,add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can trypurging the cache.

• I'd like to see a bit more juicy dramah in the arb report, eg.

  Malleus dropped the C-Bomb and got indef blocked by Thumperward for "long-term in civility". After being unblocked by John, the block was reinstated by Hawkeye7. Arbcom accepted the case, unusually skipping the RFCU prerequisite as one "unusually divisive among Administrators". Malleus' supporters are defending his use of the C-word and allege wheel warring by Hawkeye7, while Malleus' detractors are calling for him to be permanently banned.

  That sort of thing. --Surturz (talk)07:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Eh, with a dispute as divisive as this, I thought it wise to keep to raw facts as much as possible. Didn't want to risk something read by many appear as I was taking sides.StevenZhang^{Join the DR army!}08:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Not all Malleus' detractors are calling for him to be banned. Many just want the civilty question (What is/what isn't) to be resolved and a tangible guideline put in place.Buster Seven Talk07:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I wonder if anyone noticed that the Muhammad workshop is approaching 1MB. I wonder if that's a record relative to other arbitrations.ASCIIn2Bme (talk)19:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody that hasspent wasted 30 minutes or an hour reading the Talk page ofMuhammed is not surprised in the least. This whole case is about a handful of ultra-disruptive POV warriors who obfuscate with walls of prose in order to drive off opponents and defeat consensus. It will end with strict topic bans of the disruptionists, or it will not end at all.Carrite (talk)05:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]