Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-09-27/Arbitration report

Regarding the description of the motion about my person, I am puzzled that it is focusing on two critical comments regarding a failed motion from three months ago. As of this moment, regarding the current motion, at least six editors have expressed their support for it (the failed request had seven supportive comments). Further, while it is true that a similar motion failed three months ago, the reading of arbitrator comments suggests to me that the major concern about the request back then was that it was premature, and they themselves suggested it should be revisited "Possibly another month or two" (at mid-length of the remedy). Finally, I wonder why there are no references to a series of successful motions by me narrowing this particular topic ban or by others in the EE area? By focusing on the criticism and failed motion only, I do not believe this report if neutral. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This restriction on you is about you, not others. The circumstances surrounding your restriction are starkly different to those surrounding others so mentioning their motions would not be appropriate. Steve Smith stated:
 * "[w]hile I think I've been among the most sympathetic arbitrators to the early lifting of EEML amendments...I'm not comfortable doing so here. We're dealing with a long history of problematic behaviour in this case, and also the behaviour of someone who, as a then-administrator, should have known better. [emphasis added]"


 * These cirumstances are not found in the other motions, so to be fair, the only request mentioned is the former (and fully identical) "request to amend EEML Remedy 3 to end the topic ban that applies to Piotrus and allow him to edit articles related to Eastern Europe." In that, Steve Smith also explictly stated that he was persuaded by the 2 statements linked, and two other arbs explicitly concurred with Steve's analysis, while another arb left his earlier oppose that he was "concerned about some things." No arbs referred to any other supportive/critical comments which were made. In such circumstances, it is appropriate to mention/link to those community statements which arbs have acknowledged as persuasive in a particular case. Newyorkbrad, who was the only arb who proposed supporting your cause, was mentioned as again making a proposal in that direction - despite the fact that some would argue that it is not required of this report, this was mentioned purely in the interest of neutrality and awareness. Accordingly, I stand by what is written. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The Climate Change arbitration has made further changes this week, which I think could have been mentioned. In particular the focus of findings has been on "Battlefield conduct", and the focus of remedies introduced in recent days has been on the highly comprehensive "Remedy 3" topic ban. This would ban the named individual from editing any page, including article, talk and project page within the topic area, subject only to direct appeal to the Committee. As well as being proposed for all editors previously considered for a topic ban, it has been proposed for Minor4th, ATren, Hipocrite, Cla68, Scjessey, GregJackP, A Quest for Knowledge, KimDabelsteinPetersen, and Verbal, all of whom are new to the remedies list. Remedies have also been proposed to manage the proliferation of evidence pages in userspace related to the case. The arbitration case is said to be "winding down". --TS 22:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that drafting is still incomplete; once it gets near to completion, readers tend to want to know more about what the decision is moving towards. I think a few more votes are needed in the remedies section before we're at that point so it should be next week (also compare this coverage of R+I PD to its previous/next issue). Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it just occurred to me that my comment might be taken as a slight on your own coverage. Your point that the proposed decision is still not mature is well taken. My approach was different, in that I sought to describe the trend over the past week. This has been significant at least for those 9 editors now newly facing a possible indefinite comprehensive topic ban under proposed Remedy 3.


 * Deferring discussion of the proposed remedies until the drafting is complete would certainly avoid redundancy in subsequent reports, at the expense of timeliness in reporting. Most cases are much shorter than this one and the drafting phase is not long and drawn out, so I would guess that reporting on ongoing drafting isn't normally a consideration, but at this stage I wouldn't bet too much money on the climate change case finishing before Columbus Day.


 * Thanks for your reporting on this, which is very useful to me because of my voluntary non-involvement in the evidence and workshop phases. --TS 10:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * These are useful considerations which I'll be thinking about; I appreciate the feedback. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)