Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-05-21/Arbitration report

You gonna mention that, as a result of this vague ruling, RF had his rollback right removed by clerk Guerillero and then restored by AGK? That I amended my statement with diffs showing arb com members are all over the map on what the heck it means? Or that SilkTork commented he was interested in discussing an amendment? Nobody Ent 00:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, the story is a brief and general one about the work of Arbcon. A particular case gets only a mention and its deep ramifications, if any, don't belong here. Jim.henderson (talk) 10:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So why briefly quote only 2 of the 4 arbitrators who have replied? NPOV doesn't apply here? Nobody Ent 10:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It was written by Lord Roem, who is now an arb clerk. Rich Farmbrough, 21:01, 26 May 2012 (UTC).


 * This is a newsletter, not a wikipedia article. NPOV does not apply. Journalistic ethics do apply, but they do not necessitate objectivity. Drorzm (talk) 22:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * In another amendment, the Arbs seem to be agreeing to re-write the decision. Not amend it, but re-write it.  If they want to issue a statement damning me, because they did not do quite a good enough job in the Proposed decision, then let them do so, but to re-write the decision is absurd.  Doubly absurd when they have locked the talk page.  Triply absurd when they refused to accept my summing up in defence. Rich Farmbrough, 12:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC).


 * Ah. So, the complaint is, the story says too much. My error; I thought it was a complaint about saying too little. Yes, it's too long. Jim.henderson (talk) 21:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)