Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-12-04/Arbitration report


 * The arbitration report of Argentine history, while accurate of what is going on, does not accurately reflect what has happened up to now. Perhaps separating the IBAN matter from the TBAN clarification request, and expanding on the former, might be helpful. Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 15:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not so much the goal of the Report to reflect "what has happened" with the clarification and amendment requests as to give a general idea of the topic, and a link for those who want to read more. Of course, reflections are always welcome in the comments. —Neotarf (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The "An editor who had previously requested an interaction ban with the filer asked if he was allowed to comment and was subsequently blocked for one month in a separate action at arbitration enforcement." part makes it seem like he was blocked for asking if he was allowed to comment, which is not the case. He was blocked for posting an opinion (he didn't actually wait for ArbCom to okay it) to the ArbCom page, which uninvolved editors saw as containing personal attacks and unsubstantiated allegations.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  17:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No. I counted 11 direct quotations with diffs.  The clerk's edit summary is specific: "Removing per request by arbitrators as violation of his interaction ban." Two arbitrators found the submission to be a violation of the restriction, and one of them requested AE to enforce it. —Neotarf (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I, for one, found Wolfowitz's election guide useful. It's a shame ArbCom decided to be legalistic and remove it only to placate the incumbent ArbCom members up for re-election that KW was pushing to vote against. And yet, we have editors being bullied on wiki and leaving in frustration and the same ArbCom doesn't care.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 08:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I, for two, support that. Interested voters can look up the history. I didn't write a voters guide but collected answers from the candidates regarding a fact in the case for which, - the answers are promising, , even from those seeking re-election, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The arbs are individuals, you can't tar them all with the same brush. And no one should be bullied; not editors, not arbs, not Jimbo. —Neotarf (talk) 02:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Now that the election is over, and this page is about to archive, it might be a good time to add a shameless plug for my own election guide.—Neotarf (talk) 00:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)