Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-02-04/Arbitration report


 * Thanks for a comprehensive review H J Mitchell. It is I think a pleasing situation that more measured responses are coming out of the main Arbitration process these days.  Gamergate is a somewhat complex issue, and it is good that the Committee avoided the trap of trying legislate ideology so cleanly, after struggling a little in the Gender Gap case.  I still regret that such sweeping discretionary sanctions were imposed, even having removed a significant number of outdated DS in 2014, the percentage of the encyclopaedia that is under DS is continuing to grow.  It would surely indicate community success if we were able to roll back the DS frontier a little. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC).


 * Now we have the central log, it's much easier to see which DS provisions are being used and which aren't—the sanctions under GamerGate, BLPs, and Israel-Palestine are well-used, but some of them haven't yet been used this year. I think they were absolutely necessary in this case, and it was necessary to have such a broad scope—we'll probably need a tidying-up motion at some point to centralise them instead of having half a dozen sets of sanctions on overlapping topics—but if some of the quieter ones haven't been used as the year goes on I'd certainly support removing them. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  01:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't the lack of enforcement actions be evidence that the sanctions are working, not that they're unneeded? Powers T 14:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)