721:
with our short headlines, which are plastered about on many many talk pages, as NYB says. These needs for openness, publicity, and reader-oriented interest can come into conflict with the sense of proportion in ArbCom proceedings themselves (stepping back to see the big picture), given the different objectives at each venue. Openness of procedure is different from suddenly finding yourself on a front-page spread. The vagaries of the news flow can lead to the unwarranted highlighting of an individual in a "slow" week, where in another week, by coincidence, that individual might hardly rate a mention. Let's face it, in some weeks AR is thin on newsworthy copy.
612:(od) I've thought for some time, and this week's copy highlights it, that there's way too much weight placed on arbitration when the community is dealing with many similar matters itself. I don't know how many editors are blocked/topic-banned at AN/I, AE or AN3RR but it must be many times greater than those sanctioned by ArbCom. One of my colleagues mentioned the other day that it seems particularly unfair that an editor finds himself plastered all over SignPost if it's an arbitration matter but nothing is reported if it's a community sanction. Something wrong here. surely?
307:
117:
107:
33:
127:
87:
706:
in a case in a relatively minor way will have the matter publicized whereas one who is more seriously involved in another form of sanction will not. Signpost writers should always recall that the week's
Signpost is linked from hundreds of talkpages, published on a mailing list, and so onâit is much more prominent than the arbitration pages themselves.
137:
97:
734:
These are good reasons to spread our wings to encompass mentions of what we deem is of community importance/interest at ANI, and perhaps occasionally more than mentions. It would minimise the exposure of any one individual or case, through dilution, as it were; and it would lessen the need to pad the
720:
Ncmvocalist and
Ohconfucius, I take very seriously what is being said here. The potential for the journalistic process to cause harm to individuals needs to be managed. As journalists, we want to cover events in ways that are interesting and informative to our readers; and we want to attract readers
409:
Suggested correction: The anticipated length of the evidence phase was extended soon after opening to two weeks, instead of the initial (and customary, in all but the most unwieldy or complex proceedings) one week. The target date for the proposed decision was accordingly also moved back by one week.
673:
the final resort and the final step in dispute resolution. (even in the last fortnight, Community-imposed bans and restrictions have been overturned by AC, yet, can the same be said for AC's which are overturned by the
Community? The point speaks for itself if a bit more thought is given to that and
705:
I have often thought about Roger's point and believe it has merit. I am less concerned about whether arbitration or ANI is more worthy of coverage in theory, but rather with the effect of
Signpost coverage upon editors who are involved in a case. It seems a bit unfair that an editor may be involved
626:
The way I look at it is: the AN pages are so action-packed and often difficult to follow. Although our highest court and 'last line of defense', Arbcom is slow-moving and boring place by comparison. That makes Arbcom a doddle to report; the thought of having to write an ANI report every week would
514:
Roger, any comments on this point? I thought most people disagreed with
Ohconfucius here which is why this step has not been abolished. Arbs say that they do consider workshop proposals, they value input from others they receive, and that often their proposals are based (in some part) on what they
749:
Retain the ArbCom-only scope, but develop a guideline for achieving a consistent balance between newsworthiness and the potential to harm individuals through undue exposure (especially in the short headline), and accept that in some weeks the AR might take a rest where there's nothing much to say
689:
I do remember hearing an argument from someone (during an off-wiki discussion) that what is "wrong" with
Knowledge (XXG) is all of these points, and that one of the users who is responsible for this fate is Knowledge (XXG)'s founder as it was based on his vision and structure. That is something I
569:
I'm not sure I follow; I don't think we ever spoke about whether the number of proposals in a workshop are newsworthy. The issue was whether workshop proposals have any bearing on a case. Are you saying that, in your opinion, there are cases where workshop input has no real bearing on the case?
501:, arbs usually choose to draft their own proposals. These two forces mean, more often than not, that the workshop is useless and has no real bearing on the case. In my view, it would be foolish to read anything into what is written there; it should be cited extremely sparing. --
680:
often completed through decisions which contain TLDR aspects (length of the process or decision, or the fact that it is too time-consuming or tricky to decipher for some users). Red tape is also an issue sometimes, with word limits and long/short waits, for one reason or
554:
The usefulness and relevance of the workshop varies widely from case to case. It's useful enough that we (the arbitrators) have decided to keep using it, but I wouldn't generally consider the number of proposals that have been posted to be "newsworthy." Just my opinion.
790:
As a first step, I think it would be relatively easy to add a concise 'community sanctions' section to the bottom of the
Arbitration report, as suggested by Ravensfire, without changing anything. We could fill in the details about what to include further down the line.
864:
We didn't have to seek an act of parliament to redesign the "F and A" page, did we? I suggest that if people here are generally in agreement, a section at the bottom, simply listing and linking to community bans at ANI be included as a trial, say, for a month or so.
684:
complicated by political factors (be it in the form of elections, or beyond) as well as hard-and-fast obligations (be it in a functionary sense, or beyond). I think accountability is another word; particularly in the event that something is seriously
173:
690:
don't know. What I do think is that it is these same points that make arbitration distinct from the other measures/steps/processes, and it is that distinction which keeps the report/focus limited. Hope that helps.
387:
236:
731:, ArbCom now takes on fewer cases (but bigger and far more difficult). I suspect AR was first conceived before ANI took on so much of the easier, less complicated matters ArbCom had dealt with in the early days.
196:
808:
Except for the fact that the arbitration report is about the arbitration process - not the
Community process. I think the issue warrants a RfC so that the Community can comment on the arbitrators proposal.
351:
346:
294:
285:
261:
461:
When there is a lack of a proposed decision from the parties about what it is they would like to see, or from any other editors from that matter, then yes - this is something that is of significance.
361:
724:
341:
584:
He never said the workshop didn't have bearing on the case. Every single piece of nonsense posted by any party or observer probably has bearing on the case too, but not all of it is reported. --
331:
73:
269:
336:
324:
318:
52:
41:
735:
AR with repeats of case backgrounds week after week. The page name could be changed to reflect the increased scope, which would attract considerable reader interest. While this
245:
739:
require more journalistic resources, it would be a neat structure for sharing and alternating week by week by
Nmcvocalist and Ohconfucius, and other willing editors.
970:
21:
945:
940:
935:
899:
Arbcomm should have no special privilege for determining what goes into the SP. If arbs don't like the coverage of arbcomm, that is probably a good sign
930:
723:
While they're different processesâArbCom and ANIâthey have evolved in relation to each other, and as arbitrator Roger Davies pointed out in
192:
161:
925:
306:
46:
32:
17:
665:
Roger, I actually have considered that at one point, but I always came back to a few different (yet similar) points regarding why
489:
The workshop is a rarefied animal. When it's working properly, which isn't very often, you can expect to see suggestions which
203:
904:
908:
892:
878:
847:
818:
799:
782:
715:
699:
657:
635:
620:
592:
579:
564:
547:
524:
509:
484:
470:
456:
434:
420:
758:"Arbitration and AN/I". We have quite enough pages called "report". (BTW, AN/I would be so much cooler without the slash.)
677:
the only means of effecting an involuntary but binding measure in some disputes (desysopping administrators and so on).
644:
Might be informative to list any community-level sanctions that happen though - topic bans, indefinite bans, etc.
900:
951:
493:
useful in preparing the final decision. There are, however, two powerful forces which run counter to this one:
186:
832:
750:(the sky didn't fall in when this happened a few weeks ago, and it's not as though readers will be lost).
888:
845:
839:
to add a separate report to SP. I think that the only proviso is that the
Managing Editor says 'aye'. --
814:
797:
711:
695:
633:
590:
575:
560:
545:
520:
515:
see there. If it had no real bearing on the case, perhaps that is something which needs to be reported.
507:
480:
466:
430:
229:
that evidence should be submitted within a week, and set 30 January 2011 as target date for a decision.
883:
If this was but a mere redesigning, I would not have mentioned RfC; it is more than just a formality.
757:
increase the scope to include what we deem as newsworthy at ANI. I suggest "Arbitration report" -: -->
651:
264:). Since 25 November 2010, no editors have submitted any proposals in the workshop. During the week,
182:
219:
199:
497:, the workshop often turns into the same battleground that crystallised the given arbcom case;
90:
613:
383:
120:
836:
884:
840:
810:
792:
707:
691:
628:
585:
571:
556:
540:
516:
502:
476:
462:
426:
256:
were made during the week, including shortly after the evidence phase was set to close (see
223:
154:
150:
215:
207:
100:
873:
777:
645:
536:
451:
239:
of one week has been provided for evidence submissions and the target date for a decision.
211:
130:
827:
I see that you are still in majestic plural mode! Whilst a change in name of the report
964:
411:
110:
140:
68:
New case: Shakespeare authorship question; lack of recent input in Longevity case
866:
770:
444:
766:
763:
I have, as you see, expressed these options in a completely biased way.
278:
The information reflects the state of cases at the time of publication.
841:
793:
629:
586:
541:
503:
51:
305:
31:
669:
has historically focused on arbitration. Arbitration is:
399:
392:
372:
265:
253:
226:
397:If your comment has not appeared here, you can try
195:), alleged that there was a sustained and possibly
535:" â I like that... is it supposed to be like the
443:So lack of recent input is now worth a headline?
769:, the Managing Editor, think about the issue?
831:require an RfC, we should also remember that
164:opened one new case. Two cases are now open.
8:
971:Knowledge (XXG) Signpost archives 2011-01
627:scare me more than just a little. ;-) --
18:Knowledge (XXG):Knowledge (XXG) Signpost
400:
376:
67:
7:
268:was received from one party, but no
53:
28:
475:I've left a note on HaeB's talk.
382:These comments are automatically
743:There seem to be three options:
135:
125:
115:
105:
95:
85:
920:: doing it for free since 2005.
204:Shakespeare authorship question
174:Shakespeare authorship question
835:. We may also take action per
393:add the page to your watchlist
272:were received from any editor.
1:
909:20:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
893:19:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
879:12:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
848:11:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
819:08:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
800:02:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
783:01:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
716:22:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
700:21:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
658:18:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
636:14:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
621:13:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
593:11:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
580:08:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
565:22:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
548:02:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
525:21:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
510:13:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
485:16:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
471:11:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
457:01:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
435:11:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
421:21:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
254:Further evidence submissions
674:why it may be prejudicial).
987:
425:Thank you for the update.
222:were also raised. Drafter
753:Develop such a guideline
270:proposed final decisions
833:WP is not a bureaucracy
390:. To follow comments,
310:
298:"Arbitration report" â
36:
309:
202:to have the article,
162:Arbitration Committee
35:
901:William M. Connolley
386:from this article's
290:"Arbitration report"
266:analysis of evidence
206:, reflect a certain
352:Features and admins
212:tendentious editing
377:Discuss this story
357:Arbitration report
347:WikiProject report
311:
65:Arbitration report
42:â Back to Contents
37:
419:
401:purging the cache
362:Technology report
280:
210:. Concerns about
47:View Latest Issue
978:
954:
876:
871:
843:
795:
780:
775:
654:
631:
618:
588:
543:
505:
454:
449:
418:
416:
404:
402:
396:
375:
329:
321:
314:
297:
289:
276:
273:
230:
220:attempted outing
157:
139:
138:
129:
128:
119:
118:
109:
108:
99:
98:
89:
88:
59:
57:
55:
986:
985:
981:
980:
979:
977:
976:
975:
961:
960:
959:
958:
957:
956:
955:
950:
948:
943:
938:
933:
928:
921:
913:
912:
874:
867:
778:
771:
652:
614:
452:
445:
412:
406:
398:
391:
380:
379:
373:+ Add a comment
371:
367:
366:
365:
342:Sister projects
322:
319:17 January 2011
317:
315:
312:
301:
300:
295:
292:
287:
262:11 January 2011
252:
250:
180:
178:
170:
158:
148:
147:
146:
145:
136:
126:
116:
106:
96:
86:
80:
77:
66:
62:
60:
54:17 January 2011
50:
49:
44:
38:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
984:
982:
974:
973:
963:
962:
949:
944:
939:
934:
929:
924:
923:
922:
915:
914:
911:
898:
897:
896:
895:
861:
860:
859:
858:
857:
856:
855:
854:
853:
852:
851:
850:
822:
821:
803:
802:
761:
760:
759:
751:
747:
741:
687:
686:
682:
678:
675:
663:
662:
661:
660:
639:
638:
610:
609:
608:
607:
606:
605:
604:
603:
602:
601:
600:
599:
598:
597:
596:
595:
552:
551:
550:
440:
439:
438:
437:
381:
378:
370:
369:
368:
364:
359:
354:
349:
344:
339:
334:
332:News and notes
328:
316:
304:
303:
302:
293:
284:
283:
282:
260:coverage from
249:
243:
242:
241:
183:LessHeard vanU
177:
171:
169:
166:
144:
143:
133:
123:
113:
103:
93:
82:
81:
78:
72:
71:
70:
69:
64:
63:
61:
58:
45:
40:
39:
30:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
983:
972:
969:
968:
966:
953:
947:
942:
937:
932:
927:
919:
910:
906:
902:
894:
890:
886:
882:
881:
880:
877:
872:
870:
863:
862:
849:
846:
844:
838:
834:
830:
826:
825:
824:
823:
820:
816:
812:
807:
806:
805:
804:
801:
798:
796:
789:
788:
787:
786:
785:
784:
781:
776:
774:
768:
762:
756:
752:
748:
745:
744:
742:
740:
738:
732:
730:
728:
719:
718:
717:
713:
709:
704:
703:
702:
701:
697:
693:
683:
679:
676:
672:
671:
670:
668:
659:
655:
649:
648:
643:
642:
641:
640:
637:
634:
632:
625:
624:
623:
622:
619:
617:
594:
591:
589:
583:
582:
581:
577:
573:
568:
567:
566:
562:
558:
553:
549:
546:
544:
538:
534:
530:
529:
528:
527:
526:
522:
518:
513:
512:
511:
508:
506:
500:
496:
492:
488:
487:
486:
482:
478:
474:
473:
472:
468:
464:
460:
459:
458:
455:
450:
448:
442:
441:
436:
432:
428:
424:
423:
422:
417:
415:
408:
407:
403:
394:
389:
385:
374:
363:
360:
358:
355:
353:
350:
348:
345:
343:
340:
338:
335:
333:
330:
326:
320:
313:In this issue
308:
299:
291:
281:
279:
274:
271:
267:
263:
259:
255:
247:
244:
240:
238:
233:
232:
231:
228:
225:
221:
217:
213:
209:
208:point of view
205:
201:
198:
194:
191:
188:
184:
175:
172:
167:
165:
163:
156:
152:
142:
134:
132:
124:
122:
114:
112:
104:
102:
94:
92:
84:
83:
75:
56:
48:
43:
34:
23:
19:
917:
868:
828:
772:
764:
754:
736:
733:
726:
722:
688:
667:The Signpost
666:
664:
646:
615:
611:
532:
498:
494:
490:
446:
413:
356:
325:all comments
277:
275:
257:
251:
234:
189:
179:
159:
952:Suggestions
885:Ncmvocalist
842:Ohconfucius
811:Ncmvocalist
794:Ohconfucius
746:Do nothing.
725:an earlier
708:Newyorkbrad
692:Ncmvocalist
630:Ohconfucius
587:Ohconfucius
572:Ncmvocalist
557:Newyorkbrad
542:Ohconfucius
533:most people
517:Ncmvocalist
504:Ohconfucius
477:Ncmvocalist
463:Ncmvocalist
427:Ncmvocalist
384:transcluded
337:In the news
235:Update: an
224:Newyorkbrad
197:coordinated
181:The filer,
155:Ohconfucius
151:Ncmvocalist
765:What does
647:Ravensfire
168:Open cases
79:Share this
74:Contribute
22:2011-01-17
946:Subscribe
388:talk page
246:Longevity
237:extension
216:ownership
965:Category
941:Newsroom
936:Archives
918:Signpost
727:Signpost
681:another.
539:. ;-) --
537:royal we
288:Previous
258:Signpost
248:(Week 8)
200:campaign
193:contribs
176:(Week 1)
121:LinkedIn
101:Facebook
20: |
837:WP:BOLD
111:Twitter
875:(talk)
779:(talk)
685:wrong.
491:may be
453:(talk)
218:, and
131:Reddit
91:E-mail
931:About
829:might
737:would
729:story
616:Roger
227:noted
16:<
926:Home
916:The
905:talk
889:talk
869:Tony
815:talk
773:Tony
767:HaeB
712:talk
696:talk
653:talk
576:talk
561:talk
521:talk
481:talk
467:talk
447:Tony
431:talk
296:Next
187:talk
160:The
153:and
141:Digg
755:and
499:two
495:One
414:AGK
149:By
76:â
967::
907:)
891:)
817:)
791:--
714:)
698:)
656:)
578:)
563:)
523:)
483:)
469:)
433:)
286:â
214:,
903:(
887:(
813:(
710:(
694:(
650:(
574:(
559:(
531:"
519:(
479:(
465:(
429:(
405:.
395:.
327:)
323:(
190:¡
185:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
