Five open cases, voting on proposed decisions in two cases
The Arbitration Committee opened one new case and closed no cases, leaving five open.
This case, originally filed by SarekOfVulcan, was opened 29 January to review alleged disruptive editing on WP:MOS and article naming pages. Arbitrators noted upon opening the case that it is a "messy dispute" and has become "protracted". The case's evidence and workshop phases will take place through February, with a proposed decision by drafters AGK, David Fuchs, and Casliber due on 26 February.
This is the first case opened by the Committee this year.
This case was opened to address user conduct over a dispute concerning which depictions of Muhammad, if any, are appropriate to display. Last week, arbitrator AGK published a proposed decision that listed a series of principles to guide editors in disputes regarding the inclusions of controversial content. A specific proposal on dealing with such disputes by arbitrator Newyorkbrad looks set to pass, with the support of 11 arbitrators. In the principle, the Committee would affirm that "A consensus for inclusion or exclusion should be sought based on the community's collective editorial judgment, well-informed by knowledge of the relevant subject matter and, where applicable, by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." Along with principles to guide the community, the Committee is discussing a set of remedies. A final decision in that regard is yet to be announced.
The Betacommand 3 case remained at the proposed decision phase this week. The case was opened to address the multitude of sanctions in effect on this editor. Until this week, none of the proposed remedies had garnered enough support to pass. However, a remedy detailing that the community sanctions are 'superseded' has garnered the support of a majority of arbitrators. The text of the remedy allows for voting on specific changes to sanctions "individually" but provides a clearer foundation for what is actually being amended.
This case, which has been one of the most active at present, was initially opened due to the actions of several administrators in relation to a user who was blocked over perceived incivility. The evidence and workshop pages were closed after submission deadlines passed. A proposed decision is due to be posted within days.
This case was brought to the Committee by an editor to appeal a site ban that was imposed by Jimmy Wales. The expected proposed decision, as mentioned in previous Signpost coverage, is yet to be posted. The tentative date for release had been 16 January, but has now been moved to the end of this month. This case had attracted a great deal of discussion on its workshop page.
Other requests and committee action
is written by editors like you — join in!