Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-07-02/Arbitration report

Latest comment: 11 years ago by Rich Farmbrough in topic Discuss this story

Discuss this story

With regard to the "Fæ" case, I and MBisanz are not the only named parties. -- (talk) 12:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

The others mentioned were added near the end of the evidence phase. -- Lord Roem (talk) 23:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

The Perth case was opened in regards to the wheel warring -- the Move Review process didn't even really come up until I implemented the decision. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Also, a correction to the Falun Gong case - the decision won't be posted at least until the 8th, as other commitments and complications have prevented the drafters from being able to review the case in a timely manner. See Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun Gong 2/Proposed decision. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 16:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

All corrected, thanks guys :) James (TalkContribs) • 10:09am 00:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
Thanks muchly. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
The change in the description of the Perth case needs more changes actually. The Perth case is reviewing administrator conduct and actions (mainly in relation to a move request concerning the Perth article), but the case was opened following a wheel-war; the case is not limited to reviewing a wheel-war. Also, the move review process was brought up well-before SarekOfVulcan used his tools in the way that he did. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Whoa Nelly! ArbCom is now attempting to de-sysop on their own initiative? This looks like creeping arrogation of power. While the non-hierarchical model Wikipedia has attempted to use is not without problems, it also has massive benefits. The desire for structure and "leadership",[1] evident from the earliest days, pulling in the contrary direction to the philosophy of the majority of early Wikipedians, may in the longer term prove the undoing of the community, the sacred tenet of open editing and the goal of delivering free knowledge. Rich Farmbrough, 00:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC).Reply

References edit

  1. ^ W R Brion (1961). Experiences in Groups. Reprinted. London and New York: Routledge.