Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-10-11/Arbitration report

Discuss this story

Roughly 15% of the Scibaby accusations made thus far in 2010 have resulted in specific negative findings that the accused was Scibaby. This is easily verifiable by counting accusations and number of positive CU findings. I commend a look at "reasons" given for asserting that specific users are Scibaby as well. Collect (talk) 10:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This seems a bit too focused on the Scibaby part of it, which was not at the center of the discussion at all. Instead, the vast majority of comments these week were comments about the remedies in the proposed decision. NW (Talk) 14:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alas -- the actual CC talk pages are, indeed, focussed on false charges of people being Scibaby socks, and whether the 20+% given by CUs is correct, or whether the lower 15% figure is correct. Collect (talk) 16:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's also no doubting that it was the centre of controversy in relation to CC socking. Incidentally, the proposal was sitting there for over a month without much concern, but I'm not sure how or why the Scibaby part of it attracted attention towards the end of the case. Perhaps people read over it up until recently. And sure, all sorts of events take place (including oversighting) and discussions happened too, but some of those comments may be more concise and better expressed when the post-case workshop is ready. By that point, it's possible that all the case participants will agree with each other about some parts of the case if statements are made in a particular way; it's also possible there'll be the same level of disagreement, if not more. I guess time will tell. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the update on closed cases/motions? Last week warranted "no arbitrators have commented" note, they had since then... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We'd touched on a few cases other than just the EEML one, but with the exception of a few EEML case participants (mainly you, and that too in relation to the same case), there's insufficient interest in that part of the report in that particular format. An alternative format will be used instead. Nevertheless, I suspect more arbitrator input will be received on the already-closed-cases once (1) the currently open case is closed and (2) the post-case workshop has begun for that case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]