Race and intelligence 'review' opened, Article titles at voting

The Arbitration Committee chose to review one case this week, bringing the number of open cases to two.

For the first time in nearly five years, the Arbitration Committee voted to open a 'review' of a previous case. The review in question will cover conduct relating to the Race and intelligence arbitration case from 2010. Nine arbitrators voted in favor of opening the review, over the sole objection of arbitrator Kirill Lokshin, who argued that there was no reason to revive the scarcely used mechanism. A review was proposed as "a simplified form of a full case" after arbitrators had considered the alternative possibilities of opening a second case, ruling on the issue by summary motion, or leaving it to be resolved at Arbitration Enforcement. Roger Davies, the committee member who proposed the measure, described it as "the best compromise between a sprawling amendment/motion and a full case".

Pursuant to the review motion, the Committee will accept evidence on specific points concerning conduct of three specific editors. The timeframe for the evidence phase will be a shortened ten days and is to be directly followed by arbitrator discussion over a decision. This means there will be no workshop phase, where parties would typically present suggestions for their own principles or findings of fact.

This case was opened to review alleged disruptive editing on the Manual of Style (MoS) and other pages pertaining to article naming. Arbitrator David Fuchs posted a proposed decision last week. The proposals include a statement concerning the status of the MoS as well as a request for more structured discussion and consensus-building regarding the disputed pages in question. Specific findings of fact are also suggested concerning the conduct of a few disruptive editors.

← Previous "Arbitration report"

Next "Arbitration report" →

In this issue

19 March 2012 (all comments)

News and notes

Discussion report

WikiProject report

Featured content

Arbitration report

Technology report

+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

• Arbcom always mystifies me. For example the MOS case reads

"Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (5/0/0/0)"

with according to the talk page 11 active arbs. I would have thought one more vote would be required to even open this case. Rich Farmbrough, 16:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I believe a net four rule carries for opening cases. Lord Roem (talk) 16:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Opening of proceedings, which specifies the preconditions for acceptance of a request for arbitration. AGK [•] 22:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]