R&I Review remains in voting, two open cases

The Arbitration Committee opened no cases this week, keeping the number of open cases at two.

A review of the Race and intelligence case was opened as a compromise between starting a new case and proceeding with a ruling by motion. The review is intended to be a simplified form of a full case, and has the stated scope of conduct issues that have purportedly arisen since the closure of the 2010 case.

A complete decision was proposed on 16 April by drafter Roger Davies. The proposed principles include clarifications of harassment policies and sockpuppet investigation procedures. After a long series of findings of fact, the proposed decision seeks to admonish one editor involved in disruptive actions and to ban two others for 12 months. Voting so far has established a tentative consensus on some principles and some findings of fact; agreement on the remedy in the case has not been reached.

The case involves accusations of disruptive editing against Rich Farmbrough. Specifically, concerns have been raised about the editor and his observance of bot policy. Arbitrator Hersfold originally filed the case, which the committee accepted four weeks ago.

Workshop submissions closed several weeks ago, with most parties presenting suggestions on principles to include in a final decision. The draft or "proposed" decision is due to be posted in a few days, by arbitrator Newyorkbrad.

• The Ban Appeals Subcommittee announced the opening of community input regarding an appeal by Altenmann.
• Voting on a series of proposals regarding evidence limits in arbitration cases is still in progress.

← Previous "Arbitration report"

Next "Arbitration report" →

In this issue

30 April 2012 (all comments)

Paid editing

News and notes

Recent research

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.

• Workshop submissions technically were due to close on 25 April 2012, not "some weeks ago" - that was the evidence phase. Clerks have left it open as some of us try to make progress.
• It has been most interesting to be on the "receiving end" of an Arbitration Committee case (and of course I shall be seeing what can be learned to make the process better for others) - and I am immensely grateful to those who stepped into the firing line in what was, at times, an intensely frustrating discussion.

Rich Farmbrough, 11:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]