Race and politics opened; three open cases

The Race and politics case has been accepted for arbitration, and the evidence phase is now open. Two other cases remain open.

The evidence phase of this case, which deals with sourcing methods in articles pertaining to race politics, is scheduled to close May 21, 2013, the workshop is to close on May 28 and the proposed decision is scheduled to be posted June 4.

In the case, brought by Lecen, an editor is accused of systematically skewing several articles involving former Argentine president Juan Manuel de Rosas to portray a brutal dictator as a democratic leader, in keeping with the political motives of Argentine "nationalists" or "revisionists".

The evidence stage was scheduled to close 12 April 2013, the workshop stage on 19 April, and a proposed decision was scheduled for 26 April.

This case was brought to the Committee by KillerChihuahua, who alleges the discussion over this American political group has degenerated into incivility. Evidence for the case was due by 20 March 2013, the workshop was to close on 27 March, and a proposed decision was scheduled for 3 April.

• Clarification request: WP:ARBPIA/Jerusalem: A request by Sm8900 seeking advice over a committee-mandated RFC that appeared to have bogged down was closed with the committee advising against intervention in the current process or assessment of effectiveness of the mandated dispute resolution process before its completion.
• Clarification request: Scientology: A request by Prioryman seeking to clarify the scope of discretionary sanctions in Scientology-related articles was closed with the advice that discretionary sanctions apply to any edits that are about Scientology and are deemed disruptive, whether or not the relevant articles are tagged with the appropriate wikiproject banner.
• Clarification request: TimidGuy ban appeal: A 29 April 2013 request, initiated by MastCell, requests the release of voting information for the rejection of Will Beback's ban appeal, or failing that, an explanation of why such information cannot be provided. (Note: this is not the same as the request of the same name brought on April 5, 2013, by IRWolfie.)
• Clarification request: Discretionary sanctions appeals procedure: A request to clarify the appeal process for discretionary sanctions warnings was filed by Sandstein.

← Previous "Arbitration report"

Next "Arbitration report" →

In this issue

13 May 2013 (all comments)

News and notes

WikiProject report

Featured content

In the media

Arbitration 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.

• Under "other actions", the last item links to a clarification request that ended in March – two months ago. AGK [•] 15:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The notifications in March, for instance here, said "The request is archived; however, an arbitrator is planning on offering an arbitrator motion 'very shortly'", but as far as I know, this has not been done. —Neotarf (talk) 16:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • By a happy coincidence, the follow-up to that clarification request was scheduled some time ago to take place this week. However, the original clarification surely does not belong in this week's arbitration report, given how stale it now is. AGK [•] 21:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not sure how happy it is, or how arb-staleness is measured, but I have noticed that anything with a discretionary sanctions component seems to be getting kicked down the road these days. —Neotarf (talk) 07:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]