Climate change (Week 9): This case, which is technically open, resulted from the merging of several Arbitration requests on the same topic matter into a single case, and the failure of a related request for comment to make headway. Special rules of conduct were put in place when this arbitration commenced. Two weeks ago, participants requested an update on when to expect a proposed decision, and a similar request was made again last week, but since July 19 (three weeks ago) when the workshop phase was closed, arbitrators have still not set any specific target date. This has sparked a large quantity of discussion among participants, some of which was collapsed as "Extended content".
Race and intelligence (Week 10): This case concerns accusations of incivility, disruptive editing, and tag-teaming to control the content on articles related to race and intelligence. Following a number of delays (see Signpost coverage from June 28, July 5, July 12), the case moved to the proposed decision phase. The proposed decision that was drafted by Coren has sparked several concerns among participants and non-participants (example). Other proposals by other arbitrators are being considered, however, more than six days had passed since the proposed decision attracted any other votes or proposals from arbitrators.
Other
Applications for CheckUser and Oversight permissions have closed. Next week, The Signpost is likely to publish the names of applicants being actively considered for appointment.
Discuss this story
- Participants, and even some non-participants, can/have dispute whether the case is open where its evidence/workshop is closed, its proposed decision phase has not opened, and participants are prevented from discussing their own case on the actual case pages; this has not happened in the (recent) past, and it practically seems like the case is closed at this time. Nevertheless, this report clarifies that the case is technically open. No assertion was made in this report about arbitrators abandoning the case - such an assertion would be inaccurate. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ncmvocalist has it right, the case is technically open in that it's not formally closed as unresolvable, nor is it yet closed as resolved. But with most all of the pages locked down, and with no progress on the proposed decision (unless you count reassurances from arbitrators that progress is being made that are not accompanied by any concrete proposals of any sort, or by any useful guidance), it's certainly not very open in a practical sense. So, Jeremy, if you view open/close as binary, then yes, it's "open" and not "closed". But if you view open/close as more of a spectrum (which I think is more accurate in this case), then it's "not very open at all". Further, I think on review the clampdown for an extended period will be found to be a failure, as discussion of this nature cannot be suppressed entirely, it merely moves to different venues (my own talk being one such venue, of many). Venues where the case clerk has little or no remit to ensure orderly and collegial discussion. And THAT is the biggest flaw in suppressing discussion. ++Lar: t/c 11:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This week's presenting is an improvement; it's much more neutral sounding. Good job, Ncmvocalist. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 19:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]