Evidence submissions close in Rich Farmbrough case, vote on proposed decision in R&I Review

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

Open cases

This case – concerning alleged disruptive editing of Rich Farmbrough, especially in regard to his handling of the bot policy – saw a final round of additional new evidence and its analysis in the related workshop by several parties. The opportunity to offer new evidence ended on April 18.

Arbitrator Newyorkbrad will draft the judgement.

The Race and intelligence review, following a case closed back in 2010, continued with voting by arbitrators on the proposed decision this week. While the draft, authored by Roger Davies, have gained majorities on most of the proposed findings of fact, arbitrators are divided on the remedies.

Other requests and committee action

The committee has continued voting on a series of proposals to change the limits for evidence submissions in cases. At the time of publication, one motion, limiting the length of submitted evidence by named parties to 1000 words and by third parties to 500 words, has passed.

← Previous "Arbitration report"

Next "Arbitration report" →

In this issue

23 April 2012 (all comments)

Investigative report

News and notes

WikiProject report

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.

I don't know much about the Rich Farmbrough case or its history, but when someone suggests retroactively changing the case, I get concerned. What possible reason could there be to suggest such a thing? If there's a serious problem, you {{cblank}} it. If there's only a minor problem, you ignore it. I'm just trying to make sense of this. Can anyone else enlighten me? --N Y Kevin @081, i.e. 00:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]