TheArbitration Committee opened no cases this week, keeping the number of open cases at two.
The case involves accusations of disruptive editing againstRich Farmbrough. Specifically, concerns were raised about the editor and his observance ofbot policy.
The proposed decision was posted on 5 May by drafterKiril Lokshin. The decision's framework centers around principles ofcollegiality andbehavior with automation tools. After a long series of findings of fact, the proposed decision would remove administrator privileges from Rich Farmbrough and ban him for up to one year. Kirill Lokshin gave his reason for proposing the ban: "Given Rich's history of using automation without disclosing it ... it is apparent that we have no effective means of enforcing [the] remedy [absent a] ban from editing entirely." However, arbitratorCourcelles described the ban proposal as "too draconian", arguing instead for a stringent editing restriction.
It will require six of the eleven active arbitrators on the case to adopt these proposals.
A review of theRace 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 wasproposed on 16 April by drafterRoger 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.
On 6 May, Roger Davies posted a set of new findings of fact and remedies which effectively add two new parties to the case. According to the proposals, two other editors not named in the original case registered accounts on Wikipedia with the intent to resolve what they saw as "censorship". The two editors in question would be topic-banned from this area of the site along with a full site-ban for no less than six months. One existing party to the case attacked the addition of these new parties and the related findings, arguing that "the scope is being changed after the fact to include [the new parties] for the sole purpose of banning them." The drafting arbitrator responded by asking whether the committee should ignore "compelling new evidence that goes to the heart of the case purely on procedural grounds?"
When asked about the length of theReview and the delay in posting of these new findings, Roger Davies explained that "the main difficulty has been that the case spans about three years, with thirty-plus dispute related processes".
Slight crossed wires here, I think, as my quote seems to have become attached to the wrong thought ...
The new FOFS are in response to new evidence presented over the last week/ten days.
The overall delay in voting is probably caused by the need for arbitrators to get fully up to speed on a complex case with a three year time span etc.
I hope this helps, Roger Daviestalk17:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
