Guerillero (talk | contribs) starting case |
Kirill Lokshin (talk | contribs) →Proposed final decision: Posted |
||
Line 54: | Line 54: | ||
==Proposed principles== |
==Proposed principles== |
||
=== |
===Collegiality=== |
||
1) Wikipedia is a serious educational and scholarly project founded on the principles of collaboration and consensus. All participants are expected to conduct themselves according to the standards of collegiality and professionalism appropriate to such a setting. |
|||
1) {text of proposed principle} |
|||
The standards of collegiality expected of all contributors to Wikimedia projects are set forth in the [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Openness Wikimedia Foundation Resolution on Openness], which urges editors to "promote openness and collaboration", "treat new editors with patience, kindness, and respect", "work with colleagues to reduce contention and promote a friendlier, more collaborative culture", and "work with colleagues to [...] discourage disruptive and hostile behavior". |
|||
:Support: |
|||
:# |
|||
The Wikipedia community has outlined similar standards in the "[[Wikipedia:Five pillars|fourth pillar]]" of community policy, which asks that editors "interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner", "be polite to [...] fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree", and "be open and welcoming". |
|||
:Oppose: |
|||
:# |
|||
:Abstain: |
|||
:# |
|||
:Comments: |
|||
::: |
|||
===Template=== |
|||
2) {text of proposed principle} |
|||
:Support: |
:Support: |
||
:# Proposed. Adapted from [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee|''MickMacNee'']]. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill]] <sup>[[User talk:Kirill Lokshin|[talk]]]</sup> 15:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:# |
|||
:Oppose: |
:Oppose: |
||
Line 84: | Line 73: | ||
::: |
::: |
||
=== |
===Administrators=== |
||
2) [[Wikipedia:Administrators|Administrators]] are trusted members of the community, and are expected to perform their duties to the best of their abilities; to behave in a respectful and civil manner in their interactions with others; to follow Wikipedia policies; to lead by example; and to learn from experience and from justified criticisms of their actions. |
|||
3) {text of proposed principle} |
|||
Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained poor judgment, multiple violations of policy—whether in the use of administrator tools or otherwise—or particularly egregious behaviour may result in the removal of administrator status. |
|||
:Support: |
:Support: |
||
:# Proposed. Adapted from [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement|''Civility enforcement'']]. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill]] <sup>[[User talk:Kirill Lokshin|[talk]]]</sup> 15:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:# |
|||
:Oppose: |
:Oppose: |
||
Line 99: | Line 90: | ||
::: |
::: |
||
=== |
===Automation tools=== |
||
3) An automation tool is a technology designed to facilitate making multiple similar edits that would be unduly time-consuming or tedious for a human editor to perform manually. Common automation tools include [[Wikipedia:Bots|bots]] (independently running processes that modify Wikipedia content in a fully or partially automated fashion), [[Wikipedia:Scripts|scripts]] (software components utilized to automate or semi-automate certain types of editing), and various other technologies. |
|||
4) {text of proposed principle} |
|||
The use of automation tools on Wikipedia is subject to [[Wikipedia:Bot policy|numerous restrictions]], and approval from the [[WP:BAG|Bot Approvals Group]] is generally required before an editor may use a tool for automated or high-speed edits. |
|||
:Support: |
|||
:# |
|||
:Oppose: |
|||
:# |
|||
:Abstain: |
|||
:# |
|||
:Comments: |
|||
::: |
|||
===Template=== |
|||
5) {text of proposed principle} |
|||
:Support: |
:Support: |
||
:# Proposed. Adapted from [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2|''Betacommand 2'']]. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill]] <sup>[[User talk:Kirill Lokshin|[talk]]]</sup> 15:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:# |
|||
:Oppose: |
:Oppose: |
||
Line 129: | Line 107: | ||
::: |
::: |
||
===Users of automation tools=== |
|||
===Template=== |
|||
4) Like administrators and other editors in positions of trust, users of automation tools have a heightened responsibility to the community, and are expected to comply with applicable policies and restrictions; to respond reasonably to questions or concerns about their use of such tools; and to respect the community's wishes regarding the use of automation. |
|||
6) {text of proposed principle} |
|||
An editor who misuses automation tools—whether deliberately or in good faith—or fails to respond appropriately to concerns from the community about their use may lose the privilege of using such tools or may have such privilege restricted. |
|||
:Support: |
|||
:# |
|||
:Oppose: |
|||
:# |
|||
:Abstain: |
|||
:# |
|||
:Comments: |
|||
::: |
|||
===Template=== |
|||
7) {text of proposed principle} |
|||
:Support: |
:Support: |
||
:# Proposed. Adapted from [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2|''Betacommand 2'']]. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill]] <sup>[[User talk:Kirill Lokshin|[talk]]]</sup> 15:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:# |
|||
:Oppose: |
:Oppose: |
||
Line 159: | Line 124: | ||
::: |
::: |
||
===Identifying the use of automation tools=== |
|||
===Template=== |
|||
5) It is often impossible to definitively determine whether a particular edit was made using an automation tool, as such tools typically run on computers under the control of individual users rather than on the servers that host Wikipedia, and even automation tools that normally report their use may be modified to run silently. |
|||
8) {text of proposed principle} |
|||
In examining edits where the use of automation tools is suspected, the Arbitration Committee may make reasonable inferences regarding the probable use of such tools on the basis of several factors, including the speed, number, timing, and consistency of the edits and the performing editor's past use of and familiarity with such tools. |
|||
:Support: |
|||
:# |
|||
:Oppose: |
|||
:# |
|||
:Abstain: |
|||
:# |
|||
:Comments: |
|||
::: |
|||
===Template=== |
|||
9) {text of proposed principle} |
|||
:Support: |
:Support: |
||
:# Proposed. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill]] <sup>[[User talk:Kirill Lokshin|[talk]]]</sup> 15:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:# |
|||
:Oppose: |
:Oppose: |
||
Line 190: | Line 142: | ||
===Template=== |
===Template=== |
||
6) {text of proposed principle} |
|||
:Support: |
:Support: |
||
Line 206: | Line 158: | ||
==Proposed findings of fact== |
==Proposed findings of fact== |
||
=== |
===Rich Farmbrough=== |
||
1) {{admin|Rich Farmbrough}} has been an active Wikipedia editor since 2004, and an administrator since 2005. He has extensive experience with and expertise in the use of automation tools, including both fully automated bots (such as [[User:SmackBot|SmackBot]] and [[User:Helpful Pixie Bot|Helpful Pixie Bot]]) and semi-automated tools (such as [[WP:AWB|AutoWikiBrowser]]). |
|||
1) {text of proposed finding of fact} |
|||
:Support: |
:Support: |
||
:# Proposed as background. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill]] <sup>[[User talk:Kirill Lokshin|[talk]]]</sup> 15:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:# |
|||
:Oppose: |
:Oppose: |
||
Line 221: | Line 173: | ||
::: |
::: |
||
===Restrictions on Rich Farmbrough's use of automation=== |
|||
===Template=== |
|||
2) Rich Farmbrough is currently subject to two community-imposed restrictions on his use of automation. The [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions&diff=392963664&oldid=389149263 first restriction], imposed in October 2010 as a result of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive218#Proposed_editing_restriction:_Rich_Farmbrough a community discussion on the administrators' noticeboard], prohibits Rich Farmbrough from making cosmetic changes to wikicode beyond those enabled by AutoWikiBrowser's default settings or explicitly approved by community consensus or the Bot Approvals Group. The [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions&diff=407721836&oldid=407132014 second restriction], imposed in January 2011 as a result of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents/Rich_Farmbrough/January_2011 a community discussion on the incidents noticeboard], prohibits Rich Farmbrough from [[Wikipedia:BOTPOL#Mass_article_creation|mass creation]] of pages in any namespace without approval from the community. |
|||
2) {text of proposed finding of fact} |
|||
:Support: |
:Support: |
||
:# Proposed as background. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill]] <sup>[[User talk:Kirill Lokshin|[talk]]]</sup> 15:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:# |
|||
:Oppose: |
:Oppose: |
||
Line 236: | Line 188: | ||
::: |
::: |
||
===Rich Farbrough's violations of restrictions on automation=== |
|||
===Template=== |
|||
3) Rich Farmbrough has repeatedly violated the restrictions imposed by the community on his use of automation. Examples include cosmetic changes to non-rendered whitespace ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Drunk_driving_law_by_country&diff=prev&oldid=394080486], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timeline_of_Kosovo_history&diff=prev&oldid=394087800], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Patriarchs_of_the_Church_of_the_East&diff=prev&oldid=483914134], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Academy_Award_for_Best_Actress&diff=prev&oldid=395724391], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CityRail_T_and_G_sets&diff=prev&oldid=483914006]), cosmetic changes to template invocations ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Canada_at_the_1968_Summer_Paralympics&diff=prev&oldid=438821533], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pillsbury_Company&diff=prev&oldid=464783152]), removal of comments ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pietro_Aretino&diff=prev&oldid=464783312], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pierre-Luc-Charles_Ciceri&diff=prev&oldid=464783461]), and unapproved mass creation of categories ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich_Farmbrough/Evidence#R.F._violated_restriction_on_mass_creation]). |
|||
3) {text of proposed finding of fact} |
|||
:Support: |
:Support: |
||
:# Proposed. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill]] <sup>[[User talk:Kirill Lokshin|[talk]]]</sup> 15:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:# |
|||
:Oppose: |
:Oppose: |
||
Line 251: | Line 203: | ||
::: |
::: |
||
===Rich Farmbrough's violations of automation policy=== |
|||
===Template=== |
|||
4) Rich Farmbrough has repeatedly violated the letter and the spirit of the [[Wikipedia:Bot policy|bot policy]]. Examples include running high-speed tasks without sufficient approval ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&offset=20101117000000&limit=301&tagfilter=&contribs=user&target=Rich+Farmbrough]), running high-volume tasks without sufficient approval ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FCase%2FRich_Farmbrough%2FWorkshop&diff=487982739&oldid=487975416]), running bot tasks from a non-bot account ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Helpful_Pixie_Bot/References_Log&diff=331578770&oldid=330777023]), and running unapproved bot tasks ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=CBM&page=User%3ASmackBot&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=]). |
|||
4) {text of proposed finding of fact} |
|||
:Support: |
:Support: |
||
:# Proposed. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill]] <sup>[[User talk:Kirill Lokshin|[talk]]]</sup> 15:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:# |
|||
:Oppose: |
:Oppose: |
||
Line 266: | Line 218: | ||
::: |
::: |
||
===Rich Farmbrough's undisclosed use of automation=== |
|||
===Template=== |
|||
5) Rich Farmbrough's editing history shows numerous examples of high-volume, high-speed sequences of identical edits ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=&limit=500&tagfilter=&contribs=user&target=Rich+Farmbrough&namespace=14], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:DeletedContributions&offset=&limit=250&target=Rich+Farmbrough&namespace=14]). These edits were not performed from a bot account or with a bot flag; nor did the associated edit summaries indicate the use any known automation tool; nor was any other explicit or implicit indication made that automation was used to performed them. |
|||
5) {text of proposed finding of fact} |
|||
However, given the speed, number, and consistency of these edits, and Rich Farmbrough's history of using automation for tasks of a similar nature, it is reasonable to conclude that these edits were in fact performed via some form of automation tool. |
|||
:Support: |
:Support: |
||
:# Proposed. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill]] <sup>[[User talk:Kirill Lokshin|[talk]]]</sup> 15:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:# |
|||
:Oppose: |
:Oppose: |
||
Line 281: | Line 235: | ||
::: |
::: |
||
===Rich Farmbrough's conduct=== |
|||
===Template=== |
|||
6) Rich Farmbrough has repeatedly engaged in conduct inconsistent with [[#Collegiality|Wikipedia's standards of collegiality and professionalism]]. Examples include gratuitous incivility ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rich_Farmbrough&diff=prev&oldid=402768728], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich_Farmbrough/Workshop&diff=next&oldid=488280294], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich_Farmbrough/Workshop&diff=next&oldid=488280923]), gratuitous assumptions of bad faith ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ABots%2FRequests_for_approval%2FHelpful_Pixie_Bot_46&diff=470808658&oldid=470807722], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich_Farmbrough/Workshop&diff=next&oldid=488040481], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich_Farmbrough/Workshop&diff=next&oldid=488283483]), and gratuitous accusations of misconduct ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich_Farmbrough/Workshop&diff=next&oldid=488038751]). |
|||
6) {text of proposed finding of fact} |
|||
:Support: |
:Support: |
||
:# Proposed. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill]] <sup>[[User talk:Kirill Lokshin|[talk]]]</sup> 15:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:# |
|||
:Oppose: |
:Oppose: |
||
Line 296: | Line 250: | ||
::: |
::: |
||
===Rich Farmbrough's responsiveness=== |
|||
===Template=== |
|||
7) Rich Farmbrough has repeatedly responded to concerns regarding his use of automation tools in a manner inconsistent with the [[#Users of automation tools|community expectations for users of automation tools]]. Examples include [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rich_Farmbrough&diff=407649171&oldid=407638923], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rich_Farmbrough&diff=next&oldid=479115543], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARich_Farmbrough&diff=402757198&oldid=402756853]. |
|||
7) {text of proposed finding of fact} |
|||
:Support: |
:Support: |
||
:# Proposed. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill]] <sup>[[User talk:Kirill Lokshin|[talk]]]</sup> 15:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:# |
|||
:Oppose: |
:Oppose: |
||
Line 313: | Line 267: | ||
===Template=== |
===Template=== |
||
8) {text of proposed finding of fact} |
8) {text of proposed finding of fact} |
||
:Support: |
|||
:# |
|||
:Oppose: |
|||
:# |
|||
:Abstain: |
|||
:# |
|||
:Comments: |
|||
::: |
|||
===Template=== |
|||
9) {text of proposed finding of fact} |
|||
:Support: |
|||
:# |
|||
:Oppose: |
|||
:# |
|||
:Abstain: |
|||
:# |
|||
:Comments: |
|||
::: |
|||
===Template=== |
|||
10) {text of proposed finding of fact} |
|||
:Support: |
|||
:# |
|||
:Oppose: |
|||
:# |
|||
:Abstain: |
|||
:# |
|||
:Comments: |
|||
::: |
|||
===Template=== |
|||
11) {text of proposed finding of fact} |
|||
:Support: |
:Support: |
||
Line 374: | Line 283: | ||
<small>''Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.''</small> |
<small>''Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.''</small> |
||
===Rich Farmbrough's administrator status revoked=== |
|||
===Template=== |
|||
1) Rich Farmbrough's administrator status is revoked for a period of no less than one year. |
|||
1) {text of proposed remedy} |
|||
After one year has elapsed from the closing of this case, Rich Farmbrough may request that his administrator status be restored by filing a [[WP:RFA|request for adminship]]. |
|||
:Support: |
|||
:# |
|||
:Oppose: |
|||
:# |
|||
:Abstain: |
|||
:# |
|||
:Comments: |
|||
::: |
|||
===Template=== |
|||
2) {text of proposed remedy} |
|||
:Support: |
:Support: |
||
:# Proposed. While there are no adverse findings in this case regarding Rich's use of administrative tools ''per se'', the history of misconduct and poor judgment evinced by the other findings is sufficient to render him unsuited for a position of community trust. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill]] <sup>[[User talk:Kirill Lokshin|[talk]]]</sup> 15:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:# |
|||
:Oppose: |
:Oppose: |
||
Line 404: | Line 300: | ||
::: |
::: |
||
===Rich Farmbrough prohibited from using automation=== |
|||
===Template=== |
|||
2) Rich Farmbrough is indefinitely prohibited from using any automation whatsoever on Wikipedia. |
|||
3) {text of proposed remedy} |
|||
:Support: |
:Support: |
||
:# Proposed. Rich's use of automation tools is central to the case, and numerous findings indicate that he is chronically unable to use them in a manner that complies with the community's wishes. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill]] <sup>[[User talk:Kirill Lokshin|[talk]]]</sup> 15:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:# |
|||
:Oppose: |
:Oppose: |
||
Line 419: | Line 315: | ||
::: |
::: |
||
=== |
===Rich Farmbrough banned=== |
||
3) Rich Farmbrough is banned from Wikipedia for a period of no less than one year. |
|||
4) {text of proposed remedy} |
|||
After one year has elapsed from the closing of this case, Rich Farmbrough may request that the ban be lifted by filing an appeal with the Arbitration Committee. As part of any such request, Rich Farmbrough shall be required to submit a plan outlining his intended editing activity and demonstrating his understanding of and intention to refrain from the actions which resulted in his ban. The Committee shall present this plan to the community for review and comment prior to any modification of Rich Farmbrough's ban. |
|||
:Support: |
|||
:# |
|||
:Oppose: |
|||
:# |
|||
:Abstain: |
|||
:# |
|||
:Comments: |
|||
::: |
|||
===Template=== |
|||
5) {text of proposed remedy} |
|||
:Support: |
:Support: |
||
:# Proposed. Normally, prohibiting Rich from using automation (remedy #2) would be sufficient to resolve the majority of the issues raised in this case; however, given Rich's history of using automation without disclosing it (finding #5), it is apparent that we have no effective means of enforcing remedy #2. Unfortunately, this means that our only recourse is to ban Rich from editing entirely. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill]] <sup>[[User talk:Kirill Lokshin|[talk]]]</sup> 15:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:# |
|||
:Oppose: |
:Oppose: |
||
Line 450: | Line 333: | ||
===Template=== |
===Template=== |
||
4) {text of proposed remedy} |
|||
:Support: |
|||
:# |
|||
:Oppose: |
|||
:# |
|||
:Abstain: |
|||
:# |
|||
:Comments: |
|||
::: |
|||
===Template=== |
|||
7) {text of proposed remedy} |
|||
:Support: |
|||
:# |
|||
:Oppose: |
|||
:# |
|||
:Abstain: |
|||
:# |
|||
:Comments: |
|||
::: |
|||
===Template=== |
|||
8) {text of proposed remedy} |
|||
:Support: |
|||
:# |
|||
:Oppose: |
|||
:# |
|||
:Abstain: |
|||
:# |
|||
:Comments: |
|||
::: |
|||
===Template=== |
|||
9) {text of proposed remedy} |
|||
:Support: |
|||
:# |
|||
:Oppose: |
|||
:# |
|||
:Abstain: |
|||
:# |
|||
:Comments: |
|||
::: |
|||
===Template=== |
|||
10) {text of proposed remedy} |
|||
:Support: |
|||
:# |
|||
:Oppose: |
|||
:# |
|||
:Abstain: |
|||
:# |
|||
:Comments: |
|||
::: |
|||
===Template=== |
|||
11) {text of proposed remedy} |
|||
:Support: |
|||
:# |
|||
:Oppose: |
|||
:# |
|||
:Abstain: |
|||
:# |
|||
:Comments: |
|||
::: |
|||
===Template=== |
|||
12) {text of proposed remedy} |
|||
:Support: |
|||
:# |
|||
:Oppose: |
|||
:# |
|||
:Abstain: |
|||
:# |
|||
:Comments: |
|||
::: |
|||
===Template=== |
|||
13) {text of proposed remedy} |
|||
:Support: |
:Support: |
||
Line 573: | Line 351: | ||
===Template=== |
===Template=== |
||
1) {text of proposed enforcement} |
1) {text of proposed enforcement} |
||
:Support: |
|||
:# |
|||
:Oppose: |
|||
:# |
|||
:Abstain: |
|||
:# |
|||
:Comments: |
|||
::: |
|||
===Template=== |
|||
1) {text of proposed enforcement} |
|||
:Support: |
|||
:# |
|||
:Oppose: |
|||
:# |
|||
:Abstain: |
|||
:# |
|||
:Comments: |
|||
::: |
|||
===Template=== |
|||
2) {text of proposed enforcement} |
|||
:Support: |
|||
:# |
|||
:Oppose: |
|||
:# |
|||
:Abstain: |
|||
:# |
|||
:Comments: |
|||
::: |
|||
===Template=== |
|||
3) {text of proposed enforcement} |
|||
:Support: |
|||
:# |
|||
:Oppose: |
|||
:# |
|||
:Abstain: |
|||
:# |
|||
:Comments: |
|||
::: |
|||
===Template=== |
|||
4) {text of proposed enforcement} |
|||
:Support: |
:Support: |
Revision as of 15:09, 5 May 2012
Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.
For this case there are active arbitrators. Expression error: Missing operand for +. support or oppose votes are a majority.
Expression error: Unexpected mod operatorAbstentions | Support votes needed for majority |
---|
If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list.
Under no circumstances may this page be edited, except by members of the Arbitration Committee or the case Clerks. Please submit comment on the proposed decision to the talk page.
Proposed motions
Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion. Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.
Template
1) {text of proposed motion}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Proposed temporary injunctions
A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.
Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.
Template
1) {text of proposed orders}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Proposed final decision
Proposed principles
Collegiality
1) Wikipedia is a serious educational and scholarly project founded on the principles of collaboration and consensus. All participants are expected to conduct themselves according to the standards of collegiality and professionalism appropriate to such a setting.
The standards of collegiality expected of all contributors to Wikimedia projects are set forth in the Wikimedia Foundation Resolution on Openness, which urges editors to "promote openness and collaboration", "treat new editors with patience, kindness, and respect", "work with colleagues to reduce contention and promote a friendlier, more collaborative culture", and "work with colleagues to [...] discourage disruptive and hostile behavior".
The Wikipedia community has outlined similar standards in the "fourth pillar" of community policy, which asks that editors "interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner", "be polite to [...] fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree", and "be open and welcoming".
- Support:
- Proposed. Adapted from MickMacNee. Kirill [talk] 15:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Administrators
2) Administrators are trusted members of the community, and are expected to perform their duties to the best of their abilities; to behave in a respectful and civil manner in their interactions with others; to follow Wikipedia policies; to lead by example; and to learn from experience and from justified criticisms of their actions.
Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained poor judgment, multiple violations of policy—whether in the use of administrator tools or otherwise—or particularly egregious behaviour may result in the removal of administrator status.
- Support:
- Proposed. Adapted from Civility enforcement. Kirill [talk] 15:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Automation tools
3) An automation tool is a technology designed to facilitate making multiple similar edits that would be unduly time-consuming or tedious for a human editor to perform manually. Common automation tools include bots (independently running processes that modify Wikipedia content in a fully or partially automated fashion), scripts (software components utilized to automate or semi-automate certain types of editing), and various other technologies.
The use of automation tools on Wikipedia is subject to numerous restrictions, and approval from the Bot Approvals Group is generally required before an editor may use a tool for automated or high-speed edits.
- Support:
- Proposed. Adapted from Betacommand 2. Kirill [talk] 15:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Users of automation tools
4) Like administrators and other editors in positions of trust, users of automation tools have a heightened responsibility to the community, and are expected to comply with applicable policies and restrictions; to respond reasonably to questions or concerns about their use of such tools; and to respect the community's wishes regarding the use of automation.
An editor who misuses automation tools—whether deliberately or in good faith—or fails to respond appropriately to concerns from the community about their use may lose the privilege of using such tools or may have such privilege restricted.
- Support:
- Proposed. Adapted from Betacommand 2. Kirill [talk] 15:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Identifying the use of automation tools
5) It is often impossible to definitively determine whether a particular edit was made using an automation tool, as such tools typically run on computers under the control of individual users rather than on the servers that host Wikipedia, and even automation tools that normally report their use may be modified to run silently.
In examining edits where the use of automation tools is suspected, the Arbitration Committee may make reasonable inferences regarding the probable use of such tools on the basis of several factors, including the speed, number, timing, and consistency of the edits and the performing editor's past use of and familiarity with such tools.
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Template
6) {text of proposed principle}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Proposed findings of fact
Rich Farmbrough
1) Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has been an active Wikipedia editor since 2004, and an administrator since 2005. He has extensive experience with and expertise in the use of automation tools, including both fully automated bots (such as SmackBot and Helpful Pixie Bot) and semi-automated tools (such as AutoWikiBrowser).
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Restrictions on Rich Farmbrough's use of automation
2) Rich Farmbrough is currently subject to two community-imposed restrictions on his use of automation. The first restriction, imposed in October 2010 as a result of a community discussion on the administrators' noticeboard, prohibits Rich Farmbrough from making cosmetic changes to wikicode beyond those enabled by AutoWikiBrowser's default settings or explicitly approved by community consensus or the Bot Approvals Group. The second restriction, imposed in January 2011 as a result of a community discussion on the incidents noticeboard, prohibits Rich Farmbrough from mass creation of pages in any namespace without approval from the community.
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Rich Farbrough's violations of restrictions on automation
3) Rich Farmbrough has repeatedly violated the restrictions imposed by the community on his use of automation. Examples include cosmetic changes to non-rendered whitespace ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5]), cosmetic changes to template invocations ([6], [7]), removal of comments ([8], [9]), and unapproved mass creation of categories ([10]).
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Rich Farmbrough's violations of automation policy
4) Rich Farmbrough has repeatedly violated the letter and the spirit of the bot policy. Examples include running high-speed tasks without sufficient approval ([11]), running high-volume tasks without sufficient approval ([12]), running bot tasks from a non-bot account ([13]), and running unapproved bot tasks ([14]).
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Rich Farmbrough's undisclosed use of automation
5) Rich Farmbrough's editing history shows numerous examples of high-volume, high-speed sequences of identical edits ([15], [16]). These edits were not performed from a bot account or with a bot flag; nor did the associated edit summaries indicate the use any known automation tool; nor was any other explicit or implicit indication made that automation was used to performed them.
However, given the speed, number, and consistency of these edits, and Rich Farmbrough's history of using automation for tasks of a similar nature, it is reasonable to conclude that these edits were in fact performed via some form of automation tool.
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Rich Farmbrough's conduct
6) Rich Farmbrough has repeatedly engaged in conduct inconsistent with Wikipedia's standards of collegiality and professionalism. Examples include gratuitous incivility ([17], [18], [19]), gratuitous assumptions of bad faith ([20], [21], [22]), and gratuitous accusations of misconduct ([23]).
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Rich Farmbrough's responsiveness
7) Rich Farmbrough has repeatedly responded to concerns regarding his use of automation tools in a manner inconsistent with the community expectations for users of automation tools. Examples include [24], [25], and [26].
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Template
8) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
Rich Farmbrough's administrator status revoked
1) Rich Farmbrough's administrator status is revoked for a period of no less than one year.
After one year has elapsed from the closing of this case, Rich Farmbrough may request that his administrator status be restored by filing a request for adminship.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Rich Farmbrough prohibited from using automation
2) Rich Farmbrough is indefinitely prohibited from using any automation whatsoever on Wikipedia.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Rich Farmbrough banned
3) Rich Farmbrough is banned from Wikipedia for a period of no less than one year.
After one year has elapsed from the closing of this case, Rich Farmbrough may request that the ban be lifted by filing an appeal with the Arbitration Committee. As part of any such request, Rich Farmbrough shall be required to submit a plan outlining his intended editing activity and demonstrating his understanding of and intention to refrain from the actions which resulted in his ban. The Committee shall present this plan to the community for review and comment prior to any modification of Rich Farmbrough's ban.
- Support:
- Proposed. Normally, prohibiting Rich from using automation (remedy #2) would be sufficient to resolve the majority of the issues raised in this case; however, given Rich's history of using automation without disclosing it (finding #5), it is apparent that we have no effective means of enforcing remedy #2. Unfortunately, this means that our only recourse is to ban Rich from editing entirely. Kirill [talk] 15:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Template
4) {text of proposed remedy}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Proposed enforcement
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Discussion by Arbitrators
General
Motion to close
Implementation notes
Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.
- Proposals which pass
- {Passing principles}
- {Passing findings}
- {Passing remedies}
- {Passing enforcement provisions}
- Proposals which do not pass
- {Failing principles}
- {Failing findings}
- {Failing remedies}
- {Failing enforcement provisions}
Vote
Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.
Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support"). 24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close. The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.
- Support
-
- Oppose
-
- Comments
-