Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Venezuelan politics	25 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4	none	(orig. case)	13 May 2024
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation	none	(orig. case)	13 May 2024
Clarification request: Extended confirmed restriction	none	none	25 May 2024

Arbitrator motions

Motion name	Date posted
Motions on procedural motions	27 May 2012
Motion on decision elements	1 June 2012
Motion on standardized enforcement	28 May 2012
Motions to block or ban Rich Farmbrough	31 May 2012

Motions

Motions on procedural motions

Motion #1

In order to ensure that the wider community is given adequate notice of and opportunity to comment on proposed changes to the Arbitration Committee's processes and procedures, the following procedure is adopted:

Modification of procedures

All significant changes to the Arbitration Committee's procedures shall be made by way of formal motions on the Committee's public motions page, and shall be advertised on the Committee's noticeboard, the administrators' noticeboard, and the Village Pump when first proposed. The motions shall remain open for a period of no less than one week, and shall otherwise be subject to the standard voting procedures enacted by the Committee for other motions.

Votes

Support

1. Proposed, based on recent concerns that we're not providing sufficient opportunity to comment on proposed changes before they're enacted. Kirill ^[talk] 21:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
2. I request you change "all changes" to "all significant changes", to exclude unimportant fixes and changes from the transparency requirement this motion creates. AGK [•] 12:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

   Changed as requested. Kirill ^[talk] 12:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Having slept on this, I cannot support this in its present form. It is a sweeping measure, with very broad unintended consequences. As drafted, this requires a formal motion, advertised in three locations, and up for a week, to make a non-controversial copy edit to a procedural template, to make a non-controversial redirect to a better location, or to modify the precise sequence or number of procedural steps clerks take in opening cases etc etc. This runs directly counter to WP:BURO.  Roger Davies ^talk 09:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

   Is the change to "significant changes" requested by AGK sufficient to allay your concern regarding the sweeping nature of the motion? Kirill ^[talk] 12:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

   No, because the unqualified expression "processes" is also overbroad. Pre-announcing everything in three locations is also OTT. To put this into perspective, the evidence length proposals were up for seven weeks and reported in Signpost on 9, 16, 23 and 30 April, and in Open Tasks for the duration. Which does not seem to me to be hiding anything away.  Roger Davies ^talk 12:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

   Interesting; I wasn't considering the preliminary recitations to be material. Generally speaking, do you think that they should be interpreted that way? Kirill ^[talk] 12:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

   It's probably responsible to assume that people will interpret this in the light most favourable to whatever their position happens to be as that's normally how people operate. Best therefore to pin it down.  Roger Davies ^talk 12:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

2. I understand the impetus for this motion but I do not believe it is necessary. The Committee has pledged before, and should reaffirm, that it will seek community input on significant changes that will affect the relationship between the Committee and its constituents, including all aspects of the editor community. This does not, however, mean that every change in process, or even every "significant" change in process, requires a week's worth of advertising in three different places. I am particularly concerned that giving undue weight to relatively minor changes that may occur to our processes over time may have the effect of diminishing the attention given to more significant issues, both ones involving this Committee and others. Or put more simply, I favor motion #2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
3. Per those above me, favor motion #2. SirFozzie (talk) 12:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
4. Oppose for the same reason as opposing motion #2 Risker (talk) 17:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
5. Not convinced on motion 2, but it is clearly superior to this one. Courcelles 17:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
6. Oppose, per Roger above and Risker below Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
7. Oppose as overly bureaucratic. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
8. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Abstain

General discussion

Oppose Per not bureaucracy. We're getting in a tizzy because clarifications and amendments get merged? Whether a Hey ArbCom, you didn't quite get it right, please fix this process is called amendment / clarifications / have a Salmonidae is just so not important. Nobody Ent 00:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

While I happen to agree that the particular change that spurred this discussion was a fairly trivial one, I think the request that we be more consistent in soliciting community input is a reasonable one in and of itself, regardless of which specific change we neglected it for.

Beyond that, my intent is not only to provide more transparency to the process, but also to create a defined place for decisions on procedure to be made in the first place; at the moment, the Committee can hold such discussions in a variety of places, making it rather difficult to follow them at times. Kirill ^[talk] 01:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Nobody Ent, you are right, but it is a slippery slope - where is the limit. I fully endorse this change - it does not necessarily change the basics, but it does somewhat improve the transparency (something I have been asking for a long time). IF something is proposed by the ArbCom that the community would then massively oppose against, then at least that is seen - even the members of the ArbCom are only human. I presume that the motion about merging the Amendments and Clarifications pages would have passed without opposition, only some questions, concerns or suggestions which may have made the actual transition even smoother. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree whole heartedly that this particular change was minor, and had I not been editing the page simultaneously to the merge would probably never have been brought up. But anything to improve transparency and accountability is good. Rich Farmbrough, 02:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC).

Motion #2

To provide an opportunity for community comment on proposed changes to the Arbitration Committee's processes and procedures prior to enactment, the following procedure is adopted:

Modification of procedures

Significant or substantive modifications of the Arbitration Committee's procedures shall be made by way of formal motions on the Committee's public motions page, and shall be announced on the Committee's noticeboard by the clerks when first proposed. Such motions shall remain open for at least one week prior to enactment; otherwise, the Committee's standard voting procedures apply.

Votes

Support

1. Alternative to the motion on procedural transparency above, and addressing my objections to that motion.  Roger Davies ^talk 09:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

   The major and lingering remaining concern that I have about this is the seven-day provision, which has been highlighted by recent events. A lot of stuff whistles through in less than a day or two; and may often be time-sensitive because we want to apply it to an upcoming case. Delaying the opening of a case by say five or six days for process sake is likely to antagonise a lot of people,  Roger Davies ^talk 18:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

2. Works for me. Kirill ^[talk] 12:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
3. PhilKnight (talk) 22:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
4. This is acceptable as long as "significant or substantive" is interpreted in a reasonable way, which I guess is something that will play out over time. Re the comment that the ArbCom noticeboard is watched less than some other pages, I think passage of this motion would be fair notice that people interested in monitoring for potential changes in our procedure should watchlist that page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

   Second choice to Motion #1. AGK [•] 16:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

   • Change to oppose. AGK [•] 13:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

5. SirFozzie (talk) 12:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
6. While I see Risker's point, I think that any rule can be wikilawyered to death but I think there's ample room for sound judgement. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I am quite certain that there will be plenty of people who will insist that any change whatsoever is "significant or substantive", even if it is making a grammar correction. ("But you changed the meaning by fixing the words!!!") Things we have motions for, I'm fine for discussing publicly onwiki and posting on the noticeboard. However, this requires lengthy deliberations even for going forward with a trial of something a little different. I don't think we need 7 days to discuss the majority of even substantive changes. Risker (talk) 17:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
2. Per Risker. Jclemens-public (talk) 17:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
3. Per Risker. I'm in favour of opportunities for community input, but not if the only input is wikilawyering. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
4. Oppose as overly bureaucratic and arbitrary. Some discussions take longer, some take shorter. If folks are open and engaging, I think this is unnecessary and overly formalises interactions with the community at large. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
5. On reflection, I am not sure that it is sensible or necessary to impose on ourselves a one-week minimum period of exposure for motions, even considering our absolute discretion over whether to ignore or adapt procedures in a given case. AGK [•] 13:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
6. The point should be, "hold our procedural discussions here" not "wait a week to pass anything". A mandatory holding period of this long is too bureaucratic. Courcelles 13:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
7. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

General discussion

• Of the three pages in the initial proposal Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard has far less watchers than the other two. AC/N has 593 to AN's 3482 and VPP's 2513. In a project with less than 10,000 highly active users, you are dealing in huge percentage differences. I'm not sure if your intent is to actually increase transparency or just to make a feint and point to it next time people complain, but with this motion you're doing a much better job of the second than you are the first. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
• I'm actually mindful of the complaints we've had in the past about focusing on procedure when we've posted this stuff publically. How much transparency does whether Amendments and Clarifications are on one page or two need?  Roger Davies ^talk 14:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
  • If the objective is to inform the community, you're going to have to break from Arbspace. The people who are complaining are most likely not watching the AN/C. The people watching AN/C are already involved enough that they'd be in the loop anyways. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Sven is absolutely right. There are still people like me who will remain in blissful ignorance most of the time, being too busy running bots and editing protected templates, but with those pages you will at least get about 3-5% of the active editors, and probably a good chunk of those who can make useful contributions. Rich Farmbrough, 02:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC).
      
• I don't care about the procedural details, but the idea of Arbcom requiring itself to give notice of substantial changes is a great one in my mind. I likely won't pay attention, because arbitration is really something I've ignored most of the time, but it will definitely help those who care more about it. Typos and other things definitely don't need to get prior notice; we're not a bureaucracy where everything requires votes first. Nyttend (talk) 12:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
• I also agree this is a good step in the right direction and also agree that the notice should be somewhere, like a village pump, that folks are actually likely to see it. Kumioko (talk) 17:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Motion #3

To provide an opportunity for community comment on proposed changes to the Arbitration Committee's processes and procedures prior to enactment, the following procedure is adopted:

Modification of procedures

Significant or substantive modifications of the Arbitration Committee's procedures shall be made by way of formal motions on the Committee's public motions page; shall be announced on the Committee's noticeboard and the administrator's noticeboard by the clerks when first proposed; and shall remain open for at least 24 hours after those announcements are made.

Votes

Support

1. Okay, the core idea here is a good one, but it doesn't take anywhere near a week to get the community's input. Sorry to propose another motion at this late date, but I just can't get behind a week's waiting period above. A day gives the community plenty of time to object, without stretching into days of silence. Courcelles 14:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
2. Fair enough. Kirill ^[talk] 14:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
3. Better. AGK [•] 14:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
4.  Roger Davies ^talk 21:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
5. I can live with this. Risker (talk) 02:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
6. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

General discussion

How about "Significant or substantive modifications of the Arbitration Committee's procedures, as assessed by the committee itself, shall ..." Jclemens (talk) 02:14, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Or simpler: "Modifications of the Arbitration Committee's procedures that the Committee determines are significant or substantive shall be made etc etc",  Roger Davies ^talk 02:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

A word of warning here. A day is not really enough time both for significant changes to be advertised and for public discussion to conclude (many people, including some arbs, may miss a few days here and there, so the unit of a week works best for most discussions). Trivial changes, I agree, shouldn't need bureaucracy, but the "days of silence" referred to above usually only occur when trivial changes are proposed. When something that objections are raised to is proposed, is a day enough time to assess opposition to it and whether the proposal needs to be withdrawn or reworked? The above will only work if any discussion that arises is allowed to continue for more than a day after a change is proposed. What something like this will need is arbitrators to exercise judgement on whether to close a proposal after a day of no input, or whether to allow discussion to continue for as long as needed, followed by the proposal being reworked. Or thanking people for their input but going ahead anyway (which may be needed at times, but will always irk some). Best to make a named someone (an arbitrator, not a clerk) responsible for any discussion that ensues and what to do afterwards, preferably the arbitrator who drafted or proposed the change in the first place.

What is also not clear is whether this advertising period of a day takes place before a public vote by arbitrators or is just a required period of notice following an internal (possibly informal) vote that passed the proposal. If you are advertising a public arb vote on a proposed change, this works less well if people turn up and find the arbs have all voted publicly already within minutes or hours of the proposal going up (something that is intensely annoying - why ask for input and then vote before any input arrives?). Also, beware of arbitrators proposing alternative wording that substantially changes the nature of the proposal, and that wording passing without the required 24-hour notice period, or any updates being made to the notice.

I would suggest a day of something being proposed with no voting by taking place (that is something clerks can enforce as arbitrators, being very busy and all that, tend to forget things like this), and then voting starts with input from any public discussion that may or may not have started. But really, the judgement starts at the point of deciding whether something is a trivial change, or a 'significant or substantive' change. Good luck with that. Carcharoth (talk) 06:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Motion on decision elements

To provide greater clarity regarding the purpose of each element of an arbitration decision, the following statement is adopted:

Elements of arbitration decisions

For standard hearings, decisions are posted in the form of "Principles", "Findings of Fact", "Remedies" and "Enforcement".

Principles highlight key provisions of policy, procedure, or community practice which are relevant to the dispute under consideration; and, where appropriate, include the Committee's interpretation of such provisions in the context of the dispute.

Findings of fact summarize the key elements of the parties' conduct in the dispute under consideration. Difference links may be incorporated but are purely illustrative in nature unless explicitly stated otherwise.

Remedies specify the actions ordered by the Committee to resolve the dispute under considerations. Remedies may include both enforceable provisions (such as edit restrictions or bans) and non-enforceable provisions (such as cautions, reminders, or admonitions), and may apply to individual parties, to groups of parties collectively, or to all editors engaged in a specific type of conduct or working in a specific area.

Enforcement contains instructions to the administrators responsible for arbitration enforcement, describing the procedure to be followed in the event that an editor subject to a remedy violates the terms of that remedy. Enforcement provisions may be omitted in decisions that contain no independently enforceable remedies.

Additionally, the existing procedure for voting on proposed decisions is modified to replace the first sentence ("For standard hearings, proposed decisions will be posted in the form of 'Principles', 'Findings of Fact', 'Remedies' and 'Enforcement', with a separate vote for each provision.") with the following:

Proposed decisions will be posted with a separate vote for each provision.

• Will be enacted at 5:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC) if there are no further changes to voting or the text of the motion. -- Lord Roem (talk) 04:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Please hold until 17:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC) to allow final changes,  Roger Davies ^talk 04:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Will be enacted at 3:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC). If any arbitrators are still working on final changes (as mentioned above), please strike this comment. -- Lord Roem (talk) 03:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Votes

Support

1. Proposed. It's been suggested that the existing procedure for voting on proposed decisions is rather vague as to what constitutes each part of the decision; this attempts to remedy that. Kirill ^[talk] 13:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
2. Copyedited. Revert if you disagree.  Roger Davies ^talk 13:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

   That looks fine to me. Kirill ^[talk] 13:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

3. PhilKnight (talk) 14:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
4. Jclemens (talk) 16:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
5. SirFozzie (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
6. The motion is generally acceptable to me although I am not certain it is necessary. I do have one reservation: a diff link in a finding can be other than "strictly illustrative" without this being being "expressly designated". If a decision reads "Foo has been uncivil [diff1] [diff2]" then those links are illustrative; but if the decision reads "on May 29, 2012, Foo was uncivil in a comment to Bar [diff]" then it is not "illustrative" but specific. A more straightforward way to reflect when diffs are "purely illustrative" would be to precede lists of illustrative diffs by "e.g." or the like, rather than allay confusion by pointing to a policy page. Also a proposed copyedit (about which arbitrators have had friendly disagreements before): I believe the word "admonition" is much more common than "admonishment". Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

   In practice, though, almost all diffs cited in findings are indeed illustrative; specific diffs are the exception rather than the rule, because specific findings are far rarer than general "pattern of conduct" ones. Given that, I think it would make sense to have the illustrative interpretation be the default, and the specific interpretation to require some conscious action on our part. Kirill ^[talk] 22:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

   I concur with Kirill here. Can we find language that succinctly reflects this?

   No problems here about the proposed "admonition" change. (Later: which I've made.)  Roger Davies ^talk 02:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

   @ Brad: As illustrative diffs are far more common than probative diffs, and as they are frequently preceded with "(Examples: [diff], [diff])" or similar, I don't have too much trouble with illustrative being the default. In the example, you give - "on May 29, 2012, Foo was uncivil in a comment to Bar [diff]" it only needs the diff to be piped "Foo was uncivil in [diff|this comment to Bar]" or even "Foo was uncivil in this comment to Bar[diff]" to make it explicitly specific.  Roger Davies ^talk 05:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

7. AGK [•] 16:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
8. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
9. Courcelles 17:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
10. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
11. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
12. I think I'm OK with this - it seems a lot of words for a relatively small - but highly focused - change. In an email I received recently, someone used the phrase 'whack his winkle' instead of 'admonish'. Suggest employing this as a measure of moving away from quasi judicial speak. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

1. Not really convinced this is needed, but don't object in principle to it. However, I do not think it is really ready for "prime time" until we sort out the issues raised by NYB with respect to diffs, which is a substantive issue in my mind. Risker (talk) 17:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

General discussion

• This starts off by talking about proposed decisions, and then appears to relate to final decisions without making the distinction clear. That an individual member of the Committee has proposed an interpretation of policy doesn't follow that it is a Committee interpretation until there is a consensus in the Committee for the proposed interpretation. If the intention of this motion is to refer to proposed decisions only, then I cannot support; if the intention is to talk about both proposed and final decisions, then that needs to be made clearer before I can support. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

  The intent was, indeed, to describe the final end product rather than delving into the drafting process; I've copyedited the text to clarify that. Does the change address your concern? Kirill ^[talk] 17:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

  I was thinking earlier that this would probably work better in the present tense i.e. "decisions are posted in the form of 'Principles', 'Findings of Fact'" (instead of "decisions will be posted" etc) as that is the usual way of expressing general principles. If no one objects, this can still be done.  Roger Davies ^talk 19:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

  I have now put this into the present tense, Revert if you hate it.  Roger Davies ^talk 02:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

  I'm not sure I see any substantive difference, but I have no objection to it either way. Kirill ^[talk] 12:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Motion on standardized enforcement

To provide for standardized enforcement of editing restrictions imposed by the Committee, and to reduce the amount of boilerplate text in decisions, the following procedure is adopted, and shall apply to all cases closed after its adoption:

Standard enforcement provision

The following standard enforcement provision shall be incorporated into all cases which include an enforceable remedy but which do not include case-specific enforcement provisions passed by the Committee:

"Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, and thereafter to arbitration enforcement, or to the Arbitration Committee. All blocks shall be logged in the appropriate section of the main case page."

Votes

Support

1. Proposed. We've discussed having a standard enforcement provision in just about every case over the past few months, since we inevitably just repeat the boilerplate; this wording appears to be the form that we typically use. Kirill ^[talk] 13:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
2. Go for it,  Roger Davies ^talk 13:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
3. PhilKnight (talk) 14:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
4. Since this is update-our-procedures-to-reflect-reality week, this is pretty high on my list. We've had closes delayed for no better reason than a topic ban was added late, and then an enforcement had to be added on later and voted on appropriately. Jclemens (talk) 16:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
5. Yes. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
6. SirFozzie (talk) 01:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
7. AGK [•] 16:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
8. Like NYB, though, this should be placed on the final case page if it applies, so everyone is clear. Courcelles 14:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
9. Given the response to my comment I will support, though I'd still welcome some discussion of the initial maximum block length. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

   How about replacing "initially for up to one month, and then with blocks ..." with "initially for between one day and one month, depending on the circumstances, and then with blocks ..."? This makes it abundantly clear that admins are expected to exercise judgment on the duration, rather than dishing out a standard one month block.  Roger Davies ^talk 05:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

10. Support provided that it is actually placed on all decisions AND we have a method for declaring that this standard provision does not apply in a specific case. I don't think it is to the project's benefit for us to be inflexible. Risker (talk) 17:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

    As the motion says, "Unless explicitly stated otherwise in a particular decision". In order to revise something for a specific case, all that would need be done is pass an enforcement provision disagreeing with this one, which would control that case. It wouldn't hurt to add a line like "This enforcement provision shall be placed on the final case page of all cases where the Committee has not passed a different enforcement provision in that case" though to make this expectation clear instead of being forgotten about in these votes. Courcelles 17:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

    Perhaps add something alomg those lines as a copy-edit? In the unlikely event it's reverted we can always discuss further.  Roger Davies ^talk 18:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

    Done. Revert or copy-edit further as needed. Courcelles 18:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

    Made simpler. Courcelles 19:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

    And even simpler. Kirill ^[talk] 22:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

    And double-plus simpler. Revert if you disagree,  Roger Davies ^talk 03:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

11. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
12. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
13. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Comments

• I can support this in general, but would still like to see this enforcement paragraph included in decisions, to make sure the parties to cases (who may not be aficionadoes of the arbitration process who are familiar with all the relevant policies) are aware of how enforcement works. Also, I think we should discuss whether one month as the maximum block for a first violation of a restriction fits well for every case. Traditionally, it said "one week" here although we have gone with "one month" in several decisions more recently. This may not be a crucial point given that one month is the maximum block, but we might want to emphasize that fact in some fashion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

  Yes, It can be added to the page template so that the information is there but doesn't require a separate vote every time.  Roger Davies ^talk 13:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

  Given that a month is the maximum and that admins remain free to decide a less severe block better fits the situation, I can support them having the flexibility to go up to a significant length when it is actually necessary. Admins aren't in the habit of blocking for the absolute longest stretch they can when there's no call for it. Courcelles 17:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

General discussion

Take out the long words. Rich Farmbrough, 02:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC).

Standard enforcement provision

The following provision applies to all cases which include an enforceable remedy, unless they say otherwise.

"If a user subject to a restriction violates it, they may be blocked, for up to a month to start with, and then with blocks increasing in length to a maximum of a year. Appeals against blocks may be made to the administrator who blocked the user, and afterwards to arbitration enforcement, or to the Arbitration Committee. All blocks will be recorded on the main case page."

Something like this. Rich Farmbrough, 02:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC).

I would suggest using a standard one week initial block and go from their. In many cases one month could be considered excessive for the first offense especially considering the vague way that some of the recent arb decisions have been worded. One could easily find themselves blocked for a month because of the way someone interpretted the decision, right or wrong. Kumioko (talk) 17:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Any response? This seems like clearer simpler wording. It is of course a standard that committees and people writing rules tend to use more complex wording, as a form of code switching, to be charitable. However it is also demonstrated that clearer language improves understanding and leads to less conflict. Rich Farmbrough, 22:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC).

Motions to block or ban Rich Farmbrough

Motion RF1 (indefinite - one year appeal)

For this motion, there are 13 active arbitrators but 1 is recused, so 7 votes is a majority.

Proposed:

The Arbitration Committee has established (through the checkuser tool) that Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs) has, in recent days, used Wikipedia:WikiFunctions and other forms of automation. Use of such tools is in gross violation of the prohibition on his use of any form of scripting or automation to edit Wikipedia. Therefore, Rich Farmbrough is banned indefinitely from the English Wikipedia. He may appeal this ban after one year.

Votes RF1

Support

1. Proposed. This was pretty much what the arbitrators who voted to ban Rich in the first place had feared, and I confess myself seriously disappointed that their predictions on the case pages proved correct. AGK [•] 23:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
2. Regretfully. We've made the desire that you continue to contribute to the project without using any automation at all as clear as reasonable, and then some. You've repaid us for our leniency by wikilawyering everything in sight. None of this was necessary, and I personally counseled you to take a Wikibreak and reflect before coming back. I wish you had chosen that path, rather than this one. Jclemens (talk) 01:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
3. 2nd choice after RF3. The evidence strongly suggests that Rich has been using AWB in one browser and then copying and pasting the edits in another browser, and for two edits he made a mistake and used the wrong browser. As Rich has been caught and now admits using AWB, a ban is the only option. A short block would be inappropriate as it is clear that he cannot be trusted to a) stay away from automation and b) be honest. Even when caught he tried to wriggle out of it until the evidence couldn't be denied. A short block would be like playing battleships, allowing Rich another shot at hitting the target of concealing his automation. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 02:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
4. The question is this. Is this a one-time, two edit mistake, or is this trying to modify the tools in such a way as to be undetectable via standard means. What is not in dispute is that Rich made at least two edits using a version that skirts usual controls of its use. The CU evidence, does not, I believe, bear out Rich's story that this was a two-edit mistake. I don't buy it, and the only way left to stop him evading his sanction is, sadly, this. I don't like it, but that's what's left. Courcelles 02:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
5. Per Courcelles. Kirill ^[talk] 02:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

   Second choice. Firstly, the apparent deception is an aggravating factor and that justifies extending the ban beyond one month. On the other hand, whether a minimum period of twelve months is too long is an entirely different question. I'm supporting this for now mainly because I'd like assurances from Rich Farmbrough before any ban is lifted and this remedy provides for that. If there's a glimmer of consensus for reducing the waiting period before reconsideration say to three or six months, I'll propose an alternative along those lines,  Roger Davies ^talk 05:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC) Striking for now,  Roger Davies ^talk 23:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

6. Second choice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Excessive. The case already provides for an initial block of one month. I think that is more reasonable. In particular, refusing to even consider an appeal for a full year is completely out of proportion to the violation. Risker (talk) 02:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
2. Ok, here's my (lengthy) thoughts after going over this whole situation in my head time and time again. It's obvious from our review that Rich had no willingness to comply with the injunction. He went so far as to prepare his edits using automation, and then copy them into Wikipedia manually. This does breach the letter of the restriction, and it mangles the spirit of it all to heck and back. For that, I think he needs to take some time away from Wikipedia, get rid of automation, come back as a regular editor, and work his way back into the Community's trust. I think a fixed block/ban of several months would be the best way to solve that. Quite frankly, I don't blame my fellow arbs for thinking the ban above is a fair and just response. The path to getting rid of restrictions you don't believe in isn't to go ahead and violate them secretly, it's to show that the reason for them no lnger applies. However, the fact that when caught he immediately A)Owned up to it, B) Apologized (not to us.. but to his supporters) for it, and C) indicated that he would accept any ban placed here tips the scales for me into opposing this ban and proposing a shorter, fixed term ban. SirFozzie (talk) 03:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
3. This situation is problematic and may be deteriorating, and I understand the reasons in favor of the motion; nonetheless, largely per Risker and SirFozzie, I would impose a less severe sanction. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
4. Per the comments above, prefer a shorter, fixed term ban. PhilKnight (talk) 03:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
5. I can see the rationale, but my preference is a shorter term at this point. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Abstain

Comments by arbitrators

• The explanation given on the ArbCom mailing list is that Rich Farmbrough has used AWB after altering it not to leave an edit summary, but that it has left a trace signature which CheckUser has picked up. Given his clear frustration at the case result in which he was banned from using automation, and which he has been protesting about in various places, and that it was proposed in that case that he be banned because he was likely to do something like this, it seems highly likely that this is what has happened. However, I am prepared to wait 24 hours to allow Rich Farmbrough to explain himself. If he is unable to satisfactorily explain the situation then I agree that a ban is more appropriate than a block because a ban was proposed in the case and narrowly avoided by some of us wishing to allow Rich Farmbrough a chance to prove himself. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
• Waiting, as per SilkTork. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

First off, Rich, thank you for being honest and forthright, not only to us, but to the supporters who have backed you in these past weeks. That's going to play a role in any vote I make. I think I'm still going to vote for a ban, but I think I might put a fixed-length time ban on the table instead of the indefinite with an appeal after a year that has been proposed. I need to spend some time thinking about it. SirFozzie (talk) 02:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• Concur. I do not believe we are in a position to do anything except issue a site-ban of significant duration, but I do hope there may be a successful appeal at some point. AGK [•] 11:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Motion RF2 (six month ban)

For this motion, there are 13 active arbitrators but 1 is recused, so 7 votes is a majority.

Proposed:

The Arbitration Committee has established (through the checkuser tool) that Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs) has, in recent days, used Wikipedia:WikiFunctions and other forms of automation, taking steps to conceal the automation used in preparing his edits. Use of such tools is in gross violation of the prohibition on his use of any form of scripting or automation to edit Wikipedia. Therefore, Rich Farmbrough is banned for six months from the English Wikipedia. When this ban expires, Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs) must show at least a further six months of trouble free editing before any appeal to remove or loosen the restriction on automation will be heard.

Votes RF2

Support

1. Rich went to a lot of trouble to try to conceal his use of automation. I don't think we can let that slide without at least some action here. However, the fact that when he was caught, he admitted to it, and apologized to his defenders for disappointing them is the reason I did not support the indefinite ban above. I think it would be best for Rich if he took this time off and came back, and showed that he can edit successfully without any use of automation. SirFozzie (talk) 03:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
2. During the recent ArbCom case, I supported a 3 month ban, so given the recent automated editing in defiance of the ban, 6 months seems about right. PhilKnight (talk) 03:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The evidence is of a willful and highly deliberate effort to circumvent the sanctions. And Rich only fessed up, not when asked, but when shown proof beyond any ability to deny. This won't be fixed by sending him away for 180 days, the problems here are fairly fundamental. Letting him ask to come back in six months would be one thing, but not an automatic return. Courcelles 03:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
2. Opposing for the opposite reason as Courcelles; I think that six months is too severe for this first violation of the sanctions. Granted, it is not as if Rich Farmbrough had a trouble-free record up until that point (or we wouldn't have had a case in the first place), but even so. The decision calls for a block of up to one month for a first offense. I think that would be more than sufficient and even that would arguably be excessive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
3. Opposing because such bans, being preventative, shouldn't come with a sunset. As I've indicated in #Votes RF1, I'd consider a shorter ban than a year (perhaps even a much shorter ban than one year) providing there's an opportunity to review the position based on input from Rich Farmbrough about modified behaviour prior to lifting it.  Roger Davies ^talk 05:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
4. I would be in favour of hearing an appeal after six months, but I have been convinced by previous arguments that fixed term bans are more in the nature of punitive than preventive, and would rather have assurances in six months time that any banned person has recognised they were causing a problem and what steps they would take to prevent further problems. Giving that Rich was informed that his editing is a problem and was restricted in October 2010, which is more than six months ago, I don't see the mere passage of time as being a convincing argument that he will amend his ways, especially as he has long shown that he is in denial that his behaviour is a problem, and doesn't go along with consensus, which is the basic model of how Wikipedia operates. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
5. AGK [•] 11:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
6. per comment I made above. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
7. Per Courcelles. Kirill ^[talk] 14:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
8. Per SilkTork Jclemens (talk) 01:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Abstain

Comments by arbitrators

Motion RF3 (indefinite - six month appeal)

For this motion, there are 13 active arbitrators but 1 is recused, so 7 votes is a majority.

Proposed:

The Arbitration Committee has established (through the checkuser tool) that Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs) has, in recent days, used Wikipedia:WikiFunctions and other forms of automation. Use of such tools is in gross violation of the prohibition on his use of any form of scripting or automation to edit Wikipedia. Therefore, Rich Farmbrough is banned indefinitely from the English Wikipedia. He may appeal this ban after six months.

Votes RF3

Support

1. First choice. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

   First choice. I'm okay with this too.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC) Striking for now,  Roger Davies ^talk 23:52, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

   Very reluctantly. I'm afraid of all that changes between proposal 1 and this one is when the first appeal will be declined, I would much prefer a fixed length ban. But I hope six months down the road, the ill will and frustration we all feel at being in this situation will have faded and we can grant an appeal at that time. SirFozzie (talk) 10:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC). Switching to procedural oppose, as we discuss something less then a full ban here. if it makes a difference, I prefer this motion over 1, but I'm trying to see if we can keep this open long enough to hash out something agreeable to the committee as a whole. SirFozzie (talk) 23:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

   On reflection, I agree with Jclemens and Casliber's comments - this isn't substantially different from an indefinite ban. PhilKnight (talk) 23:51, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

2. If and only if motion 1 does not pass, otherwise this is an oppose. Courcelles 13:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
3. Second choice. Kirill ^[talk] 14:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
4. First choice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
5. If and only if motion 1 does not pass, otherwise this is an oppose, per Courcelles. Six months is December, with the same committee. I think Rich's violation of our good faith has been so extensive that I would be hard pressed to imagine a world in which he would be let back in in six months. I personally have no particular qualms with this being more severe than past appeal timetables--not because Rich is any better or worse than anyone else, but because we've never accepted an appeal from a case-banned user in six months during my tenure on the committee, so the fact that we'll "hear" such an appeal is just a polite fiction. Jclemens (talk) 01:47, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. A secondary motive of the first motion is to send Rich away for long enough that he changes his perspective. Half a year doesn't really do that. AGK [•] 11:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
2. Per my comments on motion. I understand completely why my colleagues deplore Rich Farmbrough's recent behavior, and everyone can be assured that I am not impressed with it either. Nonetheless, I am not prepared to conclude that this editor must be separated from the project for such a period of time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

   Help us here, Brad ;) What do you conclude is an appropriate period of time?  Roger Davies ^talk 12:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

   A few days would be ample. A month would clearly be enough. I think from his comments today that it is possible that Rich Farmbrough is getting the message, and I want to see how that plays out before we send away for months an editor with close to one million edits on this project. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

3. This won't work as we'll be arguing about whether to lift it in six months. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
4. Concur with Casliber. Risker (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
5. Proceedural Oppose. for the moment. SirFozzie (talk) 23:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
6. PhilKnight (talk) 23:51, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Abstain

Comments by arbitrators

• Proposing this as a midway point between the existing two motions, and also as it fits better with my own feelings. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Motion RF4 (three month ban)

For this motion, there are 13 active arbitrators but 1 is recused, so 7 votes is a majority.

Proposed:

The Arbitration Committee has established (through the checkuser tool) that Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs) has, in recent days, used Wikipedia:WikiFunctions and other forms of automation, taking steps to conceal the automation used in preparing his edits. Use of such tools is in gross violation of the prohibition on his use of any form of scripting or automation to edit Wikipedia. Therefore, Rich Farmbrough is banned for three months from the English Wikipedia. When this ban expires, Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs) must show at least a further six months of trouble free editing before any appeal to remove or loosen the restriction on automation will be heard.

Votes RF4

Support

1. Proposing this for two reasons - (i) fixed is fixed, so we don't waste time arguing the point once it's wound up, and (ii) it's a transgression of the decision we made. The reason for the shorter length is because I am still getting my head around the fact we have an editor with a million edits and until very recently was an admin can end up perma-banned so quickly. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
2. Equal second choice. PhilKnight (talk) 13:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
3. First and only choice. I don't think, for a user who has been on Wikipedia for hours of just about every day for years on end, that this is a "useless" ban; I think this will have a more effective impact than an even longer one, because there is the hope of returning. Risker (talk) 00:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC) Now second choice. Risker (talk) 14:09, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. For the same reasons as motion2,except this one is pretty much useless as a ban term goes, even if you think fixed bans are useful. Courcelles 13:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
2. Kirill ^[talk] 14:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
3. Useless. AGK [•] 14:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
4. Still excessive, in my view, per my comments on the motions above. However, this vote can be counted as very reluctant support if it makes the difference between this motion passing and one of the earlier ones. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
5. I'm not comfortable making an assumption about someone's mindset in three or six months times - I'd rather get the feedback at the time and make an assessment then. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
6. The time for this is past. We should have banned him for a month right off the bat, to give him time to get his mindset straight. If there's anything I regret about this case, it's not enacting a short-duration ban right off the bat, to get through to Rich that no, we were not going to reconsider things, and his status with respect to the project was changed for the foreseeable future. I'm afraid that by allowing Rich (and certain other editors in good standing who empowered his challenges) free rein to attack the process, Rich developed an "I'm going to get ArbCom!" mindset, which probably helped him justify his WP:MEATBOT behavior. Unfortunate, indeed, but now is not the time for such gentle measures. Jclemens (talk) 01:52, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Motion RF5 (30 day block)

The Arbitration Committee has established (through the checkuser tool) that Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs) has, in recent days, used Wikipedia:WikiFunctions and other forms of automation, has taken steps to conceal the automation used in preparing his edits, and thus is in flagrant violation of his editing restrictions.

Ordinarily, because of the aggravating factors, a ban of significant length would be contemplated. While noting that this editor's prior contributions are not grounds for exoneration, the Committee nevertheless is prepared to accept on this one occasion his past work in mitigation. Rich Farmbrough is therefore blocked for thirty days from the English Wikipedia.

After the block expires, Rich Farmbrough is encouraged to work constructively within the limits of his restriction and advised that once he can demonstrate at least six months of trouble free editing he may request reconsideration of the restriction on automation.

Votes RF5

Support

1. I am prepared to accept that Rich Farmbrough did not act typically on this occasion and will therefore give him the benefit of doubt. I also see this very much as a wake up call.  Roger Davies ^talk 12:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
2. First choice. In answer to your question, Kirill: I believe that if Rich is going to have a change of heart, it won't take longer than 30 days for it to happen. Now, he might never have a change of heart, but it is no less likely to happen in 30 days than in 365. Risker (talk) 14:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
3. Equal second choice. PhilKnight (talk) 15:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
4. In my view, more reasonable and proportionate than other choices. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
5. Yes, in line with infraction. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Jclemens (talk) 12:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
2. Does anyone really believe that Rich will have a fundamental change of heart in the next 30 days? Kirill ^[talk] 12:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
3. I think that RIch needs more time away from Wikipedia than this provides. SirFozzie (talk) 14:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

   The effort spent to conceal his evasion of sanctions (and no semantics, he flat out knew they were an evasion of sanctions, he was just surprised to have screwed up in such a basic manner. Rich and Wikipedia need to seperate for a time, and then rebuild the bridges he burnt down because he was going to do it his way, come hell or high water. SirFozzie (talk) 22:12, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

4. The length of the ban is not the issue here, it is that we don't know either now or at the end of the period if Rich will be ready to adjust his behaviour. This motion has no mechanism in place for making an assessment of his attitude. That is important because it is Rich's attitude that is the issue. It is not that he has had a heated response in a certain topic area, or with certain individuals which might warrant a short block, it is that his approach to editing sometimes needs adjusting through negotiation and compromise, and he has shown himself unwilling to do that. He has been given a chance to show he can work within reasonable parameters (the same parameters that the majority of Wikipedians use - not unreasonable or restrictive sanctions), and he has demonstrated that he is unwilling or unable to do that, even with the threat of a 30 day block hanging over him. Until he changes his attitude, and is prepared to stop contentious editing on request, discuss the concerns in a reasonable and polite manner, and then make appropriate adjustments to his editing in line with consensus, regardless of whether he thinks it is right or wrong, then he will continue to be a problem. It may be worth going back to the principles and findings in the case to remind ourselves why we are considering this ban. Plus, we have not convened the Committee to decide on an action that a single AE admin can action today - [1]. The reason we are here discussing it is, I have assumed, because we feel that the situation is serious enough for us to go further than the enforcement remedy. Having said all that, I would not object to an indef ban with a shorter review period of three months if it is the length of the ban that is causing this impasse. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
5. Not nearly sufficient for the intentional effort to hide evasion of sanctions. Courcelles 18:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Abstain

Comments

General discussion

Whoa! Do you think I'm a complete idiot? I just posted on my talk page that I was aware that Arbs could see my user agent string.

I am awaiting the response from AGK to which edits are claimed to have this user-agent string, and have asked Rjwilmsi to email me to establish if there is any possibility that the code could post on it's own.

Rich Farmbrough, 23:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC).

The privacy policy precludes disclosure of the information in question, but I have responded to your e-mail. AGK [•] 00:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

It appears that I may have inadvertently made two edits correcting spellings using AWB, although I am still not clear how this happened, I do of course accept that it is a breach of the decision, and accept a ban. Rich Farmbrough, 01:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC).

Rich, I'm willing to listen here. I can accept that you're having a really difficult time making the transition back to editing without tools. I'd really prefer not to impose a longterm ban. But you're going to have to help us here. I suggest you start by reviewing your monobook.js and stripping out anything that could possibly lead you into temptation; just remove those scripts, they'll still be in the page history in the future. (I don't think any of us even considered touching your monobook.js, which I think most editors view as being a very personal page; it would kind of be the online equivalent of rooting around in your underwear drawer.) Second, start looking for categories where you can make a difference without using scripts or AWB or any other form of automated editing. Join the Guild of Copyeditors, or look for references for BLP stubs, or just keep clicking "random article" and trying to improve each article that comes up. This is going to be hard, I know. And perhaps it is necessary for you to take a break for a bit to help you change your editing habits; right now, there is a very good chance that such a break might be of the "enforced" kind. But if you want to continue to participate in the project, this is how it's going to have to be. I'd rather have you helping to improve the project, if you can find a way to do that without extra tools, but ultimately it's up to you to figure out how you can do that. Risker (talk) 02:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

That's extremely positive. I don't have to look for things to improve on Wikipedia - and this is something that NewYorkBrad was interested in, they find me. Either by requests or because I see something wrong. In the latter case not being able to fix it would be an irritant, just as it is in printed matter or on most web sites - but no more after a day or so - and remember I just had a month with no article edits, though annoyingly I did not get much of a break. Similarly doing stuff manually is annoying. But in the short term it's not my loss if one article gets fixed instead of a hundred. And I don't have to deal with people who think I added tags that the Pixie dated, not that I minded. I'm not sure what you mean by "a really difficult time making the transition back to editing without tools" if you mean it in the same way you might say to the engineer fixing your car "I guess you are finding it really hard to do up all those nuts by hand" then yes, having deliberate obstacles thrown in one's path is difficult. Antifacilitation is by no means an unusual trope, but it is always an annoying one (and generally harmful). If on the other hand you are implying that I have a compulsion to use automation, not so. Back when I was sorta half allowed to use automation, compared with now when I'm sorta half not allowed, I was aware that I was doing far more manually than I should, partly because I hadn't invented the tools, partly because of the rules, and partly because it's so much easier just to do a few more edits, than actually crack the process and fix it. And by process I mean both the extrinsic and intrinsic aspects. Rich Farmbrough, 12:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC).

Rich, you're not "sorta half not allowed". You're not allowed, period. Similarly, your editing restrictions are still in effect, and you have been violating those as well. There's only so much that people can do to argue against a lengthy ban when you seem to go out of your way to encourage one. I had been letting your edits slide without comment to give you a chance to calm down, but the use of AWB seems to have brought the issue to a head. Can you give any assurance that you will follow the arbcom sanctions and your edit restrictions when you are allowed to edit again? — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The committee cannot decide what constitutes automation. That was my point. They said I think that rollback is allowed. Other attempts at clarification have failed. Rich Farmbrough, 13:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC).

Rich, I don't think anyone (including you) thought that AWB (including your personal modification of it) is anything other than automated editing. AWB is in no way comparable to rollback. Risker (talk) 18:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

It is quite remarkable that Rich Farmbrough saved any edits with AWB (because he is not listed on the check page). Nevertheless, the ban on automation has been effective, so far, in reducing the scope of the problematic editing, and Rich has taken up editing content on turtles, which is a positive development. Any "nontrivial" use of automation would be visible in Rich's contribs, but I have not seen any evidence of that. Given that there was use of AWB somehow, it appears from the editing history to have been unintentional. I would like to argue for a significant block (e.g. two weeks or one month) in lieu of a one-year ban, with the proviso that additional violations would lead to more severe sanctions. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Responding to SilkTork's comment of 02:05, 1 June 2012, I agree that is a real risk, but I think that the edit history will reveal if "hidden" automation is used to actually do anything. It's been apparent from the edit history (without any checkuser info) that Rich was still using some sort of code to remove whitespace etc., and was still occasionally violating his edit restriction, but the scope was so small that I didn't see a benefit in raising the issue. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The job of ArbCom is to to act as a final binding decision-maker.

all models are wrong, but some are useful

— George Box

While arbcom is "not a court" they are much more like a court than a legislature or executive. In the Rich Farmborough decision, rathering than rendering a final decision, in expounding this "relax on a per-case basis afterwards" ArbCom appears to have set itself up as some sort of probation officer / nanny -- not a "judicial" function.

The admissions [2] [3] a change was needed because ArbCom didn't finish the job in the first place are troubling. Traditionally ArbCom has taken the time needed to craft complete decisions (even if some editors complain when they run past decision date estimates).

Unfortunately, now, having painted itself into a metaphorical corner, ArbCom is faced with the ridiculous decision point of banning a long term prolific editor for correcting spelling mistakes??? At least two of you (JClemens, AGK) concurred on 19 May that "In the context of the case, automation is clearly intended to be that allowing an editor to modify multiple articles or other pages in rapid succession." can't find diff right now cause of page move.

But there's good news -- it's not real paint...

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds,

— Ralph Waldo Emerson

Did Wikipedia elect little minds to ArbCom? I think not.

Do the right thing. Suspend the decision, go back and hash out a workable defined of automation so Rich & the admin corps & the community knows what is allowed and what is not without ridiculous restrictions against spellcheck. Nobody Ent 02:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I think everyone realizes that going out of your way to edit the source code of AWB so that you can run it violates a restriction against all forms of automation. The name of the program is autowikibrowser, after all. The main question to me is whether a one-year block is proportional. I can see the arguments on both sides, but I think a shorter time off might be reasonable. In any case the issue here is not the arbcom decision, however flawed it might be. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I think before Arbcom decides to ban Rich they need to perform some due diligence and find out A) How did AWB post edits for Rich when he has been removed from the AWB checkuser page and B)Clearly define in non vague terms what his automation ban covers. Its still entirely too wishy washy to be enforceable. Aside from that, his ban is working and holding these 2 unconfirmed edits against him is just petty and not in the best interests of the pedia. This is of course what the Arbcom has been trying to do since the case was opened and it was only a matter of time before something was brought up. I am not surprised that this happened but I am a little curious why the checkuser tool was used to check on Rich's edits unless there was some reason to do so other than just sheer curiousity. Kumioko (talk) 02:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Concur with Kumioko. But, it's already 5-0. ArbCom just needed an excuse. Now they have a paper airplane of one. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Carl: Allow me to explain my own thinking. In discovering these directly-automated edits, we realised that Rich has a copy of AWB on his computer that is tweaked to skip the security check. In reviewing his recent edits (many of which, for example, only remove white-space or single spaces from templates, or change the template's case), it also seems as though he is using automated assistance for those. My own suspicion is that he is loading and previewing the edit in "Rich's AWB", then copying the edit over and making it in his browser; the handful of exceptions where he directly edited from AWB were misclicks. In any case, why do you suppose that he would be any less inclined to automate his edits after a week or a few months than a longer period of time? Where does this end? How much time to we devote to working with this editor to allow him to continue editing, if he'll just side-step us at every juncture and do it his own way anyway?

Hammersoft: You know that we gave Rich a last chance (by choosing an automation ban over a site ban) in the arbitration case. You know that I was the first arbitrator to oppose the site-ban. Now you imply that this is all some form of "cover-up" for a secret plot to site-ban him all along. This is utter nonsense, and you know it. AGK [•] 11:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand that argument, and I share the concern. I had seen the recent edits already, and it was apparent that he either had code to perform various changes or was going out of his way to make it look like he did. Those who had dealt with Rich before already knew that he had a modified version of AWB on his main account,[4] although I don't know if that ever came up during the arbcom case. I agree that some sanction is justified, but I think that a year is too long given that there have also been some signs of improvement. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

"many of which, for example, only remove white-space or single spaces from templates, or change the template's case" I asked you by mail for an example. When you gave an example you gave you said "apart from fixing the typo". I accept the possibility that I may have made such an edit but I find it unlikely. Rich Farmbrough, 13:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC).

It doesn't matter; you are entirely prohibited from making various cosmetic changes, whether they are made in conjunction with other changes or not. Arguing about whether other changes were made is just a distraction from the issue. Can you give some assurance that you will follow your edit restrictions when your ban expires? — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• Since I'm recused as an Arb, I'm going to post down here. Rich is in the position of someone topic banned from Israel-Palestine under WP:ARBPIA who had been editing Six-Day War. It doesn't matter what his edits are, he's banned from using AWB and he used it. The thing isn't sentient (I hope) - it didn't turn itself on. But I do think any kind of a ban is excessive. There was a remedy of increasing blocks - block his ass for a month (or however long the first one was). And tell him to strip all the stuff out of his monobook.js...just in case it decides to start editing as well. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• No, Rich is in the position of being banned from Foo, and nobody has defined what Foo is. Some members of ArbCom think rollback is automation and some don't, for example. Is using AWB to find something automation? If it is, why isn't using Google search? Is using AWB to generate an edit that it then copied from one window to another automation? Some arbs think it requires more than that, that it requires changing multiple articles at speed (another undetermined metric). Rich was set up to fail by this decision. I'm not going to claim he's perfect. I'm not going to claim he's the antithesis of perfect. Why? Because I CAN'T using the arbitrary and vague metrics ArbCom came up with. If he comes back from this ban, what's he supposed to do? Say "I won't use automation"? What's the definition? A crime isn't a crime if you don't define what it is. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

You guys are just looking for a martyr arent't you. And you call yourselves his friends. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• No Elen, I do not call him my friend, nor call myself his friend. I have no friends here, and have no desire to have any. That would require me to be subservient to social capital. I am not. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Elen, Hammersoft is quite right to take that approach, if he believes it is the right. While we diverge over several points relating to the current situation, we both believe in expressing ourselves without fear or favour. In my case I will do it despite social capital, despite position, despite authority, despite power. This has been ascribed to me being "angry" or "frustrated" or "not internalizing my guilt" or similar motives. It is not, I have seen anomalies, I report them in good faith, and it is interesting and somewhat heartening to see who takes them in good faith, at least apparently. There is more work to do, but it will probably take a couple of years to create and implement the needed reforms, and while I think it important it I am sure there are many in the community who will tackle the task. Rich Farmbrough, 14:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC).

Elen no one is looking for a Martyr but what we are looking for is leadership. There is no reason for Arbcom to continue to dodge the question that has been pointed out repeatedly. Arbcom needs to be clear with their determinations or expect pushback from the community when they fail to do so. If Arbcom would make a clear determination of what an automated edit is this would be a big benefit to their credibility but what I and Hammersoft and others have been stating is that even among the members of Arbcom there is no clear idea of what no automation means. There is no standard punishment of violations (thats currently being depated in a motion so thats good). Arbcom has up till recently been free to do as they wish but their decisions have become more and more erratic so additional controls are needed. Thats the bottom line. Kumioko (talk) 14:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

All this is flannel. Rich was very clearly topic banned from using AutoWikiBrowser to make edits. He used it to make edits. Arbcom would probably find it easier to impose a lesser sanction if you lot weren't creating drama and posting what to me appears to be frank nonsense all the time, and making it look as if Rich is ignoring the sanction because you are all encouraging him to do so. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I view it a bit different. If Arbcom had any clarity whatsoever in their decision or their method for arriving at it a lot of this "drama" would have been avoided. Since Arbcom seems incapable or unwilling to give any definitive statement on the results or methods of the trial it leaves a lot of holes in what and how they arrived their. When Arbcom cannot even define what automation is there is or how it should be enforced pushing the blame on us is just nonesense. Arbcom is the one that set Rich up for failure by creating a vague determination that was left wide open to interpretation or misinterpretation. The way it was worded Arbcom clearly never intended for Rich to be able to edit and it was only a matter of time before he did a series of edits that in some way could be construed as automation. I agree it was a poor decision on his part to make it easy but I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that it would have happened soon either way. If you want us to quite complaining then make better and more clearly defined decisions. Then we will have nothing to complain about! Kumioko (talk) 14:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

And just to add a bit of clarity, I do view the sanctions against Rich as mostly baseless and banning him or any other long time editor from editing is both counterproductive to building an encyclopedia and pointless. I also think that banning him for a year for breaking a nearly baseless sanction based almost primarily on minor edits is also just about as poor of a decision as anyone could make. Kumioko (talk) 15:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• No Elen, I am not encouraging Rich to ignore the sanctions. In fact, I very pointedly advised him against it. I understand there's a desire to ascribe feelings to people who are upset about this decision. Please do not do so, without evidence. Thank you. As to the use of AWB; you state that Rich was clearly topic banned from using it. Could you please point to where this was made clear, in that AWB was specifically mentioned? Subsequent to the case closing, there were discussions regarding what on-wiki tools should be considered automation or not. There was no consensus on that, so far as I'm aware. But, maybe I missed it. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Hammer and Kumioko - more flannel. Do you guys not realise that by suggesting that Rich is too...what...stupid?... to realise that editing using AWB counts as automated editing, you're making it more likely that he would just be banned, because really, what would the alternative be for someone who was so incompetent that they didn't think AWB was included in a ban on automated editing. Why don't you buy him a headstone while you're at it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

You know Elen for an Arbcom member I am hearing a whole lot of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT or at least{{WP:IDONTCARE]], neither is particularly encouraging. I don't really expect Arbcom to change their minds in this case or even agree with me on this case but if any of what I am saying sinks in and causes mambers to reevaluate how they review and comment on future cases then I feel my time is better spent. As with some of the recent motions for changes which are a positive sign. To answer your question non I don't think Rich is stupid, I do think that Rich, as with many of us are frustrated by Arbcoms complete failure to properly adjudicate the case in a fair and unbiased manner. Kumioko (talk) 15:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom has failed to provide a workable definition of automated, AWB describes it as "semi-automated". Nobody Ent 20:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• You mostly struggled to communicate what was intended the first time; there was some improvements over time, though there were some clearly unanswered questions remaining too. Now, the first thought given to enforcing the existing decision is apparently an indefinite ban motion which locks his ability to appeal until after 1 year. And apparently, even that is headed by the same person who started using CU access in this case. Is it any wonder that you appear, to some people, to invite the sorts of allegations which have been raised here? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
• It is irresponsible to pass unenforceable sanctions; if ArbCom was unable to come up with workable definition of restrictions that would allow RF to edit while preventing disruption due to excessive automated edits, it would have been better to simply ban the editor in the first place. In addition to the previously documented variance in arbitrators statements regarding the scope of the ban, the User rights log, with multiple recent changes including an arbitrator reverting the action of a arbcom clerk, clearly shows that the committee itself didn't know what the sanction meant, let alone the rest of the community. Wikipedia editing is a client server interaction; the only thing that ArbCom has control over is the server side, so restrictions should only reference that. A professional coder could easily implement an automated client that would be indistinguisable from a browser. The fact that AWB user agent strings were detected indicates either programming error or intentional limit testing, not that the sanction is valid. The WP:ARBPIA analogy is a false one, as all involved components of the restriction are server side. As I'm seeing seven votes for one or more of the proposals I anticipate this discussion will terminate soon; if an appeal is heard in the future I urge the committee to ensure any restrictions are clearly defined, reasonable, and comphrehensible to itself, the restricted party, and the rest of the community. Nobody Ent 20:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
• This totally sucks; Rich is useful and skilled. Do-over. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I second Br'er Rabbit here: Do-over (though I do not trust that ArbCom can do it properly - their solution will be the same, or harsher, but still without properly being able to show the proper evidence for it - e.g. ArbCom bans Rich from using automation on his main account while not being able to show that he is substantially and continuously abusing automation on his main account and while not being able to define what is the automation that he was abusing and not being able to define the boundaries of what is automation). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Adding comment here from User:Varlaam that was added to the voting section for motion RF1. Carcharoth (talk) 07:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC) Excessive. Cutting off the nose to spite the face.
Fixed term of four weeks sounds right to me. Varlaam (talk) 07:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Use of checkuser

Who has been using checkuser to investigate Rich and when were each of these checkusers done? --Hammersoft (talk) 02:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Hammersoft, in answer to your query, AGK was the first person to checkuser Rich, which was in the last 12 hours. After AGK informed the rest of the committee of his findings, other arbs, including me, have confirmed the result. PhilKnight (talk) 03:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• When specifically in the last 12 hours. Timestamp, please. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

In any event the m:CheckUser policy is quite broad in allowing use to 'limit disruption', there would be no violation if RIch was routinely checkusered during the period that he is banned from using automation. There is no requirement that a separate new reason has to be established for each use of the tool, the arbcom sanction in itself justifies it. — Carl (CBM · talk)

Oh for heaven's sake, Hammersoft. Take a look at Rich's recent editing history. Most of them are almost exactly the same type of edits he was doing before he was sanctioned - except for archiving the talk page of an arbitrator with whom he had just had a recent dispute. That was practically begging for arbitrators to look at his contribs, see he was doing the same thing, and verify that he was or was not using an automated tool. It would have been a great kindness on the part of his supporters to help Rich to adjust to editing without scripts and tools rather than to keep fighting a battle that had already been decided. Now he's shot himself in the foot using a hacked version of AWB, but he managed to screw that up too. Risker (talk) 03:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter how or why, the end result is how it was always going to be. He did make it easier for Arbcom to make the decision but the way the sanctions were written it was an open ended noose waiting for a neck. I think its a great loss to the pedia and I hope he chooses to participate in one of the sister projects like commons where his edits are wanted. I have had a problem with the decision from day one and this is just another aspect that sours my opinion of Arbcom and the pedia. Kumioko (talk) 04:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• I asked for a timestamp. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• Yesterday evening (UTC). AGK [•] 13:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• I want a date and time stamp, for example: 13:47, 1 June 2012‎, for checkusers done towards Rich from 15 May 2012 through now, along with who performed each. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 13:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Checkuser logs (and their information) are not public information, Hammersoft, and they're covered by the privacy policy. The subject of the check, Rich, has been provided with information in accord with the privacy policy. I'm going to assume that you have read what is written and can figure out that it occurred between the time that Rich archived Elen of the Roads' talk page, and the time that this motion was made. Risker (talk) 13:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Not only that but Rich has admitted what he did so there isn't really any reason to doubt or question what the checkuser data says. Regardless of my personal feelings about the validity or manner in which the Arbcom decision was carried out this much at least isn't worth arguing. Personally I still have major problems with the Arbcom decision against Rich, how it was written and other aspects of the case so IMO there are still way too many problems and questions pertaining to the Arbcom decision to justify a year long ban. If I was a member of Arbcom I would start with a month and go from there. In general I would not start with a year long ban for a user unless there where significant mitigating circumstances (off wiki harrassment, severe socking, vandalism, threats, things of that nature). Kumioko (talk) 14:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Per Risker. AGK [•] 14:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The privacy policy does not cover the date and timestamp on the logs and who performed the check. I am not asking for any identifying information. I am not asking for any private information about Rich whatsoever. I am asking for a list of the checkusers performed from 15 May 2012 through present towards Rich, with only a date and timestamp for each check, and who performed the check. I have asked several times now for this information. I would appreciate a straightforward answer this time. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

You have a straightforward answer, Hammersoft: No. Risker (talk) 14:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• Why? The date/timestamp of when checkuser was used and by whom is not covered by the privacy policy. Under what reason is this request being denied? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Hammersoft, the first checkuser was AGK, which was done late yesterday evening UTC, I was the second, again late yesterday evening UTC. I don't understand why you need more precise information. Perhaps you could explain. PhilKnight (talk) 14:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• I shouldn't have to explain, and I'm astonished that so many members of ArbCom a refusing to provide specifics. Are you transparent or not? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I can think of a number of reasons:

  (1) The checkuser log is confidential. (2) Disclosing data from the log is a slippery slope, and one onto which this project has determined we will not take even the tiniest step. We do not quote the log to those who are not identified to the Foundation. (3) You have not given a good reason to be given any excerpt from the log. (4) Checkusers are accountable to your representatives on the AUSC, to the Foundation's ombudsmen, and to one another—not to you. (5) The log does not exist for you to create drama.

  Take your pick of those. I too decline your request. AGK [•] 14:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• (1) The privacy policy covers personally identifiable information. I have not requested such information. (2) The slippery slope argument does not hold water. I am not asking for private information in any respect. The data I am asking for is no different than the data available in the various public logs here; just who did what and when. (3) I believe there has been a misuse of the tools. While I have not stated as much here, I have stated as much on Rich's talk page. (4) ArbCom is accountable to the community. (5) You are assuming bad faith. The refusal to provide this data creates drama, not the request. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I very much disagree with your intepretation of whether or not the privacy policy includes data from the Checkuser Log. It is explicitly a non-public log. If you want to know whether or not *you* have been checked, I will gladly provide that information directly to you via email. You are not entitled to that information about any other contributor to this project. This has nothing to do with transparency. Risker (talk) 14:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC) I shall expand briefly to refer you to the Access to nonpublic data policy, which is to be read in concert with the privacy policy. The checkuser log is non-public and information can be released from it under very limited circumstances. Risker (talk) 15:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I might be wrong, but Hammersoft does seem to have a point in part of this at least; the apparent reason for using CU here was, by what I have read above, AGK's suspicion that this user was breaching an ArbCom remedy he supported in that case, and this led him to make a choice to use his tools to investigate. I don't think those privacy-related policies are something functionaries should be using as an excuse for, apparently, making an inflammatory remark or assumption of bad faith (that is, "The log does not exist for you to create drama") against an editor who clearly is concerned by the use of such serious tools. On the other hand, Hammersoft, based on Risker's comment, maybe you could just ask Rich to volunteer the information you are requesting, if in your view, there is no apparent loss to him by disclosing the time at which checks were done on his account (presuming that is all that you are seeking and that is all of the information Rich permits to release to you - the time at which checks were done and who did those checks). Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The answer is still going to be "No, we are not releasing any checkuser log information about a contributor to this project." If Rich wants to provide Hammersoft with the information he was provided, that is his decision. Hammersoft has not indicated that he is, in fact, concerned about the use of the checkuser tool, and has shown no indication that he believes they were used outside of policy. If he has such concerns, he can request a review by the AUSC or the Ombudsman commission. He doesn't get to have access to information held only in a non-public log. Risker (talk) 15:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Risker, I have not asked you to change your answer to him; I have said that he does have a point about the type of inflammatory or bad faith commentary which was used in response to his query, and noted the apparent starting point of his concern. While you have said Hammersoft has not indicated his concern with the use of the tools, if you read his comment above at 15:02, 1 June 2012, it says "I believe there has been a misuse of the tools...I have stated as much on Rich's talk page." Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

My apologies, Hammersoft and Ncmvocalist; Hammersoft did indeed say that he believed there was inappropriate use of tools. I'll point out that the bad faith commentary goes both ways here; it would not matter *who* did the CU, the result would have been exactly the same, and we would still be debating the motions that are here. There's also little doubt that Rich's editing created legitimate concerns for which use of the checkuser tool was appropriate. They look like AWB edits, and they are AWB edits, and all the defensiveness and off-topic argument in the world isn't going to change that. Nonetheless, if Hammersoft wishes to take this to the Ombudsman, he is very welcome to. (I can understand that he would be less likely to want to take it to the AUSC.) Risker (talk) 16:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I for one did and still do have concenrs that the use of the tool was borderline abuse in this case however given that Rich has admitted what he did I didn't push the issue. I do not agree with Hammersoft that getting the details of the checkuser reviews would benefit this case but I do think that the use of it was questionable. Kumioko (talk) 15:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Hammersmith I would suggest that if you wish to push the issue go through the Ombudsman commission. The AUSC is controlled by the Arcom so you are unlikely to get an unbiased response. Kumioko (talk) 16:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

In regard to Kumioko's comment above, I served on the Audit Subcommitte last year, and I can advise that the Audit Subcommittee only ever gives out information of the type 'no, there wasn't a misuse of tools' or 'yes, there was, and we've removed checkuser priviliges as a result'. Or in other words, the Audit Subcommittee doesn't release this kind of information. PhilKnight (talk) 16:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Phil. Just to clarify I wasn't trying to indicate that the AUSC would give the checkuser info but that they were unliklely to find an Arbcom member negligent in the use of the checkuser tool since Arbcom has a defacto control over the AUSC and loss of the checkuser privilage would likely result in the member being removed as a member of Arbcom. Kumioko (talk) 16:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Way to go on the good faith Kumioko. Why don't you go tell the non-arb members of AUSC that they are just patsies. Or put your money where your mouth is and ask the Ombudsman to investigate any incident where an Arb has been accused of misuse and cleared by AUSC. Or just take a step back and look at what you are saying. Telling somebody who has signed up to a position of trust, who has pledged to act with fairness and integrity, that of course they're just going to hide the evidence and back their friends, is a huge insult. You need to either put up some evidence, or stop making these massive allegations. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Elen, the facts of life are that this sort of thing happens all the time in every walk of life. Taking the Kumiko's statement and turning it into an attack on the one member of the AUSC who has no other connection with the functionary structure, or indeed on the other members of the committee jointly or severally is to miss the point. Even if (as we believe and hope) all these people are fine and upstanding pillars of the Wiki, the lack of separation of functions is not a good thing. In general these types of issue come to a head when there is abuse of the system. In this case we have the opportunity to work on improvements while there is still no serious accusation of impropriety. This should be seen as a good thing, not a bad. Rich Farmbrough, 18:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC).

Kumioko, I do not want to explain again why I (or any other arbitrator) ran checkuser queries on Rich Farmbrough. I refer you to our previous statements on this subject, and respectfully ask that you not continue repeating this same, tired line. If you have a concern, refer it to the Wikimedia Foundation Ombudsman Commission. AGK [•] 18:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

@Elen and AGK, You are taking offense where non is directly implied but the bottom line AGK is that your name is all over the subcommittee and all over this case. You have been pushing for a ban from the beginning. It is human nature to support those with whom you have had a positive working relationship with and have grown to trust. Additionally, the fact that Arbcom has a controlling number of votes in AUSC makes it quite obvious to how an Arbcom member would be excused from guilt if an incident were submitted their affecting an Arbcom member. I stated before I haev no desire to pursue the case but was merely giving Hammersoft my advice if he was intent to do so. With that said and as I have stated before. Arbcom has made some questionable decisions lately that give way to a lot of questions. Thats a fact that has been brought up repeatedly by multiple editors and not just my opinion. If you are offended at some or all of my statements then I suggest you devote some time and take this opportunity for growth and developement to address some or all of the concerns about the processes and functions of arbcom that open the door to allegations of impropriety. Kumioko (talk) 18:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

"...fact that Arbcom has a controlling number of votes in AUSC..." I was under the impression there were three arbitrators and three non-arbitrators. ? Lord Roem (talk) 19:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Lord Roem: That is correct; there are three arbitrator-auditors and three community-auditors. (Risker, an arbitrator, is also a part of the subcommittee, but serves in the role of subcommittee co-ordinator: this forms part of the wider role of co-ordinator of advanced permissions, and the role does not give the co-ordinator a vote in our proceedings.) If anything, the community out-weighs the committee members: during the "cross-over" when Keegan was still seated, there were four voting community members and three arbitrators. AGK [•] 20:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I was counting Risker as the 4th and extra vote but even still thats 3-3 and an Arbcom member is fairly unlikely to vote another one off so the best that could be hoped for would be a draw. Either way it still proves my point that it would not be the place to take a case involving an Arbcom member. Kumioko (talk) 23:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Two misunderstandings 1) Risker doesn't have a tiebreaking vote, and 2) We really don't vote per se anyways. We handle things in the good old fashioned Wikipedia model of consensus. Polls are taken, objections listened to, positions adjusted, and we come up with something everyone can live with, or we would go back for more info if we couldn't get there on a first pass. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 02:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I admit that I misunderstood Risker's role in the process but the second part of your statement isn't exactly true. IN order to garner consensus there must be some discussion and some sort of vote such as a support/oppose discussion. My point though is that if an Arbcom member were ever accused of inappropriately using their tools and were ever to come before the AUSC as a defendant it is unlikely that the AUSC would determine anything other than the use was appropriate. Kumioko (talk) 13:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Why Arbcom is discussing five motions

To address SilkTork's The reason we are here discussing it is: Having five motions for an alleged ArbCom restriction violation is simply additional evidence of the inadequacy of the automated sanction (previously raised by myself et. al.). If, using Elen's example, someone violates 1rr on Six-Day War arbcom wouldn't even be involved; a utility admin would simply deal with the situation. Because of your role as the final arbitrator for dispute resolution on Wikipedia it is important that you collectively act in a manner that instills confidence in the process. Ya'll got two decent options.

• Stop the circle the wagons denialism and go back and fix the remedy. (I understand that much of the nature of the criticism -- arbcom conspiracy theories and demands for checkuser data in blatant violation of WMF policy -- has been way off base, but that doesn't make the decision correct in the first place. ) First choice.
• Simply indef the editor and be done with it. Let's face it, no one ends up as a sanctioned party at ArbCom without missing multiple opportunities to figure out how to get along with others. Second choice.
• Anything else -- speculating or expecting the editor to "change their attitude" in the face of a vague bogus sanction; or reopening the fracas in 3 or 6 or 12 months -- won't benefit Wikipedia. If RF decides at some future point he wants to be a team player he can file the appeal using the standard protocol. Nobody Ent 16:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Personally I think they should stick with the original motion they voted and agreed on of escalating blocks. Otherwise it reduces credibility in the process if they just go back and retry the case every time because it didn't go the way they wanted the first time. Additionally, The problems go way beyond Rich's case. Kumioko (talk) 17:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

So what positive action are you going to take with regard to the go way beyond problems? Nobody Ent 17:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Kumioko, what on earth are you talking about? The case went the way this same committee decided it should go (are we forum shopping ourselves?!)—and as for individual arbitrators, many of the supporters of the first ban motion were opposed to the proposal to ban Rich that was made in the original case. You need to stop posting utter nonsense on this page. AGK [•] 21:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

What I am saying AGK is that the Arbcom could not ban him like several members wanted to do from the beginning so instead they wrote a loose sanction that no one would be able to follow because its so open to interpretation. Then all they need do is sit back and watch and then when the individual does something that can be construed as a violation they get banned. I also was pointing to the fact that in the original proposal to a vote of 8 - 0 I believe the Arbcom agreed to an excalating series of blocks starting at 1 month. Now you and the other members want to revote because they didn't like how that vote went less than a week ago to be harsher. How do you expect us to not criticize decisions like that? Kumioko (talk) 21:09, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• Some good points raised. The reason we are here voting on these motions is that Rich didn't just use automation, but used a system to conceal he was using automation. That ties in with the proposal in the case that he be banned because it would be difficult to enforce the restriction on using automation. Because he has been caught not just using automation (for which an AE admin could block him), but for doing so in manner designed to avoid detection, we need to return to that proposal. That there are a number of motions is because ArbCom is a committee of individuals - we do not have a hive mind, though I suppose there are core values that we share. We work things out through discussion, negotiation, and consensus. I think that, messy though it appears, that we have this public working through of a variety of motions to find the most suitable one, is a good example of the sort of transparency that I and others want from the ArbCom process. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:41, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

To be frank I still don't think that banning Rich or his bots benefits Wikipedia. Restricting his edits to a vague definition of automation was even more unhelpful and ensured that we'd end up right back here regardless of how he edited. He just gave Arbcom a reason but it would have happened eventually either way. Now Arbcom can point and say see we told you this was going to happen. Kumioko (talk) 18:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

You are of course entitled to your viewpoint, but it may be helpful to you to know that I didn't want to ban Rich in the case, and did not support that proposal. If Rich had not used automation after being told not to, and specifically if he had not done so in a manner to conceal that he was doing so, then I would not be here now voting to ban him. If there is a conspiracy to ban Rich, then he has played a larger part in the plot than I have. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:29, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

@Kumioko. You seem to be RF's biggest supporter and probably Arbcom's biggest critic this last 2 months. Can you answer a couple of simple questions please? Do you think RF has at any time used subterfuge to conceal his actions? Is technical brilliance more important to you than WP:HONESTY? Leaky Caldron 19:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I admit I am a supporter and that's because I think Rich and his bots do more good than harm. Anyone who is responsible for 5+million edits between them and their bots are going to make some mistakes but the majority of his edits are positive. That he spent many hours a day every day for several years shouldn't be a noose. To answer the first question Yes, and to answer the second question no. I don't think the 2 are mutually exclusive either. Kumioko (talk) 19:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

You might want to correct the Freudian slip in your first sentence. On the wider point, because an editor is exceptionally productive does not entitle them to leave their ethics at the door before entering Wikipedia. Leaky Caldron 19:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The concept 'RF concealed automated edits' is doubly invalid: 1. no workable definition of "automated" has been provided and 2. if the edits were concealed, how he get caught? Nobody Ent 19:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• This is absolutely ridiculous: A) By ANY definition of automation useing AWB counts as it (Auto mean anything to you) and B) He screwed up and on a couple edits made a couple edits with his hacked AWB script. Otherwise, he was setting up the edits in an AWB window, and C&Ping to a regular browser window to conceal the fact he was using automation. SirFozzie (talk) 20:43, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah. So, copying and pasting now counts as automation. Good to know. Unfortunately, that wasn't described in the remedies in the case anymore than the use of AWB was, though I directly asked Elen for a pointer to that supposed conclusion. All of ArbCom keeps spinning in circles saying it's automation, it's not automation, it's automation and any definition will do, not it's not, yes it is, and on and on. I concur with Nobody in the initial posting in this subthread. The onus isn't on ArbCom to ban Rich from the project because they screwed up their case against him. The onus is on ArbCom to grant a mea culpa and fix it. Is it so insanely hard to admit you (collectively) blew it? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• Your right about one thing SF and that's the comment this is ridiculous. Our reasons for calling it ridiculous are completely opposite but there result is the same. a ridiculous scenario that could have been prevented a number of ways not the least of which would have been for the Arbcom to clearly define automation. There is no doubt what Rich did was against the sanction. What I consider a problem is that the Arbcom worded it in such a way that would have eventually led to Rich breaking it one way or another. Yes he used AWB and thats the reason at this point but if he would have used the same edit summery to correct the same typo someone would have complained it was automation and we would still be here. I also do not think that using AWB to generate a change without saving it and then pasting that change to WP manually counts as automation anymore than using word to find typos does. Or does it? How about if I create a template for Infobox person in word and then as I fill it in for individual articles I cut and paste if from word? How about using google search? Does that count as automation? What about using an addin like linky or the Wikipedia toolbar? Do you see where I am going with this? If the Arbcom would have clearly defined what automation was then I would not have a leg to stand on but because Arbcom decided to use a 5th grader version of a sanction that was loosely defined and vaguely written to ensure that the user (in this case Rich) would not be able to follow it, Arbcom has left the door wide open to comments. Kumioko (talk) 20:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• That's a fairly ridiculous argument; ArbCom could have simply indef'd RF from the get go if that was the goal. It's also likely to be counterproductive; attacking editors motivations is unlikely to persuade them to change their action. What goal are you trying to achieve by repetitive badgering approach? Nobody Ent 21:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• Actually if you look at the original voting several members wanted to ban him from the start and it was only because the idea couldn't garner enough votes that the chose to go with the lesser option. To answer your other statement I really have better things to do. Every moment I spend here arguing about this means that other more meaningful edits aren't getting done. The reason I persist is because I am getting frustrated by Arbcoms constant WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:IDONTCARETHEDECISIONSMADE rebuttals and because frankly they did such a lousy job of writing the sanction in the first place (along with several other cases in the last few months that I regret not commenting on then) that I feel obligated to correct for future cases. I do not have anything against the individuals members and respect several of them that I have interacted with before this and have met and personally like several of the ones I have met. That doesn't mean that they are above reproach as a group nor that they are infallible. Kumioko (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"auto" means lots of things to me; meaning depends on context. I drive my auto to work. I do repetitive tasks (e.g. unloading dishwasher) on auto. Is "semi-automation" the same as "automation"? (In the US, semi-automatic firearms are regulated quite differently than automatic). Wikipedia itself describes WP:AWB as a "a semi-automated MediaWiki editor," so no, it's not obvious to me that it what ya'll mean by automation. In any event, what is means to me is irrelevant -- what does it mean to ArbCom? JClemens/AGK's prior definition (high speed mass edits) was quite different than SilkTork's (which included spell check). Nobody Ent 21:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The whole point of that type of sanction is to avoid defining "automation". The point of the sanction is that Rich needs to make a complete break from using automated tools. He would have the ability to do so if he chose; many people never use automated tools at all. Instead Rich decided to keep using AWB, sometimes by copying its edits into his browser, and a few times erroneously saving its edits directly. The problem is not that an intentionally vague sanction passed; the problem is that Rich decided to flout it instead of following it. It might be harder for some robot to enforce a vague sanction, but arbcom is a bunch of humans who can handle the vagueness and judge each situation on its merits. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Concealment

I am annoyed and somewhat hurt that there is a suggestion I concealed automation. I know a similar accusation was made in the case, by an Arb (I forget which, I suppose it must have been Kirill). When I found I had a score of identical typos to fix I seriously considered fixing them with AWB and reporting myself for Arbitration Enforcement, so ridiculous the situation has become. In some ways I wish I had followed that route, but doubtless I would have been tagged as sociopathic, or "pointy" or something. Although I do not make much of my professional history on Wikipedia it includes running security for a major Internet banking property, reading the CERT advisories every day for years, and taking a deep interest in Internet security in general. Should I wish to "hide automation", with all due respect I doubt that the committee would be able to see through it, especially with blunt tools like Checkuser. (I have already told AGK why and how he can see that apart from one or two inadvertent edits, all my edits were made through the standard interface, though this could be hidden it would take more time than has been available, and is of no interest to me. The improvements I suggested to Checkuser should be taken up with the developers without delay.)

I have always conducted myself scrupulously on Wikipedia, editing under my own name, have never sought "office", never traded on my credentials, rarely used email prior to this case, rarely used IRC, believing in openness and honesty. The only information I have deliberately withheld is that private to or tending to damage other people, or posing a risk to the project.

Rich Farmbrough, 22:44, 2 June 2012 (UTC).

The statements made thus far indicate you made two edits on the Wikipedia server using AWB -- is that correct? If it was your understanding AWB was covered under the ban, why would you even start the thing in the first place? Nobody Ent 23:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

AWB is an invaluable tool for listmaking. I wanted all articles which either SunCreator or I had edited, which contained the mis-spelling. Later I widened to all all Chelonian articles and picked up a couple of other issues. There was no intent to edit with it, and I am still surprised that the two edits are adjacent. As I said to AGK, when he raised the issue it was conceivable that I had misclicked either through a motor error or a cognitive error, once or twice or, out at maybe four sigmas three times. He replied that there were plenty of examples which had me doubting my sanity, but it seems he meant two were plenty. In answer to your first question, since the AWB edits were marked minor I am assuming that's all there are. Rich Farmbrough, 23:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC).

@Rich, @Arbcom: Does reading Wikipedia content with AWB constitute automation? Nobody Ent 23:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

My approach to this is that the community have raised concerns with Rich regarding some of his edits, and Rich has not been helpful enough in his response to those concerns. It is not the actual edits for which he was brought to ArbCom, it is for his reluctance to deal appropriately with people's concerns. The concerns centred on Rich's use of automation because a) automation is so quick it spreads a contentious edit across a number of articles, and b) individual mistakes are harder to trace when someone's editing history consists of thousands of edits with the same edit summary. But, again, it was not the use of automation that brought Rich to ArbCom, but his reluctance to comply with restrictions on his use of automation. Again, I want to stress that during the case I was not looking at sanctioning Rich for any individual or group of edits, nor for his use of automation, but for his behaviour and attitude regarding concerns about his editing that were made via automation. Was a ban on using automation an appropriate remedy? Even without discussing the actual wording, or definitions of "automation", in retrospect it was perhaps not addressing the real issue, which is Rich's attitude. But how do we address that effectively? The case itself with the principles and findings about collegiality and responsiveness to people's concerns should have assisted in bringing home to someone that an adjustment in attitude was needed. And, as the concerns did centre on Rich's use of automation, then restricting Rich's use of them was appropriate.

Where am I now? Well, Rich can correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears from what I am told, and from what I have looked at, that he has used a hacked AWB in one browser to select changes in an article, and has then copy and pasted those changes over to the article in another browser. Should he have done that? Well, he is no longer an admin so his permission to use AWB would have been removed. Any non-admin user of Wikipedia has to apply to use AWB. He did not apply. He used a hacked version. This, already, is not in the spirit of openness and collegiality. Without going further I am concerned. That he then doesn't make the edits directly in the browser with the hacked AWB, but instead copy and pastes them over, indicates an intent to conceal what he is doing. I am now of the mind that even if Rich was not already under ArbCom sanctions not to use automation, that such behaviour warrants a block; considering all the circumstances, an indef ban seems appropriate as I would now want clear assurances from Rich that he recognises what he has done is wrong, and that he intends to amend his behaviour. Having said that, I am still open to discussing other avenues and approaches to find out the best way of dealing with this situation. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Rich, why didn't you just request access to AWB if you wanted to use it, instead of modifying it to bypass the check page? — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I just made a suggestion for possible terms that several members of the Committee were thinking about offering to Rich on his talk page. For that, if we do formally give him that offer, automation will mean "nothing more than what you see when you hit the edit button and manually make the changes in the window that pops up". No scripts of any kind, no using any AWB-like tools to prepare the edits and then copying it into a normal browser window, just what any editor new to Wikipedia gets when they hit the edit button. SirFozzie (talk) 01:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

It appears ya'll are trapped in a conceptual box. You do not, and can not know what happens client side. TCP/IP packets arrive at Tampa or Amsterdam on ports 80 or 443 with some data in them and WP servers send some packets back; all you know is what happens on the server end: If you think you can actually know for sure what's happening client side you're mistaken. Whatever solution(s) ya'll arrive at should be server side, server side, server side. Nobody Ent 02:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

No, there's no conceptual box. Rather, if it looks like automation, it is automation for the purposes of Rich's sanctions, with the onus on Rich to avoid anything that looks like automation. Given the issues to date, I think that's an appropriate way of apportioning the burden of compliance. Rich has demonstrated that he has the ability and know-how to continue problematic editing using only client-side automation. Jclemens (talk) 02:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)