Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: Guerillero (Talk) & NuclearWarfare (Talk) Drafting arbitrator: Kirill Lokshin (Talk)

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are 10 active arbitrators, not counting 2 recused. 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference
Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	6
1–2	5
3–4	4

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list.

Under no circumstances may this page be edited, except by members of the Arbitration Committee or the case Clerks. Please submit comment on the proposed decision to the talk page.

Proposed motions

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion. Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed temporary injunctions

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Collegiality

1) Wikipedia is a serious educational and scholarly project founded on the principles of collaboration and consensus. All participants are expected to conduct themselves according to the standards of collegiality and professionalism appropriate to such a setting.

The standards of collegiality expected of all contributors to Wikimedia projects are set forth in the Wikimedia Foundation Resolution on Openness, which urges editors to "promote openness and collaboration", "treat new editors with patience, kindness, and respect", "work with colleagues to reduce contention and promote a friendlier, more collaborative culture", and "work with colleagues to [...] discourage disruptive and hostile behavior".

The Wikipedia community has outlined similar standards in the "fourth pillar" of community policy, which asks that editors "interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner", "be polite to [...] fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree", and "be open and welcoming".

Support:

Proposed. Adapted from MickMacNee. Kirill ^[talk] 15:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PhilKnight (talk) 16:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Courcelles 19:08, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jclemens (talk) 01:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, with the proviso that collegiality is an aspiration rather than an expectation, and that we don't have a zero tolerance policy because even the best of us have bad days when we might not be prioritising collegiality. Our realistic expectation is that people will try their best, and that they apologise and make amends if they do crack; and the understanding is that failure to apologise and make amends, and/or repeated failure to be collegiate will lead to sanctions. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 07:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 01:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think tangental points of this boilerplate are germane to the dispute, so no reason not to have it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

A principle such as "Editors are expected to listen and respond to - not ignore - the community's concerns" would apply. However, these paragraphs are of little relevance to the dispute, and I do not think we need to mindlessly regurgitate basic policy in this way. AGK [•] 19:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Administrators

2) Administrators are trusted members of the community, and are expected to perform their duties to the best of their abilities; to behave in a respectful and civil manner in their interactions with others; to follow Wikipedia policies; to lead by example; and to learn from experience and from justified criticisms of their actions.

Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained poor judgment, multiple violations of policy—whether in the use of administrator tools or otherwise—or particularly egregious behaviour may result in the removal of administrator status.

Support:

Proposed. Adapted from Civility enforcement. Kirill ^[talk] 15:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well phrased. PhilKnight (talk) 16:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Courcelles 19:08, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AGK [•] 19:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jclemens (talk) 01:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 07:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 01:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Automation tools

3) An automation tool is a technology designed to facilitate making multiple similar edits that would be unduly time-consuming or tedious for a human editor to perform manually. Common automation tools include bots (independently running processes that modify Wikipedia content in a fully or partially automated fashion), scripts (software components utilized to automate or semi-automate certain types of editing), and various other technologies.

The use of automation tools on Wikipedia is subject to numerous restrictions, and approval from the Bot Approvals Group is generally required before an editor may use a tool for automated or high-speed edits.

Support:

Proposed. Adapted from Betacommand 2. Kirill ^[talk] 15:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

The use of scripts doesn't usually require approval of the Bot Approval Group, so the second paragraph needs rephrasing. PhilKnight (talk) 16:48, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per Phil, we have a library of tools that don't require BAG approval to use, AWB, Huggle.... Courcelles 19:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is incorrect. In order to preserve the decision's flow, we should give Kirill an opportunity to write an alternative proposal. If he does not have time (or does not wish) to do so, I'll propose an alternative finding. AGK [•] 19:48, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
should be easy to amend though. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Let's wordsmith this. Not going to oppose, but may propose an alternative addressing the objections above unless Kirill beats me to it. Jclemens (talk) 01:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've proposed a new wording below. Kirill ^[talk] 01:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good, Roger Davies ^talk 07:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automation tools

3.1) An automation tool is a technology designed to facilitate making multiple similar edits that would be unduly time-consuming or tedious for a human editor to perform manually. Common automation tools include bots (independently running processes that modify Wikipedia content in a fully or partially automated fashion), scripts (software components utilized to automate or semi-automate certain types of editing), and various other technologies.

The use of automation tools on Wikipedia is subject to numerous restrictions, and certain tools require approval from the Bot Approvals Group before an editor may use them.

Support:

Modified second paragraph per comments above. Kirill ^[talk] 01:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PhilKnight (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Courcelles 20:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 07:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jclemens (talk) 17:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AGK [•] 23:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good rewording. Risker (talk) 01:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Do Scripts have any restrictions? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the use of scripts is less well defined than that of bots, but the underlying principle for all (semi-) automated edits is that the editor making the edits remains responsible for everything about them. Jclemens (talk) 17:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The bot policy says in a nutshell: "Automated or partially automated editing processes, known as "bots", must be harmless and useful, have approval, use separate user accounts, and be operated responsibly." (My emphases). I think that is clear, and very pertinent to this case. I'm not sure the principle as worded is making the same point. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, given the concerns about the usefulness of some of the bot edits, the "must be ... useful" part is also appropriate. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users of automation tools

4) Like administrators and other editors in positions of trust, users of automation tools have a heightened responsibility to the community, and are expected to comply with applicable policies and restrictions; to respond reasonably to questions or concerns about their use of such tools; and to respect the community's wishes regarding the use of automation.

An editor who misuses automation tools—whether deliberately or in good faith—or fails to respond appropriately to concerns from the community about their use may lose the privilege of using such tools or may have such privilege restricted.

Support:

Proposed. Adapted from Betacommand 2. Kirill ^[talk] 15:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PhilKnight (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Courcelles 19:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, the irresponsible or unresponsive use of scripted or automated tools is completely disruptive, even if only some of the changes made are substandard. AGK [•] 19:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jclemens (talk) 01:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 07:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 01:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Identifying the use of automation tools

5) It is often impossible to definitively determine whether a particular edit was made using an automation tool, as such tools typically run on computers under the control of individual users rather than on the servers that host Wikipedia, and even automation tools that normally report their use may be modified to run silently.

In examining edits where the use of automation tools is suspected, the community and the Arbitration Committee may make reasonable inferences regarding the probable use of such tools on the basis of several factors, including the speed, number, timing, and consistency of the edits and the performing editor's past use of and familiarity with such tools. (See also: WP:MEATBOT.)

Support:

Proposed. Kirill ^[talk] 15:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer 'the community may make reasonable inferences' instead of 'the Arbitration Committee may make reasonable inferences'. PhilKnight (talk) 16:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I'd prefer a copyedit that combines both you gents ideas, both the community and the ArbCom may make such inferences Courcelles 19:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I too would like a copy-edit to the effect of both ArbCom and the community can make such an inference. Most reviews of Rich's actions have been by the community, not this committee. AGK [•] 19:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but I'd rather make a note that WP:DUCK can apply to edits, and not just sockpuppets. If it looks like an automated edit, it falls under the automated edit policy. The fact that there may be a very persistent user clicking or hitting a key repeatedly doesn't make an edit significantly less automated. Jclemens (talk) 01:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's been brought to my attention that WP:MEATBOT does appear to already cover this appropriately. Jclemens (talk) 19:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 07:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Added "(See also: WP:MEATBOT.)" which seems appropriate. Please revert if you disagree, Roger Davies ^talk 07:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 01:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If a reasonable inference can be made, then an automation restriction is possible and a ban is not needed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

I've copy-edited this to note that both the community and the Committee can make inferences. Kirill ^[talk] 01:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is the thinking here that there is a concern regarding some automated edits because there is a potential lack of attention or control taking place? If edits are inappropriate then is it worse that they were done inattentively by a user using a tool, than if they were done consciously by a user using manual methods? If we can't tell if edits have been done manually or automatically, does it matter? Isn't it the edits themselves that matter? "Comment on content, not on the contributor"? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The concern here is not that undisclosed automated edits are necessarily any worse than manual edits per se, but rather that, if they're not disclosed, there's no way to enforce a ban on automation (see finding #5, remedies #2 and #3). Kirill ^[talk] 13:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I see. So this is about not identifying in edit summaries that an edit was automated, and so anyone looking at a contribution history would assume the edit was done with care when it might not have been? The principle here being that if a series of edits look like they were made without due attention, that we treat them as being made without due attention; so that if someone has a history of making inappropriate inattentive edits, then it would be reasonable to ask the editor to stop rather than having to go through their - possibly many - edits looking for the likely mistakes. If that is it, then yes I support. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators involved in disputes

6) Administrator tools are not to be used in connection with disputes in which the administrator is involved. In circumstances where an administrator is involved, the administrator should not take administrative action but should instead report the issue to a relevant noticeboard, perhaps with a suggestion for appropriate action, to be dealt with by another administrator. In limited circumstances, such as blatant vandalism or bad-faith harassment, an involved administrator may act, but such exceptions are likely to be rare.

Support:

PhilKnight (talk) 22:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jclemens (talk) 23:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, per WP:INVOLVED, if in doubt, don't use admin tools but seek assistance. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AGK [•] 23:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 06:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Most definitely. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As a general principle. Kirill ^[talk] 02:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Unblocking a bot

7) Administrators may not unblock their own bot if another admin has blocked it. As Special:Unblock says, "Administrators: If you or your bot have been blocked, you must not unblock yourself even if you believe the block is unfair, inappropriate, or in error. Instead, contact another administrator through e-mail, IRC, the mailing list, or by leaving a note on your talk page." (emphasis added)

Support:

Sorry I built these backwards, but as far as I'm concerned, these are contributing factors to voting for a desysop. Courcelles 19:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps change the title to "Self-unblocks", and copy-edit "their own bot" to "own bots or alternative accounts". Accounts do not need to be running a bot script (or be recognised as WP:BOTs) to be automated, and a catch-all "alternative accounts" reduces the scope for distasteful wikilawyering. AGK [•] 19:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jclemens (talk) 01:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indenting for now, as there is a discussion ongoing on my talk page of whether or not this reflects actual practice. Will either oppose or re-support, once that's concluded. Jclemens (talk) 17:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is what Special:Unblock says. Like Kirill, I am uncertain if that message has the force of policy; it is, however, a matter of concern if an admin ignored that message without just cause, and would be an important part of an overall picture. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As it appears to be common practise for bot owners to unblock the bot after a malfunction has been fixed, then this wording is too strong. The focus needs to be on unblocks that have occurred without addressing the concerns. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~I think reversing another admin's block by unblocking your own bot is clearly against the spirit of WP:UNINVOLVED. PhilKnight (talk) 15:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

~~Agree entirely with Phil, Roger Davies ^talk 07:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)~~ Moved to Oppose and alternative offered below, Roger Davies ^talk 03:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

I don't think MediaWiki interface messages have (or should have) the force of policy; and I can't find a provision to this effect in the blocking policy (although perhaps it should be added). Kirill ^[talk] 01:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Much as I think bots shouldn't be unblocked by their owners (particularly when the dispute is whether or not the bot's tasks are appropriate/approved or where there is dispute as to whether or not the bot is operating properly), I agree with Kirill that a MediaWiki interface message isn't policy. Risker (talk) 01:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Switching to oppose per my conversation with Hammersoft here. It simply doesn't appear to have been a hard-and-fast enough rule to ding Rich on with this level of severity. I would support a rewrite somewhere between this version and Roger's below formulation in strength. Jclemens (talk) 19:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to Oppose and alternative offered below, Roger Davies ^talk 03:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
New alternative below: #Misuse of administrative tools. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer just Principle 10. PhilKnight (talk) 15:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

An unchallenged, authoritative message that summarizes convention is de facto policy no matter where it is located. If anything, I think the proper thing to do is to make sure that the policy pages reflect the expectations. Unless all sorts of other admins have been unblocking their own bots, in which case it wouldn't summarize convention, would it? Jclemens (talk) 04:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that makes sense. The message has been there (in an earlier, more explicit form) since 2008. The practise of admin bot owners ignoring that message should stop, and the best way of ensuring that would be to update the Wikipedia:Blocking policy. I'll leave a note on the talk page. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking your own bot accounts

8) It is against the spirit of WP:INVOLVED for administrators to unblock their own accounts, which includes bot accounts.

Support:

On reflection, I prefer this to my qualifed support of (6) above. Roger Davies ^talk 03:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~PhilKnight (talk) 19:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]
Equal preference with F7. AGK [•] 23:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Too weak. This is pretty much a "do not" sort of thing. Courcelles 06:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unweak it, then ... beef it up as much as you like ;) On the other hand, it does have the advantage of being simple and difficult to disagree with. Roger Davies ^talk 09:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
New alternative below: #Misuse of administrative tools. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer just Principle 10. PhilKnight (talk) 15:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that this is a bit too weak. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that this is entirely consistent with how the community interprets this policy in practice. Kirill ^[talk] 02:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

While I entirely agree with the sentiment, is it something that merits a principle at this "weak" (per Courcelles) level? I wonder if this case is going to prompt us to have the BAG write a whole bunch of "thou shalt not..."'s to cover the inadvisable yet not explicitly prohibited things Rich has done? Jclemens (talk) 17:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a chance to look more closely at the relevant policies here and I'll be posting a new version shortly. Roger Davies ^talk 19:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking one's own bot account (alternative)

9) The Unblocking and Involved policies are longstanding with very broad consensus. They both prohibit the unblocking of one's own accounts; the first does this explicitly; the second implicitly. They offer a very limited number of exceptions to the broad prohibition: bot accounts are not among them. The Special:Unblock message describes current policy in the following terms: "Administrators: If you or your bot have been blocked, you must not unblock yourself even if you believe the block is unfair, inappropriate, or in error. Instead, contact another administrator through e-mail, IRC, the mailing list, or by leaving a note on your talk page."

Support:

Here's a revised alternative version for consideration. Roger Davies ^talk 20:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~First preference. PhilKnight (talk) 20:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]
Better. Jclemens (talk) 21:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(F7 and 8 are my equal-preference second choices.) This breaks down the nuances very well, and is my first choice. In relation to SilkTork's point, I suppose my thinking is that Rich unblocked without discussion. This principle simply holds that such an unblock was improper (and of course, the pattern of similar impropriety is the crux of this case). AGK [•] 23:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is my top choice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

I think that given that there has been an accepted practise of admins unblocking their own bots when a malfunction has been fixed, and policy has not been explicit on that point, I think it would be inappropriate for us to write a finding that now says it has been policy with the implication that such previously uncontroversial unblocking is now serious enough to be cited in an ArbCom case with the implication that a sanction will follow. The practise has been unwise, and now that it has been identified the community will discuss plugging the gap here; but the point for this case is not that Rich has been unblocking his bot in uncontroversial situations, but that he has also been doing it when he simply disagreed with the blocking admin, and didn't enter into a discussion first. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer just Principle 10. PhilKnight (talk) 15:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer #10. Kirill ^[talk] 02:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

The sentence about Special:Unblock could be beefier, I suppose, but then it could easily veer into finding-of-fact territory that the message reflects policy accurately and so forth. Roger Davies ^talk 20:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Misuse of administrative tools

10) Administrative tools are provided to trusted users, and should be used with thought. Per WP:TOOLMISUSE, using the tools to reverse the actions of other administrators, such as unblocking a bot which is believed to be violating bot policy, should not done without good cause, careful thought and usually some kind of consultation.

Support:

Making clear it is not the unblocking of repaired bots that is the issue, but the occasions when the admin tools were used to unblock in clear disregard of policy and accepted standards, such as: "16:30, 2 February 2011 Fram (talk | contribs | block) blocked SmackBot (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (No evidence that bot task is approved; violation of bot policy) 16:56, 2 February 2011 Rich Farmbrough (talk | contribs | block) unblocked SmackBot (talk | contribs) (Vexatious disruptive block.)" SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm okay with this too, if we want to put a different slant on the principle, but I think we must be careful not to put too much emphasis on these re-statements of basic policy. Unblocking one's own bot without discussion is usually not appropriate; why such an action is inappropriate is less important to me. AGK [•] 23:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PhilKnight (talk) 08:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This works for me too. Jclemens (talk) 05:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, as a general principle. Kirill ^[talk] 02:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This also applies to editing over full protection. Even administrators should discuss before doing so (with the BLP exception), including fully protected templates. Risker (talk) 06:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Doesn't this just substantially rehash what is said in P #6? Can we consolidate them? Roger Davies ^talk 06:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think they're better split for voting reasons. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Rich Farmbrough

1) Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has been an active Wikipedia editor since 2004, and an administrator since 2005. He has extensive experience with and expertise in the use of automation tools, including both fully automated bots (such as SmackBot and Helpful Pixie Bot) and semi-automated tools (such as AutoWikiBrowser).

Support:

Proposed as background. Kirill ^[talk] 15:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PhilKnight (talk) 16:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Courcelles 19:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AGK [•] 19:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jclemens (talk) 01:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 07:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 06:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Restrictions on Rich Farmbrough's use of automation

2) Rich Farmbrough is currently subject to two community-imposed restrictions on his use of automation. The first restriction, imposed in October 2010 as a result of a community discussion on the administrators' noticeboard, prohibits Rich Farmbrough from making cosmetic changes to wikicode beyond those enabled by AutoWikiBrowser's default settings or explicitly approved by community consensus or the Bot Approvals Group. The second restriction, imposed in January 2011 as a result of a community discussion on the incidents noticeboard, prohibits Rich Farmbrough from mass creation of pages in any namespace without approval from the community.

Support:

Proposed as background. Kirill ^[talk] 15:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PhilKnight (talk) 16:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Courcelles 19:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AGK [•] 20:06, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jclemens (talk) 01:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 07:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 06:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Rich Farmbrough's violations of restrictions on automation

3) Rich Farmbrough has repeatedly violated the restrictions imposed by the community on his use of automation. Examples include cosmetic changes to non-rendered whitespace ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5]), cosmetic changes to template invocations ([6], [7]), removal of comments ([8], [9]), and unapproved mass creation of categories ([10]).

Support:

Proposed. Kirill ^[talk] 15:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PhilKnight (talk) 17:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Courcelles 19:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can we include reference to his blocks for restriction-violation (which are summarised here)? AGK [•] 20:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jclemens (talk) 01:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and the list of blocks is also useful for showing how the community feels about these matters. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 07:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 06:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Rich Farmbrough's violations of automation policy

4) Rich Farmbrough has repeatedly violated the letter and the spirit of the bot policy. Examples include running high-speed tasks without sufficient approval ([11]), running high-volume tasks without sufficient approval ([12]), running bot tasks from a non-bot account ([13]), and running unapproved bot tasks ([14]).

Support:

Proposed. Kirill ^[talk] 15:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PhilKnight (talk) 17:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Courcelles 19:22, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AGK [•] 20:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jclemens (talk) 01:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those examples span a number of years, and it is concerning that Rich Farmbrough is still causing the community concern with his edits. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 07:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 06:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Rich Farmbrough's undisclosed use of automation

5) Rich Farmbrough's editing history shows numerous examples of high-volume, high-speed sequences of identical edits ([15], [16]). These edits were not performed from a bot account or with a bot flag; nor did the associated edit summaries indicate the use of any known automation tool; nor was any other explicit or implicit indication made that automation was used to perform them.

However, given the speed, number, and consistency of these edits, and Rich Farmbrough's history of using automation for tasks of a similar nature, it is reasonable to conclude that these edits were in fact performed via some form of automation tool.

Support:

Proposed. Kirill ^[talk] 15:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly a little too strong. I'd prefer a principle indicating that it's widely considered good practice to indicate that an edit is automated in the edit summary, and a finding that Richard hasn't always done this. PhilKnight (talk) 17:08, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Courcelles 19:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jclemens (talk) 01:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 07:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Having considered remarks on the talk page (including some specialist input from editors who staff the BAG), it seems quite apparent to me that the unvarying consistency of the edits is suspicious in itself. I am therefore happy to support with the diffs provided. AGK [•] 23:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My reading of this situation is that even if not declaring he is editing via an automation it is possible to identify automation type edits, and as such an automation restriction imposed on Rich is viable, and therefore a ban is not necessary. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 06:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

In the diffs given, I'm not sure how a handful of edits per minute can be considered "high-speed"; and of course there is nothing wrong with "high-volume" edits. AGK [•] 20:06, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, an editor making truly manual edits will find it difficult to sustain an even editing rate of six edits per minute, particularly over long periods; while it's certainly possible to achieve (or exceed) that speed manually, doing so will almost always produce some variation in the timing of the edits. The highlighted segment of Rich's contributions shows a rate of exactly six edits per minute sustained for more than twenty minutes; under the circumstances, I find it highly unlikely that this is a coincidental result of manual editing rather than a sign of some form of script with a ten-second delay between edits.

To address the more general point, this finding is not intended to characterize the edits in question as "wrong", but merely to highlight that Rich performs edits via automation tools without declaring them to have been performed with automation tools. This is not grounds for a sanction in and of itself, of course; however, it's a key factor in determining that remedy #2 is unenforceable and that remedy #3 is necessary. Kirill ^[talk] 01:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the point here is that it is not possible to tell when someone is using an automated tool and so a restriction on using such a tool is not possible, then these diffs show that it is possible to identify the sort of edits that give cause for concern. However, I can see that it wouldn't be attractive to go down the Betacommand route of imposing restrictions on the amount of edits per minute, etc. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Farmbrough's conduct

6) Rich Farmbrough has repeatedly engaged in conduct inconsistent with Wikipedia's standards of collegiality and professionalism. Examples include gratuitous incivility ([17], [18], [19]), gratuitous assumptions of bad faith ([20], [21], [22]), and gratuitous accusations of misconduct ([23]).

Support:

Proposed. Kirill ^[talk] 15:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PhilKnight (talk) 17:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Courcelles 19:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For my own part, I found his comment that "you [Fram] have been stalking me long enough" to be unnecessary, apparently unjustified, and completely unacceptable. Regretfully, it appears this is a recurring problem in many of Rich's interactions—which is a pity, because he is a talented editor. AGK [•] 20:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jclemens (talk) 01:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 07:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 06:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Rich Farmbrough's responsiveness

7) Rich Farmbrough has repeatedly responded to concerns regarding his use of automation tools in a manner inconsistent with the community expectations for users of automation tools. Examples include [24], [25], and [26].

Support:

Proposed. Kirill ^[talk] 15:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PhilKnight (talk) 17:15, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Courcelles 19:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jclemens (talk) 01:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill makes a very fair point below, Roger Davies ^talk 07:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 06:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think this could be better substantiated, but it is certainly true that Rich's manner of response has been substandard. AGK [•] 11:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Whilst such is not the case, the diffs chosen here (and in some of the other remedies) give the impression that we say "the community" when we really mean Fram. Kirill, do you have other diffs you could cite? AGK [•] 21:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that this is an issue; is Fram not part of the community? I'm not prepared to pursue a line of reasoning that implies that a bot operator's responsibilities to respond don't apply to people with whom the bot operator might have an antagonistic relationship. Kirill ^[talk] 01:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fram is, of course, but there are countless other examples that could be used so as to make it clear we are not interpreting a personalised dispute between Rich and Fram. The problem runs much wider. AGK [•] 23:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking of SmackBot

8) Rich Farmbrough has, on many occasions, used his administrative access to unblock his own bots after another admin had placed a block on the bot account (see block logs of SmackBot, Helpful Pixie Bot).

Support:

Not all of these unblocks were out of policy, but quite a number were, esp. on the SmackBot block log. Courcelles 19:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Made a very minor copy-edit, AGK [•] 22:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jclemens (talk) 01:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
True enough, but I'm not convinced this was substantively a violation of policy. Kirill ^[talk] 01:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think unblocking your own bot is against the spirit of WP:UNINVOLVED. PhilKnight (talk) 15:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seven unblocks of SmackBot from 2006 to 2011. Most of those appear to be reasonable (unblocked after a malfunction was fixed); however these two unblocks: 2 February 2011 (Vexatious disruptive block) and 4 May 2010 (Getting ridiculous), are a cause for concern. If there are concerns that someone is blocking an account unfairly, then it would make sense to get someone else to look into the matter. Unblocking with such comments is unhelpful at best, and confrontational to the point of wheel warring at worse. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problems at all with this finding: it's an accurate statement of fact. Whether the unblockings were out-of-process is covered elsewhere. Roger Davies ^talk 21:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 06:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Do we need to add something like "... without remedying the underlying issue to the blocking administrator's satisfaction or otherwise achieving consensus for the unblock"? If the issue isn't really who does the unblock, but that bot unblocks are not done unilaterally and without consensus that the problem which prompted the block was already addressed, we should probably clarify the wording. Jclemens (talk) 03:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would he helpful. It is a matter of fact that he did unblock, but we have learned that unblocking a bot is not in itself a problem, but unblocking without addressing the concerns is an issue. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the proposed edit. PhilKnight (talk) 20:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elen of the Roads block of Rich Farmbrough's bot

9) After being listed as a party to this case, Elen of the Roads (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked Helpful Pixie Bot (talk · contribs), which is owned by Rich Farmbrough. [27] Although this block was reversed by Elen of the Roads, it was nonetheless unwise and potentially inflammatory and should have been left to another administrator.

Support:

PhilKnight (talk) 22:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jclemens (talk) 23:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AGK [•] 23:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Courcelles 03:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 05:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] 02:45, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 06:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

While I believe the block should have been left to another administrator, I do not think WP:INVOLVED was breached. Being named as a party in an arbitration case (which is not something over which one has any control) does not in and of itself speak to personal involvement, though being the filing party probably does. To be clear, I think parties blocking parties is almost always going to be inflammatory and on that ground alone should be strenuously avoided. I can comfortably support a revised finding that changes "it was nonetheless against policy, as Elen of the Roads was involved and should have been left ..." to "it was nevertheless unwise and potentially inflammatory and should have been left ...". The heading would similarly need amendment. I have no problem incidentally with the associated remedy, which seems fair and proportionate. If there's reluctance to amend, I can post this as an alternative. Roger Davies ^talk 04:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC) Moved to support, Roger Davies ^talk 05:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Following discussion on the talk page, I have no objection if another arb wants to remove "promptly". PhilKnight (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the edit suggested by Roger, and modified the heading. PhilKnight (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Rich Farmbrough's administrator status revoked

Rich Farmbrough's administrator status revoked for a period of no less than one year

1.1) Rich Farmbrough's administrator status is revoked for a period of no less than one year.

After one year has elapsed from the closing of this case, Rich Farmbrough may request that his administrator status be restored by filing a request for adminship.

Support:

Proposed. While there are no adverse findings in this case regarding Rich's use of administrative tools per se, the history of misconduct and poor judgment evinced by the other findings is sufficient to render him unsuited for a position of community trust. Kirill ^[talk] 15:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~I'll support this, but I'd prefer letting him stand at RfA immediately. PhilKnight (talk) 17:15, 5 May 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]
Actually, I think there HAS been misuse of admin tools, due to the number of times Rich has unblocked his own bots, something he is not permitted by policy to do. Courcelles 19:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AGK [•] 22:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per Courcelles. Jclemens (talk) 01:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to Oppose on reflection. Second choice, Roger Davies ^talk 03:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC) (I support the desysop fully but incline towards leaving the return of the tools up to the community. If an alternative motion simply desysopping and leaving the if-and-when of the return of the tools to the community, that would be my first choice, and this a second. Roger Davies ^talk 08:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC))[reply]

~~2nd choice. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

Oppose:

Prefer 1.2. PhilKnight (talk) 15:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
not keen on arbitrary one-year caveat. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unambiguously prefer 1.2, Roger Davies ^talk 07:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:46, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer other option. Risker (talk) 06:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Rich Farmbrough's administrator status revoked

1.2) Rich Farmbrough's administrator status is revoked.

At any time after the closing of this case, Rich Farmbrough may request that his administrator status be restored by filing a request for adminship.

Support:

~~1st~~ Only choice. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PhilKnight (talk) 21:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Only ~~First~~ choice, Roger Davies ^talk 03:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Equal preference with the above. Jclemens (talk) 03:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AGK [•] 23:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC) This is my first choice; F1.1 is my second.[reply]
Second choice; a drama-filled RFA immediately following the conclusion of the case would not benefit anyone. Kirill ^[talk] 02:47, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If and only if 1.1 does not pass, therwise this is an oppose. Courcelles 02:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Only choice, although I would counsel Rich Farmbrough to take some time to reflect on this case before deciding whether or not to file an RFA. In my mind, there has been inappropriate use of administrator tools, particularly in editing through full protection to change high-visibility templates. Administrators are expected to invite discussion of any changes they propose to fully protected pages, particularly those which are protected because of the extensive harm that could come from ill-considered edits. Risker (talk) 06:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Rich Farmbrough prohibited from using automation

2) Rich Farmbrough is indefinitely prohibited from using any automation whatsoever on Wikipedia. For the purposes of this remedy, any edits that reasonably appear to be automated shall be assumed to be so.

Support:

Proposed. Rich's use of automation tools is central to the case, and numerous findings indicate that he is chronically unable to use them in a manner that complies with the community's wishes. Kirill ^[talk] 15:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PhilKnight (talk) 17:22, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Courcelles 19:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Enough is enough. AGK [•] 22:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jclemens (talk) 01:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, though I expect the devil will be in the detail. Roger Davies ^talk 08:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, with added: "Any edits that reasonably appear to be automated are assumed to be so." If uncomfortable with this, please revert and I'll create a new option with that wording. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Copyedited slightly to note that this point is specific to this particular remedy. Kirill ^[talk] 02:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 06:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

I'm still thinking about this one. Rich set his bot up to make some edits that the community found unhelpful. They asked him to stop. He didn't. So we prohibit him from using a bot, but we don't prohibit him from making the edits that caused the concern? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC) Scratch that - he's already prohibited. I'm just thinking through how the automation relates to the editing. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer if a remedy could be drawn up that would allow Rich to contribute helpfully via automated edits while ensuring he listened carefully to and complied with concerns. Failing that, then a complete prohibition seems reasonable - we cannot have bot operators ignoring concerns, unblocking their own bots, and carrying on regardless. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned about this as it may not quite tackle the issue. It is increasingly clear that the issue is whether RF exercises sufficient diligence in editing. In normal editing, this is not a significant problem because the errors can be swiftly correctly. But if the edits are high speed and in great volume, the disruption flowing from them rapidly escalates. The answer may be a remedy which makes introducing significant numbers of sub-optimal edits sanctionable, with penalties of a sliding scale reflecting their volume and magnitude. I'll punt this on the talk page and see what the response is. 22:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger Davies (talk • contribs)

Rich Farmbrough banned

3) Rich Farmbrough is banned from Wikipedia for a period of no less than one year.

After one year has elapsed from the closing of this case, Rich Farmbrough may request that the ban be lifted by filing an appeal with the Arbitration Committee. As part of any such request, Rich Farmbrough shall be required to submit a plan outlining his intended editing activity and demonstrating his understanding of and intention to refrain from the actions which resulted in his ban. The Committee shall present this plan to the community for review and comment prior to any modification of Rich Farmbrough's ban.

Support:

Proposed. Normally, prohibiting Rich from using automation (remedy #2) would be sufficient to resolve the majority of the issues raised in this case; however, given Rich's history of using automation without disclosing it (finding #5), it is apparent that we have no effective means of enforcing remedy #2. Unfortunately, this means that our only recourse is to ban Rich from editing entirely. Kirill ^[talk] 15:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Second preference. PhilKnight (talk) 17:22, 5 May 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

Weak support, per Kirill. I think that stripping Rich of his administrator status and his right to use automation may be sufficient... but then we're back to the 'Super Mario Problem' brought up in another recent case. Jclemens (talk) 01:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC) Switching to oppose. Jclemens (talk) 20:14, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regrettably, yes. Because this may, realistically, prove to be the only effective way of enforcing Remedy 2, Roger Davies ^talk 08:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Whilst I understand Kirill's thinking, I cannot agree that our only recourse at this point is a site-ban. Let us see if a ban on any form automation will be effective. AGK [•] 22:06, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How would someone tell whether Rich was violating the automation ban? From the comments on the talk page, I gather that the administrators on AE don't want to be forced into trying to determine whether Rich is actually using automation when he claims that he's not. Kirill ^[talk] 01:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, too draconian at this point. The way to address Kirill's argument is either a remedy that 1) says any edits that appear to be automated are assumed to be so, and placing the burden on Rich to avoid even the appearance of using such, or 2) firm edit rate restrictions that can be objectively enforced. Either option, and I don't have a strong preference which (or a third solution), gives us more benefit than a straight site-ban at this point. We can always reserve the ability to ban by motion if things develop to make it necessary. Courcelles 21:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My big-picture preliminary view suggests this is not needed at this time, however haven't finished looking at previous findings etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see if the restriction on automated edits works. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer Remedy 4. PhilKnight (talk) 15:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Based on Rich's continued engagement at the talk page, I think it likely enough that he's actually getting the message, vs. just trying to placate us for the duration of the process, that a site ban is not yet indicated. Jclemens (talk) 20:14, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

I have been watching this case, reading the pages for weeks now, realising that this proposal would have to be made. I can genuinely see the arguments in both directions on this point, and am unable to come to a decision which is best for the project. Given the current status of voting, it is unlikely that Rich will be banned, and my abstention is immaterial to this point. I would hope, however, that he understands that he is at the edge of the cliff here, and without a significant change in his practices, he will find himself blocked (and potentially banned) for an extensive period. Risker (talk) 06:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Rich Farmbrough banned for 3 months

4) Rich Farmbrough is banned from Wikipedia for 3 months.

Support:

First preference. PhilKnight (talk) 19:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While I also opposed banning for a year, this is worse, as it is so short. If the consensus is that RF's conduct is so bad as to ban, this is worthless. Courcelles 23:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not support time-limited bans of such short duration. Editors are not banned punitively, they're banned because they "just don't get it". As such, I generally only support indefinite bans that are subject to appeal after a fixed period of time, which gives the bannee time to reflect and present himself to the banning authority as a changed and now-enlightened individual. Jclemens (talk) 04:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Either there is a problem that requires banning, in which case it should be indefinite or of significant length, or there is not a problem that requires site-banning. Whilst I see that this attempts to be the best of both proposed resolutions, it seems to me to be the worst. AGK [•] 23:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per Jclemens. Kirill ^[talk] 02:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Per my vote at #3. Risker (talk) 06:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Given that neither Remedies 3 & 4 are going to pass, I think another alternative, perhaps of 6 or 12 months, should be proposed. PhilKnight (talk) 05:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elen of the Roads reminded

5) Elen of the Roads is reminded that an administrator who is a party to an arbitration case should not block another editor (or their bot) who is a party to the same case.

Support:

Thanks to CBM for his comments on the talk page about the wording of this remedy. PhilKnight (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jclemens (talk) 21:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If this was not such an isolated case of misjudgement, we would be considering at least an admonishment. AGK [•] 23:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Courcelles 03:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] 02:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 06:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement by block

1) Should any user subject to a restriction or topic ban in this case violate that restriction or ban, 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.

Support:

If 3 passes, this is moot, but if not, remedy two does require enforcement authority. Courcelles 19:48, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Only if a remedy passes which requires enforcement. AGK [•] 22:06, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per the above. Jclemens (talk) 01:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] 01:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PhilKnight (talk) 15:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 06:51, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

Motion to close

Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision—at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion to close the case until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

These notes were last updated by --Guerillero | My Talk 18:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 20:38, 28 January 2023 (UTC) by User:MalnadachBot.[reply]

Proposed Principles
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Collegiality	9	1	0		·
2	Administrators	10	0	0		·
3	Automation tools	1	5	0		·
3.1	Automation tools	8	0	0		·
4	Users of automation tools	10	0	0		·
5	Identifying the use of automation tools	10	0	0		·
6	Administrators involved in disputes	7	0	0		·
7	Unblocking a bot	3	7	0		·
8	Unblocking your own bot accounts	2	5	0		·
9	Unblocking one's own bot account (alternative)	4	3	0		·
10	Misuse of administrative tools	7	0	0		·
Proposed Findings of Fact
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Rich Farmbrough	10	0	0		·
2	Restrictions on Rich Farmbrough's use of automation	10	0	0		·
3	Rich Farmbrough's violations of restrictions on automation	9	0	0		·
4	Rich Farmbrough's violations of automation policy	10	0	0		·
5	Rich Farmbrough's undisclosed use of automation	10	0	0		·
6	Rich Farmbrough's conduct	9	0	0		·
7	Rich Farmbrough's responsiveness	9	0	0		·
8	Unblocking of SmackBot	9	0	0		·
9	Elen of the Roads block of Rich Farmbrough's bot	9	0	0		·
Proposed Remedies
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1.1	Rich Farmbrough's administrator status revoked	4	6	0		·
1.2	Rich Farmbrough's administrator status is revoked	9	0	0		·
2	Rich Farmbrough prohibited from using automation	9	0	0		·
3	Rich Farmbrough banned	2	7	1		·
4	Rich Farmbrough banned for 3 months	1	7	1		·
5	Elen of the Roads reminded	9	0	0		·
Proposed Enforcement Provisions
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Enforcement by block	8	0	0		·

Notes

Vote

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support"). 24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close. The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.

Support

~~#I'm done, and there don't seem to be any major wording questions in dispute. Jclemens (talk) 17:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

Everything important is resolved one way or the other, we might as well start the clock to get this closed out. Courcelles 14:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like we're done here. Kirill ^[talk] 12:27, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't seem to be any enthusiasm to formulate another remedy for Rich Farmbrough, so I guess we close this case now. PhilKnight (talk) 22:18, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 06:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AGK [•] 11:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: ~~#Striking my own support, moving to oppose until a couple of outstanding issues are resolved. Jclemens (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comments