Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough

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

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

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Amendment request: Rich Farmbrough

Initiated by Rich Farmbrough, 23:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC).
at 23:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Case affected

Rich Farmbrough arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Finding 8

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

• Details of desired modification

Rich Farmbrough has on many occasions, after another administrator has placed a block on his bot account, used his administrative tools to unblock his own bot without first remedying the underlying issue to the blocking admin's satisfaction or otherwise achieving consensus for such unblock (see block logs of SmackBot, Helpful Pixie Bot).

Amend to

Rich Farmbrough has on a number of occasions, after another administrator has placed a block on his bot account, used his administrative tools to unblock his own bot, where this was uncontroversial, and generally with pre-approval of the blocking admin. In addition he has been scrupulous in ensuring that he has remedied any problems, or claimed problems, for which he is to be commended.

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

This is a more accurate statement of the situation. For the existing wording to stand the Committee would have to show that many (I would assume more than five) unblocks did not address the reason for stopping the bot. They will not be able to show this because it is not the case. It is a matter of regret that the committee would wish to publish such falsehoods without even the most cursory examination.

Rich Farmbrough, 23:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC).

@Arbs. One, or even several is not many.

@Corcelles: Firstly it was established in the case that there is no such thing as process. Secondly in the case you cite the blocking admin had explicitly permitted a self unblock. Thirdly we are going back over a year to find one example, which fails.

@Fozzie: Since I was denied a chance to rebut the case at the time, the committee has left this the only on-wiki avenue available to me. To deny that would not only be ultra vires, and contrary to natural justice but counter productive. Moreover the Committee has added false statements to the case post closure. This is something the committee should want to rectify.

Additional notes. Fram continues to pursue me here. If that is not disruptive I don't know what is. Note that Fram refused to answer my questions on the case, and even changed my posts. Fram says I did not contribute to the case, I made over 500 edits (and I am still waiting for an answer as to how many hours a day I should be expected to dedicate to a case who's trolling tenet was debunked on day 1.

@Fram. Of course hiding the fact that you - like the other parties, are great at lip service to collegiality, but totally unable to put any actual effort into it is not fine. And redacting part of my post to an ArbCom case would seem very foolish, if not downright abusive. Note that another party suggested questions I should ask, I added them and still no response was forthcoming.

@Silk: You seem to have missed the part of the case where it was decided that unblocking one's own bots was totally within process per se.

@NewYorkBrad: You were more active than any other arbitrator, and, going by evidence, paid more attention to the content. AGK was also inactive, and had promised not to vote, but hat has not stopped him voting either on the main case or here.

@PhilKnight , I would be happy with striking the FoF altogether or a compromise wording.

Rich Farmbrough has on a number of occasions, after another administrator has placed a block on his bot account, used his administrative tools to unblock his own bot, where this was uncontroversial, and generally with pre-approval of the blocking admin. While Fram takes issue with one of the unblocks, almost all are uncontroversial, and all were made in good faith and the spirit of collegiality and cooperation we have come to expect from Rich.

@Beestra, It appears that ArbCom have collectively dug in and adopted a position of infallibility. I sincerely hope this is not the case. Rich Farmbrough, 12:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC).

Comment by Fram

Rich Farmbrough is still using out-of-context facts to defend himself, even though the actual full context has been presented to him again and again. For all readers unaware of that context, "Secondly in the case you cite the blocking admin had explicitly permitted a self unblock." should be continued with "under strict conditions". The actual self-unblock did not follow these conditions at all. The self-unblock edit summary "Vexatious disruptive block" is quite clear as well.

As for "Since I was denied a chance to rebut the case at the time", this is a rather slanted reading of what actually happened, i.e. that he had every chance to defend himself, but largely ignored discussions (even though people like Dirk Beetstra, Hammersoft and Kumioko found the time and tried hard to do his work for him instead), often failed to provide evidence for his claims, and in general waited until the very last moment, after the proposed decision had been open for quite a while (since 5 May) and arbitrators started voting to close the case (12 May); then he suddenly needed a few more weeks to be able to present his case (14 May: "I started drafting my comments on the new material in the proposed decision yesterday." and "I will need at least a week, possibly two to respond to these matters."). This tactic failed. Like Kumioko said, "he spent a lot of time editing and not enough time discussing and defending". You were not "denied a chance", you choose to spend your time on other things and waited too long before starting your rebuttal; you shouldn't be blaming this on other people or on the ArbCom. Fram (talk) 08:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

@Rich Farmbrough: "Additional notes. Fram continues to pursue me here. If that is not disruptive I don't know what is." You are making claims about a block of Smackbot I made, and the unblock conditions I gave. I think it is only natural that I give my version of that block, as a directly involved party. This has little to do with "pursuing". Apart from that, I was a party to the case, so amendments and clarifications to that case are of natural interest to me. I don't see you complaining that Beetstra and Hammersoft, who weren't parties to the case and not involved with these blocks, comment here, so apparently you are only bothered by people "pursuing you" when they don't support you, which is of course a good method to end with only supportive comments...

@Rich Farmbrough: "Note that Fram refused to answer my questions on the case, and even changed my posts." I presume you refer to my removal of the empty section "Replies by Fram" here? That's hardly "changing your posts", we shouldn't keep sections which will remain empty. Note that the final page still has two other such empty sections, since in reality no one answered your questions there. Perhaps the problem was more with the questions than with the refusal? I can't remember any instance where I actually changed a post you made.

@Rich Farmbrough: "Fram says I did not contribute to the case, I made over 500 edits (and I am still waiting for an answer as to how many hours a day I should be expected to dedicate to a case who's trolling tenet was debunked on day 1)." I did not say that you didn't contribute to the case, please don't make such incorrect claims. Fram (talk) 07:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

@Rich Farmbrough: if you consider an edit summary of "Vexatious disruptive block." (your words at the unblock) as "the spirit of collegiality and cooperation we have come to expect from Rich." (your words used here to describe these unblocks), then I have nothing more to add, really... Fram (talk) 12:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Beetstra

As I asked the last time for the previous amendment - could the members of the ArbCom please specify which of the unblocks were out of line, and how they were out of line. This still suggests that ALL of the unblocks of Rich Farmbrough were out of line. A member of the ArbCom provides below one example, SilkTork now defines it as 'several' (which is also not the same as 'many'); I am sure that they can specify more examples to back up their statement 'on many occasions'. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

@Rich: As usual. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Hammersoft

It is clear from the wording Rich proposed that there is no way this amendment would ever be supported by any arbitrator. It is equally clear that ArbCom has failed to make its case for the revised FoF. So here we have one FoF wording that seems absurd being proposed by the target of an ArbCom case, and another FoF that seems absurd that has the backing of ArbCom. Not surprisingly, the body that wrote the latter refuses to consider modification of its version, and has (with SirFozzie's comments) threatened the writer of the former should he continue to make additional requests.

ArbCom has desysopped Rich. They have banned him from any automation (though, can't agree on what automation is). ArbCom considered banning him from the project. Rich has been pushed to the very edge of the precipice on this project. This, for one "wholly out of process unblock". I concur with Beetstra. Please show us the evidence that supports your finding. Please tell me there's more than one or two unblocks where Rich erred. Please. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

• The proposed amendment is false, full stop. One prime example of a wholly out of process unblock was the "15:56, 2 February 2011 Rich Farmbrough (talk | contribs | block) unblocked SmackBot (talk | contribs) (Vexatious disruptive block.)" one. Courcelles 23:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
• Agreed. And speaking as an arbitrator who was inactive due to real life issues during this case, it may be time to classify Rich as a vexatious litigant and formally restrict him from wasting the Committee and Community's time with these requests. SirFozzie (talk) 00:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
• Decline There are several cases of SmackBot/Helpful Pixie Bot being unblocked inappropriately by Rich Farmbrough, and of other admins reblocking with a comment that he should not be unblocking himself, or that issues are still not resolved. I am disappointed that at this stage Rich Farmbrough still appears not to understand why his conduct has been a cause for concern, and that his ongoing behaviour is not helpful to himself. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
• I would decline the proposed amendment. AGK [•] 11:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
• Abstain as I was inactive in the voting on this case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
• The current wording may not be perfect, however Rich's proposed version isn't an improvement, being too far in the opposite direction. PhilKnight (talk) 15:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
• Decline. This is essentially an attempt to vacate a decided case by amendment, and thus a non-starter. Per SirFozzie, the unhelpfulness of these amendments is consistent enough to consider remedies against future abuses of the process. Jclemens-public (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Decline.  Roger Davies ^talk 19:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

---

Amendment request: Rich Farmbrough

Initiated by Rich Farmbrough, 22:14, 26 May 2012 (UTC).
at 22:14, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Case affected

Rich Farmbrough arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Principle 1
2. Finding 2
3. Remedy 3

Information about amendment request

Allowed to use Femto Bot to archive own talk page, as no other archiving solution has the required responsiveness, nor the ability to split-archive to to-do lists.

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

Allowed to use Femnto Bot to archive own talk page, as no other archiving solution has the required responsiveness, nor the ability to split-archive to to-do lists.

No. Listen. You turned it down because a standard archiving solution would do the job. I have explained that it would not. The request was closed and archived (without informing me - as usual). Given the extra information makes your previous reasoning moot, you should reconsider.

The suggestion was that the matters that were concerning "the community" applied to repetitive edits to many pages. This is an Arb's opinion. this does not fall in that category and should therefore be allowed without quibble.

@Casliber: Archiving my talk page was the key issue? I must have been in a different case.

@Jclemens: You remarked "We can deal with specific requests for clarification that pose real problems. 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." On that basis this should be a speedy approval. Lets see if consistency rears its beautiful head.

@AGK " No, it is too early, and I see some value to giving the whole issue some time to settle down." yet you wouldn't give me time to prepare a proper rebuttal?

@ArbCom Saying it is too soon is meaningless. The only thing that is likely to change between now and next week, is that one of us dies. Vague doomsday scenarios where the bot goes berserk and "vandalises all of the Wikipedia" are not helpful. The blanket application of the "remedy" to areas where it is not intended does not help anyone. Moreover, coupled with the committee re-writing the case it creates a bad impression of the committee to deliberately force a user's interaction with other users to be more awkward, for the sake of bureaucracy. Rich Farmbrough, 19:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC).

@Risker: thank you for being the first Arb to approve. Rich Farmbrough, 23:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC).

@Silk: That "let them eat cake" response wholly fails to address the point. Rich Farmbrough, 03:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC).

Statement by Headbomb

I support this. It's completely unrelated to the behaviour that lead to the case, and Wikipedia gains nothing by disallowing Rich to manage his own userspace. This is utterly uncontroversial stuff, and one of the reasons WP:BOTPOL says bots editing the operator's userspace usually don't require approval.

[A]ny bot or automated editing process that affects only the operator's or their own userspace (user page, user talk page, and subpages thereof), and which are not otherwise disruptive, may be run without prior approval.

I hope ARBCOM realize that their "Really, you just asked for some derogation and it was declined... Therefore WP:SPEEDYDENY per WP:IDHT!" does no one a service here. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and arbitrator discussion

• Really? We just turned this down a few days ago. Asking this soon is something bordering on, if not meeting, the idea of WP:IDHT -- asking until you get the answer you want is highly unlikely to work here. Courcelles 04:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
• As a noted sage once said.. "it was deja vu all over again.." we JUST declined this and the answer is the same. SirFozzie (talk) 05:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
• No. And Rich... really. You need to step back and internalize why you were sanctioned and the best way forward for you. Repeated requests like these are not demonstrating that you can adapt to your sanctions, modify yourself, and emerge stronger. Your various posts questioning how the committee conducts itself aren't helping any, either. At any rate, my advice to you: go write some content. Demonstrate that you are most concerned with making the English Wikipedia the best repository of human knowledge you can, even without the automation to which you are accustomed. Just avoid repetitive or trivial tasks, and do something marvelous that will compel the committee to reconsider your sanctions. Please--it's the best way forward for you and the project. Jclemens (talk) 05:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Rich, my sincere apologies that you weren't notified appropriately. I'll find out what happened there. However, the rest of your responses are not particularly helpful. Please read and internalize what User:Thryduulf said here before continuing on your present course. I share his views on possible outcomes and their relative desirability. Jclemens (talk) 07:39, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
• Sorry, not straight after the case where this was a key issue. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
• Per Casliber, but to clarify for Rich: This key issue is not "talk page archiving", but "automation of any kind", and by extension you cannot be trusted to run unsupervised tools. I imagine something like a talk page archival bot could be a first step towards regaining access to automation, if you ever wished to pursue such a route, but at this early stage I am not comfortable having you near a script, bot, or other doo-dah—even if it were to edit only your userspace. Supposing it messed an edit up (these bots always do at some point), you would be required to engage with an editor or even participate at a noticeboard, and then the whole sordid cycle would repeat itself. No, it is too early, and I see some value to giving the whole issue some time to settle down. Decline. AGK [•] 15:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
• Concur with Jclemens in particular on this matter. Risker (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
• Decline. Manual archiving will do what is required. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
• As I said when this request was previously before us, my initial reaction is that Rich Farmbrough's using a bot to archive his own talkpage only strikes me as entirely harmless, and my inclination would be to grant the request; however, I defer to the consensus of the other arbitrators who have commented, and who have the advantage over me of having been active throughout the case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
• Decline.  Roger Davies ^talk 19:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Amendment request: Rich Farmbrough (Nobody Ent)

Initiated by Nobody Ent at 15:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Case affected

Rich Farmbrough arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedy 2

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Nobody Ent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• Rich Farmbrough

Amendment 1

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.

• Change to:

Rich Farmbrough is indefinitely prohibited from using AutoWikiBrowser and any custom automation he has created whatsoever on Wikipedia. For the purposes of this remedy, any edits that reasonably appear to be AWB or custom automation shall be assumed to be so.

Statement by Nobody Ent

Restriction as currently written is overly broad and vague and unnecessary to address the behaviors the community has found to be disruptive. What is "automation" in the context of a internet hosted web server? An absurd-for-explanatory-purposes example: the ping utility tells me that my client is currently using ip address 208.80.154.225 to access en.wikipedia.org, but I don't put that in my browser address bar because DNS automates the process of converting domain names to IPs. The case revolved around customization RF created himself, not standard tools many users use, such as spell check or twinkle. Even a template is a type of automation and is therefore included in the scope of the remedy as currently written.

@JClemens Committee member's interpretation of the current wording are inconsistent [1], [2], [3], [4] and RF's rollback privilege has been removed by arbcom clerk [5] Nobody Ent 16:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC) ...and restored by arbcom member [6] with their interpretation [7] Nobody Ent 19:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

@AGK ya'll can talk about strawman all you want but the diffs above clearly indicate ArbCom has issued a remedy without the individual members actually knowing what it meant. Bureaucratic quibbling over whether this oversight should be pointed out to you via request for amendment, request for clarification, WT:ACN, trouts on all your userpages, email, IRC or smoke signals is contrary to the not pillar. It is ArbCom's responsibility to resolve disputes, not create them, and this ill conceived remedy is causing churn on the noticeboard, user talk , and AN. Nobody Ent 19:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Withdrawn, ain't worth the drama. Nobody Ent 00:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Hammersoft

I don't think this request is a strawman at all. Already two arbitrators have felt that rollback could be reasonably concluded to be automation. Already arbitrators are disagreeing to the point of revoking/restoring his rollback rights because of this disagreement. The evidence here is already plain; if ArbCom can't figure out what automation is or is not, I dare say the community won't either. The restriction isn't so clear as Jclemens seems to think it is. There's apparently still uncertainty as to whether Twinkle or Huggle qualify as "automation". I have to agree with the filer of this request; the restriction as currently written is overly broad and vague. It can readily be used as a bludgeoning tool to generate an insane amount of drama. At a minimum, it should be modified such that any question regarding whether something is or is not automation should be addressed to ArbCom, and ArbCom required to respond via consensus before any block is applied for violation of that restriction. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Sladen

Rather than ArbCom trying to decide "is Rollback automation?", it might be more useful if ArbCom simply decided is Rich allowed to use Rollback. This would solve the case-in-point, without getting side-tracked. —Sladen (talk) 22:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Headbomb

Back on the proposed decision talk page, I suggested this remedy instead. But it's been ignored. Maybe now it will get some attention:

Rich Farmbrough is banned from mass editing regardless of the method, broadly construed, for a period of <INSERT PERIOD>. That is, RF is banned from both running bots and from behaving like a WP:MEATBOT. This does not cover script-assisted vandal fighting (such as the use of rollback), neither should it prevent the use of assisted-editing to make improvements to specific articles, such as putting the finishing touch on an article after a rewrite/expansion, provided RF took part in the rewrite/expansion himself.

Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Bolded the part that's actually important. Automation itself wasn't the problem. Mass-editing like a WP:MEATBOT was the problem. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Anomie

In this edit, SilkTork stated "There are some that it would be highly unlikely would be a cause for concern if Rich used them (such as the one that with one click closes an AfD and does all the tedious stuff very efficiently)". I don't know whether Rich would do so, but it is certainly possible to use that script in a manner that would cause concern. Recall that Fastily (talk · contribs) recently retired in the face of accusations that he was closing so many deletion discussions so rapidly that he was not exercising due care in doing so.

I think the problem some have with Rich is that he obviously likes to make mass edits of various sorts, to the point where it seems he doesn't pay enough attention to whether the edits are needed or are being done right. The hope behind the automation ban, in my opinion, is that he will direct his skills to making a few quality edits rather than large numbers of sometimes-controversial edits, and possibly that he will use his technical skills to assist others who will be able to make assisted edits in a manner more in-line with community consensus (in this, though, I doubt any sanction would succeed; there are enough editors around who would be happy to boost their edit count by making questionable edits, and enough others who would be happy to be proxy for Rich if they thought they could get away with it).

This amendment is proposing change in exactly the wrong direction. Opening up the gigantic loophope that Rich could go back to his old tricks as long as he uses automation created by someone else is an awful idea. If you Rich supporters really want to do some good, let Rich decide what he wants to do and let him apply for amendments. Anomie⚔ 02:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

@Jclemens: That is a valuable clarification, thank you for that. Rich Farmbrough, 18:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC).

@SilkTork: Since it was demonstrated neither that I was "not editing responsibly" nor concomitantly that "using automation either encouraged, caused or multiplied" the hypothetical, it is not surprising that this becomes ever more Kafkaesque. I prefer here Jclemens approach that at least addresses the myth, to the suggestion, however true, that I might be banned due to vexatious wiki-lawyering, and should edit accordingly. I have avoided the discussion about what does and does not constitute automation for two reasons, firstly it is facile per se, secondly it gives credence to the tottering edifice upon which the ruling is founded. Rich Farmbrough, 10:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC).

@WohltemperteFuchs "it's best to simply put in place a clear restriction and then relax on a per-case basis afterwards" .. that's not really working too well right now. Rich Farmbrough, 22:16, 26 May 2012 (UTC).

Statement by Beyond My Ken

I believe Headbomb's suggested change is a good idea, except that it should stop after the word "rollback". The remaining text might provide a potential loophole to justify editing behavior which the community has clearly had problems with. I see no need for the use of automated tool to put the finishing touches on articles, this can be done quite adequately by hand. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf

I think that the repeated dramas surrounding user:Δ should illustrate to everybody why simple, bright line restrictions are preferable to loose ones that give scope for wikilawyering (regardless of who by).

In this specific case, it has been demonstrated that Rich has proven he cannot be trusted to use automated tools solely to the benefit of the project. Until such time that Rich regains the trust of the community (which will likely be several months at minimum and definitely not be until Rich demonstrates he understands why he lost it in the first place) I suggest that SilkTork's statement, "[N]o automated tools, and if in doubt if the tool is automated, then it should be regarded as automated.", is the one that will produce the least drama and thus be the best way forward.

As I see it there are only five possible ways forward, in decreasing order of my preference:

1. Rich takes a step back, groks why he lost the communities trust, lives with and works within the restrictions for a while, then gradually returns to unrestricted editing.
2. Rich continues to work within the restrictions without fully understanding why his actions led to them; the restrictions remain in place indefinitely.
3. Rich retires from Wikipedia
4. Rich breaches his restrictions and gets banned from Wikipedia.
5. Rich (and/or advocates) wikilawyer around his restrictions causing significant drama until the community looses its patience and bans Rich (and possibly one or more of the advocates).

SilkTork's interpretation of the restriction is the one with the greatest chance of avoiding the least desirable outcome. Thryduulf (talk) 23:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Uzma Gamal

"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. ... Should any user subject to a restriction or topic ban in this case violate that restriction or ban, that user may be blocked." Seems clear to me, particularly in view of Arbitrations findings of fact. If one click of a mouse or one press of the enter key on the keyboard results in two or more edits, that's automation. One click, one edit, is a manual edit and is not automation. There's no need to establish that one click resulted in two or more edits, the edits only need to reasonably appear to be automated for an admin to apply the Arbitration enforcement remedy. In other words, Rich no longer is entitled to benefits of Assume good faith when it comes to the appearance of his multiple edits. As a result, Rich Farmbrough, not the admin enforcing the Arbitration remedy, has the burden of proof and Rich Farmbrough's burden is to make sure that there is objective evidence of manual edits independent of Rich Farmbrough to avoid the Arbitration compelled assumption that his multiple edits are automated. Automation assisting a manual edit is not automation and if an admin knows Rich Farmbrough is using Twinkle, Huggle, Snuggle, or whatever to assist his one click, one edit, then a conclusion that such edits appear to be automated may not be reasonable. The Arbitration enforcement remedy is limited to blocking only, so revoking Rich Farmbrough's rollback rights is not an Arbitration enforcement remedy and not a basis to amend the arbitration remedies. The remedy is may be blocked, not must be blocked, so a decision on whether to block Rich Farmbrough for using MiszaBot, for example, to archive his talk page falls under the exercise of good admin judgment. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

@ Beetstra 10:11, 23 May 2012: The remedy reads, "any edits that reasonably appear," not "any edit that reasonably appears." Per the Arbitration remedy itself, the determination of whether Rich Farmbrough is using automation to make edits can be based on looking at two or more edits themselves without having to review the tool or draw a conclusion on the tool used to make those edits. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

@ Beetstra 12:02, 23 May 2012: No, that's not right. It's a two part test, not a one part test. The admin first asks whether Rich Farmbrough's edit(s) is from a one click, more than one edit tool. If yes, automation. If no or unclear, then the admin asks whether Rich Farmbrough's edits reasonably appear to be automated. If no, then no. If yes, Arbitration requires the admin to assume that the edits are automated and act based on that. The Arbitration remedy is that the admin then may block Rich Farmbrough. If the admin doesn't think it warranted to block Rich Farmbrough, then they don't have to. If there still is confusion, the solution is not to make a different remedy for remedy 2), the solution merely is to add to the remedy, e.g., 2.1) Rich Farmbrough is indefinitely prohibited from using AutoWikiBrowser. Most people don't use AWB or their own bots, so other than the desyop, the outcome really isn't that onerous of remedy. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Beetstra

@Uzma Gamal: 'If one click of a mouse or one press of the enter key on the keyboard results in two or more edits, that's automation.' - so, using WP:AWB is not automation: one click, one edit. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

@Uzma Gamal 2: with AWB, you do multiple edits - 2 clicks, 2 edits - 10 clicks, 10 edits - 5000 clicks, 5000 edits. They are all manual. According to your interpretation, the use of AWB would not be automation, yet, we are talking about AutoWikiBot. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

And I wonder what would happen if Rich would do one single edit with AWB. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• All parties are reminded to comment in their sections only. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• This is a strawman. We can deal with specific requests for clarification that pose real problems. 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. Jclemens (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Note that the content of the amendment request has been substantially expanded since it was initially posted, and my "strawman" comment applied to the less refined request. Jclemens (talk) 02:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
• Per Jclemens' first two sentences. AGK [•] 19:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• @Uzma Gamal 10:44, 23 May 2012: I regret to say that I would find such an interpretation to be the most unadulterated wikilawyering, and I certainly think to refuse to consider for enforcement an automated edit because it was made singly would be to misjudge the purpose of the associated remedy. AGK [•] 21:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• I would be interested in an amendment to clarify "automation" as it is becoming a cause for concern that there is no consensus on the matter. I don't feel, though, that this amendment is helpful as the focus is too narrow. The concern regarding Rich is that he was not editing responsibly, and that using automation either encouraged, caused or multiplied the lack of responsibility. Principle 3 says "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." Any script or gadget or tool that makes a series of edits for the human, can be seen as automated. There are some that it would be highly unlikely would be a cause for concern if Rich used them (such as the one that with one click closes an AfD and does all the tedious stuff very efficiently), but I would say for the benefit of avoiding doubt, avoiding arguments, avoiding wikilayering, and avoiding having to ban Rich from the project, that we should have a simple and clear bright line - no automated tools, and if in doubt if the tool is automated, then it should be regarded as automated. My hope is that 12 months of unproblematic edits would lead to a lifting of the restriction. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

@Rich Farmbrough. It would be helpful if you acknowledged the concerns that people have about your editing, and gave some thought as to how you might address those concerns. You say above that it has not been demonstrated that you were not editing responsibly. It was found that you have two community restrictions on your editing - [8], and that you had violated those restrictions - [9]. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• I don't have any problem at all with Headbomb's proposal and think it addresses the problem very well. If there's any support for this, I'll propose that text as a replacement,  Roger Davies ^talk 11:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
• Disagree with Roger, and would oppose that replacement. The need here is a total break from automation. Finding of fact 3 in the case shows why any wiggle-room is a bad idea, and why, in my mind, the remedy had to be so broad. Courcelles 03:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Aomie said it better than I did. There's no reason, like the recent Cirt/Jayren466 amendment, that for good cause, specific tasks can't be approved by motion down the line. Courcelles 03:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• I don't consider Richrd Farmbrough's wording to be an improvement. On the other hand, I think Headbomb's wording is perhaps slightly better, and if this change is proposed, I'll support. PhilKnight (talk) 17:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I can't help but think that making a remedy talking about "mass editing" is going to cause anyhting else other than drama, due to large quanity of discussion about how many edits have to be made to qualify as "mass" editing. It would be good for us to make ..clearer.. what is and what isn't automation, but using terms like this introduces another term whose definition varies by the reader. Courcelles 03:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
• Not finding any of the proposed rewordings to be better than the original, and the initial proposal actually misses the point. I am not prepared to consider a rewording unless there is evidence that Rich's edits are considered to cross the line. Risker (talk) 13:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
• I agree with Risker that Headbomb's text offers a good attempt at a solution but it introduces its own problems. While I see vandal-fighting scripts and the like clearly different from automation in the sense of bot-assisted or batch actions, Courcelles makes a good point--based on the evidence in the case, it's best to simply put in place a clear restriction and then relax on a per-case basis afterwards. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
• Noting that the request has been withdrawn, so further action or discussion here is probably unnecessary. I am willing to consider concrete requests for clarification if uncertainties arise, but I think it would be useful for everyone to allow a bit more time to pass before raising such issues, and for Rich Farmbrough to focus on other aspects of the process that do not come close to the use of automation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

---

Amendment request: Rich Farmbrough (Ncmvocalist)

Amendment 2

Unblocking of SmackBot.

• Change to:

Rich Farmbrough has on many occasions, after another administrator has placed a block on his bot account, used his administrative tools to unblock his own bot without first remedying the underlying issue to the blocking admin's satisfaction or otherwise achieving consensus for such unblock (see block logs of SmackBot, Helpful Pixie Bot).

Statement by uninvolved (?) Ncmvocalist

I am uninvolved in this case as far as I am aware, but I am still making this request. Frankly, the finding of fact leaves the Community with more to speculate about (and is prejudicial to the subject). I ask that if there is support for this amendment, that this be amendment be passed without delay (before more people read finding as it is currently written). Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

@Hammersoft, the current finding is a meaningless observation which only encourages others to further speculate; this amendment somewhat narrows down the reason of why arbs were concerned. Of course, there is no doubt this amendment is also somewhat vague, and clearly, had the drafter of this original finding taken the time to workshop and specify the entries that were especially problematic, this would have been useful to several users - including the subject of the case. But that did not happen; in fact, although the drafter made an observation in his proposing comment, he did not manage to fully incorporate that into the finding. It may not have been intentional, but it's just how it is. Still, at least Jclemens, Silktork and Philknight noticed that more specificity would be beneficial before the case was closed. It may so happen that some other arbitrators did not even notice, or if they did, were 'not fussed either way' that any further specificity was needed (be it before the finding was passed in its current wording, or as you might note from a comment below, in its aftermath) - I think it's a natural consequence of frequently pontificating, but maybe it's just that further evolution is necessary. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Beetstra

I would suggest to tie it down further, to specify for which specific unblocks this is a problem - this now suggests that ALL unblocks performed by Rich were problematic under the description of this (unless of course the committee wishes to say that ALL unblocks were really problematic and did not resolve the issues for which the block was applied). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Hammersoft

Since ArbCom is not required to show a tie between evidence and findings of fact (in my opinion, a serious failing in the structure we've asked them to follow), they can vaguely wave at block logs and say there was a problem without actually identifying what the problem was. This is akin to someone in court over a speeding ticket, and when the accused asks for evidence the prosecution says "look at your driving record". Such a response is woefully inadequate, but this is the construct we've asked ArbCom to perform within.

In this particular case, ArbCom could not seem to get its case straight as to what the problem actually was vis-a-vis the unblocking of bots. Evidence was presented which showed admins routinely unblock their own bots and that policy does not address this case. There is an ongoing RfC to address the issue. This amendment makes a statement not connected to evidence nor in anyway showing how Rich's behavior violated policy. As such, it is void. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

This is terrible revisionism. Arbitrators would do better to simply strike this FoF which

1. is not backed by the evidence
2. does not inform any remedies

Changing it as suggested would give the appearance of revising the FoF to desperately find support for the poorly thought out and hastily enacted remedies.

Rich Farmbrough, 12:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC).

Guys and gals, - really? You are going to re-write a case ex post facto? This is moving into the realm of farce. Rich Farmbrough, 12:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC).

Statement by other editor

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Hard to oppose my own proposed wording, which had two contemporaneous supports. It appears we never got around to modifying the principle, and I unsurprisingly agree that this wording better reflects the issue in this case. Jclemens (talk) 02:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
• I am minded to uphold this amendment in order to clarify the meaning of that finding, but all things considered I am not fussed either way. AGK [•] 10:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. Supported the wording on the case. It looks like we just didn't get around to doing the modification as Jclemens says. I think we could encourage and support Clerks to be bold when checking through a case before closing, and to raise matters such as this, even if they look trivial. Better to delay the close of a case by a couple of days than to have to go through a post-case Amendment. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
• Yes, it would have been better to make this change. If another arb proposes this change, I'll support. PhilKnight (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• Fine, with me. Let's make the change. Which is five out of five in favour. Roger Davies ^talk 02:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
• Abstain since I was inactive in the voting on this case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
• I'm all for the change. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 12:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

---

Amendment request: Rich Farmbrough (Rich Farmbrough)

Initiated by Rich Farmbrough, 22:51, 20 May 2012 (UTC).

Case affected

Rich Farmbrough arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedy 2

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

N/A

Amendment 1

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.

• Append:

Rich to be allowed to use his talk page archiving task. Femto Bot task 2.

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

Note: Editors who have gathered that I am a loose cannon, may be interested to note that the BRFA for this task was almost turned down, since no BRFA is generally needed. However I preferred to have written authorisation. Much good it did me. Rich Farmbrough, 00:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC).

@ AGK. Not so, Misabot does not archive on request, but by date. Moreover it does not allow archiving to different destinations. Rich Farmbrough, 11:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC).

Statement by Hammersoft

Right. Rich is trusted enough to be an editor here, but he's not trusted enough to have a bot that does nothing but edit in his own userspace. From Wikipedia:Bot policy, "any bot or automated editing process that affects only the operator's or their own userspace (user page, user talk page, and subpages thereof), and which are not otherwise disruptive, may be run without prior approval." Any bot that he would run in his own userspace would affect only him, and not the project, unless someone wants to speculatively claim Rich is going to launch a DOS attack. Alternatively, you could speculate that if he's permitted to run a bot in his userspace, he'd maliciously set it free to attack the encyclopedia. If he was planning to do that, he wouldn't be asking permission to let the bot run in his userspace. Wow. The enormous lack of assumption of good faith, combined with the undermining of Wikipedia:Bot policy is stunning. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by CBM

It has to be asked: why aren't the existing archive bots that everyone else uses good enough? — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

It does not have to be asked. Moreover it does not have to be asked by you, you could have bitten your tongue and walked away. That would have been a wise course of action. Rich Farmbrough, 11:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC).

Statement by Sladen

An offer[10] has now been made by User:28bytes to run the archiving task, if Rich provides the source code/accepts the offer. —Sladen (talk) 08:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by other editor

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and arbitrator discussion

• Decline. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
• An archival service like MiszaBot will be adequate. AGK [•] 10:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
• Decline  Roger Davies ^talk 11:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
• Decline as existing tools will suffice SirFozzie (talk) 21:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
• Decline per above. Courcelles 03:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
• Decline. Risker (talk) 13:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
• Decline no need for his own bot for that purpose, anyhow. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
• If the request here is that Rich Farmbrough be allowed to use his own talkpage-archiving bot on his own talkpage only, then unless there is some complication I am missing, my vote would be to permit him to do so, on a theory of "what harm could it do?" It is obvious, however, that the arbitrator consensus is the other way, and I defer to it, especially since these are the arbitrators who participated in the voting phase of the recent case, during which I was unexpectedly inactive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
• Decline And this can be archived now with an absolute majority of arbitrators declining. Jclemens (talk) 00:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

---

Since the arbitrators did not understand the request, thinking that a standard archiving bot would suffice I have opened a new request. It is interesting that the habit of failing to notify me of anything important happening is continuing. Rich Farmbrough, 23:15, 26 May 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

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)

• Changed to oppose, as explained in my re-vote. AGK [•] 15:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

1. 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)
2. 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)
3. 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)
4. 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)

5. 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)
6. Re-voted: Further to this discussion I am satisfied that Rich accepts that, even if his automation is not exposed again by CheckUser, further edits even vaguely reminiscent of AutoWikiBrowser or other automation will be considered a breach of the existing restrictions. I consider this discussion to have extended to Rich an extraordinary final chance, and I will conclude from any further such breaches that the automation ban is completely unworkable and that a site-ban is the only feasible remedy. AGK [•] 15:07, 4 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 - [11]. 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 (RF x 5)

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 [12] [13] 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,[14] 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)

Yes, and why did ArbCom consider to do a checkuser on him? You do realise that those edits CAN be done easily by hand, don't you? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I see automated editors .... and they don't even know they're automated. The US RBI had to set up temporary DNS servers for folks who had been Zlob trojan hacked because people use automation to connect url to ip addresses and don't even know it. When I'm looking for a policy in Wikipedia space, I type in the search box WP: and the first few choices -- and let automation suggest the possible completions. Automation is a fuzzy concept folks bandy about in casual conversation but it doesn't have a universal definition. Nobody Ent 11:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I am afraid that I would be awfully pointy if I would now block Rich Farmbrough for using automation (as 'defined' by ArbCom in the restriction) - I do not need CheckUser for that, it is blindingly obvious. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:24, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

It is. He failed to manually provide a word count and let automation do it. Nobody Ent 11:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Yep, that's another one - one click on a save button - two edits! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:58, 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)

• And there's the problem with that approach; it results in personal interpretations as to what counts as "automation". You of ArbCom have already disagreed as to whether rollback counts as automation. By your above definition (loose enough to drive a truck through), ANYthing could be automation. The approach described by SirFozzie at User_talk:Rich_Farmbrough#The_way_forward_... makes a hell of a lot of sense. The above approach does not. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
• I know that the community is a big fan of the concept of 'if it is a duck, it must quack, lets see if we can make it quack', but this time this duck does not fly, Jclemens. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:06, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Prejudice(preconceived judgments toward people) is a quacking duck and no sensible person should be using prejudice to make a decision. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 09:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

"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." JClemens, 19 May (emphasis mine)

"if it looks like automation, it is automation for the purposes of Rich's sanctions" JClemens 2 June Nobody Ent 11:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• And two counts as "rapid succession" now. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:15, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

To come back to Rich's original point about being hurt with talk of concealment, there's no evidence that he tried a technical solution to conceal a use of an automated tool. And I don't believe he thought that preparing the edit in AWB and cutpasting it into the edit box was using automated tools. He's like the chap who, having lost his driving licence, has harnessed his ox to his car, and is using this contraption to get about town on the grounds that he's not driving it any more. So I don't think he's actually trying to conceal anything. I do hope that a definition that Rich can understand and sign up to can be worked out, because I think he'll stick to it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

LOL, like an addict agrees to stay away from whatever they are on. No chance. This guy cannot and will not stop. He's totally hooked. Read the history and stop trying to kid yourself. Leaky Caldron 17:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that's unfair and unjustified. I think there is an element of finding fulfilment through these activities, but we're not talking about addiction to the pokies here. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:09, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Elen, I honestly do try to assume good faith in my dealings here, as in the real world. Unfortunately my AGF module tends to become blocked by a obstacles called implausibility and common sense. I am aware of the extensive back story here. I have also witnessed the shambolic way Arbcom have dealt with what should have been a simple matter. Desysop. Block. Block again. Ban. Instead of which they are still messing around 3 months later and even asking what punishment the individual is willing to accept! I'll say no more, other than I don't expect RF to be asking his favourite aunt for socks for Christmas. He's too clever for all of you and he'll not be gone for long. Leaky Caldron 20:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Good faith - I have not seen from you on any talk page so far, only snide comments here and at arbcom and a verbal assault on a user with vision impairment at Village Pump. Doubtless the good faith is shown amply on other pages, it would be nice to see it extending here.

Clearly your ability to count to 2 has been obscured by this excess of good faith attempting to escape, and while issue could be taken with certain steps in the case, this motion was raised within minutes (possibly seconds) of my email reaching AGK, so they cannot be faulted on that.

Moreover a cooperative rather than combative approach is to be supported, and the case has always been made (although with a fainter and more querulous voice as time goes by) that punishment is not part of the en:WP ethos.

Of course I thank you for the compliment in the last sentence, backhanded though it is, while ignoring the insidious insinuations.

Rich Farmbrough, 21:24, 3 June 2012 (UTC).

Your welcome. When you have the time can you cross reference the 10 legitimate accounts out of 11 you created following this discussion (ignoring the one blocked by User:John) with the appropriate userboxes as required by alternative account notification. Leaky Caldron 11:44, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Very funny. Rich Farmbrough, 14:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC).

Well it wasn't an accusation, it was a statement of the bleeding obvious. However, upon review I have clearly got it completely arse first for which I publicly apologise to you, Rich. Leaky Caldron 15:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Rich Farmbrough, 00:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC).

The effort put into protecting RF could be better spend in preventing more of the same

I notice different people here wikilawyering over automation and/or checkusering, trying to somehow save their case by reductio ad absurdum reasoning (similar to "if a bot comes along and completes your edit, then your edit is "automated editing" as well", right...). These are in part the same people who during the case (Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough/Proposed decision and the like) made claims like: "I would really like to see what happens if Fram is taken out of this - there are more than enough other community members left over who can report errors to bot operators. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)" and "If problems would be reported without Fram being allowed to report them, then we really know there is a problem. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)"

Meanwhile, I have been fixing some 500 errors created by Helpful Pixie Bot at the end of March 2012 (i.e. right before this case started), which had gone unnoticed for nearly two months and which I only found out about by checking User:Jaguars edits during discussions at WP:AN. These errors were not discovered until after the case was closed (and so not used as examples or taken into account), but are quite typical. Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 49 was approved on March 27, and was supposed to have "Estimated number of pages affected: 170". So after two days of editing, about three times as much errors were made as there were pages claimed to be affected by the bot in total. The bot request claimed that "If there is no such interwiki link a suitable annotation will be made to mark the article as inspected.", but in reality if no interwiki was present, the bot used one from its cache, i.e. a usually totally unrelated other article from that Wikipedia version. The result was articles like Nad lipom 35 linking to the Croation equivalent of Anti-communism, or Sandhofen (in Germany) linking to San Pedro de Buena Vista (in Bolivia).

I haven't done fixing all of these yet, but I think I have found and corrected the vast majority of them. Perhaps some of the defenders and praisers of Rich Farmbrough could first try to find and fix some of his problems (there are undoubtedly other ones lying around still) instead of lamenting here and blaming the messengers? Kumioko at least kindly offered to assist in the cleanup of these errors, which was nice, but most of the others seem more interested in protecting RF than in actually finding ways to avoid the creation of these many errors. Fram (talk) 14:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course it would have been a simple matter for me to have corrected these myself, sans sanctions, and this has already been remarked.

However this discussion is not about why I should use automation, it is about two specific edits which did, so while I thank you for your support in providing reasons to change the outcome of the arb case, this is not the place for it.

Rich Farmbrough, 14:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC).

Just to clarify I never denied that Rich and his bots have made some errors, everyone does and I am 100% certain if the bot was still running and or he was still allowed to use automation he would have fixed these himself or at least participated in that cleanup effort. I have defended him because I recognize that although he and his bots do on occassion intruduce errors I have never seen one that couldn't be easily fixed and these things did not "Break" Wikipedia, It merely required an additional edit from time to time and contrary to what some may try and argue is not really a big deal. The fact remains that Rich has skills that are useful to to the pedia and having him on the bench doesn't really do much for the "big game" so to speak. Even now very few of the bot tasks that his bots performed have been picked up and there are a lot of them. This inclines me to believe that a lot of good work is not going to get done. Kumioko (talk) 15:54, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Fram, I'm pretty sure from looking at Rich's body of contributions and mine that doing whatever I can do to get him working at full speed is going to be more useful to the project than anything else I can spend my time doing. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Here's an idea. Rather than become reliant on others (whether they be bots, bot operators, or those with specialist or technical expertise, why not try and learn to do some of this stuff yourself? In the process, some people might discover that they are: (a) better at doing the stuff, (b) find ways to improve the standard ways of doing things; (c) teams of people working together on something can sometimes be better than individuals doing lots by themselves. That's one of the points of Wikipedia anyway, distributing the workload and not creating points of failure. If the stuff Rich's bots were doing is not being picked up, that is in part because Rich tried to do too much and created a point of failure. Carcharoth (talk) 17:13, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we're "reliant" on any one person; nobody is talking about failure, why did you bring that up? "why not try and learn to do some of this stuff yourself"—Well, I could, but Rich obviously has more time to spend on this than I do, so again the point remains that clearing any roadblocks for him is going to be higher impact than much else I can do. Also, this isn't what motivates me or seems interesting to me the way it is for Rich, so your idea would be pretty bad in my case at least. Wait, are you seriously suggesting that an editor doing "too much" is a problem? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

An editor doing "too much" can certainly be a problem, for them and the project. What do you mean by you "clearing the roadblocks"? Leaky Caldron 17:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with the arguments that he was trying to do to much or that we should all learn to be programmers. I have been programming in various languages for several years and frankly I'm still not very good at it. I can generally hack out what I want but the code certainly isn't sexy and it frequently takes me far longer than someone who knows what they are doing. Of course these arguments are all moot and it hardly needs to be rehashed since Arbcom already made the decision to ban him from automation and kill the bots. I just wanted to point out yet again that there is an error in the perception of some that the entire community is tired of Rich's edits. Just as there are a select few of us trying to get him back to editing, there are a select few that are trying to stop him, Arbcom just chose to go with the latter because their voice was louder and the message easier to deal with. The end result is that the pedia suffers and the edits that would have been done by a bot in a speedy manner will now be done manually, very slowly, if done at all. In direct counter to the title of this discussion string I want to pose a question to you. Can you show me conclusively that that the errors intriduced by Rich or his bots outwayed the positive edits or the help they provided? Including Rich and his bots I am gettings something like 6 million edits, maybe more. Even if they introduced 10, 000 errors (and I am just picking that number out of thin air) that only equates to about .6% which to me isn't all that bad. Kumioko (talk) 18:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

And is there any dispute that he would easily/quickly/happily fix those 10k errors if he wasn't forced to edit with his hands tied? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The 6 million edits and .6% argument is getting a bit tired now. The more edits you do and the faster you do them, the higher the bar should be to get them right. That should be obvious. If large numbers of edits are done fast, even a low error rate means some errors don't get caught at all. That some can't see this is worrying. And typically, for large number of edits done at a fast rate, the error rate should really be 0.01% or lower (and I'm not joking here). Carcharoth (talk) 19:51, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• You've just set an impossibly high bar without the use of automation. Humans make errors they do not detect themselves. As ArbCom has repeatedly pointed out, nobody is expected to be perfect (example). A 0.01% error rate means you expect humans to have only one self-undetected error every 10,000 edits. That simply isn't realistic. Dr. Ray Panko of the University of Hawaii notes here a number of cognitive error rates made by humans in various activities. None of them are .01% or lower. In fact, all but three of them are at least 10 times (and in some cases hundreds of times) higher than your suggested standard. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Caldron; I'm just replying to Fram's post on 14:37, 4 June 2012. I'm not sure how else to clarify what I meant? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Responding to Erik's question, yes, an editor trying to do too much can indeed be a problem. I'm surprised that you are so surprised at the idea. Over-reliance on a few people to do specialised tasks is an example of setting things up for failure if that person goes inactive or AWOL. If someone does a lot in a particular area, that can reduce any incentive for others to get involved. This is also the idea behind requiring bots to be open-source, or at least to build redundancy into the system. The idea is that rather than have one person be the 'expert' or 'go to' person, that you spread the skills throughout the community, passing on the skills to others, so they can step in at a later point if needed. And you also encourage those you pass skills on to, to pass the skills on in turn, so the community is self-sustaining, and doesn't lose skills when people move on or go inactive. I would hope, if I ever wrote a bot or script, that I'd make plans for others to use it in the event I was ever unable to do so. Anyway, this is getting off-topic. Best continued elsewhere. Carcharoth (talk) 19:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Adding briefly to this comprehensive reply, the impact on such an individual should not be overlooked. Pressure brought about by demands and expectations can lead to undue stress, especially when things go wrong. Most people can self regulate such stress, some cannot. Leaky Caldron 19:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Carcharoth, your arguments don't hold up either. By your definition if no edits get done then no mistakes get done. How does that help the pedia. I also don't think that the zero defect mentality your comments infer is needed either. Wikipedia isn't perfect because people aren't perfect. Not me, not Rich and not you. I imaging if I colmed through your edits long enough I would find some I perceive to be incorrect too. I don't think the mentality that some editors have of punishing the editors that are the most active is either good for the pedia or an appropriate way to build it. Kumioko (talk) 20:13, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Getting off-topic? Was it ever on-topic in any way? I get the idea of a SPOF, but what does that have to do with Rich? I can not understand what you thought your original note above beginning with "Here's an idea" had anything to do with anything in this section? If someone is running bots that fix spelling how is that a single point of failure? We won't fail, we'll just have a lot more crappy spelling. Great. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Running bots to correct spelling mistakes is trivial. Are you really saying that Rich is the only bot operator able to do that? It is clear that with the motion that is about to be passed, that ArbCom are giving Rich a very generous second chance. I suggest those speaking up in his support, or in support of the bot work he did, use the chance to work with Rich to work out which of the bot functions are indeed 'irreplaceable' and try and work out what to do going forward, rather than continue to (to use an expression used here) put ArbCom's 'feet to the fire'. For the record Kumioko, my comments were not about a zero defect mentality, and debating with you is difficult because of misunderstandings like that where you appear to repeat what someone said but change the wording used and end up distorting the meaning. It has nothing to do with punishment and everything to do with fait accompli. Mass editing needs checks and balances above and beyond what occurs with normal editing, precisely because the edits are done en masse and (usually) faster than others can check, and the two modes of editing aren't comparable. My point about SPOF was prompted mostly by Kumioko's repeated refrain that 'because of a few editors millions of useful edits won't get done' (that is the SPOF, whether other editors will do those edits or not is the question that needs answering). If anyone wants to have a detailed discussion on some of the things discussed here, that is probably best continued elsewhere, as this motions page will likely get archived soon after the motion below passes. I'll repeat what I said above, those trying to support Rich's bot work here (not just Rich as an individual, but those concerned about the loss of edits that would improve the encyclopedia), would do best trying to identify what needs doing there, rather than railing against the arbitration process. Carcharoth (talk) 02:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

False dichotomy? I'm not sure this kind of patronizing dismissal is going to be too useful or convince anyone that this arbitration case isn't a problem. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

This section is based on an entirely false premise: that editor effort is a commodity resource. Wikipedia is a volunteer based effort -- editors are under no obligation to do anything, we're only obligated to ensure our actions are in accordance with the terms of service of Wikipedia. If I choose to waste my time trying in a good faith if futile effort to get the committee to comprehend how poor a particular remedy was -- as long as done (reasonably) respectfully and not pointy a manner, that's my privilege. Such action in no way obligates me (or any other editor) to fix edits performed by one of RF's bots. Nobody Ent 21:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

break (effort)

In his reply to this at the top, Rich claims that "Of course it would have been a simple matter for me to have corrected these myself, sans sanctions, and this has already been remarked." On 27 and 28 March, you made the error described above on hundreds of pages (despite the claim that the bot task would only affect about 170 pages in total!). By 29 March, you had changed your code to add "no interwiki=yes" to pages without an interwiki link, e.g. here. It didn't occur to you to do the "simple matter" of correcting all these errors at that time? As usual, it came down to someone else to point your errors out to you? If you need to change something in your script, perhaps it is useful to check whether errors were made before that change occurred? If you need constant supervision, you are not fit to run bots or other automation. You have demonstrated this need over and over again, right until the start of this case. Fram (talk) 20:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Fram are you talking to me or Rich? I do not need constant supervision and neither does Rich. Aside from your obvious irritation with imperfect bot edits I think you need to take a step back. Frankly if I had someone hounding me and every edit I made I would likely put them on mute too. There is a subtle difference between identifying complaints and whining and I dare say you have crossed that threshhold several times on Rich's talk page. I understand you don't like his edits but the fact remains the errors were a very small part of the edits he made so we are throwing out the baby with the bathwater by blocking him. There is nothing that can be done about that though, the damage is done, but because of a few editors millions of useful edits won't get done. Kumioko (talk) 21:14, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I waasn't directly talking to you, no, what gave you that impression? As for "imperrfect bot edits", the edits I am talking about were simply wrong, not "imperfect". Fram (talk) 07:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately at the time I when I would have been worrying about that I was blocked by as a result of totally fallacious accusations at AN/I. This consequences of this combative and totally un-collegial, not to say foolish, action will ring down the ages. Rich Farmbrough, 02:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC).

You weren't blocked at the time you corrected the script for that bot task. It gets rather tired, the "I was going to correct it but X or Y prevented it" defense. It still is the same "it's never my fault" defense. But in the two days after you corrected your script, HPBot made over 2000 further edits, and your own account made nearly 2,000 edits as well. Apparently creating the socks categories was more urgent than correcting your errors? As for the "totally fallacious accusations", I suppose that you weren't mass creating these categories in violation of your editing restriction? Somehow your account got compromised or the logs have been tampered with? Fram (talk) 07:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

@Carcharoth, Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard lists at least 16 of the 40+ bot requests that Rich was approved for and I don't see any that deal with spelling so you are over exaggerating the skills necessary to do these tasks but if you believe them to be trivial then by all means take a few of your favorites, submit a BRFA and prove me wrong. I would love to apologize if it means these edits get done. Particularly the WikiProject Watchlist capability formerly donen by Femto bot. I realize that you are a former a member of Arbcom and there is likely some feelings of needing to support them in their hour of need but your comments we assume that we non Arb members are too stupid to know better and that frankly just isn't the case. I personally am glad that Arbcom is letting Rich continue to edit however I wouldn't term it "generous". I don't think its needed at all and frankly its only one of a series of bad decisions lately. The reason its hard to argue with me is because I'm not an idiot and you and other members of Arbcom keep tried to feed me BS thinking I don't know better. For what its worth I am participating in some of the discussions about Rich's Bot tasks that need to be done but the reason I am railing on Arbcom and I suspect that others are as well is because they are making a kneejerk reaction to a non problem because one or 2 admins keep reaptedly submitting Rich at ANI for every edit regardless of whether its right or wrong. People are tired of dealing with the constant complaints and the easiest way to deal with it is be eliminating the guy filling up their watchlists. Kumioko (talk)

Kumioko, my comment on spelling was a direct response to what Erik said about spelling, we may be getting wires crossed here as I was trying to respond to you both in one go. And I'm posting here less in support of ArbCom (I actually think they could have done a better job on the details of the case, but it is difficult to find any case that gets dealt with perfectly) and more trying to point out to those who may not be aware of how quickly things can shut down after motions like this pass. The motion will pass, this page will be archived, some more discussion will probably take place at WT:AC/N (the noticeboard talk page), and then things will start (hopefully) to settle down a bit. Arbitrators will turn their attention to other matters, such as the currently open cases and the evidence being submitted there, and Rich and those concerned with this case will have to live with what the result is. What I'm trying to say here is that at this point (after lots of discussion) a certain amount of pragmatism and practicality is needed. Carcharoth (talk) 02:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Note that the task which yielded these errors also was run for a while (some 325 edits[15]) on his own account, i.e. another example from right before the start of the case of "running bot tasks from a non-bot account" (i.e. "violations of automation policy") and "undisclosed use of automation". The fact that this run contains the exact same errors as the following bot run (e.g. here and here) shows that it is not a manual run of similar tasks, but a bot running from his main account (the edit summary of the first edit here has the telling "build KB" as well, but that is removed from the second one on). Fram (talk) 14:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Fram running edits with his own account is hardly unjustified if he is preparing a task for the bot. Sometimes it can be done with a few edits and sometimes it takes a couple hundred to do right. Thats hardly conclusive or wrong doing and 325 edits on his main account is hardly justification to come after him for not using a bot. I do 500+ edits a day and I don't have a bot. This sort of self misdetermination of vague policies is only one of the many many problems I have with this case. You can say that he violated automation policy but that policy is so vague that its almost useless and no body follows it. The only time its even enforced is when someone like you or Arbcom wants to railroad some editor for doing edits. Other than that it is completely ignored. Your comments above are just more evidence that the whole case since even before it was written up has been a hose job from day one. I can't pick out 1 thing that was done right and that includes your misrepresentation of the policy. Even looking at your edits Fram I see several hundred edits with the description "Correct HPBot error, no corresponding Finnish article seems to exist". Do you have a bot task for that? I doubt it nor do you need one but by your own logic you are violating the bot policy. Kumioko (talk) 14:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself better with bot policy and the like. You are not allowed to run hundreds of bot edits from your main account to "prepare a task for a bot" while waiting for approval of a trial run. Your interpretation that I claim that he was not allowed to make 300 edits a day on his account is not what I said at all, please counter the actual arguments I used and not such strawmen. And please be aware that accusing someone of "misrepresentation" is, according to Rich Farmbrough at least, "[...]accusing me of misrepresentation. I.E. lying. That alone is incredibly bad behaviour[...]". Please indicate clearly where I have misrepresented policy, or don't make such statements. Fram (talk) 14:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

As for the comment you added while I made my reply: no, you don't get it. I make many similar edits manually; he made these edits in fully automated mode, running his bot task from his own account. Perhaps he pressed the "save" button, perhaps he didn't do that, but he clearly didn't make the edits manually or check them, or the errors I found (and which reappeared hundreds of times in the following bot run) wouldn't have happened. Fram (talk) 14:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Fram quite trying to deflect my arguments as a strawman just because you don't like them or don't agree with them. And I understand bot policy fine the problem is that in many cases the rules are explicitly vague and easily manipulated. That goes for my arguments as well as yours so if you don't like the way I am interpreting them its only because they are not clear to begin with. Check the links you included to the ANI's where you and other submitted Rich to ANI. They clearly indicate your interpretations that running multiple redundant items without bot access is against policy as does the inference of your comments above on this very page. Kumioko (talk) 17:37, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Look, the reason Fram suddenly is posting here is fairly obvious. He sees the risk (indeed strong likelihood) that a ban is not going to be effected, and a "mere" one month block pains him. Last time he looked it was done and dusted. So now he's seeing what else he can throw into the mix. Unfortunately for him, the answer is "nothing". Even though the committee's view of me is significantly less rosy than I would like, or indeed I feel and think I deserve, it is not going to be affected by Fram throwing in stuff that belonged in the Evidence phase of the case (if it belonged anywhere), accurate or inaccurate, so there is really no need to respond to these attempts to inflame the situation. Rich Farmbrough, 22:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC).

Please don't speculate on the reasons why people do things, I have refrained from speculating on yours. The reason I posted this is because I was amazed at the lengths some people go to protect you and praise you, while ignoring the many problems there are and were. These are not "attempts to inflame the situation" but attempts to make the situation more clear for the more uninformed readers here, who might get a rather one-sided impression from other comments, which attempt to make this case about a user being nearly banned for one or two tiny errors and a single facepalm comment. While some people are trying to ridiculise things by discussing whether AWB is really, really, really, "automated editing" and whether having a bot make an edit after your edit is a case of you making automated edits, others are actually dealing with the issues which lead to the restrictions, block, and arbcom case. The ban discussions don't come ex nihilo, and the evidence in the case were only examples of a more widespread and too often recurring problem. 07:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fram (talk • contribs)

Please don't speculate on the reasons why people do things. It is not good faith (or good English) to say "people are trying to ridiculise things." People are raising valid points, albeit some of them are rhetorical, which have been discussed before and will be discussed again. Having you jump in with your anti-bellum prejudice still evident disrupts the attempts to reach common ground. As I have remarked before, in the last analysis, it is this that makes you disruptive, not whether you intend or desire to be. Rich Farmbrough, 16:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC).

I thought that there was according to you "really no need to respond to these attempts to inflame the situation"? That people bring up the same points again and again doesn't make them any more valid of course. As for my "anti-bellum" (sic) prejudice: attempting to reach a middle ground doesn't mean that only ArbCom and your defenders are allowed to raise points, otherwise it wouldn't be a "middle" ground but a rather one-sided one. I am not pained about the length of your block, or I would have argued at the case for an immediate ban. All I care about is that decisions are based on facts, and these are sadly missing from many posts by others here. Not a new thing in this case, but you are well aware of that of course. Fram (talk) 17:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Motion on Rich Farmbrough enforcement

For this motion, there are 14 active arbitrators but 2 are recused (Hersfold & Elen of the Roads), so 7 votes is a majority.

It is not in dispute that, despite being indefinitely prohibited from doing so, Rich Farmbrough made automated edits in breach of the sanction on 31 May 2012.

1. Accordingly, Rich Farmbrough is blocked for thirty days from the date of enactment of this motion.
2. To avoid future breaches of whatever nature, Rich Farmbrough is directed:
   1. to blank userspace js pages associated with his account/s;
   2. to avoid making automated edits to pages offline for the purpose of pasting them into a normal browser for posting;
   3. to make only completely manual edits (ie by selecting the [EDIT] button and typing changes into the editing window);
   4. to refrain from edits adjusting capitalisation of templates (where the current capitalisation is functional) or whitespace and similar as these can create the appearance of automation.
3. Further, Rich Farmbrough is advised that:
   1. The prohibition on using automation will remain in place and in full force until modified or removed by the Committee;
   2. The earliest date on which Rich Farmbrough may request that the Committee reconsider the automation prohibition is 15 January 2013;
   3. The Checkuser tool will be used to verify Rich Farmbrough's future compliance with the prohibition;
   4. If Rich Farmbrough breaches the automation prohibition again, notwithstanding the standard enforcement provisions, he will likely be site-banned indefinitely with at least twelve months elapsing from the date of the site-ban before he may request the Committee reconsider.

By adopting this motion, the Committee is extending considerable good faith to Rich Farmbrough, despite the aggravating factors, and notes he has unconditionally accepted provisions to this effect.

Votes RFE

Support

1.  Roger Davies ^talk 19:58, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
2. SirFozzie (talk) 20:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
3. Support as a whole, although I do not believe that the 30-day block is necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
4. Note that I've made several copyedits. I can go with this as very much a last and final chance. If we are back here in 45 days, Rich will be without excuse. Courcelles 21:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
5. Support as a whole; this motion has only minor variances (mainly copy edits) from the version to which Rich Farmbrough himself agreed on his talk page. I note that Rich already blanked his .js page a few days ago. I too do not want to see this matter arise again in 30 to 45 days, and I trust Rich will take this to heart. Risker (talk) 21:34, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
6. PhilKnight (talk) 22:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
7. Per most of that said by my colleagues, and further to my own comments on Motion 1, directly to Rich (which although private, are relevant only to him), and on Rich's talk page. I will consider further breaches to have proven that anything except a site-ban is completely infeasible, but hope this motion sets the record straight for the months ahead. AGK [•] 23:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
8. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
9. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
2. In order to even consider supporting this, it would need to incorporate Rich's acknowledgement of, apology for, and repudiation of his efforts to wikilawyer, deceive the community, and attack the process as a means to attempt to avoid the duly enacted sanctions. The committee has no business "cutting deals" with sanctioned editors who have repeatedly attacked the legitimacy of their sanctions, until and unless the apologies are at least as wide-ranging and without reservation as the attacks have been. Jclemens (talk) 04:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

   I don't see this as cutting a deal, Jclemens, I see this as applying the sanction that we had already approved. I'd put to you that superceding the previously approved remedies and enforcement provisions was where we were "cutting deals". Had another editor taken the same set of facts to Arbitration Enforcement, the result would have been even less stringent than the motion we are currently considering. Risker (talk) 13:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

3. Per Jclemens. Kirill ^[talk] 20:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Abstain

Comments

• Just a note - we are awaiting a final vote from David Fuchs. -- Lord Roem (talk) 19:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion by arbitrators

• The restriction told Rich plain as day, any edit that APPEARS to be automated would be assumed to be so. So a lot of this is a red herring, the copy and paste stuff, if true, is still plainly against the sanction to the point where Rich either knew better, or should have. Given that, there is no reason at all to think we won't be back here in 30 to 45 days. This motion changes nothing. Courcelles 20:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, it puts the Committee in the position of having gone the extra mile, which makes sanctioning him again, if the need arises, in "30 to 45 days" easier and more likely to attract support. When the Committee deadlocks, different solutions have to be found and this motion comes at the situation from a different angle.  Roger Davies ^talk 20:54, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• The paragraph B should use a word like "directed" not "advised", because this motion is a wiki-lawyers paradise the way it is written. And there is a darned good point below about the way the checkuser clause is worded, as well. Courcelles 21:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Well copyedit it them, as you wish. I'm unlikely to oppose either change,  Roger Davies ^talk 21:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Worth noting, Roger, that motion 1 had passed, the clock was ticking, and you stopped it. You had your reasons, which is fair enough, but the Committee was not deadlocked. There was strong discussion on the email list, and you reflected on that and proposed this solution - which appears to be gaining favour. I am concerned that we have here a user who has a history of problems with complying with consensus and has either ignored it completely, used his admin tools to circumvent it, or attempted to evade it as was found in the case and in this situation. However, it appears this motion will carry, and I hope that Rich will take on board that Wikipedia operates by discussion, consensus, good faith and trust - all of which are exemplified by what is happening in this series of motions: the Committee have continued to discuss, and have extended good faith and trust to Rich, and if the consensus is to block for thirty days, that is what will happen. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Moved discussion from "oppose" section because no vote appears to have been entered, and adjusted formatting appropriately. AGK [•] 23:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

General discussion (RFE)

There is a typo in C iv "may request the Committee may reconsider." Leaky Caldron 20:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Fixed thanks,  Roger Davies ^talk 20:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I realize that I have been a major thorn for the committee but I appreciate the clarification on his automation. I would recommend for future cases a detailed description of "automation" similar to the one above be used. I also recommend reviewing the wording of C.iii. It could be inferred by how it is written that it wasn't authorized before and opens the door for inferrences that it may have been used inappropriately. Kumioko (talk) 20:17, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't think it's necessary. Checkuser discretion is so very wide that there's really no need to justify use of it earlier. This is more in the nature of a very explicit warning,  Roger Davies ^talk 20:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

No problem Roger thanks. I'm not sure I agree in principle with the statement "Checkuser discretion is so very wide that there's really no need to justify use of it earlier" but thats a matter for another discussion. Kumioko (talk) 21:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• There's a larger question at play there with respect to Checkuser. Inappropriate for this thread, so will post the remainder of my thoughts to your talk page. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Typo in the first line; "is not in" should be "is in" Nobody Ent 22:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

That's not a typo; Rich does not dispute that he saved edits using a hacked AWB script. Courcelles 22:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

@Silktork. I am a little bothered by the attitude that you are displaying regarding Rich's edits. There are a whole lot of fabrications and misinformations in your statements above that simply aren't true. Its true that Rich has done some bad edits but we all have, its also true he unblocked his bot, every single bot operator I have ever seen has done so once the problems were addressed but only now is it an issue, A new requirement. To say he has a history in the way you do above though is a pretty big stretch. Has he had some users complain yes, but several of these users are also guilty of hounding and picking at his every edit. I understand you don't agree and you have your own feelings about the situation and that's fine but your stretching the story beyond whats true. Kumioko (talk) 23:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I cannot respond for SilkTork, but I do think he is completely correct that Rich's violation of all manner of BotOp, administrator, and consensus policies has been serious enough to disrupt the project; this conclusion, and its factual basis, is not disputed by anyone. For the most part, the only disharmony is about whether to give Rich another chance would be to waste our time. AGK [•] 23:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

'not disputed by anyone' you say, for the record is it disputed by me. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Or me? I don't deny that he's made some mistakes but I still think that he does way more good for Wikipedia than harm. Kumioko (talk) 00:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• @AGK, and agreeing with SunCreator; I haven't commented on the veracity of the first line of this proposal because I could see a narrow defined case where ArbCom thinks it the case that Rich conducted automated editing. But, to now say that it is "not disputed by anyone" is absolutely false. Two edits is not automation. Copying and pasting is not automation. Making copyedits is not automation. I dispute all of those claims, as do quite a number of other people. ArbCom gets to save some face with this proposal by modifying the truth and by finally coming up with a definition of automated, after having their feet to the fire for weeks. That's (barely) good enough. You don't get to stretch it to include a grandiose statement of nobody disagreeing. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
• For the record, I agree with SunCreator as well. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Also for the record, I have a VERY hard time seeing "Using automation to do an edit, not checking it before you C&P into a new window and hitting enter" is anything BUT. SirFozzie (talk) 05:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
    • "not checking it before you C&P" .. ?? That is the same faulty assumption as that ArbCom used against Δ. And for the rest, well, it is exactly as I said, I'll have a look whether it was still while the case was open, or whether it was already closed - Can ArbCom now PLEASE re-do their 'Remedie' regarding automated edits. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

@SilkTork: Above, you say "motion 1 had passed, the clock was ticking"; I'm confused. Could you point to the procedure, guideline, what have you about how motions pass or don't pass and what this clock is? At one point RF1 AND RF3 were passing (numbers were 6 needed for majority at the time). Was the clock ticking then? If so, which one passes? Does the clock keep on ticking when all active arbitrators haven't voted? Where is this process written down? --Hammersoft (talk) 00:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• On Hammersoft's bit about the clock ticking and where this is documented, I believe (but may be wrong on this) that the clock used here is similar to that used at the requests page, in that motions are implemented 24 hours after the vote that causes them to pass. That should be documented at WP:AC/P, but doesn't seem to be explicitly. The closest would be Wikipedia:AC/P#Motions to close. The exact procedure used here should be documented both at WP:AC/P and at the top of this page. In the absence of any explicit procedure, nothing gets implemented until an arbitrator or clerk has actually done the sums and checked if something is passing, and posts some form of implementation notes, and those implementation notes would normally include a time at which the motion will be archived by the clerks. Sometimes this drags out a bit, though, as you are seeing here. It all depends whether you want an ArbCom that can be flexible to give a bit more time to hammer something out, or an inflexible ArbCom where things get pushed through because there is no way of 'stopping the clock'. If this motions page is going to be used a lot, something explicit explaining the procedure here would be useful. Carcharoth (talk) 02:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Hammersoft - I would like to answer your question from a purely procedural/clerical standpoint. Yes, at one point both RF1 and RF3 were numerically passing. However, as two votes of support on RF3 were conditional on RF1 not passing, those votes were functionally dropped and RF1 would have carried. So at one point, RF1 would have been enacted. Lord Roem (talk) 02:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC) Additional note: Hammersoft, the number of majority was always seven. The original count was incorrect since it counted one arbitrator out twice (inactive and recused), which inappropriately lowered the majority. Seven is necessary with the current numbers. Lord Roem (talk) 03:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I am reluctant to get in another discussion, but there does seem to be a willingness to go beyond what is found in the case, and since Arbitrators are already aware that there are a significant number of people who have substantial issues with that as a datum, I would have expected them to avoid going further, out of integrity , and not to make unnecessary references to the case conclusions, simply out of politeness, collegiality and caution. For example, without loosing any punch AGK here could have said "Due to the conclusions of the Arbitration case, and the facts of the present incident, for the most part, the only disharmony is about whether to give Rich another chance would be to waste our time."

This would avoid casting additional aspersions, and still provide the necessary conclusion, in a far tighter way, benefiting both the committee and me. (If on the other hand the committee is adducing matter extraneous to either the case or the present incident, then they should clearly state what it is, but there has been no indication that this is the case.)

Rich Farmbrough, 00:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC).

@Kumioko. I have no problems in itself with Rich using automation, nor with any errors in his editing - we all make errors, and my understanding from Rich is that he has analysed his edits and finds in percentage terms that he makes less than the average user; my problem lies with what might be better termed as the conflict history regarding those edits. Other people, not me, have had issue with his edits. As a member of the Committee I am far more interested in Rich's conduct regarding how he responds to enquiries and concerns about his edits. My feeling is that ArbCom does not get involved in content disputes, which would include adjudicating if removing white space is good or bad, or creating sock-puppet categories is good or bad. I am not concerned about these edits, and will not pass comment on them. What troubles me is Rich's conflict history which has shown him to be reluctant to accept other people's concerns about his edits. While I am not supporting this motion, I understand why it is being made, and why other Committee members are supporting it, and I think it reflects well on ArbCom that this series of motions has been made in order to fine tune a solution until a consensus could be reached. I think it appropriate to leave my oppose to show that not all Committee members support the solution, so the outcome is not unanimous, but that all Committee members will accept the outcome. I like and agree with what has happened here, even though I do not support the actual motion. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

You hit an important point, SilkTork: 'Other people, not me, have had issue with his edits'. And because 'other people' have problems with the edits of one ... --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Well his "behavior" towards 99% of editors is perfectly fine its the ones that are constantly hounding him about every edit and complaining about every edit he makes that receives the generally negative responses. In general though, looking back on the case what you describe as hardly discussed and what the case seemed to center on was minor edits and how he filled peoples watchlists. I also do not think this is being done until a consensus can be reached. Arbcom isn't looking for a consensus they are looking for a solution. IMO if Arbcom really wanted to the right thing in this case they would have spent a little time addressing these editors and their practice of hounding which the last time I read the rule book is generally not acceptable behavior in WP either. Kumioko (talk) 11:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

It's ArbCom's job to find a solution. If a consensus could have been reached there wouldn't have been a case opened. Nobody Ent 12:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

'If a consensus could have been reached there wouldn't have been a case opened.' - Have you seen other forms of dispute resolution before this? And RfC/U on Rich? Did you see why this case was opened? An (hence recused) Arbitrator brought the case before ArbCom, without considering other forms of dispute resolution. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• Just to clarify, I am talking here about consensus within the Committee. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• We are not disputing that, SilkTork. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, on WP:AN. see also Elen's attempt to resolve. Nobody Ent 14:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for not finding the RfC/U as a step in WP:DR ("other dispute resolution mechanisms include requests for comments, mediation or, after all other methods have been tried, arbitration."). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom is commenting in a number of places on Rich using a "hacked" version of AWB, carrying the connotation that this is "bad". I remind everyone that AWB is licensed under GPL. ArbCom has no jurisdiction to prevent, and the GPL license on AWB allows Rich to do whatever modifications to AWB that he sees fit to perform. Anyone can dislike the idea of Rich modifying AWB all they want. But, there is nothing wrong in him doing so.

In my opinion where he made an error was in not modifying the code he was using to prevent it from making actual edits. If he wants to use it to whatever purpose he desires, so long as it is not making any edits there is no wrong being done. I fail to see that using AWB in the manner he was attempting (with it not editing Wikipedia) was some effort to deceive the community or that he was snubbing his nose at ArbCom. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

RF has validated that description, not worth arguing over. Nobody Ent 14:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Anyone can hack AWB under the terms it is distributed, but ti doesn't mean they can then use their hacked version on this wiki. Anyone wishing to use the tool on this project 'MUST be either an admin, or have their username listed at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage. Hacking AWB is fine, using hacked versions on the English Wikipedia is still subject to the conditions of use the "stock" version comes with. Courcelles 14:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I partially agree with that assessment Courcelles except that Rich was an admin and AWB allows it to be modified by allowing custom modules which can override established built in functionality. I'm not trying to open a bigger can of worms here but by allowing that we open the door for "hacked" versions of AWB. The fact remains that Rich was and IMO still is a trusted member of the community and that was confirmed by his approval to be an Admin so although AWB cannot be used and modified by just any editor, it is possible and allowed. Kumioko (talk) 15:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Like "automation," as first blush this would seem to be a reasonably well defined statement -- but it's not. If I modify an open source browser (e.g. Mozilla Firefox) with 20 lines of AWB, is that a hacked AWB, or a hacked firefox? Is a user's browser even any of Wikipedia's business? Focus on the server (which is what you can control and monitor). Nobody Ent 16:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• @Nobody; Rich wasn't agreeing there was some malfeasance on his part. Rather the opposite. The implication is Rich was intending on deceiving the community. I don't see that. There is absolutely nothing wrong with him modifying the AWB code. The wrong is in the two edits he accidentally did through it, and also that he didn't modify the code to prevent it from doing that. To pejoratively describe his modifications of AWB is wrong. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• Not necessarily pejorative. Nobody Ent 16:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• Much in the same way that a monsoon isn't wet, you mean :) --Hammersoft (talk) 17:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, the use of the word "hacked" without disambiguation is unfortunate, moreover the writ of ArbCom does not run either to what happens on my hardware, or wetware. That is clearly the reason that

1. The initial wording was "advised" rather than "directed"
2. The phrase "what appears to be automation will be deemed automation"
3. Nobody Ent said "server side, server side, server side"
4. Pen said (paraphrase) "disruption should be defined as noticeable"

Obviously these arguments are sophistry to most. Rich Farmbrough, 22:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC).

I'd love to hear one Arbcom member describe how Wikipedia will be a better place after some ban is imposed on Rich...William 18:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, an ex-arbcom member pointed out above that now other folks will get to learn how to do what Rich has been doing. Maybe we should ban some more of our most prolific members?ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

You can refer to me by name. It is considered polite to do that when you over-simplify what someone says to the point of misrepresenting it, even to the point of being patronising, which is ironic as above that is what you accused me of being. The point I was trying to make above was that some of Rich's bot tasks can be done by others, and something could be worked out regarding the other ones. Those who really believe what they say about some of the edits being vital to the encyclopedia would be doing that (working out how to ensure the edits are still done), and separating that objective from any involving Rich as an individual. The other point is that being prolific is not a 'defense'. Just as good contributions are not just weighed against bad ones (that is a simplistic formula that should never really be used, the real metric should always be the intrinsic nature and scope of any disruption caused), so the number of edits someone has made shouldn't factor into decisions like this. The concerns I've seen from some people thinking that this is some 'campaign' against those with large number of edits beggars belief. Merely having the time and the skill to make large numbers of edits is not enough. You have to be able to adjust and change those edits and even your whole approach, when valid objections are raised. Those doing mass edits also need to realise that making large numbers of edits naturally increases the potential for such objections, and if you are going to develop in that direction, you need to avoid adopting an inflexible mindset. If a team of people eventually managed an array of bots or scripts or programs of AWB-assissted editing that did everything Rich did, and Rich managed to cope with a period of manual editing and at some point return to automated editing, the encyclopedia would look just the same (it doesn't care who does the edits, as long as they get done). Carcharoth (talk) 23:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

In that big long statement there are a couple of very interesting statements and assumptions. The first one that caught my attention was that you assumed that the complaints were "valid" some where, most where not. A lot of the arguments were based on "minor edits" and "filling up watchlists". Neither of which is a compelling reason to ban someone or even ban them from automation but that's what the majority of this cases evidence was about. Mostly by the same 3 or 4 people. The fact that the case was initiated by a member of Arbcom is all the more compelling. Another thing you inferred was that some of us should do some of the bot tasks if we feel they are important. I would but I had my own problems with running a bot, namely a series of complaints about the scope of WikiProject United States, so now I have no desire to operate one even if I thought they would approve it. Which I don't. The Wiki culture of today would rather edits don't get done at all then to have a few minor edits or mistakes that are easily fixable. I also think its pretty funny that you stated if a "If a team of people eventually managed an array of bots or scripts or programs of AWB-assissted editing that did everything Rich did". This statement actually made me laugh because with all your attempts at minimizing the impact to the pedia that will be caused from this that statement sums it up pretty good. It will take a lot of people and a lot of bots to accomplish the same thing. Because Rich devoted a ton of time and effort to the pedia. The last statement is also kinda funny. The "pedia doesn't care who does the edits as long as they get done". The problem here is they probably won't get done. Kumioko (talk) 00:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, because of the community's attitude, officialised by ArbCom, things will not get done. 'The encyclopedia would look just the same' Those words are very true, the same as now, as more of your knowledgeable editors will simply step aside and Wikipedia will simply not change for the better. You see that Kumioko is already one of them. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

When I was about four years old I dropped a threepenny bit down a drain in the street. I realised that, in a real sense, I would never recover that thrupence. For although I might save up again, I could have had the drain threepence and the saved up threepence. Similarly I could ask my father for threepence, but if he gave it to me, I could have had that and the lost money. I considered searching for lost coins, searching the coin return on vending machines, which had paid off so well in the past. Regardless the situation was unchanged. I was, and would always be, worse off than I was before. Even statistical and chaotic interpretations agree with this analysis on some level.

The same applies here. If people "take up the slack" they could have been doing something else, possibly something they are more suited too.

The second point, of course, is that Cacharoth's argument also assumes that my contributions are static. People may well take up the tasks I was doing in the past (and I have encouraged redundancy in those tasks), but they will not necessarily take up the tasks I would have done in the future. Rich Farmbrough, 16:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC).

Exactly! Carcharoth, I never intended to be at all patronizing to you (and I don't think I was), that was supposed to be sarcasm—it never occurred to me that you were in fact trying to ban editors for being prolific, of course! Those who really believe what they say about some of the edits being vital to the encyclopedia would be doing that—an emphatic no, as RF has since pointed out right here. I mean, maybe we'd be doing it, if we'd be doing it anyway. In any case, blocking someone for fixing spelling mistakes is almost surely not part of the best plan for recruiting spelling fixers—my only points being, so it is clear that I'm not trying to insult anyone, is that this can not be seen as a positive outcome of any of this and this oughtn't be used to try to placate those who think these sanctions against Rich are too much considering that no harm appears to have been done. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

@JClemens. After the rather scathing comment you left I felt obliged to reply. Rich has not been the onnly one commenting about the process. The fact is this case has invited questions and concerns from the moment an arbitrator opened it, continuing through the assumptions and preconceived notions by the members of the committee through the case all the way until now when a motion to ban him was being considered, which goes against an agreed escelating series of blocks approved by the committee. IF the committee doesn't want criticism for its decisions then it should be making wiser ones than to pass a motion and then come back and create a new one that contrasts it so drastically. Th bottom line is that the process of Arbitration needs a major overhaul and the members an attitude change. I do note that the committee has been very good in considering adopting some new policies and enacting some changes based on comments received by myslef and others in this case but here are a few more suggestions that may help in making some of these changes.

1. Arcom members should not be making preconcieved notions of guilt
2. Arcom should be reviewing all the facts of the case including whether the submission is even valid. Not taking one sides word for it.
3. An arbitrator should not be able to submit a case, this violates COI for several reasons.
4. If Arbcom decides on a certain remedy then they should stick to that rather than create a new motion to change it, which creates even more anxiety for all involved.
5. If the Arbcom is going to alter how an existing policy is interpretted, which was done in this case a couple times, then that change should be implemented prior to being used against a defendant in the case.

There are plenty more but these are some for folks to chew on for now. Kumioko (talk) 18:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Just want to be clear, re: #3 -- the two arbitrators who filed the case were recused from its consideration. That means they are completely uninvolved in any formal discussion of it amongst members of the Committee, obviously cannot vote on any proposals, and are given the same consideration as any other editor submitting evidence. -- Lord Roem (talk) 19:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

In fact, when we deliberate on a case with recused arbitrators, we generally set up a sublist that does not include the recused arbitrators so there's no chance of influencing discussion (for example, on the Fae case, there are a couple recused arbitrators, so we use the sublist "arbcom-en-b" list for that case's discussion, requests for private evidence/complaints etcetera. SirFozzie (talk) 19:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying I certainly didn't know that you set up a special sublist so that does make me feel a little better. I still have a big problem with Arbitrators submitting cases though, especially 2 of them. Recused or not, the mere fact that they have a certain repore and working relationship with the other members of the Arbcom presents a large shadow on the case. It automatically begs the question of COI and fairness regardless of the utopian notions that we all would like to believe. Its human nature to favor those that you know and its hard to separate that. I do think it would be nice to clarify that somewhere so that its clear to folks that is the procedure. I'm glad I was wrong but frankly that was the first I heard of it and envisioned them discussing the case with the other arbs offwiki (IRC or whatever) even though they didn't vote on its outcome. Its still a problem for me although granted less of one that before. Kumioko (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

This is my feeling too, Kumioko, and though I am not generally in favour of exceptions, it seems to me that giving up the opportunity to bring an Arb case for the term of one's appointment would not be a particularly onerous requirement. It is to be noted that the original proposed decision was something more extreme by community standards (personally I would rather have been banned than loose the sysop bit, but that's just me) than the proposer expected, and certainly Elen has been completely reasonable, by her lights. Nonetheless, fellow arbitrators are the in group, mails do get sent to the wrong list, and if more than a very rare case were raised by an arb, the question of justice being seen to be done, at the very least, would be raised. Rich Farmbrough, 19:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC).

• Rich, I think the suggestion of giving up the ability to submit a case for arbitration for an arb term is a great suggestion. I doubt there are few courts in developed nations of this world that would allow a panel of judges to make court decisions about another judge who presides in the same court. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

To expand on that slightly, IMO, if the situation was as dire as it has been made out to be by some then there should be more than enough members of the community that would be willing to submit the case for consideration and it would not need to be done by two Arbs who are intimately familiar with the process, how one needs to be worded to succeed and the rules by which the process works. Kumioko (talk) 20:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

@Hammersoft: Interesting you should raise that issue. Actually, the Judicial Conference of the United States will investigate complaints made against Judges, sometimes referring that Judge for impeachment to the House of Representatives or others issuing a reprimand (similar to the one in this RF case). One time, there was a judge who was reprimanded by the same panel of judges whom he worked with. So, your statement that no nation "would allow a panel of judges to make court decisions about another judge who presides in the same court" is inaccurate, at least in some respect. Lord Roem (talk) 20:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

@Hammersoft. It's not as unusual as you think. The UK has a system of Recorders, these are barristers (attorneys) who sit as part time judges for criminal trials. On the days, they're not sitting as judges, they defend/prosecute in the normal way, often in the same courts. There's a civil parallel as well as with deputy Masters, who also sit part time, gaining experience for a permanent appointmnent to the bench later. In any case, law is a small world. Advocates will often know the judges they're appearing before socially and, indeed, with circuit courts, get together with the judge for dinner.  Roger Davies ^talk 20:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Nostalgia

I was just glancing at some of this case. I had forgotten just how laughably appalling the conduct of the case was. Really time to start to unwind some of it I think. Rich Farmbrough, 00:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC).

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Archived request and motion

Amendment request: Rich Farmbrough (Rich Farmbrough 2)

Initiated by Rich Farmbrough, 05:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC).

Case affected

Rich Farmbrough arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Finding 8

Strike this finding completely.

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

Information about amendment request

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

The finding reads:

Rich Farmbrough has on many occasions, after another administrator has placed a block on his bot account, used his administrative tools to unblock his own bot without first remedying the underlying issue to the blocking admin's satisfaction or otherwise achieving consensus for such unblock (see block logs of SmackBot, Helpful Pixie Bot).

Let us analyse the block logs referred to in the finding:

There are a total of five unblocks by Rich Farmbrough on HPB's block log

1. 22:20, 30 April 2012

   Procedural unblock

2. 00:29, 2 April 2012

   Procedural unblock

3. 19:03, 14 March 2012

   Summary makes it clear that the problem is fixed and User:NuclearWarfare had said "Feel free to unblock without asking me whenever you get that bug fixed."

4. 23:39, 17 October 2011

   Unblock of temporary self block

5. 15:26, 16 September 2011

   Procedural unblock

Hence none of these fit the criteria

There are a total of seven unblocks by Rich Farmbrough on the SmackBot block log

Of a block by Fram (re-blocked by MSGJ)

1. 09:14, 3 February 2011 and
2. 15:56, 2 February 2011

   Fram was completely clear in this comment "I have no objection to you unblocking the bot solely to continue with the "build p605" edits"

3. 13:16, 29 August 2010

   Ucucha says "Feel free to unblock when you've fixed the problem"

4. 08:52, 4 May 2010

   CBM says "Unblocking your own bot in order to avoid fixing [it] would be an abuse of your administrator abilities. However, I assume that in this case you have fixed the problem before unblocking the bot." And indeed I had.

5. 10:33, 28 December 2009

   Arthur Rubin said "Sorry. Feel free to unblock"

6. 18:39, 9 December 2007

   Ryan Postlethwaite said "Feel free to unblock when it's corrected." and later said "sorry for making the block. Feel free to unblock when you're ready"

7. 13:17, 24 December 2006

   It is clearly stated in the unblock summary that the contentious task has been stopped.

So rather than their being "many" occasions, there are in fact zero occasions.

Rich Farmbrough, 05:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC).

Response to discussions

I would understand some prevarication if we were talking about matters of opinion. But we are not. We are talking about plain matters of fact. No one has pointed to a single instance that matches the accusation. Ever. It has been left to me to exhaustively research these actions, rather than for some accuser to present evidence, let alone proof of what was added without discussion, after the case. I would have thought that demonstrating explicit approval for unblock in every case bar one, which was incidentally before the policy was changed would make this an open and shut case, and indeed I have done more.

I am, though, happy to address the points raised by Arbitrators.

@Roger: Fairly clearly from the discussion surrounding the original FoF this relates to situations where the bot was (or was perceived to be) making incorrect edits. Broadening the scope ex post facto is, I'm sure, not something you would wish to do.

@Worm: Re the Ucucha case, the reason I stated "as far as possible" is that the bug was due, as near as I can remember, to category lag, which is less of a problem these days. I was reluctant to say it was fixed, then have, for some obscure reason, the bug recur, and get into wiki-drama at AN/I or something. Ucucha did not respond with "Don't unblock then" but "I hope it works"

@Silk: I think that the community has never expressed an opinion on "theses incidents". I think also that it is a mistake to assume that simply because I don't want this false FoF to stand that I am not aware of the reasons people were concerned. I would go further, different people had or have different concerns, and I am open to discussing all of them, and assuaging all but the most outlandish. For example I proposed a remedy which which would forbid me from continuing with a task that had caused errors until all errors had been corrected - or face blocking. This would address the concern of a critic that I "expect other people to fix my mistakes". That proposed remedy was not incorporated in the draft or final resolution - so it was not I that was ignoring "concerns with my conduct". I would be happy to discuss with you any other concerns about my conduct - indeed I will initiate such a discussion. And I can assure you that I would certainly not dream of unblocking one of my own accounts these days.

Well I attempted to initiate a discussion, but Silk deleted it without comment. Apparently I am persona non grata on his talk page, and snubbing me is more important than resolving his concerns.

@Coren: Of course the unblocks happened - in every case but the 2006 (when we were all still feeling our way) the blocking admin made it crystal clear that an unblock by me was not a problem. I don't know how well you remember the original case but the blocks were seized upon as being contrary to policy. In discussion it came out that they were not. They were however left as a FoF - which is a shame, because although the FoF didn't say I was wrong to unblock, there is certainly an implication by them being in a FoF that they are (or were) bad. Subsequently a motion was brought to change the wording to a far more damming, and inaccurate, version. No specific unblocks were cited to support this version. And whether the unblocks were justified is important, but not relevant to this FoF, what is relevant is that there was permission to unblock, contrary to the implication.

I respect the effort you put into your research. You will know, then, that this finding is irrelevant to the "disposition", therefore it's removal does not weaken the case at all. As such it is more of a BLP violation that the things that started the case off. As to other findings, if the committee, on reviewing them, found them unsustainable, then it seems to me that would be a good thing. I am afraid too that you miss the main argument of the findings. The concern was not over my editing, but over my interaction with other editors. Well I proposed methods for dealing with those issues, in response to NewYorkBrad's questions, which would have worked whether the concerns were actually valid or not. I should perhaps regret the time spent developing these collegial solutions, and wish that I had been more aggressive, but I do not.

If you can propose a way forward that does not leave me a leper in the community, tarred with the ArbCom brush, and feathered with editing restrictions, stripped of not only the rights to help the project in ways that it desperately needs, but of the rights a random new editor would enjoy then I am all ears.

@Salvio: Even though "occasionally" (or even "once") would be a very negative outcome for me, if that's what you believe you should stick to it. If you "go with the consensus" then you add nothing - I would rather you said every unblock was bad than go against what you believe is the case. As an Arb you can, of course, propose a motion, with your preferred wording.

@Carcharoth: Sure I'm willing to move on. The reason that I said "unwind" the case is that there is a great deal of it which, it seems to me, follows Silk's model "You haven't internalised your guilt, you are not ready to be rehabilitated". I was hoping that by sticking to small parts of the case they could be considered objectively, rather than as a monolithic block, with some ten or twenty people muddying the waters (however well meaning). And when I said the case was laughable, I do mean that. I made fundamental mistakes, for example I should have turned down the unblock to take part in the case, and insisted the case wait until I was unblocked. As it was I proposed a derogation to allow me to work on defence notes in my user space that was ignored by arbitrators. I then asked for time once the block had expired to prepare a defence, this was refused. It is a horrendously time consuming task, even to disprove a negative like this. Arbs, who, I submit, accepted the previous amendment with no diffs and no supporting evidence, should accept this one which is backed to the hilt.

Oh and you should also know that the initial attempts to amend the case were turned down as "too soon after the case".

I was intending to move on by simply showing evidence for most of the findings being false. We could then review whatever remains and come up with a useful solution. Addressing them all at once would likely result in a quagmire, indeed this highly focused amendment has already been pulled in several different directions.

Now as to moving on what would you propose? Personally I can see a bunch of ways of moving on, but leaving statements up that say I am "gratuitously uncivil" is not part of any of them (well perhaps of the most severe way). Especially when the diffs include things like saying "Tosh" - no one these days says "Tosh" unless they are being self deprecating. (Whoever included this in the findings must have had some reason. It would be interesting to know what it is.)

@Risker: The issues that brought me to arbitration in the first place were solved even before the case was opened. The case itself was about how to resolve other issues, where progress was being made until the drafting arb changed - it then became a mud-fest. Your suggestion that I am an unperson until I conform to your views is not helpful. This FoF is simply wrong, and for that reason should be struck. Or maybe you subscribe to the Jclemens view that "Justice and fairness are secondary"?

Rich Farmbrough, 19:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC).

@NewYorkBrad:

1. A procedural unblock is one that corresponds to a procedural block - I.E. a block that was made for procedures sake. In these cases the procedure is "we block you, we block your bots." (We should, of course, not have any such blocks, it is pure bad manners, and an assumption of bad faith, it would be better to ask the bot master to turn off his bots for the duration of the block.)
2. I did not post this rebuttal while the case was pending, because this FoF was not part of the case. This FoF was added, to my dismay and disbelief, after the case. The Fof that it replaces was toothless, having been created by someone who thought that merely unblocking one's own bot was de-facto a policy breach, good process would have resulted in that FoF being struck when it was shown to be irrelevant.
3. I do mean the word "prevaricate" but not in the legal sense, which I was unaware of, but in the normal senses listed by Chambers "to quibble". And, while Coren and Carcharoth seem to be forward looking I am dismayed, both my own lack of foresight, and those responses that speak to my state of mind, rather than the truth of the allegations.

Rich Farmbrough, 23:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC).

@AGK: I don't think I suggested a miscarriage of justice. I am simply asking for an incorrect FoF to be withdrawn. Since the FoF was not used to support any of the remedies it does not bear on the overall "justice" of the case. I am curious why you think that it is a good thing to maintain a statement that is inaccurate. Maybe you would like to consider how you would feel if Wikipedia posted false and negative statements about you? Generally this is considered a bad thing, best remedied. I can see that, obviously, I am less deserving of consideration than someone who has never edited Wikipedia, or who has never challenged the status quo, but I am surprised by the defensiveness I am getting from some arbitrators here. Rich Farmbrough, 03:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC).

Incidentally "most" of your other colleagues have not said decline. Rich Farmbrough, 11:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC).

There are currently two decline votes, including yours.

I can see no argument that the finding is correct.

The way it moves us forward is to remove a finding that is false from the record. It also corrects the procedural errors of the previous amendment and of leaving the original finding in, which we knew from the case workshop was not supposed to be pejorative, but would appear that way to any casual reader.

Rich Farmbrough, 18:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC).

@Clerks: Can a clerk please remove Rschen7754's comments which do not adhere to the instruction "Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment." Rich Farmbrough, 00:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC).
@Anyone: tell me how Rschen7754's comments address the amendment? They simply say that I want to appeal my case, and imply (I think) that I am a bad person for doing so. And make other rather nasty claims "continued desire to override the wishes of the community" indeed. And they try to drag the November issue into this very simple request. Rich Farmbrough, 11:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC).

@Timotheus Canens: thank you for reviewing the process. Such a phrasing would be a tiny step forward, it would still accuse me of misusing admins tools, effectively making me ineligible to run for Admin. The original FoF (that I had unblocked, but attaching no blame) was backed up by an extensive discussion that examined the change in practice over the years, and an undiscussed change to the policy page. Although the case finding never made it clear why my admin bit was removed, the discussion did - it was based on "civility issues" (saying "tosh" and so forth). Introducing the first amendment to this Fof muddied these waters greatly. Rich Farmbrough, 11:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC).

Some further responses

@ Worm.

• The point here is that the bot was not broken, Wikipedia was. The fix was to allow additional time for the servers to catch up, monitoring the situation and cautiously restarting a little over 2 hours later.
• The clause in the FoF "or otherwise achieving consensus for such unblock" is there because, were an admin to make a block and consensus was that the bot should resume operating, unblocking would be legitimate.

@AGK. I really hope you are wrong. If six have declined then four have not been prepared to post their decisions in bold, in the normal manner. And really I can see no rational unbiased person declining this amendment.

@All: Although this wasn't the basis of my request, since the finding was added after the case and therefore could not be important to support a remedy, I would have thought that there is no reason to oppose removal. Keeping information (true or false) which does nothing but tarnish the reputation of others is inimical to a healthy community. Politeness, kindness and decency would support removal.

Rich Farmbrough, 22:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC).

Additional responses - A V & D

@ T. Canens - the block summaries were unwise, and, for me, extremely strongly worded. However I would have a great deal to say about the background to these, and they do not go to the substance of the FoF. It seems to me that it would be an abuse of process to, by motion, add additional items to a laundry list of malfeasances. If someone feels that these summaries are worthy of attention, then it should be addressed separately, not woven into the fabric of a previous case. @ Coren - I have no idea how one would appeal "the substance" - procedurally I mean. The Ban appeals subcommittee,if that's what you mean, currently consists of AGK and the two arbs who were parties to my case (perhaps it needs updating?) so they would all have to recuse. @ SilkTork - Perhaps the comments from uninvolved editors will convince you that the community may not share your perspective about everything @ Salvio - The committee had made it clear that other requests were "too soon". As to the process, every comment I had made on process had been taken (by some at least) as combative, rather than a Wikipedian's natural desire to see errors corrected. @ Carcharoth - I look forward to a constructive discussion post amendment

Motion 1

Not that keen on this FoF.

The prospective FoF was written in the hope and expectation that it would provide support for draconian remedies. Of course the drafting Arb had misunderstood policy, and hence the finding was weakened to this wording which just states that "something happened". The FoF does not support a remedy, something only shared with FoF 1 - which arguably is there as token balance.

Therefore the Fof serves no purpose in the case at all.

Nonetheless the FoF is a false light defamation, because its very presence implies that the unblocks were wrong. We should not be defaming our editors, therefore the FOF should go.

Motion 2

Overall -

1. This misinterprets and extends the amended FoF
   1. As explained the amended FoF, and the original discussion were not discussing procedural unblocks. To include Femto Bot implies that they were - and it's previous exclusion supports that they weren't
   2. Adding allegations (right or wrong) to the findings ex-post-facto places an intolerable burden on the defendant - no matter how innocent they are there will always be fresh claims. Cases will become like the birther controversy.
   3. This gives the impression of seeking to maintain the strength of the case, regardless. Arbcom are not supposed to be a party in the case, they are supposed to be neutral
2. This still does not identify any specific cases, and thus deprives me of a chance to defend them.
3. As Erik pointed out there is no reason to say that the procedural unblocks meet the criteria of the FOF anyway, so including Femto Bot is pointless

@ Roger - with respect, none of the case was fresh in the minds of the majority of Arbitrators, who had only read the proposed resolutions, and not the extensive discussions, relying on the drafting arbitrator to reflect these. @ Worm -

1. The 2011 unblocks - You are misreading the block log. In no way did SmackBot continue with the same wonderful corrections as previously. This was confirmed by Fram's unblock at the top of the log.
   1. You are absolutely correct SmackBot did make 42 edits after the unblock, which was wrong. Had the FoF said "On one occasion" and pointed to this I would have had no problem with the bald statement, however I would have wanted to discuss the context which includes that an admin/arb/beauracrat/BAG member had said that this task was OK. (I think, if anyone cares I did say at some point that "once" might have been accurate.)
2. The May 2010 unblock - yes certainly there are issues around this whole story, some of which I hope to clear up later but though CBM may not have been happy, there is no doubt that the issue was fixed.

Motion 3

This is obviously my preferred version. I would ask, though, that the word "endorsement" be replaced with "opinion". Better still, remove the entire disclaimer, if one wishes not to express an opinion, it is better to simply not express it, than risk inadvertent apophasis.

Motion 4

Once again, I would strongly oppose this.

The main reason is that it is introducing new matter (in three directions, no less, summaries, another account, and another type of block), as outlined above this inimical to justice and fairness. One could successfully refute these allegations, only to find that claims about the timing were added. Address those, and have matters relating to the wording of unblock requests. And so forth.

This is not supposed to be "how many ways can we criticise Rich that he can't quickly shut down by using facts against us".

And of course the key point the FoF 8 did not feature in the structure of the original decision means that changing it to include allegations that do support the findings is revisionism. If someone has a problem with my block summaries, let them bring a case - or perhaps engage in constructive dialogue.

@ T Canens - I had, funnily enough, recently seen the comment you refer to. And yes, I should have taken these people to AN/I or an RFC. But I'm nice, I didn't. (Also I hate those sorts of venues.)

Rich Farmbrough, 20:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC).

An RFC arising from the case was raised at Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy/Archive_18#Unblocking_bot_accounts. Rich Farmbrough, 21:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC).

Statement by Rschen7754

This is not noted anywhere in the ArbCom documentation, but in November I blocked Rich for two weeks for violating a community-imposed sanction on mass-creating pages (regardless of whether the creation was automated or not): Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive241#Rich_Farmbrough.27s_editing_restriction. This reflects a continued desire to override the wishes of the community, and thus I doubt that a lifting of the sanctions is appropriate, considering his responses, and his willingness to ax-grind against every ArbCom member he comes in contact with - see the bottom threads of [16]. It's obvious that this is an attempt to chip away at the case piece-by-piece, see [17] which makes it clear that he desires to appeal the case and have the sanctions lifted. --Rschen7754 21:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC) @Rich: basically per Coren. --Rschen7754 00:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Fut.Perf.

I went through the block logs cited, and as far as I can see, Rich is largely right, and Arbcom is wrong. They had better correct their error now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Mackensen

This, if it wasn't an accident, is conduct unbecoming of an arbitrator. I have no interest in the case, and as far as I can remember no contact with Rich outside of normal processes, but his reading of the block logs is to an outsider persuasive. Bot operators unblock their bots all the time following issue resolution. If no one is going to answer Rich's statement then I can only assume no answer can be made. Mackensen (talk) 12:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by ErikHaugen

@Worm: I cannot see that fixing it "as far as possible" (per block log) in 13 minutes would be fixing the matter to the blocking admin's satisfaction.—I can't imagine why you think this, but in any case it was to the blocker's satisfaction, wasn't it? Regarding the "procedural" unblock, isn't it true that "without first remedying the underlying issue" still doesn't really apply? HaugenErik (talk) 00:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by BorisG

I am a complete outsider on this, but it seems that this particular finding was amended without an opportunity for Rich to rebut it. I think this is a denial of fair hearing, and should be rectified (if contested, as it is). I don't think this is part of a campaign to have the whole case overturned, since this denial of fair hearing does not apply to any other findings. If anything, it will make the case stand stronger on its feet. In my view, this is all about procedural fairness, on which, presumably, ArbCom should lead by example. Cheers and Happy New Year! - BorisG (talk) 13:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by NE Ent

This is not a good use of a limited wiki-resource (the AC's time) and it just not important in the big picture. Just delete it per motion 3. NE Ent 13:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by {yet another user}

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• @Rich I decline your request to remove Rschen7754's statement. --Guerillero | My Talk 08:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Comment: The FOF reflects those incidences where you either (i) unblocked your own accounts without consensus for the unblock or (ii) continued operating a bot after unblocking without entirely fixing the underlying problem which led to its blocking. You have not addressed either of these issues above. For example, it is poor practice - per WP:INVOLVED - for admins to unblock their own accounts because block durations have expired, yet you have done this. For these reasons, I am leaning towards declining this request.  Roger Davies ^talk 10:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
  • @ Rich: this is confirming the note I've just left for you, suggesting that if you have any other issues you'd like the committee look at now might be a good time. It can all be dealt with either as an omnibus motion or as a series of motions now.  Roger Davies ^talk 18:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  • @ BorisG: there were four amendments about Rich Farmbrough on this page at the time (two of which he initiated) and he did comment on this specific one. Nevertheless, I'll be posting a couple of motions shortly to address some of this.  Roger Davies ^talk 13:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
• I'm inclined to decline this request. Looking through the events leading up to this finding, I believe that it is an accurate summary of the history. For example, in one discussion, Ucucha suggests Rich may unblock SmackBot when it is fixed. I cannot see that fixing it "as far as possible" (per block log) in 13 minutes would be fixing the matter to the blocking admin's satisfaction. The unblocks which Rich describes as "procedural unblocks", including unblocking a bot when his primary account was unblocked specifically to participate in arbitration, also fit under the finding of fact. Worm^TT(talk) 14:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

  @ErikHaugen, I've been watching things develop with interest, trying to decide exactly where I sit. I don't see anything particularly against policy with any of the unblocks Rich made, but the finding of fact still appears to be mostly correct to me. With respect to the Ucucha, Rich unblocked within 13 minutes of the block. In that time he discovered (or was informed) that the bot was blocked, analysed the problem, attempted a fix related to the problem and tested it. As a software developer, I cannot believe those steps were carried out thoroughly, especially given Rich's apparent uncertainty that it was definitely fixed. He did not discuss the matter with Ucucha prior to unblocking, who's response after the unblock was tentative at best. I do however see your point regarding the procedural unblocks and will take that into consideration. Worm^TT(talk) 09:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

  @Rich, thank you for explaining, that does fit with the history - Smackbot did take a 2 hour break after it was unblocked. Worm^TT(talk) 08:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Rich, I just don't see you addressing the actual substance of the finding above. You have unblocked your bot without having reached consensus or fixed the underlying issue (as clear by further blocks over the same issue shortly thereafter). What you're saying above is that you feel those unblocks were justified, not that they didn't happen? — Coren ^(talk) 14:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I did appraise the previous case (I would not have opined on this amendment request unless I had), and I see nothing amiss that isn't the usual result of prose written by committee: some of the wording is adequate rather than perfect but all of it is workable.

    It seems to me that you are displeased by the disposition of the case (which seems to me entirely reasonable given the disruption your automated editing had caused) and are picking at nits in order to "weaken" it in some manner. Let me make one thing clear: the remedies in place will not be changed by cherry picking corrections in the minutiae of the findings, nor will the case be overturned by applying a fresh coat of paint on the wording. If your objective is to get the restrictions you are currently under lifted or relaxed, you need to do so by addressing the substance of the concerns with your automated editing and convince us there is cause to re-evaluate the situation de novo, not by trying to pick apart the previous case. — Coren ^(talk) 19:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

  • I continue to believe that fiddling with the wording of a past case (beyond fixing the clear procedural error) is a completely pointless exercise of no benefit. I'm remain open to hearing an appeal on the substance, but revising history isn't the way to go about it. — Coren ^(talk) 14:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• I commented during a previous request on this issue - Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich_Farmbrough#Amendment_request:_Rich_Farmbrough - that I was disappointed that Rich Farmbrough was not seeing the reason why people were concerned with his conduct. It is particularly worrying that he is still looking at those incidents with a different perspective to the community and the Committee. Decline. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• Decline, broadly per my colleagues. T. Canens (talk) 15:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I looked into this a bit deeper, and it appears that the finding was amended without a formal motion being voted on and passed. While Rich did comment at the proposed amendment (and opposed it), this departure from what I understand to be standard practice does deprive him of notice that the amendment is imminent. I don't like passing amendments to old findings that have little substantive effect (hence my original decline), but in this case the process used to amend the first finding is questionable, and the amended finding is not particularly accurate. I'll be willing to support a change along the lines proposed by Salvio. T. Canens (talk) 08:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
    • After thinking about this some more, I'm not sure making that particular change is the best approach. Still thinking. T. Canens (talk) 11:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
      • My current views are:
        • The process used to make the amendment is seriously defective and deprived Rich Farmbrough of a full opportunity to respond to that amendment before it is enacted. I have never seen a decision being substantively amended without an actual motion and Rich Farmbrough cannot be faulted for not fully explaining the reasons for his objections to the amended finding at the time of the original amendment request.
        • The only part of these block logs I consider to be sufficiently problematic to require a finding is the two unblocks of SmackBot on 2 February 2011 and 4 May 2010, whose unblock summaries are inappropriate (cf. SilkTork's vote on this finding in the Proposed Decision). I would therefore support an amended finding that points out the inappropriateness of these unblocks.
        • If, however, my colleagues want to limit the review to the self nature of the unblocks, then I do not think a finding is warranted, and I would support vacating the finding entirely. I am not convinced that unblocking one's own bots without fixing the issue to the blocking admin's satisfaction is necessarily a misuse of tools. To begin with, that would catch a botop who in good faith believed that he has fixed the issue, only to discover that he hasn't (or hasn't fully done so) after unblocking the bot.
        • Finally, if my colleagues really want to have a finding on the unblocks, then I could also support reverting to the original FoF 8, which is at least strictly accurate.
        • I agree with the last sentence of Carcharoth's 08:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC) comment. T. Canens (talk) 09:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• I don't particularly like the "on many occasions", which I'd personally be open to changing to "on occasion/occasionally"; but that's as far as I'd go. That said, I'm not particularly fussed about it; so I'll just go with the emerging consensus. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC) I am reconsidering. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not particularly persuaded by the argument about procedural fairness. Rich had notice that an amendment was being discussed and was allowed to defend himself (which he did, as anemic as his defence may have been). Furthermore, he was notified on his talk page that the amendment had been passed and yet chose to do nothing about it until now. Assuming, for the sake of the argument, that there indeed was a procedural flaw, it would have been a rather evident one and, so, there is no reason he should have waited this long to point it out, which, by the way, he does not. I know that there is no ne eat judex ultra petita partium provision in the Arbitration policy, but, considering that even the person who's directly affected by the amendment has not argued that it was irregularly passed, I don't think it's appropriate for us to do it in his stead...

    Moreover, I'm wary about creating rules that will make ArbCom even more bureaucratic. We are not a real-world court and we sometimes can, in my opinion, pass amendments following expedited or simplified procedures, especially when no Arbitrator voices any opposition and a majority of active Arbs have chimed in supporting a given proposal, as was the case here.

    Now, I do have a problem with the revised FoF: the more I read it, the more I'm convinced it's inaccurate and that we should do something. I have not yet decided what, though. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Recused as a party to the case. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - I've read the requests for amendments and clarifications archived at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough and the amount of effort expended on this case since the close of the case is more than is reasonable. It would be better to either address all the remaining issues in one go (not as a series of separate amendments and clarifications), or summarily deny any further actions and draw a line under this and move on. Rich, are you willing to move on, and if not, what is needed before that point is reached? I'm asking because this edit back on 6 November 2012 where you say: "I had forgotten just how laughably appalling the conduct of the case was. Really time to start to unwind some of it I think." clearly shows that you intend to pick away at the case instead of accepting what was decided (even if parts were wrong) and moving on. Even making that edit offhand on the talk page of a closed case shows the wrong mindset. Carcharoth (talk) 18:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

  Updating my comment here. I was wavering between (i) declining; and (ii) requiring Rich to come back with a clearer idea of how he wants to 'unwind' the case (to use his wording). Overall, making a series of such modifications to closed cases, while easier to handle in small chunks, is in the long-run counter-productive unless a clear overall aim and stated goal (to appeal sanctions?) is provided to go along with the amendment requests. But here, the procedural issue that T. Canens has pointed out, and the comments made by Rich elsewhere, has convinced me that some form of amendment is needed.

  There has been some discussion on the mailing list over how best to handle this. My views are that there are three main issues here: (i) the one of procedural 'fairness' with respect to how the finding was previously modified; (ii) whether the current finding 8 should be overturned, modified or dropped; (iii) whether further advice is needed on how to handle future requests related to this case. I would favour dropping (vacating) finding 8 rather than attempting to revise or modify it (it is not central to the case). In addition, we should ask Rich to state what further requests he plans to make and what the ultimate aim is, before he files any further amendment requests, noting that he does (as others have noted) need to take on board the issues that brought him to arbitration in the first place if any restrictions are to be lifted at any future point. Carcharoth (talk) 08:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• The amendment request pretty clearly indicates that Rich has not taken on board the issues that brought him to arbitration in the first place. I do not think that any action is required, or even appropriate, under these circumstances. Risker (talk) 18:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comments/questions for Rich Farmbrough: (1) Could you please briefly explain what you mean by "procedural unblock." (2) Could you please advise whether your posted your above rebuttal to this finding while the case was pending; if so, please provide a link to that rebuttal and any ensuing discussion; if not, please explain why not. (3) I believe (hope) you meant to use a different word above than "prevaricating." Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• I see no "miscarriage of justice" that was committed by us in the earlier arbitration case, and I disagree that amending the decision would be appropriate. Decline, per Risker in particular and most of my other colleagues. AGK [•] 01:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Rich, an incorrect finding would be a miscarriage of justice, and anyway I think it's quite clear what I meant. Clearly, most of my colleagues have voted to "decline" here, and I don't know why you suggest they haven't. I don't see how this amendment helps us move on to more productive things; my vote stands, though if one of my colleagues wants to propose a sensible amendment to the finding in question they would probably enjoy my support. AGK [•] 13:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Six of us have declined. AGK [•] 13:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
• Rich, why would I have to recuse in a subcommittee case concerning you…? AGK [•] 21:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Motions

Motion 1 (RF)

In the Rich Farmbrough case, the revised Finding of Fact 8, enacted on 28 May 2012 is to be reverted once this motion passes and the original Finding of Fact 8 passed on 15 May 2012:

• 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).

is to be restored in its place.

Support:

1. This version puts things back to where they were prior to the 28 May 2012 version by reinstating the FOF that was discussed and voted upon publicly during the case. Roger Davies ^talk
2. Third choice. T. Canens (talk) 10:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
3. Second choice, but I do not consider this to be something that needs to be voted on. The revised finding of fact was never formally passed by the Committee by formal motion and hence should not be considered actually having been passed. NW (Talk) 13:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
4. This was a procedural error, so it should be fixed. — Coren ^(talk) 14:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
5. Second choice, prefer motion 3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
6. Second choice. Kirill ^[talk] 23:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. In this form, there is no need for a Finding of Fact, it doesn't add to the case as bot operators regularly unblock their bot accounts in circumstances where the underlying issue has been fixed and there are no further disagreements. Worm^TT(talk) 14:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
2. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
3. AGK [•] 22:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
4. I could support this, but procedural points like this should really be corrected outside of requests like this. Best not to mix up the different issues here. Carcharoth (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
6. I don't think that the absence of a formal vote nullified the revision. Risker (talk) 23:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Discussion by Arbitrators:

Motion 2 (RF)

In the Rich Farmbrough case, the revised Finding of Fact 8, enacted by a slip on 28 May 2012 is vacated with immediate effect and replaced with the following Finding of Fact:

• Rich Farmbrough has, on occasion, after another administrator has placed a block on his bot accounts, used his administrative tools to unblock his own bots without first remedying the underlying issue to the blocking admin's satisfaction or otherwise achieving consensus for such unblock (see block logs of SmackBot, Helpful Pixie Bot, FEmtoBot).

to be enacted on the passing of this motion.

Support:

1. This version endorses the 28 May 2012 text, and rectifies the procedural slip, with a minor change (from "on many occasions" to "on occasion"). It should go without saying that it relates not only to the unblocks relating to bot malfunctions but also to the other unblocks of his bot accounts performed by Rich. It was initially proposed within a few days of the case closing, while things were still fresh in everyone's minds.  Roger Davies ^talk 09:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

   Added FemtoBot to the list  Roger Davies ^talk 12:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

2. This is my first choice, especially since the word "many" has been removed. To me, there are two problematic unblocks, where the underlying issue had not been solved to the blocking admins satisfaction. Firstly, the unblock on 15:56, 2 February 2011, led to the bot carrying on doing the same edits it was blocked for. This is by definition an unblock which did not remedy the underlying issue to the blocking admin's satifaction. Secondly, the unblock on 08:52, 4 May 2010, may have fixed the issue but a) CBM had previously blocked and unblocked SmackBot on a number of occasions, implying Rich was aware it would be unblocked when properly fixed, b) CBM had blocked for the same thing previously and requested a way to tell the bot would not do it again (1) and c) CBM specifically says it was inappropriate to do so without contacting him. Coincidentally, these two unblocks are the same two unblocks which are mentioned as having poor unblock summaries. Worm^TT(talk) 14:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

   @Rich, in the ten minutes SmackBot was unblocked after 15:56 on 2 February 2011, it made about 50 edits, most of which had the edit summary "Correct cap in header and/or general fixes." and was a capitalisation change. This was exactly the issue that Fram blocked for. I've checked the edits and they do match the changes complained about. I'm curious to know how I've misread the block log. The second unblock was, as you say, with regards to p605 Worm^TT(talk) 19:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

3. I agree with WTT's analysis, so this is my first choice. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
4. I can live with this. Risker (talk) 23:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. T. Canens (talk) 09:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
2. NW (Talk) 13:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
3. I don't think it's useful or necessary to revise wording of a past case in this manner (beyond fixing the clear procedural error) if it cannot lead to the actual decision being modified – which should require a proper appeal. Playing around with this or that wording is a pointless exercise. — Coren ^(talk) 14:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
4. In favor of motion 3 (first choice) or 1 (second choice). Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
5. AGK [•] 22:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
6. Prefer 1 or 3. Kirill ^[talk] 23:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
7. Per Coren. Again, I could support this, but my first choice is motion 3. Carcharoth (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
8. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Discussion by Arbitrators:

Motion 3 (RF)

In the Rich Farmbrough case, the revised Finding of Fact 8, enacted on 28 May 2012 is vacated. Nothing in this decision constitutes an endorsement by the Committee of Rich Farmbrough's use of administrative tools to unblock his own accounts.

Enacted. (X! · talk)  · @096  ·  01:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Support:

1. I'm just about okay with this as well. As others have said, the finding is not central to the case.  Roger Davies ^talk 09:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
2. Second choice. T. Canens (talk) 10:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
3. Simplest solution; first choice. NW (Talk) 13:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
4. Second choice, assuming Motion 2 is not the one we go for, this should be. This FoF is not central to the case, and I would be ok with seeing it struck. Worm^TT(talk) 14:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
5. Having looked closely at Rich Farmbrough's analysis, I conclude that his criticism of the substance of this finding is basically sound. Given that the case is months old, I think the best course is simply to vacate the revised finding, rather than analyze the year-or-more-old diffs and create a new one. This action does not negate or undercut the remedies adopted in the case, and I join with some of my colleagues who have suggested that Rich Farmbrough raise any further objections he may have to the decision in a single request for clarification/amendment rather than raising them seriatim. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

   I've made a minor copyedit by deleting the words "with immediate effect." I believe the intent is to treat the finding as if it had never been passed, whereas "with immediate effect" sounds more forward-looking. But this is a quibble, and if any arbitrator disagrees, just put the words back; my support will still stand. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

6. Second choice. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
7. First choice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
8. AGK [•] 22:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
9. First choice. Kirill ^[talk] 23:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
10. First (and only) choice. Which is not to say that expending this amount of effort on past cases is the way forward. Or that the original findings were not valid. There were problems with some of the unblocks, but crafting a perfect set of findings is not the point of arbitration cases amendment requests (though it is worth spending more time in actual cases to get things right first time round). Carcharoth (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Beyond my concerns about fiddling with a case for the sake of fiddling with it, I'm not convinced that all of the unblocks were unproblematic. — Coren ^(talk) 14:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
2. Concur with Coren. I did not at the time of the case, nor do I now, think that all of the unblocks were carried out appropriately. Risker (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Discussion by Arbitrators:

• Is it worth asking the community to clarify the bot and block policies by focusing on whether, and under what circumstances, a bot-owner who is an administrator is permitted to unblock his or her own bot account? Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

It's well worth doing so, IMO. It should probably explicitly ask about the unblocking of blocks made for non-technical reasons.  Roger Davies ^talk 16:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Motion 4 (RF)

In the Rich Farmbrough case, the revised Finding of Fact 8, enacted on 28 May 2012 is vacated with immediate effect and replaced with the following Finding of Fact:

• Rich Farmbrough has, on many occasions, after another administrator has placed a block on his bot accounts, used his administrative tools to unblock his own bots (see block logs of SmackBot, Helpful Pixie Bot, FemtoBot), sometimes with significantly inappropriate unblock summaries (15:56, 2 February 2011 08:52, 4 May 2010).

to be enacted on the passing of this motion.

Support:

1. First choice. There are problems with those unblocks that warrant a finding, but not the fact that those are self-unblocks. SilkTork's vote in the original PD is spot-on. T. Canens (talk) 10:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
2. Okay with this too, subject to Timotheus' proposed change, which I leave to him to execute. I'll do 1st, 2nd 3rd etc later once frontrunners start emerging.  Roger Davies ^talk 11:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
3. Third choice. NW (Talk) 13:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. I have the same issues with this as I do Motion 1, although less so as this focusses on the unblock summaries. Also, I don't consider them "significantly inappropriate", just inappropriate. Worm^TT(talk) 14:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
2. Again, tweaks in wording of a closed case seem like a very much pointless exercise. — Coren ^(talk) 14:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
3. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
4. In favor of motion 3 (first choice) or 1 (second choice). Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
5. AGK [•] 22:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
6. Prefer 1 or 3. Kirill ^[talk] 23:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
7. Per Coren. Though see my comment in support of motion 3. Carcharoth (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
8. Prefer 3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
9. I'm not convinced that the only problems here were edit summaries. Risker (talk) 23:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

• I can probably support this too with a copyedit from "with significantly" to "and has made significantly".  Roger Davies ^talk 10:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• How about "Rich Farmbrough has, on many occasions, after another administrator has placed a block on his bot accounts, used his administrative tools to unblock his own bots (see block logs of SmackBot, Helpful Pixie Bot), sometimes with significantly inappropriate unblock summaries (15:56, 2 February 2011 08:52, 4 May 2010)." ? T. Canens (talk) 10:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• That works for me equally well.  Roger Davies ^talk 11:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• While I remember, Rich has unblocked FemtoBot as well, whioch could be included for completeness.  Roger Davies ^talk 11:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Done, and added FemtoBot as well. T. Canens (talk) 11:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion by Arbitrators:

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What happened

To the talk page that was here before the first amendment request was moved over it? Rich Farmbrough, 15:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC).

I've looked at the history and all that I can see is a statement by a user that was subsequently deleted as a sock. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Amendment request: Rich Farmbrough

Initiated by Rich Farmbrough, 02:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC).

Case affected

Rich Farmbrough arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Also WP:Editing restrictions

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

Information about amendment request

• Link to principle, finding of fact, or remedy to which this amendment is requested
• Details of desired modification

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

Note: this omnibus approach has been requested by Arbitrators, I have voiced my concerns that attempting too much will cause a process failure, however out of respect for the committee I am prepared to try this route. I note also, for the record, that the committee have previously overturned editing restrictions weather imposed by the committee or not (Kovaf), and on more than one occasion repealed an entire decision (Orangemarlin and others).

Putative editing restrictions

An editing restriction was imposed unilaterally in 2010, and a supplementary (supposedly temporary) restriction added, also unilaterally. I challenged the legitimacy and a good faith attempt was made to establish consensus to keep them, which failed. The restrictions serve no good purpose, significant time can be saved by the committee overturning these restrictions.

1. I move to overturn these restrictions, or declare them invalid.

Case findings and remedies

The substantive decision in the case consists of a number of findings and two remedies.

1. I move to strike the findings 2 and 3, because they are based on the invalid restrictions.
2. I move to strike the findings 4, 5, 6 and 7, because they draw un-warranted assumptions from insufficient and poor quality evidence
3. I move to strike the findings 2-7 because they constitute personal attacks on my integrity and professionalism, contrary to WP:NPA
4. I move to strike the findings 2-7 because they are not consistent with WP:BLP
5. I move to strike the remedy 1.2 because it does not serve any of the findings
6. I move to strike the remedy 1.2 because it is purely punitive
7. I move to strike the remedy 2 because the committee did not take into consideration the alternatives proposed in the workshop
8. I move to strike the remedy 2 because it is over-broad
9. I move to strike the remedy 2 because it is unenforceable
10. I move to strike the remedy 2 because any purpose it had has been served
11. I move to strike the remedies 1.2 and 2 because they are harmful to the encyclopaedia
12. I move to strike the remedies 1.2 and 2 because the stricken findings mean they cannot be sustained.
13. I move to strike findings 2-7 and remedies 1.2 and 5 on the grounds that my request for an adjournment was unreasonably denied
14. I move to strike findings 2-7 and remedies 1.2 and 5 on the grounds that they are inconsistent with the spirit of collegiality
15. I move to strike findings 2-7 and remedies 1.2 and 5 on the grounds that the workshop developed positive solutions which were ignored by the drafting arbitrator
16. I move to strike findings 2-7 and remedies 1.2 and 5 on the grounds that the drafting arbitrator was not WP:UNINVOLVED
17. I move to strike findings 2-7 and remedies 1.2 and 5 on the grounds that I was not notified of the change of drafting arbitrator in a timely manner
18. I move to strike remedies 1.2 and 5, because they serve no purpose. As I made clear in the workshop it is possible to provide improvements to processes and products which on the one hand would ensure that concerns could not be overlooked with impunity, nor could inaccurate claims of unresponsiveness be made. Indeed I implemented a significant part of these improvements during the case, and they were functioning well.
19. I move to strike the findings 2-7 because the stricken remedies mean they have nothing to support

Rich Farmbrough, 02:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC).

@Rschen at the time we were trying to standardise banner template names there were only three out of over 1000 WikiProjects where there were objections to the renames. Namely:

1. WikiProject US Roads - by User:Rschen7755 & another user
2. WikiProject Mathematics - by User:CBM
3. WikiProject Military History - by User:Kirill Lockshin

All these objections used reasons contrary to the spirit and policy of Wikipedia, notably WP:OWN with a fair dose of WP:ABF thrown in.

I see that the WP:OWN mentality continues with your hatting threads on your talk page - with "Summaries" as if you were an admin closing a noticeboard thread.

If you are sick of it, I might wonder why you continue to stick the knife in. It was unacceptable at the previous Amendment, it remains so now. It remains the case that that FoF 8 was factually incorrect, and moreover defamatory. It is deeply disturbing that anyone would want to preserve such a statement on Wikipedia.

Rich Farmbrough, 13:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC).

@Hersfold - Both you an Rschen are supporting my thesis that this is not a good way to approach the case.

Your point-by-point defence does little, since it really just shows the prejudices you exhibited since your self-admitted display of temper on my talk page before you initiated the case.

I will take one point - point 9 to illustrate. Here you are saying that the only way I can know the restriction is unenforceable is to successfully circumvent it, and hence that I am either making stuff up or breaking the restriction. Not so, and clearly not so on a moments consideration (and I have made my qualifications to make this statement clear to the committee previously). Therefore by the same argument you used, you are either misleading the committee, or you didn't stop and think. I prefer to assume the latter - and you should know better.

As to your patronising statements at the end, I am sure they are well meant, but really!

Rich Farmbrough, 14:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC).

@Clerks Please withdraw this request on my behalf, I stated that this approach would not work, and both the responses from those that have chosen to persue me here (as predicted) and Arbitrators support that contention. Rich Farmbrough, 14:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC).

Statement by Rschen7754

My comments at [18] still stand. I find it disturbing that Rich is shifting the "blame" for the sanctions on the arbitrators, and on the community and basically on everyone but himself.

I also find it disturbing that Rich has been badgering everyone who has commented in opposition to his request to withdraw their comments, accusing them of bad faith even, as seen [19]. I also found [20] beyond the pale, where Rich tried to edit the same section on my talk page after I hatted it. Frankly, I'm getting a bit sick of this whole thing, and I was tempted to ragestrike all of my comments in the last amendment request to get this to stop. --Rschen7754 05:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

For the record, while I was uninvolved per policy at the time of my initial block, I don't think I am now, and will not be taking any further administrative action in relation to Rich.

Statement by Hersfold

To address Rich's points...

1. Your primary defense in this case was based on the fact that you felt the community restrictions were invalid. That didn't work, and it's not going to work now.
2. If you had concerns about the quality of evidence being presented, the time to address that was during the case, although each of those findings provides at least two diffs.
3. Those are statements of fact, with provided evidence, not personal attacks.
4. See above.
5. An administrator repeatedly violating community restrictions and policies, as demonstrated in findings 3-7, should not continue to hold the tools.
6. See above; clearly other methods to get you to obey policies and restrictions weren't working.
7. There's nothing to say they didn't, and that's not really a reason to vacate something anyway...
8. Needs more detail.
9. Your block log, which provides this diff, says otherwise. Unless you're admitting to continued violations of that remedy...?
10. Why does this serve no purpose? Needs detail.
11. How so? You're not the only bot operator on the project, and quite frankly most of them listen better than you have in the past.
12. You're assuming that your prior logic is valid; as previously covered, it's not.
13. a) What request? b) That's not a reason for vacating an entire case.
14. Again, those aren't personal attacks, they're statements of fact. And if 2-7 aren’t collegial, how does 9 not make the cut?
15. The workshop isn't a binding contract; the drafting arbitrator is charged with coming up with remedies they and the committee feel will best resolve the issue at hand.
16. Eh? You're definitely going to have to back that one up. Also, if you felt any arbitrator should have recused, the time to bring that up was when the case request was filed.
17. Who the drafting arbitrator is doesn't matter. The whole committee votes on things, and any arbitrator can propose alternative findings/remedies/whatever.
18. The purpose 1.2 was to remove your admin rights for (essentially) conduct unbecoming, and to prevent access to AWB in its original form. 5 I'm not sure why you're objecting to, by your argument any reminder, admonishment, etc. should also be repealed; they do serve a purpose, to reprimand whoever did whatever and advise others against doing that same or a similar whatever in future. If you were truly sincere about improving your conduct, then the time to do that was before a case was being considered, when you were being sanctioned by the community. Or even before then.
19. Your logic is going in circles now.

Anyway. My advice, Rich, if you want any part of this case vacated or relaxed at any point in the future, is this: stop complaining about how people are out to get you, and work on figuring out what those people were saying and why they were saying it. Nobody is denying that you did useful work. What wasn't so useful was how you handled complaints about the not-so-useful bits. Not-so-useful bits happen. Consider this case one of them. Learn from them. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 07:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Elen of the Roads

I am enormously sympathetic towards Rich. He has said often that he feels it is impossible to make any meaningful contributions, or even to edit Wikipedia, without use of automatic tools. To my mind, he is just one of many editors who were here since the early days, and who have struggled to adapt to the way the project is changing over time. I think it is to his considerable credit that he remains a committed editor, contributing as he feels able. Perhaps the ultimate crash was a result of an increasingly non-technical userbase, who want a Volkswagen Golf that starts first time every time, and a move away from the early editors who prefered an old LandRover so they could tinker under the bonnet. Whatever, I could not personally support the vacation of sanctions, as Rich still seems to have no concept of why users thought Helpful Pixie Bot was a nightmare, and Rich's persistence in making small changes that no-one could see was just annoying. But I would ask the committee to be considerate of Rich in his long history of editing, and his continued desire to improve the encyclopaedia. (should my opinion count for anything). --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Rich, most sanctions are applied unilaterally, that does not make them illegitimate. As far as I can tell, the sanctions were the result of solid consensus borne out of a rather vigorous discussion (and, in fact, the stronger proposal clearly had consensus until Xeno's later proposal of a more limited restriction). You're also qualifying further discussion as "attempt was made to establish consensus to keep them" where the opposite holds: you need to show consensus to lift them, or provide this Committee with reason to lift them – beyond "they were bad".

  As to the calls to strike most of the findings as "personal attacks" or BLP violations, I see no merit in the claim. They were findings of the Committee and properly voted upon as appropriate, and will not be stricken on the simple basis that you feel they paint you in a negative light. I do not know if your username reflects your real name; if it does and you feel those findings could cause prejudice to you, we can consider courtesy blanking the case pages, however.

  Finally, your request to strike the remedies as (alternately) "over-broad", "unenforceable", or "harmful to the encyclopaedia" need supporting evidence. They are none of those things simply because you assert them to be, you need to demonstrate that they are.

  Honestly, the principal tenor of your appeal appears to be "I don't agree with the decision"; and that does not suffice as a basis to overturn it in part or in whole. You need to demonstrate material error, or that the circumstances have changed since the decision. — Coren ^(talk) 04:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• Recused, again. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
• Decline. I'm hardly inclined to revisit an entire case when all that's been presented in support of the request is a laundry list of conclusory allegations devoid of actual reasoned argument and analysis. T. Canens (talk) 07:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
• Decline: these are merely assertions, Rich, and thus unpersuasive.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
• Whilst I can empathise with Rich's point of view and thank him for attempting the "omnibus request", I'm afraid I likely to decline it. Of the points made, 1, 2, 7, 12 15 and 16 are just assertions, with no evidence to back them up, 7 and 15 specifically blames the arbitrators, which is a shame. 3 and 4 misinterpret the policies mentioned, as the findings are backed by evidence and unless the evidence is shown to be incorrect, these points are moot. Points 5, 6 and 18 are incorrect as the remedies directly serve the findings, especially finding 6. Points 8-11, 13, 14 and 17 are not reasons to vacade remedies or findings, though I would be interested in hearing any evidence for 10. 19 does not make sense given that no remedies have been stricken.

  Overall, Rich, I believe you have made a lot of assertions, hoping some of them might stick. This scattergun technique does little for your case, as anything that might be worth listening to gets lost in the the mix. I would be concerned with point 16, but you have put forward no evidence for it and it doesn't match the evidence I've seen so far. I am also very interested in point 10, as it appears to agree that there was previously an issue with your automated editing, but there is no longer, I'd like to know what's changed. Worm^TT(talk) 09:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• Like my colleagues, I find that this request only consists of dogmatic assertions and circular logic; there is no evidence whatsoever to show that either the various provisions are no longer necessary or were not warranted when they were adopted. For that reason, I feel I have to decline as well. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
• I thank Rich for putting together everything into an omnibus request, but like my fellow arbs I'm not seeing compelling reasons to refactor. Arbitration cases contain things that sanctioned parties don't like, that's for sure, but that does not make them attacks on professionalism. Likewise, the remedies were designed to prevent this situation from occurring again--hardly punitive. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
• I am sympathetic to Rich's frustration with being unable to edit using automation, but I cannot agree with his assertion that last year's final decision was systematically flawed. In actuality, and contrary to what Rich argues, the case treated him fairly. We could easily have reached a more severe decision (by banning Rich), and what we did decide was, if anything, a showing of leniency—and an acknowledgement of Rich's enormous value to the project (in respects other than his unfit operation of bots and scripts). Decline, though I am grateful that we have did this all at once and not by a piecemeal approach to requesting amendment. AGK [•] 16:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'll also consider this amendment to be Rich's last resort to appealing the case, at least for the foreseeable future. I will refuse to entertain further such denouncements of the decision made in the case. AGK [•] 16:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for amendment (April 2013)

Original request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Initiated by Rich Farmbrough, 14:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC).
at 14:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Case affected

Example arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Modified by Motion

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

• This modification
• Strike the modification.

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

The motion is being used in an absurd way, as predicted by other editors. Three enforcement requests have been filed, one rejected, one upheld and one just filed today.

The upheld one involved a massive improvement to an article on a subject of critical importance to hundreds of millions of people - and that also defused part of a tense situation between a number of editors.

I have not made any edits that a sane person would consider automation, and the original motion was a result of two mis-clicks, for which I apologised profusely at the time, and indeed do so again.

The original arbitration case was brought on the basis that I was breaking BLP by associating suspected sockmasters with their suspected sockpuppets. This is so very far removed from that.

Comments

• Quelle suprise who should turn up. Yes indeed, all three arb-enforcement filings, and the ANI filing (and many other ANI filings) were by Fram, as wasthe declined Arn case, and the Arb case was proxied for him. If anyone doubted that this was Fram's personal vendetta before, there is no room for doubt now.

• More evidence that Fram attacks editors, rather than addressing issues.

• I'm probably unwise to rise to Fram's bait, but the true measure of whether List of Other Backward Classes was improved is the number of views it gets, which jumps five fold after the "disaster". Similarly of the several thousand OBCs, prior to the "disaster" only about 50 were listed, afterwards http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Other_Backward_Classes&oldid=533431126 almost all were listed], and within a few hours the list was complete. I'm sure that the idea of the sanction was not to prevent this sort of improvement.

@T.Canens, doubtless I'm being dense here, but I fail to see how my article editing is anything other than beneficial to the project. Therefore while you can describe the sanction as "not working" form the point of view that I'm getting blocked for making positive edits, there is no way that it can be described as "not working" in the sense that harm is coming to the encyclopedia. In fact no substantive harm was ever demonstrated.

Statement by Fram

The three enforcement requests:

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive127 was found to be not a violation of this restriction, but of another restriction Rich Farmbrough has, and he was blocked for it.
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive128, the upheld violation, which made "a massive improvement to an article of critical importance to hundreds of millions of people"; hyperbole much? The subject may be important to many people, but the article? As for a "massive improvement", it was a massive disaster.
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement[21] is the current one.

The original ArbCom case: the reason it was brought can be read at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough#Statement by Hersfold, the filer of the case. The motion currently disputed is a clear reflection of that original statement, and not "so very far removed from that" at all. Fram (talk) 15:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

As to Rich Farmbrough's "surprise" above, I have these pages on my watchlist, obviously. Lucky thing I did, as you didn't seem to be inclined to leave a courtesy notice about this, even though you are discussing edits I made. Speaking of "personal vendetta" though, [22]? I think you would be wiser not to start down that road... Fram (talk) 18:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Note also that Rich Farmbrough edited his statement after I replied to it, so that my reply may seem to be misquoting him. Rest assured, it wasn't. Fram (talk) 18:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Query by Sandstein

I'm commenting here in an administrative capacity as one of the administrators active at WP:AE. There is currently an earlier enforcement request open relating to the restriction that Rich Farmbrough asks to be lifted here. It appears that he has submitted this amendment request instead of responding to the enforcement request. I would like to ask arbitrators whether the processing of the enforcement request should be stayed pending the disposition of this amendment request, or not. (Pending an answer, I, at least, won't act on the enforcement request).  Sandstein  17:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, T. Canens, for the procedural clarification. I have closed the AE request with a one-year block of Rich Farmbrough, subject of course to any modifications arbitrators may decide to make as a result of this request.  Sandstein  23:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment by A Quest for Knowledge

How many requests for clarification/amendment has Rich Farmbrough filed over his restrictions? I haven't counted but it's probably more than any other editor in recent memory, perhaps by orders of magnitude. How much time should ArbCom and the community waste in answering all these requests? Perhaps there should be a limit, say 6-12 months, between Rich's requests for amendment/clarification? ArbCom's duty is to break the back of a dispute, not contribute to it by allowing endless requests for clarification/amendment. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Orlady

IMO, the restriction and its enforcement have been overly rigid -- and it is grossly unfair to blame Rich Farmbrough for any problems that may currently exist with List of Other Backward Classes or its sister article List of Scheduled Castes. These were two seriously misbegotten articles created by Doncram; their creation played an important role in precipitating the recent Doncram Arbcom case. They weren't much discussed during the Arbcom case, mainly because Doncram was already topic-banned from working on them. This is what the Other Backward Classes article looked like when Doncram last touched it in late December; a substantial improvement over the version that I took to AFD back in early December, but still woefully incomplete, with poorly documented sourcing. The list survived AfD as "KEEP with a promise of FIXING the issues noted", but its creator was soon topic-banned and unable to fix it. I don't think it was wise of Rich Farmbrough to take pity on the list, but he did so, and his edits turned it into a reasonably solid page, but led to his 60-day ban. The fact that he edited the page again after his ban expired only indicated his conscientiousness about finishing a job he had left undone -- and his desire to improve the quality of the encyclopedia. Banning him for a full year for being conscientious is absurd. The fact that the restriction led to such a long ban is an indication that that the restriction is unduly severe. Taken together, his erroneous edits did not damage pre-existing content; he was adding a reference citation to previously unsourced content, and the errors only affected his additions. IMO, the article was better with misformatted citations than with no citations at all. I suggest that the remedy enforcement be amended to allow for a lesser enforcement (for example, admonishment) when any automated edits he makes do not delete or otherwise alter content previously contributed by another user. Furthermore, it could help prevent future violations when his ban expires if List of Scheduled Castes (which has not yet benefited from his attention) were removed from article space, so its presence won't tempt him to try to fix it. --Orlady (talk) 04:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Jclemens

I am afraid that Rich has provided plenty of evidence that the Arbitration Committee has erred. That is, by his conduct, he has regrettably demonstrated that he is not interested in being rehabilitated. He has not endorsed the sanctions placed on him by the committee and sought to edit without automation, so that he might understand the frustration his previous pattern of editing conduct has caused to so many other editors. Instead, he has fought the sanctions at every turn, arguing against their legitimacy. He become focused on perceived wrongs, and has focused his energies on criticizing the committee who sanctioned him.

The error, of course, was one of AGF'ing, of hoping that a productive editor like Rich could learn from his sanctions and return to productivity. It was an error on the side of humanity, of hope, of excessive optimism... but an error nevertheless. If the committee does not see fit to remedy its own error, its penalty will be having to deal with more of these requests from Rich. At some point, the committee's forbearance ceases to be humane, and simply allows Rich to make a spectacle of himself and waste the committee's and community's time. All of those who have served as arbitrators know of banned editors whose could return to editing, if they would just swallow their pride, admit the legitimacy of their sanctions, and agree to not behave in the same manner in the future. It is my regretful assessment that Rich has fallen into this pattern as well, despite multiple efforts to enlighten him about the best way forward. Best wishes to the committee in deciding what to do with the situation from here on out... Jclemens (talk) 05:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I note that Rich has been blocked for one year at AE. Unless the arbitrators would like to hear an appeal of that decision, I suggest that this be closed as moot. Jclemens (talk) 03:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Nick-D

I'm not sure how useful comments from random editors on this matter are to the Committee (especially at this point), but I think that Jclemens hits the nail on the head. I can't remember having any direct interactions with Rich, but I've followed the post-arbitration developments (largely in my role as an admin), and it's clear that Rich has never accepted the findings against him and has been unable to let the matter rest. This has included obvious efforts to chip away at the restrictions, including by deliberately making fairly small breaches of them. The great shame is that if he'd put the same amount of effort into productive editing he'd be well on the way to having the restrictions lifted by now. Nick-D (talk) 22:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I'm not convinced that the restriction should be amended. Moreover, if we should find that restricting automated editing is not a workable remedy, it is far more likely that we'd opt to restrict all editing instead rather than leave the problematic edits unrestricted, and I doubt that it would be Rich Farmbrough's preferred outcome.

  As to Sandstein's question, I think the AE request can proceed as usual, as I think it is highly unlikely that a majority of my colleagues would vote to grant the request. T. Canens (talk) 21:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Unless we want to go ahead with the indef ban that was indicated as likely in the last motion, I think we're rightly done here. Courcelles 23:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
• This may be moot given the AE sanction handed down by Sandstein (who is an administrator, not an arbitrator to correct some comments made in various places), but my views here are that the problem here was an attempt to do a mass edit without checking for accuracy. At the very least if Rich had asked someone else to check his edit after it was made, that would have counted for something. Making such edits and expecting others to find and correct the mistakes is completely the wrong attitude. This approach ('not requiring perfection') does, to an extent, underpin the way a wiki works, but it can be overwhelmed if one person does mass editing that others then don't check, either because the editing is done too rapidly for humans to check, or because the edit is too large to expect a human to bother checking. Fram should be applauded for being willing (both earlier and here) to check some of these edits after problems were found. While I'm commenting on this, the argument sometimes put forward that a 1% error in edits is OK, and only appears a problem because someone has done a large number (around million) of edits, that argument is wrong-headed. It is the actual number of errors and the time it would take to check and clear up after them that matters. Percentages are highly misleading here. Rich, if he is to understand the problems here, needs to get to a stage where the number and type of errors introduced by his editing are at a level where others are both willing and able to correct those errors, or (ideally) he can correct them himself when they are pointed out. This is not about keeping error percentages low, but about keeping error rate over time low and error identification and correction rates high. The automated editing is just something that pushed the error rate over time to levels that were too high for others to keep up with, which is why it was proscribed. Carcharoth (talk) 07:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• Recommend closing this as moot. Risker (talk) 03:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clarification request: Rich Farmbrough (April 2014)

Original Request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Initiated by Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) at 08:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Rich Farmbrough arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough#Rich Farmbrough prohibited from using automation

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough#Modified by motion 2

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Callanecc (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Notification
• Fram (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Notification
• Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Notification
• HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Notification
• SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Notification
• DangerousPanda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Notification

I've included the user who filed the request (Fram) as well as the admins who discussed it for notification purposes. I haven't included all users who commented, I'll leave that up to the arbs and clerks if they believe it necessary.

Statement by Callanecc

Fram (talk · contribs) submitted an arbitration enforcement request regarding some recent edits by Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs). I've copied the applicable contents of that request below so that they are recorded here with this request, I won't copy Rich's statement across in case he wishes to say something different in this context.

1. 04:49 8 April 2014: whether the original page was created using automation may be hard to prove (although everything points in that direction as well). But this subsequent edit is clearly not manually made. Every instance of " (*" (an opening bracket preceded by a space, plus every character after that on the same line) has been removed, no matter if that was wanted or not. The result is that you get changes like:

• Albategnius (al-Battani) (1333*) to [[Albategnius
• Alhazen (al-Haitam) (2490*) to [[Alhazen
• Alicia (344*) Boole (340*) to [[Alicia
• Julia (1945*) Bowman (1924*) to [[Julia
• ibn Sina (1984*) (1965*) to [[ibn Sina
• Anna (530*) Johnson (516*) to [[Anna
• Lord (2752*) Kelvin (2702*) to [[Lord
• Leonardo of Pisa (2250*) (2223*) to [[Leonardo of Pisa

And about ten further instances of the same pattern. Perhap others will see this as a manual edit nevertheless, but to me it certainly matches "For the purposes of this remedy, any edits that reasonably appear to be automated shall be assumed to be so.".

1. 06:27 6 April 2014 This one is taken from the end of this document, pages 104-105 (or from a different site with the same information and formatting, his page lists no source); note how, in Rich's article, four companies have a name ending in (a); 79 TOTAL Deutschland GmbH(a), Germany, 191 TOTAL Petrochemicals & Refining S.A. / NV(a), Belgium, 192 TOTAL Petrochemicals & Refining USA Inc. (a), United States, and 207 TOTAL UK Limited (a), United Kingdom. These just happen to be the same four companies that have a "*" after their name in the original document, indicating a footnote for "multi-segment entities". It seems unlikely that Rich Farmbroug made the same typo four times, matching exactly these four "starred" companies, the only ones to have that extra bit.

User:Fram, Special:Permalink/603418882

The administrators discussing the enforcement request could not agree if using the find and replace function meets the criteria set down by the Committee and if it does what an appropriate sanction would be. Given the disagreement regarding this and considering the Committee's motion that further violations will likely lead to a site-ban I thought it was best to refer this to the Committee for appropriate action. I'll close the AE request with a message that I've referred the issue to here. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: It's not asking for it to be rescinded at all, it's asking if the Committee considers it to be a violation and if they do then asking them to take action. That's becasue the highest sanction AE can hand down (a one year block) has already been applied and hasn't worked, therefore it's the Committee's turn to decide whether to block again or enact the site-ban they threatened. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Statement by John Vandenberg

I was just about to close this as a 'close call but not actionable', but I was too slow and was edit conflicted twice, so I will post my draft closure decision here.

Most of the other admins here believe this doesnt fit within the arbitration committees decision, for a variety of reasons. Only Sandstein sees it that way, but I dont think it is healthy for him to be the leading enforcement admin on the third AE regarding Rich in a row. Given the other input to this AE, I dont think this is worth a clarification request. If Rich is trying to see how much he can get away with, it wont be long before there will be more a actionable AE request. These diffs are different from previous two reported to AE, and the general thrust of prior editing problems. The first diff is userspace, which should be ignored unless it is disruptive due to side effect on other users, which hasnt been claimed here. The second diff is a list article created by Rich (articles of this type are often created offline by manipulating other datasets) and the very minor issues in the initial version are within acceptable levels given the size of the page. It would have been easy to miss those '(a)'s even in a close review of the wikitext. If Rich regularly leaves small bits of junk in new content pages, this would be actionable, but not for just one instance. Rich, if you are going to create articles in this manner, I strongly suggest that you first of all push the data elements into Wikidata, and extract the data from there to obtain your draft wikitext table to be incorporated into the new Wikipedia article. That will reduce errors like the one Fram found, as it separates data extraction from data reporting, and utilises Wikidatas datatypes to validate the data. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein

Considering the surprisingly intense disagreement among administrators (and other users of unclear involvedness) responding to the AE request, I recommend that the Committee examine whether the restrictions imposed in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough should continue to apply as written (in which case, in my view, Rich Farmbrough's apparent use of search-and-replace functionality violates the restrictions and should lead to an enforcement block), whether the site ban announced in the decision as a likely consequence of violations should be imposed, or whether the sanction should be modified or lifted.

I have not followed the original case and therefore express no opinion as to whether or to which degree the restrictions are (still) needed to prevent damage or disruption to the project.  Sandstein  10:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Statement by DangerousPanda/EatsShootsAndLeaves

I do implore ArbComm to review this situation, determine if the supposed transgression was indeed a transgression, and if it was, cast your stones upon the transgressor in the manner that you see fit.

Let me start by saying that I do not believe that I have been one of Rich's supporters in the past.

Personally, I find the AE Enforcement filing to have been distasteful, inappropriate, and simply "someone looking for a reason - weak as it was - to get Rich booted". In that light, I would actually desire sanctions imposed that would prevent such divisive and inappropriate behaviour from ever happening again, be it WP:IBAN, blocks, whatever. No editor should be targetted so regularly, and for such small things.

I suppose the predecessor to that, however, will be determining if using Find...Replace is considered to be an "automated tool" to make "automated edits", in contravention of the meaning and spirit of RF's restrictions.

I don't want to sound like a wikilaywer, but you'll also have to define what "editing Wikipedia" means. Is it the action of clicking "save" once? Or, is it sitting down, reading, searching, referencing, typing, copying/pasting over an entire editing session. For example, I may make some edits, go to ANI, use CTRL-F and search for a specific report, make some comments, go elsewhere and make article edits ... is all of this considered to be "editing Wikipedia", or just the few times I clicked "save" - this is important, because if I have a restriction against using a so-called "automated tool", and you consider Find...Replace to be "automated", then so is using CTRL-F because it prevents me from having to manually scan a page of words using my own eyes. If CTRL-F is "automated", I'll bet you'll need to block Rich a dozen times a day.

You'd then have to define if Copy...Paste is also an automated tool? Always? Sometimes? Never? It depends? For example, if I go to the article on Trinidad and Tobago right now, select a small amount of text, copy it, open the article on Tobago and paste it in ... am I using an "automated tool" because it prevents me from having to type the words manually? If copy and paste between articles is verboten as automated in that case, what about when I go to the top of the page and highlight the entire URL of the page I'm looking at, then paste it into a new browser window ... was that a use of an automated tool while editing Wikipedia?

Define the differences? Is there a difference between an "automated tool" and an "editing tool", or an "automated process", or "automated edits".

So, yeah, I was a bit cheesed off last evening when I saw the AE Enforcement request as I considered it petty, wrong, and harassment. So please, clarify for everyone edits, editing, automated proccesses and editing tools. Then, you'll need to cast stones in one of 2 directions ... or both. ES&L 11:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

@Fram: I'm one of your more vocal opponents? No, I grew up many years ago and don't play that game. You dropped by my talkpage, became offensive, I shut it down, case closed. Grudges are something that children hold. So, to close you down once is not being "a vocal opponent". To be forced to restate the same thing to you every time you re-hash the same stupid "he hates me" thing, again, it doesn't make me a "vocal opponent". You're the one bringing it up again and again, not me - which forces me to say over and over again "no, wrong". ES&L 12:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Beyond My Ken

The ArbCom remedy in the Rich Farmbrough case is quite clear. It (Remedy 2) says:

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. (emphasis added)

While some of the admins at AE expressed surprise that search-and-replace would fall under this definition, there can actually be no argument that a software routine which makes edits as specified by a human editor is not a manual edit, but the use of automation. Search-and-replace is so familiar to us that we don't think of it that way, but this is nonetheless true.

So, given the clarity of the remedy, and the fact that search-and-replace is undeniably automation, what's being asked for here is, in fact, not really a clarification of the remedy, but the rescinding of it, because it seems "nonsensical" to some. Perhaps they are right, perhaps it is "nonsensical" -- but it is also abundantly clear, and has been already used to block Farmbrough for a year. There is no difference here, despite Farmbrough's attempt to Wikilawyer the remedy into submission by reference to a definition of automation used in a different part of the Committee's decision (Principle 3.1), which does not and cannot overide the clear definition of automation given in the remedy.

Given all this, the Committee should reaffirm its previous remedy and sanction Rich Farmbrough appropriately. BMK (talk) 11:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• As to what an "appropriate" sanction might be, reading the Arb comments to this point, I'd say that sentiment is leaning towards RF's actions being a clear violation of the remedy, but perhaps only a technical one, and that having taken place in his userspace mitigates the violation somewhat. Therefore, I suggest that the Committee impose a significant block - say for a month - with a clear notice to RF that any boundary-exploration anywhere on Wikipedia, with no exceptions, will result in an immediate site ban, enforceable at AE. I think that would be a loud and clear message to RF, who can then decide if he is interested in continuing to edit here under those conditions. BMK (talk) 12:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Fram

EatsShootsandLeaves starts with "Let me start by saying that I do not believe that I have been one of Rich's supporters in the past.", but forgots to add that he is one of my more vocal opponents, having forbidden me to go to his talk page in the future, and concluding "Just when one thinks that someone is improving as a person AND as an editor - WHAM! - they fuck it up badly (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)" When one points out that one is an objective commentator, it may be more correct to indicate the position one has about both editors, certainly when he concludes "Then, you'll need to cast stones in one of 2 directions ... or both.", as if the possibility that no stones will be cast doesn't exist. As for the substance of his comments: the difference between his examples and what happened here is that the result is what counts; how you browse or read pages is of no consequence, how you find things is your business, but if someone chooses to replace hundreds of instances of "A" with "B" in one unsupervised go, including some "A"s that shouldn't have been replaced, then yes, that is automation as defined in the rstriction, and similar to the one that led to the previous year-long block. What message are you trying to send with wanting to silence the one person that did most of the legwork in establishing that there was a pattern of problematic editing in the first place, and who corrected hundreds of such edits after the case ended and it became obvious that no one else would? Fram (talk) 12:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

@EatsShootsandLeaves "close you down once" = told me not to come to your talk page again, with the clear wish that some other admin would block me if I did. "To be forced to restate the same thing to you every time you re-hash the same stupid "he hates me" thing, again, it doesn't make me a "vocal opponent".": let me count the ways: "restate", "same", "every time", "rehash", "same", and "again" in one sentence (and a few more in the next), wow, there must have been countless times I have made such "he hates me" statements. Shouldn't be too hard to find a few examples then. As far as I can remember, I raised the issue once before this. Please refresh my memory on all these other times. Fram (talk) 12:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

@Everyone who thinks I shouldn't be the one making these reports. While I can see your point, the problem is that the mantra some people use of "someone else will see it" isn't correct. As an example: I opened Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough in April 2012, and it closed on 15 May 2012. Lots of his edits (account and bots) were scrutinised at the time, but even so, a long series of errors (first made from his account as an unapproved bot test, then ran as an approved but buggy bot task) wasn't found until some weeks after the case closed (and then only accidentally, because I was checking edits made by another user, User:Jaguar), and then corrected. I started these corrections on 30 May 2012[23] and finished a few hundred error corrections later on 5 June 2012[24]. I have no interest in waiting until such things happens again, so I try to prevent this by checking early. It is not really logical that the "reward" for researching a case, bringing evidence, showing the harm done by the problems, convincing people through a long and laborious process (with lots of abuse from some people), and correcting the problems, is that one would not be allowed to follow up on it, to check that the problems don't start again, and even get threatened with an interaction ban by an admin (I thought that usually for an interaction ban, a series of problematic interactions should be established, not someone repeatedly but correctly pointing out problems with the edits by another user). Obviously, if the conclusion of the Arbs is that userspace edits, or single page edits, are not actionable under the restriction, then I will not bring such edits to AE again. But whether an edit is a violation is not dependent on who reports it. Fram (talk) 07:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Exasperation by NE Ent

Arbcom '12 messed this up. "Automation" is one of those words that we bandy about without thinking about too much -- it seems to have some sort of meaning so we're comfortable using it. It's a vague general nebulous concept, not something that is crisp and well understood. As an intentionally absurd argument, consider: on 4 April RF edited Poundworld, and since that time maybe 200 folks have viewed that page. Did RF make that edit 200 times -- no, it's automation! Or the text substitution of a {{u|NE Ent}} template is (or isn't), or the spell check built into the browser -- at one point Arbcom '12 members were arguing about whether that counted or not.

"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". Okay, so what if RF makes a series of 20 edits that are exactly 18 seconds apart? What if the 20 edits vary from 17 to 19 seconds, but are uniformly distributed instead of Gaussian -- or should "normal" editing be a Poisson distribution???

More ridiculous examples upon request.

The bottom line is that, despite Arbcom '12s good intentions, it is just inherently unreasonable to use "reasonably" in a remedy that references something as ill-defined as "automation." I think Arbcom '14 has to open this back up and provide a remedy that is clearly and unequivocally understood.

Note: I commented in the case pages under prior username Nobody Ent NE Ent 13:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

You're traveling through another dimension -- a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind. A journey into a absurd land whose boundaries are that of inanity. That's a signpost up ahead: your next stop: the Wikipedia Zone!

Back in 1985 I had an Okidata 92 dot matrix printer hooked up to a Commodore 64 and some word processing package I've forgotten the name of; I remember how incredibly cool it was to be able fix things before committing them to paper as the human powered typewriter I had been using did. I'm sure there was a search and replace function. That was 39 years ago. It had a search and replace function. It's 2014 folks. It's not that the restriction is trying to make RF "edit like a human," it's forbidding him to. (At least a human of the third millennia CE.) Only on Wikipedia would the archaic "type weird symbols into a html text box" be considered "using an editor." There is a real world out there folks, can we try to act like we're part of it, maybe?

If Rich's past wiki-transgressions are so heinous that he can't be trusted not to fall off the wagon and run a bot tomorrow if he uses spell-check etc. today, just end the farce already and site ban him.NE Ent 01:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Additional statement

What Pine said. NE Ent 11:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Ohconfucius

The devil lies in the detail. The Arbcom definition of automation cited above remains very subjective and leaves a lot to be desired. In truth, our notions of what constitutes automation evolves with the state of technology. My take is that in today's world, where we rely on computers to do routine and mundane things, performing calculations (instead of longhand or mental arithmetic) or copy–paste (instead of handwriting) is so off-the-scale in terms of what might reasonably be defined or considered "automation". Clicking on the undo button for a series of articles is equally not automation. The beginning of true automation lies somewhere between running a single regex and a 20-regex script over more than a small handful of articles. The edits brought here as examples look like one-off edit of one single and simple regex at worst. Poundworld is not an automated edit. Even if this were in mainspace, it's the product of a simple regex that I'd be inclined to dismiss as a piss-take. This extraction seems like something that can be manipulated with a spreadsheet or word processor. It seems so limited end of my definition that it would be unreasonable to consider it a breach. In addition, RF's editing seems not to have fallen foul of the "speed, number, timing, and consistency of the edits" criteria either. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 15:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'm in total agreement with the statement by Thryduulf, which is a concern also raised by NYB. Although motion3 looks like passing, arbs' authority is founded on their reasonableness as well as effectiveness of their individual and collective decisions. I would urge the arbs to carefully reconsider and at least try and answer the full set of Thryduulf's questions. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 07:12, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved A Quest for Knowledge

I'll repeat what I said at AE:
I hadn't planned on commenting, but I am taken aback by the suggestion that Find and Replace searches aren't automated searches edits. As a software developer for the past 15+ years, I can say that using a text editor's search and replacement feature is absolutely an automated process and one that requires special attention to each and every edit. While I don't know the specifics of RF's ArbCom history, apparently this user has screwed this up so many times that the community has decided that they cannot be trusted to do this again. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

I have little to add to what has been said, at the moment.

I would just like to remind Arbitrators (or point out if they didn't already know it) that it is not pleasant having people impugn one's motives at the best of times.

All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 23:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC).

@Harry: "Write an article..." what are John Valentine Wistar Shaw and Cayley's Sextic, chopped liver? And what is chopped liver anyway? All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 01:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC).

@Roger: You ask:

"If you're able only to edit by typing into a box and pressing [save page], does editing Wikipedia have any long-term attraction at all for you?

Or, to put it another way, are you simply marking time here, until the moment when your bot privileges are restored?"

Here are two completely different questions, both, if I may say so, rather confused. I think I made it clear in my email to the committee that I am mainly catching up on edits I wanted to make while I was blocked. And I think I also made it clear, that just because I ran bots and used tools, it did not mean that I was not a content creator - albeit overshadowed in my fields by people like Matt Crypto, Charles Matthews, MIcahel Hardy, Oleg Alexander, etc.. I do not like to sit comparing dozens of pairs of texts as if I were searching for V1 launch sites (perhaps an apt comparison). However I do like to see the encyclopaedia improved. I find it strange that people would fix an error without asking themselves "How widespread is this sort of problem" and "How can we prevent it happening" and "How can ewe fix it everywhere?" So does Wikipedia hold a long term attraction for me? Yes, if we are talking in the realms of a few years, I will continue to fix errors whether they are substantive such as this, or stylistic. I will even search them them out, so for example the previous mentioned error was discovered after finding a dubious statement supported by unreliable sources in one article, that was also present in about ten other articles. These statements are linked to the Jagged 85 case, which means they have been on Wikipedia for 6 years and are propagating across the Internet and print media, and back into other WP articles. (We do not have the manpower to deal with this sort of thing, despite tremendous efforts by some editors - kicking out someone who might make a contribution there seems crazy.)

Similarly I tagged some 3000 incorrect ISBNs in 2012, 2600 of them remain (and probably some have only had the tag removed) and another 3-4000 ISBN errors have been made since. As far as I know, no-one has made a concerted effort to fix these in my two years absence. I am most of the way through fixing the 24 Featured Articles, and have fixed about a dozen others, including some of the 100 odd Good Articles. In the process I have done the following:

1. Edited by typing into a box and pressing [save page]
2. Copied text from the edit window to use elsewhere
3. Copied text from the page to use elsewhere
4. Cut text by selecting it and pressing Ctrl-X
5. Replaced text by selecting it and typing
6. Pasted text from elsewhere
7. Moved the caret by using the mouse
8. Selected text using the control and arrow keys
9. Used the scroll bar on the edit box

In the process of writing Cayley's sextic I also used the "Greek" gadget to insert π and θ (knowing full-well that there exits some combination of "alt" and numbers that will generate the symbol). I also cut-and-pasted the details of the references. And above, I cut and pasted the url of a diff.

So really the type of edit that is prohibited by the motion that is responding to my two mis-clicks in 2012 is pretty much inclusive of any serious editing. "But nobody would be such a jerk as to invoke the restriction for edits like this" I hear you cry. That, of course, is exactly what I thought. The purpose of this over-broad restriction, was to prevent what was seen as (perhaps reasonably) a work-around to previous restriction. In fact it provided another layer of "gotchas". I wonder if you can imagine what it is like working under these restrictions, and having people who don't know the facts say like "violation of all manner of BotOp, administrator, and consensus policies" or "apparently this user has screwed this up so many times".

The fact of the matter is, that, rightly or wrongly, the committee wanted to stop me using "automation tools", defined as "a technology designed to facilitate making multiple similar edits" - and this has resulted in me being blocked for a year over a single edit that provided references to an article, the only problem with that edit being a single character that was typed (or not typed, I forget) by hand. This was not, I believe the aim of the restriction.

So does editing Wikipedia hold any attraction? If people are going to edit cooperatively, then sure. If they are going to throw obstacles in my path for the sake of it, then not so much.

Am I marking time? Hardly! I think I have been pretty productive, I have in your area of interest, created at least stubs, or redirects for half the articles on this list. I have yet to attend to this problem with Elliot Roosevelt, and, have abandoned for now planned improvements to Carolingian Renaissance, because of the time I am spending on this, but please look at the work I have done in the last 2 weeks. It only scratches the surface, of course, but it is at least workmanlike, and an improvement. I also have spent some time at Teahouse and Help Desk, (which are the fora for being welcoming, rather than abrasive).

As to Fram's pathetic claim that he is forced to run around after me fixing my errors, I have always said that I will fix any errors brought to my attention. Fram reported three minor errors (two typos) on Jimbo Wales talk page, while I was blocked. Fixing them was the first thing I did when my block expired - Fram was happy to hunt for them to besmirch my name, but not to tell me about it. Similarly the Arb case was brought as a BLP issue - the world was about to implode because we were revealing who had had sock allegations made against them (this was debunked pretty quickly) my fourth edit was to address that issue. Although it was apparently vital enough that I should be whipped about town, have my rights removed etc. no-one was actually concerned enough to make sure that these details weren't exposed - except me. By their fruits shall ye know them.

All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 18:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC).

@Roger Davies 2: "The purpose is to permanently wean Rich off high speed edits with collateral damage to a slower considered style where every edit moves the article forward and requires no external intervention to fix." It would be interesting to see how either of the edits complained about contravene this purpose. Notably one is not to an article, and could never be an article, the other complaint is based on some crazy hypotheses that I would replace all occurrences of "(a)" with "*". RF 22:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

@T. Canens: No one has pointed out why these edits are "problematic". No one has pointed to any editing since the arb case that is problematic. Sure I worked on a lot of turtle articles, and using the same reference format as a colleague introduced a reference with a capitalisation error in it ("Vertebrate zoology" instead of "Vertebrate Zoology") into many of them. But it was correcting the error I was sanctioned for, not creating it.

Similarly the one year block which resulted from your previous "go ahead" to Sandstein was for adding references to an article. One. Article. Not for "making many similar edits to many articles" and certainly the only error there was a single character that was typed (or omitted, I forget which) by hand.

All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 22:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC).

A number of people have suggested that I am "testing my limits" or "pushing the envelope" - this simultaneously ascribes a level of both stupidity and bad faith that verges on bad faith and personal attacks - so much for claims to be "dispassionate".

Strange as it seems when I am editing my mind is not on "testing the limit" (which would be playing Russian roulette) or "not acting like a human" (which is a nasty turn of phrase), but helping people. I did not create Cayley's sextic out of some perverse desire to annoy ArbCom, but because it is an useful article. I did not clean up copy-violations such as Hidden Blade because I am "testing my limits", but because they break the law. I did not remove incorrect claims from articles as an act of defiance, but because they are misleading. I am not creating pages for Trinidad and Tobago portal to annoy other editors, but to be welcoming to Trinidadians and Tobagans. I am not working on [[Igbo] culture out of a sense of spite, but to redress systemic flaws in our coverage. I am not fixing ISBN numbers to... but you get the picture. Or I hope you do.

All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 03:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC).

@Roger Davies I do wish people would stop telling me what I am thinking. It is bad enough having them make inaccurate statements about my actions. It seems likely that I will continue to edit on this project in my own small way, in whatever ways the community and I agree are reasonable and desirable. I have just produced some code that will, I hope, assist another editor to fix 11,000 articles. Of course I published it off-wiki. And I have just produced for another editor a list of over 5,000 red-linked palaeontology articles, also published off-wiki, under CCBYSA3. I I have also helped editors gain massive speed-ups on their bots, and use semi-automated tools to make impossible tasks feasible. I don't really care, for myself, if I never run another bot on this project, there are other, just as important and much harder things that need doing. I do, however, care deeply about the following three things:

1. That the project be as accurate, clear and wide ranging as possible
2. That the project be a welcoming place, specifically to those with limited English, those with accessibility issues, those with mental health issues, and regardless of demographic.
3. That the project not publish falsehoods about me. Perhaps this is rather shallow of me, and it should all be water off a ducks back, but that is how I feel.

It seems to me common sense, given the wide community support here, that the type of disruptive stalking that started the AE (and a host of other like actions before it) should be put a stop to once and for all, and that the Motion of May 2012 is long past its sell-by date, serves no useful purpose (if it ever did) and should be gracefully retired.

Thank you for reading this, Rich Farmbrough, 04:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Orlady (uninvolved)

I would like Arbcom to revise/clarify the restriction to allow use of copy-and-paste in user space. Rich's recent edits clearly did violate the restriction as worded, but it appears to me that the wording of the restriction went beyond the scope of what was called for in the Arbcom discussion. Using copy-and-paste tools in Wikipedia user space is indeed a violation of the restriction as worded, but I can't see how it does any harm. However, it harms Wikipedia's image (i.e., Wikipedia looks pretty foolish) if Wikipedia blocks or bans a productive contributor for that kind of edit. --Orlady (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Olive (not involved)

The real question ought to be, in an environment that is not punitive, whether Rich knew he was trespassing on an Arb Com restriction. I don't see that he did in which case he should be warned that this too is a way in which he cannot edit, rather than punish for ignorance, especially when even the arbs do not agree on whether he trespassed his restrictions . How can you sanction someone for not knowing. If that is the WP environment than as a collaborative project this fails. Further the tone of some of the arbs, and I do respect the job arbs have to do, is less than civil or respectful. That an editor may have transgressed does not mean they deserve to be treated in a less than respectful manner.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC))

Statement by Harry Mitchell

My first thought on seeing that this had come up again was "oh, for fuck's sake", which is still a fairly accurate summary of how I feel.

Fram: move on. You've been following Rich around for years, and if you subjected anybody to the sort of scrutiny you've been subjecting Rich to, you could find grounds to sanction them. I thoroughly endorse Beeblebrox's suggestion that you find something else to do. If Rich is a problem and continues to be so after this clarification request, others will pick up where you left off and, frankly, the complaints would have a lot more credibility if they weren't all made by the same person.

Rich: go and write an article or something. I'd love for you to keep participating in this project, but you do so on the terms of its community or not at all. It is difficult to imagine that community (or its representatives on ArbCom, think of them what you will) permitting you, at any time in the foreseeable future, to edit in a way that involves mass changes to multiple articles, such as with AWB and/or bots. I can see the argument that the current restriction is overly harsh or cumbersome, but you are not going to get it lifted by testing its boundaries, and even if you succeed in having it loosened, you will still not be permitted to make those sorts of edits. So I'm afraid your options for the time being are either to find something else to do which is permitted by your restrictions, or to find another way to fill your time. Don't just while away the time until you can get back to what you used to do, because (quite apart from the fact that you'll be waiting for many years at the very least) that's not healthy for you or for the project.

Arbs: I don't think there's much to be done for the time being. Either Rich will find something that he can work on without violating his restrictions, or he has no interest in contributing in a way that the community finds acceptable. Much as I hope it's the former, whatever the case, his intentions will soon become apparent. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Johnuniq

Rich should not do a search-and-replace in an article to rearrange whitespace or anything else—just edit text that will benefit from editing, and leave bot-like cleanups for others.

However, no bot-like cleanup has occurred in this case, and there is no reason to prevent Rich from doing search-and-replace while preparing an article in user space. Sanctioning an editor for saving a bad user-page draft would be Kafkaesque. Johnuniq (talk) 23:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Redrose64

As I understand it, Rich is being condemned for making edits that are "clearly not manually made"; to wit, using a regular expression search-and-replace.

If a logged-in user goes to Preferences → Editing, and enables both "Enable the editing toolbar" and "⧼wikieditor-toolbar-dialogs-preference⧽", they get the button when editing - it's close to the upper right corner of the edit window. This, when clicked, opens a dialog box for a search-and-replace function which handles regular expressions. It has buttons Find next Replace Replace all; the operation of these should be familiar to anybody who has used, for example, Windows Notepad. Automated process it may be; but then, so is the action that is triggered by clicking [edit], Show preview, or Save page - or by simply following a wikilink. These set in motion a number of SQL requests - they are automated processes.

I recall that Rich was required to blank his .js pages: I am not aware of any requirement that he should also disable features included within the standard MediaWiki interface. I think that it is unreasonable to expect Rich to use a subset of those standard facilities which are available to any logged-in editor. He may have been required to disable all gadgets - but the abovementioned search-and-replace function isn't a gadget.

The intent of the original judgement was surely to prevent Rich from making identical edits on multiple pages in a short time frame - edits that might violate, say, WP:AWB#Rules of use. The interpretation of this judgement has been twisted to the point that Rich cannot even make one edit to one page without it coming under scrutiny. No evidence has been provided that two or more pages have been subjected to identical edits. I would ask how Fram discovered the first edit given in evidence: it's in Rich's userspace (specifically, User:Rich Farmbrough/wanted/mathematicians), and is a page that has never been edited by Fram, so is not likely to be on Fram's watchlist. There are two ways that he can have become aware of that edit: either he is stalking Rich's edits, or was tipped off. I cannot say which of these actually occurred, but it does seem to me that certain parties are out for blood, which they intend to get by any means possible. If the edits that Rich made to a page in his own user space are not in accord with WP:USERSPACE, there are several available routes: (i) edit the page per WP:UP#On others' user pages; (ii) put it up for WP:CSD (see WP:UP#DELETE); (iii) take it to WP:MFD. There is no need to make a whole drama out of a non-issue.

Finally, I would like to point out that one of those complaining made this edit, to this very clarification request; notice that in the added paragraph, it includes the phrases "using a text editor's search and replacement feature ... requires special attention to each and every edit" and "this user has screwed this up so many times". I invite you all to observe what happened to the post immediately preceding the newly-added subsection. How did all those punctuation marks become altered to hash signs, if not by an inattentive screwed-up edit? --Redrose64 (talk) 23:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Italick

The edit in discussion does not appear automated. In any case, it did not require copy, paste, and search. Instead of just looking at the diff and assuming that it is automation, I opened the original page for editing in a window. Then I saw that setting up the new version is merely a matter of deleting numbers and punctuation after each link in the list, and deleting some blank lines. Nothing fancy was needed to do that. Italick (talk) 09:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I can see that the edit was automated (or more likely, just intended to look that way), and was a test of the vigilance over Rich Farmbrough's edits. If I was banished for a year over small stuff and had an editing restriction, I too might try to figure out if somebody was scouring over all of my edits in earnest, trying to find a reason to turn me in. Italick (talk) 03:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved duckduckstop

well, here we are again. has arbcom learned yet that micromanaging editors is problematic? when will there be civility enforcement toward admins here? i see we have an admin who is blocked at bugzilla, acting the same way here. i have heard it said that editors are a dime a dozen, and replaceable. is this case a refutation? is anyone else fixing isbn's? is a high edit count rather a block me sign, since the error patrol has more to rake over the coals? when you ask if he is "marking time", is that a refutation of fresh start? when you ask why not just edit by typing, is that a refutation of all the tools and bots, most of which have unintended consequences? i note that bots that delete references are allowed to run, but heaven help the bot that adds a typo.

stop blaming the editor, and start fixing the system. if you don't like the editor's output, then give him the tools to reduce errors. this kind of zero defect thinking in this case, is profoundly incompetent. it leads to zero activity, and zero improvement.

and make no mistake, if you were to ever ask, why is there editor decline; this is a clarion call why. Duckduckstop (talk) 19:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

@ User:AGK Micromanagement: "micromanagement is a management style whereby a manager closely observes or controls the work of subordinates or employees. Micromanagement generally has a negative connotation."... "excessive control or attention on details". wouldn't you agree that is what is occuring here?

Macromanagement: "macromanager directs a system, first he will focus on the system's entities (such as constraints, rules, information architecture, etc.) and thereafter he will change them so that the system spontaneously moves to the defined aim, i.e. to the new lower potentials which a macromanager has tuned." show me where you changed the system to reduce the conflict here.

by your restrictions, are you trolling him to test the boundries? i'm not particularly a fan of bot operators, including this one. but, wouldn't a reasonable person agree that this case has appalled several editors (not just me), and that perceived failure to manage will negatively impact wikipedia? Duckduckstop (talk) 15:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Statement by ErikHaugen

Isn't this just a "todo" list of sorts in his own userspace? What reasonable person would think curating a personal todo page could be a violation of the spirit of these restrictions? I'm pretty disappointed that some of you are voting for ~months-long blocks for this. Fram, I appreciate your diligence here, but I'm similarly disappointed that you wasted your time looking over his edits to his userspace; I'd echo the other calls here for you to take a step back. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 03:15, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Pine on the clarification request

• Consistent with my suggestion on the other clarification request and the views of some arbitrators on that request, I suggest to NativeForeigner that Motion 3 include a statement that Rich is allowed to use a 3rd-party bot to archive his talk pages, and may use copy, cut, paste, replace, and replace-all tools in any namespace without violating the automation restrictions. Restrictions on creating his own bots and using any other automation outside his userspace remain. --Pine^✉ 07:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• I more or less agree with Thryduulf that I don't see how restricting Rich from using limited automation in his userspace is a problem. If his automation ever leaks out of his userspace it's simple to deal with that with a block.
• I agree with what others have said that micromanaging Rich is a bad idea, it is a poor use of the time of this community and Arbcom, and I encourage those who want to follow Rich's every last edit to look for signs of automation to go create some featured content or work on the copyediting queue. Complaining about Rich to AE or Arbcom when Rich isn't doing anything significantly disruptive amounts to hounding.
• I agree with blocking Rich if he is creates a significant new disruption to the encyclopedia.
• I agree that instructing Rich to avoid boundary testing is appropriate.

--Pine^✉ 06:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf

@AGK:. If I were Newyorkbrad I would feel rather insulted by your comment that "the answer [to why the automation restriction should apply to Rich's userspace] seems obvious." If the answer were obvious then nobody would feel the need to ask the question, particularly not someone as experienced in dispute resolution matters as NYB.

For every sanction imposed on a user, the following questions must have known answers before it is imposed:

1. What is the purpose of the sanction?
2. How does that purpose benefit the encyclopaedia?
3. How will the sanction enable the benefit to the encyclopaedia be realised?
4. Could the same benefit be gained by a narrower sanction? If yes, why has that not been used instead?

At the moment it is not clear what the answer to any of these questions is in relation to Rich not being allowed to use automation in his userspace. There may very well be good answers to all of them, but you need to actually answer them. Thryduulf (talk) 16:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Statement by {other user}

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• Recuse Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
• Recuse Rschen7754 18:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I do not see the disputed edits as warranting any sanction. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I remain of this view. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
• The restriction is clear (and the edits in question constitute a violation) and it is also draconian. It would not have had to be that draconian if Rich hadn't continued to test the boundaries of his previous sanction. That said, although the disputed edits are indeed a violation, I'd say this is a case of de minimis non curat ArbCom. What worries me, however, is that Rich appears to be once again trying to test the boundaries of his restriction and to be doing so immediately after his previous block expired. So I'm really on the fence, but I think I'll probably go with a warning that further acts with the appearance of boundary testing will not be tolerated. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
• Did Rich's edits violate the letter of the very explicit restrictions he is under? I think they did. Is there any benefit to the project in making a big deal out of him editing anything in his own userspace in this manner? Probably not.

• Fram: I think you need to find something else to do with your on-wiki time. These prolonged interpersonal disputes reflect badly on all involved.
• Rich: Stop testing the boundaries of the sanctions. You know this is what you did. You're a long term, highly prolific contributor to this project. We want you to stick around or you would already be banned, but if you insist on playing these little games it may come to that. Is it really so hard to just not make any kind of automated edits? You're better than this, at least I hope you are. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• As has already been agreed, I consider Rich to have breached his restriction. More to the point, I have little remaining patience for his refusal to abide by the direction that he edit like a human. Taking into account Rich's long record of skirting this automation restriction, I would now recommend sanctioning him. AGK [•] 21:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• @Duckduckstop: Your evaluation is deeply flawed. Instructing an editor as sweepingly as "do not make automated edits" is not micromanagement. It is an instruction that is essentially macro in scope. The problem is that Rich refuses to obey the restriction; I'm sure you would agree that ignoring this transgression is not something the committee can do. AGK [•] 21:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• The edits in question pretty clearly violated his restriction, and as such, I think a sanction would be reasonable here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
• The restriction is draconian; it was meant to be. It reflects the committee's and the community's exasperation at Rich's (and his enablers') efforts to push the envelope in every direction possible.

  The intent is to give Rich a-fifth-or-sixth-absolutely-last-chance as an alternative to an indefinite site-ban. The spirit is to ensure that Rich's work comprises: click on [edit], type, then [save page]. The purpose is to permanently wean Rich off high speed edits with collateral damage to a slower considered style where every edit moves the article forward and requires no external intervention to fix.

  In this context, the edits here clearly breach the restriction and, coming so soon after a twelve-month block, are deeply disappointing.

  Now, Rich, I have a question for you:

  • "If you're able only to edit by typing into a box and pressing [save page], does editing Wikipedia have any long-term attraction at all for you? Or, to put it another way, are you simply marking time here, until the moment when your bot privileges are restored?"
  I would like you to be open about your aspirations as it will greatly inform my decision.  Roger Davies ^talk 05:02, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Rich. Your long posting really doesn't address my question; after all, you can keep yourself busy while marking time. Based on your email, and your postings elsewhere, it seems clear to me that you will not rest until you're back running bots all over the place, with all the attendant problems that has brought in the past. I am of the view that you now need to move on.  Roger Davies ^talk 10:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks, hi Rich. I don't need to be a mindreader as your comments and actions really do speak for themselves.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:20, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Fram. I agree. Automated and semi-automated edits get little or no scrutiny unless the edits are glaringly stupid or seriously flawed. Even then, the volume is such that it's exceedingly difficult to pick everything up. Given the history here, there is no reason to wait for another ["irregularity",  Roger Davies ^talk 09:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
• It looks like Rich probably used an automated technique off-wiki and then copied the results on wiki... to his userspace. Yes, it's a violation but the idea of blocking Rich for a year for a userspace violation seems excessive to me, sanctions should be in proportion to the violation.
  In the general case though, Rich has been back for a short while and has been doing generally good work in that time. He appears to be primarily editing within his restrictions and it's a shame that these automated edits have been made. I'd be very interested to know his answer to Roger's question about the long term. Worm^TT(talk) 10:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
• I agree with several of my colleagues that this is a clear violation of the automation restriction as interpreted and amplified by the motion, and with Roger's explanation of the reasons behind this admittedly draconian restriction. At this point, I have difficulty imagining an editing restriction that would 1) allow Rich Farmbrough to edit, 2) prevent the problematic editing identified in the decision and yet 3) not be susceptible to the sort of envelope-pushing we have seen so far with this automation restriction. Unfortunately, I do not think we have many other options open to us. T. Canens (talk) 22:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Motion: Rich Farmbrough

For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	7
1–2	6
3–4	5

In order to resolve the enforcement request referred to us, the committee resolves that:

1. Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs) has violated his restriction against automated editing. That restriction clearly required he "make only completely manual edits".
2. Accordingly, Rich Farmbrough is blocked for three months.
3. Rich Farmbrough is warned that the committee is likely to take a severe view of further violations, and may consider replacing his automation restriction with a site ban.

Support

1. Proposed. If this violation had occurred outside his userspace, we would surely be site-banning him now: Rich has already had chance after chance. AGK [•] 10:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
2. It seems to me that the violation occurred in user space by accident rather than by design as Rich has not acknowledged that the edit breached his restriction. That said, the breach occurring in userspace provides some mitigation but not exoneration, especially coming so some after a twelve-month ban. The community does not expect the committee to reward intransigence so a block is an appropriate and proportionate response.  Roger Davies ^talk 11:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
3. T. Canens (talk) 16:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
4. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Personally, I think 1 month would be sufficient. 3 months also seems excessive for this userspace violation, especially given his other edits during the time period. Time away isn't really what's required here, it's enlightenment - I don't believe that spending the additional 2 months away would help Rich to "get it". Hopefully the final statement is what will get through to Rich. Worm^TT(talk) 10:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

   You have asked in another thread why Rich's restriction has not worked and voted here to not properly enforce after a violation. Are you deliberately undermining your own position? AGK [•] 14:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

   I don't believe so, the sanction should be in proportion to the action - 1 month is sufficient when combined with a statement that "even minor issues can lead to indefinite in the future". I would support this if the block was for 1 month. Worm^TT(talk) 14:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

2. In my view, and consistent with a majority of the AE administrators, the disputed edits do not warrant any sanction. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
3. I do think Rich violated the restriction, and I do think he did so deliberately in order to test the limits of it. I don't think this solution will actually solve anything. Rich will either learn to stop testing the sanction's limits and be allowed to continue editing, or he will continue and we will have to show him the door. He's already waited put a year-long block. If we do this we've just kicked the can down the road without resolving the underlying issue. Rich: your test worked. Here are the results: no, there are no exemptions to your restrictions and if you even look like you are testing them again a site ban is the likely result. Today, three months from now, whenever. Pushing the boundaries and then asking if it was ok is exactly the wrong way to go about it. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
4. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
5. These edits were disputed, had (in the end) very little project impact, and ultimately aren't worth blocking for. But I will note that this does look like a recurring trend. NativeForeigner ^Talk 22:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

   That there is a "recurring trend" (that seems like a tautology) is why a block is proposed. I've lost count of the number of times Rich Farmbrough, who is just off a one-year block for violating the restriction, has refused to edit without scripts and other automation. AGK [•] 11:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

6. Oppose, but only because another three-month block is not going to do it if a year didn't. If there's any more use of automation of any kind anywhere, it should result in a site ban. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Abstain

Comments by arbitrators

---

Motion: Rich Farmbrough 2

For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

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

In order to resolve the enforcement request referred to us, the committee resolves that:

1. Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs) has violated his restriction against automated editing. That restriction clearly required he "make only completely manual edits".
2. A request for an exemption for his own userspace may have been granted if it had been asked for before this violation, but since it was filed only afterward that request is denied and Rich is advised that there are no exemptions whatsoever to the restriction and he may not make any further requests of this nature for a minimum of six months.
3. Accordingly, Rich Farmbrough is warned that the committee is likely to take a severe view of further violations, and may consider replacing his automation restriction with a site ban.

Support

1. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
2. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Opposing because I believe paragraph 2 is counterproductive; but this is certainly preferable to motion 1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
2. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
3. I'm not 100% convinced we should turn down the userspace restriction and I certainly wouldn't turn it down because he did things in the wrong order. The second paragraph therefore does not reflect me feelings. Worm^TT(talk) 08:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
4. T. Canens (talk) 22:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
5. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:35, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
6. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Abstain

1. Far too weak, but I won't obstruct. AGK [•] 07:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments by arbitrators

• Just a note that this is intended to be the official reply to both current requests here. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• If there is any appetite for it, it would be easy enough to post a third motion that omits the language the opposers are objecting to. Doing absolutely nothing doesn't strike me as a good move at this point. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

---

Motion: Rich Farmbrough 3

For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	7
1–2	6
3–4	5

In order to resolve the enforcement request referred to us, the committee resolves that:

1. Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs) has violated his restriction against automated editing. That restriction clearly required he "make only completely manual edits" and hence the prohibition applies regardless of namespace.
2. Accordingly, Rich Farmbrough is warned that the committee is likely to take a severe view of further violations, and may consider replacing his automation restriction with a site ban.

Support

1. This removes the problematic paragraph from the above proposed motion two. I also further elaborated that the prohibition applies regardless of namespace. Although I think it can be assumed that the restriction applies regardless of namespace, such clarifications are mildly positive, in my view. Suggestions for modification are welcome from any editors. NativeForeigner ^Talk 23:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
2. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
3. Very weak, on account of the subject's recidivism, but I can reluctantly endorse this. (If Motion 1 passes, this vote is an oppose.) AGK [•] 11:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
4. I can accept this, with the proviso that Rich needs absolutely to be more careful in future as the only remain option appears to be an indefinite ban. Worm^TT(talk) 14:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
5. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
6. Second choice to Motion 1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
7. This understanding needs to be very clear. Absolutely no more boundary testing. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. T. Canens (talk) 23:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Abstain

Comments by arbitrators

• No one has addressed my question (above in RF's clarification/amendment request thread) as to why the automation restriction should or should not apply in userspace. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• The answer seems obvious. AGK [•] 14:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for amendment (April 2014)

Original Request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Initiated by Rich Farmbrough, 04:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC).

Case affected

Rich Farmbrough arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedy 2
2. Motion 2

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

Information about amendment request

• Strike motion 2
• Modify Remedy 2

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

The previous arbitration case defined an automaton tool in principle 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.

A "remedy" was passed (Remedy 2)

Rich Farmbrough is indefinitely prohibited from using any automation whatsoever on Wikipedia....

Presumably, since the drafting arbitrator had defined "automation tool", and since the initial complaint was that automation tools had been used in a way that caused issues disruption, by making multiple similar edits, automation tools is what is meant here. The actual wording is overboard and unenforceable.

For this reason I request that:

Request 1

The text of the first sentence of remedy 2 be forthwith changed to:

Rich Farmbrough is indefinitely prohibited from using any automation tool whatsoever on Wikipedia to make multiple similar edits.

Request 2

A, hopefully unintended, side effect of is my inability to archive my talk page, (possibly) to create lists of articles for people to work on and make other perfectly innocuous changes. Therefore I request the following to be added to Remedy 2.

This shall not apply to pages in Rich Farmbrough's own User; And User talk: area.

I note that a similar request was turned down two years ago as being "too soon." I hope this no longer applies.

Request 3

Motion 2 (which has been described by arbitrators as "draconian") was introduced in somewhat heated circumstances. I had mis-clicked on a tool I was using to compile lists and prepare text and made two "automated edits". Much ABF followed, together with many unfounded accusations and threats to bring out the ban-hammer. Nonetheless, the existing remedies were quite sufficient for a one-month block to be enacted. Given this the imposition of an additional editing restriction, especially one as broad reaching as this seems pointless.

Motion 2 has been subject to much abuse, resulting in a years block over an edit that added references to a page, but caused an error due to the wholly manual omission of a "/". It was even suggested that editing the page to insert the missing "/" constituted automated editing.

Neither this, nor the subsequent request for AE, nor any other complaint based on the Motion 2 have had anything to do with "making multiple similar edits" - the effect has been not to prevent disruption but to create disruption.

Moreover the Motion forbids such simple tasks as cutting and pasting, making even raising this request sanctioanble. I have given elsewhere examples of perfectly normal, not say essential, editing techniques which are banned by this Motion 2. I will repeat them here if requested.

So request 3 is:

Strike Motion 2

@Beeblebrox. I think you confuse me with someone else. With the possible exception of the series of edits correcting the my own spelling error "Vertebrate zoology" to "Vertebrate Zoology", for which I apologized profusely and was blocked for a month two years ago, no-one has even suggested that I have done the type of multiple edits that allegedly caused disruption.

You might also want to look at some of the other parts of the case. For example this edit was considered a reason to remove my admin bit. And yet you can "sigh" in your edit summary with no consequences.

All I am trying to achieve here, is to restore sanity to the editing restrictions, not to remove them, however flawed they are. I can see no way these requested changes can harm the project, even if the manifest WP:ABF were justified.

I would really appreciate being treated in a courteous manner, and have the issues addressed, rather than coded and not so coded insults.

However, I will make an additional effort to move the dialogue forward: Suggest, please, an editing task which I could take on which would not violate Motion 2?

All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 21:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC).

@Newyorkbrad, most certainly. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 12:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC).

@Roger Davies It's not nice to say that there were problems with my bots. If you look at the workshop even my most vociferous critic said "His bot edits (Helpful Pixie Bot mainly) generally fall under a), both authorized and correct. "

There are no "findings" relating to errors in bot edits, or indeed to any errors.

All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 14:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC).

@Beeblebrox I just read your comment again. I think that the point of the sanctions is supposed to be to protect the encyclopaedia. The idea that the sanctions themselves are important for their own sake is a very un-wiki idea. If the sanctions are only being perpetuated because it is believed that I have, will or want to break them, it is a bad case of the tail wagging the dog.

All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 14:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC).

Statement by Pine on the amendment request

Without wading into the details of Rich's motion I am hoping Arbcom can come up with a solution that will eliminate the need for constant supervision of Rich's situation, and reduce the frequency of trips to arbitration and arbitration enforcement pages. I think the original sanctions were intended to prevent disruption but if they have become an obstacle to Rich being a non-disruptive contributor and are frequently discussed at great length on arbitration and arbitration enforcement pages then I think it's time for a change. --Pine^✉ 07:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• This is going to reveal that I haven't researched deeply into Rich's case beyond seeing how much text it has produced over the years, but wouldn't it be easy to have an arbitration remedy that prohibits disruptive automated editing, and leave the enforcement of that to the discretion of AE, ANI, and BASC? --Pine^✉ 07:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• WormTT's ideas are similar to what I have in mind after looking more at Rich's requests. ArbCom could specifically discuss using cut, copy, paste, replace, spellcheck, and replace all tools that don't involve bot work, and consider making an exception for Rich's userspace. Restrictions on other bot or automated activity outside of Rich's userspace would remain. Rich would need to be very careful that any automated work intended for his userspace doesn't leak into other areas. --Pine^✉ 01:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
• I have added other comments about Rich's situation under the clarification request. --Pine^✉ 06:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Statement by {yet another user}

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Here's what you are (deliberately?) not getting: The "too soon" response is not just meant to say that time needs to pass, it means that you need to spend some time where you are unblocked, actively editing, and not doing anything that could possibly be interpreted as violating or testing the boundaries of your current sanctions. So, yeah, still too soon for my taste. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
• Just thinking out loud here, what would be the downside of exempting Rich's own userspace from the restriction? (Actually, I can think of one myself: that Rich would create buggy articles in userspace and then port them to mainspace. Rich, can you assure us you wouldn't do that?) Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• More or less what you said there. IT's been a longstanding area of concern, and although that would be a good place to start loosening restrictions now is not a good time to be doing that. NativeForeigner ^Talk 22:44, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• Speedily dismiss as essentially duplicating the clarification request. AGK [•] 10:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
• Rich's sanctions were put in place to stop the past issues whilst retaining the editor. They were draconian and understandably so, but they haven't worked. We've now got two options, give up and block indefinitely or clarify the sanctions so that they keep the problems from re-occurring, whilst also being something Rich can work within. I spent a while trying to think of how best to phrase it, but simply put this motion was pretty much the solution I would have come up with. It's clear what we are currently referring to as "automation":
  1) Numerous similar edits across multiple pages - i.e. traditional "bot" editing
  2) Non-trivial find and replace across a single page - i.e. any find and replace that would require regex involvement. Also, "find and replace all" will fall under this. Each replacement should be checked manually.
  3) Any other scripted manipulations of text, either directly performed on-wiki or performed off-wiki and moved on.
  We were never just looking at number 1, so I'd deny Rich's first request outright. Regarding the userspace exemption, this would instantly sort the below clarification request. It's not generally an unreasonable request and I would be amenable to it in the future - possibly after 6 months of good editing. The very existence of the clarification request below does not give me sufficient faith that it would not be abused at the moment, so I would deny Rich's second request for the time being. Finally, motion 2, per my previous comments - is not something I'd be willing to remove at the moment. Worm^TT(talk) 10:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• By what measure, Dave, hasn't the restriction worked? The main page hasn't been tagged uncategorised recently; the boards aren't filled with people complaining; the bots aren't re-running to fix earlier errors (and introduce new ones). The lack of high-speed disruption looks pretty good to me,  Roger Davies ^talk 11:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

  We have two clarification requests, multiple emails and discussions in other fora regarding Rich within 3 weeks of his block expiring. That spells "something not right" to me. That said, I can't see any better solution. Worm^TT(talk) 11:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• The notion that someone is only able to archive their talk page by running a custom bot beggars belief. In a nutshell, the issue here is that Rich appears incapable of being completely satisfied with anything unless he has automated it. Summarily dismiss,  Roger Davies ^talk 11:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Hi, Pine. The lesson of Rich's history, I'm afraid, is that no matter how much care he is asked to exercise, this stuff will leak into user space. The problem, for me, with the search-and-replace that triggered this was that he made a search, without appreciating that it contained a wildcard, which had unintended consequences. He then saved without review. This typifies the problems of the past and is precisely the reason why this restriction is so strict.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Not necessarily a "custom" bot; could Rich permissibly sign up for any of the archiving bots? Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Frankly, Brad, signing up for third-party archiving has never been covered by this restriction. What Rich is asking for here is to run his own custom automated archiving. If anyone has the energy to find it, he has requested this before (and been denied).  Roger Davies ^talk 06:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
    • My own talk page has 32 archives, all of which I managed to create without any sort of automated tool. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
• Decline. T. Canens (talk) 16:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
• Decline, but allow Rich to use a bot to archive his talk page. I can't imagine how permitting him to do that could a. lead to disruption and b. be contentious. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• Salvio I presume you mean a third-party bot?  Roger Davies ^talk 06:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• Yes. If Rich wants to use a bot such as Cluebot III to archive his talk page, then I say he should be allowed to do so. If he, on the other hand, wants to run his own bot for that purpose, then, no, that's not what I had in mind. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• Decline but note that Rich is encouraged to use Cluebot III or equivalent third party bot as an archiving tool. NativeForeigner ^Talk 22:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
• Decline GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for clarification - bot (April 2014)

Original Request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Initiated by Hasteur (talk) at 20:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Rich Farmbrough arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) Clarifying Motion of April 20th 2014

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Hasteur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Notified

Statement by Hasteur

I seek clarification as to the extent of which the ban on automation extends. A request was made at Wikipedia:Bot requests seeking a bot operator to design a highly customized talk page archiving bot based on multiple rules and targeting. Based on this I seek clarification as to what line does a completely manual edit flip over to being automation when the edit triggers a automated response. Does a Rube Goldberg invention of triggered automation cross the line over what is considered automated? Hasteur (talk) 20:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• I specifically ask the committee to clarify if the signaling method proposed violates the spirit of "No automation" as explicitly defined by the just recently closed Clarifying motion. I ask that the committee not shirk it's duty by speedy declining this clarification request. It doesn't make sens for me or any other bot operator to code such a complicated archiving bot when there are many other options available for archiving in addition to the very singular use case (to replace a archiving bot that was coded by the topic banned editor wrote). Furthermore, when I read the action (also recalling the recent debate regarding the clarification motion) I saw that this was attempting to push at the edges of automating. Hasteur (talk) 14:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
• @Worm That Turned: I may be a big boy, but as one who was sanctioned by this committee recently, so I am attempting to be above and beyond the minimum standards of complying with the rules. Right now there are very few people who are keeping an eye on the Bot Requests noticeboard (to the point that multiple requests are being archived off without ever having even a simple response to them). So the very small pool of bot operators who are willing to take on tasks that they did not want is even smaller so it's always the same few editors resolving the requests. Hasteur (talk) 14:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

This is pretty much what Femto Bot used to do, with corrections and minor upgrades. The committee seemed agreeable to having another editor run Femto Bot's code last time it was mentioned. This request is for a more robust version, notably it would be resistant to attempts by other users to manipulate it, and would be more scalable, being event driven rather scheduled. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC).

@Beebelbrox. I have about 90 talk page archives, and it should be about 115, once catching up is done. I am used to a far busier talk-page than you, including matters I want to archive very quickly, and matters that need to be discussed over a period of months.

However that is somewhat irrelevant. You may choose to walk everywhere, and tell the time by the sun and stars, but I prefer to use a bicycle and a chronometer. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC).

In view of the wholly negative response form arbs here I am withdrawing my request at BOT requests.

I will remind Arbs that I have done exactly what they suggested at the original request

• Request someone else run my archiving bot for me.

• wait and ask again when we are not so cross.

Of course I shall now have to sign up for a less functional solution. Cluebot III is completely useless if one wants by-month archiving, by the way. I hope Lowercase sigma bot will work, but I suspect it make undesired changes to headers.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC).

@AGK "I am actually thinking the automation restriction is utterly unenforceable" well, you shouldn't have voted for such stupid restrictions in the first place! Instead think about what is good for the encyclopaedia! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC).

@Worm That Turned - I created a custom bot because I needed it. I think others would had found it useful too, had I made it as robust as would have been required for a general purpose bot. Similar degrees of complexity apply to existing bots, for example they create and head up new archives as needed, and can provide some forms of indexing.

I used four general bots before switching to my own. Running my own allowed me to be more responsive to user concerns, by keeping unfinished business on the page, and clearing dealt with items quickly away.

In the request for permission to run Femto Bot, Sladen reported that a kind offer had been made to run the bot for me. There were no objections at the time. Funny how it's now seen as major problem. I however do not stop assuming good faith, where it is deserved, simply believing that people are not as "dispassionate" as they would like to claim, and are reacting emotionally. That is absolutely fine, and emotion is not out of place here. However I would urge people who wish do deliver judgements to try to separate the factual, the procedural and the intentional.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 06:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC).

Statement by ErikHaugen

I am sure that it strikes me as a poor use of our bot-coding editors' time and effort—@Newyorkbrad I sincerely hope you are not saying this in any kind of official capacity. It appears as though you mean to dictate what people spend their time on. Hopefully, you instead simply meant this as an idle expression of bewilderment about something that you don't understand.

This appears to be something genuinely useful to certain people. Not to me; I obviously don't get the kind of talk page traffic that would necessitate this kind of thing. But if someone wants to build it what is the harm in RF outlining the specification? Surely his restrictions don't preclude him from suggesting automation tasks to others?

The idea that RF triggering this bot would be a violation of his restriction is completely absurd. The tool and its effects would be completely someone else's responsibility. His alleged carelessness and obstinate attitude (IIUC the root cause of his restrictions) would not be an issue here at all. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Salvio—"just use Cluebot III or some other bot like that" — Isn't that what he's trying to do? If someone makes the suggested bot, then it will be "some other bot like that"—what is the problem? What do you mean by "decline" in this context? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

@Worm_That_Turned—you realize that this request wasn't filed by RF, right? I'm not sure what your point is in noting that this is the 6th one; I don't know why it was filed, but it wasn't RF's idea as far as I can tell. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf

If the Committee wants to absolve itself of all credibility as a body willing and capable of resolving disputes to the benefit of the encyclopaedia it's going about it in the right way.

On the other hand the Committee could get their heads out of their posteriors and articulate what Rich's topic ban is actually intended to achieve, why that needs to be achieved, and how the restriction is intended to achieve that. Until such time as the community understand the purpose of the restriction (which these endless requests demonstrate it does not) it cannot reliably enforce it. You (the Committee) regularly ask admins to enforce the spirit of the rules, referencing the letter to determine that. In this case we cannot do that - the letter is ambiguous and the spirit changes depending on who asks and who answers.

If you aren't prepared to do your jobs in this regard, you can at least retain the basic decency to answer the simple, specific questions asked:

1. Is Rich allowed to specify automation tasks that will be run by someone else?
2. If not, where is the line drawn and why? Thryduulf (talk) 23:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

It has just occurred to me that if this is declined then we also need answers to other questions about what is an is not acceptable:

• If Rich uses an off-the-shelf bot and finds it isn't working correctly, is he allowed to

1. Enquire about its operation? (e.g discuss which options it has to determine if the bot will do what he wants, and how it will do that).
2. Report a bug with the bot?
3. Discuss bugs with the bot reported by others?
4. Suggest resolutions to issues with the bot?
5. Request features be added to the bot?
6. Discuss features he has requested to be added to the bot?
7. Discuss features others have requested to be added to the bot?
8. Report bugs with features he has requested added to the bot?

For each "no" answer, please explain why he should not be allowed to do that in terms of benefit to the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 09:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment by lfdder

@AGK: I'd like to hear what's wrong with Rich's conduct, 'cause I (and I think many others) see absolutely no issue with it. To suggest that we ought to ban him for it is utterly bewildering. — lfdder 00:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Beetstra

Newyorkbrad: "... but I am sure that it strikes me as a poor use of our bot-coding editors' time and effort." - surely, we have 4 archiving bots, that has then already been a massive poor use of time and effort for the other 3 programmers who wrote one after the first. I find that belittling, Brad, bot operators are free to do whatever they want to use time and effort poorly on. The community, nor the Arbitration Committee, have no say about what has to be programmed for them.

Regarding the whole, if one of those 4 bots would have this way of working already, you would not have a problem with Rich using that. You do not have problems with Rich setting the user-options for one of those that already exist, making it operate every 3, 5 or 13 days. You have no objections against Rich asking another Bot Operator to repair typo's for him. You do not have problems with another bot operator having a bot delivering messages to Rich's talkpage (where he has/d to opt-in). You do not have problems with bots signing messages left on his talkpage. You do not have problems with other bots notifying him of 'problems' with his edits (BracketBot). You DO have problems with this?

And if now an independent bot-programmer comes and thinks 'I like this, I want this on my talkpage', uses his time poorly to write the bot, tests it, gets permission and runs it on his talkpage, and makes it available to the larger community, do you have a problem that Rich switches to that bot, or are you going to ban him immediately?

AGK is right, this is a badly designed, poorly worked out decision, resulting in poor use (and actually a massive waste) of our community's time. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

link to withdrawal --S Philbrick(Talk) 15:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I still don't understand why Rich apparently insists that automation is necessary to archive his talk page. I have been regularly archiving my talk page for seven years. I am currently up to 32 archives, all done without any automation at all. If someone as technically unskilled as myself can manage that I don't see why Rich is unable to just do it himself. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
• I sympathized with Rich's position in the threads we closed the other day, to a greater extent than any other arbitrator, and asked whether applying the no-automation restriction to Rich's userspace served much of a purpose, a question that no one actually answered. That being said, I also do not see why one of the existing archiving bots wouldn't suffice, and I fear that the hypercomplicated signaling protocol that Rich proposes for the bot comes perilously close to self-parody. In terms of the request, I am not sure whether Rich's asking someone else to code a highly tailored archive-bot for him violates the letter of the existing restriction ... but I am sure that it strikes me as a poor use of our bot-coding editors' time and effort. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • @ErikHaugen, my "official capacity" doesn't extend to picking bot tasks, so no worries there. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:14, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
• What Brad says: Rich, just use Cluebot III or some other bot like that. Speedy decline. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
• Yes, in this instance it would violate the restriction. Speedily decline. AGK [•] 23:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• Thryduulf: In this case, I am actually thinking the automation restriction is utterly unenforceable, and that Rich's conduct – and the problems with it, as documented in the original arbitration case – can only be regulated with a remedy to exclude him from the project altogether. AGK [•] 23:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• This appears to be yet another example of Rich poking around the boundaries of his restriction, this time by effectively pseudocoding a bot. I would encourage Rich to manually archive his talk page, if he desires such precise formatting, or to use an existing bot. I'd also encourage him to quit testing the boundaries, although the number of times this has been said recently is not encouraging. Speedily decline this request. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
• Speedy decline. Others above have made all the pertinent comments. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
• Thinking on it. This isn't a speedy decline from me but it does seem like it's a bit strange for the prior tools to be inadequate. As far as I"m concerned if Hasteur wants to code one, and Rich wants to use it, so be it. But the why is still dubious to me. NativeForeigner ^Talk 07:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
• I can see why the arbs are grumpy about this, since I've been on the committee, Rich has spent about 56 days unblocked and this is the 6th clarification/amendment request. That's an inordinate amount of resources that the committee is having to spend on one person and frankly we don't have time to do so.

  That said, I'm of the same opinion as NativeForeigner - Hasteur is a big boy, if he wants to code a bot to Rich's specifications - it's his responsibility to ensure it meets community guidelines. As such, he'll be the one who gets the come-uppence if anything goes wrong with the bot. Should he decide to do this, then I advise him to write it carefully himself and test it thoroughly.

  Rich, I'm generally unimpressed that you took the tentative agreement by a few committee members to archive your talk page using existing bots as free rein to wander over to the bot request notice board and ask for a custom made bot. It's exactly that sort of behaviour that stops people from assuming good faith with your behaviour. Worm^TT(talk) 10:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

  @Hasteur: Not in my eyes, any more than making an edit that would make User:BracketBot or User:DisambigBot come to my page, or User:SineBot sign an unsigned post. As long as he's not writing the bot and the bot owner takes full responsibility for the bot, a manual edit which leads to a bot action should not be counted as automated. Asking for a bot to be written is close to the banned area, and that's where my problem lies. Worm^TT(talk) 14:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Note: Here is an interesting quote from Roger Davies around the time of the case closure. [Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough/Proposed decision "You'll also be delighted to hear that the proposed remedies enable him to give you exactly the help you seek by way of planning the logisitics, working up the code, liaising with bot owners and so on."]

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 06:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC).

Clarification request: Rich Farmbrough

Original Request here

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Initiated by Fram (talk) at 08:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Rich Farmbrough arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Link to relevant decision: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough#Clarifications by motion

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Fram (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [25]

Statement by Fram

Rich Farmbrough has editing restrictions, one stating that he 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." and another that "Regardless of the editing method (i.e. manual, semi-automatic, or automatic; from any account), Rich Farmbrough is indefinitely prohibited from mass creating pages in any namespace, unless prior community approval for the specific mass creation task is documented."

One of the causes of these restrictions was the mass creation of script-generated biographies taken from the Dictionary of National Biography on Wikisource (see [[26]], which was also at the start of my evidence on the RF arbcom case).

Now, RF has created many more similar pages (same method, same problems) at Wikisource, and is actively looking for people to import these to Wikipedia, if possible by bot or script. His script adds very little of value to the existing Wikisource pages: an extremely rudimentary infobox, bolding of the page title, some seemingly random wikilinks (sometimes none at all), birth and death year cats, and (the only thing of potential value IMO) the references used by the DNB article presented in a Wikipedia-style at the end of the article. The pages he creates are taken from all kinds of Wikisource transcriptions, not all verified for correctness (of transcription, this is not about factual correctness).

Evidence of same kind of problems (examples, not exhaustive at all):

• Largely ruined pages: s:User:Rich Farmbrough/DNB/G/e/George Ridout Bingham: compare to s:Bingham, George Ridout (DNB00). It is quite revealing to open this page in edit mode, to see how the same nonsense appears in the persondata, defaultsort, and so on. See also s:User:Rich Farmbrough/DNB/A/m/Amelia Matilda Murray: compare to s:Murray, Amelia Matilda (DNB00); and s:User:Rich Farmbrough/DNB/R/i/Richard Nelson Lee.
• Introduing errors not found in the Wikisource page: s:User:Rich Farmbrough/DNB/D/a/Darlugdach ends with "the people of FrisinGenesi", which should be (and is in the Wikisource page) "the people of Frisingen".
• Random wikilinks not leading to anything or to the wrong page: s:User:Rich_Farmbrough/DNB/M/a/Mathew_Gibson, s:User:Rich Farmbrough/DNB/N/i/Nicholas Lyzarde, s:User:Rich Farmbrough/DNB/P/o/Policarpus Taylor (linking to yellowed, which is not really the intended page: the correct yellowed is explained at Admiral (Royal Navy) instead)
• Layout problems: s:User:Rich Farmbrough/DNB/A/u/Augustus Austen Leigh, s:User:Rich Farmbrough/DNB/L/u/Lucius Ferdinand Hardyman (as a typical small example, when automatically removing a q.v. with his script, he also loses the indication of the end of a sentence: further, he botches some italics and the rest of the article is italicized): compare to s:Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 24.djvu/376)

Note also that every page starts with {{subst:Quick infobox|..., but there is no Template:Quick infobox.

As for evidence that he believes these pages are ready to be imported, that he is actively recruiting people to serve as proxies to circumvent his restrictions, and that speed is the defining characteristic for his creations and the manner he uses:

• s:Category:DNB drafts states since its creation on 16 August 2014: "These pages are drafts ready to be copied into Wikipedia at your peril."
• His first statement on this[27], at the DNB project page, stated in part: "I will be creating draft article in my userspace on Wikisource. Anyone can feel free to let me know of issues, or to import the articles to Wikipedia, as they are of course, copyright free and attributed. If you have the rights you might consider an export-import solution." (bolding mine)
• Correcting his drafts on Wikisource is no use[28]
• Need more articles? You'll get them fast![29]
• Many are done (no indication which ones):[30]
• At another project, he is more cautious, but still advocating the "quick win" of importing his articles[31] (when, as seen above, it would be more useful to simply import the original wikisource page, if people want a page that needs a lot of work still).

I had put a note on the project talk page to raise my concerns[32]. The response[33] speaks volumes.

Considering the April 2014 clarification issued by the Committee that "Accordingly, Rich Farmbrough is warned that the committee is likely to take a severe view of further violations, and may consider replacing his automation restriction with a site ban.", I would suggest that enough is enough, and simply siteban him for continuously trying to circumvent or violate his restrictions, and for basically not learning anything from his previous mistakes and the discussions and blocks surrounding them. Nothing less, including his last one-year block, seems to make any difference. A siteban won't stop him working on Wikisource, but it will at least stop the active recruitment on Wikipedia of editors to proxy for him. Fram (talk) 08:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

• Addendum: as an indication of the scale of the errors in his drafts: I noted above an article where he had changed Frisingen to FrisinGenesis. This was apparently a remnant of a completely unrelated task, where he auto-expanded some abbreviations to the full Bible Book name. He has now corrected these in his DNB drafts (which is good in itself), which gives an idea of the number of errors (and the fact that my list above was just the tip of the iceberg):
• Expanding "gen" to "Genesis": [34][35][36][37][38]
• Expanding "ez" to "Ezekiel": [39][40][41][42]
• Changing "john" to "John": [43]
• Expanding "dan" to "Daniel": [44][45][46]

After this was done, he did another run on the articles, changing "thither" to "there". Seven articles were changed, one incorrectly though, as "thither" was part of a title in that one, so the change made the article less correct[47], and would be hard to detect afterwards. Fram (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: I don't care what he does on Wikisource, as long as he doesn't try to find people to import these pages here as a way to circumvent his restrictions here. My links to Wikisource are only used to show that the pages are problematic. My request here is about his actions here. Fram (talk) 19:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@AGK: I don't really understand your statement about an "alleged import"; I have provided multiple piecees of evidence that Rich wants people to import these to Wikipedia: the category at Wikisource claims that they are ready to be copied into Wikipedia, this link is a section he started, called importing articles, where he specifically states "If you have the rights you might consider an export-import solution.", and elsewhere he also promotes bringing his drafts to Wikipedia as a "quick win"[48]. So it is obvious that he has already tried to "crowdsource" his automation, as you put it, and that he wants (or certainly wanted) these to be imported swiftly and preferably en masse. That no one so far has acted upon this (as far as I know) doesn't mean that he hasn't tried to breach the sanctions in this way, only that he was unsuccessful. The "proxying", brought up by others, is a red herring in that regard, as I am not seeking any sanctions against other editors, even if someone would have imported one of these. This request is only about the behaviour of Rich Farmbrough. He now claims that "I have never suggested using a bot or script to import the items, and indeed I would strongly disagree with doing that en masse, as it would break the proposed workflow."; I wonder how he reconciles this with his preferred "export-import solution" for someone with "the rights". I hope that, contrary to earlier ArbCom proceedings, he will actually explain what he intended, and not simply dismiss evidence without any justification for it. Note also this[49]: "As to importing, of course they would not be bulk imported to article space, but to my user namespace by default, or the project namespace by choice, which would create no issues for anyone, except to make mass updating difficult." This not only contradicts his advice to the gender project, but also would still violate his restrictions on mass creating articles, which clearly states that he is "indefinitely prohibited from mass creating pages in any namespace". Fram (talk) 06:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

About Rich Farmbroughs comment (or "preliminary statement"). Most seems rather irrelevant, I'll stick to a few points.

• "one's off-site edits microscopically examined for typographical inaccuracies," is the usual ignoration of his own errors, which are much more fundamental than "typographical inaccuracies", as evidenced above. This blindness to the problems with his scripts and its results, and the lack of control of the results of his script runs, are the root cause of the problems and restrictions. Furthermore, these are "off-site edits" made with the explicit goal to get them on-site, not something that would remain off-site.
• "The advantage of using the import function, as I understand it, is that it allows attribution to be maintained, and a consistent edit summary of the import itself is used." The import function is not even available to copy pages from Wikisource, see e.g. Wikipedia:Requests for page importation.
• "No proxy editing is taking place here, and none has been proposed." But it clearly has been asked. No one has taken up the proxying, but that is not under discussion here. The problem is that you were looking for proxy editors to get your deficient script-created pages on Wikipedia, since you are restricted from doing so yourself. You have not explained how this is not an attemmpt to get around your restriction by recruiting others.
• "To keep these projects in the dark about a possible resource would be unkind, unproductive and unwiki." No, to present your already banned script-created contributions to these projects as if they are positive, welcome contributions is unkind and unproductive. You could have just pointed e.g. the gender group to Wikisource, and indicated that there are a lot of DNB entries there that have been proofread, which can be copied over and turned into articles with some work. You could have provided them with a list on Wikisource of such pages, I wouldn't care and it would in no way violate your retrictions if you had done that. But you just had to use your already condemned scripts there and invite people to use your versions (no matter if they started from proofread pages or not, no matter if they introduced errors not in the original Wikisource page or not). And that is the problem and the reason I filed this. Fram (talk) 06:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade. I don't really get this, you seem to be basically syaing that if someone has restrictions here, they are free to try to circumvent them and find other editors to help them continue their problematic editing? Doesn't that make the restrictions rather toothless? Fram (talk) 07:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

@PBS: Both. Restrictions are not "don't do this unless your edits are good", they are "don't do this"; but in this case, as I presented in my opening statement, the edits still present the same or very similar problems as the earlier ones had, so I don't believe using them would be a net benefit either (I don't think using the RF versions will make it any faster to present decent articles compared to starting from the standard Wikisource pages, and the chances are considerable that they will introduce additional errors not present in those Wikisource pages, like in some of the examples above). Fram (talk) 16:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

In the interests of collegial working, and to save everyone's time, I would appreciate guidance form the Committee, as to whether they would like a point-by-point commentary on the above, a general statement, or, indeed, whether it is not worth responding to. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC).

I have drafted a statement which I will post later tonight or tomorrow, once I have removed or reduced those points that Kim has already made more ably than I.

I will just point out, for the record this absurd statement of Fram's, which I had missed amongst the cruft (I may later incorporate it into my general statement:

is actively looking for people to import these to Wikipedia, if possible by bot or script.

This is quite simply a chimera. I have never suggested using a bot or script to import the items, and indeed I would strongly disagree with doing that en masse, as it would break the proposed workflow.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC).

Preliminary statement

1. Scope

I address only the substantive point made relating to English Wikipedia. While it is doubtless flattering to have one's off-site edits microscopically examined for typographical inaccuracies, it is not something I will address here, except to point out that I had explicitly invited Fram to report and discuss them, if he should desire, as indicated at WP:DNB.

:You are still welcome to proof-read or validate any of the pages in DNB, and if you let me know I will re-create their drafts, where appropriate. And you can add here any issues you discover which appear to be new.

2. History
2. a) "The Dictionary of National Biography (DNB) is a standard work of reference on notable figures from British history" and "many of the longer entries are still highly regarded", it covers tens of thousands of people from legendary figures from the mists of time, up to the the early years of the twentieth century, when the supplementary volumes are taken into account. Due to the publication dates the text is in the public domain. These texts, therefore, form a good potential starting point for Wikipedia articles. Over the last decade a small group of dedicated volunteers, lead by the redoubtable Charles Matthews have been working on creating a proofread version of the DNB on Wikisource with the express aim (although not the sole aim) of having the material available for Wikipedia. In parallel a very great number of Wikipedia articles have been created for the same subjects, sometimes based upon the DNB material, sometimes partially so, and sometimes from completely different sources (although these are often derived in whole or part from DNB).

A WikiProject DNB was set up on the 10th of September 2010, I joined on the 14th. The DNB project exists solely to bring information, sometimes in the form of new articles, from the DNB into WP. It is a child project of Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles WikiProject DNB was broadly supportive of the previous automated creation of drafts on WP.

[While the best drafts may form tolerable articles, considerable manual work is required to most of them, and not just on the article. The links to regiments or battles, for example, may require ancillary articles to be created, or at the very least redirects or disambiguation pages. The draft merely removes tedious and repetitive workload.]

2. b) The "Gender Gap Taskforce" is a taskforce of the Sytemic Bias WikiProject, set up on the 13th of May 2013. It is active on other aspects of systemic gender bias than the Gender Gap, despite its name, for example Afd, categories and missing articles. I have been active there since the 4th of August, shortly after the taskforce saw a resurgence in activity, and had commented elsewhere on the subject of main discussion of 2013, category "ghettoization". I have previously produced lists of missing articles (and provided other, mainly technical, assistance) the Women's History project. I have also made a list of 187 women environmentalists (that I cannot share with fellow Wikipedians, except by providing a link to the off-wiki list), and have slowly been creating articles on notable women leaders form Wesleyan movements.

3. Proposed use
There was never any suggestion of automated import of these drafts as I have outlined above. You can clearly see that a 'manual process is suggested at the Gender Gap Taskforce, that implies individual articles need to be created and worked upon.

The advantage of using the import function, as I understand it, is that it allows attribution to be maintained, and a consistent edit summary of the import itself is used. I made it clear, when Fram raised the issue of import that bulk importing would "make mass updating difficult." Had Fram the slightest concept of how the process of continual improvement works, he would have realised that bulk import by any means is anathema to my goals, at least while I am unable to work effectively upon the English Wikipedia.

Moreover it is clear that the drafts are not ready for article space as noticed to the DNB project, so any bulk import there would be a bad idea.

4. Warnings given

4. a. Caveat: ... You remain responsible for your own edits.

4. b. These pages are drafts ready to be copied into Wikipedia at your peril.

Note that the WikiProject DNB members tend to be experienced editors who know that they are responsible for their own edits.

Members of both projects clearly have their own reason to create these articles. (See, Bruning, Kim: 2014)

5. Conclusions
No proxy editing is taking place here, and none has been proposed. Assistance is being offered to two projects I am already involved with, and which have aims in line with my own: to wit, creating missing articles on notable women, adding missing articles on notable Britons. To keep these projects in the dark about a possible resource would be unkind, unproductive and unwiki.

No proxy automation is taking place either, this is a trivial lemma.

6. Quotations It is, though, instructive to note the previous comments of a couple of current arbitrators:

• "[N]othing prevents other botops from taking over Rich's bots, provided that they comply with all relevant policies and guidelines," T. Canens

• "You'll also be delighted to hear that the proposed remedies enable him to give you exactly the help you seek by way of planning the logisitics [sic], working up the code, liaising with bot owners and so on." Roger Davies

• "Hasteur is a big boy, if he wants to code a bot to Rich's specifications - it's his responsibility..." Worm That Turned

7. Colophon It has been expressed to me by an Arbitrator that, despite the findings not saying anything about it, the root issue was the speed of editing. It is already perverse, then, that I was blocked for a year for mistyping a single character manually. It would be even odder if any sanction were considered for precisely zero edits

On this note if any Arbitrator knows of any other hidden reasons for sanctions, I would be most grateful to be appraised of them.

References

Notes

Response to Fram's third set of comments

I wonder how he reconciles this with his preferred "export-import solution" for someone with "the rights".

Where does he get preferred from? Just makes it up as he goes along I suppose.

@Robert McClenon

I provided the Gender Gap Taskforce with two links, one to a list of red-linked articles and their corresponding DNB pages on wikisource, and one (IIRC) to a category of drafts.

Anyone who wishes may take the text of the Wikisource article, or of a draft, or they may retype the text from the image of the DNB page, or they may re-write it in their own words.

If they use the draft (which is in my userspace) they will, in general, have less work to do than if they if the Wikisource page. I will be happy whichever they use.

As to the particulars, the intention is to improve the conversion process continually, this is known as kaizen. If an improvement to the process is made it will be shared by all new and existing drafts. Moreover source changes will also be reflected to existing drafts.

If they try to polish a draft in my userspace in Wikisource, and it were to be overwritten, their changes would not be lost, but would be available in history. Nonetheless this is probably a bad idea. It would be better to polish it on Wikipedia. They can do this, for example, in their own userspace, in Draft space or at AFC. They could also do it under the WP:DNB project space, or indeed in article space, provided they are not going to abandon a particularly problematic draft. Clearly they would do this if they worked from the Wikisource article or the images.

So I don't think I am placing any large manual burden on anyone, rather removing a manual burden.

@AGK

Anyone who wants to automatically import these drafts will need to propose a BRFA, which includes showing community consensus, per WP:BOTPOL. If the community consensus is to bulk import the pages, then I would not wish to stand against it, even though I don't think it is currently appropriate. The committee may have a different view of community consensus, of course.

@WTT

I had not realised these fine distinctions were that important. However the prohibition on automation is recorded, as far as I know, as an "Editing restriction" and does not ascend to the lofty height of a "Topic ban".

Statement by Wbm1058

No jurisdiction. Per Wikipedia:Arbitration, This Arbitration Committee's jurisdiction extends only to the English Wikipedia. See m:Arbitration Committee for other committees. Apparently Wikinews has a committee, but Wikisource does not. If you don't like what Rich is doing there, or in his own user space (which I'd assume was intended for debugging), then go to the Foundation and ask for an Office Action. – Wbm1058 (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by User:Kim Bruning

Quick point of policy: Just pointing out that WP:PROXYING fails on both forks:

1. "Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned editor" . Rich is currently not banned. [50] (block expired in march AFAICT)
2. "unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits.". Which passes if an editor checks before submission to en.wp.

Even if we bend #1 to also apply to editing restrictions, #2 still applies full force.

Further, I guess Fram reads "are ready to be imported at your peril" opposite from me. (I read it as "Don't do it that way. (yet)").

Together with the fact that this is on ws instead of wp I'm not sure there's a case here for arbcom per-se. (Though Fram's frustration is quite understandable here.)

I know the tendency these days is to delete rather than improve, and ABF over AGF, but this is still wikipedia. :-)

You know, Rich can Code, and Fran knows their quality control. Could we establish procedures where Fram can cooperate with Rich to generate something that both would agree was useful? The large benefit to wikipedia if these folks could work together is obvious, imao. ;-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 13:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Worm That Turned, Sure! Hence, anticipating that line of argument: "Even if we bend #1 to also apply to editing restrictions, #2 still applies full force.".

--Kim Bruning (talk) 14:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Worm That Turned <3 :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Questions and Comments by Robert McClenon

Fram has stated that many of the articles are "broken". I have not read the articles in detail, but would like to ask whether Fram's comments, such as that abbreviations for books of the Bible have been replaced with the names of the books, are valid. Is that criticism correct? If the criticism is correct, are the articles in Wikisource really ready to be pulled into Wikipedia, or will it be necessary for those copying the articles to make non-trivial edits? If, in your opinion, the articles are ready for Wikipedia, how is Fram mistaken? Why have you cautioned not to edit the articles in Wikisource? Am I correct in assuming that you are using a script in Wikisource? In that case, by overwriting and "rebreaking" any broken features in the script, it appears that you are proposing to place a large manual burden on Wikipedia editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment from NE Ent

If RF does something, and Fram doesn't obsess over it, is it really disruptive? This we have jurisdiction over anything in the universe that might affect Wikipedia slope ya'll seem to be on recently should stop, because it diminishes the credibility of the commitee (i.e. good luck banning Erik Möller).

RF was banned from automation because he demonstrated a lack of judgement in using automation to affect articles. If he automates off-en-wp, there is no violation. If the introduction of the work product of those automations by another editor diminishes the encyclopedia, the responsibility lies on the editor who did the edit, not RF.

If the committee is going to establish a vicarious liability policy in that an editor who encourages another editor to do something is as responsible for the one who does it … please desysop Fram for encouraging [51] the behavior of Kafziel Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel whom ya'll desysoped. No, that's not a serious request, it's a Reductio ad absurdum argument for the principle editors are only responsible for their own behavior, not what others do. NE Ent 10:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Fæ

I have met Rich in real life many times, we have had great chats, as you might guess this includes our different experiences with Arbcom, and he is a fellow supporter of Wikimedia LGBT+. I expect the outcome here to be "I don't see anything that the committee should do", as others have highlighted. If Rich wants to play around with Wikipedia content away from Wikipedia, meh, this is something that is actually a good thing as if others are going to reuse his work to improve Wikipedia contents that's their editorial judgement, not Rich's.

The Wikipedia community has seen 2 years of Rich being publicly pilloried for his use of automation, or more accurately, even the appearance of automation such as simple cut & paste editing, has become a reason for eye-watering year long blocks. This has become a death of a thousand cuts, how about putting aside the punishment hat and instead talk realistic solutions that give Rich a way to regain his good standing as a Wikipedia editor, and we can all benefit from his significant talents and interest in writing better tools for our editors?

Those members of Arbcom who have not had a chance to meet Rich and discuss his passion for the English Wikipedia, I strongly encourage to take up the offer of a Skype call. Nobody can possibly doubt his good intentions, his enthusiasm for open knowledge and his great potential for helping to deliver on our shared mission. He is exactly the sort of long term Wikipedian you want to encourage.

Let's move on please. --Fæ (talk) 12:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I note that Fram's statement is currently 1,395 words long and may well be added to. I have only briefly skimmed the text as a result.

Statement by PBS

As one of two editors who did most of the systematic clean-up of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dictionary of National Biography/Archive 2#List in October–December 2011, I do not share all of Fram's concerns. At the time I was of the opinion that it was better to modify the text and fix the attribution than it was to delete the articles. I was disappointed at the number of editors who participated in the clean up, and because the pages had been published I felt a responsibility to clean them up (even thought I wanted to be editing other pages), and so resented RF for placing that extra burden on the DNB project.

If articles are manually ported by editors from wherever RF has placed them, those editors have three choices:

• to use the original DNB source,
• to use RF's modifications
• or not to do it at all.

The decision and the responsibility for making sure that the text meets Wikipedia content policies guidelines must rest on the editor who chooses to import the text. One editor building on the efforts of another is the Wikipedia way. I suspect, given the lack of participation if fixing the problems in the 100+ pages in 2011 when RF generated similar content, that the speed at which the articles he creates are copied across to Wikipedia will occur far more slowly than RF hopes it will happen.

To facilitate monitoring the ports I would suggest that an audit page is kept consisting of:

• Date start, Date end, porting editor, Wikipedia page(s) affected, notes on the port

I think Fram needs to question whether Fram is opposing this initiative by RF, because Fram believes that RF is gaming the system and should not be allowed to do so (whether or not the outcome of RF's initiative will be a net benefit to the Wikipedia project); or whether Fram's motives are because Fram believes that this initiative will inevitably harm the project and so should be strangled at birth.

I think on balance it should be a benefit to the project, but it largely depends on the the editing care of any editors who decide to import the text and their taking responsibility for doing so. Therefore I would suggest that the project is allowed to go ahead with the understanding that it can be reviewed at any time.

-- PBS (talk) 16:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Hammersoft

It would be helpful if the committee could help clarify at what point Fram's reporting of Rich becomes abusive and/or excessive. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by bystander Mangoe

If Rich were to persuade someone to import en masse the material he has generated off-site, there would be something to deal with. As it is, one-by-one article creations don't represent the same sort of problem. Mangoe (talk) 19:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I reject the point that this is out of jurisdiction, because the purpose of the pages in question appears to be an import into Wikipedia. If this is not the case, urgent clarification is requested. Otherwise, I would welcome a statement from Rich Farmbrough; in answer to his question, detail is welcome and, I think, important. If there is no meaningful defence against the allegation that Rich intends to introduce a large number of automatically-processed stubs, statements should focus with some urgency on how this is not – as it would then appear to be – another violation of the automation prohibition that was issued on a "last chance" basis. AGK [•] 21:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

• If Rich assures us that the alleged import in question will not take place, I do not see much else for us to do. I would advise him not to attempt to "crowdsource" his automation, which would be a violation in spirit of his restriction, but until the committee receives evidence that such a thing is taking place, I do not see that we have anything to consider in this complaint. Perhaps Fram can correct me before I finalise my opinion on this request? AGK [•] 22:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• In response to Rich Farmbrough's question, I do believe a statement from him is needed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
• We do not have jurisdiction over Wikisource or any other project but the English Wikipedia, but it has long since been established that we have jurisdiction over off-wiki conduct when it is undertaken with the purpose or outcome of affecting the English Wikipedia. A banned editor lobbying for others to circumvent the ban would fall squarely within that, so Rich, yes, a statement addressing that accusation is much needed from you. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Agreed with AGK, with the further clarifications here, I don't see that any action is required. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:48, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
• Ah, proxying. Our policies on the matter are quite clear and I'm sure no one ever questions them. In any case - if Rich is "making a resource available for people" and the people are willing to take responsibility for the edits - I don't see anything that the committee should do here, we have no powers that would change the matter. I would certainly take into account that Rich has circumvented his topic ban through using another project should he ever request his topic ban be removed. Worm^TT(talk) 10:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

  User:Kim Bruning - Rich is banned, not site banned, but topic banned - where the topic is a meta topic of "automated editing" and is covered by the WP:Banning policy. Worm^TT(talk) 13:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

  User:Kim Bruning, indeed - hence my previous comment "I don't see anything that the committee should do here" Worm^TT(talk) 14:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

  @Rich, I stand corrected. Worm^TT(talk) 09:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• I agree that there's not much for us to do here. What he may or may not do at Wikisource is up to the Wikisource community to decide, and I don't think his discussion of importing the text to Wikipedia is something we should act upon. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for amendment (December 2014)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Initiated by Rich Farmbrough at 02:56, 21 November 2014‎ (UTC)

Case affected

Rich Farmbrough arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Finding 4

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• SmackBot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Information about amendment request

• Finding 4
• Vacate this finding.

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

Finding 4 cites "letter and spirit of bot policy" (without, of course, quoting the policy) and gives four alleged examples, apparently supported by links.

1. running high-speed tasks without sufficient approval ([52]),
2. running high-volume tasks without sufficient approval ([53])
3. running bot tasks from a non-bot account ([54]),
4. running unapproved bot tasks ([55]).

Taking these in order:

1. There is no bot policy that says that high speed manual tasks need approval. In fact current WP:BOTPOL specifically says Note that merely editing quickly, particularly for a short time, is not by itself disruptive.
2. There is no bot policy that says that high volume manual tasks need approval. That would be absurd. People like the late lamented User:JimCubb who did such sterling work on the WP:Listas problem, our spelling fixers, like John of Reading, our stub-sorters like PamD, these are all working within policy, as indeed was I. The diff supposedly supporting this is just the opinion of CBM.
3. It is not the case that a task that is permitted automatically is prohibited manually. CBM has often stated that this is policy, but I have never seen this piece of folklore anywhere else than in this case and in comments by CBM.
4. It is a generally accepted principle that bots using AWB may perform "general fixes" at the same time. These are built-in to AWB and are carefully selected by the developers to be non-controversial and robust. One admin took exception to one of these fixes against consensus, and repeatedly blocked the bot. You can even see CBM confirming that he his happy with all the "general fixes" except the WP:IDONTLIKEIT change.

More on item 4

The use of "general fixes" benefits the wiki by getting the fixes in earlier, reducing the number of edits, saving time for editors doing general fixing (either with AWB, or any other means). Clearly this requires that AWB general fixes are non-contentious, and so they are. Moreover the extremely hard-working AWB maintainers are very responsive to the community, and helpful to users of the tool in ensuring that this remains the case. The change that CBM objected to were the fixing of out-of-order references. He claimed, contrary to consensus, that this constituted a change in "referencing style" against WP:CITEVAR. CBM repeatedly insisted that I should get the source code of AWB and edit it to remove the fix he didn't like - it is patently obvious that he should have addressed his issue to the developers of AWB (who would probably have turned him down) rather than engaging in combative argument with one of the many people and bots running AWB. I remarked at the end of a long thread on this subject, "Actually I have started a conversation on getting a split of approved and non-approved GF's at WP:AWB. I simply don't think that maintaining my own version of AWB is the way to go, even if I had the C# experience and the desire and time. It also happens that I find the particular change in question a strange sticking point. Anyway with a little luck that is behind us now. " Subsequent events proved this assessment correct. Eventually the pressure was such that I did create a fork (which involved acquiring a compiler, learning a new language and other non-trivial work), and of course version control issues emerged which resulted in regressions. Hence the repeated blocks, none of which were necessary as SmackBot could simply be stopped using a talk page message! Note 1: I also introduced version numbers in response to a request from CBM. He seems like a nice guy, and I bent over backwards to help him and avoid conflict, even when he was palpably wrong. Note 2: This was all way back in 2009/10. In February 2014 the subject was raised with the AWB developers, with CBM still maintaining his position, and after a discussion, no action was taken, though methods to retain out-of-order numbering were identified. CBM more or less left the project a few days later.

One line summary

Three of the four examples are clearly within policy. The fourth is within standard usage, and even so I went to great lengths to oblige CBM.

I have attempted to keep this short, so may have omitted something you think important. Please feel free to ask any questions, and I will do my best to answer them. I am happy to answer questions of opinion or fact, or even motivation.

Worm That Turned I have specifically focussed this requested amendment on facts, rather than opinion. The fact is that, whether there were issues with my editing or not, a matter I am quite happy to discuss, this finding blatantly misrepresents the Bot Policy of the time.

There is plenty more to damn this finding, for example the most recent evidence cited for 1) was 18 months old, for 3) was 2 1/2 years old, and for 4) was 2 years old.

Even if this related to, say civility, or copyvio, these would have been out-dated. For BOTPOL, it is far more so, the culture changed between 2009/2010 and 2012, and in response so did the behaviour of bot operators, my tools were re-built from the ground up to address or remove concerns that had been expressed. Moreover I adhered ever more strictly to the BOTPOL, possibly excessively so, for example BRFAs like[this one] were not needed under the exception that allows bots to edit their own subpages, or their owner's sub-pages without BAG approval.

In summary, without even resorting to the broader context, the drafting of a finding like this shows a complete lack of knowledge of the appropriate parts of wiki-culture from 2009-12, a lack of relevance, due to the untimely nature of the so-called "supporting evidence", and a complete failure to read or understand WP:BOTPOL. Continuing to support it when these flaws have been pointed out would be morally bankrupt.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC).

From those Arbitrators who have already commented, I would like to hear one compelling reason that lies about a living person are more acceptable on arbitration pages than on articles. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC).

Statement by {other user}

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Statement by {yet another user}

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Rich Farmbrough: Arbitrator views and discussion

• Rich, you're a good editor. You have a lot to give to the encyclopedia. However, I've spent too much time looking over this case over the past 2 years as an arbitrator. Quite simply, I agree with the outcome at the time. Roger Davies, you and I sat down and discussed the topic ban at Wikimania and it seems that nothing has changed since then. I've read over your request and don't agree that this remedy should be vacated - your automated editing was causing significant issues at the time. I'm sorry to see that you still don't accept that. Good luck with your other endeavours, Rich - I hope they serve you well. Worm^TT(talk) 11:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
• Hi Rich. Dave has covered the ground here and it pretty much goes without saying that I concur. Best,  Roger Davies ^talk 18:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
• The vacating of old findings or remedies is unlikely here at this time, per the above. Carcharoth (talk) 02:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
• Per above. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
• There may come a time when this will be best for the project, and I will support then, but these restrictions are needed, per my colleagues. Oppose. AGK [•] 06:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• Rich, insulting the committee's members with claims that we are libelling you is likely to hinder your case, because it demonstrates you have not reformed. AGK [•] 00:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• I'd be more willing to consider a specific request for a specific usecase, but especially as it stands these restrictions are necessary. NativeForeigner ^Talk 13:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
• I agree with my colleagues. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Amendment request: Rich Farmbrough (December 2015)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Initiated by Rich Farmbrough at 12:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Rich Farmbrough arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedy 2

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

• Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

• Remedy 2

• Terminate the remedy

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

In a case brought against me some three and a half years ago, it was found that certain community norms had been broken by me, specifically WP:BOTPOL, WP:5P4 and WP:ARBRFUAT.

I note that in the intervening period I have complied with WP:BOTPOL, been civil and collegial with other editors, and been responsive to other editors concerns, as anyone active in the community will know.

In particular I have continued to work at WP:TEAHOUSE, welcome new users, attempted to smooth ruffled feathers at WP:GGTF, mainly by focussing discussion on substantive issues, provided assistance to other editors both on and off-wiki (a list could be made available if desired). I have continued to work on other wikis with no issues.

I also continue to perform work high community trust, on protected templates, but more importantly on edit filters where, together with others (notably Dragons flight) I have overhauled almost every filter to ensure that the whole system continues to work (it was failing) and new filters can be implemented.

Moreover not only have I been policy compliant, collegial and responsive, I have every intention of continuing indefinitely to be so.

For these reasons I request the Arbitration Committee to terminate remedy 2.

Addenda:

Please note that I am eligible to request termination of this sanction from 15 January 2013. The sanction, qua sanction, is continuing to impact my good name in the community, notably impeding my recent RfA, and so the time has come to remove it.

Please also note that I have suggested a more nuanced approach to complete termination in the past, which has been dismissed by various committee members, with rather unflattering characterisations.

Responses

Thryduulf I would certainly consider you views valuable. I have met with other members of the committee at various wiki-functions. Whether to recuse must be your decision. I would not find fault either way. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC).

Thryduulf "editor's future employment prospects" maybe; however they can and maybe should consider the effect on the project - especially if the reasons for maintaining the restriction aren't particularly cogent.

"All automated tasks paused or blocked until..." You may be aware that I offered this as part of a solution in the workshop. (I was under the illusion that a workshop was for co-operating to find a way forward.) And I believe that SmackBot was the only major bot that allowed anyone (including IPs) to stop it - a facility I intended to reintroduce for Helpful Pixie Bot.

Hotcat: really I would doubt that I would use it more than a few times a week at most.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC).

Clarification - I am not looking to any of the half-dozen tools I mention to perform masses of edits. I am probably one of the slowest Huggle users there is - because I tend to look in more depth at anything that could possibly be good-faith. It's simply that these tools are all useful, and most of them can be used by every Wikipdia editor except me. Certainly even an IP is allowed to prepare a table in Libre Office and paste the result on-wiki.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC).

Guerillero You must have a reason for saying that, do you mind if I ask what it is?

Gorilla Warfare It's hard to be specific. Indeed I have very little time to put into large scale projects. But even simple things like:

1. This list I created on Meta today are forbidden on en:WP.
2. User:WereSpielChequers has a number of lists that need updating.
3. There is a lot of work with WP:Women in Red that needs doing.
4. User:Carrite was looking for better information on editor activity, which I have acquired the data for, but not started coding, partly because I would not be allowed to upload the results.
5. The correction of the User:Jagged 85 issues has ground to a halt, partly because I had to load my diagnostics onto Meta
6. It would be nice to be able to use Twinkle, Reflinks and Hotcat
7. I might even do some anti-vandal work with Huggle or STiki

But the main point is the stigma. This affects not just my standing in the community, but my ability to volunteer for certain roles on-wiki, and even my eligibility for employment off-wiki.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC).

Seraphimblade What lead up to it? A lot of things, that I can address here (or elsewhere) if you wish. However what I prefer to address specifically is the negative "findings of fact" which are putatively the committee's take on "what lead up to it." For example one suggested that I was "not responsive". I do not here challenge that claim, I simply point out that since that date I have been responsive. Similarly I have not infringed on BOTPOL. And I doubt anyone could challenge that I have been collegial - indeed my main thrust on the non-content part of Wikipedia has to be to encourage people to work together - and civil. Indeed I have had two complaints about being too civil.

Moreover I can state categorically that I have every intention of continuing to be collegial, civil, responsive and policy compliant.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:11, 10 October 2015 (UTC).
(Currently watching WikiConference USA live.)

Corcelles Your response does not provide any useful feedback. I have explicitly invited feedback from Arbitrators on several occasions over the years, which has given you plenty of opportunity to discuss any issues you think remain unresolved. If, of course, you believe that I am an unredeemable case, then no feedback is to be expected, as it would be a waste of your valuable time. Otherwise a more detailed response would be useful.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC).

AGK I am surprised you are not recusing yourself here All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC).

Native Foreigner I am always interested in any wisdom about my actions. I reiterate the invitation to share or discuss them, here, on my talk page, by email, by phone/Skype or in person which I made some considerable time ago.

As to looking into the case, I'm afraid it's a bit of a mammoth, but I find the weakness of the supporting evidence to the findings, and particularly the need to go back additional years quite telling. To take one example, I am under sanctions now, partly for making edits in 2010, which someone has deemed were "too fast" to comply with BOTPOL. And yet there is nothing in BOTPOL of 10 November 2010 about any limitation on assisted editing speed. (Later versions specifically exclude speed alone as being an issue.) And the speed wasn't excessive - most editors who do administrative work will have had bursts of comparable speed - for example you edited at 10 edits per minute on 17 July. According to the 2012 committee you should have submitted a BRFA authorisation for that.

Now this is just one part of one finding, and it took quite some research to check the BOTPOL pages for the appropriate dates, check the evidence, come up with a comparator. It is also a nominally objective piece of evidence and a nominally objective policy. For subjective matters like being "civil" and "responsive" the amount of work required to construct a good refutation is much higher. I therefore requested the committee allow me 14 days to put together a response to the proposed findings. This was refused and I never got to defend myself from the very surprising proposed decision, and have been working on-and-off to deal with the problems it has caused ever since.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC).

DGG Perhaps you would like to give an example? We have a lot of tools in our kit-bag to deal with problems, making them mostly trivial to resolve. There are no negative findings about any automated edits. Indeed finding WP:ARB RF EX EX EX states:

He has extensive experience with and expertise in the use of automation...

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:08, 14 October 2015 (UTC).

Salvio giuliano Thank you for your positive response. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC).

Doug Weller Thanks for your thoughtful response. It might be of interest to know that I offered to work with a similar halting system during the workshop phase of the case. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC).

DeltaQuad Thanks for your response, it's good to see another positive outlook. It's not really out of the blue I have suggested such steps as most arbs now seem to endorse several times over the years. In fact I emailed this request to the Committee over two months ago, so there was plenty of advance warning!

So perhaps it's time for a motion? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:21, 7 November 2015 (UTC).

Summary of Arb options for a solution to date

Pause clause = Any query, must halt until resolved, to the satisfaction of an uninvolved admin if required.

Stipulated that anything fully automated is subject to the normal WP:BOTPOL requirements, including BRFA where necessary.

Apologies in advance if I have mis-represented anyone or omitted anyone.

• No opinion yet (Gorilla Warfare),

1. Do nothing AGK, Guerillero
2. Manual use of HOTCAT (max 10 per hour, <=50% article edits any 24 hrs). May make and maintain lists, if asked by others, subject to WP:BOTREQ. Pause clause. (Thryduulf)
3. User space and User talk space only. (Courcelles)
4. User space and User talk space ... still thinking. (Amanda/Delta Quad)
5. User space and User talk + Jagged85 (non-mainspace), requested tasks (non-mainspace). Pause clause. (Doug Weller)
6. Relax, unspecified. (DGG)
7. Allow semi-automation. Automation only to non-mainspace, subject to normal pre-approval. (Seraphimblade)
8. Lift completely/Parole (Native Foreigner, Salvio, Euryalus)

[Queries: ]

Let me suggest some motions - clearly some fancy wording would be needed:

1. Remedy 2 remains unchanged.
2. Remedy 2 is struck.
3. Remedy 2 is struck with respect to User space and User talk space.
4. Remedy 2 is struck with respect to non-article pages.
5. Remedy 2 is struck with respect to automation assisted edits.
6. Remedy 2 is struck with respect to Anti-vandal tools and built in gadgets.
7. Remedy 2 is struck with respect to CCI tasks (excluding mainspace)

Clearly 2 is my ideal, but any combination of 3 4 and 5 would allow me to proceed with most of the day-to-day tasks I do far more effectively, and to help other Wikipedians with their projects.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:46, 26 November 2015 (UTC).

@Euryalus: I am afraid this is typical. I requested a fortnight, or at least a week to respond to the propose decision in this case. I was denied - time was too valuable. However a few months to pass a motion where there is clearly consensus that some relaxation, if not total removal, should be passed seems to be "meh, so what?" Moreover I am castigated for bringing requests for amendment, even though I have successfully had one important finding struck as factually inaccurate. It is hard to express how uninterested I am in this whole process, except as a necessity. If there had been a timely response to this request, even a partial lifting, we might now be half way through a six month period of evaluation whether a further lightening might be acceptable.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC).

Statement by Carrite

I'm not sure what exactly would prevent Rich from parsing a large data set and posting his results, which he mentions above with regards to analysis of WMF data to draw inferences about the editing population. If anything stands in the way of this, it needs to be set aside, at a minimum. As for the rest, once again ArbCom is looking more than a little stubborn and vindictive here in not allowing RF some sort of path back to full functionality as an editor. Drop his restrictions and restore them by motion if he resumes negative behavior, it seems obvious. I'm very frustrated with the current committee's lack of faith or willingness to take minor risks for the greater good of the project. Carrite (talk) 14:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by WereSpielChequers

I can see that Arbcom might see an opportunity here merely to clarify the original excessive limitations and allow Rich to use hotcat and reflinks and to generate reports in his own userspace or ideally Wikipedia space. But really the time for such a clarification was three and a half years ago, surely by now it is time to simply lift that sanction.

As Rich mentioned he has produced some very useful lists Wikipedia:Articles with UK Geocodes but without images being my favourite example. Along with a couple of other editors I've been testing image adding as an exercise for new editors, and we reckon we are ready, we just need this sanction lifted so we can get the report regularly refreshed instead of telling newbies to remove items from the list.

With the loss of toolserver and the problems at labs we have lost many regular reports. Including three areas I've started or been involved in such as Death Anomalies - which would be the next one I'd ask Rich to consider adopting. The lack of these reports is incredibly frustrating, and seriously holds the project back. You have an opportunity to reduce that problem by lifting or at least reducing the restrictions on Rich. ϢereSpielChequers 09:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Fæ

It is time to move on, and let the Community of Wikipedians take over, rather than Arbcom never letting go and in the process throwing away the Committee's valuable time, which ought to be invested on real risks and divisive harmful issues within the community.

There is no risk whatsoever to Wikimedia projects if all sanctions are now lifted. This long ago became a incomprehensible and bureaucratic punishment, rather than a sanction that can be claimed to be done to "protect the community", or Rich for that matter.

If members of Arbcom wish to advise the Wikipedia community, they might validly suggest a voluntary restriction like 10 pages per minute. I have no doubt that Rich would subscribe to these suggestions and make a case with the community when he is ready to relax them further. There are plenty of highly active Wikimedians that will help Rich out with advice and reviews of his edits, should they introduce any issues with articles or templates.

Everyone writing here knows that Rich is a valuable contributor who has rare talents to offer our shared mission and he should be supported, encouraged and praised for his astonishing commitment, rare skills and patience during this years long case.

I haven't talked in person to Rich since last year. However we have had several chats about the future of the projects, chapters and the Foundation over the years. Back in 2012 I interviewed him about his experience with Arbcom, this remains unpublished. I expected to write it up once his Arbcom sanctions ended, as I did not want an interview which examined the experience and emotional impact that long punitive cases like this have, to influence the case or later appeals. We had no idea that this would be eating up our time and stopping Rich from contributing in 2015. --Fæ (talk) 12:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by IJBall

After three and a half years, it's time to just lift these sanctions. I don't think leaving them in place in any way serves the interest of the project. I doubt very much that Rich is suddenly going to go off into 'La La Land' if these restrictions are lifted. It's time to AGF here and move on. Also, it is reasonable to assume that leaving these sanctions in place will make it impossible for Rich to advance at RfA and be resysopped – thus leaving sanction in place almost seems punitive at this point. Anyway, that's my $0.02. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Jenks24

Adding my support for the sanction to be lifted. Others have said it more eloquently above so I won't try and rehash it. Plus, if I'm honest, I'm still pretty annoyed about the original decision and I'm not sure if writing a few paragraphs criticising the committee would help Rich's case here. Suffice it to say, I think they made the wrong call then and it looks even more wrong three years down the track. Please do the right thing and extend Rich some good faith. Jenks24 (talk) 07:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

*cough* I don't browse the ArbCom pages often, but surely this has gone on for an unreasonable amount of time. Jenks24 (talk) 14:35, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Littleolive oil

While intuition and gut feeling about something might be legitimate on Wikipedia; in an Arbitration case and with the arbs as with the rest of the community those feelings must be supported by specific diffs of actions which clearly indicate a user cannot be trusted or has not functioned appropriately under a restriction. 31/2 years is along time, and I don't see any specific diffs from that time period pointing to poor editing behaviour or to behaviours which would indicate a restriction is necessary. Arbitrators are held to the same standards we all are and should support allegations with substantive proof for their positions. Arbitrators are not judges or juries; they are the neutral third party in disputes. Here the parties. the members of the community who have concerns and Rich have spoken so the arbs then, given the definitions of their role must indicate why this is not sufficient to undue a restrictions. In my opinion assuming a position on 3 1/2 years of editing with out anything specific or substantive to support that position is unfair and punitive neither which are appropriate.

• Per Thryduulf:

The community is the encyclopedia. They, community and encyclopedia, as I think you are implying are not mutually exclusive except in some instances. Your comment brought up for me an conern I have when I see the statement, "this is an encyclpedia first." It is not an encyclpedia first, it is first a collaboratibe project the goal of which is to create an encyclopedia. Unless the individuals are treated fairly the communithy will eventually collapse and so of course will the encyclopedia. I have great respect for Thryduulf's consistent, deeply thoughtful comments. Thank you. :O)(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)) Statement by {other-editor}

Statement by Sladen

Some of Rich statements are extremely encouraging: "one suggested that I was "not responsive". I do not here challenge that claim, I simply point out that since that date I have been responsive." and reassuring: "I am not looking to any of the half-dozen tools I mention to perform masses of edits.". These are countered by argumentation: "There are no negative findings about any automated edits."—Findings of fact are hopefully neutral; and rationale that are not obviously for the benefit of the encyclopedia: "eligibility for employment off-wiki" and "notably impeding my recent RfA".

The block has had a positive effect on Rich's contributions and it is extremely pleasing that Rich has built a new niche after the boundaries were made clear—but editors have long memories of the (past) unparalleled disruption caused by self-invented-up AWB tasks, so it's unlikely to be able to find a route that's going to please everyone the first time around. We can see the clearly divided opinions, so something down the middle is probably the least unpalatable to all.

It is extremely easy to simply say "no", but perhaps Doug et al's suggestions of limited parole in own User space and performing tasks requested by others (ie. not dreamt-up) in non-article space, are a plausible solution. For the proponents this gives Rich Farmbrough a chance to prove himself, and for the doubters this can be seen as WP:ROPE. Enforcement likely needs to stay at WP:AE with incrementing draconian blocks, because this is the only remedy has worked effectively in effecting behavioural change, with everything else has resulted in endless discussion ("dramaz"). For AE to be effective any new boundaries require equally clear-cut edges so that evaluation can be quantifiable and enforcement can be emotionless—Rich should know where the edges are without the need to feel or push.

Yes, I have [past tense] been massively inconvenienced by Rich + bots for several years, half-a-decade ago. I've been watching this and I'm even willing to argue for some level of rehabilitation. Even I'm amazed by that. Support has its limits through; and I would invite Rich to make a clear statement about whether he wishes to go the bot route (here) or the admin route (RfA)—I don't think any combination of trying to do both is either tenable or feasible. Such an undertaking might well be sufficient for even the most resolute doubters to come around. —Sladen (talk) 21:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Wbm1058

The only lingering damage from Rich's automated editing that I'm aware of is that which is part of the history-merge backlog. It's unfortunately a catch-22 that Rich can't repair these without the admin tools. Can anyone with a long memory identify any other issues caused by Rich's automated edits which have not yet been repaired? If yes, I'd ask him to fix those first before granting this request. If no, then I agree that by now it is time to simply lift the sanction. "Probation" can simply be requiring him to promptly fix any damage he creates, and to make limited "trial runs" of any new major repetitive automated edits, then stop and wait to ensure that there is no negative reaction to it, so that if there is, the repair of such damage will not be exceedingly difficult or time-consuming. Wbm1058 (talk) 02:16, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Sigh, Fram's statement below is just devastating. I couldn't bring myself to read through to the end of their critique on your Arbcom candidate page, after I saw this. The timing of this is particularly bad, given the recent bad publicity caused by the revelation of mass-redirect creation by another editor (who named himself after a Star Trek character). Unfortunately, as you can only tag these for deletion, others will need to clean up this mess. I'm sorry, but after seeing this, I cannot support any relaxation of restrictions beyond allowing you to make automated edits in your own userspace, where others can make QA checks before moving your work to another namespace. It's sad to see such talent going to waste – User:Rich Farmbrough/Redirect tool seems very clever, with its core and inner core. I wish that talent could be channeled to more productive uses. You need to stop focusing on quantity and pay more attention to details to achieve more quality edits. I know this won't be easy for you, but please try (I perhaps have the opposite problem: in the past I've taken heat for missing project deadlines, and didn't like to consider a coding project finished until it was bug-free and perfect). Wbm1058 (talk) 13:41, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by GoodDay

It's been over 3 years now. IMHO, the restriction should be repealed & Rich given a chance to prove himself. GoodDay (talk) 02:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Deryck

Rich's sanctions were made 3.5 years ago. They were criticized as ill-defined back then, and 3.5 years on they are more ill-defined than they were, because Wikipedia editing tools have moved on. I would like to see the sanction lifted altogether, but I understand the "risk" that our honorable Arbitrators think they're taking on this manner. Even so, I think Remedy 2 desperately needs to be rewritten in a way that is tool-independent and objectively enforceable - "any edits that reasonably appear to be automated" has never been properly enforceable and has generated so much adverse wiki-lawyering over the years. As a compromise, I propose limiting the scope of Rich's sanctions to reader-facing namespaces only (article, template, category, portal; excluding all talk pages); and redefining the sanction in terms of edit rate, e.g. max 1 edit per minute, or 200 edits per 24 hours. Deryck C. 22:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by MichaelMaggs

You can tell when a sanction has become punitive rather than protective in the mind of an arbitrator when the response to an amendment request is simply "no". That's it. No reasons, no discussion, apparently no consideration. This sanction should be lifted. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 01:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Fram

I have added a question at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Candidates/Rich Farmbrough/Questions#Question from User:Fram which contains some information relevant to this amendment request, particularly the part about the User:Rich Farmbrough/Redirect tool (an automatic redirect creator made between June and August 2015) and the apparent test runs of it in the mainspace, resulting in huge numbers of often useless (newly invented) redirects. Fram (talk) 13:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by SMcCandlish

Three+ years is more than enough already, and these restrictions were excessive to begin with. At bare minimum, most of the specifics asked for should be granted. I looked over Fram's election questions, and RichF's answers appear to be adequate. The "smoking gun" redirect tool is no smoking gun; it's not a bot or other automation tool, despite the name, just a rather simplistic template that helps reduce some typing (which is, pretty much, what templates are for). The community is supposed to forgive and assume the good faith that a second chance is warranted (absent total WP:JERK behavior or other WP:COMPETENCE problems).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Legacypac

Inam really surprised that a good editor like Rich is burdened by sanctions 3.5 years later, yet an Admin who created massive amounts of crap gets off loosing tools he was barely using. Lift the restructions outright. Legacypac (talk) 23:56, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Rich Farmbrough: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Rich Farmbrough: Arbitrator views and discussion

• I'm considering whether to recuse on this, given extensive interaction with Rich IRL at wikimeets and the like. Rich, if you have a strong opinion either way let me know and I'll respect that. Thryduulf (talk) 14:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I have decided I do not need to recuse here. I do not think that an editor's future employment prospects are something that we can consider (cf Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ#Motion Carried re images of sexuality in ancient and medieval times) as our remit is to act in the interests of the encyclopaedia and the wider project rather than the interests of individual editors (where these are mutually exclusive). In contrast perhaps to previous committees I'm tempted to allow a modification to the restriction. As an initial proposal for discussion I would suggest allowing:
    1. the manual use of WP:HOTCAT at a rate not exceeding a rate of 10 pages edited using hotcat in any 60 minute period. Your hotcat edits should not exceed 50% of your total article namespace edits in any 24 hour period.
    2. the use of automated tools to generate project-space or userspace lists and to maintain those lists if necessary, where these have been asked for by other Wikimedians and have permission granted at WP:BOTREQ.

    These would all be subject to the requirement that in the event of any complaints or queries raised about your automated edits by another editor, all automated tasks must be paused or halted at least until the issue is resolved to the satisfaction of all parties, or to the satisfaction of an uninvolved administrator if agreement cannot be reached.

  I would not, at this stage, be inclined to allow the use of any automated tools that make any edits to content namespaces (other than hotcat). I do not think that these would lead to the problems that lead to these restrictions in the first place, but would allow Rich to demonstrate he can use automation responsibly. Thryduulf (talk) 10:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

  @Rich Farmbrough: I intend to try and move this request forward and get an actual outcome, however the Eric Corbett, Lightbreather and Gender gap issues have rather stolen the Committee's time at present so I can't say exactly when that will be. Thryduulf (talk) 14:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC) resigning to fix the ping Thryduulf (talk) 14:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

  As we are both candidates in the ongoing elections, I do not intend to take any further part in this request. Thryduulf (talk) 13:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not inclined to remove this sanction --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 04:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
• @Rich Farmbrough: What kind of bot-assisted edits would you intend to make, should this sanction be removed? GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
• @Rich Farmbrough: What do you understand as the issues that led up to the sanction being placed, and what steps would you take to prevent similar situations from occurring again? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I think I could support a relaxation of the restriction, as I do see the point that Rich's overall style of interaction really has improved. I think I'd want to see how that works out before supporting a parole leading toward eventual lifting. I think the restrictions to non-mainspace for automated tasks are wise, at least initially, and certainly only to preapproved tasks (and any tests necessary prior to approval). For semiautomation, like Huggle and the like, I think we could allow normal use of that, provided that such tools are not used for any unsupervised, fully automated editing in mainspace and Rich is in fact pressing the button for each such edit. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
• I will not support removing or loosening this sanction. Courcelles (talk) 14:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• Actually, I would support one and only one relaxation; that being to Rich's own userspace and user talk space. Courcelles (talk) 02:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• I too would not allow this request. AGK [•] 09:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
• I have serious concerns about lifting such sanctions. That being said I do somewhat concur with the view that occasionally risks must be taken. The action which Rich took were indubitably problematic and I think to some degree he may not fully understand what was problematic about them. I feel, personally, like it may not be prudent. However, we're quite far down the line and to take a risk (or even to do something as minor as allowing bot edits in non content workspaces so long as the bot is reviewed, or perhaps implementing a somewhat more strict mentor or approval process). As my term continues I am growing less and less enthusiastic with the notion of grand packages of restrictions to allow problem editors to stay, although this is primarily within the realm of civility. Nonetheless I think this needs discussion past the point of "I have issues trusting this individual." Don't get me wrong, I have concerns about lifting the restriction myself, but it's been 3+ years and some of the originally identified poor behaviors seem to have changed for the better. The general community support for removing them also bears considering. The individual certainly seems to have more trust with the community than with the members of arbcom, and why exactly this is I am not sure, but it has convinced me I should look more into the case to see if I am missing anything from either side. NativeForeigner ^Talk 17:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• I'd be for lifting it. There wouldn't be a lack of scrutiny to its editing. NativeForeigner ^Talk 10:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• The problems that can be created by any automated editing can be so difficult to resolve, that I'm not prepared to take the risk. DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Reconsidering, I thin a modified trial of some sort would be warranted. Doug Weller's suggestions seems one reasonable approach, and I would support it. DGG ( talk ) 09:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)1
• Consider other arb's comments, I think there should be some way of relaxing the restriction that would be safe enough. I would not remove it entirely. DGG ( talk ) 02:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• In this case, I support a parole; alternatively, if there is no consensus for that, I also support a relaxation of the restriction. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
• I support gradual relaxation, with the first stage his own userspace and talkpage, work on User:Jagged 85 if that doesn't involved directly editing articles, and specific requests from users such as User:WereSpielChequers to do non-article space work (which other editors could then move into article spaceif required). Where appropriate obviously he'd need permission granted at WP:BOTREQ. I don't see any particular risks in such a relaxation and it appears that other editors and indeed the project could benefit from it. I'd include Thryduulf's requirement that "These would all be subject to the requirement that in the event of any complaints or queries raised about your automated edits by another editor, all automated tasks must be paused or halted at least until the issue is resolved to the satisfaction of all parties, or to the satisfaction of an uninvolved administrator if agreement cannot be reached." Rich should be given a chance to show that he can use his skills responsibly. Doug Weller (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
• I can't see completely dropping this measure out of the blue, though I do see the community that wishes we'd move on. So that said, a gradual relaxation or something of the sort of things mentioned above is definitely in order. I would start with the userspace first and see where that goes though. I'll ponder some thoughts over the next steps. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support lifting the restriction entirely without prejudice to reimposing it via a successful ARCA request or similar, if problems recur. I've read through the original case and would have voted the same way as the majority In imposing the restriction in the first place. But three years later, am willing to AGF and see how it goes. For avoidance of doubt, also support any gradual lifting of the restriction as proposed above, if these seem likely to get a majority of supports here. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I've never actually seen a tumbleweed, but the last few weeks at this ARCA request is a fair place to look for one. Rich Farmbrough, as this has died on the vine I might suggest it be withdrawn as no consensus without prejudice to refiling it in 2016. Views welcome. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:44, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough: Motion

• Remedy 2 of the Rich Farmbrough case shall not apply in Rich Farmbrough's user space, his user talk space, or any subpage of Wikipedia:Database reports. Subject to the normal bot policy Rich Farmbrough may use automation in these exempted areas.

For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

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

Support

1. In the interests of getting something done before the 2016 Committee takes over. I think this will have some support, though it might need some wordsmithing. Courcelles (talk) 23:40, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
2. This seems like a reasonable first step. I'd rather not lift the restriction entirely, so let's try this and go from there. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
3. I support this for the same reasons as GorrilaWarfare, and as the election is over I see no conflict in my expressing that support here. Thryduulf (talk) 19:33, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
4. I really don't see what harm this could possibly do. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
5. Not exactly what I wanted, but this will do. Doug Weller talk 21:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
6. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 12:49, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I don't think that this restriction should be lifted --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 06:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Abstain

Enacted - Mdann52 (talk) 08:45, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Amendment request: Rich Farmbrough (July 2016)

Original discussion'

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Initiated by Rich Farmbrough at 14:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Rich Farmbrough arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedy 2

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

• Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

• Remedy 2

• Termination of remedy

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

In a case brought against me something over four and years ago, it was found that certain community norms had been broken by me, specifically WP:BOTPOL, WP:5P4 and WP:ARBRFUAT.

I note that in the intervening period I have complied with WP:BOTPOL, been civil and collegial with other editors, and been responsive to other editors concerns, as anyone active in the community will know.

In particular I have worked at WP:TEAHOUSE, welcomed new users, attempted to smooth ruffled feathers at WP:GGTF, mainly by focussing discussion on substantive issues, provided assistance to other editors both on and off-wiki (a list could be made available if desired). I have continued to work on other wikis with no issues.

I also continue to perform work high community trust, on protected templates, but more importantly on edit filters where, together with others (notably Dragons Flight) I have overhauled almost every filter to ensure that the whole system continues to work (it was failing) and additional filters can be implemented.

Moreover not only have I been policy compliant, collegial and responsive, I have every intention of continuing indefinitely to be so.

For these reasons in October 2015 I requested (with substantially the wording above) the then Arbitration Committee to terminate Remedy 2. The Committee agreed, partly as a response to significant community support, as a first step to reduce the scope of the remedy, removing restrictions from my user spaces and subpages of Wikipedia:Database reports.

Subsequently, in addition to my regular contributions as outlined above, and other endeavours to help make the way Wikipedia works more public,[56][57] I have been able to add value in other ways.

I have been able to run User:Femto Bot (after the usual, though not strictly necessary for user-page-bot Bot Authorisation Request), to maintain the reports, by county, of UK geolocated articles with no image - and appropriate links to Geograph, a source of suitably licensed images.

I have also implemented the control panel I suggested in 2012 which allows any editor to turn off any bot task.

I have also been able to perform mundane administrative tasks such as checking out systemic naming descriptors, monitoring the migration of RAN drafts, creating lists of missing women scientists, women of Scotland and redlinked FRSs without fear of retribution.

Given the above which indicates the benefits to the project of the previous reduction, the length of time which has elapsed since the original case was brought, and the lack of any subsequent substantive issue, and the apparent support from the community, I would request the Committee to terminate remedy 2 as soon as convenient.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC).

Please feel free to raise any issues, or just have a chat, here, on my talk page, by email (though please leave me a note on my talk page) or in person at Wikimania, where I look forward to discussing all metters Wikimedian with colleagues, including Arbitrators. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC).

@Callencc: Of course I would rather not have to re-auth the old tasks, but it is a sensible idea, which I cannot really fault. And many of those tasks were one-offs, so they present no problem. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 09:43, 23 June 2016 (UTC).

One of the BAG mentioned they have reviewed my old bot tasks, and of them all only couple of handfuls are relevant today. It is of course not guaranteed that I will have time to revive these tasks anyway. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC).

Note: I have already agreed with BAG to re-apply for any old tasks that still need running. So it is a matter of form only whether this clause is included.
I thank those Arbitrators who have already !voted on these proposals, and look forward to a speedy resolution. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 07:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC).

Statement by Xaosflux

As an active member of the bot approvals group I am not opposed to vacating the prior remedy. I suggest that any closing motion include a final reminder to Rich Farmbrough that both the spirit and letter of the bot policy are important to the community. As far as bot tasks that were approved and since suspended prior to the original sanctions (e.g. Fepto Bot tasks 0-6 and any other tasks approved prior to the sanctions listed on other bot accounts) , I recommend that the original approvals are explicitly rescinded, without prejudice for future (re)approval requests. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis: Yes, will seek consensus from others in WP:BAG. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Magioladitis

As I BAG member, I am in favour of Rich being able to use semi-automated tools such as HotCat, Twinkle, etc. All old bot requests whether they have been approved or not, they should be considered as expired. This is something I would suggest to anyone who would like to resume a code written 4-5 years ago. Any bot request should go through the normal bot approval process. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Kudpung

For a long time already these sanctions continue to be merely punitive rather than preventative. That is contrary to the spirit (and policy) of Wikipedia. RF is a highly intelligent and mature individual and I see no point in continuing to deprive him of the use of any scripts. After all that has been said and done, including the appalling treatment he received on his bid for re-adminship , I don't perceive any risk whatsoever in lifting the last remaining restrictions and it's time now to fully restore his dignity. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf

I'm not completely comfortable at the moment with a total removal of sanctions. However I am in favour of a near total relaxation. Specifically I would allow everything except unsupervised edits to content namespaces.

The reason for this is that I don't have confidence that he understands why the community viewed the mistakes as seriously add they did/do. Awkward42 (talk) [the alternate account of Thryduulf (talk)] 19:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@Amanda - that will lead to much confusion about whether the community sanctions expire in sixth months with this probation or only when successfully appealed. It also implicitly allows high speed bot and bot-like editing from a non-bot account. Awkward42 (talk) [the alternate account of Thryduulf (talk)] 10:24, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Statement by slakr

As a BAGer, I have no problem with rescinding his blanket prohibition against using all automation tools, as supervised script use can certainly make one more productive and generally less frustrated by many of the shortcomings of the editing experience. That said, I still feel it prudent to err on the side of caution when it comes to suspected unsupervised edits that haven't been approved, especially if done in high volumes or at high rates, as Thryduulf alludes to. For example, if, while a large number of clearly similar edits are being made, an editor pings his talk page with a concern related to them—especially if it's an objection—then he should be expected to immediately stop and respond, thereby demonstrating he's likely supervising his edits.

As far as old bot approvals go, I wholeheartedly agree with xaosflux and Magioladitis; all the old bots should be assumed to be unapproved (perhaps something along the lines of any of those approved prior to whenever the latest AE action was?). No prejudice against re-approval. --slakr^\ talk / 02:49, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Statement by L235

@Opabinia regalis: Weighing in purely as a matter of principle, the proposed probation terms don't look bad to me. They somewhat resemble probation terms imposed years ago, which commonly stated (something like) "so-and-so may be blocked if, in the opinion of any uninvolved administrator, so-and-so violates any [principle of Wikipedia, or Wikipedia policy, or whatnot]" or "so-and-so may be banned from any page so-and-so disrupts". The probation usually doesn't prohibit anything that's not already prohibited, it simply provides that administrators have greater available remedies available for breaches of the admonition. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:02, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Fram

The case was quite a while ago, and no problems I know off have occurred during the last two years (perhaps longer, I haven't checked; the most recent ones I remeber were with the buggy "redirect creator", but I can't recall the date of those). I don't really see what could change between this appeal and a next one: either Rich Farmbrough has regained enough community (or ArbCom) confidence to give him a new chance at automated editing, and then now is as good a time as any, or else he will never regain that confidence, and then it is rather cruel to let him appeal every six months or so, and the committee should just send a "never" message. I would support a lifting of this restriction, with the need to get renewed bot approval for all tasks he wants to restart (or any new tasks obviously). The advantage of probation seems to be that, should serious problems happen in the probation period, we can go to Arb enforcement instead of ANI or a new ArbCom case? Fram (talk) 11:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing)

I am in favour of removing all these restrictions, with the caveat that all bot tasks be deemed expired, and thus requiring re-approval. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Hawkeye7

I don't have much to add to what has been said above. The sanctions on Rich were ridiculously broad, and it is to his credit that he has complied with them. Time for the sanctions to be removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:29, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Omni Flames

The sanctions in question were applied over four years ago now. At the time, yes, that was probably necessary to prevent further disruption to the project. However, since that arbitration case, Rich has always fully complied with the sanctions laid upon him, and the remedy has long since been more of a punishment than a preventative measure. I would be fully supportive of a complete removal of these sanctions, assuming that the previous bot approvals are rescinded (as they're most likely outdated or done by other bots now). Omni Flames (talk) 12:02, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Boing! said Zebedee

While reading through this request (and being familiar with previous controversy over the sanctions on Rich), I was working out how to express my opinion, and then I saw that Kudpung has expressed my thoughts perfectly (I wish I knew how he did that). So please consider my recommendation to be exactly the same as his, for exactly the same reasons. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by SMcCandlish

He's clearly gotten it, and changed. Four+ years is long enough. We should expire ancient sanctions, with much less drama, far more often when it's clear that the editor is question is not some nut-job or patently incompetent. Rich is capable, collaborative, and productive. ArbCom should remove the tattoo it placed on his forehead.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by WereSpielChequers

Some parts of the restrictions, such as the ban on use of hotcat, always looked punitive rather than precautionary. Other restrictions may have been worthwhile in the past but are now unneeded. Past Arbcoms have made some bad decisions re Rich, I hope this Arbcom will do better. ϢereSpielChequers 18:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Rich Farmbrough: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• @Kirill Lokshin:  Done. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
• Recuse to give a statement. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:02, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough: Arbitrator views and discussion

• Given the apparent success of last year's partial lifting of these sanctions and the lack of any ongoing conflict in this area, I'm inclined to end the remaining sanctions as Rich requests. @ArbCom Clerks: please invite the active members of the Bot Approvals Group to comment here if they have any thoughts on this matter. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 16:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
• I agree with Kirill on this one. @Xaosflux: Thanks for your thoughts. Not to get all WP:BURO, but I assume you mean BAG would rescind the prior approvals? In the absence of sanctions, bot approvals sound more like your wheelhouse than ours ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • DeltaQuad, thanks for writing this up. But how are the probation terms different from what anyone else running a bot is expected to do? After the probation is over, he can use edit summaries of "because reasons"? ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't object to probation, I guess, but I think it would be much simpler to just get rid of the restrictions rather than fussing with the details of what "probation" means. Providing a hair trigger for the strictest admin who happens to notice a minor problem is a bug, not a feature. I'd rather just say something like "Remedy 2 of the Rich Farmbrough case is rescinded. Rich is expected to follow the bot policy for all automated tasks and must consult with BAG regarding tasks for which approval was previously suspended. The applicable community sanctions remain in force." Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
• I agree as well. With the caveat suggested above that a new bot approval be required for previously approved tasks; Rich Farmbrough any issues with that? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
• I am very cautious about this --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 22:38, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
• So there are the community sanctions that still are not rescinded either. We also reviewed the sanctions about 6 months ago. I'm thinking that probation would be a best next step, with an auto-expiry clause. Something along the lines of:

Remedy 2 of the Rich Farmbrough case is rescinded. In its place, the following remedy is enacted:

Rich Farmbrough is placed on probation for a period of six months. During this six month period, starting from the enactment of this motion, Rich Farmbrough is required to

1. perform all high-volume and high-speed edits on authorized bot accounts only
2. provide edit summaries sufficiently identifying their task on authorized bot accounts
3. disclose on their userpage of the editing user (whether bot or Rich himself) any high-volume or high-speed editing tasks. In the disclosure Rich must give an appropriate description of the task being performed and include any appropriate links to approvals.
4. comply with the bot policy.

If in the view of any uninvolved administrator Rich violates these sanctions during the 6 month period, they may block or restrict Rich from some or all aspects of bot editing or high-volume high-speed tasks, whatever is appropriate to prevent damage to the encyclopedia. After the 6 month period, this motion is rescinded unless blocks or new restrictions are placed as a result of this motion, which then will require the involvement of the Arbitration Committee at ARCA. It is noted that the original community sanctions are not affected by this motion as they were placed by the community.

If the bot approval group sees it fit, they may also revoke all previous bot requests without the authorization of the committee.

It's only a rough draft I made in about 20 minutes, so feel free to edit for grammar/wording and propose change on issues with it. I feel like it strikes a balence of ensuring a smooth transition and keeps our hands out of areas that aren't ours. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• @Thryduulf: Sent my thoughts through the car wash. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 11:21, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• I think I agree with Kirill and OR. If there is questionable behaviour, I think we will be pinged soon enough. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:14, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
• User:Slakr seems to have raised some valid points. If the probation is no more than what we expect normally, it almost sounds as though after 6 months he can deviate from those expectations. Doug Weller talk 15:53, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

The difference is that normally if someone violated the expectations, we would consider sanctioning them, depending on the severity etc.. ; on probation, a violation would unquestionably immediately cause the previous sanction to be reimposed. DGG ( talk ) 15:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• I would support relaxing restrictions per Kirill and Cas. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
• I support relaxing the restrictions, given the success of the previous changes to the remedies. I would appreciate more input on how the larger community feels about relaxing restrictions to allow fully-automated tasks. I am at least willing to relax restrictions regarding supervised edits; I am tentatively willing to allow fully-automated changes, and I do believe that Rich knows that these can be revoked very quickly and easily if he does not comply with enwiki best practices, and that such a revocation will affect his ability to perform such tasks in the future. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

  For clarity, I would support Amanda's proposal. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

  • @Guerillero: Do you mind providing some more comment on your votes? I can see you've said above "I am very cautious about this," and then voted to oppose both motions without explanation. I'd be curious to know in more detail why you're opposing these motions. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:34, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

    @GorillaWarfare: I would much rather see a longer tail of these sanctions with a first step for allowing a bot or three and seeing what happens. I am just very cautious about the problems that lead up to the case resuming. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

    Alright, thanks for explaining. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:03, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough: Motions

For these motions there are 14 active arbitrators. 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	8
1–2	7
3–4	6

Rich Farmbrough: Motion (probation)

Remedy 2 of the Rich Farmbrough case is rescinded. In its place, the following remedy is enacted:

Rich Farmbrough is placed on probation for a period of six months. During this six month period, starting from the enactment of this motion, Rich Farmbrough is required to

1. perform all high-volume and high-speed edits on authorized bot accounts only
2. provide edit summaries sufficiently identifying their task on authorized bot accounts
3. disclose on their userpage of the editing user (whether bot or Rich himself) any high-volume or high-speed editing tasks. In the disclosure Rich must give an appropriate description of the task being performed and include any appropriate links to approvals.
4. comply with the bot policy.

If in the view of any uninvolved administrator Rich violates these sanctions during the 6 month period, they may block or restrict Rich from some or all aspects of bot editing or high-volume high-speed tasks, whatever is appropriate to prevent damage to the encyclopedia. After the 6 month period, this motion is rescinded unless blocks or new restrictions are placed as a result of this motion, which then will require the involvement of the Arbitration Committee at ARCA. It is noted that the original community sanctions are not affected by this motion as they were placed by the community.

If the bot approval group sees it fit, they may also revoke all previous bot requests without the authorization of the Committee.

Support

1. Second choice, in the better-than-nothing sense. As I said above, I don't think we need to fuss around with defining "probation" or invite hair-trigger reactions to minor problems. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
2. Second choice. This is a completely viable option, but I think that Rich has shown enough willingness to work with us and with the community that we can remove the sanction entirely. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
3. Second choice. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
4. Second choice. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 17:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
5. I'm split equally. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:55, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
6. Second choice. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 19:53, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
7. second choice. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
8. Second choice, but just. Doug Weller talk 15:22, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
9. Second choice . DGG ( talk ) 16:05, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 13:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Abstain

Rich Farmbrough: Motion (sanctions rescinded)

The sanctions placed on Rich Farmbrough as part of the Rich Farmbrough arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) are rescinded. For clarity this includes remedy 2 which prohibited Rich Farmbrough from using automation and clause B in the June 2012 amendment.

If the bot approval group sees it fit, they may also revoke all previous bot requests without the authorization of the Committee.

It is noted that the original community sanctions are not affected by this motion as they were placed by the community.

Support

1. First choice. Though I'm not sure about the second paragraph - we don't need to tell BAG they can handle the existing task approvals. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
2. First choice. I am optimistic that this will turn out well; if not, sanctions can be reapplied. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
3. First choice. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
4. First choice. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 17:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
5. I'm split equally. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:55, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
6. First choice. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 19:53, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
7. First choice. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
8. Ok, with the understanding that if it unfortunately doesn't turn out as hoped he's liable to be sanctioned again. Doug Weller talk 15:21, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
9. First choice, with the same understand as Doug, just above. DGG ( talk ) 16:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
10. Drmies supported this motion very enthusiastically!!!! [58] ;) Fixed by Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 13:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Abstain

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.