Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough/Proposed decision

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

Case clerks: Guerillero (Talk) & NuclearWarfare (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Newyorkbrad (Talk) & 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.

Clarification on principle 6

I've seen bots get blocked for being malfunctioning, and their owners fixing the problem and then unblocking the bot. Would this no longer be permitted? --Rschen7754 20:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, no. Rich Farmbrough has inappropriately been unblocking his bots when he wasn't supposed to such as unblocking while he was technically blocked or unblocking without fixing the issues that were brought up by the community.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 20:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems that !X changed the wording back in 2008 - with no link to any discussion. But it was news to me. Certainly most, if not all, of the unblocks I did had explicit permission from the blocker to unblock. And it's not clear that wording of a MediaWiki message is policy - well actually it's pretty clear that it isn't. Rich Farmbrough, 21:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC).

(edit conflict)I don't know the specifics. I'm just going off of what I am seeing.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 21:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

(Yep, it's not a big deal. Rich Farmbrough, 21:22, 5 May 2012 (UTC).)

There are probably several important points here.

1. Because of the capacity that bots have for high-speed multiple-page damage, the bar for blocking bots is (or should be) lower than for editor malfeasance (which isn't usually very high anyway).
2. Because of the capacity for damage etc, the bot shouldn't be run again until the circumstances that led to the block are completely resolved.
3. An uninvolved third party is probably a better person to evaluate whether the circumstances are completely resolved than the bot owner, who will often have a selective view.
4. If a bot owner absolutely positively must unblock their own bot, in doing so they must warrant that the circumstances that led to the block are completely resolved.

Another closely related point is the broader implications of Involved and Unblocking. These are longstanding policies with very broad consensus. Now there's been some discussion suggesting that, notwithstanding these policies, the custom and practice is for owners to unblock their own bots. This, it seems to me, is a classic example of local consensus seeking to trump the longstanding very broad consensus of two separate policies. It needs a much higher level of consensus for such an important change.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with your point #3. I believe the majority of bot blocks are for bugs and other malfunctions, and unless you're proposing mandatory code reviews for bots, the bot operator is in a better position than anyone else to tell if the problem has been fixed. --Carnildo (talk) 01:44, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, it would just be very unwise to unblock your own bots from now on - your bot gets blocked for some unanticipated mistake (which according to ArbCom is already a crime, you should have anticipated mistakes) - then you do your best fixing the problem, changing the code, etc. etc. - if you then unblock, the bot edits on, and the fix is not a perfect fix, and the bot makes a very related, or even the same, unanticipated mistake, then you would have unblocked your bot while not fixing the problem. And no-one can see whether you REALLY tried to fix your bot or not. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Interesting

Here I gently chide an admin and BAG member for using evidence of manual editing (saving something then realizing the mistake and fixing it) to support a claim of automatic editing. Citing a <facepalm> as incivility worthy of a year's ban, desysopping and banning from using automation is cazy. Rich Farmbrough, 21:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC).

And again for suggesting a user be polite and friendly in reporting issues.

And for suggesting a user take the advice of another to work colliagally. Rich Farmbrough, 21:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC).

3.3.2: "Ban on automation"

Regarding 3.3.2: how would someone on WP:AE determine whether Rich was using automation? It's notoriously difficult to tell what method was used to make an edit, and if Rich states that a sequence of 1,000 edits (say) was all made manually, there would be no evidence that could contradict this. Even 1,000 edits could be made manually, using tabbed browsing and patience. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

It looks as though this is the main reason behind the proposed site-ban; unfortunately, unless he really chugs away at something (as noted in some of the contributions lists I posted in evidence, and posted in the findings here), there really isn't any way to definitively tell short of checkuser, and even that's not 100% reliable. What may work better is limiting him to a very low edit rate, such as no more than 4 edits/minute, such that using automation would actually become more tedious than simply doing it by hand. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Really I can't believe I bothered to do stuff manually, I must be an idiot. Not only does everyone assume it's automatic anyway, they also get the "evidence" completely arse-about-face.

• Assisted editing - fast, because you have to be there.
• Bot editing, fast or slow, as long as the job gets done.

If people think a 4 edits/minute speed restriction on my human account is a good idea, I could cope with it. It does nothing though. Rich Farmbrough, 01:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC).(Using some automation)

Indeed, before bots I was using tabbed browsing and a Firefox plugin called Linky to open 100 tabs per window. It was much faster than AWB, because it loaded 100 pages simultaneously, the speed limit was how fast you could change tabs, fix the page and hit save - which in turn was CPU limited, due to the complexity of Netscape/Firefox and the overhead that Wikipedia pages carry. Rich Farmbrough, 01:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC).(Using some automation)

Rich, the point is not whether you use automation or not - the point is that you are banned from using it. They do not have to prove that you are editing automated, if you do 3 edits in a row where you manually clean up three things (e.g., you used Google to find a strange misspelling in three Wikipedia pages), and you save those 3 edits (well within a 4-edit per minute level), you will be 'editing automated'. What, you might even be told off if you do those three edit on 3 different days, and editing in between respectively 53 and 69 other pages - you know how these edit restrictions are and can be used, you know what happened to Δ. And don't worry, because you are now here once, you will re-appear before ArbCom within a year after you are unbanned, and they will cite recividism, and even if they then also can't find anything substantive, they will ban you because you were banned before. There is probably only one way to handle with this - leave. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

And assuming good faith has gone straight out the window... yes, the evil ArbCom is seeking to ban everyone on the project. The secret's out now... :-/ Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

We might find it a little odd that the most dire sanction asked for is not only proposed by the drafting admin, but exceeded. Rich Farmbrough, 23:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC).(Using some automation)

I think that the WP rules are written so loosely that almost any repetetive edit could be construed as automated whether using a program or not. In response to Hersfold comments. I don't think Arbcom is evil, nor do I think that they intend ill intent. I do think they some of the decisions in this case defy logic and are overreaching based on the comments of a couple of editors that seem to be systematically eliminating the top producing editors and bots. We have already lost several, several more are on the skyline and I have no doubt that once those are dealt with they'll target the next few. Its easy to not make mistakes or ruffle feathers if you do 5 or 10 edits. When your doing 500 to 1000 edits or more per day, every day someone is going to get mad about something and you are going to make some mistakes. The zero defect mentaility that Wikipedia is moving to is unrealistic and will only prevent work from being done. I find it ironic that limits are put on the editors spending the time and doing the most edits but the editor that does 5 edits a week isn't hounded to do more. That seems a little backwards in my book. Kumioko (talk) 18:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

3.2.5 Rich Farmbrough's undisclosed use of automation

•  Fixed all my edits will now reveal if they have automation assistance. Rich Farmbrough, 01:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC).(Using some automation)
  

Which is rather moot, especially if you say that every edit you make. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

All my edits are assisted. Rich Farmbrough, 23:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC).(Using some automation)

Comment

Dirk Beetstra asked me to comment here after a comment I made on Rich's talk page.

I've never had a problem with Rich's edits. I know people have been complaining about him for a long time, but the proposed solution seems awfully harsh for the offense. The incivility is barely uncivil, and half of the offenses date from 2010. It would thus seem to be a low-level irritant, hardly the kind of thing to ban someone over. The argument that you need to ban/etc. him because how would you know if he evades his restrictions seems backwards to me. I would expect that you would impose the restrictions, and if he evades them, then ban/etc. him. Well, I've never been on ArbCom, so I don't know how to do your job, but that's the impression I get as an outsider.

Also, Rich has been unfailingly helpful the times I've dealt with him. Currently I have a bot request that's been languishing for over a month. I wanted to lay the groundwork for a Wikiproject project to properly format the references of our thousands of language articles, by adding the necessary parameters to transclusions of the infobox so they can be quickly reviewed by hand. It got hung up on whether the bot should add a reference section, or whether a different bot should clean up afterwards by adding a ref section, but even after I removed that item from the request, it just sat there. (I've just posted it for the third time.) Rich was willing to do it, but his month block was imposed while we were still debating whether it was appropriate to add the reference section. He'd be willing to do it now, but for the threat of being banned. And now I'm getting busy enough with other things that I don't know if I'll be able to start the project if the request is ever approved—which would mean leaving c. 4,000 language articles without overt references, so that editors continually mis-tag them as unreferenced despite the fact that they are referenced.

No-one else steps in to take over from Rich when he's not here. — kwami (talk) 07:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The request is not hung up because of the reference section, the request is hung up because the task's bot operator is at ARBCOM, partially because of his behaviour during that task's BRFA. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 07:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The backlog of reference sections have been done. It did mean that several thousand pages had ugly red errors on them which would not have been necessary, but, hey! the rules were complied with so it's all good? Rich Farmbrough, 23:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC).(Using some automation)

Rich Farmbrough's responsiveness

@Kirill - Fram is part of the community, Fram is not the representative of the community, Fram is not the community. I ask, again, can you show that the community finds problem with Rich's edits, not only that Fram finds problem with the edits. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

For example, there is the discussion that led to the first edit restriction [1]. Here is a particularly apropos comment from it:

Your dismissive attitude ("No one cares..."; "Forget it and go and write an encyclopedia."; "There is no controversy here. Nothing to see, keep walking.") is a major part of the problem. I don't know how many people care about this, but I can tell you that I do. When I consult diffs to evaluate the edits, your bot's inconsequential changes waste my time. I've gone to your talk page to raise the issue, only to be reminded by the existing complaints (and your [non-]responses thereto) that you routinely ignore/dismiss such criticisms. So I don't bother to add my voice to the futile chorus (and I assume that others act in kind). —David Levy 23:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

— Carl (CBM · talk) 09:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Is there no alternative to a siteban?

I understand that Rich's attitude to previous sanctions is telling against him here, but is there no other solution than sitebanning him. Could one maybe just restrict him from making any edits in Article space? He could contribute at places like Wikipedia:WikiProject Perl, he's been giving tutorials in coding which could continue, he just needs to stop contributing using automated tools himself for a bit. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

+1. A site ban should not be necessary. Given that the problems have been with automated tools, ban on use of those is quite enough. I understand there are enforcement concerns (particularly in relation to 3.2.5, undisclosed use of automation), but I think that can be worked out. (If no better solution can be found, Elen's suggestion of restriction from article space would work; or maybe a lowish daily limit on number of edits in mainspace would work.) I said some time ago that Rich's skills can be very usefully applied supporting others on bot issues, and that should not be prevented, if he's willing. Rd232 ^talk 11:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

If ArbCom told me not use tools, I wouldn't. Nothing would get done though. Rich Farmbrough, 12:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC).(Using some automation)

I don't think thát will be a problem, Rich. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily opposed to resolving this without a site ban. However, for that to be viable, we need some way of enforcing the ban on automation; and, given Rich's unwillingness to disclose whether he is using automation tools (and which tools, and for what purpose), I don't see how that can be done. I certainly don't want to just dump the problem on the lap of the administrators working at AE; they have better things to do than monitoring the timing of Rich's edits.

I don't think a ban from article space would be sufficient, given that one of the major complaints was Rich's mass creation of categories. More generally, banning him from particular namespaces doesn't seem like an effective strategy; virtually every namespace is amenable to the use of automation (e.g. template redirects on talk pages, meta-template invocations on template pages, etc.), and I see no fundamental reason to believe that Rich would be any less willing or able to use automation outside the article space. Kirill ^[talk] 12:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

A bot could always check up on Rich's edits. If suspicious automated behavior happens, the bot can always notify AN and ArbCom about potential automated activity.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 12:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Do we have a bot that can check for "suspicious automated behavior"? If not, who is going to create one? Kirill ^[talk] 13:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't think a bot would be necessary, no doubt Fram and CBM will be happy to continue monitoring Rich's contribs. Jenks24 (talk) 13:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I would much prefer to not think about them at all, and I hope that the outcome here doesn't require anyone to monitor the contribs. In the end, if Rich won't moderate his own editing then a ban will be necessary; I hope that can be avoided. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

@Kirill, maybe you could consider to ask Rich Farmbrough or Δ to write that bot for you? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Cobi could write the bot. By slightly tweaking ClueBot NG analytic scripts it could be used to analyze Rich's Contributions using ClueBot RF. Since ClueBot NG is artificially intelligent it will learn off of Rich's editing style and would be able to determine more precisely if he is using automation or not.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 14:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

No, this is not a viable option. Cobi is a very capable programmer, yes, but unless he's able to design a true artificial intelligence system (thinking Skynet or HAL 9000 here, and look how well those turned out), the judgment of what merits "suspicion" can only be made by a human. Yes, we have vandalism bots, such as ClueBot, that have a high rate of accuracy, but they're designed to look for multiple blatant criteria; if something doesn't go over a minimum threshold score, the bot won't touch it. They are not, AFAIK, designed to "learn." Besides that, if a human can't readily determine if a set of edits were made manually or not, how could a human write a program to make that decision for them? Bottom line is, computer programs are really quite remarkably stupid, and (until we have true AI) incapable of exceeding or in many cases reaching a human's ability of judgment. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

According to Cobi, ClueBot NG is an AI bot with learning algorithims. And we don't need a perfect bot, just one that is able to detect obvious automation scripts being used and report it.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 19:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

All I can say is that reading this does not reflect well on either ArbCom or Rich. One can think of all the metaphors (Sledgehammer <-> Nuts; Baby <-> bath water; etc.). I would encourage both the ArbCom and Rich to step back, to both get over their respective righteousness and self-importance, resolve this problem, apply mutual respect and all get back to work. What a waste of good time and electrons. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm remaining impartial about this. I'm only throwing suggestions and possible solutions to potential problems.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 14:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Why are some of you trying to bend over backwards to create a means of checking on an editor's contributions when they have apparently shown themselves incapable of living up to the trust that their privileged position already afforded them? Leaky Caldron 14:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

That's the problem. When it gets down to talking about drone-slapping someone, you know it's not going anywhere. I do think it would be worth one try - no automated edits, no scripts, no bots, no repeating the same task faster than once every ten minutes, no mass creations of anything. Talk about things, discuss them, make content creating edits to articles, offer tutorials on coding, but if a problem that needs automated editing appears, just ask for someone to do it at Village pump or wherever. One chance. But would it drive Rich mad, and is it reasonable? Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

It's apparent that Rich is very attached to automation like I am too (my status and signature). I would certainly go mad if I I'm editing in an environment where I can write assistance scripts and so forth and not be able to use them.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 19:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the whole automation thing is a red herring. Is it a good edit? Is it a bad edit? Some edits we can have a debate about, but that is not what is being discussed here. People have been kind enough to say that I "do a lot of good work" - maybe someone takes exception to that or maybe we should construct a balance and put grinding through hundreds of elementary particle templates on one side (as good), and removing markup (per guidance) on the other side (as bad). This is the model Wnt tried to introduce - and I think there is something to it, except that it is too complex to actually execute. I would encourage people to try it as a thought exercise. We have maybe 750 edits to this case. Maybe they are neutral, maybe they go to community building, (plus) maybe time wasting (minus). 1500 edits to tag some maps with GFDL, that was before automation at all "open in new tab., edit, ctrl F, ctrl V ctrl S (that was the save keystroke in those days), tab back, repeat, repeat..." - they are all on Commons now, so maybe that's neutral. Fixing up 30,000 US places demographics to be readable and correct text, including 3000 manually. Probably 100,000 typo fixes. Maintaining some 4,000 dated maintenance categories. That's all gotta be good. Being sharp when people are rude to me. Yeah, that's kinda negative (in some ways) - but I'm generally pretty laid back. I got called a "fucking liar" and didn't respond, and far worse things. I think I come out ahead, or at least break even on civility.

So the real question is are we looking backward or forwards? If we are looking backwards I think I have a substantial net contribution to the project. The worst that is being brought against me is saying "Tosh" or <sigh>, or deleting a few trailing spaces. And remember some of the things that have been fussed about, I have gone off and got consensus on, with no objections - as it seems to me was bound to happen.

And then if we look forward, what have I to offer? Well consider that on 24th March I addressed practically every incomplete item on the WP:BOTREQ, and they would all be done if not for blocking (over something we all now agree was pretty harmless, and most people would probably call useful). So as Kwami says, what has happened since? Basically sweet Fanny Adams, except that part of his task came within the purview of a previous BRFA and so could be completed by HPB. Does the community want me around, submitting BRFAs like they're going out of fashion, and solving issues for editors and readers, or would they rather BOTREqs get archived undone?

TLDR - I know. Rich Farmbrough, 01:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC).(Using some automation)

Rich, the reality is that - no matter how much work there is to do - none of us are indispensible. If we go under a bus/move to a desert island, there's always someone else will stop the world from ending. The best you can hope for is avoiding a siteban (and I don't think the situation has reached that point yet), but you need to start looking at how else you can contribute, if you avoid the problem areas in Anomie's explanation of 'automated' editing. Marking all your edits (automated) just because you use that fancy javascript is making it look as if you're not prepared to recognise the difference, or - worse - that you're taking the piss (don't think you are, but that is how it is looking to some people).Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

You're right, Elen, it is just that the rubbish will now stay there longer. Sure, we are all indispensible, but losing an editor, any editor, is a loss. However you (pl.) want to wiggle your way out of it, saying that what is happening here is not-so-bad for Wikipedia, saying that it is only a ban of one productive, knowledgeable editor. But if that keeps you (pl.) happy. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying that, so please don't put words in my mouth. I'm saying that the argument about indispensibility and workload has never succeeded before, and probably won't cut much ice now. It would be better for Rich to engage with the discussion about a restriction. He's already said that if asked, he wouldn't make automated edits, but then going and marking all his edits as automated (while I can see that it is honest in one sense, give the amount of javascript it takes him to make a talkpage post) hasn't persuaded people that he understands the distinctions that Anomie explains below. Which I'm sure he actually does understand. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The you was aimed at the community (hence the 'pl.'). But, as usual, who cares whether high volume editors who do a lot of good work leave (or are forced to (temporarily) leave - though this is simply a one-way ticket to eternity). Editors could actually choose to fight and keep the editors here who are not physically 'forced' to leave. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Reset you calendars!

As I understand, ArbCom has no trouble to find that Rich has used undisclosed automation under 3.2. But still someone makes the argument that Rich needs to be site-banned because it's impossible to tell if he uses automation under 3.3? And people vote in favour? Galls (and guys), April 1st has been over for more than a month. I would also suggest you read up on Turing test. If you cannot figure out if certain edits are automatic, who cares? And why? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

It is a problem if the community feels someone is "getting round" a restriction by "gaming the technology". You get bad feelings and arguments. In a previous rerun of this very argument, a different editor persisted in making lots-of-very-fast-repetetive-edits-with-a-ton-of-mistakes. In the end, it didn't matter whether he used AWB or a team of monkeys to achieve the effect, he ended up sitebanned. In this case, it's "very fast repetitive edits that people disagree with the consensus of" that's the problem. Rich is an intelligent guy - but so far he consistently refused to stop making that kind of edit. Really he needs agree to stop making lots of edits very fast with marginal consensus, whether that means abandoning the bots and scripts, or sacking the monkeys. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the experience with the Delta edit restrictions showed some of the problems when comes to assessing speed. Assessing similarity of edits could similarly be a problem. I think it would be a lot simpler to just trust Rich to stop doing that kind of edit, whilst making a provision that if he appears to be breaching that trust (with some reasonable scope for clarification on what is permitted - any clarifications should be absolutely respected), that he be banned (via WP:AE discussion) from all edits except for talk namespaces and the Wikipedia namespace. Rd232 ^talk 15:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

(Re. Elen): That's a reasonable argument. But a) it's not the argument ArbCom is making, and b) it's not really responsive to my concern. The argument at best supports something like an edit frequency limitation. And I'm really not very susceptible to arguments that "the community feels" something. We don't have a feel-o-meter, and a large part of the community probably has no particular feeling at all. I only ever noticed this case (and even became aware of Rich) by accident because of a caricature on Jimbo's talk page. Most users probably know nothing of this case. I would also maintain that if someones feelings are hurt by a change from {{Reflist}} to {{reflist}} (or vice versa), they are in dire need of a LART application and we should not base serious decisions on their concerns. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Stephan, I think you may have slightly misunderstood my argument in favor of 3.3.3. My assertion is not that it's per se impossible to determine whether Rich is using automation; as you point out, we've done exactly that in 3.2.5. Rather, my assertion is that identifying undisclosed automation by way of a subjective analysis of edit timing is neither sufficiently easy nor sufficiently reliable to form an effective method for enforcing a ban on automation (3.3.2).

The situation would be different if the evidence showed that Rich was consistently open and forthright regarding whether he was using automation; were that the case, I would be willing to accept his assertion that he was no longer using automation tools at face value. As 3.2.5 shows, however, Rich has not been open regarding his past use of automation; and thus, to put it quite bluntly, we cannot simply trust him to comply with 3.3.2 voluntarily, and must instead provide a mechanism to forcibly ensure compliance—a mechanism which we are, unfortunately, lacking. Kirill ^[talk] 15:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Yes, I've oversimplified the argument a bit to show its absurdity. And I still see this absurdity. We either can determine if someone is editing automatically, or we cannot. If we can, we can enforce an automation ban. If we can't, it does not matter if someone is editing automatically or not. And if we want to ban automation "just because", not because of any concrete problems, I strongly maintain that we are very much on the wrong track. Isn't "prevention, not punishment" still policy? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

And you have rather oversimplified this "hiding automation". If the community says I must not edit using AWB, or stand alone client programs of my own devising, or both, so be it. No such injunction has been made, therefore I have nothing to hide. I have never stated that the edits referred to were not made with AWB, I have not even been asked, for the record (E&OE) they were. Rich Farmbrough, 23:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC).(Using some automation)

Comments by Anomie

As a BAG member, but not speaking for BAG as a group, I'd like to make a few comments:

• Regarding the "Automation tools" principle, the line between a task requiring BAG approval and a task not requiring BAG approval is very fuzzy, but in general there are three factors to be considered:
  1. The level of automation involved. If edits are made without human intervention, it's considered "fully automated" and requires approval. If the edits are prepared by the bot or script, but then a human must review the diff and manually hit the "Save page" button, it's considered "semi-automated" or "script-assisted manual editing" and may or may not require BAG approval. Editing without any scripted assistance is considered "manual editing".

     The line between "semi-automated" and "script-assisted manual", in my opinion, is another fuzzy line based on the level of human involvement is required in selecting and preparing the edit before presenting it to the user for review. If the script chooses the page and the edits to apply and the human just approves the edit, it's "semi-automated". If the human selects the page and then uses a button to activate the particular script, it's "script-assisted manual". WP:BOTASSIST addresses this issue, as well. In any case, the distinction rarely matters much except when someone is trying to wikilawyer around an accusation of running an unauthorized bot (e.g. the kind of wikilawyering WP:MEATBOT is intended to prevent).

  2. The number of edits involved. If a semi-automated or (supposedly) manual task is going to be affecting a large number of pages, BAG approval may be desirable or required if only to avoid the hassle of being accused of being an unapproved bot. OTOH, in some cases a discussion demonstrating consensus at WP:VP or in an RFC may serve as well, particularly for a manual task. And in some cases, as in the oft-ignored WP:MASSCREATION, the community has explicitly decided that BAG approval is required regardless of the level of automation.
  3. The speed of edits involved. For semi-automated or (supposedly) manual tasks making edits at a high rate of speed for a sustained period of time, BAG approval may be desirable for the same reasons.
  None of this has anything to do with the technology used for automation. AWB may be used both for tasks requiring BAG approval and tasks not requiring BAG approval. A fully-automated bot could be written in Javascript and would require BAG approval, although most user scripts don't affect editing in any way (and are thus entirely outside the remit of BAG; WP:BOTSCRIPT addresses this point) and those that do are often "script-assisted manual editing" or "semi-automated" at most. In my opinion, both the first and second drafts of this principle accurate reflect the situation, although the second suffers somewhat from focusing on the tool rather than the task. Anomie⚔ 16:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
• Regarding the "Identifying the use of automation tools" principle, a related point in WP:BOTPOL, specifically WP:MEATBOT, states that even an ostensibly manual editing process may be in effect a fully-automated bot with a "meat" component if the human is not exercising their human judgment; the intent and wording is specifically aimed at nullifying attempts at a "this was entirely manual" defense when the WP:DUCK test (as mentioned by Jclemens) indicates an unapproved bot. Anomie⚔ 16:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
• Regarding the "Unblocking a bot" principle, ArbCom may also want to consider the not-uncommon case where the blocking administrator explicitly gives "permission" for the bot operator to unblock when the problem is fixed, usually justified per WP:NOTBURO. Anomie⚔ 16:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Spot on, all the way. Rich Farmbrough, 23:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC).(Using some automation)

As an editor, I'd also like to comment on something unrelated to Rich Farmbrough's bot activity. In regard to the "Rich Farmbrough's administrator status revoked" remedy, besides Rich's unblocking of his own bots, there have also been issues in the past regarding Rich's making untested, controversial, and/or contra-consensus edits to highly-visible fully-protected templates, with the same attitudes discussed more fully here with respect to his bot operation. I see Fram touched on this in his evidence, and it was mentioned in passing by Fram, CBM, and Elen of the Roads in the workshop. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Rich Farmbrough/October 2010 may also be relevant. Anomie⚔ 16:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, I think the previous principle automated editing broke it down relatively well with no such issues as there are on 3.1.3; Anomie's breakdown is much more thorough and very well explained. :) — madman 03:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The point that the technology being used is irrelevant is also well taken in this case; Rich comments above that if the arbitration committee restricts him from using AWB or programs of his own devising, then so be it. However, the arbitration committee can't be that arbitrary; a lot of the seemingly automated edits were ostensibly done via JavaScript and the like. How can the arbitration committee ban a contributor from editing via a Web browser? (Well, other than banning the contributor outright.) The arbitration committee's decisions can't allow for wikilawyering. — madman 19:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

This is why I suggested just giving a firm limit of (say) 40 edit per day on his main account. That would at least be objective to enforce and it would solve the major problems that the ban on automated editing would, without being as nebulous. If the committee also wants to remove his ability to use bot accounts, that's separate. Someone can do a lot of content work with 40 edits a day. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment on 3.2.3

This section reads... "Examples include cosmetic changes to non-rendered whitespace (A, B, C, D, E), cosmetic changes to template invocations (F, G), removal of comments (H, I), and unapproved mass creation of categories (J)."

Regarding

• A: This edit was done before the restriction.
• B: Removing whitespace at the end of lines is not a contentious thing, as long as it's not done on its own, I'm unsure if this comes with stock AWB (so it could be a violation of the edit-restriction), but it certainly could be implemented (AKA, if it's a violation, it's not an egregious one). The main purpose of this edit was to remove a linked date fragment. I don't know if this task had consensus, but it is not a case of WP:COSMETICBOT.
• C: Same as above, except with ISBN hyphenation (which is an approved task).
• D: Same as above, except with typo fixing + tagging the article with dmy template (unproblematic, except the possible violation of the editing restriction regarding whitespace edits, assuming these aren't part of stock AWB).
• E: This one is a legitimate edit-restriction violation, as it changes the whitespace inside infoboxes, and changes <references/> to {{reflist}}, neither of which AWB does, or would do in future versions.
• F: Legitimate edit restriction violation
• G: Pretty sure infobox templates are automatically capitalized by AWB (and if not, they reasonably could be without being considered disrupted). The whitespace to the infobox however, are beyond the scope of AWB genfixes.
• H: Legitimate edit restriction violation
• I: Legitimate edit restriction violation
• J: Legitimate edit restriction violation

I exhort ARBCOM to use better supporting evidence for this resolution, if it is to pass. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for this evaluation. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, HB. I think it is fair to say that, as a body comprised primarily of non-BotOps, the details of things like this are prone to escaping us. I will point the drafter to your evaluation, so that he can consider whether diffs A–D need to be replaced. AGK [•] 23:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment on [Unblocking of SmackBot]

I want to note that admins sometimes unblock their own bot, but when they do so it's usually understood that the cause of the block was addressed, and it's usually done with the another admin's consent. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment on [Rich Farmbrough banned]

That seems rather extreme. The problems are related to script/bot-based editing. I see zero benefits in banning Rich from editing articles 'normally', nor in depriving ourselves of his technical expertise in discussions. Rich, for example, could do a lot of good if he could work with the AWB team to engineer and tweak additional AWB fixes. Since these fixes would be vetted and implemented by the AWB team, we would not run into the problems that led to this case. As for problems of "enforcement", why not do some WP:AGF here and trust RF to keep his word, and trust admins to have a certain level of clue. Distinguishing this behaviour, from this isn't the hardest of things to do. A ban regarding "bot-like editing, largely construed", should certainly be considered before a scorched earth remedy. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I would go with that, but as Cyberpower says above, that might drive Rich mad. You can see in what Rich says that he has "high anxiety" about tasks not getting done. I think Anomie's set of definitions are very useful here, and make it clear that you can define a level of editing that is verboten without actually needing to know which tool is in use(and as Rich appears to use some fantastically complex javascript even to make a comment on a talk page, the tool effectively is irrelevant). Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I really doubt restricting him to edit "normally" would drive him mad. Even if it did, we're neither a kindergarten nor a psychology clinic. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Grammar

"implicit indication made that automation was used to performed them." should be "implicit indication made that automation was used to perform them."--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 08:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed.  Roger Davies ^talk 09:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Finding 3.1.6 - unblocking own bot

Finding 3.1.6 is badly written, and ignores points made by arbs elsewhere on the page.

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

What Special:Unblock (which isn't itself policy, of course) means in relation to bots is "don't unblock instead of discussing with others (especially the blocking admin)". That leaves room for the common WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY practice of a blocking admin giving permission to the bot operator to unblock after fixing the problem that was the reason for the block. By contrast, the Finding, in its first sentence, leaves no such room; it's translated into a blanket ban on unblocking your own bot. Whilst there may be a case for such a policy, it's not ArbCom's job to make it, so please don't. Rd232 ^talk 10:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Seconded! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, badly written. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Concur. The actual policy (rather than what ArbCom is quoting) says "Bots ... may be blocked until the issue is resolved." There's a potential implication there that if the issue is resolved, the bot operator can remove the block. In fact, Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Temporary_circumstances_unblocks says "blocks of ... malfunctioning bots should be undone once the bots ... are repaired." and contains no admonition that a bot owner shouldn't be the one to unblock. Indeed, looking at the rest of the top ten bots by edit count, I find three other bots that have been unblocked by their owners (by CBM) (by Magioladitis) (by R'n'B). What ArbCom is quoting isn't policy, and the policy itself is unclear to the point that 40% of the top ten bots have been unblocked by their owners. This is not insignificant. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Tentatively concur. I know that personally I've never unblocked my own bot; I view it as an alternate account and think it'd be the same thing as unblocking myself. It's no trouble for me to find another admin to unblock it, especially when I have access to IRC (and in fact I've never even had to do that; when blocking admins bring it up on ANI or the like, it's always quickly reversed). But I also know I'm unnecessarily conservative and officious as a general rule, and my bot's not the most active (until recently). I can see the other side of the coin (if the bot was blocked for a defined problem and the problem's been resolved, why not unblock it?). I think it's more the history of the bot, the operator, and the controversial status of individual tasks' authorization (or lack thereof) that's generally made it unwise at the least in this case. — madman 00:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Special:Unblock

The particular text cited was added a little less than a month ago. The older version was in substantially less absolute terms: "As such, you should not unblock your own bot, in the event that it malfunctioned." The older version only covers bot malfunction blocks, while the current version covers every blocked bot. T. Canens (talk) 08:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

And that text was implemented in 2008, diff (the forelast diff, the diff above being the last diff). Before that it did not mention the situation of unblocking bots at all. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

My comment has now been split off in a separate section where discussion moved the other way. What I wanted to note originally was that since the change in MediaWiki:Unblockiptext, Rich unblocked his own bot once. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

3.2.8 unblocking of Smackbot

Adding to this, since that change, Rich unblocked Helpful Pixie Bot once, for procedural reasons (bot blocked because owner blocked, owner block expired, so bot could be unblocked following that). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, WP:INVOLVED can apply to unblocking your own bots obviously. E.g. the section "Misuse of administrative tools", both the item on "Conflict of interest" and the one on "Reversing the actions of other administrators". Fram (talk) 08:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Any indication that here that either or both are actually the case? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, e.g. his 15:56, 2 February 2011 unblock of Smackbot[2] with the edit summary "Vexatious disruptive block" has a strong appearance of violating both. His 00:29, 2 April 2012 unblock of Helpful Pixie Bot[3] is more of a mistake, but it was a mistake that again violated both the above rules. Fram (talk) 09:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Permission to unblock in the first case.
• Permission to unblock in the second case.

Rich Farmbrough, 11:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC).

So, I repeat Fram, any indication that here either or both are actually the case? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:06, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

For the February one, Fram gave permission for him to recontinue only the "p605" edit summary. But just after unblocking SmackBot, Rich started the same edits that led to the block, the "Correct cap in header" ones [4]. The blocking message said, "Please don't restart the "Correct cap in header and/or general fixes." or anything similar before you have shown some evidence that this has approval." This is similar to the arb case, when HPB was blocked for performing unapproved changes as part of its edits, and Rich started the same unapproved code again just after the unblock, without fixing it to eliminate the reason for the block. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

CBM, the block was not for the correcting of the caps, but for a change in whitespace. Are there any edits after the unblock that changed mentioned whitespace? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

"Spaces in section headers should not be changed en masse. They may be made consistent within an article, but they should not be changed from the version with spaces to the one without (or vice versa). You did this here, here and here" (quote from diff) <- and that was what Fram blocked for, not for changing '=== references === to === References ===, but for === References === to ===References===. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Or to be more precise, "The block was for a variety of reasons, not just for "removing useless spacers in the headers". It was for running an unapproved task (until evidence of the contrary has been provided), with edits that violate bot policy (WP:BOTPOL#Spell-checking), contained errors (using the same parameter in Persondata twice with a different value) and inconsistencies (again in persondata, moving parameters out of order for no reason, and changing the capitalisation of one of the parameters while leaving the others with another capitalisation), and finally also removed spaces from headers even when all the headers in the article were in the same style, which is the kind of edit no bot or AWB user (or basically any user, even manually) is supposed to make per WP:MOS. Bots shouldn't be used to implement some personal layout preference to a large number of articles, when such preference is not supported by a clear policy or guideline, and has no benefits whatsoever. Fram (talk) 08:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)" The block summary didn't allow enough space for this all, but all this had been happening right before the block, and was discussed on his talk page before the block. Fram (talk) 12:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

And did the bot make those errors after the unblock (I went through a number of edits in the direct edits after the unblock .. but I did not see those. I may have missed them)? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

There certainly wasn't time to get the bot task approved in half an hour, so the task still seems unapproved after the bot was unblocked. When the block note directly says "Please don't restart ...", it's hard to use that as evidence that the blocker gave permission for the bot to continue doing that task even if some changes were made behind the scenes. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

What part of the task was not approved? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Here is a list of SmackBot BRFAs [5]. Which one covers that task? — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

That's helpful, thanks. What task, or do I have to guess what I am looking for? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Really I can't remember the full details of that incident, but effectively the bot may have made a handful of edits after the block was lifted, certainly no more than 50. Possibly they were cached or there was a versioing issue. Given that the task was correcting articles, and was non-contentious of itself, I doubt whether the blocking admin (Fram) was really bothered, as long as the task was stopped. The corrections that were being made have remained undone to this day, and await a fresh BRFA. Rich Farmbrough, 02:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC).

Anyways, we are talking about one unblock, more than a year ago. One. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't really know what to say...

Just gut-wrenching. Our priorities are fucked up. Jenks24 (talk) 13:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, you must be realistic. I've been on the project for 7.5 years and have collected just short of 20000 edits. Rich has 50 times more edits. Assuming we make mistakes and enemies at the same rate, there will be 50 times more whiners with 50 times more material to sieve through for minor missteps and thing that can pe presented out of context. How can ArbCom resist a 2500 times higher rate of "evidence" for "misbehaviour"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I share, obviously, that opinion. But who cares that someone leaves, 'the reality is that - no matter how much work there is to do - none of us are indispensible'... Regarding your hidden remark: I am sorry, but maybe you (plural) should. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Probably pointless adding my support here, but there you go.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 13:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Bot operators need to run bots within consensus and within policy. It should come as no surprise that this is what happen when you don't. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't you find it absurd that edit such as these [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14] are being used as evidence to consider banning someone from the project? Jenks24 (talk) 15:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Jenks24, it is fucked up, just like you said. Don't you find it absurd that blocking the bot (generally accepted as 'an alternative account') of an opponent in a case is not even worth mentioning? Don't you find it absurd that when others run approved scripts on unapproved tasks on massive speeds (well over 100 per minute) and massive number of pages (thousands) get utterly, completely ignored (it may even be against earlier established consensus ..) by the community. Ah well, it is just pointless. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

It is. Ridiculous. Surely then we should ban everyone who uses scripts such as advisor.js, (which I have used in the past) which is bascially for correcting formatting in accordance with WP:MOS.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 15:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Who runs scripts at 100EPM without BAG approval? Because I know of no one, and no bots, that edit at that speed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Dirk just made that one up I think, out of sheer desperation. I wish he would realise that argument doesn't work even if it's true, and if it's not true, it just cuts off even more sympathy (I used to collect the rates many years ago. The number of times I was told "there are loads of people on this street who never pay a penny", well I'd be rich if I had a fiver every time someone said it. The number of times it was true was precisely zero.) Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the assumption of good faith, Elen - but I am used to that from you. I did not say edits, did I? Actually the maximum speed of actions was 150 per minute (which was achieved twice), and 1000 actions in a 8 minute time span (averaging 125 per minute), but I will leave it to the Arbitrator who did it to explain - maybe they can show that there was consensus for their actions (I only could find a discussion which shows the opposite, which resulted in overturning of a similar action, but I may have missed it). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe that he's talking about AGK's recent semiprotections of highly used templates. T. Canens (talk) 21:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

So, are Arbitrators allowed to use approved scripts to run unapproved tasks for which, to the best of my knowledge, there is only discussion which showed that there is no consensus that such actions should be performed (in fact, earlier, similar actions were overturned!). Or are we ignoring this because it is another Arbitrator who did it (just like we ignore the incivility by Elen, and the fact that she blocked an alternative account of an other party in an active Arbitration Case). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Just for what its worth I have come close to 100 EPM in the past a couple times myself. I think I maxed out at about 75 or 80 though. I did it using multiple instances of AWB open at the same time, doing very very easy and obvious changes like adding WikiProject Banners to content, particularly things like templates, files and categories. I could cycle through them hitting edit almost as fast as I could because it only required a glance to see what I was changing, which was a blank page to a WikiProject banner addition. I could have easily surpassed that when I was operating my bot using the same method but opted to limit the additions. I say that only to clarify it is possible to do although it would be unlikely anyone could do it without using a script or tool. Kumioko (talk) 19:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, and that, amongst other things, lead to you losing all bot privileges. It's quite puzzling why someone gave you back AWB access. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually that had absolutely nothing to do with why I lost bot access and for you to make such an accusation, quite frankly is petty and childish. I lost bot access because I made 2 edits using my bot account to notify 2 users that I could no longer participate in ongoing discussions (of which I had several going on at the time) and was given a BS block for reverting vandalism by Markvs88 and violating 3RR. It had absolutely nothing to do with the speed of editing. Those kinds of statements that you are making are exactly the reason that this place is declining. Because one editor can make wild accusations about another and unless someone wants to go wading through a sea of discussions they just take their word. Your actions here are disappointing. And for your information the reason I got my AWB access back is because I am a trustworthy and productive editor regardless of what a few might think because I got frustrated when I was backed into a corner and kicked while I was down until I gave up. Kumioko (talk) 20:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• The highest edit rate per minute I've ever achieved without the use of any tools is 47. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Ban really required?

If I understand correctly, the reasoning for the site ban stems from a combination of the difficulty in enforcement of a compromise and Rich's history of breaching his edit restriction. Now, I would like to point out that Rich was of the belief that the restriction itself was illegitimate. Maybe, MAYBE, if he was asked to make a statement acknowledging the legitimacy of an arbcom ER he could be trusted to abide by it. There may need to be a sidebar that says that even people he does not care for *cough*Fram*cough* are able to bring complaints against him without disturbing that legitimacy. I would hope that Rich would get hung for being Rich and not for what betacommand did. Let's not kid ourselves... The siteban is because BC could AND WOULD defy any restriction. Rich isn't there yet, is he? 206.47.78.150 (talk) 15:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

It's possible this would work. Do you think you can talk Rich into it? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Not me. I'm just the peanut gallery. It needs to come from an authority he respects and it needs to be genuine. Anything less and it will end up as him and his detractors playing 'gotcha' with each other and that just ends back here. An effort to update bot policy would help. It needs to be clearer and it needs to reflect actual practices. The self unblocking thing in particular is too big a deal to be left subject to inferred interpretation like that. 206.47.78.150 (talk) 17:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I have already said that I would abide by community wishes, if ArbCom as representative of the commuity requested me to make certain limitations on my editing. I can't promise to like it though. Rich Farmbrough, 23:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC).(Using some automation)

11th hour compromises are not entirely unheard of at this stage, though very rare. A voluntary pledge to cease all automated editing except ones explicitly allowed by BAG combined with flagging semi-automated edit in a meaningful manner would likely get the important people listening (Elen & Hersfold). A polite request to Fram and others to back off a bit to give you a chance to abide by it in peace would be nice. Just keep in mind the fact that arbcom appears to consider his objections and the manner which they were raised as acceptable. You would, unfortunately, be 'under a cloud' so to speak, because it would be percieved as you narrowly avoided sanction. The upshot is you have the chance to prove you will abide by legitimate community consensus. Best of luck. I, for one, think you should get that chance.206.47.78.150 (talk) 22:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The current remedy seems to cover all automated editing (including anything that was approved by BAG). But the problems that led to this have happened just as often with edits that might formally be "semi-automated". Those problems (lack of consensus, cosmetic changes) also need to be addressed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Desysop RF but not Elen? Why the hypocrisy from ArbCom?

This discussion isn't going anywhere at all. Line of conversation needs a time out and a reset for it to continue. Will speak to editors individually on talk pages. Daniel (talk) 22:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom sets out in Principle 2, "Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship". Yet, in Finding of Fact 8, only two unblocks have been found (despite the claim of "many occasions") that might have violated policy...separated by two years. Two incidents, separated by two years, and ArbCom finds it necessary to desysop him? Please define "occasional". Two years time between administrative mistakes apparently isn't enough. What is enough to be "occasional"? Is this being done also because of incivility and poor decision making? One of your own has made just as many mistakes in a similar vein, yet no mention of her. Why? How is it that ArbCom finds enough grounds to desysop RF, but not Elen, who as a named party in this case used her administrative tools while blatantly involved to block a bot wholly owned and operated by RF? Elen's conduct, outlined here, was grossly out of line and in violation of policy. Yet, this PD page does not even mention her. One incident you say? How about Elen accusing RF of being "an anal retentive with OCD on the autism spectrum" [15] and asking Rich "Do you want your rattle back yet?" [16]? Maybe it's ok to insult and belittle because it's Rich? How about accusing someone other than Rich of ranting [17], and of living in a parallel universe [18]? How about accusing another editor of six years experience with 21,000 edits of "either not capable of editing, or you are a troll" [19]? How about telling yet another editor "Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out." [20]? Either your own Principle #1 on this PD page applies, or it doesn't. The hypocrisy here is absolutely stunning. The message is blatantly clear; a member of ArbCom can do whatever they like, break whatever policy they like, insult whomever they like, without any fear of consequences for their behavior. ArbCom, your integrity is on the line. Either you deal with the community fairly, and treat everyone as your own Principle #1 asks with "All participants are expected to conduct themselves according to the standards of collegiality and professionalism", or your integrity is empty. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC) If that is just Finding of Fact Eight, I think you're reading over much more serious stuff. Yes, one of those findings alone probably doesn't warrant a serious sanction, but all these conduct issues together just may. All I'm saying is be cognizant of the whole decision, as it is the whole-spectrum that forms the lens of ArbCom decisions. Lord Roem (talk) 21:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC) Thus, why I pointed out Elen's gross incivility with Rich and several others. It isn't isolated to a single incident, nor to a single editor. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC) Hammersoft, you and Dirk are turning into the two 'mates' in the back seat that guarantee that everyone ends up nicked because they don't know when to stop. I'd appreciate it if you leave George Ho out of this. The poor chap has a lot of problems, several of us are working very hard to keep him editing (I'm one of his mentors - I doubt you noticed that). You ought properly to inform him that you've mentioned him here, but if you do he will take it as a criticism, so it would be better if you could just remove all reference to him. George actually is on the autism spectrum - he loves editing but needs a lot of shepherding, which he is very good at accepting. Unlike someone I could name who put the bloody nails in his own coffin by persisting in running that sodding bot with the unapproved code during this case. And I'm sorry if you find that language unacceptable, but I find it really distressing that someone who is plainly eager to contribute effectively is being brought down because their mates are too stupid to tell them they need to moderate their behaviour. If you want to campaign for me being desysopped on that basis, please do so, but ask yourself who actually tried to get Rich to see reason and avoid it coming to this. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC) Elen, I don't know who George Ho is, and frankly I don't care. He has nothing to do with this. This has to do with your behavior, not George Ho's. Nobody's behavior gives anyone an excuse to act in a bad manner. That's the rub in this. Your behavior. Even here, in responding to me right in your first sentence you attack myself and Dirk with a characterization of myself and Dirk. What about "Comment on content, not on the contributor" is unclear? This isn't the first time you've cast aspersions against me. You go on in your response to talk about Rich's behavior, which again has nothing to do with this. You are not excused by his behavior to behave in a poor way. Rich could directly insult you with book full of insults, and it would not in any respect justify you to say even a single insult against him. Yet, you've levied multiple insults at him and various others commenting on this case and on multiple other people in unrelated incidents. I am not looking to have you desysopped. That isn't my point. My point is the blatant hypocrisy being expressed by ArbCom in desysopping Rich, but not even mentioning your behavior, which to say the least has been insulting and in violation of multiple policies. If ArbCom has even a wisp of credibility and integrity, this hypocrisy must be addressed. Either the principle they crafted applies to everyone, or ArbCom sets themselves as a special class, not subject to any edict. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC) So... your case for desysopping Elen is that she blocked a bot (running an unauthorised task) while involved (undoing it after this was criticised) and sometimes says things you don't like. ... Except, you don't want her desysopped. Really this is just hot air because you either don't know, don't understand, or can't accept that the issues with Rich's sysop tool use go beyond unblocking his own bot, as was covered in the Evidence and Workshop. You could legitimately ask why those other issues haven't been translated into proposed findings, but that doesn't seem to be what you have in mind. Rd232 talk 22:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC) Again, Rich's actions do not justify hers. I want the hypocrisy addressed. There is no question Elen has been grossly insulting on multiple occasions with multiple editors, and even now in her response to this thread violates the no personal attacks policy. Her response would have read just the same if she had dropped the entire first sentence, yet she felt motivated to insult me anyway. To not even mention her in the PD is absolutely, astonishingly hypocritical. Either Principle 1 applies to her or ArbCom is above remonstrance. Thank you for your elevation of my comments as "hot air". --Hammersoft (talk) 22:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC) None of this is a personal attack. It's my personal feelings. I am sure you think you are doing your best, I'm sure you are intending to do your best. It's just turning out to be a disaster, and I am very pissed off about you referring to George Ho...and then saying you don't even know who he is. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC) I am not talking about George Ho. This isn't about him. This is about you calling him a troll. You can insert whatever person into that equation you like, whether it be a brand new editor all the way up to Jimbo himself. Calling ANYONE a troll is wrong, pure and simple. In highlighting this behavior of yours, I am giving George the same respect I give anyone here; the right not to be insulted. I'm not the one calling his actions into question and calling him a troll. You are. If you want to be "pissed off" at someone, be angry with yourself for acting in such reprehensible way towards someone you were mentoring. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC) Hammersoft, [21] this - which you list above - is me talking to George Ho, mentee, occasionally drives me mad, is overcoming considerable learning difficulties in a determined effort to improve the 'pedia. Your quoting it and then saying that you don't know who George is...is just despicable. These are all real people - George, Rich, even poor Beta, of whom you once told me that you knew nothing about in real life. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC) So George Ho has done something that justifies you calling him a troll? After six years and 21,000 edits, you have justification to call him a troll? If you can't entreat with someone without referring to them as a troll, I dare say you shouldn't be in the business of mentoring. NOBODY's behavior justifies you insulting them. Again, this is about YOUR behavior. This is not about George, Rich, me, Dirk, or anyone else you have insulted. This is about YOU. These are edits YOU made. YOU called him a troll. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC) Jesus fucking Christ!!! And on that note, I bid you goodnight. And if you had even an ounce of good faith, you would either actually go and read all the stuff on George, or else remove the reference to the poor soul, who does not deserve being dragged in here. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC) You are disgusted that I used a diff of yours posting to his talk page, yet are not disgusted you called him a troll? I didn't mention him by name. I referred to him as "another editor". Trying to excuse your attacks in this very thread as not being personal attacks because they are your feelings is a non-starter. If I called an editor a "troll", I can't excuse that by saying "It's not an insult. It's just how I feel." WP:NPA doesn't say "It's ok to publish your feelings about a person, even if grossly insulting, so long as they truly are your feelings." --Hammersoft (talk) 22:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC) Facts, Hammersoft, facts. Your own quote (truncated from the qualification in the original context) shows Elen didn't call him a troll. Given what Elen's already said about the issue, the "X or you are a troll" deserves more sensitivity than you are showing here, preferring to use it as a cudgel against her. You're also going way off topic - you claim "hypocrisy" on the part of ArbCom, but this case is not about Elen (who doesn't even run bots, AFAIK), and if you throw a stone in any direction you'll hit half-a-dozen editors who at least occasionally say the sort of things she occasionally says. You don't really have a real problem with Elen here - but if you did, this would not be the correct venue for dealing with it. Rd232 talk 22:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

note

this thread has been closed by a formerinactive clerk. I suggest that it would have been better if it were closed by a totally uninvolved editor, an editor who could not be seen as possibly partial to the Arbitration process. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Threads on arbcom pages are closed by clerks. He was the first person to see the issue --Guerillero | My Talk 14:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• The point, of course, is impropriety. A thread questioning ArbCom conduct is closed and hatted by an ArbCom clerk. This is akin to a lawyer raising some uncomfortable questions about a judge, and the bailiff removing the lawyer from the building without being permitted the opportunity of hearing a response. Questioning ArbCom's conduct is not in and of itself wrong. I do feel the discussion went off the tracks (most especially at "Jesus Fucking Christ!!"), but the original query of the thread remains, and was an issue raised in good faith. 7&6=thirteen notes star chambering. An ArbCom clerk closing a discussion questioning ArbCom conduct is very much in line with that thought. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
  • The topic has been noted by non-recused Arbs; the clerks serve as our eyes and ears as well as our hands. I will make sure the issue raised is specifically discussed by the non-recused arbitrators. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Hammersoft, Beetstra: The thread was closed by a clerk because it had become heated, not because of its content. In his note to the thread's participants, Daniel made the explicit suggestion that you resume the thread in a day or two—when we could reasonably expect the issue to be more calmly discussed. I do not see how you can reasonably interpret the suggestion that you return to the issue in a less heated environment as an attempt at censorship. Our motive in closing the thread should be resolved by the resumption of the discussion in a short time, so extensive debate about the temporary closure will probably not be helpful, but by all means the decision about when to resume the thread or what was our motive is ultimately your decision. AGK [•] 22:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment and your assessment of penalty

I am just a lowly content creator/editor. I am not an administrator, and have no desire to be such. So I do not know anything about the "big picture" or "running the encyclopedia." Indeed, I know nothing about operating bots, policies about bots, or governance issues. What I know is that Rich Farmbrough and his bots have done yeoperson work. And I know that from my viewpoint, the changes (some of which are small, e.g., fixing isbn number) make the articles look and function better. I do not have to know how to make a television to enjoy the picture. The encyclopedia is better for these changes. I also think that there are mitigating factors, not the least of which is that there were not clear and unambiguous rules clearly communicated. That the committee does not like some of these edits is a post hoc determination that is violative of due process. That it does not like the way that edits are made, without considering their validity and propriety, is a conclusion in search of a justification. There is no competent evidence presented. Mitigating facts and circumstances have been overlooked and not given due weight. There was no "just cause" for the actions. The committee seems to be overlooking a decade of good works and good faith. A year's ban for this seems to be entirely punitive, and totally disproportionate to the offense and the offender. Indeed, you seem to be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Wikipedia is a better place for his presence, and will be lessened if he is banished. As a labor arbitrator by profession and trade, I think it is incumbent upon the committee to consider the effect of this on Mr. Farmbrough, and on the wikipedia community. If one can be star chambered like this after all this good work, it will serve notice to all that there are no rules, and that there is no restraint. This is bad policy, and will inevitably drive away good editors, and we will all be worse off for it. I say this all with respect and appreciation for the difficulty of your task. But emotional arguments do not void the need for rules, laws, due process, and reason. That he may occasionally be prickly as a pear -- he has a heartfelt concern -- does not change the fact that he has, and continues, to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. This is about justice, not about "just us." Please take the long view, and apply reason and proportionality to your decision. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Rich certainly wants to contribute, some of the stuff he does is useful, and none of it is malicious vandalism. But he needs to reappraise how he ensures he has approval for everything automated that he does - in the current climate, there's more pressure on ensuring there is formal appoval for automated edits than there used to be in the past. He needs some new friends who can persuade him that this is just an inevitable consequence of the way the project has changed over the last few years, and not an infringement of his fundamental civil liberties (or whatever his objections to getting full approval are - I never figured). If he is prepared to work with the committee, I am (although I have no influence in this case) still hopeful that a siteban can be avoided. If he carries on making the edits that he has no formal approval for and tries to ignore this, it's going to end very badly I fear. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

"Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that everyone can edit (as long as he or she jumps through enough bureaucratic rules and/or makes enough friends among the aristocracy)". Somehow does not seem to be that catchy... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

That's life, innit. I don't think there's anywhere that's any different. < /cynicism> Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

(ec)"Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone* can edit" has always had an implicit footnote on "anyone", namely (anyone who can follow the rules the community agrees on). It's hard to see how it could function as well as it does (however well that is) if we deleted that implicit footnote. Rd232 ^talk 22:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Well on AN/I you currently have people cheering for an editor who called another a "moronic little turd" - while I am about to be de-sysopped it seems, for saying "Tosh" and <sigh>. You may call that "following the rules" I call it crazy. Rich Farmbrough, 23:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC).(Using some automation)

They're not cheering because he called someone a "moronic little turd", but despite it, just as some cheer for you despite what you've done wrong, not because of it. about to be de-sysopped it seems, for saying "Tosh" and <sigh> - No. But that claim is a timely reminder that you still don't understand the problem, and that removal of access to automation here is not a punitive measure, but a preventative one. Rd232 ^talk 00:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

And not just de-syssoped, but also losing the right to use any scripts or bots too. I would be going mad or crazy if this were to happen to me. I can't imagine how you are responding to this off-wiki.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 23:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

And indeed I have approval for everything fully automated. You know, I submitted another BRFA today. The problem lies with people taking exception to edits like this. And with people sabotaging BRFAs. Rich Farmbrough, 23:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC).(Using some automation)

I would respectfully suggest that when I used the word "star chamber" I was referring to a defective process, analysis and result. The lack of ckear standards and advance warning, and a "procrustean" analysis coupled with a symbolic Sharia law loss of hands and tools was what I was referring to. Anyone who thinks that I was accusing any individual arbitrator of misconduct has it wrong. We have arbitrators who are expected to adhere to accepted notions of professional responsibility, and I expect that is what they have done. I did not say, nor did I imply, any wrong doing. I have no evidence that would support such a conclusion, and I make it emphatically clear that I was addressing only the merits of the case. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Rd232 - In response to your statement that this is preventative and not punitive. Once Arbcom is involved and a case is opened, I doubt that there is any credibility to that statement. Once it has reached this level the argument that this is non punitive is mute and an insult to our intelligence. Regardless of whether I agree with the outcome aside, this is all about punitive. With that said, this will absolutely result in a net loss for the pedia. Tens or hundreds of thousands of edits will go undone because of the decisions here. In the next few months that will become evident. By this time next year, we will absolutely see that there has been a dramatic decrease in the edits being made to Wikipedia and that means that everyone loses over a few bad edits and a few self centered editors spreading hyperbole about the editors that are doing the work to build the pedia, sabotaging BRFA's and just generally being a nuisance rather than doing some actual contributions.Kumioko (talk) 18:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough/Proposed decision#Unblocking your own bot accounts

.. but it is not against the spirit of WP:INVOLVED to block the bot of another party while both being a party in an open Arbitration case... Again, do arbitrators have any explanation why this fact is totally ignored? May I remind the Arbitration committee of the precedent there is to resolution on such actions? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I think your concerns have been addressed now. PhilKnight (talk) 09:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Supplemental evidence: use of tools while involved?

The evidence phase has closed. If you would like to bring a clerks attention of an issue, please send your request to the listserv or on one of the case clerks talk pages not in the thread itself. --Guerillero | My Talk 14:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
note can a clerk please remove this thread, the evidence phase is over (see also clerk action and clerk action). --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC) Although the evidence phase has closed, it may be of interest to people participating in this case that at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 April 30#The Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade (Export) (1966), Rich Farmbrough undeleted the history of a number of articles which he had written and which had been deleted at AfD, and the review of whose deletion he then requested. This appears to be an instance of using administrator tools in a case in which he was involved, contrary to WP:INVOLVED.  Sandstein  05:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC) "To facilitate that discussion, the page has been temporarily restored with this message in place". See also Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Temporary_undeletion: "Admins participating in deletion reviews are requested to routinely restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{TempUndelete}} template, leaving the history for review by non-admins. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored." - this does not involve a copyright violation or a BLP. Rich is an admin participating in the deletion review - which makes all of them involved. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC) I think this is a good example of a lot of the evidence offered, in good faith, but which on closer examination does not show what was thought. In this case, as in many others, I followed both the letter and spirit of the guidelines. Rich Farmbrough, 08:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC).

I find it completely and utterly unacceptable that editors are directed by clerks to provide non-confidential material in a non-public forum instead of on-wiki. The move of proceedings to closed, off-wiki venues is one of the major causes for the erosion of ArbComs authority, and, I expect, for the siege mentality. Everything that can be handled on-wiki should be handled on-wiki. That may be less convenient in the short term, but ensures an open process that can be supported by a consensus of editors in the long run. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

For consideration

Tentative (precluding that AGK can show that he did get approval to use an (albeit approved) script (approved like AWB/Twinkle are deemed approved for use) to run the task - if that can be shown, I will hat and strike this comment): "AGK has violated the letter and the spirit of the bot policy[22]: running a high-speed task without sufficient approval (getting to 150 edits per minute), running a high-volume task without sufficient approval (over 7000 pages), running a bot task from a non-bot account (using his main admin account), and running an unapproved bot task." --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Given that you apparently could not be bothered, I will do your homework for you: I ran Twinkle (without "(TW)" appended, for brevity). This is standard administrator work. AGK [•] 11:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Have you actually read what I wrote? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

AGK, Twinkle is a script that helps you edit, AWB is a script that helps you edit. You used the Twinkle script on your main account to perform 7500 actions - Rich used AWB on his main account to perform thousands of actions. ArbCom now says that Rich is at fault performing those high volume, high speed tasks using a script on his main account. You were running a high volume, high speed task using a script on your main account. Rich did not get a BRFA for those tasks, you are yet to show that you got a BRFA for that task. Rich did not achieve consensus before that action, you are yet to show that you achieved consensus for that task (consensus may have changed, but I did not find any change in consensus, I could only find consensus that templates are not mass protected). Plainly: in finding fault with the edits of Rich, ArbCom is showing that one of their own members is at similar fault. AGK, can you show me where there is consensus that those pages should all be protected? Wikipedia:High-risk templates says "There are no fixed criteria, and no fixed number of transclusions, that are used to decide whether a template is high-risk. Each template is considered separately." - Editing at 150 edits per minute is not considering them seperately. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

A key difference, among other things, is that Rich established a years-long pattern of doing this sort of thing, but AGK has not. Of course AGK should have had a discussion before protecting the pages, but arbcom by intention rarely does anything about a first offense. On the other hand Rich had been part of numerous discussions on AN and ANI, and was the subject of two editing restrictions. The deeper problem is not any particular edit Rich made (which is why chasing "errors" is a poor use of time). The problem was the people kept asking him to change and he refused. Can you say the same about AGK? — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Did I say that I expect that ArbCom should do something about a first offense? What I mean is that thát part of what Rich was doing is not at fault (most of the links in the FoF). It is not forbidden to run a script from your own main account, it is not forbidden to run a task without first getting consensus. You know that very well, in basis there is nothing wrong with what Rich did there as mentioned in that statement, just as that there is nothing wrong in basis with what AGK is doing (well, AFAIK at least what AGK was doing is going against pre-established consensus .. but maybe that consensus changed). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:47, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

My protections complied with standard operating practice and good sense. Of course templates used widely across the project are 'high-risk' and should not be open to editing by any member of the public; many are very esoteric or widely-used. Moreover, my protections were supported after the fact on a community noticeboard; I have already linked you to that discussion. I do not understand how this batch of legitimate protections, and (more importantly) my attitude towards review of those protections, is remotely comparable to Rich Farmbrough's conduct or to this case. The templates all had at least 500 transclusions, most had far more than this, and many had many thousands. No reasonable person would expect an administrator to ponder every template.

Interestingly, what I did do was omit templates that were listed in the database report but which are never protected. This careful pruning of the original list of templates reflects the sort of care that we expect of our administrators; the point is that, over time, Rich has neglected to take this sort of care to such a degree that his continued editing in this manner is a source of serious contention to the community. I intend to make no further comment on this issue, in no small part because it is a wild tangent. AGK [•] 01:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually the edits you made were done unilaterally and without discussion along the lines of the edits Rich sometimes did. The only difference is that after the fact the discussion, after some debate, decided you were ok. Personally, although I see the reason I don't think that we need to protect every template thats used a few times. I think semi protection in most cases is enough. The problem is that when an edit needs to be made someone has to add a protected edit request template and then wait several days to a couple weeks for someone to get around to it. That has been an ongoing irritation for me with several templates including Template:WikiProject United States. Its even more frustrating when the "trusted" individual with admin rights doesn't even know what the edit is and I have to explain it or they just blindly cut and paste the edit that I should have been able to do myself. Kumioko (talk) 01:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Kumioko, the templates were only semi-protected. I did not full-protect any of the templates from editing, which I imagine you would have known had you taken a moment to look into the background before jumping on the bandwagon. AGK [•] 13:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• Far better to attack the messenger. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

@AGK, I am familiar with the situation and I know what was done but I apologize that my wording wasn't clear. I meant that although I also believe this was done unilaterally, I was agreeing that semi protection was enough rather than fully protecting it as others have done. Sorry I wasn't more clear on what I said I see how that was a bit confusing. I also hope you don't mind but I corrected my username in your statement. Kumioko (talk) 13:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

AGK, previously, an admin protected (albeit fully) a good handful of these templates for exactly the same reason. That resulted in a long discussion, which ended in a full de-protection of these templates - not a lowering of the protection to semi - deprotection. In that discussion, there is disagreement whether such templates should be protected at all, or whether they should be full or nothing, whether numerical counts are a good measure anyway. Now there are many templates where I agree that full protection is a good idea - many others are plainly silly (userboxes!). Anyways, this is exactly the type of task that ArbCom holds Rich responsible for - doing a mass run on a task using his main account without finding consensus first. And you, AGK, you used your administrative tools in this. This is just as much a violation of our policies as what the Arbitration Committee is holding Rich responsible for. But lets ban Rich from automation, because obviously he is not using the tools responsible. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

If you got a problem with AGK, take it to the relevant place, not here. WP:DR lists several options. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think they so much have a problem as enjoy stoking the flames. For instance, my "attack on the messenger" was, in fact, a legitimate observation that the 'message' was horribly misinformed. Of course, this is par for the course on here, and one reason that I regret (after every case) giving my time to respond to concerns on the PD talk. AGK [•] 18:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC) EDIT: By that remark, I mean Hammersoft, not Dirk—whose comments here, whilst wrong in my view, have accompanied a reasonable argument. AGK [•] 18:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for the accusation. Your comment to Kumioko of "which I imagine you would have known had you taken a moment to look into the background before jumping on the bandwagon." was quite hostile, and unnecessary to convey your point. Nevertheless you chose to use it. If that is "stoking" anything, so be it. My point isn't to raise heat, but to raise issue that you are generating heat with such hostile commentary. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Finding of Fact 5

In this "finding of fact", it states (the bold is my own addition):

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

Loking at the links involved, I see lots of edits with the summary "automation assisted"; this would seem to contradict the bolded statement. Either better links should be found, or the FoF reworded in such a way that these links don't contradict it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

A better link for the category trackig templates is [23]. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I guess you're right - the links should be [24] and [25], not the ones currently used there. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

These categories were all added to a large number of pages, but in groups - this is not, as what is now suggested, one single 750-article burst, but several bursts of approximately 100 articles (with several minutes of pause between) - which more suggests the use of tabbed browsing then the use of automated tools. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Example break:

1. (del/undel) 05:45, 4 May 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+12)‎ . . m Category:Vague or ambiguous time from July 2009 ‎ (Add tracking template.) (top) [rollback] [rollback] [vandalism]
2. (del/undel) 05:45, 4 May 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+12)‎ . . m Category:Vague or ambiguous time from July 2010 ‎ (Add tracking template.) (top) [rollback] [rollback] [vandalism]
3. (del/undel) 05:20, 4 May 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+12)‎ . . m Category:Vague or ambiguous time from July 2011 ‎ (Add tracking template.) (top) [rollback] [rollback] [vandalism]
4. (del/undel) 05:20, 4 May 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+12)‎ . . m Category:Vague or ambiguous time from June 2008 ‎ (Add tracking template.) (top) [rollback] [rollback] [vandalism]

Of course, there can be reasons to stop between July 2011 and July 2010 .. but it is curious to do that with a script that would go through all. There are more of such breaks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

A much older but more flagrant example of editing with an undisclosed bot (and in this case rather dramatically misfunctioning bot) can be seen in this set of 14 edits) from RF's alter ego User:Megaphone Duck, which was after the last of these blocked with the edit summary "bot malfunctioning"... The saddest thing here is that he was aware of the problems after the first 7 edits, reverted himself with his RF account, and then went on to make the same error on the same seven pages and two more. The problems were so extremely obvious that not much harm was done (everything was reverted minutes later again by Rich Farmbrough and others), but it is a clear example of using the mainspace to test out undisclosed and apparently very buggy bots with very poor results. As far as I know, these edits (and this account) was not presented yet in this case, so it may be a new example (from late 2010 though) for many readers... Fram (talk) 11:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

It is not an undisclosed bot at that time, it is an account editing with AWB, as is notified on the userpage (though, I agree, not in the edit summary). AFAIK, using AWB on a normal non-bot account is allowed. I agree that such forms of testing should maybe be restricted, and it is covered in a suggestion below. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you really believe that someone using AWB would blank seven pages in a row, revert those, and immediately blank the same seven pages again and two others as well? How incredibly, ummm, careless do you have to be to push "save" 16 times on a page blanking when you know at least after the first 7 times that this is the result? It seems pretty obvious to me that "undisclosed bot" is the much more logical conclusion here than that this was supposedly done with AWB (no matter what the user page says). Fram (talk) 13:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

FoF #5

At this FoF, the case is being made that six edits per minute, especially sustained, is proof of an undeclared automation/bot (see especially the comments section). I took a look at my own edits vs. this metric for evaluating whether someone is using automation. For the record, I've used Twinkle once for a single edit. Since January 2011, I found 112 instances where I made more than 6 edits in a minute. Twice I exceeded 40 edits per minute (max 47), and 17 times I exceeded 20 per minute. None of these were done using any automation. I only used my fingers, my keyboard, and tabbed browsing. Manually sustaining 6 edits per minute is trivial. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Rich can be happy, Δ already used a bot when making 5 edits per minute. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 17:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

This one also has me concerned. I frequently exceed that rate. Whats more further evaluation of the top 50 editors on the list of most active contributors shows that every single one did at some point in the last week of activity. Kumioko (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• I started to show two parties to this case easily exceeding it (Hersfold and Fram; Fram alone has performed 5000 mainspace edits since 8 Feb 12, and once maintained 19 edits per minute for 11 minutes (4 Apr 12)), but they were using automation to do so (AWB). The edit periods I performed above were done entirely manually (unless someone wants to assert I am lying, and in fact using an undeclared automaton of some sort). I think the more abstract point is you can not assess whether someone is doing something automatically or not based on rapidity of edits. There is no reverse Turing test to prove it's a machine doing the edits. I once saw a human maintain a typing speed of 115 words per minute, an astonishing average of more than 9 key strokes per second. Does that qualify them as being a robot? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Good Points. On the typing thing we have someone here that can type about that fast. He has to stop sometimes and let word catchup because he'll be a paragraph or 2 ahead. Whats really funny is when he realizes his fingers are out of alignment and he's been typing a page of gibberish. It doesn't happen often but it does happen. I say that only because there is a parallel there with this case. Kumioko (talk) 19:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Fortunately, wikipedia Typing has several entries on the world's fastest typists. At least one of the reports related to an IBM typewriter. You can look for yourself as to the documented speeds. I for one am not quite that fast, and my accuracy is crap. Computers have made me faster, but they have not made me more accurate. This has the added benefit that I get to go back, correct the error, and thereby artificially boost my edit count. That of course assumes that I read what I write, and clean up my own mess. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I am curious, as this already confused me in the Betacommand case as well: Which policy or guideline is the assumption that an "average of more than 4 edits per minute" means a use of automation based on? Please could someone point me to the page where a consensus was reached on how many edits per minute constitute "automation"? I am sure I must be missing something .... -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 07:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

This is the result I expected

This is precisely the result that I thought would occur when the case was opened, basically in secret. When Arbcom and the community wants the community to know about a case they do a pretty good job of publicizing it. This one, IMO, was crafted to be a secret assembly. The majority of the community doesn't follow these so the only ones that know are the Accused, the ones doing the accusing and the judges. The only reason I even found this is because I looked at Rich's contributions. Other than that I wouldn't have even known it existed. This case, as with others that came before it dealing with individuals editing practices are routinely one sided. This is precisely the sort of beaurocaratic legal stiffling that is taking over the pedia and not only making it harder to use and edit, but more importantly less fun. More and more editors are turning to deleting anything they can find they themselves didn't create and kicking out the contributors or blocking the new ones. These are the same or similar people who are adding rule after rule and then only choosing to employ them when they feel like it. If Jimbo, the Foundation and the contributors around Wiki want to know why people are leaving at an increasing rate all they need to do is to look at results like this to answer the question. As useful as I would find many of the tools to be and as much as I could use them its days like this that I am glad I am not administrator. I would find it difficult to accept the bit when Rich was desysopped for some of the petty and poorly crafted reasons laid out in this case. Kumioko (talk) 17:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

What in the world are you rambling about? There's nothing different about this case than in any other ARBCOM cases. If the majority of the community doesn't care to follow this case, this is ARBCOM's fault somehow? It's listed loud and clear on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Current, it's has been mentionned in the The Signpost for the last 4-5 weeks, posted on ANI, etc., etc., etc. And yet somehow this is a case "crafted in secret" by the "ARBCOM cabal"... Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

When the Arbom folks want editors to know they add it to the top banner and to the Village pump. I do not recall that being done in the cases of individuals such as this. This has the affect of the case being in secret because no one knows about it. If they don't know then they can't comment can they! Hardly anyone knows what Arbcom is or does and even fewer have Wikipedia:Arbitration/Current on their watchlists. I don't and I am frankly all over the place. For what its worth though I didn't notice it in the Signpost so I apologize for that. Kumioko (talk) 20:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Arbcom cases are not typically linked at the VP (e.g. Race & Intelligence case [26][27]), and there unless you're speaking of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Current, there is no "top banner". Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Principle 6 7, Principle 7 8, and FoF 8

Following a discussion at Jclemens' talk page, support for Principle 6 7 ("Unblocking a bot"), which had previously been passing, has collapsed. An alternative proposal (before the Jclemens TP discussion) was proposed at Principle 7 8 ("Unblocking your own bot accounts"). However, that reading of WP:INVOLVED appears to be stretch interpretation of policy; the policy there says nothing of unblocking bots after a malfunction has been repaired. Regardless, FoF 8 ("Unblocking of SmackBot"), while 100% accurate, now seems a meaningless FoF. Per the discussion on Jclemens' page, the unblocking of one's own bots is common practice, and has been for many years. If there is improper action on the part of RF in unblocking any of his bots, then if ArbCom wishes to include that in the decision a FoF that addresses that issue needs to be raised (and hopefully based on actual evidence). --Hammersoft (talk) 21:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Note to ArbCom: Re-ordering principles/fofs/remedies after some have already been posted can really mess up discussion, as it did here in this thread. Please don't do that. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that. PhilKnight (talk) 13:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The error was by the arbitrators who offered the follow-up proposals and used the numbering of 6, not 6.1, 7, not 7.1, and so on. Your note should be "to arbitrator X", not "ArbCom", because we are not a monolithic entity—even if we occasionally give that impression :-). AGK [•] 00:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Clarification on remedy 2 (ban on automation)

This is question for arbitrators, I am not trying to start a long discussion. Does remedy 2 include bot accounts? The remedy says "Rich Farmbrough is indefinitely prohibited from using any automation whatsoever on Wikipedia. Any edits that reasonably appear to be automated are assumed to be so." — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it does. If this asses, Rich may use no automation, be it AB, a bot account, Perl, his own code, etc. This remedy would include the clerks and bureaucrats blocking and deflagging all Rich's bots. Courcelles 03:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, maybe it's me, but quite apart from the actual proposed decision, I find it deeply offensive that there seems to be no trust here, and everything has to be backed up with physical blocks. I was requested not to edit any pages apart from my talk pages and the Arb case for a month, and I followed that. A month out of my life may seem nothing, but I gave that up as a matter of honour, and yet the tenor of the case seems to be all about coercion and compulsion. Rich Farmbrough, 03:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC).

I suppose we are at the stage where coercive proposals are par for the course because, from the significant history of division between your actions and the community's wishes, it is apparent that the "nice option" will just not do. If we can find something that works, then I am all for it; but otherwise, it's a little late in the day to be extending the full weight of our good faith. AGK [•] 00:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Nonetheless I continue to extend good faith to those involved in the case. Including those who have made some very dubious moves, contrary to clean hands in the case of parties and raising questions of qui custodiet. Over the last two days I have fixed some 900 cases of poor attribution. I don't see the community up in arms about that. Not about correcting 1470 spelling errors or several hundred scientific mistakes. What I see is polite queries and requests. I helped a WIkiProject move form one name to another, probably breaking my mass page creation ban by making the categories for them. Really what "the community" wants is help making the technical work required to make the encyclopaedia good, whether that is making a template for Teahouse, TedderBot rules for WP:WH, digging up statistics, getting lists of bird name synonyms or running bots. Rich Farmbrough, 00:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC).

"2) Rich Farmbrough is indefinitely prohibited from using any automation whatsoever on Wikipedia. Any edits that reasonably appear to be automated are assumed to be so." (my emphasis). What, approximately, is here a 'reasonable appear[ance]'? Is rollback automated? Or is fixing 2 typos in a row giving a reasonable appearance that he used some vague form of automated something? This is so utterly vague that it practically does the same as banning the editor, because that type of wording is too easy to wikilawyer into anything, and hence anything that appears to be automated will result in a block on Rich's account. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree this is entirely too vague. Does this also mean that he cannot use Hotcat, Twinkle and the other gadgets that are available to the general public? I think this is entirely too vague to do anything but invite CBM and others to continue to stalk Rich and run to ANI every time he makes an edit. Even without automation a person could easily do a lot of things quickly by just pasting a list of items to their sandbox and going through it.Kumioko (talk) 11:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

@Kumioko: yes, he can not use Hotcat, Twinkle or any other gadgets if that is to pass. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Standard Rollback as well? Twinkle is a MediaWiki interface. I would propose he be at least be allowed what MediaWiki already provides. I think the original intention was to ban his own made scripts and external programs as well as his bots too.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 00:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Adding to this, the references of where the ArbCom are alleging that Rich is editing automated, FoF 5 ([28], [29]), are by no means proof that those edits are 'automated' or just a bunch of identical/similar edits. This is discussed on this talkpage in the section #Finding of Fact 5. An alternative example was proposed for that, with reference to 750 identical edits, but those can also be shown that they were done in batches of around 100 edits - suggesting that they may also have been performed using batched editing (copy-paste/tabbed saving - in other words: they can very well be completely manual). However, and I agree to that, those edits appear to be automated, and whether it is a reasonable appearance is in the eye of the beholder - in fact, it is CBM who is noting in the section #Finding of Fact 5 that they may be a better example for 'These edits were not performed from a bot account or with a bot flag; nor did the associated edit summaries indicate the use any known automation tool; nor was any other explicit or implicit indication made that automation was used to perform them'. May I ask the ArbCom to reconsider the appearance of those edits (both the ones they suggest, and the ones suggested on the talkpage), and hence reconsider the point of remedy 2? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

(od) CBM: it seems to me that the most useful thing that could come out of this section would be a draft remedy to replace the existing proposal, with everyone here cooperating in the drafting.  Roger Davies ^talk 12:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Why is this specifically aimed at CBM? He is not a participant in this thread. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

And the other question is .. can ArbCom actually show where undisclosed automated editing is so much of a problem that it needs to be restricted? ArbCom have, as yet, failed to come up with significant, current problems that Rich has with that (if any exist). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Apart from the category creation, you mean? And apart from the request at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 47 which didn't get a consensus (mainly because people felt that a better solution should be found basically), and which he then did on his main account instead? And by the way, why is he marking category creations as a "minor edit"? How can a creation of a page be a minor edit? The main reason to mark a major edit as "minor" is to avoid scrutiny. Help:Minor edit makes it clear when it should be used, and creating a category is not really one of the suggested uses. On the other hand, "Additionally, bot accounts usually mark their edits as minor in addition to the "bot" flag.", but we wouldn't want to suggest that the category creations were not only automated, but actually unauthorized bot edits from the main account... Fram (talk) 13:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Those are examples you come up with, Fram. But those are not the examples that are mentioned in FoF 5. If ArbCom finds that your examples are a good replacement, then by all means, let them replace them. By the way, HPB#47 was a suggestion, I hope that you are not suggesting that suggesting a task is disallowed. That is why we have BRFA's - to discuss and suggest tasks.scratch that, I misread, my apologies. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

When you end a post with "if any exist", you shouldn't be surprised if someone replies with what is (in his or her opinion) evidence that yes, they exist. I am quite aware that these are not the examples given by ArbCom, I read your post as a specific request for other examples, not for a repeat of the same ones. (thanks for the retraction of the other statement). Fram (talk) 14:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

No, you're right. Lets see if ArbCom sees it fit to adapt their FoF's with more precise and/or applicable evidence. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

That being said, I am very willing to consider alternatives here if that is really deemed necessary. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think they are trying to specifically target undisclosed automation; they are banning all automation, but they are worried about whether they can detect it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I am not even sure it is there in the past. Moreover, as you say, you can't detect it - I have not seen many proper (recent) examples (there may in the past have been cases where Rich was editing with an adapted AWB without notification that it was AWB, but that practice has stopped completely - other examples may be explained as automated on the main account, but could just as well be other - that FoF 5 is flawed). In that regard, I think that banning all automation is totally unnecessary - it is not problem as you say. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I mean, does ArbCom actually see the contradiction in these statements? 'We can not detect whether you (recently) have performed, or will again perform undisclosed automated edits, but we unilaterally agrees it is a problem and therefore we are banning you from doing undisclosed automated edits (for which, since we can not detect anyway, we will make a sufficiently vague remark so that an inkling that your edits are undisclosed and automated is enough to get you back before ArbCom</adinfinitum>)'. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Brainstorming a new proposal

Re Roger Davies: I personally don't think a ban on all automation is necessary. I don't think the problem is the automation itself, which Rich is able to handle. The problem is the lack of consensus behind the particular tasks being chosen and particular edits that are being made.

Just brainstorming as a proposal, here is what I think might be effective at ending the problems:

• No automation on the main account. This includes semi-auto editing, AWB, Twinkle, custom javascript, everything.
• Automation on bot accounts is permitted.
• All current BRFAs for the bots are vacated without predjudice.
• Future BRFAs must give complete and detailed descriptions of exactly what will be done, so that based solely on the BRFA an arbitration clerk could decide whether an arbitrary edit is authorized.
• Testing edits and trials for BRFAs must be done on the bot account that the BRFA is filed under, and must be clearly labeled as test or trial edits, including the BRFA number. Testing edits and trials cannot be saved to the wiki until authorized by the bot approvals group.

Just to be clear, the point of this is to allow automation in a controlled way. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I can generally agree with this, except that the 'No automation on the main account' should be properly defined - the examples given in FoF 5 and discussed elsewhere on this page are not proof of automated edits, and I disagree that Rich will run the risk that that is explained as such and can be immediately restricted for that even when the edits could very well be done manually. I am a bit weary about Twinkle - as long as those tools are not used in an automated batch wise (as can be done by administrators), yes, I agree, but not for single AfD's etc.

I am also not sure whether all current BRFAs should be vacated. Those were agreed upon, that does not change with this case - lets get on with the new ones. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The actual sanction would not need to use the word "automation" at all, for example it could just have an edit limit on the main account. But in 3.1.3.1, which is passing, the arbitrators define "automated" for the purposes of this case to include semi-automated and script-based editing. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Its rare that I say this but I mostly agree with the proposal from CBM but I would recommend a couple changes.

1. I recommend allowing him to use the gadgets under the my preferences tab. This is partially because I don't think it would be enforcable but also because these tools are generally excepted and the use is set without the ability of being modified.
2. I recommend we add an end date that he can request from the community that privilages (or at least some) can be restored (such as AWB use on his main account). Perhaps 6 months or a year.
3. I also recommend that he be allowed to use scripts that do not modify the code (such as the one that shows Persondata) rather than a complete ban on script use. --Kumioko (talk) 13:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

@Kumioko, number 3 is too easy to game, the other two are similar to what I suggest.

@CBM, could you please specify an example of such edit restrictions. I hope we agree that speed limits are not a proper measure - at all. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

@Dirk, Thats a good point but I think there must be a way that we can word something that would allow him to use some of the scripts that only change the visual display of the content and doesn't allow the user to change the information in the article. Kumioko (talk) 14:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

@Kumioko - well, that could be an adaptation of the restrictions later - it is too easy to wikilawyer in every way. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

@Dirk: one example is a limit on distinct pages edited in a 24 hour period by his main account. So he could have long conversations, etc., on those pages, without a limit on the number of edits. But anything that is going to touch a large number of pages would have to go through BRFA. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmm .. I have no problem with Rich doing 2500 distinct edits on his main account in one day. Speed limits or such don't do a thing. It can be very automated but WAAYY below any edit restriction, or hitting an edit restriction and be completely manual. No need for that. Other ideas? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Based on the currently-passing ban on automation, it is not going to be possible for Rich to make 2,500 edits per day on his main account regardless. The question is whether there is a way to allow him to continue to run some bot tasks on other accounts, and that is what I am proposing. If you'd prefer to shoot that down, the result seems to be he will be unable to use bots too. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I hope that that is also reconsidered, and I read Roger's suggestion as an attempt at finding an alternative. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I would reword the page creation restriction into this, CBM. All mass page creations to go through a BRFA first, no testing before trial allowed. No mass page creations on main account. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I expect that these would replace both of the community restrictions. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, me too. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Could we consider this in the following light? The scenario I'd particularly wish to avoid is a repeat of the "Category:Suspected sockpuppets" one. This one speaks to judgment and the ability to consider the possible consequences of an action. In this instance, the consequence is the linking of thousands of IP addresses to thousands of usernames and making those easily searchable. This has all sorts of current privacy/outing implications, and more so under the upcoming TOS. Here, it seems to me we need two restraints. The first is ensure that bot-actions are fully thought through before they're executed. The second to ensure that the process cannot be switched from a bot-action to a high-speed but entirely repetative but allegedly manual continuation of the same process.  Roger Davies ^talk 14:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Roger, you give the appearance here you have not read any of the counter discussion regarding that on the Workshop (editors have asked before: does ArbCom look at the Workshop?). One has to specifically search on Wikipedia for the sockmaster, where the sockmaster is not tagged himself already, and is totally unaware that someone else has mis-tagged him as being a sockmaster. I had troubles finding that. Google will soon not find the categories at all anymore, etc. etc. Please read that discussion.

The restraint for thinking through before is done by the BRFA's. And the 'high-speed but entirely repetative but allegedly manual continuation' - ArbCom has not shown any proof of that at all. The proof shown for that is very easy to achieve with tabbed browsing in a completely manual way. Could you please have a better look at that as well. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the sock cats, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich_Farmbrough/Workshop#Edit_restriction_invalid and the later half of Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich_Farmbrough/Workshop#The_problem_with_these_types_of_cases. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I have read that discussion, which is why I didn't write "Google-searchable". Get the same results using the built-in Wikipedia search engine. The bot action here would have massively increased the available data.  Roger Davies ^talk 14:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

You do realize that most of the ones who do not have a category at this moment result in finding the SPI cases? It took me a lot of time to find one who was not accompanied by an SPI (which gets found with that search), was not accompanied by tagging on their own userpage or usertalkpage, or elsewhere. It gives a little bit extra findability (is that a word?), but that effect is minor. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe that if a task is sufficiently clear in a BRFA, and made on a bot account, it won't matter if it is "really" automatic or manual, and there would be little incentive to perform it manually with the bot account because of the extra effort. Moreover, if there are issues, a block on the bot account has fewer side effects than a block of the main account. This is why I think the best solution is to move all these repetitive tasks - however they are done - to a bot account and somehow find a way to prohibit them on the main account. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

General comment: I could support this kind of effort to get Rich back into using automation in a way that will hopefully prevent the same problems arising, but I do think some kind of substantial break is needed before attempting that. I'd say 3 months, during which he would hopefully be productive supporting others in developing bots. Without a break, I fear that he might end up trying to do the same tasks as before, and however good his intentions, that may lead to the same problems. With a break, there's a chance for a new beginning, I feel. Let's have an alternative remedy to 3.3.2, which allows a return after 3 months subject to agreement by Arbcom motion or by the community at a suitable venue. The details of any restriction on the return can then be worked out at the time, taking into account how the interim has gone. Rd232 ^talk 17:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

IMO, what ARBCOM is trying to do is to stop RF from acting like a MEATBOT and generally prevent mass-editing. So they should simply quote WP:MEATBOT (or link to it), or say something like "blah blah blah RF 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} 15:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't going to comment on the 'does he need a break thing, but Rich is currently nailing his own coffin shut by frantically trying to complete every task he thinks will need doing in the next five years, spawning a shedload of mistakes while he's at it - largely tiny, but he's trying to fix em on the run, generating more etc. He has the 'high anxiety' - he's not doing it to cock a snook, but because he's convinced he has to finish all this stuff. A short break might convince him that the project won't fall apart if he takes it slower. In the meantime, can one of his friends persuade him to slow down. He's going at it like John Henry against the steam hammer...and that didn't end well. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

"spawning a shedload of mistakes". Jenks24 (talk) 15:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Check his userpage and the notes at the bottom of this page. They are tiny mistakes - it's just the 'all eyes on him' thing. If you've set something up so it makes a small mistake in every edit, and it's averaging 12 edits a minute, with bursts of up to 33 epm, he only has to run it for a few minutes to generate a lot. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Read Rich's response below. You probably shouldn't have taken Fram's hyperbolic comments at face value. There were in fact very few errors and they were all promptly fixed. Jenks24 (talk) 17:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Well for what its worth, given the history of Arbcom decisions in past similar cases the chances that Rich was going to leave this with his editing rights intact were and still are, nill. I will say that I do not think that referring to the Bot policy with the term Meatbot is a bit inappropriate and IMO is a bit out of context to what Rich and his bots were doing. If we want to discuss problems that Rich has made or errors in coding thats one thing but I never liked and never will like the argument that editors who do too many edits to help improve the pedia need to be slowed down and mired in red tape. This is counter productive to the project of building an encyclopedia. Also, where some see an editor nailing their coffin shut I see someone who cares about the pedia, someone who is in a corner and against the wall facing the inevitability that they will almost definately lose a chunk of their abilities soon trying to complete some tasks before its out of his control. Perhaps if the user wasn't as pressured and racing against the clock it would yield better results. I think we all, along with Rich know what Arbcoms decision is going to be and have since this case was opened. Kumioko (talk) 15:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Kumi, he doesn't need to race against the clock. He doesn't need to do everything. In fact, he needs to look after himself a bit more here - I don't know for certain but it feels like he's got into a bit of an 'I must finish everything' state. Because this will appear to some people like he's out of control/cocking a snook/only interested in his edit count, and all sorts of unkind things. I don't believe it is, but it is lessening the chances of a solution that doesn't involve a total ban, because it's exactly demonstrating the reason that the concept MEATBOT exists - anyone who edits at that speed, whether they are using AWB or a team of trained monkeys, risks introducing massive numbers of errors if they are not very careful, because every mistake is occurring at 12 edits a minute. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Well at least we agree then that his intent is not negative and that he is in an 'I must finish everything' state. I personally know a bit how he feels after Dramageddon February I went through. It seriously soured my opinion of the culture of Wikipedia this scenario with Rich, the scenario with Will B recently and a few others of the last few months is not helping any either. Whether we are intending it or not these events are damaging the culture of Wikipedia and how editors interact and contribute. I have over 22000 pages on my watchlist and a lot of user pages. It is appalling how many discussions are currently ongoing regarding various aspects of the culture and climate of the pedia. I agree that we all need to be careful with our edits however we also need people to know that we do not penalize those editors that do the most. Editors already are catching on that high numbers and wide scopes of interest paint a target on their back. Kumioko (talk) 16:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I would disagree with that. I don't think Rich's friends are doing him any favours here trying to make out he is a flawless hero (lets face it, none of us are that). If he had stopped and thought, stopped making the useless edits that were contentious, and concentrated on edits where he could point to a discussion and people saying "cor yes, we need one of those", he'd have been home and dry. Many people operate bots and use AWB without this kind of blow up - people are tolerant of mistakes in those who are obviously doing useful things that the community has identified a need for. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I can honestly say that I have admitted from the start that I know Rich has made some mistakes. I think by and large though the majority of his edits and ideas are positive and a gain to the pedia. I could list a bunch but theres no need as his travels are already well documented and discussed. I would also argue the point that most people who run bots do have problems. If its a bot that does something like generate numbers for the Wikiprojects or that does any number of other behind the scenes tasks, important though they are, really don't irritate people when they have a problem. The problem comes in from the editors who have the attitude of "If a minor edit is made to my pet article though watch out cause everyones gonna hear about it", have watchlistitis or some similar psychological disparity. Nearly every bot that does edits has a problem and someone somewhere has complained about it in some way. The truth is that people have their pet articles or groups of articles and they are fiercly protective of them. Ownership even. Thats just life here in Wiki. We have few standards but thousands of rules to implement them. This means that we have a rule and argument for almost anything. Hundreds of Policies and rules and more than 2000 esssays on almost any topic and we spend way too much time arguing over even the most minute of them. Add to that the messages and other misc beauracratic nonsense that we are forced to deal with and you get Wikipedia, an encyclopedia anyone can edit as long as they can deal with all the drama, red tape, rules and cultural nuances. I admit my view of the place is cynical these days but I still believe in the project and its end goal which is to build an encyclopedia. A message that has more and more been getting lost in the rules. Thats why I keep coming back when I get fed up with knuckleheads and nonsense and need a break for a while. The culture here has lost sight of the goal, to build an encyclopedia. Kumioko (talk) 16:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Pre-reply to proposed decision

While I have yet to go through the proposed decision, I would just like to apologise for times when my usually high standards of civility have slipped. Furthermore I accept as I said in my evidence that I have made errors, and not just technical errors, but errors of judgement. And I have been guilty of lack of clarity. All these flaws I will try to avoid in future. Rich Farmbrough, 03:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC).

FoF 9

Of course, the unblocking was not 'promptly', and Elen did not in any form acknowledge that she was actually involved. Still sweeping things under the carpet, ArbCom? And may I ask that ArbCom fully votes for this one, before the case closes? Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The unblock wasn't immediate, but was later the same day, so perhaps a better word than 'promptly' could be used, or maybe it could be ommitted entirely. Otherwise, yes, I agree we should vote for these extra proposals before the case closes. PhilKnight (talk) 15:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

We do not close cases before every major aspect of the case is resolved. You will see this from the motion to close, which currently is opposed 0-3. AGK [•] 00:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

If

as suggested above, Rich has made 50 times the number of edits as a busy editor and has thus made 50 times the number of enemies then I'd like to point out that he also has probably made 50 times the number of friends as well. He has been criss-crossing my watchlist (without being on it) for years now and I have always appreciated the work that he has done. A year with out having him show up daily on my watchlist would be like a year without orange juice. Like a year without sunshine. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 14:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. If- Rich Farmbrough is a good man in the British tradition. His willingness to apologize (in controversies past) ought not to be taken as an admission of guilt. Rather, they were an olive branch and an attempt at collegiality and consensus. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

"Involved in a dispute"

I hope that the arbs will be very careful in the language in the decision about blocks by involved users. Apart from being a party to the arbitration case, Elen was not "involved", because her participation was only in an administrative role. Indeed she only entered the situation after a noticeboard thread about the edit restrictions.

In general, the entire framework of "involved" has problems for bot operations. The idea of involvement comes from content disputes, where an administrator who is a frequent editor on a page should not block those who disagree about edits on the page. But an administrator who blocks a misbehaving bot after seeing it reported to a noticeboard is not entering a content dispute, they are just acting as an administrator. It would be unfortunate for the language of this decision to impact that.

The true issue here is that an admin who is a party to an arbitration case shouldn't block another editor who is a party to the case, and a reminder to that effect is certainly reasonable. At the same time, the arbitrators were noticeably absent during the workshop period, and they would have been the appropriate people to take on an administrative role towards parties during the case. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi CBM, thanks for your for thoughtful comments. I agree completely the "true issue here is that an admin who is a party to an arbitration case shouldn't block another editor who is a party to the case", and I've rephrased the remedy accordingly. PhilKnight (talk) 15:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

That is exactly correct. CBM suggested on Elen's talk page that she was not involved at all, and I made it clear there that her involvement stems primarily from being a named party to the case. I'm not sure why Hersefold named her as a party, but she did not object. While it is also true that there are other issues (CBM asking "Who will block?" and Elen responding "I'll do it." after she had already shown that she had prejudged the attempted Arb case.[30]) This was followed with her "Jeremy Clarkson" moment. All this is not a big deal, but it does show that what is apparently being asked for, is a level of conduct exceeding that which is actually delivered by any group, including arbitrators. Rich Farmbrough, 16:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC).

That's very gracious. I'd just note that voting to accept a case is not a prejudgement of the outcome, just a statement that there is some kind of case to examine (it's not frivolous, out of jurisdiction, too early etc). I hope the compromise discussions above work out and you are able to continue contributing with everyone's approval. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• Question for the arbs: "and should have been left to another administrator" implies (by my reading) that the block was correct. Is that the message you are trying to convey or should it be reworded (or am I reading too much into it)? Jenks24 (talk) 15:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I think if the block had been applied by an uninvolved admin, then it would have been a legitimate use of the block button. PhilKnight (talk) 23:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Principle #9

New Principle #9 is attempting to create policy where policy doesn't exist. The claim in the principle is that Special:Unblock describes policy with "Administrators: If you or your bot have been blocked". As previously noted, Special:Unblock ISN'T policy, and it isn't describing policy either. The reality, as shown here, is that unblocking your own bots is common practice and has been going on for years upon years.

ArbCom, you're really reaching here, and attempting to write policy. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed - 3.1.9 is no better than the old 3.1.6, discussed above at #Finding 3.1.6 - unblocking own bot. Is anybody listening? Rd232 ^talk 23:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this needs to be phrased correctly in the decision. For example, I unblocked WP 1.0 bot once because some configuration error led the bot's password to leak, and another admin changed the password, blocked the bot, and emailed me the temporary password telling me to change it to something else and unblock the bot.

On the other hand the unblock R.F. made with the summary "stupid vexatious block" was because he simply didn't want to discuss or get approval for an unapproved task that led to the block, which he restarted just after unblocking the bot. The context is vital, and that is what the decision should describe. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

@CBM: Nobody sane would take you to task for unblocking with the blocking admin's explicit consent after you've fixed the password. That kind of dispensation is used all the time in relation to ordinary blocks, often because the blocking admin can't get online quickly to do it himself/herself

ArbCom decisions are made up of three components. The principle describes the policy position. The FoF details the context (or occasionally fails on the grounds that the infringement does rise to the level of a finding). The remedy weighs the principle against the context. I'm sorry if it's a bit complicated but that's how it's always been done and it seems to work well.  Roger Davies ^talk 04:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

(od) ArbCom, as you rightly say, does not write policy. There are longstanding prohibitions in key policies which prohibit admins unblocking their own accounts. Now there's been some discussion suggesting that, notwithstanding these policies, the custom and practice is for owners to unblock their own bots. This, it seems to me, is a classic example of local consensus seeking to trump the longstanding very broad consensus of two separate policies. It needs a much higher level of consensus for such an important and radical change, and a demonstrably much higher level of consensus for ArbCom to endorse it as the new policy.

There's also, of course, the purely pragmatic issue here. Because of the capacity for the infliction of high-speed damage, the bot shouldn't be run again until whatever circumstance that led to the block is completely resolved. An uninvolved third party is probably a better person to evaluate whether the circumstances are completely resolved than the bot owner, who - entirely understandably - may take a more optimistic view. Simply from the point of view of protecting the encyclopedia, a general prohibition with occasional IAR exceptions is much safer than a blanket and completely unqualified "it's fine for admins to unblock their own bots".  Roger Davies ^talk 04:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

"An uninvolved third party is probably a better person to evaluate whether the circumstances are completely resolved than the bot owner, who - entirely understandably - may take a more optimistic view." - Not really - the third party can't see the code, and has no idea if attempts have been made to fix the bot or not. The only way to know is to unblock the bot and let it run. --Rschen7754 04:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

That only applies to the narrow circumstances of a bit of faulty code. It doesn't cover unauthorised or inappropriate bot actions; or a compromised bot, or whatever.  Roger Davies ^talk 04:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's all "faulty code" in that the bot does not follow the functional requirements placed on it by the community. A third party can't see that the code has been changed to prevent the malfunction, or the inappropriate or unauthorized bot actions from operating. --Rschen7754 07:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you, Roger, on the circumstances. It would also apply to the similarly narrow circumstances "this had consensus in the original discussion and was approved, but now that it's running serious objections have been raised and the bot op is offline". The circumstances in these cases may be narrow, but for bots by top-quality bot operators it's likely the only circumstances under which the bot would need to be blocked. Anomie⚔ 10:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Recommend Remedy 6, rather than this twisted pretzel

It is obvious there is considerable ambiguity with regards to policy and unblocking your own bots. A debate has begun at Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy#Unblocking_bot_accounts regarding this issue, to clarify the policy and avoid misunderstandings. I propose, adding a new remedy written something like:

The community is urged to open up a discussion, by way of request for comment, to clarify unblocking policy with regards to owners unblocking their own bots. Subsequent to the discussion, Special:Unblock should be modified to accurately reflect the updated policy. This should be resolved within two months of the closing of this case. (adapted from Tree shaping)

Thoughts? --Hammersoft (talk) 13:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

One minor and one major point on unblocking bots

Minor point, I have indicated elsewhere the permission for unblock in both cited cases.

Major point, it is a fairly usual procedure for bots to have a method for stopping alternative to blocking, which is, rightly, seen as clunky and over-powered. For example Smackbot had such a mechanism, initially allowing anyone to stop it, including IPs, it was stopped hundreds of times, usually in error, sometimes for vandalistic purposes, sometimes for GF but wrong reasons, and, of course, sometimes for real bugs. Restarting was never an issue. Similarly when HPB's new control panel goes live, (assuming that certain proposals don't carry) there will be far more fine-grained control available to a selected population (I.E. admins, auto-confirmed, everyone, depending on protection).

Bonus point. Because this is an admin action it is being treated as sacrosanct. If blocking bots was available to all auto-confirmed editors this would not be an issue. Admins, by these attitudes, are elevating ourselves far more than is desirable (i.e. at all).

Rich Farmbrough, 20:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC).

You didn't have a blanket permission to unblock the bot in the first case, you were only allowed to unblock it to proceed with one kind of edits, but you continued after the unblock with all types. You violated the unblock permission and were swiftly reblocked by another admin. Fram (talk) 20:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Poorly worded metric + vindictive, witchhunting communty = future trouble for many a month/year

"Any edits that reasonably appear to be automated are assumed to be so" is going to cause trouble for as long as RF edits and the restriction is in place. This community loves witch hunts and mob lynchings, and takes events where a reasonable person would see a 10% chance of wrongdoing and blow it up to 90% and call for blocks and make huge AN/I threads. I say this because this is exactly what happens on AN/I on a regular basis. I'm not involved in this case, I really don't care one way or the other about any of it, except that I have to point out that you're setting up a massive mess for the future. I predict that eventually RF will make six edits in a minute, someone will scream automation, and the mob will kick in. I predict it happening multiple times in the next six months. I predict this because the community has trained me not to expect any better of it.

Just letting you know. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The wording is also mentioned above in #Clarification on remedy 2 (ban on automation). I added the wording as there has been concern that Rich does automated edits without saying so, and there was a concern that admins at AE would be unable to enforce an automated edit restriction if Rich simply used automated edits without saying so. I'm also aware of the problems that arose when attempting to restrict Betacommand via a complex set of restrictions on amount of edits per minute. The "Rich Farmbrough prohibited from using automation" remedy is problematic, and there is discussion above on looking for an alternative. If a viable alternative can be found, I would support it. Until it can be found, I'll go for the best we have so far, imperfect though it may be. The other option is site-banning, and that seems harsh in the circumstances, but if the automated ban doesn't work we may be looking at that option in six months time. It would be up to Rich to ensure that his edits are both not automated, and also do not give the appearance of being automated. I would suggest not making a string of repetitive edits for a prolonged period of time at a regular pace. Possibilities include: varying the types of edits, taking occasional breaks, and using more particular edit summaries that relate to the uniqueness of the edits taking place. Using more particular edit summaries will slow down editing, but that is no bad thing. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest that you only allow the Arbs and listed Enforcers to block for automation, and prohibit AN/I threads on the matter. If someone has a concern, raise it at AE, not at AN or AN/I. Had I thought of this before, I'd have included it above. Sven Manguard Wha?

• Agreed. Poorly worded restrictions, regardless of source, are extremely fertile grounds for those who oppose the person subjected to the restriction. This case alone has seen plenty of cases where accusations were made and then easily and reasonably explained. Yet, the accusations stand and we grind up the accused in a grist mill. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
• I agree as well. Because of this case, Rich will be blocked for assumed automated editing within a couple of months (even if he does not use ANY form of automation, he will just be blocked for doing 3 or 4 'similar' edits too close together - and the blocking administrator would be in their full right to block pointing to this decision), we will be back here a couple of months later, and Rich will be banned for at least a year in that case. Something is seriously broken. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Rich is a rational adult and it's within his power to just not do the sort of editing which might (i) annoy people and (ii) look remotely automated. If he tries to do the same work the bots used to do, with the same issues, but manually, he'll get into trouble, and rightly so. If he just helps others develop replacement bots, he'll be fine. Rd232 ^talk 06:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Rd232, there are diffs used as 'proof' that Rich is editing automated which could very well be strictly manual. This is a plain repeat of the Δ situation. Some edits which look 'similar' too close together, and they look automated. And if someone blocks for them looking automated, even if they are not, the blocking administrator is in their full right. I sincerely hope that the community proves me wrong in this - but I do not have a single shred of hope they will. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:16, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Just to be absolutely crystal clear: Rich can avoid getting into trouble by not trying to do the tasks he used to. It really is that simple. Instead, he can help others develop bots to do those tasks and others. Nobody's going to get into trouble for "possibly automated editing" for making talkpage comments, or for developing content in a single article, etc. Rd232 ^talk 12:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I see in this thread that at least two other editors feel the same, and no, it is not that simple .. but time will tell. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:18, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

If today he edits article A, and does a completely manual edit which mainly removes typos, and tomorrow he manually edits article B, and there is an edit which mainly removes typos .. and the next week there is a manual edit which removes typos in article C - someone will come and suggest that Rich uses a script to remove typos in the article he edits. And that suggestion is enough. And maybe it is not typos .. any suggestion is possible, any 'pattern'. I've seen that with Δ, it will continue. But as I say - I sincerely hope that the community proves me wrong in this, time will tell. I hope you can come to my talkpage in a year, showing me I was wrong. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:25, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

WE have to remember this is what a lot of folks have been wanting for a long time. Rich to be banned. Since its clear that there are not enough votes to ban him the next best thing is to set him up for failure by implementing vague and unrealistic penalties for editing that any reasonable person couldn't pass. That way when he does something, anything, someone can point to this vague policy and say see we gave him a chance. According to this he could be banned for fixing multiple typos in a row, adding multiple WikiProject banners, making three similar articles. Just about anything.Kumioko (talk) 13:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

He very nearly was banned. I think the discussion on this talk page contributed to him not being banned. So it's up to Rich now. He knows what can get him into trouble; he'll get some feedback pretty quickly if he gets into the wrong sort of territory. He won't be banned at the first sign of trouble, he'll be banned if he can't stop doing the sort of things he shouldn't. Interpretation of "not using automation" should be reasonable, but if it proves to be unreasonable, he can still stay out of trouble by limiting himself to talkpage comments. Rd232 ^talk 13:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

And that is the point: it is not going to be reasonable. Sure, he can edit talkpages for the next 5 years (and hence not show that he can edit normally on mainspace, and hence not get a chance to proof himself he can edit without doing anything wrong) - and that is not going to keep him out of trouble. Report 3 times a typo to a talkpage and voilà. Did I say that this is not going to be reasonable. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Well it might take him 5 years to get all the policies amended so that he can do what he wants... which may be the only way he'll be able to go back to automated editing without getting into trouble, judging by the way even this case has completely failed to adjust his perspective. Rd232 ^talk 16:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

- it did not adjust my perspective either. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Problems with high speed automated editing.

Looking at Rich Farmbrough's current edits, they are quite informative about what is part of the problem. Note, first, that he is now swift in attempting to correct his errors, which is (according to your point of view) what he always did or a huge improvement, but in any case a positive element.

What remains is that he sets out to make hundreds or thousands of edits, without first adequately testing them; and that he then rushes to correct these edits, but again without adequate testing.

Rich made a significant number of edits with the edit summary "redirect per WP:NASTRO (automation assisted)". I checked a few, and noticed two problems, one minor but that was happening on every single one of these edits, and one much more problematic but that occurred only occasionally. I filed a bug report to note these two problems[31], after which Rich Farmbrough stopped the task, set out to test some things (for some reason apparently not bothering to use the preview, thereby editing the same page 6 times in a row[32]), and then set out to correct the minor problem.

However, while doing this, he didn't correct the more major problem (redirects that were actually redlinks), even when he edited pages with this problem again, and even the examples I gave on his talk page (he finally did these with a second correction run on these pages while I was composing this). Normally, I wouldn't have needed to check such edits in the first place, never mind checking them again after they were corrected. With Rich, sadly, this remains something that needs to be done, because he doesn't do this effectively. The proposed removal of automation (or other means to stop the high speed editing) would solve this problem. Fram (talk) 13:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Loaded language throughout of course.

Getting real for a moment, there were in fact three bugs.

The first relates to section links, and was universal. Fram said it was "because the page doesn't have sections but is composed from transcluded subpages" - in fact I was aware of this, and had reached the same erroneous conclusion as Fram, but had decided that the section links might be valuable in future, and they had been asked for (as my recollection was).

I discovered the actual bug and fixed it.

The second bug only applied to a handful of cases (and only ever would), I was examining one when Fram logged the bug.

The third bug applied to precisely one case, and I discovered and fixed it.

Bug reports are always welcome, they are preferred without the attitude though.

The process is designed to expose bugs, and inevitably there is always a risk of obscure bugs which don't get exposed in testing. One should not get exercised about these.

Rich Farmbrough, 15:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC).

• • "The second bug only applied to a handful of cases (and only ever would), I was examining one when Fram logged the bug." So you were running an unsupervised bot on your own account? I posted the bug on 13.17, and in the same minute you made 13 redirect edits, and 13 more a minute earlier (13.16). Please explain, if you were truly aware that your edits were creating this error, why you continued with the run, and how you checked 13 edits a minute while at the same time "examining" this bug. Fram (talk) 19:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
    • So, for clarity, are you merely curious, or are you calling me a liar? Rich Farmbrough, 20:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC).
      
      • Very curious to hear your explanation of this apparent contradiction. Fram (talk) 21:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
        • Others will judge for themselves if you are merely curious. Seeing something I needed to investigate I opened a browser tab from AWB, this crashed that instance of Palemoon. While running up the browser again I continued working, watching for a recurrence. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Grinding_browsers_into_the_dust for my report of WP browser problems. Rich Farmbrough, 00:29, 13 May 2012 (UTC).
          
• This is exactly why there should be an interaction ban. Everyone (except Fram) who has reported bugs to Rich in the last week has done it reasonably and without Fram's hyperbolic tone. Basically, you're suggesting Rich should be banned from using automation because he dealt with your bug reports promptly and at one point he forgot to use preview (also fixed promptly). Jenks24 (talk) 15:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree and have felt that way for some time. Especially considering that Fram also seems to have similar issues with edits that Rich is on the skyline for. Kumioko (talk) 16:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

What? Fram (talk) 19:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

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)

Start doing this and I might take you seriously. These edtits had started on the 8th, I reported it on the 10th, no one else had bothered to check them or noticed a problem with them. First find these 'more than enough community members' who will actually do an effort, and then you may have something to base your argument on. Fram (talk) 19:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• You aren't the last defender of the wiki, the only person who can figure out that RF might be doing something wrong. You don't have to stand against RF in defense of the wiki until relieved by someone else who can stand post. If the apparent problems generate enough of a problem, they will be dealt with in due course by others on the project. We move forward as a community, not as one editor trying to stop another editor from doing something they think is wrong, and thinking they're the only ones that can stop them. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• Of course I am not the last or only defender of the wiki. All I notice is that the few people arguing for an interaction ban, are the same people that rarely if ever note any of Rich's errors or problematic edits. If someone is editing at high speed, the sooner problems are detected the better. This is not comparable to editors adding content but making typos or somesuch: those errors normally will not be systematic and widespread, and swift interruption is not needed. Fram (talk) 20:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• It isn't necessary for you to be that person. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Could some of you perhaps actually check his edits instead of complaining about someone who actually does the effort? He is now leaving on all these pages he turns into a redirect the Template:beltasteroid-stub, listing all these redirects incorrectly in Category:Main Belt asteroid stubs. So they probably all need another run to get corrected again. But somehow this will be my fault as well, of course... Examples at the time of writing include 47038 Majoni, 4704 Sheena, 4705 Secchi, 47162 Chicomendez, 4699 Sootan, 4700 Carusi, 47077 Yuji, 4708 Polydoros, 4710 Wade, ... As of now over 50 redirects created since 15.00 (4757 Liselotte and all the more recent ones). Fram (talk) 19:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• I took a look at the first five example "mistakes" [33][34][35][36][37]. In each of these five cases (I imagine the others are similar) he's changing the stub into a redirect. He is not adding any stub template. It was already there. Accusing him of making a mistake because he didn't remove a template you think should be removed when turning something into a redirect. I've seen several editors take this stance before; Person A is really bad because they didn't do something that Person B thinks should have been done when Person A edited something. Instead, they should do additional work demanded by Person B, else Person A is failing in some crucial way. Wikipedia:REDIRECT#How_to_make_a_redirect says that to make a redirect, you "add #REDIRECT [[target page name here]] as the only body text of the page." He did just that; he replaced the body text with a redirect. Or, maybe you think all the categories should be removed too? What about the interwiki links? Wikipedia is a community project based on the volunteer efforts of thousands of people. Rich isn't required to edit more than he is willing to edit. He is required to follow policy and guidelines. He did just that in those edits, and from what I can see didn't violate any policy or guideline. In the process of the edits, he improved the project. He didn't improve it how you would like him to improve it, but he did improve it. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
  • None of which gets you away from the fact that a stub tag is not something to be applied to a redirect; and if you're doing something like turning things into redirects, you should do it with sufficient care that you don't leave stuff that obviously requires cleanup. Rd232 ^talk 20:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
    • The entire premise of the project is nobody does ALL of the work. If you're not comfortable with communal editing, then perhaps a proposal to lock editors into cleaning everything up on articles assigned to them might fly. That said, apparently Rich WAS removing the stub tags, until Fram got on him about the removals. Oops. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Nobody's asking Rich to do "ALL of the work". The request is that he applies sufficient care to the work he does do; if that means 75% of the work instead of 100%, or even 25%, so be it. Sufficient care includes having sufficient discussion about things to make sure he's doing what people want. He seems to be rushing here to finish tasks before the case completes, and he shouldn't. Rd232 ^talk 20:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
      • He was removing the categories and the stub tags, I ask him to keep the categories, he claims there is consensus to remove them, it turns out that no such consensus exists, and he changes his script so now he keeps the categories and the stub tags. Oops indeed... Fram (talk) 20:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
        • You never asked him to remove the stub tags. Stub tags place things in categories. You asked him to not remove categorization from the redirects. He complied with your request. Make your request clearer and I'm sure he'd be happy to comply. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
          • Hammersoft, he removed the stub tags before. Why would I ask him to do something he already did? A stub tag generates a category, yes, just like a notability tag does. "Keeping the categories" doesn't mean "keeping the tags", as was apparently clear enough for the notability tag. The problem is not that the request needs to be clearer, but that he has to check his edits, that he has to stop and think before rushing into editing again and again. Fram (talk) 14:49, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
• Ok, maybe I'm reading this wrong Fram, but here aren't you telling Rich to not remove the stubs from categories???? Before that discussion, he was removing the stub tags. Examples: [38][39][40][41]. You have the discussion, and then he continues the work without removing categorization. So he does what you tell him to do and a few hours later he gets in trouble for it? What? Unreal. Absolutely, unbelievably unreal. Maybe if you'd continued the discussion with him and clarified that you wanted the stub tag removed, but not the categories a report of his supposedly malicious behavior never would have happened. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, you are reading this wrong. I am asking him to keep the categories, not the stub tag. I have never asked him not to remove the stub tags, please indicate where I did such a thing. As for "malicious", I never stated ot inferred anything "malicious" in this, just very sloppy. Fram (talk) 20:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
    • That's what you intended, but not what you communicated to him. Stubs place things in categories. Clarify it with him. I'm sure he'll be amenable to leaving the categories and removing the stub tags. All you have to do is ask. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
      • "Stub tags place things in categories", but stubs aren't categories. I had tried to get him to keep the categories. At the time I logged off, he hadn't given any indication that he was willing to do this. I come back some hours later and note that he has started with this. He doesn't check, he doesn't seek clarification, he just goes off again. He is an admin with nearly a million edits, isn't he supposed to know these things, or if he doesn't, to check? If he needs to be guided in every edit, if he needs to be held by the hand for even such simple things, then I don't see why anyone would oppose the proposed remedies here... Fram (talk) 20:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
        • He was doing something in a way you didn't like. You queried him about it and asked him to change. He amended his behavior. You still don't like it. So go clarify exactly what you want. He isn't supposed to know your mind. He can't read it. He can only read the text you put out, and you didn't make it clear. Go clarify it with him. If he doesn't do what you ask, and you have proof he should be doing it the way you want and he doesn't provide proof contrary, THEN come back here. Until then, this is a tempest in a tea pot. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
          • He doesn't have to do what I like, he has to use common sense and apply guidelines. If my text wasn't clear (which I doubt), he could ask for clarification. Instead, he just went and made the edits. Fram (talk) 21:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
            • And there it is. "Common sense". Since he didn't follow what you thought is common sense, he's the bad guy. Here's a dose of common sense from my perspective; go to his talk page and clarify what you want. I'm sure he'll be amenable to the request. Certainly NOT asking him will not yield what you want. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
              • "Use common sense and apply guidelines". How hard is it to first check your script before makings dozens of edits? And you seem to forget that I was discussing the categories with him (on his talk page, not here), but that I have to log off from time to time to check whether I still have a live. I had asked him among other things "Can you please get consensus about the removal (or not) of these categories before continuing with this task?" The result is that when I come back, I notice that he has again made a string of edits with problems. If he would just wait more often, discuss things, look for input, and check his own edits better, we wouldn't be here in the first place. Fram (talk) 06:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
                • How hard is it to go to his talk page and clarify what you want? I'm sure he'll be amenable to changing the nature of the edits. You're spending a lot of time here accusing him of misbehavior. A short post to his talk page I am quite sure will resolve this to your satisfaction. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
                  • The problem is not "going to his talk page", I have done that often enough (too much according to some people), even for these edits. The problem is that it isn't normal that an editor with that many edits and years of experience still needs constant supervision and checking, to make sure that he doesn't make easily avoidable errors or non-sonsensus changes on many pages in a row and at high speed. It has lead to his restrictions, his blocks and to this case, and all this doesn't seem to have changed his approach fundamentally. Fram (talk) 13:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
                    • The "problem", if indeed there is one, is this; you started a conversation on his talk page. He did what you asked...not what you wanted, but what you asked. You didn't like it. You came here and complained. Rather than continue the discussion on his talk page in the spirit of collegiality, you've instead come here and have spent 14 posts in this thread alone when just one post to his talk page would resolve the issue to your satisfaction. Stop spending so much time on this thread trying to make this accusation stick, and instead approach him with what you really would like him to do. Enough is enough already. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
                      • Since you seem unwilling or unable to understand the difference between getting him to change one thing after the fact (which is what you are arguing about), and getting him to change his approach in general before the fact (which is what I am arguing about), I don't think it makes much sense to continue this discussion with you. I have tried to explain to you what I mean (just like you try to explain to me what you mean), but as a result I am somehow in the wrong for posting here too much now... In this particular case, I had approached him with what I believed was a better way of handling these, and I finally asked him (as I have quoted here already) "Can you please get consensus about the removal (or not) of these categories before continuing with this task?". He didn't indicate at all what he thought of this, but just started editing again, with this result.

Hammersoft, your defense, while spirited, doesn't really make sense. Rich Farmbrough removed the "notability" tags from these articles/redirects, even though these added categorization. According to your claims, that went against my request. But on the other hand he did keep the stub tags, which are also templates that add categorization (besides doing other stuff: look at [42] and scroll to the bottom: the extra text is caused by the stub tag, something which categories don't do). Stub tags are, according to the guideline (and common sense), only supposed to appear on articles, not on redirects. So why did he keep them? Why doesn't he check his edits, and wonders whether the result is logical, guideline-compliant, and so on, before making dozens more of the same edits? If he isn't sure, he can always ask, he isn't "the last defender of the wiki" (to use your words about another editor), the edits aren't that urgent. Fram (talk) 21:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• How about you go to his talk page and clarify what you want? I'm sure he'll be amenable to changing the nature of the edits. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
  • He has not been particularly amenable in the past. Here he responds to a request with snide comments ("I'll think about it", "Only on Wikipedia"). He says there that a change was made, but the bot is still doing the same thing ([43] [44]). — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
    • When Fram approached him yesterday about not removing the categories, he complied. But, better to assume bad faith and believe he won't be amenable rather than make the attempt I guess? :) --Hammersoft (talk) 13:44, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
      • He did not "comply", he ignored my request to "Can you please get consensus about the removal (or not) of these categories before continuing with this task? " and started editing again in what he believed was the best way, until someone (i.e. me) had to point out that that he made an error while doing this. Whether I had pointed this out on his talk page or here, the incorrect edits were made already anyway... "I'm sure he'll be amenable to changing the nature of the edits."? People have tried for two years to get him to change the nature of his approach to editing, to no avail. That's why we ended here of course. Fram (talk) 14:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Fram, this is a tempest in a teapot. Post to his talk page. You're right, I am unable to understand. I don't understand the principal by which if a person wants someone to do something different, they don't approach the person, instead they spend more than a dozen edits complaining about the person elsewhere. Since I am unable to understand, certainly further dialogue between us is pointless. I implore you to continue posting in this thread complaining about how bad Rich is; I am sure it will be effective in getting him to remove the stub templates. Though, I have to admit that I don't know how, since I am unable to understand. The incurably stupid, --Hammersoft (talk) 15:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

That's because my posts are not about getting him to do just this one specific thing differently, they are about how this (not only the stubs, but the need to edit the same pages three times to get a redirect right) is a typical example of his approach and the problems with this, and that, while you may solve an individual instance with discussion and patience and checking and rechecking, this shoud be the exception, not the rule, with someone who makes that many edits and has been here for so long and should by now be well aware of the problems with his approach. Again, this thread is not about getting him to remove stub templates, this thread is about how time after time we run into the same problems, and that it is in the end his responsability to check his edits, each of them.

In his response, higher in this thread, Rich Farmbrough claims "The process is designed to expose bugs, and inevitably there is always a risk of obscure bugs which don't get exposed in testing. One should not get exercised about these." This may be true of bot edits (but even there better testing may be expected), but here he wasn't (officially) running a bot, he was editing through AWB, where you have to check and approve each edit manually and individually. This doesn't mean that you aren't allowed any errors anymore, but to make the same error repeatedly, without correcting it, means that you are not using AWB like it should be used. He claimed to be "examining" the bug at the time of my bug report, but in reality he made 13 AWB edits that minute, and 13 the minute before it. He hasn't replied to this apparent discrepancy: either he was not examining the bug, or he was examining the bug while AWB continued to edit on its own, with the risk of making more of the same errors. Perhaps there are other explanations, but as has become a habit in this ArbCom case, he can't be bothered to reply to more difficult or unpleasant questions, leaving the finding of excuses to others. Fram (talk) 17:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Re Hammersoft: Today, someone asked Rich about some bot edits on his talk page [45]. He agreed to change the code; they posted again to point out the edits he agreed to stop were still happening; he left a longish reply, but the same changes are still being made four hours after he said he was disabling them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I support Rich on this edit. We changed the entire namespace from image to File years ago. There is no reason in the world why we need to continue to leave image: lying all over the Wiki when the entire namespace has changed. I sort of agree that it doesn't need to be done as a standalone edit, or rather I don't care to do it as a lone edit, but we shouldn't be bickering about this. Unless there is some rational reason why we should continue to have multiple variants of a renamed namespace lingering for the next 20 years. I often do this edit too. It again seems like some users are finding any reason to pick at Rich's edits. This to me isn't worth the time to argue about. Kumioko (talk) 20:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The relevant MOS [46] says that both versions are acceptable. That means that a bot would not be approved to change one to the other. But the issue I was getting at is that even though Rich even said he would fix this, the bot was still doing it hours later. That speaks to the argument Hammersoft was making. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually it doesn't. There is a world if difference between the sort of event that Fram claims to be interested in, which, laying aside detail of his history, are those that are substantive errors, even if they occur at a 00.02% rate, and the sort of event which you object to which either have consensus, would have consensus if they were important enough to discuss, or no-one would care about for themselves. It's the difference between flagging a truck down because you've spotted a mechanical problem, and flagging it down because you don't like the expression on the face of the nodding dog. Rich Farmbrough, 00:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC).

It like, literally, says The "File:" prefix may be used interchangeably with "Image:". That means new articles, old articles, all articles can use either one, neither is preferred and neither is deprecated. This is another example in which you appear to project your belief that certain things are outdated onto guidelines which say they aren't. The community generally is not worried about minor variations in syntax, these things are just taken in stride. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

One may have been preferred or not. The relevant question is whether there was "a flag on the play?" Was an error caused? Or is this merely a situation of editorial discretion, where either is as good as another. "Some call it a spear; some call it an arrow." So to speak. In the end, was this a difference that mattered, and is it a difference that warrants punishment or deprivation of privileges? There seems to be a "one size fits all mentality" that does not work– except theoretically– in a multidimensional environment with disparate editors from everywhere with different experiences and expectations. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:26, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The general principle from the lede of the MOS is that "Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a substantial reason." So there's not actually editorial discretion to change these things in the way that Rich was. You're right that the issue is that Rich is pushing a sort of one-size-fits-all model where he makes mass edits to bring things into line with his personal preferences. The problem, of course, is that if everyone did that we would never see the end of it, so we have a general principle against it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:33, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

AS I stated on the discussion on Rich's talk page I also agree with this change. The MOS is a guideline not a static unwaiverable policy. The Image namespace was deprecated years ago and replaced with File so that we could add other things besides images. The reason that you can use either file or image is not so much one of convenience but was one of necessity for backwards compatibility. They didn't want to make that Namespace change and then break every article with images so they made it work either way. With that said, its been years now, there is no reasonable reason to continue to leave these in place. These are not simple redirects, these are something else. Rich is not the only one who thinks that these need to be replaced, I have made these edits myself. The only reason these are being brought up now is just to add coals to the fire. Kumioko (talk) 02:33, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I would have to say CBM's absolutely correct here in saying that the BAG would not approve such an automated task. So either this is being performed as an automated task, on a non-bot account, without approval, or it's being performed as a semi-automated task and Rich is continuing to blindly approve the edits because he does not acknowledge the validity of the concerns that have been raised. Either possibility is extremely disturbing and this kind of behavior would appear to be the foundation of this case. — madman 04:18, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Well I think there have been some valid points brought up about his editing but this is not one of them. Just to clarify, from the edits I saw and reviewed he was only doing this when he was doing more significant things and not as a stand alone edit. I could have missed some, because I only checked about 10 or 15 but I didn't see any. I don't think that an editor making edits is dusturbing, unless they are errors. What I find more disturbing is this being made into such a big deal. It is a relatively minor issue and not worth fussing over. If he was changing the to Foil instead of file and breaking the images that to me would be different and worth serious discussion. AS far as I have seen though that is not the case here. Whether the edit is small or large I find it disturbing that so much time and effort is being invested in minor edits. Kumioko (talk) 04:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Alternative to site-ban

Copy-pasted from above, so it doesn't get lost in the fray

IMO, what ARBCOM is trying to do is to stop RF from acting like a WP:MEATBOT and generally prevent mass-editing. So they should simply quote WP:MEATBOT (or link to it), or say something like

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} 22:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

With, as Sven Mangard says, enforcement through AE, not through AN/I, to try to keep the drama levels down. Maybe give him some encouragement - X months with no mass editing and he can apply to restart bot editing, X months running bots that only do exactly the specified task without serious incident and he can apply to use standard AWB and so forth. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no sanity in a year long ban

Without making any comment on the wiseness of a ban at all - I don't feel I'd be fit to judge because the entire case seems a bit silly to me, let me put forward my opinion that a year long ban is completely pointless. A two month ban would accomplish just as much against a good faith user such as Rich. Egg Centric 14:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Unless the votes change radically a ban is not going to pass, given the year ban is opposed by more than half of us active on this case at this point. Though as far as I'm concerned, banning fortwo months is worse than either a year ban or no ban at all; if there are problems worthy of banning an editor, two months is never going to fix them. Courcelles 18:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Follow the bouncing arbitrator count

Since this case opened on 4 April 2012, the arbitrator counts have changed several times. This has a direct impact on the majorities to decide each principle / fof / remedy. It's changed from 9, to 10, to 11, and back to 9 again. I'm wondering how many more times the judges of the case are going to wander in and out of the room before the case closes?

Arbitrator counts table

Date	Active	Inactive	Recused	Notes
4 April 2012	9	4	2
13 April 2012	10	3	2	Risker goes active
3 May 2012	11	2	2	AGK goes active
11 May 2012	9	4	2	David Fuchs and Newyorkbrad (who is the drafting arbitrator) go inactive
12 May 2012	10	3	2	David Fuchs goes active

One can flippantly say "Well, it's back to the same count as on April 4" and you'd be right, but the problem here is arbitrators randomly going active/inactive right on the cusp point of needing 5 or 6 arbitrators for a majority to make a decision. 1 principle and 2 remedies are sitting on the cusp of acceptance, where one arb going active now before it closes would render those as not passing. 1 remedy is sitting on the cusp of rejection.

I understand that unforeseen circumstances arise. But this much variability in who is actually sitting the case is highly problematic. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Suddenly I'm glad I didn't go active recently when I got over the illness that kept me out of work for six weeks (I prefer to keep up with a case while it's active, not slog through everything at the end). In David and Brad's caase, it looks like real life has gotten in the way as they have both been inactive for a couple weeks and didn't respond to emails from other arbs. It happens, you have to remember we're all volunteers. SirFozzie (talk) 23:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

David seems to have sprung from .... well, wherever he's sprung from, and started commenting on the case. The clerks may need to do a futher recount if they marked him inactive. It is difficult, you've been unwell, Courcelles has had health issues, Risker has been installing a massive update and so forth. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we are all volunteers. And I came to this case as an arbitration process. It is clear, though, that it has taken massive effort - volunteer effort - to move it even a shade from a prosecution. I do regret taking the advice of arbitrators that an Arb case might clear matters up, and wish I had insisted on proper dispute resolution. But there we are. Rich Farmbrough, 21:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC).

• Phua. So, David's listed as inactive, but has now voted but only on princples. Does that make him active for principles but not for everything else? Or, is he inactive and his votes don't count? Or, is he active, and we're back up to 10 active? Or, ...? --Hammersoft (talk) 00:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I am going to switch him over to active per his request. --Guerillero | My Talk 02:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

This is something I had noticed, and was going to bring up after the case. As I have said before, while I am not a fan of process for its own sake, in this sort of circumstance, there is need for punctiliousness. There is a fiduciary duty binding the officials to the parties, and indeed the wider community. Moreover, while the process itself is only quasi-judicial, it is nonetheless governed by the Terms and Conditions therefore it is a legal process, and due process should be a watchword. These principles seem to me self-evident, and the apparent cavalier disregard for them has caused me some consternation. Rich Farmbrough, 21:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC).

• I could see a different system; when the case officially opens, a determination is made of who can be active, along with who is inactive and who is recused. At that time, being inactive or recused for a case is final. We then would have N active arbitrators. Then select two arbitrators at random to be non-voting alternates. Like alternate jurors, they sit for all deliberations, but have no role in the decision unless one of the active jurors needs to go inactive. Thus example for this case; we would have started with 7 active, 2 alternate, 4 inactive, 2 recused. Risker and AGK would never have gone active (as such status would be permanent for the case), so counts up to may 11 would have remained 7-2-4-2. When David and Brad went inactive on the 11th, the numbers would have been 7-0-6-2, and the change on the 12th would not have happened. The number of active arbitrators would have stayed static. In this model, an arbitrator who goes inactive after a case is opened would have their votes on the PD page struck and the alternate would vote instead (and not have to vote the same as the excused arbitrator). --Hammersoft (talk) 13:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I also have a problem with this. Although I have a lot of respect for many of the members of Arbcom (having met several of them in real life) I think this process needs some attention. Not only is it inappropraite for someone to jump in at the end of a lengthy debate and drop a vote out of thin air, its disrespectful of the editors and Arbitrators who have devoted time to the entire process. I also think that, with the obvious exception of NYBrad, the selectiomn process for the members needs to be less of a popularity contest and more of qualifications. I think there are a lot of intelligent people on the committee but few who are qualified in the skills for such a position. We should have people with skills like Arbitration, mediation, law and maybe even a couple members from the Foundation. The results of these cases have widespread affect and the foundation should be involved in the process of the types of changes that this process entails including the banning of a longterm, well respected editor. Kumioko (talk) 17:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

We have some members with a legal background; two with experience in mediation; several from medicine; and many from management. We have a variety of outlook and tolerance, and the best part is that we're all doing this without payment. If you disagree with the community's selection process and would like a different calibre of arbitrator, then perhaps you might submit a sizeable donation to the Foundation and earmark it to fund salaries for a paid Arbitration Committee—which would work on weekdays, require holidays, and probably refuse to do half of what we currently do. But this is all, of course, absolutely irrelevant to this case. AGK [•] 13:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Your absolutely right AGK, we are all volunteers. All of us. I can honestly say that there are few in the pedia who spend as much time or do as many edits as me. Rich is one of those and thats why its such a disappointment to have him blocked from editing. The volume of edits that he did, will be nearly impossible to replace and that means that someone else, probably a lot of someone elses, all of which are also volunteers, need to pick up the slack. For what its worth though, I will say that up to this February I donated $100 a month for about theh last 3 years. More than most contributors I suspect. In february when I went through Dramageddon I stopped it because I got fed up with the attitude here that no editor is irreplaceable. Which is true to a point but when your spending a large amount of time, money and effort to improve something you believe in, that then comes back and says you know, we really don't need you around here, it sorta makes you lose some interest. Kumioko (talk) 13:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I have to say no legal background shows. AGK himself said he would not be voting. That has gone out of the window - and no-one seems to have noticed. The two Arbs who were parties behaved disgracefully -far worse than I am even accused of. The organisation and process was a shambles. All this is however irrelevant - we have arbs on this page saying that they came to the process with preconceived ideas. The arbitrators by and large followed the drafting arb, who was quite prepared to assume what he was trying to prove. Most of the parties were trying, by the end, to make progress. This appeared not to be of interest to the Arbs. The only Arb who has shown a facilitative nature is Newyorkbrad who has gone inactive.

Maybe this is an unusual case because we had not visited dispute resolution, and therefore were not at the hard-bitten "no compromise is possible" stage Arbs are used to (at least I wasn't) but reflects badly on the committee that once again they have failed to have any flexibility, and little humanity. Rich Farmbrough, 01:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC).

A possible solution

There has been lots of discussing about automation and manual editing but this may not quite tackle the issue. Consensus appears to be that RF doesn't always exercise sufficient diligence when editing and veers into controversial areas. In normal editing, this is not a significant problem because simple errors can be swiftly correctly by individual editor action and the controversial stuff resolved via discussion on the talk page.

However, RF has a penchant for high-speed large-volume editing and disruption flowing from sub-optimal edits rapidly escalates in proportion to the speed and volume.

The answer may be a remedy which makes introducing significant numbers of similar sub-optimal edits sanctionable. In other words, the same typo appearing once or twice (or even ten times is not an issue) but if the same error is propagated across tens of articles, it becomes actionable. If a remedy is constructed to address this specific problem - with sanctions at WP:AE on a sliding scale reflecting their volume and magnitude - Rf is completely the master of his own destiny. The burden of proof is obviously low, it's just a matter of linking to contributions, with a comment specifying the specific and serial error.

Thoughts,  Roger Davies ^talk 22:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Um.. I have problems with this. We've recently had two cases dealing with people who make large volume edits (Beta 2 and this one), and in both cases, I was more concerned about how they responded to people bringing up flaws in their editing more then the flaws themselves. This would basically put the Sword of Damocles over every high-volume editor around. People are inherently flawed. No one is perfect (not even Arbs! (that's a joke)).. but I don't see a huge problem with a bot or high volume automated task if it makes OCCASIONAL errors.. as long as the person behind the bot/task owns up to the mistake, fixes the mistake and doesn't get into wars over the mistake. SirFozzie (talk) 23:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. In Rich's case, in good faith he goes at things hammer and tongs. His bot makes mistakes, he makes mistakes, but he can't slow down so he argues that the mistakes and non consensus edits are really OK. He kind of needs a reboot. Clear all the caches and the DLLs, get the crap out of the registry. Then he can start again. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Where do I argue that mistakes are OK? Or do you mean OK in the sense that it is philosophically OK to make mistakes? Rich Farmbrough, 00:48, 13 May 2012 (UTC).

• Just replace what's in his head with a linux derivative. I'm sure he'll be much happier. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:24, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Only if we're prepared to spend months upon months arguing over which Linux distribution (I suggest RHEL, myself.) SirFozzie (talk) 02:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't solve the problem where one side claims the edits are "sub-optimal" and the other claims they are the greatest idea ever. Which has been abundantly clear in this case itself. Anomie⚔ 02:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich_Farmbrough/Proposed_decision#Alternative_to_site-ban which addresses this directly. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion on proposed decision

I started drafting my comments on the new material in the proposed decision yesterday. It looks as though meanwhile the case has moved along a million miles. There are substantial problems with both the arguments and the evidence used in the propose decision. I will need at least a week, possibly two to respond to these matters. I would hope that the case would not be closed until I had time to address these matters and Arbitrators have thoroughly considered what I have to say. Rich Farmbrough, 22:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC).

I consulted the committee and I was instructed to close the case according to schedule, around 22:00 15 May 2012 (UTC). --Guerillero | My Talk 01:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

It really wouldn't have mattered anyway. Arbcom has established through previous cases how this was going to be dealt with and the outcome was clear from the start. Whether it happened tomorrow or 2 weeks from now the end result was going to be the same as the first 24 hours of the case. Kumioko (talk) 01:14, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Kumioko, that is not just factually incorrect, it is lazy. There has been several times in recent memory, (most recently in the vacating of the Jimbo ban of T) where we went in expecting one thing, only to completely change course based on the evidence before us. You have no idea on how arbitrators work and decide issues. If it was true, we wouldn't spend seven weeks looking at evidence, discussing the case on the ArbCom list and writing up a proposed decision, and then tweaking it based on feedback from other arbitrators. We'd just hand down pronouncements from on high and save ourselves a ton of work and stress. It just doesn't work that way. SirFozzie (talk) 03:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

There was a time when I would have carefully chosen my words and taken great care not to offend or hurt anyones feelings. With things that happened recently I just don't feel that's necessary or worthwhile so here goes. A growing chunk of the community more and more is getting the impression that going to Arbcom is neither productive nor worthwhile. The results in cases like this almost always result in a ban for both the accused and at least some of the accusers. Its too much trouble and prone to drama and debate. That is not what the majority of us are here for. We are here to build an encyclopedia or at least contribute to some topic we care about. More and more though in order to edit one must be ready to fight and debate every edit. Its just not fun anymore and the climate that Arbcom is helping to create is part of that. I have no doubt that you think I am full of shit and don't believe what I am saying. It doesn't matter if you believe it, the community is getting restless. Why do you think few comment in these cases anymore. Less and less editors are coming because they don't feel that their concerns or voices are heard here. The power rests in the hands of half a dozen shadows with few rules and a seemingly limitless amount of power. Believe it or not I knew seven weeks ago when this case was opened what the result was going to be. So did a lot of others. If my comments offend you then that means you are taking them to heart and thats good. That means theres still hope in fixing the process. You are right about one thing, I don't know how the process works. The problem is knowone else does either and thats part of the problem. I do know how arbitration and mediation works in real likfe though and know it when I see it. This ain't it. Kumioko (talk) 04:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I have had significant number of people email me expressing support, but reluctant to put their heads above the parapet. Naturally I thank them for their support, since it serves to remind me that, actually, I am actually a decent human being and useful editor. Rich Farmbrough, 05:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC).

Kumioko - I may disagree with many of your statements about this case but I whole heartedly agree with "You are right about one thing, I don't know how the process works. The problem is noone else does either and that's part of the problem." I long ago decided that if I ever got brought before ArbCom I'm just going to resign everything and leave. Not because I don't trust the arbs but because I want no part in such an opaque process. I find it amazing that ArbCom gets to decide what to make, and what not to make, public. I'm not talking specific here but as far as I'm aware even the general principles have never been agreed by the community. To draw a parallel, most countries have secrets but the broad categories of stuff they keep secret is often discussed by the legislature and publicised (e.g. the Official Secrets Act). On Wikipedia community consensus is the nearest thing we have to a legislature but as far as I'm aware even the broad categories of what arbcom should keep secret has never been discussed by the community. Instead it's the people that create the material that also decide what to keep secret rather than just deciding whether it meets already agreed upon guidelines. In my opinion this is a clear conflict of interest. The most worrying part that is kept secret is how ArbCom actually works - I still haven't worked out how the mailing list interacts with the workshops, one's public one's private and yet the discussion of findings etc happens on both. I can't imagine the community would ever have agreed that the internal workings of ArbCom, such as even the existence of a mailing list, needed to be kept secret. Indeed how ArbCom works should be decided by the community, at least in broad principle, but instead most of how it works has been decided in private by ArbCom - why should ArbCom suddenly be able to decide to introduce an entirely new procedure, a case review, without consulting the community. This lack of transparency, in all areas of it's work, can only harm arbcoms reputation. I have in the past thought about starting an RfC on this issue and even e-mailed a then sitting Arb about it but I've decided I've neither the time to start one nor do I want the heat that will inevitably come. Dpmuk (talk) 05:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and one further example of lack of transparency - this case was meant to be finished on 5 May. It is now 10 days later and it's still not closed. While I accept delays can happen I would expect an explanation, or at an absolute minimum, the announcement of a new date. Although I agree a two week extension is excessive I find it ironic that this has been dismissed out of hand whereas delays caused by ArbCom without any explanation just have to be accepted. Dpmuk (talk) 05:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Dpmuk, regarding the time lag. I know you fully understand that the Arbitrators are overworked. However, they obviously have no reason to care whether the defendant is overworked, and not able to keep up with their defense. Resistance is futile ... --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

There is an interesting statement. We went in expecting one thing. I think that fully reinforces Kumioko's point. As an arbitrator you should not go into a case with preconceptions. I was amazed that one arbitrator in a recent attempt to open a case even stated the outcome of the case in reasons for hearing the case. These really are all matters that need to be examined in detail, post the close of this case, but there are certainly a significant number of procedural and other irregularities that become apparent as a defendant, most of which I have not mentioned. To rubbish Kumioko on his response, rather than accepting that, rightly or wrongly, this is a valuable reflection of how some in the community perceive ArbCom is to miss a valuable learning opportunity. Rich Farmbrough, 05:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC).

Frankly Rich I am wondering why we need an Arbitration committee in its current form. IF Wikipedia still works on consensus as it once did, and I'm not convinced it still does in any any traditional or familiar form, maybe we need to completely rethink how the process works. Maybe instead of the cases being judged and juried by the secret society of arbitrators alone, we should make the arbitration process more like a formal mediation process were members of the community still have a vote and the process is mediated, rather than arbitrated, by Arbcom. As it stands I am not sure the decisions of the Arbitrators can be called community consensus. It may well not have changed the end result but the results would have been more transparent and the community would have had a chance to voice their vote. Kumioko (talk) 11:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, Rich, the cases where Arbs clearly show they don't care about the evidence are clear. Arbs have blatantly stated in the last Δ case that they were banning Δ because this was the third named case for him. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Rich, the case opened almost 7 weeks ago, with two weeks for evidence: a request for an extension at that point probably would have been considered. The decision was posted 10 days ago, and has had some tweaks, but the core has remained relatively consistent throughout that period. The vote to close occurred 24 hours ago or so. You've had lots of time to respond, and indeed you have commented on several places on this page. I for one would have been interested in what you had to say, had you said it in a timely manner; however, it is unreasonable to expect that the rest of the community come to a grinding halt now that you've decided you're unhappy with the decision that has been made, and want to mὧake a statement. There's no new material in the proposed decision, only votes. I'm sorry Rich, but I am not in favour of letting this continue for another two weeks. Risker (talk) 01:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Risker, I made it clear on the 9th that a significant amount of work was required for a proper response. I have already made over 500 contributions to this process, and I would be very happy if the process would come to a halt for long enough for me to catch up. Yet another night's lost sleep bears testimony that I do not consider this process an irrelevance. I note, however that the majority of the proposed decision votes are invalid, yet this has not been brought up. This suggests that arbitrators are not paying meticulous attention to the case, and therefore supports my belief that it is worthwhile to put some effort into drawing their attention to other facts which may have escaped their notice. Rich Farmbrough, 05:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC).

(As a side note I think en-banc hearings impose too much work on Arbitrators, and cases should probably be heard by "3 and a spare" or "5 and a spare".) Rich Farmbrough, 05:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC).

Unfortunately, it does not matter. Even if you are meticulously rebutting and refuting every single bit of evidence, they will still stand by their decision. Δ was banned before they even established that there was evidence of misbehaviour. And, like with Δ, if you look at passed contributions of any editor, there will be evidence supporting that they caused disruption, that they made mistakes, and hence, there is reason to desysop or ban. It does not matter whether the mistakes are perceived or insignificant - there are mistakes, and hence there is reason to ban. I repeat, resistance is futile - Wikipedia is broken. Game over. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Rich, you have made 8,856 edits from your main account so far this month, and 2,503 since the 10th of May. I don't think the problem was a lack of time to comment; you just spent the time doing other things. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I do have to agree with you CBM, he spent a lot of time editing and not enough time discussing and defending but as I mentioned several times before its doubtful it would have changed the end result. This is a dark day in the pedia to be sure. Kumioko (talk) 11:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I do think there were other possible outcomes that would have let him perform some large scale tasks. We tried to discuss one in the "brainstorming" section above, but Rich didn't participate in that. I don't think that Rich has suggested any remedy that would materially restrict his ability to run large-scale tasks. But during this case he has continued making the same sorts of edits that caused it to open in the first place. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, the Arbitration Committee did not entertain that solution - they did not even consider to craft it into something on the proposed decision, they did not consider to craft an editing restriction in the first place - just an outright ban of automation. Well, I'm sure thát will make Wikipedia better</sarcasm>. You guys got your way, and whatever Rich does in the future will get him banned - ArbCom may just as well ban him now. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• I agree. Rich, being human, will make mistakes. As soon as he does, he'll be shoved off the cliff and banned. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Canvassing

At this point, having happened on several cases, I think it's high time for the arbitration committee to create a rule that any named party in an arbitration request is prohibited from editing either the Signpost's Arbitration Report or its talk page. Neutrally worded or not (and in RF's case, it's not), posting "please come and comment on the case" messages isn't good form. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Since RF asked for comments about the blocking of Helpful Pixie Bot, I'll just say that I'm overjoyed that it's happening and that I hope that the next person who attempts to create an ISBN helper bot a) has second thoughts and decides not to, or failing that b) creates one that isn't horribly broken.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sven Manguard (talk • contribs)

It is good to see that you are a neutral party in your reporting of the canvassing. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. On the subject of canvassing the drafting Arb pushed his ideas in Signpost. Non-neutrally. My invitation was not canvassing since it was not targeted, and it was neutral. Rich Farmbrough, 05:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC).

You did the same thing last week as well, no?  Roger Davies ^talk 10:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

'Same thing', Roger? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Rich, I think you might be confusing me with someone else—I've had no interactions with the Signpost regarding their coverage of this case. Kirill ^[talk] 10:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I was asked for a statement by Signpost, it was too late to be included. I put it in the comments section instead. And no I'm not confusing you with someone else, simply misreading Kirill Lokshin gave his reason for supporting the ban: "Given Rich's history of using automation without disclosing it..." as a response to enquiries rather than a straight quote. Given that the statement, made on 5th of May, pre-judges a FoF that wasn't passed until the 7th of May, there is a deep question about due process here. Rich Farmbrough, 11:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC).

Surely it's an simple expression of an individual's considered opinion, no? What is the relevance of due process here?  Roger Davies ^talk 11:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• There's no relevance, as there isn't any. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Just so everyone's clear here, that quote was not in response to any inquiry by me. I took the quote from discussions/votes on the PD page. Lord Roem (talk) 12:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Because voting for remedy that relies on a Finding of Fact that hasn't been carried, totally nullifies whole process. People have told me, and Arbitrators have confirmed that the conclusion is reached before the case is commenced, nonetheless it would seem wise to at least give a semblance of constructing a consensus on the decision page, however flawed. Rich Farmbrough, 16:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC).

Note that the out of process protection of this page has effectively killed this discussion about abuse of process. Rich Farmbrough, 20:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC).

Plea

(copied from main case diff. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC))

If I may, I don't know if I'm allowed to vote here, but I just went to leave a message about an important matter which I need his help with on Rich's talk page and I'm told he can't respond as he has to fight a movement to ban him from Wikipedia, and so I came right away to plead that this not be done. I have no idea what he's been accused of and honestly don't want to know. All I care about right now is that among the accusations doesn't seem to be any doubt whatsoever that he hasn't got some serious bot-chops like nobody's business, and that's what the "Category Minor Planets" redirection project needs and we are at a cruial point in right now and which Rich has been fantasticly helpful with. The project had hit another wall, with everyone at the BOTREQ at a loss for how to comply fully with the hoop-jumps they've written into WP:NASTRO, Rich came along and with a seeming flick of the wrist magically achieved what no one else either could or would do and were trying to tell me couldn't be done. I have no idea what he might have done so wrong but please know that he does alot right, some very important things others seeming can't. We need him! Now, I am sure you've just got his back up, and so it's hard in that situation to be under attack even if/when you've done wrong, but I'm sure Rich promises to get proper concensus before acting. I'm guessing when you're among the best, you can become arrogant. Maybe you ignore the squabbling masses and act without proper consensus. Don't do that Rich. On Wikipedia go with the flow or else the whole thing doesn't work. I imagine you get like you want to get things done without the tedious endless Entmoots that don't come to the right conclusion. We've all been there. Absolutely enfuriating at times! But we must all respect the limits of a hive mind. Moving too slowly. So say you're sorry and say you agree to respect the hive mind is stronger than even the Gods among us and if they say no no matter how wrong they are you must convince them or not act. There is no need to ban him, he will understand and grudgingly comply. There is no need to ban him! Before you vote to ban him, please think of all the good he does and how much people like me and the project need him and rely on him and all the bad that would result from banning him from the project. And Rich please just say you're sorry and promise to play nice or do whatever they want you to do and help me figure out where to store all these orbitboxes so we can eventually present them to the people as a significant notable whole in all their glory 4D graphic-astro-impact projection for experts to use to predict impacts, if that's what you were talking about. You know, the thing where Rich does his part to save the world. But in the meantime Wikipedia has no true notablity standards, and so long as WP:NASTRO goes unimplemented we're just going to have to hand everyone whose articles are being deleted on notablity grounds alone a link to WP:CRAPEXISTS and a sincere apology but we're working on it. Oh no actually, we're not working on that anymore because we've just banned the only guy who knows how to satisfy every unreasonable requirement of WP:NASTRO to find and fix all the thousands and thousands and thousands of violations. Can you do that? If not you, who? Who among you will see to it that WP:NASTRO is implemented in his absence? It's very difficult, have a look at this visual aid, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_d-gs0WoUw , and understand the enormous job it is to sort throught that haystack looking for needles of notablity, and think how on earth are we going to deal with all of these without Rich Farmbrough? Shudder to think! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_d-gs0WoUw Chrisrus (talk) 05:14, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. With respect, if you've "no idea what he's been accused of" and you "honestly don't want to know", you're probably not in the best position to say whether it's wise or not. It is very heartening though that you acknowledge some of Rich's shortcomings and urge him to mend his ways. Let's hope he hears and acts on your advice. In the meantime, you'll be pleased to learn that he is not being banned in this case. 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.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, Roger. I am in the position to know what he has been accused of, and I agree totally with Chrisrus' sentiments. I do however think that it would be extremely unwise of Rich, if he would work on logistics and code with bot owners. If anything in those bots is not functioning up to the specifics that the community, apparently, expects, or is doing anything that the 'community' does not like, it will still be Rich who is behind the coding. And also that has precedence in the Δ case. Maybe you think that that is a wise recommendation, and maybe even that it is a good gesture that Rich is still (technically) able to help - I don't think it is. ArbCom is part of the process of breaking down the good work, and good will, of many good editors. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dirk. I love the new pitchfork, but I'm not so sure about the torch ;)  Roger Davies ^talk 08:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Just out of plain curiosity. A) do you really expect that Rich will help out? And B) which pitchfork and torch are you actually looking at - I have several here. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

It's up to him entirely really ... It's unfortunate it's come to this but we've been left with so few options.  Roger Davies ^talk 16:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately I disagree here as well Roger. There are plenty of optins Arbcom just chose not to use them and a lot of the justifications that Arbcom is using for this case are shades of gray like admins unlocking their own bots when problems are fixed. It happens all the time but Arbcom decided it applied to Rich because he has an Arbcom case. Now we need to go and modify the rules so that NO ONE can do it. They refer to guidelines and even the Mediawiki messages as policy, etc. There are too many squishy decisions in this case when the majority of the case is based on some minor edits. Kumioko (talk) 16:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The basic questions here are is whether Rich's edits sometimes cause significant disruption; whether they are sometimes out of process; whether because the number of trips to DR Rich ought to have known better; whether Rich is capable/willing of taking self-corrective action; and whether all this lot should be ignored because Rich is frequently, but not always, doing valuable work. If this were all black and white the community would have fixed it definitively long ago.  Roger Davies ^talk 16:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

My problem with this case started with Rich, that much is true and I have hardly participated in an arbitration case before other than a passing comment or interest. This case has illuminated me however on various things about the process as well, that I find deeply troubling. I have also found it interesting how many people are afraid to speak in front of the Arbcom for fear of being blocked or banned. I'm sure Rich has many more but I have received 3 or 4 Emails from users who are supporting me for my support of Rich but frankly don't have the stomach for these debates or are afraid to speak up because of what arbcom might do. That to me is a huge problem that I didn't even know existed before and one of the reasons I have stuck with the case. Aside from the fact that I do not believe that Rich's actions warrant the penalties being levied I am assured that others feel the same way. Some have commented here and others have not aside from the multiple discussions referring too, but occurring outside, this case in multiple venues. I also find it of concern that it appears that multiple members and or their bots from the top editors list are being systematically eliminated 1 or 2 at a time. That may be a coincidence but given they are all happeneing concurrently I find it troubling. As I said there are many aspects of this case that I find disturbing, not just the shady round about way that Arbcom came up with to keep Rich from editing because an out right Ban wouldn't pass. Kumioko (talk) 17:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

it is not easy to get a summary of what is happening

I have long enjoyed the contributions of Rich Farmbrough and his bots. I can see that he has gone through the arbitration process but there is a huge amount of text here and the enormity of this arbitration project makes it exclusive to users like me who want to know more and to participate but who cannot commit the large amount of time it would take to come to understand what is happening.

If I understand correctly, some community members are saying that Rich Farmbrough makes controversial automated edits against community consensus. I would especially be interested to learn more about compromises which may have been discussed with this user. I would hate to see useful edits from this user restricted, and it is not clear to me whether this case is actually asserting that nothing useful comes from this user. Actually I am confused about a lot of issues in this case and do not know how to come to understand what is happening without committing to a lot of study. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• There are approximately 350 printed pages to this case, and more than 250 diffs. Just saying. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• I would also add that even if we could summarize I doubt that we could make it clear. I have been following Rich, his edits and this case for a long time and I don't understand some of the things in it or how some of the determinations were derived, some of the arguments or how they are being applied to this case, unprecedented readings of what a policy is or how it should be interpretted, etc. Its likely that others feel the same way. Part of the problem is much of the Arbcoms deliberations are in secret or near to it so determining much of that would be impossible unless you were one of them. That to me is part of the problem. Kumioko (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• No, you're wrong. For the record, there were no prior secret deliberations about this case or any outcome. The first draft of the PD was posted here by Kirill without prior discussion and the discussions accompanying the evolution of the PD have all taken place in public. Roger Davies ^talk 16:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Although I admit there is truth to that and I do prefer to assume good faith in the majority if the information provided by Arbcom I also am not an idiot (largely in contrast to popular believe these days). There are too many references to emails, discussions or notifications to the members of the committee in reference to this case that punch some holes in that statement. Additionally, I am quite certain members of Arbcom discussed the case in IRC in relative private so although the deliberations and resutls were posted there was no doubt offline discussussion about the case that we mere editors are not privvy too. Kumioko (talk) 16:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

If it was discussed on IRC that's news to me. As I said, I am not aware of any private discussions about Rich in any media pretermining the course of the case or its outcome. I think you imagine an unity among arbitrators that's mostly not there.  Roger Davies ^talk 17:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• I rather doubt that the initial draft of PD pages of each case (such as this) are crafted all in one edit, without any input from other members of ArbCom before it is posted. Is there not a arbcom member only wiki? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• Doubt it as much as you like, that's what happened.  Roger Davies ^talk 17:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• Is there or is there not a separate wiki for ArbCom members? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• Yes.  Roger Davies ^talk 18:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• And no development of PD pages ever occurs on this separate, closed wiki? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• Of course, it does. It can be very useful for proof-reading, diff checking etc, especially when there are several people working on the draft.  Roger Davies ^talk 18:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• You just contradicted your 17:32 comment? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• Bof. I replied focusing entirely on just part of the question, the specific example in the diff, which seems to me to be the thrust of it. To respond now to the much broader question, the answer is that it varies considerably. Some people draft in Word and plunk the draft straight onto the public PD page. Others work it up on the ArbWiki.  Roger Davies ^talk 18:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• Where would be the harm in developing PD pages in the public eye? Why is it PD pages are posted in virtually complete form? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• They provide a basis from which to proceed, which is good use of time. To all intents and purposes, the draft gets worked up in public anyway. Roger Davies ^talk 19:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• No, they get posted as a mass wall usually. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that I find it hard to accept that cases merely materialize in form from the mist and mind of a single editor without being at least vetted through the other members first. If not then that should be added to the list of problems along with transparency. Kumioko (talk) 17:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• Why does a PD need prevetting if it then goes through a public discussion and approval process? You can't get much more transparent than that. It seems to me that we can't win with you guys. If we discuss it, it's a conspiracy; if we don't, it's a problem ;)  Roger Davies ^talk 17:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• I discuss these sort of issues much more above (#Discussion on proposed decision) but not a single arb has replied (possibly due to bad placement) so I'll ask a single question here - Roger Davis (or any arb) - could you point me to any community consensus where it has been agreed that arbcom should work like that - drafting off wiki then posting here? Maybe if the community felt involved in deciding how ArbCom operates these problems would be avoided. Dpmuk (talk) 18:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• What problems in particular are you referring too? There are problems much bigger than a simple drafting thing. ArbCom is around to solve the disputes the community has tried and failed to resolve. By this stage, compromise is impossible. Few people "attending" an arbitration are uninvolved. They often wound up and frustrated, often have preformed ideas, often strong views. The dispute has become polarised and the community at large is broadly unrepresented. This usually means that ArbCom has to impose a solution which, while it very rarely pleases both sides, often works for the broader community.  Roger Davies ^talk 19:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I largely agree with most of that statement Roger except the end. I do not believe in this case that the broader community will benefit by Arbcom all but banning an editor with nearly 1 million edits. Not to mention his bots that were double or triple that. Contentious though some may have been, today is a bad day for Wikipedia and it will suffer greatly because of this decision. The second and third level effects of Rich's absence will ripple for a very long time. Kumioko (talk) 19:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• Roger - If that's in reply to me I think you've missed what I'm asking. I realise that ArbCom is around to resolve the disputes the community has tried and failed to resolve but I see no reason why the community shouldn't be involved, and indeed decide on, the broad principles of how ArbCom should do that. As an example as far as I can see the community had no say in any of the decisions at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures. These are not disputes that the community has tried and failed to resolve. Many of them are big, important decisions, on how ArbCom operates. While, obviously, the nitty gritty needs to be decide on by ArbCom I don't think it's appropriate for ArbCom to be deciding, for example on, the majority needed for something to pass or that ban appeals will be dealt with by a sub-committee - that should be decided by the community. If ArbCom is to keep the community's support than I think the community needs to be much more involved in how it operates although obviously decisions on cases need to remain with ArbCom. To draw a very rough parallel with the outside world the big guiding principles of how courts work (size of jury, admissibility of evedience etc) are decided by the legislature (the community) not the court itself (arbcom) but here arbcom does both which I think is a clear conflict of interest and leaves the community feeling uninvolved. As a slight aside I largely agree with the outcome of this case what I am unhappy with is how that outcome (and indeed the outcome of every case) is reached. Well even that's not true, if I knew how the outcome was reached I might be happy with how it was reached, but I know so little of how it's reached I can't make my own mind up on this point. Dpmuk (talk) 19:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• I also think there needs to be a review process that allows the community, even if it requires a supermajority of some kind, to overrule Arbcom's decisions. One of the things that people have told me is that they are worried that if Arbcom has the power to Overrule a decision by Jimbo, what hope do they have and what would they do if they don't agree besides live with the decision. Kumioko (talk) 19:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

By this stage compromise is impossible yet that's what the parties to the case were trying to achieve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.119.193 (talk) 21:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• In a nutshell Petard#Hoist_with_his_own_petard. Leaky Caldron 15:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

@Roger Davies: "The dispute has become polarised and the community at large is broadly unrepresented." The community is represented. As the discussion says "Fram is not the community" Nor is CBM. Nor even both of them put together. A significant number of the commentators here who are broadly supportive are editors with whom I have had little or no contact, who are simply shocked at the way the case has gone. Many of those who have emailed me, or posted on my talk page, have no desire to get involved in these type of discussion - a position I have broadly held in the past. The draft of the proposed decision clearly did not pay any attention to the information I provided on the Workshop page. And from the comment, it seems that most of the other arbitrators did not consider it very closely. Indeed the fact that AGK said on the Evidence page that he would not be voting, and no one even noticed this, suggests that the proposed decision is all that was read. Refusal to allow me time to reply to the ongoing slanderous accusations reflects a continued thread of maladministration. There was simply no reason, especially when the committee itself had been so dilatory in the early stages to refuse this.

Rich Farmbrough, 16:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC).