Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-05-14/Arbitration report

Arbitration report

R&I review closed, Rich Farmbrough near closure

Closed cases

Race and intelligence review (Week 9)

A review of the Race and intelligence case was opened in mid-March as a compromise between starting a new case and proceeding with a ruling by motion. The review was intended to be a simplified form of a full case, and had the stated scope of conduct issues that have purportedly arisen since the closure of the 2010 case.

The final decision includes principles that clarify harassment policies and sockpuppet investigation procedures.

Specifically, a passing principle states that it is not harassment for one editor to warn another about disruption or incivility if the warning is presented civilly, in good faith, and in an attempt to resolve rather than escalate a dispute.

The decision lists a long series of findings of fact, which form the basis of sanctions against several editors.

In the last days of the case, new proposals were posted. This caused some controversy on the case talk page because the new proposals added new parties to the case. One involved party told the Signpost by email that the new parties "weren't notified of the review until after the voting for them to be sanctioned had already started, so they didn't have the chance to respond to the evidence against them or present any of their own." Drafting arbitrator Roger Davies responded to such criticism on the case talk page by arguing that the committee should not ignore "compelling new evidence that goes to the heart of the case purely on procedural grounds." He explained that he did in fact notify the new parties of these developments, over a week before the case closed.

When asked about the length of the case review and the delay in posting these new findings, Roger Davies explained to the Signpost that "the main difficulty has been that the case spans about three years, with thirty-plus dispute related processes". On the case talk page he directed specific blame for the delay on one party. "Not only has Ferahgo made an unprecedented number of private submissions, but they have been engaging in serial canvassing and serial procedural manoeuvring. The effect has been to delay the case by two, perhaps three, weeks."

The closure of the case comes more than a month after the review's estimated final decision time.

Open cases

Rich Farmbrough (Week 6)

A case involving accusations of disruptive editing against Rich Farmbrough has ended with the editor's desysopping and a bar on his use of automation.

A motion to close was adopted with the support of five arbitrators on 13 May.

The final decision was drafted by arbitrator Kirill Lokshin. The decision's framework centers around principles of collegiality and behavior with automation tools. The decision removes full administrative privileges from Rich on the qualification that he can seek a new RfA at any time. His ban on using automation is to be imposed in a very strict manner. According to the decision, "... any edits that reasonably appear to be automated shall be assumed to be so."

Significantly, Rich Farmbrough was just desysopped rather than banned. Only two arbitrators maintained their support for a ban throughout the voting. Kirill Lokshin gave his reason for supporting the ban: "Given Rich's history of using automation without disclosing it ... it is apparent that we have no effective means of enforcing [the] remedy [without] ban from editing entirely." However, arbitrator Courcelles described the ban proposal as "too draconian". Rich Farmbrough told the Signpost via email that he considered the site-ban option "extreme", but the Signpost received no comment on the decision to desysop alone.

Other requests and committee action

Ban appeal successful

Altenmann won an appeal to the Ban Appeals Subcommittee (BASC). After agreeing to a series of restrictions on his editing, and with the blessing of community consensus, Altenmann was formally unblocked by the subcommittee on 9 May. Community comments were largely positive, with one editor detailing how "Altenmann was a valuable, intelligent contributor and a reliable, sensible admin."

A small minority of editors did oppose the unban proposal.

'Secret mailing list' case rejected

An editor's request for arbitration was rejected last week, after seven sitting arbitrators voted to reject the case. Anupam alleged that other named editors were using a mailing list to coordinate disruptive editing. However, no material evidence was provided to substantiate the claim, leading arbitrator SirFozzie to say "I strongly suggest that if they can't show such evidence, that they not make such remarks. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

← Previous "Arbitration report"

Next "Arbitration report" →

In this issue

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

Might I ask please that something is made clearer? The notifications to the new parties were posted on 5th May,[1], [2] over a week before the case closed. (At time of writing it is still not closed but likely to close today.) Perhaps in the circumstances "He explained that he did in fact notify the new parties of these developments" could be changed to "He explained that the new parties were notified on 5th May, over a week before the case closed" or similar. Roger Davies ^talk 05:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Roger. I'm sure LR will be onto this.

Tony (talk)

05:48, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- Lord Roem (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What does the image add here? I would suggest it's confusing. Jonathunder (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I also don't think the images add anything, but I don't find it confusing as much as I do 'overly cutesy to the point that it's a turnoff' Sven Manguard Wha? 02:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The second case has not been actually been closed yet. People have voted to close, but a clerk has not closed it.--Rockfang (talk) 00:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nice decisions. Well done arbs. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The "secret mailing list" accusations were made by User:Anupam, not User:Hipocrite who brought the case on the basis that the allegation had been made. In fact Hipocrite himself initially raised the possibility of false accusations, and later came to the conclusion that they were indeed false: [3]. 169.231.55.127 (talk) 03:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have not responded to the proposed decision in the case yet. In the proposed decision the drafting arbitrator introduces additional assertions not covered in the evidence phase, and additional diffs, backed up with loaded language that verge on making the drafting arbitrator a party to the case. Since this is new evidence and new accusations (I think it is safe to use the word "accusations" since any pretence that this is an arbitration rather than a prosecution has long since been discarded), I have asked for time to compose a response. Moreover, since I do not intend to spend a significant number of hours a day working on this, as I have on the encyclopaedia proper, I am anticipating this will be more than just one or two days.
Meanwhile if anyone reading this has an opinion on killing Helpful Pixie Bot and Femto Bot, or on my being de-sysopped, they are invited to state it at the talk page

Happy editing! Rich Farmbrough, 03:43, 15 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

- I've commented there about how this canvassing is inappropriate. Hope that helps. Now please don't do this again. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps you would like to re-read WP:CANVASS. I didn't ask for support, I asked for opinion. Support is of course welcome, but so are (even slightly rude) comments on the "other side". Informed opinion is even better. Constructive criticism can of course, be left at my talk page at any time, or emailed to me, but, unless urgent, is unlikely to be acted upon until the case is closed. Rich Farmbrough, 05:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

The "smaller chamber" caption is cute but rather misleading, especially in relation to the story it illustrates. Ten Committee members discussed Altenmann's appeal, and then it went to the community where nearly thirty people discussed the matter, meaning the chamber approached nearly forty participants. That is rather a larger number than would normally decide a ban appeal. Be interesting for a Signpost reporter to look into the records to see if this was actually the largest number of participants in a ban appeal decision. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay! I get it! No cute pictures in the future...throws away box of adorable courtroom photos :P Lord Roem (talk) 12:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that there are quite a few editors that do not support Arbcom's decision and think their decision against Rich is both stupid and not in the best interests of Wikipedia. At the very least there are several of us that agree that the decision was too draconian for an offense that primarily relies on arguments against minor edits. Kumioko (talk) 15:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And puzzling, given they have not been able to establish a principle about unblocking one's own bots (principles 7, 8, and 9 failed to achieve passing). "We can't agree on what exactly you did wrong, but you did it wrong and we're taking your sysop bit". --Hammersoft (talk) 15:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To be brutally frank, there is so much wrong with the way this case was handled, on so many levels, that I can't even begin to list the problems. Some of them would not have affected the outcome but are stunningly bad. Others might be understandable, but do not reflect well on the arbitrators at all, given that something like this should be carried out with utmost scrupulousness. Rich Farmbrough, 16:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  - Also note that the discussion page has been protected, apparently as well as refusing to wait for my comments on the case, the committee have decided discussion is not a good thing. Rich Farmbrough, 17:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
    - I suspect it was done as much because they are tired of talking about the case as much as they were tired of hearing how badly the case was performed. Kumioko (talk) 17:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Actually, the Committee does that every time a case is closed. Lord Roem (talk) 21:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        From what I understand, it's only recently become vogue for them to do so. I challenged a clerk about this, and they were unable to provide any link to any discussion or directive that this should be the case. I think the community is forgetting that ArbCom works for the community, not the other way around. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't know about policy, but I can tell you that its been practice at least since January. Lord Roem (talk) 02:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        The only fully protected talk page on any case closed this year is one of the RF case talk pages. One. One other talk page was semi protected for "persistent sockpuppetry". No other talk pages are protected. Sorry. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        
        There are several discussions even outside of Wiki. I have seen stuff so far on Reddit and twitter as well as the evil Wikipedia report site. The general gist of all of them seems to be that its pretty lame and stupid of Wikipedia to all but ban 1 of 2 editors to make the Millionaires club and complete a million edits. Kumioko (talk) 03:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Roem is now an Arb Clerk.... I'm sure there is no relation between that and his somewhat inaccurate defence of the page protection. Rich Farmbrough, 20:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I'm glad I'm not the only one that found that to be somewhat suspicious. Kumioko (talk) 21:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of The Signpost? Share your feedback.

Home

About