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

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

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

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).)

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)

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 or 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)

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)

.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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, Principle 7, and FoF 8

Following a discussion at Jclemens' talk page, support for Principle 6 ("Unblocking a bot"), which had previously been passing, has collapsed. An alternative proposal (before the Jclemens TP discussion) was proposed at Principle 7 ("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)