Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by X! (talk | contribs) at 01:18, 6 January 2013 (→Amendment request: Rich Farmbrough: Motion 3 enacted). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Covert canvassing and proxying in the Israel-Arab conflict topic area   6 November 2024 0/3/0
[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Backlash to diversity and inclusion (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 10 Oct 2024 24 Oct 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Rich Farmbrough Motion (orig. case) 1 January 2013

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification and amendment

Use this page to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.

  • Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
  • Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).

Submitting a request: (you must use this format!)

  1. Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
  2. Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
  3. If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
  4. Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128129

Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.

Guidance on participation and word limits

Unlike many venues on Wikipedia, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.

  • Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced.
  • In general. Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs.
  • Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.)
  • Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1-2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.
    • Members of the Committee may also grant extensions when they ask direct questions to facilitate answers to those questions.
  • Refactoring statements. You should write carefully and concisely from the start. It is impermissible to rewrite a statement to shorten it after a significant amount of time has passed or after anyone has responded to it (see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments), so it is often advisable to submit a brief initial statement to leave room to respond to other users if the need arises.
  • Sign submissions. In order for arbitrators and other participants to understand the order of submissions, sign your submission and each addition (using ~~~~).
  • Word limit violations. Submissions that exceed the word limit will generally be "hatted" (collapsed), and arbitrators may opt not to consider them.
  • Counting words. Words are counted on the rendered text (not wikitext) of the statement (i.e., the number of words that you would see by copy-pasting the page section containing your statement into a text editor or word count tool). This internal gadget may also be helpful.
  • Sanctions. Please note that members and clerks of the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions when necessary to promote the effective functioning of the arbitration process.

General guidance

  • Arbitrators and clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.
  • Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.
  • Only arbitrators and clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups.
  • Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:
Shortcuts:
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128129

Amendment request: Rich Farmbrough

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

Case affected
Rich Farmbrough arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Finding 8

Strike this finding completely.

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
Information about amendment request

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

The finding reads:

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

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

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

  1. 22:20, 30 April 2012
    Procedural unblock
  2. 00:29, 2 April 2012
    Procedural unblock
  3. 19:03, 14 March 2012
    Summary makes it clear that the problem is fixed and User:NuclearWarfare had said "Feel free to unblock without asking me whenever you get that bug fixed."
  4. 23:39, 17 October 2011
    Unblock of temporary self block
  5. 15:26, 16 September 2011
    Procedural unblock

Hence none of these fit the criteria

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

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

  1. 09:14, 3 February 2011 and
  2. 15:56, 2 February 2011
    Fram was completely clear in this comment "I have no objection to you unblocking the bot solely to continue with the "build p605" edits"
  3. 13:16, 29 August 2010
    Ucucha says "Feel free to unblock when you've fixed the problem"
  4. 08:52, 4 May 2010
    CBM says "Unblocking your own bot in order to avoid fixing [it] would be an abuse of your administrator abilities. However, I assume that in this case you have fixed the problem before unblocking the bot." And indeed I had.
  5. 10:33, 28 December 2009
    Arthur Rubin said "Sorry. Feel free to unblock"
  6. 18:39, 9 December 2007
    Ryan Postlethwaite said "Feel free to unblock when it's corrected." and later said "sorry for making the block. Feel free to unblock when you're ready"
  7. 13:17, 24 December 2006
    It is clearly stated in the unblock summary that the contentious task has been stopped.

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

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

Response to discussions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@NewYorkBrad:

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


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

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

Incidentally "most" of your other colleagues have not said decline. Rich Farmbrough, 11:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
There are currently two decline votes, including yours.
I can see no argument that the finding is correct.
The way it moves us forward is to remove a finding that is false from the record. It also corrects the procedural errors of the previous amendment and of leaving the original finding in, which we knew from the case workshop was not supposed to be pejorative, but would appear that way to any casual reader.
Rich Farmbrough, 18:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

Some further responses

@ Worm.

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

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

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

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

Additional responses - A V & D

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

Motion 1

Not that keen on this FoF.

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

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

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

Motion 2

Overall -

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

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

  1. The 2011 unblocks - You are misreading the block log. In no way did SmackBot continue with the same wonderful corrections as previously. This was confirmed by Fram's unblock at the top of the log.
    1. You are absolutely correct SmackBot did make 42 edits after the unblock, which was wrong. Had the FoF said "On one occasion" and pointed to this I would have had no problem with the bald statement, however I would have wanted to discuss the context which includes that an admin/arb/beauracrat/BAG member had said that this task was OK. (I think, if anyone cares I did say at some point that "once" might have been accurate.)
  2. The May 2010 unblock - yes certainly there are issues around this whole story, some of which I hope to clear up later but though CBM may not have been happy, there is no doubt that the issue was fixed.
Motion 3

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

Motion 4

Once again, I would strongly oppose this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Rschen7754

This is not noted anywhere in the ArbCom documentation, but in November I blocked Rich for two weeks for violating a community-imposed sanction on mass-creating pages (regardless of whether the creation was automated or not): Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive241#Rich_Farmbrough.27s_editing_restriction. This reflects a continued desire to override the wishes of the community, and thus I doubt that a lifting of the sanctions is appropriate, considering his responses, and his willingness to ax-grind against every ArbCom member he comes in contact with - see the bottom threads of [1]. It's obvious that this is an attempt to chip away at the case piece-by-piece, see [2] which makes it clear that he desires to appeal the case and have the sanctions lifted. --Rschen7754 21:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC) @Rich: basically per Coren. --Rschen7754 00:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fut.Perf.

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

Statement by Mackensen

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

Statement by ErikHaugen

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

Statement by BorisG

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

Statement by NE Ent

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

Statement by {yet another user}

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Comment: The FOF reflects those incidences where you either (i) unblocked your own accounts without consensus for the unblock or (ii) continued operating a bot after unblocking without entirely fixing the underlying problem which led to its blocking. You have not addressed either of these issues above. For example, it is poor practice - per WP:INVOLVED - for admins to unblock their own accounts because block durations have expired, yet you have done this. For these reasons, I am leaning towards declining this request.  Roger Davies talk 10:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm inclined to decline this request. Looking through the events leading up to this finding, I believe that it is an accurate summary of the history. For example, in one discussion, Ucucha suggests Rich may unblock SmackBot when it is fixed. I cannot see that fixing it "as far as possible" (per block log) in 13 minutes would be fixing the matter to the blocking admin's satisfaction. The unblocks which Rich describes as "procedural unblocks", including unblocking a bot when his primary account was unblocked specifically to participate in arbitration, also fit under the finding of fact. WormTT(talk) 14:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    @ErikHaugen, I've been watching things develop with interest, trying to decide exactly where I sit. I don't see anything particularly against policy with any of the unblocks Rich made, but the finding of fact still appears to be mostly correct to me. With respect to the Ucucha, Rich unblocked within 13 minutes of the block. In that time he discovered (or was informed) that the bot was blocked, analysed the problem, attempted a fix related to the problem and tested it. As a software developer, I cannot believe those steps were carried out thoroughly, especially given Rich's apparent uncertainty that it was definitely fixed. He did not discuss the matter with Ucucha prior to unblocking, who's response after the unblock was tentative at best. I do however see your point regarding the procedural unblocks and will take that into consideration. WormTT(talk) 09:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rich, thank you for explaining, that does fit with the history - Smackbot did take a 2 hour break after it was unblocked. WormTT(talk) 08:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rich, I just don't see you addressing the actual substance of the finding above. You have unblocked your bot without having reached consensus or fixed the underlying issue (as clear by further blocks over the same issue shortly thereafter). What you're saying above is that you feel those unblocks were justified, not that they didn't happen? — Coren (talk) 14:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did appraise the previous case (I would not have opined on this amendment request unless I had), and I see nothing amiss that isn't the usual result of prose written by committee: some of the wording is adequate rather than perfect but all of it is workable.

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

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

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

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

  • Recused as a party to the case. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've read the requests for amendments and clarifications archived at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough and the amount of effort expended on this case since the close of the case is more than is reasonable. It would be better to either address all the remaining issues in one go (not as a series of separate amendments and clarifications), or summarily deny any further actions and draw a line under this and move on. Rich, are you willing to move on, and if not, what is needed before that point is reached? I'm asking because this edit back on 6 November 2012 where you say: "I had forgotten just how laughably appalling the conduct of the case was. Really time to start to unwind some of it I think." clearly shows that you intend to pick away at the case instead of accepting what was decided (even if parts were wrong) and moving on. Even making that edit offhand on the talk page of a closed case shows the wrong mindset. Carcharoth (talk) 18:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Updating my comment here. I was wavering between (i) declining; and (ii) requiring Rich to come back with a clearer idea of how he wants to 'unwind' the case (to use his wording). Overall, making a series of such modifications to closed cases, while easier to handle in small chunks, is in the long-run counter-productive unless a clear overall aim and stated goal (to appeal sanctions?) is provided to go along with the amendment requests. But here, the procedural issue that T. Canens has pointed out, and the comments made by Rich elsewhere, has convinced me that some form of amendment is needed.

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

  • The amendment request pretty clearly indicates that Rich has not taken on board the issues that brought him to arbitration in the first place. I do not think that any action is required, or even appropriate, under these circumstances. Risker (talk) 18:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments/questions for Rich Farmbrough: (1) Could you please briefly explain what you mean by "procedural unblock." (2) Could you please advise whether your posted your above rebuttal to this finding while the case was pending; if so, please provide a link to that rebuttal and any ensuing discussion; if not, please explain why not. (3) I believe (hope) you meant to use a different word above than "prevaricating." Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no "miscarriage of justice" that was committed by us in the earlier arbitration case, and I disagree that amending the decision would be appropriate. Decline, per Risker in particular and most of my other colleagues. AGK [•] 01:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rich, an incorrect finding would be a miscarriage of justice, and anyway I think it's quite clear what I meant. Clearly, most of my colleagues have voted to "decline" here, and I don't know why you suggest they haven't. I don't see how this amendment helps us move on to more productive things; my vote stands, though if one of my colleagues wants to propose a sensible amendment to the finding in question they would probably enjoy my support. AGK [•] 13:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Motions

Motion 1 (RF)

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

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

is to be restored in its place.

Support:
  1. This version puts things back to where they were prior to the 28 May 2012 version by reinstating the FOF that was discussed and voted upon publicly during the case. Roger Davies talk
  2. Third choice. T. Canens (talk) 10:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Second choice, but I do not consider this to be something that needs to be voted on. The revised finding of fact was never formally passed by the Committee by formal motion and hence should not be considered actually having been passed. NW (Talk) 13:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. This was a procedural error, so it should be fixed. — Coren (talk) 14:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Second choice, prefer motion 3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Second choice. Kirill [talk] 23:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. In this form, there is no need for a Finding of Fact, it doesn't add to the case as bot operators regularly unblock their bot accounts in circumstances where the underlying issue has been fixed and there are no further disagreements. WormTT(talk) 14:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. AGK [•] 22:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I could support this, but procedural points like this should really be corrected outside of requests like this. Best not to mix up the different issues here. Carcharoth (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I don't think that the absence of a formal vote nullified the revision. Risker (talk) 23:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
Discussion by Arbitrators:

Motion 2 (RF)

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

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

to be enacted on the passing of this motion.

Support:
  1. This version endorses the 28 May 2012 text, and rectifies the procedural slip, with a minor change (from "on many occasions" to "on occasion"). It should go without saying that it relates not only to the unblocks relating to bot malfunctions but also to the other unblocks of his bot accounts performed by Rich. It was initially proposed within a few days of the case closing, while things were still fresh in everyone's minds.  Roger Davies talk 09:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Added FemtoBot to the list  Roger Davies talk 12:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This is my first choice, especially since the word "many" has been removed. To me, there are two problematic unblocks, where the underlying issue had not been solved to the blocking admins satisfaction. Firstly, the unblock on 15:56, 2 February 2011, led to the bot carrying on doing the same edits it was blocked for. This is by definition an unblock which did not remedy the underlying issue to the blocking admin's satifaction. Secondly, the unblock on 08:52, 4 May 2010, may have fixed the issue but a) CBM had previously blocked and unblocked SmackBot on a number of occasions, implying Rich was aware it would be unblocked when properly fixed, b) CBM had blocked for the same thing previously and requested a way to tell the bot would not do it again (1) and c) CBM specifically says it was inappropriate to do so without contacting him. Coincidentally, these two unblocks are the same two unblocks which are mentioned as having poor unblock summaries. WormTT(talk) 14:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rich, in the ten minutes SmackBot was unblocked after 15:56 on 2 February 2011, it made about 50 edits, most of which had the edit summary "Correct cap in header and/or general fixes." and was a capitalisation change. This was exactly the issue that Fram blocked for. I've checked the edits and they do match the changes complained about. I'm curious to know how I've misread the block log. The second unblock was, as you say, with regards to p605 WormTT(talk) 19:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I agree with WTT's analysis, so this is my first choice. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I can live with this. Risker (talk) 23:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. T. Canens (talk) 09:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. NW (Talk) 13:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I don't think it's useful or necessary to revise wording of a past case in this manner (beyond fixing the clear procedural error) if it cannot lead to the actual decision being modified – which should require a proper appeal. Playing around with this or that wording is a pointless exercise. — Coren (talk) 14:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. In favor of motion 3 (first choice) or 1 (second choice). Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. AGK [•] 22:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Prefer 1 or 3. Kirill [talk] 23:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per Coren. Again, I could support this, but my first choice is motion 3. Carcharoth (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
Discussion by Arbitrators:

Motion 3 (RF)

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

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

Support:
  1. I'm just about okay with this as well. As others have said, the finding is not central to the case.  Roger Davies talk 09:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Second choice. T. Canens (talk) 10:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Simplest solution; first choice. NW (Talk) 13:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Second choice, assuming Motion 2 is not the one we go for, this should be. This FoF is not central to the case, and I would be ok with seeing it struck. WormTT(talk) 14:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Having looked closely at Rich Farmbrough's analysis, I conclude that his criticism of the substance of this finding is basically sound. Given that the case is months old, I think the best course is simply to vacate the revised finding, rather than analyze the year-or-more-old diffs and create a new one. This action does not negate or undercut the remedies adopted in the case, and I join with some of my colleagues who have suggested that Rich Farmbrough raise any further objections he may have to the decision in a single request for clarification/amendment rather than raising them seriatim. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've made a minor copyedit by deleting the words "with immediate effect." I believe the intent is to treat the finding as if it had never been passed, whereas "with immediate effect" sounds more forward-looking. But this is a quibble, and if any arbitrator disagrees, just put the words back; my support will still stand. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Second choice. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. First choice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 22:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. AGK [•] 22:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. First choice. Kirill [talk] 23:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10. First (and only) choice. Which is not to say that expending this amount of effort on past cases is the way forward. Or that the original findings were not valid. There were problems with some of the unblocks, but crafting a perfect set of findings is not the point of arbitration cases amendment requests (though it is worth spending more time in actual cases to get things right first time round). Carcharoth (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Beyond my concerns about fiddling with a case for the sake of fiddling with it, I'm not convinced that all of the unblocks were unproblematic. — Coren (talk) 14:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Concur with Coren. I did not at the time of the case, nor do I now, think that all of the unblocks were carried out appropriately. Risker (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
Discussion by Arbitrators:
  • Is it worth asking the community to clarify the bot and block policies by focusing on whether, and under what circumstances, a bot-owner who is an administrator is permitted to unblock his or her own bot account? Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's well worth doing so, IMO. It should probably explicitly ask about the unblocking of blocks made for non-technical reasons.  Roger Davies talk 16:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Motion 4 (RF)

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

to be enacted on the passing of this motion.

Support:
  1. First choice. There are problems with those unblocks that warrant a finding, but not the fact that those are self-unblocks. SilkTork's vote in the original PD is spot-on. T. Canens (talk) 10:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Okay with this too, subject to Timotheus' proposed change, which I leave to him to execute. I'll do 1st, 2nd 3rd etc later once frontrunners start emerging.  Roger Davies talk 11:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Third choice. NW (Talk) 13:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I have the same issues with this as I do Motion 1, although less so as this focusses on the unblock summaries. Also, I don't consider them "significantly inappropriate", just inappropriate. WormTT(talk) 14:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Again, tweaks in wording of a closed case seem like a very much pointless exercise. — Coren (talk) 14:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. In favor of motion 3 (first choice) or 1 (second choice). Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. AGK [•] 22:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Prefer 1 or 3. Kirill [talk] 23:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per Coren. Though see my comment in support of motion 3. Carcharoth (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Prefer 3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I'm not convinced that the only problems here were edit summaries. Risker (talk) 23:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
Discussion by Arbitrators:
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=531542412"