Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

Shortcuts

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339

Lazyfoxx

Editor topic banned for three months, and indef banned from contacting people on their talk pages about discussions occurring on article talk pages within the topic area. Killer Chihuahua 14:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning Lazyfoxx

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 13:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Lazyfoxx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:ARBPIA

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

14 January 2013 Canvassing
14 January 2013 Canvassing
9 January 2013 Original research
12 January 2013 Accusing other editors of having agenda
13 January 2013 Accusing other editors of having agenda.

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

The user was already sanctioned on this board for exactly the same conduct Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive110#Lazyfoxx mainly canvassing and accusing other editors of having agenda

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The first two diffs are clear violation of canvassing as he notified two users that probably will support him in the argument.He notified only them.
The third diff in my opinion is violation of WP:OR the relevant quote from the source."Bedouins,Jordanians, Palestinians and Saudi Arabians are located in close proximity to each other, which is consistent with a common origin in the Arabian Peninsula" [1] nowhere the source use word "partial" that was added by the editor the rest of his edit regarding to this source is as I undestand his interpartation of graphs which is too WP:OR
I think the last two diffs speak for themselves.

--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 13:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[2]

Discussion concerning Lazyfoxx

Statement by Lazyfoxx

I highly suggest anyone reading this to read through my entire statement, I have put a lot of thought, effort, and good faith into this, and would appreciate my opinions heard fully and duly.

First of all, the notification I made to both Nishidani and Nableezy were not violations of canvassing in my opinion. I used Appropriate notifications as stated in Canvass policy to inform some editors who have done great things in the past in regards to the Palestinian article irrespective of their position on the subject, I know very few editors who have contributed continuously to that article, I chose those two editors because I remember them illustrating extensive knowledge, on the subject in question, and felt that a discussion worth reviewing of more editors was taking place. As noted in Wikipedia:Canvassing my actions coincide with, "An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion might place a message at one of the following: On the talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics), who are known for expertise in the field, or who have asked to be kept informed. "

Now secondly, about your accusation of Original research, my edit on the quote you posted from the Behar study simply included more information from the study, including information regarding the purpose of the study which was determining Jewish relations to vary ethnic groups, since it included Palestinians, it was necessary to include this in the article besides your one quote relating the Palestinians in relation to Bedouins, Jordanians, and Saudi Arabians. As stated in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." This means to my understanding that if content relating Palestinians to some ethnic groups from a study is quoted on wikipedia, than we should also include other relevant information about the other ethnic groups studied, to keep a Neutral point of view and understand exactly what the study concluded.

Normal protocol as outlined in Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution, "When you find a passage in an article that is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can instead of just deleting it. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or tweak the wording. Be sure to include citations for any material you add, or it may be removed. If you do not know how to fix a problem, post a note on the talk page asking for help. To help other editors understand the reasoning behind your edits, always explain your changes in the edit summary. If an edit is too complex to explain in the edit summary, or if the change is potentially contentious, add a section to the talk page that explains your rationale. Be prepared to justify your changes to other editors on the talk page."

Thirdly, I see you say that I have accused Chicago Style that he/she has an agenda, but you have not made a request for sanctions against for Chicago Style accusing me of having an agenda. If you read through the entire discussion we have had on that talk page you will see that Chicago Style clearly states his views in his edits but does not discuss them citing sources or assuming good faith, he makes his edits solely based on his opinions while ignoring Wikipedia Protocol and thus can be concluded to be expressing an agenda in his edits, in my opinion.

"When you find a passage in an article that is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can instead of just deleting it. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or tweak the wording. Be sure to include citations for any material you add, or it may be removed. If you do not know how to fix a problem, post a note on the talk page asking for help."

The user Shrike, may possess unclean hands in this request in Arbitration, "those seeking equity must do equity". The misconduct I was sanctioned for in the past was when I was very new to Wikipedia and had not learned the policies yet, to bring that up in relation to this is not fair to me, in the past I was not even sure how to make a statement in my defense, I have come a long way since then providing much improvement to articles on Wikipedia. It's important to note that the editor who nominated me this time is the same from last time, is it reasonable to think he/she may hold a grudge against myself and has not assumed good faith with my edits? In discussion I asked Shrike simple questions regarding Wikipedia policy and although I answered every question they asked me about content, I was not given a dignified single response to my questions.

As I understand it "Arbitration is the last step in the dispute resolution process: it is a last resort, only to be employed when all else has failed or there is very good cause to believe they will not help. Try other steps first, including discussion between disputants and, where appropriate, mediation. The Arbitration Committee only deals with the most serious, entrenched, or persistent disputes and cases of rule-breaking, where all other reasonable means have failed."

My edits on Wikipedia will and have always been for the improvement of articles and for the protection of Neutrality on Wikipedia, thank you.Lazyfoxx Lazyfoxx 14:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Re:user:Brewcrewer (yada,yada)'

To my knowledge I had waited a day to revert Chicago Styles deletion of material, which in their offense was under no grounds, on the page. After reading what you said, I noticed that I was a couple hours off from 24 hours, but that was definitely not intentional on my part, I had full belief that I had waited a full day before reverting, and that's how I understood the 1RR restriction on the article, perhaps the clock on the computer I was working on was adjusted to a different time zone. I do not feel I should be sanctioned and judged in the light of a simple technicality which was unintentional and in good faith for the article.

Re:user:KillerChihuahua

Can you please read my entire statement before coming to the conclusion that I was canvassing? I clearly followed Appropriate Wikipedia legal policy, as stated in Wikipedia:Canvassing on notifying editors of discussions without canvassing, my attempts were in regard to bring into the discussion taking place editors that actually have contributed sourced and reliable material to the Palestinian article, the judgement on who I chose was made irrespective of the editors positions on anything. My decision was based on the fact that both Editors have contributed greatly to the Palestinian article, improving the article significantly in their time here on Wikipedia.

I quote Wikipedia:Canvassing,

"In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus.

An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion might place a message at one of the following:On the talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics), who are known for expertise in the field, or who have asked to be kept informed. The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it. Do not send notices to too many users, and do not send messages to users who have asked not to receive them.

Ideally, such notices should be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief—the user can always find out more by clicking on the link to the discussion. Do not use a bot to send messages to multiple pages.

Now I ask you, please, how is what have I done against Wikipedia policy?

(Moved from section for uninvolved administrators by KC):

The last time I was here I aknowledge that I was canvassing, but that is no reason to conclude that I am this time. The initial time was when I was unaware of the Canvass policy, and as you can see that was a year ago, I have come a long way since then and I urge you to assume good faith with my actions. I am not an admin I do not know the odd's and in's, I am still relatively new to the inner workings of Wikipedia. I did not know I needed to notify everyone who had edited in the last month, or the top 10 contributors, frankly I do not even know how to find the top 10 contributors, that knowledge would have been helpful to me and I would have done that if I knew how to. I did not know I needed to be scrupulously careful to use a clear metric for determining whom to notify, that was never brought to my attention. As I read on the policy regarding whom to notify, "Examples include editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics), who are known for expertise in the field, or who have asked to be kept informed. The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it. Do not send notices to too many users, and do not send messages to users who have asked not to receive them." Based on this passage, I only sent notifications to a couple editors, and based on this I picked two contributors who have participated in previous discussions and also display knowledge on the topic, Palestinians. I believe my actions were perfectly within bounds, and if Shrike was worried about me canvassing, he could have notified me on my talk Page to include more people in the discussion besides those two, because he apparently believes those two I chose would only support my views, which is his own bound is against Wikipedia's assume good faith policy. I have made many contributions on Palestinian article and I have nothing but the best intentions for the improvement of the article. Lazyfoxx 17:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: Killerchihuahua

If you spend one minute reading through the talk page that Sean Hoyland remarks you will see why I needed to notify other editors. Chicago Style has been editing based on POV, and I wanted some editors that actually cited sources to at least see what was going on and maybe voice their opinions. I was also being ignored by the user Shrike when I asked him a simple question on Wikipedia policy regarding content on the Palestinian article. I included this all in my statement above which you said you read... Lazyfoxx 17:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: Killerchihuahua

Like I just said, Chicago Style has been editing based on POV, and I wanted some editors that actually cited sources to at least see what was going on and maybe voice their opinions. I was also being ignored by the user Shrike when I asked him a simple question on Wikipedia policy regarding content on the Palestinian article. I do not know what Rfc or DR are, that's why I didn't use them, perhaps they could have been of use to me. I used appropriate behavior according to wikipedia, I notified "editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics), who are known for expertise in the field, or who have asked to be kept informed." Lazyfoxx 18:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: Killerchihuahua

Thank you for letting me know what Rfc and DR are, I will be sure to properly use those in the future when need be now that I know. Also thank you for showing me how to find the top contributors. I remember you asked me why I did not inform the editors within the past month, if you look at the history of the Palestinian article, there are very few editors who I could have notified, most of the edits were vandalism of some sort and or edits by sockpuppet accounts, it seems most of the edits on the Palestinian page are by people not seeking to improve the article. Now that I know who the top contributors are I will be able to find more good faith editors.

Now, I must ask you, is that your personal opinion that "notifying editors on their talk pages is not a recommended approach" or is that a standard Wikipedia policy, if it is, can you show me where please? Because that contradicts the Wikipedia behavioral policy guideline that I was following that states at WP:CAN, "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." "Appropriate notification : "On the talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics), who are known for expertise in the field, or who have asked to be kept informed." Also, you did not respond to my justification for the notification of other editors, could you please do so, I think it only fair to me, since I did answer your questions. Lazyfoxx 19:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: Killerchihuahua

By the way, now that I know the top contributors, is it alright if I notify the top 10 contributors to the Palestinian article to view this accusation against me and voice their opinions, I ask because my edits in my justification are for the betterment of that article and sanctioning me in my view would be detrimental to the progress of the page. Will I get another accusation of canvassing if I do that, or is it allowed? Lazyfoxx 19:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: Killerchihuahua

So I am not allowed to request more peoples opinions on this accusation, and must solely rely on the people who have this talk page on their watch list? That does not seem very equitable to me.

If I am not allowed to contact other editors, can I at least request that more administrators take a look here? I don't have a problem with you, but I feel like you are not looking at the whole picture here and not assuming good faith with me just based on past events from a year ago that I have learned from and not repeated.

Also, can you please respond to my statement I made before the last one, I did not get a response to that one. Lazyfoxx 20:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: Killerchihuahua

You did not address the entirety of my statement, the Wikipedia behavioral policy guideline that I was following which led to Shrike's accusation states at WP:CAN, "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." "Appropriate notification : "On the talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics), who are known for expertise in the field, or who have asked to be kept informed." You say DR is recommended but I did not know what DR was, so how could I have done it? Also you say DR is recommended, but that does not mean it is required, so even if I did know what I was, I did not need to do it. Also, the user Shrike made no attempt to DR and I'm positive a user that knows how to make Arbitration requests knows also how to engage in Dispute Resolution. Lazyfoxx 20:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe this accusation by Shrike is in itself a Bad-Faith request on his part. He justified himself in the request stating that my notifications "are clear violation of canvassing as he notified two users that probably will support him in the argument.He notified only them." That is Shrike's opinion that they would support me, as Nishidani has said above, Shrike is assuming bad faith with me. Lazyfoxx 21:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: Killerchihuahua

I try to put the improvement and protection of content on Wikipedia before someone "expecting me to avoid any potential that any of my edits could be construed as canvassing" And it is bad faith to assume someone like myself is breaking the rules, just because I have done one bad thing in the past which I regret having done in my naiveness as a new editor. Saying I "should have known better" is not a good justification, everything that I did was perfectly acceptable according to Wikipedia policy. You say something is not recommended, but I have done something that is acceptable according to Wikipedia Policy, and it does not warrant banning me from something, you are being a bit extreme in judgement and assuming a lot for one in an Administrator position, are you not subject to Wikipedia Policy such as WP:AGF just like the rest of us? I believe it is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. Lazyfoxx 21:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: Killerchihuahua

I was not told that my recent edits might be considered canvassing, I was told by another editor on my talk page that my edits were "rather near the boundaries of WP:CANVASS regarding approaching an audience that might be considered partisan. You should consider being cautious with similar approaches in the future." In the user's post, they did not indicate that I need do anything on the current edit, they said to "be cautious with similar approaches in the future." After I read that statement by Demiurge1000, I took it to heart and responded, clearly stating that my intention with the edits was not canvassing, and I showed the wikipedia policy that I was following. I was also prepared to be more cautious with similar approaches in the future after reading his statement. The user:demiurge1000 assumed good faith with me as evidenced in his statement, and I wish more editors would adhere to that Wikipedia policy, including the accuser of my accusation, user:Shrike. I see you understand that my unintentional 1RR violation was sincere, but yet I believe you fail to give me the benefit of the doubt regarding the accusation of me canvassing, and solely base on the fact that I did something wrong once. If you can not tell by my edit history, I am not the same person who committed that one canvassing incident in the past anymore, I have become a far better contributor to Wikipedia, in fact I believe I have made significant improvements to the Palestinian article, earning myself a spot in the top 10 contributors of the article, I have prevented vandalism, added new material, and in my opinion have done nothing but benefit the project, if you feel that I deserve to be reprimanded for making an unintentional simple policy misunderstanding, than I must say, most of my faith in Wikipedia's administration has been lost. Lazyfoxx 04:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I humbly request that you wait a bit longer than "several hours" to pursue action against me, is it too much to request 24 hours since my accusation was made...Say 13:28 January 16th,24 hours after Shrike's accusation? It is possible that other Administrators who normally patrol this area have been busy and working on other areas of Wikipedia, hence why I wished to notify any available previously. I would prefer the opinion of more than one person to decide my fate on here, I am not calling you a bad administrator, I just believe that it is fair, other users have already stated that your proposed sanctions are a bit harsh, I would like to know if other Admins share the same opinion. Lazyfoxx 04:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: Seraphimblade,

I greatly appreciate your contributions, but I need to know, you said "especially given the disregard for an explicit warning about doing it again." regarding my canvassing, but where have I disregarded that warning? My edits were not in the intention of canvass as I stated above, and I justified myself for my reasoning. The article discussion in question was being filled with drivel without citing sources following consistence reverts while also not citing sources. My decision to include a couple top contributors to the discussion was solely to aid the discussion and article's reliability. I believe that WP:AGF in regards to me is being clouded by something I did in the past once explicitly before getting a block and understanding what I did wrong. Since then I have not had one offense, I have made many edits and my intent clearly shows good faith. Lazyfoxx 06:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Lazyfoxx

Comment by Brewcrewer

LazyFoxx appears to have violated 1RR a couple of days ago.[3][4] --brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nishidani

This repeated use of AE on frivolous grounds is getting rather farcical, Shrike.

‘he notified two users that probably will support him in the argument.’

I'm one of the users alluded to. The suggestion I would 'probably support' Lazyfoxx in any issue, not only violates WP:AGF, it quite patently ignores the record, and indeed, the direct consequence of Lazyfoxx contacting me. Above you accuse Lazyfoxx of accusing others of 'having an agenda'. In your suggestion I am a partisan who will predictably support one side, you are saying I have an agenda. What's bad for the goose (Lazyfoxx) is good for the gander (yourself).

Lazyfoxx asked me for input on a page I’ve edited for years. I went there, saw he and you disagreed, analysed the thread and then substantially,
asked him to address your concern
supported your position. I.e. as here, if requested by anyone to look at an issue, I try to evaluate it irrespective of POV, or who the contenders are. You saw my edits, saw that I backed your call, and yet persist in insinuating I act in bad faith as a POV partisan.
I then dropped a note on my page to him remind him of WP:OR dangers, and advised him to hew closely to sources.
He thanked me sincerely for the gentle rap over the knuckles.

Older editors are supposed to help relatively new ones here. This repeated use of AE when a little commonsense and friendly remonstrance can work equably is nasty and decidedly tactical. User:Plot Spoiler wasn't of course canvassed when, after a 3 year absence on a page he never edits, he suddenly showed up to make this egregiously bad revert edit others had removed, to support a side, without further bothering, as is his manner, to ever join the talk page discussion. No one reports this, though it occurs every other hour. No discussion, no evidence of article work, no evidence of anything other than hanging round, seeing a 'friend in need' of support and reverting to the text he favours. Infinitely more deplorable than a neophyte's request for assistance. All your needed to do was raise the manner on his page, explain the rule, and ask him to be more careful. To do otherwise is piddling and snarky.Nishidani (talk) 15:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Plot Spoiler: ::It's not an attack. It's a comparison between the ostensibly rule-breaking behaviour complained of here and an instance of poor editing, - it's a pattern of yours to enter a page and do a mechanical revert in favour of one side, then disappear - which is never the object of complaint. I don't raise this on AE. I note it. I have shown the word 'false' violates sources that show the Hebron rumours were based in part on known facts here. A rumour that partially relates to a fact is not false (which in any case raises issues of WP:NPOV. If someone works with sources, takes time to read and research, and finds a blow-in just mechanically erasing that effort, and disappearing, he is within his rights to note the disparity. Articles are not written by pushing revert buttons, or whingeing about petty problems. They are written by people with a masochistic willingness to research a topic, propose edits, and discuss them with other editors. Shrike's use of AE over trivia like this, with a relative newby, is not the way to recruit people actually willing to contribute content. A warning to improve his familiarity with policy is sufficient in this case. Nishidani (talk) 15:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lazyfoxx.(a) No one reads walls of text per WP:TLDR (b) to write them, esp. at AE, is, within the culture of wikipedia, considered supplementary, if indirect, evidence that the editor is problematical.(c) Don't try administrator's impatience. Your case is one of hundreds of things they have to attend to.(d) you've made your case, so let it rest. You'll have to do time, like most of us. Take it on the chin, since, a little less enthusiasm and more knowledge of the way things work here (infringe the slightest rule and you will be summarily denounced) wouldn't have got you here. Nishidani (talk) 21:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Plot Spoiler

I don't know why I'm being brought in on this, and I can't tell if you're being actually accusing me of being canvassed -- which is absolutely false and is a violation of WP:AGF and perhaps WP:Attack. Therefore, please strike those remarks. That page has long been on my watchlist, and it's very amusing that just adding the term "false" before rumors is considered an "egregiously bad revert edit." Stick to facts please. Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BorisG

I think this canvassing and OR issues are minor and do not warrant a long topic ban. I know the user has been warned but I suggest another strong warning would suffice. Or a short sanction at most. - BorisG (talk) 17:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dlv999

Agree with Boris. In my opinion what is more of a risk to content and the encyclopedia is that ARBPIA sanctions are being consistently used to attack and intimidate good faith editors for making minor or technical violations of policy. The topic area is riddled with disruptive sock accounts. As long as this remains the case it doesn't make much sense that we are handing out draconian topic bans to good faith editors who fall foul of the rules, because it just gives more weight to the sock accounts operating in the topic area illegitimately. Take a look at the history of the page in question. A brand new account with an experienced user behind it appears from nowhere and jumps straight into a contentious IP article to antagonize Ladyfox and ignore the IP editing restrictions. Given that we are working in an environment of systematic gaming by sock accounts does it really make sense to hand out a long topic ban for an editor who invited several long term editors in good standing to take a look at the article. Has Ladyfox' action caused any harm to the project? Dlv999 (talk) 18:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sean.hoyland

Focusing on one editor is a bit shortsighted. For the love of kittens, have a read through Talk:Palestinian_people#Behar_study and please stop Chicago Style (without pants) from filling that talk page up with irrelevant drivel. Canvassing is not helpful but WP:CANVASS is a guideline. WP:TALK is a guideline too, an important one, and disrupting ARBPIA by using a talk page as a forum is a "behavior that is unacceptable". Talk:Palestinian_people in particular would benefit from the instant blocking of anyone who expresses a personal opinion about the real world. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to provide anecdotal evidence in the forms of diffs by sampling a conversation. If you would prefer to not read the talk page section and come to your own conclusions about the conversation, that's okay. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Lazyfoxx

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

I'm not sure if this has been done before, but I propose Lazyfoxx be banned from notifying any other editor of any discussion anywhere; the notices were canvassing, and this does not reflect on either of the editors notified (Nishidani and Plot Spoiler, you need to stop trying to defend yourself against having been canvassed. That is pointless; no one has accused you of any wrongdoing; even if 100 editors are found to have canvassed you that is not any negative reflection on your behavior.) Propose also a 3 month topic ban from all Middle Eastern topics, broadly construed. Killer Chihuahua 15:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
LazyFoxx: I did read your entire statement. You have been here before for canvassing; while your notification was limited that does not convince me it was not selective. You did not use any methodology that I can see; you claim to have basically picked two contributors more or less at random, on the basis of your perception of their activity level on the article. You did not, for example, notify everyone who had edited in the last month. You did not notify the top 10 contributors who are still active. In short, you used no discernible metric. Given that you are aware of CANVASS and have even been brought here before regarding that policy, you would have been wise to either avoid notifications at all (first choice, IMO) or been scrupulously careful to use a clear metric for determining whom to notify. Killer Chihuahua 16:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BorisG: He was not warned, he was blocked for a week and told by the blocking admin that "next time I will not be so lenient."

LazyFoxx: Why did you notify anyone at all?

Sean.hoyland: I will be more than happy to review any evidence, in the form of diffs, which you wish to add. I will not, however, go spelunking into various talk pages on the off chance I will see what you want me to see. Killer Chihuahua 17:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
LazyFoxx: Yes, I did read it, and I'm still not going to go spelunking, and your answer did not address the issue. Why, given your history, did you notify anyone? Why did you not use Rfc or DR? Killer Chihuahua 17:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While we wait to see if any other administrators wish to add input to this, I suggest Lazyfoxx read WP:DR, WP:Rfc (paying special attention to article Rfcs, not user Rfcs), and also perform this task: go to the edit history of any article. Look at the top rows of links, and you will see a link for Contributions. On Palestine People, following the link yields this result. I am still of the opinion that you should be banned from notifying other editors on their talk pages about discussions, but at least you'll know how to identify the top contributors of any article. Please note that on DR, advised approaches include General advice (which points one to the WP:DRN), Third opinion (which points one to WP:3, Request community input on article content (which points one to WP:RFC, Noticeboards (with links to specific issue noticeboards such as BLP), Subject-specific help, Editor assistance, and Last resort: Mediation. Note that notifying other editors on their talk pages is not a recommended approach. Killer Chihuahua 19:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not ok for you to notify other editors at this time. You are on AE and currently the only proposal for a remedy includes banning you from notifying other editors about discussions at all; while I applaud your good sense in asking, I am concerned that you're not quite getting the point. Killer Chihuahua 19:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My statement regarding contacting others not being recommended was specific to the paragraph in which I made that statement; I thought that it was clear by the context that I listed recommended approaches from the DR page and noted that contacting other editors is not in the list; ergo not a recommended approach. I hope this is now clear to you. And no, don't go pestering other administrators on their talk pages either; I have taken no precipitate action and have indeed made it clear I am waiting for others to add input if they wish. Killer Chihuahua 20:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since I already addressed your defense of CANVASS I find it odd you wish me to reiterate. However: You have been here before for canvassing; you at that time received a one week block for, among other reasons, canvassing. I would expect you to avoid any potential that any of your edits could be construed as canvassing. You used no metric or organized reason in your choices for notification. In short, while one can notify others, it is not recommended (please see earlier discussion regarding what is, and is not, recommended or advised on DR) and you should have known better. Puppy has spoken, puppy is done. I'm not going to re-explain why you notifying those editors was a Bad Idea. I'm more convinced than ever that you cannot distinguish when it is a good idea or not, and am certain you should be indef banned from doing so in order to prevent this kind of issue again. Killer Chihuahua 20:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ignoring the 1RR violation, as I think Lazyfoxx's explanation seems sincere; but as he's been blocked already for canvassing and battleground behavior, and was informed at that time that he was running the risk of being indef blocked if he transgressed again, we can hardly ignore that he's canvassing again, however limited the canvassing might be. As he was told his edits this time might be considered canvassing and he rejected the concern, rather than addressing it, it's fairly clear stronger measures are needed to prevent future canvassing. Unless another uninvolved administrator speaks out in the next several hours I will be implementing a 3 month topic ban and an indef ban on contacting other editors regarding article talk page discussions. Killer Chihuahua 04:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can accept the 1RR violation as an accidental error, though even there I would remind Lazyfoxx that 1RR is not an entitlement to sit there, watch the clock, and revert at 24 hours and one minute, nor an invitation to edit-war at a little slower pace. Repeated reverts are disruptive, that's why we have talk pages. The canvassing, though, I'm far more concerned about, given the previous sanctions for it, and especially given the disregard for an explicit warning about doing it again. It is a little beyond my imaginings that an editor who has edited on Wikipedia since 2010, especially in a contentious area, is not aware of the standard mechanisms for dispute resolution. I would tend to agree with the 3-month ban from the area.

I am concerned that a ban from contacting other editors regarding article talk page discussions altogether is beyond the scope of discretionary sanctions currently allowed under WP:ARBPIA, as that would cover a huge number of articles outside the discretionary sanctions area. I would, however, support an indefinite ban of Lazyfoxx making direct solicitations for any other particular editor(s) to participate in a discussion on any article or topic related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed. This would not prohibit the use of normal dispute resolution such as RfC or 3O, where no particular editor is solicited to participate.

In closing, Lazyfoxx, if a temporary topic ban is ultimately to be the case, I would strongly advise you to use that time to gain experience editing in a calmer area. The Palestine-Israel topics are often the subject of extremely bitter fights (hence the reason for these sanctions in the first place) and are difficult to deal with even for very experienced editors. Some more experiences with how policy applies in practice, not just reading its letter, would be very beneficial to you, and that experience will be gained much less painfully in an area that's not so hot and contentious. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken; concur an indef ban on contacting other editors in the ARBPIA area more appropriate. Killer Chihuahua 06:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Farmbrough

Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs) is blocked for two months for violating the restriction requiring him to edit Wikipedia only completely manually – that is, by typing text into the edit window – as explained and agreed to by Rich Farmbrough here. Sandstein 21:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Rich Farmbrough

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Fram (talk) 08:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough#Rich Farmbrough prohibited from using automation

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

[5] (16 January 2013):

This edits has serious problems, and the only expanation for these errors that I can reasonably think of is that Rich Farmbrough ran a script across a number of sources, and dumped the result in the article. While this is only one page, it is still using automated editing, and a return to the problems that caused the restriction in the first place.

The entries for Assam are completely wrong, probably because the pdf used ([6]) starts at 1, goes to 24, and then starts again at 1 (which are details of number 24), to continue after 96 again with 25. A human wouldn't have much problems with this, but a script or bot can't handle this and creates lists like the one we have gotten here.

The entries for Chattisgarh are botched at entry 26, which has a subset in the original pdf [7], which causes the script to go all haywire here.

Less serious contentwise, but typical of the use (and lack of control) of a script are the following issues:

When there are multiple entries (column one) or multiple designations (column three), a "return" is only addad after the first one, not noticing that more than two entries are possible. See e.g. Andra Pradesh 1 or 26 for examples of the first, and Andra Pradesh 15, 23 or 26 for examples of the second (layout problem)

Strange entries in column 2. See e.g. the first entry for Assam (with the thrice repeated " ,,,"Andhra Pradesh "), or the wrong ordering of Bihar, where 124 b and 124 a are placed before 1 - 2 - 3..., or the first entry for Chattisgarh; again something a script botches but a human hasn't any problem with.

I have stopped checking in detail after Chattisgarh, skimming the rest of the very long page seems to show similar errors all the way down.

The systematic and stupid nature of the errors clearly shows that this is not something caused by manual editing, but by automated editing and a lack of manual checks afterwards (which was the reason for the original restriction).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I raised this issue at User talk:Rich Farmbrough#Edit that appears to be automated, hoping that another convincing explanation would be offered and that a needless AE discussion could be avoided. While a reply was swiftly given, it doesn't seem very convincing to me, claiming that the errors were caused by doing it manually (how this would explain the loss of entries in the exact same manner from both the Assam source and the Chandigarh source is not made clear, nor why other errors are made in such a systematical way either).

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[8]

Replies to Rich Farmbroughs initlal statement: I made this post originally directly beneath Rich Farmbrough's undated statement, but apparently this doesn't belong there and has been removed by Rich Farmbrough (not clear where he found the instructions to do this, but never mind). So I'll repeat my questions realting to his original statement here:

How do you explain the many missing entries? The strange note numbers like ",,,"Andhra Pradesh " ,,,"Andhra Pradesh " ,,,"Andhra Pradesh " 1" (at the first Assam entry), or the one at Rajasthan 26? The duplicate entry for Uttaranchal (1)? All caused by whatever spreadsheet you used? Fram (talk) 09:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Kumioko: I have enough examples of errors created by Rich Farmbrough (directly or through his bots) which remained in the articles for months before I eventually cleaned them up to know that the "someone else will notice it if it is really a problem" mantra is false. It was also clear from the ArbCom case that comparing his number of edits with his number of errors was a false comparison, since often the edits had little or no benefit, but the errors were a lot more serious. Your claim that "Rich was actively working on the list at the time of the complaint and said that on the talk page." is a bit deceiving (his comments indicate that he had uploaded the full list and that what remained to be done was matching the lists with articles and so on; not going back to the sources he used to see whether his work was actually correct; and he had stopped working on it and moved on to othet articles, I wasn't interrupting him in the middle of edits on it) and completely misses the point; he used automation, and it caused clear and serious errors. This is what this discussion is about. If you want to rehash the whole ArbCom case, or discuss my edits, including ones that haven't got anything to do with this situation at all, then there are other venues you can use; let's stick to what is directly relevant here please. Fram (talk) 15:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Rich Farmbrough: for years, you created tons of errors by mass creations and automated editing. At first, I hoped that by things would improve when you became aware of this, but when things didn't improve, you got two community imposed editing restrictions. When that didn't solve all problems and it was obvious that people still needed to check your edits for repeated or serious errors (and some other problems with your editing and admin tool use besides), the Arbcom case resulted in yet another restriction. This means that, if you followed the restriction, the need to check your edits and point out your errors would be over. However, it is quite obvious that even those restrictions aren't sufficient. When you didn't have restrictions, I was quite willing to give you the chance to correct things, but you didn't. Now, you have lost that chance, and are limited to no automated editing. Not "automated editing with Fram finding errors and me correcting them", "no automated editing at all". You violated that, you caused serious errors while doing it, so no, I am no longer intersted in "but I cleaned up afterwards", we are long past that stage now. Fram (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Rich Farmbrough 2: concerning your defense of the actual edit: it was a systematic edit: everytime you encountered a "strange" entry in the pdfs, your script screwed up. Whether it was subentries, entries with an empty last column, entries with incorrect numbering in the original: your errors can be directly traced back to how the source looked. It had nothing to do with "empty csvs" or any other manual manipulation on your side, no matter what you claim. You used a script, and didn't check this. You claim to have worked very hard on this, but even a cursory check would have shown these problems. But, as usual, why would you do a manual check when you can have scripts do the work for you? Fram (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Kumioko, regarding his errors and the fixes: "Many of the ones he didn't was because he was prevented from doing so because of this sanction or the long discussions which distracted much of his time." Bullshit. He made these errors, corrected his script halfway through, and continued to run the improved script without even bothering to go back and correct the old ones. I corrected them two months later manually, nothing prevented him from doing the same. I have noted some errors he made after the Arbcom case, he corrected one, I corrected the other, he has since made the exact same error at least five times more (probably "manually", right...). Despite the claims always made, no one else cleans those, not Rich Farmbrough, not one of his defenders. He just cntinues doing what he always did, only more sneaky and (thankfully) more slowly, but I fail to see any improvement, any reason to believe his fanciful explanations, or any reason to have any more patience with this (or with your wilder and wilder tales you spread about me). He has restrictions, he doesn't care to follow them, then I don't care about the consequences for him. The consequences for Wikipedia are minimal though, only a few people actually notice that these thousands of edits are no longer made, and even fewer miss them. Fram (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Rich Farmbrough

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

This is a huge table that has taken a month to prepare, and as well as being part of a significant article in it's own right, is important for defusing conflict, as can be seen on the talk page. The data used was prepared off-line on a spreadsheet, and cut and pasted into the article. Because I wanted the data sorted (though the table provides this functionality) and certain parts were not in the order I wanted I used the spreadsheet's sort function - which did not sort exactly as wanted. There were also a few minor formatting issues relating to empty columns. These issues were fairly easy to fix, taking about two or three hours compared with the considerable effort to build the table. Note that I described the table on the talk page as a "first cut", the sources being in conflicting formats, and the exact use of the data also under discussion.

While using a spreadsheet may contravene the letter of the arbcom ruling, I think that the encyclopaedia benefits from this article, at least until it can be decided whether it should be split into sub-articles. (I would have created sub articles in the first place, but need consensus to emerge before I do that.) OBCs are a topic of vital interest to India and her 350 million English users, and we have never had a good coverage of the basic information before.

@Sir Fozzie: yes, so I cant move one sentence after the next. I can't paste in the details of a citation. I can't pretty much do anything - including following the process for requesting an amendment or clarification. Effectively I am blocked from editing, except that no one thinks that the sanction is important enough to implement. Well almost no one. Well I have hardly edited since the initial sanctions, so they have been successful, I guess, in saving the encyclopaedia from some possible improvement. And indeed I was blocked for a month for correcting two spelling errors, which is a triumph for process over product.

@CBM, on the contrary, Fram is damaging the encyclopaedia by being confrontational instead of cooperative. And indeed you misread Kumioko's comment, it is the behaviour of those who think that "tattling" is a valid strategy to reach their goals that is in question. Similarly those who edit war to their own ends should also be careful where they cast aspersions.

@Killer Chihuahua, not having kept every version of the spreadsheets since on or before 15 December I can't definitively track this down, but it seems to be related to saving some almost empty lines as CSV, before I finished the Andra Pradesh section, the same issue occurred with about five states - had it been a systematic error it would have been with all the states or none, there is nothing I can see that makes those five states special. Presumably the reimport parameters munged them. Anyway it's an easy fix.

I am however a little puzzled, Fram comments "I am not discussing the cleanup you did after I found the problems and raised the issue here. I am discussing your initial edit only."[9] Yet at the Arbitration case, he played a different tune saying "No one expects error-free editing, such a thing isn't possible. " and that the problem was that "he expects other people to clean up his problems." - a claim he has made for years, yet when asked "Do you think there are known errors on the English Wikipedia created by me, that I have not yet fixed? If so please list them for future reference, with approximate dates." he not only refused to answer but edit warred to remove the section I had created for him to answer, concealing his lack of cooperation.

@Sandstein Whether there is a technical breach or not, you are not required to block, no administrator is required to do perform any act. You may block me for a year if you choose to do so, and if you think that it is the right thing to do, you should do it. Nonetheless you can be sure that many will question the utility of such an action, and not without cause. It is fairly evident that this edit has not caused any problems, and indeed it is just for such cases of frivolous abuse of process that WP:IAR can be used.

@All The key question at AE is: Do we use discretion, or are we mindless automated drones of Arb Com?

For those that believe the former I have presented my case, and so to some extent, has the community, admins may individually or collectively act according to conscience.
For those that want to follow process then this request for enforcement fails, because it cites a different restriction to the one introduced by Sirfozzie, which sanctions automation on Wikipedia, not on my desktop.

Comments by SirFozzie

As one of the people who voted on the restriction, I'm likely too involved to adjucate fairly, but I'd just like to point out for the record that part of his restrictions include the following line:

to make only completely manual edits (ie by selecting the [EDIT] button and typing changes into the editing window);

which is confirmed in the section "The Way Forward.." here. SirFozzie (talk) 09:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Kumioko

I also admit I am a bit involved and I have been a vocal critic of this case. I think this complaint is a waste of time. We are looking for reasons to ban Rich plain and simple. Lets look for reasons to keep him editing. The pedia has been punished enough with his banishment I for one am glad to see he is at least editing and didn't just give up on the communities bullshit and walk away completely. I think Fram is too involved and needs to step away, even if that means though enforcement on the part of Arbcom. I'm tired of Fram being the only one to be the tattle tale in these cases and bad judgement calls like submitting hundreds of WikiProject categories for speedy deletion. These things are happening frequently and its time someone told Fram to knock it off rather than encourage his destructive behavior. If Rich's editing is that much of a problem someone else can and will bring it up.Kumioko (talk) 11:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@CBM. First let me apologize upfront. This is not going to be very nice, but it needs to be said. Next I want to clarify something. These edits were to a rather obscure topic and there is absolutely no way that Fram just stumbled onto it. He would have had to follow Rich's edits in order to see this. Additionally, Rich was actively working on the list at the time of the complaint and said that on the talk page. When Fram brought up the errors in the article Rich quickly went and fixed them. So your absolutely right, this isn't a playground and as far as I know we are all adults so it is truly bizarre and unfortunate when members of our community stoop to the childish behavior of being a tattle tail. But that is precisely what is occurring here. To tell you the truth there is another annoying childhood social characteristic at play here too and you know what that is? Bullying! I realize that you and Fram have struggled with the notion that Rich's edits are wanted, but some of us believe they are and occassional errors aside the pedia is suffering at the loss. Tens of thousands of edits aren't being made every single month since this sanction was put in place. Not many, not hundreds, not even thousands, Tens of thousands! So for what amounts to less than a 1% error rate we sanctioned a highly skilled and productive editor and administrator to not use automation and stripped their admin rights. Its sad and it makes me shake my head. Rich has mostly followed that. He is not using AWB, he is not using twinkle, scripts or bots. He admitted to using Excel. So now, we are here because a user who is not allowed to use "automation" used excel to sort a table, then another user who is heavily involved ran and told on him to the Arbcom. Petty, really really petty. I also take exception to the argument that Fram is just trying to protect the pedia from damage. I do not assume to know what motives Fram has. But from my perspective damage to the pedia is not among them. Damage to the pedia was already done with this sanction. Far more than could ever be produced from Rich's use of Excel. The damage was done by you and Fram and Arbcom's knee jerk decision to sanction him. So that damage has already been done by you and Fram. Additional damage is done in your continued attacks on members of the community and the stalking of edits, bullying and tattling about petty issues that frankly do not mean anything to anyone...except the 2 of you. Now I haev been here for a long, long time, longer even than you CBM and I know from expereince and from the 400, 000+ edits I haev done that our community of Wikipedians has no problem whatsoever in complaining about problems. So if Rich's edits really were that much of a problem, why is it that you and Fram are always the ones who are there to complain? I am going to stop short of stating why I think this is however I find this activity and conduct both suspect and disappoining of 2 members of the community who are admins and who are supposed to be, trusted. I do not trust either of you (Just to clarify I am quite ok with knowing that neither of you trusts me either). Kumioko (talk) 15:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Leaky Cauldron. You are correct Fram is familiar with the case but so am I and so are several other members of the community. I can tell you though as I mentioned above that there are quite a few members of the community (a lot really) who do not really care about popularity. They have absolutely no problems telling when someone has, and excuse the metaphore, F'ed up. So to say that people aren't stepping up because they don't wish to seem unpopular isn't exactly true. Its more like most either don't agree with the sanctions in the first place or they don't find that this is a violation or worth the time. I also frankly think that Fram's actions need to be seriously reviewed by the Arbcom (possibly CBM's as well). Kumioko (talk) 15:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram, I'm not going to play the he said she said game with you. Yes there were errors, Rich fixed some and some he didn't. Many of the ones he didn't was because he was prevented from doing so because of this sanction or the long discussions which distracted much of his time. I also want to clarify that some of the "errors" you point to were not errors, they were a difference of opinion about how things should be and what constituted a minor edit. It could be argued (and it has been ad nauseum) that some are not needed. I think personally even minor edits incrementally improve the articles, you and CBM do not and will forcably argue, block and prevent any editors from doing these things that are against your personal beleifs regardless of how petty and stupid the argument is. Some have had merit, many did not. The bottom line is in this particular discussion though is that Excel is not automation. Excel is an application yes, but not automation. If Excel is included as automation then so is using the computer to access Wikipedia, so is using an internet browser to access Wikipedia, so is using the 4 tildes to sign his signature (better to make him type the whole thing out right, and then accuse him of errors because the UTC is wrong), or use the Wiki software to send him an Email and then go to arbcom and say he's using automation because that doesn't fall under the criteria of "Clicking the edit" link. This whole submission of Rich violation his automationo ban is absurd and should be treated as such! Kumioko (talk) 15:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@CBM, the diffs you gave do not show anything. They do not show Rich used automation. They show he made edits. More petty diffs to try and get him banned from the site. Kumioko (talk) 16:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein. A one year block is completely absurd! I am not an administrator but as a longterm editor I find your interest in blocking Rich for a year over this pettyness excessive. I highly recommend giving more time for comments or I will be forced to reopen a case appealing it wasting even more of everyones time. Kumioko (talk) 20:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram, your really a piece of work dude you know that. You have spent more time in arbitration discussions to burn other editors than some of the arbitrators have. I find it shocking that you have the gall to complain about Rich's problems when you create unreferenced biographical articles like this, this and others. You submit more than 300 WikiProject categories for deletion showing you don't understand the purpose of WikiProject categorization and then go on to create a discussion here to delete the majority of the A-Class quality assessments because they are empty. And that's only in the last week, and you have the gall to call Rich a bad editor because he made mistakes on his edits. Part of the reason Rich made some of those mistakes is because he did so many edits. If he did 20 edits no one would care, but because he and his bots did something like 4 million edits, some mistakes are going to occur. But instead you use the Arbcom to get editors you don't like banned by rummaging through their edits to find something that can be used against them and then say that you don't care what happens to them. You should have the admin tools taken away and you should get blocked for a month just for continuing to waste Arbcom's time. But instead they'll block Rich for a year or permanently and they'll give you a pat on the back and an attaboy and see you back here in a week. But I see through your petty shallow games. Eventually they'll catch on too. Also, you are not the only one that was fixing edits, I fixed plenty too. I have about 4 times the number of edits you do and I fixed mistakes from Rich and his bots too. But I never for a second thought he should be blocked from editing, stripped of his admin rights and banned from the pedia. I am so pissed and disgusted with this place, process and you that I don't even care if I get blocked for telling you what a piece of trash you are. Its editors like you that will destroy this project. Kumioko (talk) 00:09, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@ the Admins trying to justify a one year block. We are not a bunch of mindless Zombies and we can make the decision to block or not to block based on the merits of the case. We also have the ability to decide ow long that block should be if necessary at all. Not on trying to interpret a badly worded and badly decided Arbcom case. Its no secret I have thought the case was bad from the beginning and its no secret I have voiced my concerns with the Arbcom in general. But that doesn't matter here and I am not trying to retry this case. What I am trying to say is that determining the use of excel as automation is stupid and we should not treat it as such. If Arbcom wants to take action let them do it.

@Ken, I posted a request for additional comments in 2 places, the Village pump and AN because very few have this AE page on their watch list. Those that do, tend to lean towards the extreme end of the punishment spectrum. That was it and it was generically worded and I was prepared to accept whatever comments came out of that. So please do not imply that I was leaving messages all of the Wiki pleading for help because I was not doing that. Kumioko (talk) 13:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@The Hand that feeds. Rich made a bad edit, not a big deal. It happens here all the time. Rich fixed that edit when it was brought up, that happens here some of the time. Rich is now facing a one year block because he used excel to sort a table and some are trying to argue that using excel is automation; even under an Arbcom sanction, that is unprecedented and unhelpful. Some are trying to argue that Rich new better. Maybe he did and maybe he didn't but even some of the members of Arbcom had differing views of what constituted automation. As some have suggested we are not here to contradict Arbcom. That may also be true but its also not up to us to try and decipher a badly worded and vague sanction either. If they wrote a clearer sanction then we wouldn't even be able to argue the point. As it is, they wrote it in such a vague way that nearly anything could be argued as automation. This is unacceptable and we as editors have no obligation to act on gray areas that are open to interpretation. Kumioko (talk) 20:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I posted a request for additional comments to this discussion on AN and Village pump policy. Let's see if we can get more than 5 editors comments on this case. Most editors don't watch this page. Kumioko (talk) 00:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by CBM

This is not a playground; the term "tattle" is bizarre in this context. On Wikipedia, Rich Farmbrough is treated as an adult and has responsibility for his edits. If he is not willing to abide by the restrictions, he should explicitly state so, and voluntarily stop editing. I think it would be better for the project if he remains and follows his restrictions. This is not the only violation I have seen in the past two weeks. Fram is limiting the damage that can be done to the encyclopedia by raising violations while they can still be fixed easily, rather than waiting for more severe problems to occur that might be more disruptive and less simple to resolve. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@KillerChihuahua: I needed a small amount of time to gather the links here. The relevant facts seem to be that Rich Farmbrough has stated above

The data used was prepared off-line on a speadsheet, and cut and pasted into the article. Because I wanted the data sorted (though the table provides this functionality) and certain parts were not in the order I wanted I used the spreadsheet's sort function - which did not sort exactly as wanted.

while his arbitration case includes a remedy [10]

to avoid making automated edits to pages offline for the purpose of pasting them into a normal browser for posting;

Separately, the same motion has a remedy

to refrain from edits adjusting capitalisation of templates (where the current capitalisation is functional) or whitespace and similar as these can create the appearance of automation.

while Rich Farmbrough has recently made edits including [11] [12] [13] [14] which violate that arbitration remedy as well as his community editing restrictions. Rich Farmbrough has made at least 30 edits of this sort since the beginning of 2013.

I will have limited access to the internet beginning this afternoon, but I will make an effort to respond within 24 hours to any further questions posted by clerks.— Carl (CBM · talk) 16:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: FWIW I think one year is excessive. The last block was two weeks so one month woulld be a more reasonable progression in my opinion. Rich Farmbrough can in principle appeal the remedies again in six months, so a block longer than that would be less useful. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:09, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Leaky caldron

Not for the first time, Fram's motives are being called into question. He is familiar with the (many) background cases, knowledgeable in the technicalities of the possible infraction and willing to bring matters to attention when others might not wish to appear unpopular. Fram's motives are not subject to Arbcom enforcement - let's leave the personality out of it. Leaky Caldron 13:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Orlady

Although his edits to List of Other Backward Classes appear to violate the letter of Rich Farmbrough's restriction, I don't see them as violating the intent of that restriction because they were focused on a single article page, rather than the automated edits to many pages that I understand to have been the focus of the Arbcom case. Furthermore, I am grateful that Rich Farmbrough has taken up the editing of this particular list-article. This list is inherently problematic, as it relates to the very touchy subject of caste in India. The list was severely incomplete before he started editing it. Also, due to a combination of India's multiple languages, transliteration quirks, and definitional questions, there apparently can be complex issues in determining whether a wikilinks to an article about a specific group actually points to the right group. I opened an AfD in which I proposed that the article (which at the time was far more deficient) be userfied until various deficiencies had been addressed. The community in its infinite wisdom decided to keep that page in article space based on a promise of fixing the issues, but shortly after that, the creator of the page got topic-restricted from the topic of Indian caste, so it wasn't obvious that the fixes were going to happen. Rich Farmbrough's edits have resulted in an enormous improvement to the page; if there are errors in his work due to the way he used automated tools, I have confidence that he will endeavor to correct those errors. If there is still concern about the current condition of that page, I suggest that he be allowed to move it to user space and work on it there (including automated editing) until all glitches have been cleared up. (And when he's done, there are similar needs regarding List of Scheduled Castes that he might be able to address in a similar fashion.) Accordingly, I suggest that this particular "violation" should be ignored/excused. --Orlady (talk) 17:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: In view of the fact that these edits are helping to resolve a problem, not create one, a block is not helpful, and a one-year block is seriously excessive. --Orlady (talk) 21:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Nick-D

Given that ArbCom has voted to implement very explicit 'bright line'-type restrictions here, Fram has demonstrated what appears to be a breach of the restriction against automation and Rich has admitted violating the restriction on offline editing (despite a previous sanction), Sandstein's analysis and proposed action looks (somewhat regretfully) appropriate to me, especially as Rich has been pushing against his restrictions for the last few months so he's obviously (or at least should be) well aware of their content and how they work in practice and I don't think that this breach should be considered accidental. Nick-D (talk) 01:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by RolandR

I have no involvement in this matter, have never come across this before, and am ignorant of the background. Irrespective of that, I am simply astonished by the suggestion that using Excel offline is equivalent to automation. You might just as well argue that use of a spell-checker is forbidden, since that automatically replaces text and the editor will not have entered everything manually. RolandR (talk) 02:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arthur Rubin

I do have previous involvement with Rich, in that he appeared to have had damgaed some templates I was trying to clarify. However, I think Sandstein may be misinterpreting ArbComm, and I think one year is excessive. If, hypothetically, a clearer, if more restrictive, sanction on Rich could be crafted, that, together with a one month block, would be reasonable. If not, probably a two to three month block. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Irate comment by Wnt

You are saying that Rich Framborough is required "to make only completely manual edits (ie by selecting the [EDIT] button and typing changes into the editing window);" Does that mean that if he wants to add the URL for a reference, he has to type it in by hand? To quote text, he has to retype it? No. I would agree with RolandR, Arthur Rubin, etc. that this is absurd. I say opening an edit window and pressing control-V is a "completely manual edit" - that is, provided he is allowed to use a computer to make it! I've never run a bot, but I've used Excel to make edits in the past (just about any table for example) - and I never thought about reading the bot policy before doing so. Wnt (talk) 04:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by calm and composed Beyond My Ken

I believe several of the commenters above -- most probably attracted here by Kumioko's advertising this action in several forums in order to assist Rich Farmbrough -- have missed the point. If Rich had not been sanctioned in the manner indicated by ArbCom, the alternative would have been a full site ban. In that respect, ArbCom was remarkably lenient, in allowing him to continue to edit the site in exactly the way that hundred of editors -- such as myself -- do, by typing their edits into the edit box by hand. (The suggestion that the ArbCom sanction prohibited him from cutting-and-pasting a URL is ridiculous, a classic example of reductio ad absurdum, but not relevant in the real world.) That despite this extraordinary leniency, Rich has edited in a manner that is plainly a violation of those restrictions is a very strong indication that he is incapable of doing so. Rich is not unintelligent, so it can't be that he didn't understand the plain language of the sanction, it must be, instead, that he is incapable of controlling himself.

Given that clear and obvious meaning of the sanction, and given the admitted breaking of it by Rich, the admins here at AE really have no choice but to impose the block that ArbCom called for. If Rich believes this is unfair, or inappropriately imposed, he can file for an amendment with the Committee, although he would do so at some risk, because it is likely, in my opinion, that the committee would void the current sanction, and impose the full site-ban that they held off imposing at the time of the original case, since Rich has amply demonstrated that he is incapable of following the instructions of the committee. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Colonel Warden: The opinions of other editors about the edit involved are irrelevant. The only criteria which is pertinent to this situation is the sanction imposed by ArbCom. If you have a diff which shows that ArbCom was OK with an automated edit by Rich as long as it was "positive" or "beneficial" or "approved by other editors" you should cite it -- but you cannot, because no such loophole exists. The sanction imposed was clear and absolute -- no non-manual edits. Given that, your comment below is completely irrelevant to this discussion, especially considering that the entire point of having an Arbitration Committee is to be the the last resort and final determiner. You (and others above) appear to want to re-litigate the case and second-guess ArbCom's decision. That's not what AE is for. If you want a re-consideration, file for an Amendment, although it is likely you'll be turned down. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Colonel Warden

The edit which is complained of here was well-advertised in advance on the article's talk page by this post on 15 Dec 2012. The method of working was indicated by reference to "1200 rows". The article was, at that time at AFD where this activity was approvingly reported by another editor who is familiar with the chore of working upon this topic: "It looks like Rich Farmbrough is trying to do this either off-wiki or at least not in mainspace. Way to go...". The AFD was closed by an administrator as "KEEP with a promise of FIXING the issues noted". As the list was then a short stub, it seems reasonable to suppose that significant expansion was what was promised. The original author of the list was forbidden to work upon the topic area and so the involved editors seem to have left it to Rich to labour away. After a month's work, the additional material which had been prepared offsite was then added to the article in the edit in question. The size of this material (350K) was such that copy typing by hand would have been absurdly inefficient and likely to introduce significant error due to typing mistakes. Cut/paste is clearly the only sensible way of doing this.

The edit which introduced this material was again well-advertised upon the article's talk page and described as a "First cut" and so, by implication, inviting review. The edit was soon reviewed by another editor and they praised it about 5 hours later: "Glad to see this progress. The list is comprehensive and thoroughly sourced. Thanks for all your work, Rich Farmbrough!". This then seems to have been delivering upon the promise.

The work done in this case seems to have been significant and the way in which it was done was commendably open and supported by consensus. If an involved editor did not care for the large addition then it would have been easy to revert because its nature was clear and well explained. If, by contrast, the material had been added as a myriad small edits then it would have been more difficult to understand and manage this major addition.

To block Rich for this action would be perverse - overzealous enforcement which we might liken to Javert, as one topical example. A better remedy would be to give Rich some means of formally registering his plans to make such a bold edit somewhere so that technical objections can be raised beforehand, rather than afterwards.Warden (talk) 09:46, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: The issue here is to understand what has happened and to decide what reaction, if any, is appropriate. The edit which has been made seems to be a done deal. Blocks are supposed to be preventative rather than punishment. What is now to be prevented? My proposition is that Rich record his plans in some formal manner so that objections can be raised before significant effort is invested rather than afterwards. Warden (talk) 10:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by LindsayH

I was aware of the restrictions on Rich Farmbrough, and of the antagonism between him and certain other editors; i have no desire to comment on that, nor on anything except to express astonishment, as some other Comment-makers have, at the implication that using a programme off-line to mould an edit could be called automation. I have used OpenOffice to search for and replace multiple errors in some articles; does that mean i ought to have got permission to use a bot? I think that someone might be leaning over backwards to find Rich out of compliance with his restrictions. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 10:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Andy Mabbett

The ridiculousness of this proposal and its tissue-thin justification beggars belief. Try to imagine how it would be reported to outsiders. Close with no sanction, ASAP. Also, what LindsayH said. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by EdChem

Then-Arbitrator Elen of the Roads commented at the AfD shortly after the comment indicating Rich F's intentions and was advised of the 1200 rows. Though it's not definitive proof, certainly nothing in her comments suggests she saw any potential violation of ArbCom sanctions as being proposed.
I find Sandstein's analysis deeply troubling, for the following reason: An issue that came up last year was ArbCom potentially substituting their own views for the discretion provided to administrators at AE. As I recall, one new arbitrator was elected partly to help bring greater appreciation of the views of AE admins on their discretion to ArbCom. Yet, Sandstein's analysis argues that AE admins have no discretion in this case. He argues that the enforcement provision ("may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year") means that a two week block must be followed by a block over a month in length, and in this case by a one year block . Yet, nothing in this provision mandates that a second block must be anything other than "increased". Sandstein's argument rests on the ArbCom statement that "If Rich Farmbrough breaches the automation prohibition again, notwithstanding the standard enforcement provisions, he will likely be site-banned indefinitely with at least twelve months elapsing from the date of the site-ban before he may request the Committee reconsider." However, this statement describes what ArbCom would likely do, it certainly does not mandate that AE admins lack discretion to use their good judgment and must jump from two weeks to a year for block length. I voted in the election in favour of AE admins discretion being respected (within reason), but if Sandstein's analysis is followed then I would argue that AE admins have failed to exercise discretion or judgment and ArbCom should step in because the AE page has failed to act appropriately.
These comments are made in the context of recognising that the idea that using Excel is prohibited automation is ridiculous. I recognise SirFozzie has quoted the "typing" restriction but the literal interpretation of that is that including a cut-and-paste URL for a reference, or a word processed spell check, or a direct quote from a source, are all prohibited. I contend that sensible judgment requires interpretation of the restriction reasonably rather than literally because the reasonable (and arguably literal) interpretation of automation does not cover the introduction of a single large table to a single page. The way in which the edit was made, with approval for improvement at AfD and with notification at the talk page, to me provided ample opportunity for objections to be raised and also showed a collegial and collaborative approach by Rich F.
As an entirely uninvolved editor, I conclude that a block would be punitive and a year-long block would be over-reaction on a grand scale. AE consensus is supposed to be formed amongst uninvolved editors, not just admins, and it is clear to me that consensus for sanctions is lacking at this time.

EdChem (talk) 12:46, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from NE Ent

The decision was absurd -- a review of noticeboard discussion shows the arbitrators themselves did not agree on what it meant after it passed, with one stating that use of spell check would be a violation! Nonetheless as Sandstein & the lethal small dog have pointed out, it's not AE's job to address that. RF has over at least the past two years [15] demonstrated a chronic cluelessness about the collaborative nature of Wikipedia with repeated pushing the envelope edits. Therefore a sanction is appropriate. Please do note, however, that AE does have leeway here -- the motion cleary says he will likely be site-banned... (emphasis mine). "Likely" is a fine weasel word which allows this board leeway to act with compassion and optimism that a lesser sanction could work. Do the two month block and let's all hope for a brighter future. NE Ent 15:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved BorisG

Since the disruption caused by this edit was minimal, admins should use their discretion, common sense and WP:IAR, and close without any sanction. If they can't agree on this simple thing then ask ArbCom to clarify. - BorisG (talk) 15:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved HandThatFeeds

As a point of order: per Fram's analysis and Rich's response, it is clear that this was not simply an "edit offline, copy & paste." Rather, Excel's sorting function was used to re-organize said data before pasting it into WP.
The problem being that Rich did not examine the sort to make sure it worked properly. Rich's use of automation without bothering to check his work is exactly what brought about the ArbCom result in the first place.
Regardless of the fact that this was a "minor" automation, it does display that Rich still refuses to A) avoid any automation of his edits and B) has not learned he must double-check the results of said automation before applying it to the Wikipedia article. That is exactly what the previous ArbCom restriction was put in place to stop. It obviously has not. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Rich Farmbrough

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

Waiting to hear Rich's response regarding the question of the repeated "Andhra Pradesh " entries. Also note to Leaky Caldron: Please read the big pink box at the top, and you will find that motives are indeed subject to AE: vexatious requests can be sanctioned, even on a first offense. I am not stating that this is the case in this instance; merely correcting your misunderstanding about whether motives are subject to AE. Killer Chihuahua 13:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rich Farmbrough writes about the edit at issue that "the data used was prepared off-line on a speadsheet, and cut and pasted into the article." The Arbitration Committee's restriction concerning his editing, as modified by the motion of 6 June 2012, provides that "Rich Farmbrough is directed ... to make only completely manual edits (ie by selecting the [EDIT] button and typing changes into the editing window)". It is therefore established that Rich Farmbrough has violated the restriction at issue.
This requires us to consider what sanction is appropriate. The enforcement provision directs that he "may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year". The initial block of (up to) one month was already made by the Committee pursuant to the abovementioned motion of 6 June 2012. Consequently, we must now consider a block ranging between one month and one year in duration. In determining the appropriate block duration, we must consider that clause C(iv) of the motion of 6 June 2012 provides that "If Rich Farmbrough breaches the automation prohibition again, notwithstanding the standard enforcement provisions, he will likely be site-banned indefinitely with at least twelve months elapsing from the date of the site-ban before he may request the Committee reconsider." This indicates that the Committee was of the opinion that the appropriate sanction for any subsequent violation of the sanction at issue is at least one year of no editing. It follows that the appropriate duration of the enforcement block we must now make is the maximum permitted, i.e., one year. This is of course without prejudice to any site ban, as discussed in the same clause of the abovementioned motion, that the Committee may also decide to impose. But the wording of that clause does not delegate the authority to impose such a site ban to administrators.
For these reasons, if there are no objections by other administrators, I intend to close this enforcement request with a one-year block.
The various comments arguing that the decision that is to be enforced is wrong are beside the point: This is not the place to discuss the merits of arbitral decisions. The place to do so would be an amendment request, or the Committee's talk page. Sandstein 20:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Several people argue that the sanction should not be enforced, or at any rate not with a lengthy block, because the edit was harmless or beneficial. That may well be so. However, in the context of enforcement, all that matters is that edits of this specific type by this specific editor have been determined by the body with the authority to do so – the Arbitration Committee – to be detrimental. That's the point of any ban on Wikipedia: it forbids all edits (or all of a certain type), no matter what the merits of any individual edit are – see WP:BAN. And I trust the collective judgment of the Arbitration Committee in determining the scope of bans like this... well, certainly not blindly, but much more than that of any individual editor who shows up here. So, please address any objections against the scope of the ban, or against the length of the sanctions contemplated, to the Committee members who wrote that ban. Sandstein 23:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To those commenting on the fairness (or lack thereof) of any sanctions imposed: That's not up to us here. AE determines if ArbCom sanctions have or have not been breached, and if they have, what remedies to apply. That's it. ArbCom has the benefit of evidence from any user who wants to submit it and weeks worth of deliberation to craft appropriate remedies, and we're not going to unilaterally overturn them on the basis of a shouting match on this thread. If you think they did their job poorly, go take it up with them, as they're the only ones who can reverse or amend it (aside, nominally, from Jimbo or the WMF, but that's happened rarely in the case of Jimbo and to my knowledge never in the case of WMF).
That being said: Today, the sanction is in place. It is quite clear: "To avoid future breaches of whatever nature, Rich Farmbrough is directed:...to avoid making automated edits to pages offline for the purpose of pasting them into a normal browser for posting; to make only completely manual edits (ie by selecting the [EDIT] button and typing changes into the editing window)....If Rich Farmbrough breaches the automation prohibition again, notwithstanding the standard enforcement provisions, he will likely be site-banned indefinitely with at least twelve months elapsing from the date of the site-ban before he may request the Committee reconsider....By adopting this motion, the Committee is extending considerable good faith to Rich Farmbrough, despite the aggravating factors, and notes he has unconditionally accepted provisions to this effect." Rich has clearly stated that in this case his edit was not manual, and was instead prepared offline with the use of automated spreadsheet functions for the purpose of pasting in. This is a clear violation of very unequivocal restrictions after being offered an absolute last chance. Further, Rich did not have to use a spreadsheet here, even if the edit was complex, as there was no restriction placed on the use of a userspace sandbox to prepare a complex edit. I therefore have to concur with Sandstein's analysis. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems we have reasonable disagreement here as to whether the edits in question violated the restriction. As such, I would suggest that we request clarification from ArbCom as to whether these edits violate the ban. Unless there's well-founded objection or someone else does it first, I'll file the request tomorrow. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:09, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is the definition of automation as provided in the arbcom decision:

An automation tool is a technology designed to facilitate making multiple similar edits that would be unduly time-consuming or tedious for a human editor to perform manually. Common automation tools include bots (independently running processes that modify Wikipedia content in a fully or partially automated fashion), scripts (software components utilized to automate or semi-automate certain types of editing), and various other technologies.

The phrase key, which is the essence of the word "automation", is "to facilitate making multiple similar edits". It is also clear from that case that abuse of bots and similar tools is what Rich was sanctioned for. It is very surprising to see once-off use of Excel to make a single table being judged to be a similar violation. Of course Excel could be used to automate a process of making multiple similar edits but has he not been accused of doing that. I conclude that he did not violate his ban on using automation tools. So it comes down to the clause "to make only completely manual edits (ie by selecting the [EDIT] button and typing changes into the editing window)". When I click EDIT and then copy-paste a few sentences from an article I have open in another window, say to add a quotation, is that not a "completely manual" edit? Maybe, maybe not; surely a reasonable person could understand it either way. Why is the paste key less manual than the shift key? At the very least, we should consider that maybe Rich made a good-faith reasonable interpretation of his sanction even if we think his interpretation was wrong. I am in favor of closing this with a clear statement as to whether what he did is a violation or not. Zero^talk 03:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinarily I would agree that copy-pasting text into the edit window could be interpreted to constitute manual (as opposed to automated) editing. But in this case the decision expressly allows only "typing changes into the editing window". "Typing" means entering characters one by one on the keyboard; an interpretation confirmed by the clause's description of such edits having to be "completely" manual. This particular restriction may initially appear arbitrary or meaningless, but in the context of the case it appears to be meant to prevent Rich Farmbrough from preparing automated edits outside of Wikipedia and then copy-pasting them into Wikipedia. It is therefore not so meaningless or nonsensical as to be unenforceable. Also considering that the sanction was imposed only in lieu of a full site ban, I don't think that the Committee meant to make allowances for "good-faith interpretations" of the sanction, particularly not in cases (such as this one) where such interpretations conflict with the clear wording of the sanction. I would therefore maintain what I said above that Rich Farmbrough has violated the sanction and should be blocked. Sandstein 08:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is nice to have help on this case, unlike the last one. My views: Excel falls under the "other technologies" listed. However, cut-and-paste within the edit window, to order words or sentences; or copy-paste of strings difficult to type accurately, for urls for references, is often considered part of "typing" just like the back-space key is - and it is not the same as writing something offline for loading to Wikipedia via a copy-paste into the edit window. This may at some point need clarification from ArbCom, but RF has transgressed with the use of the Excel spreadsheet for sorting, then copy-pasting into a Wikipedia edit window, which to me counts as writing something offline for copying into Wikipedia, so I don't see a need to bother ArbCom at this time. It violates that restriction as would Textpad or Notepad or any other offline editor. I'm concerned that RF was given an apparent green light as in the evidence presented by Col. Warden; however, one could argue that it is up to RF to remember what his sanctions are and abide by them. I think there has been an error made here, but disagree it rises to the level of needing a one year block. If I'm wrong, and there are further violations, we can always re-block again and for longer. But from one month to one year is a very harsh escalation, not warranted by what appears to be confusion (well documented in the arguments above) about what the ban entails. If there is a next time, then we can point to this case and say, It was made clear. I suggest a block of two months. KillerChihuahua 12:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- - There is no ban on "writing something offline for copying into Wikipedia". Sorry, it just doesn't say that. Zero^talk 14:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And a note to those arguing that RF is an asset, and the level of error was too small to justify sanctions, etc: This is not Arbitration Appeal. This is Arbitration Enforcement. Please don't try to re-argue the case here; it just takes up screenspace and makes the admins here cranky. The only valid argument against sanctions here is "s/he didn't violate the terms set by Arbcom." Puppy has spoken. KillerChihuahua 13:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm OK with a two-month block too, on the basis that this doesn't prevent the Committee from imposing the one-year ban they contemplated in the sanction. As a general recommendation to the Committee, based on the non-admin discussion above, it seems that it might have been better to completely ban Rich Farmbrough to begin with (if indeed his conduct at the time was demed that problematic), rather than crafting (perhaps necessarily) complicated restrictions that provide ample opportunity for wiki-lawyering and re-arguing the case every time they are to be enforced. Sandstein 14:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I still disagree. Excel does not fit the definition of an automation tool unless it is configured "to facilitate making multiple similar edits", which it wasn't. I don't agree that the restriction on off-line automation would be meaningless if it doesn't apply here. I think it makes perfect sense. Rich got into trouble for abuse of bots and the like. The plain meaning is that he must not circumvent the ban by copying a page to another place, applying his bots to them, and copying the result back. That's why it says "automated edits to pages offline" and it doesn't say anything about preparing new material offline. I still think a reasonable person could consider what Rich did to be within the terms of the sanctions. Zero^talk 14:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Zero, I think its pretty clear from SirFozzie's comment linking to the agreement with Rich (ie how he avoided being site-banned), as well as Rich's own acceptance that Excell is a technical breach of the ruling that Rich's actions were not permissible under the terms of the RFAR ruling (the edits didn't conform to "the way forward"). I'd be on board with the 2 month block, per Sandstein above, on the basis that the ArbCom can level a harsher sanction if they see fit--Cailil ^talk 15:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, we've now had time to consider this. Four administrators are of the opinion that this is an enforceable violation of the Committee's sanction, and one is of the opposite opinion. I don't think that waiting for the result of a clarification request is necessary, as it appears unlikely that a majority of the Committee would come to a substantially different result than the substantial majority of uninvolved administrators here, and at any rate the Committee will have the opportunity to review the matter if it is seized with an appeal. Taking that into consideration – I'm not assessing consensus, because AE actions are unilateral – I'm blocking Rich Farmbrough for the duration of two months, as suggested by KillerChihuahua. Sandstein 21:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[a]

[b]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards