Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Persistent WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior in WP:NCROY discussions		10 May 2024	0/4/0

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Apr 2024	04 May 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024
Mzajac	7 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Rich Farmbrough	none	(orig. case)	1 January 2013

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification and amendment

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

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

To file a clarification or amendment request: (you must use this format!)

1. Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
   • Click here to file a request for clarification of an arbitration decision or procedure.
   • Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement action issued by an administrator, such as a contentious topics restriction).
2. Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
3. If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
4. Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.

Clarification and Amendment archives
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

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

Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.

Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.

Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups. There must be no threaded discussion, so please comment only in your own section. Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:

Clarification and Amendment 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

Amendment request: Rich Farmbrough

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

Case affected

Rich Farmbrough arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Finding 8

Strike this finding completely.

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

Information about amendment request

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

The finding reads:

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

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

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

1. 22:20, 30 April 2012

   Procedural unblock

2. 00:29, 2 April 2012

   Procedural unblock

3. 19:03, 14 March 2012

   Summary makes it clear that the problem is fixed and User:NuclearWarfare had said "Feel free to unblock without asking me whenever you get that bug fixed."

4. 23:39, 17 October 2011

   Unblock of temporary self block

5. 15:26, 16 September 2011

   Procedural unblock

Hence none of these fit the criteria

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

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

1. 09:14, 3 February 2011 and
2. 15:56, 2 February 2011

   Fram was completely clear in this comment "I have no objection to you unblocking the bot solely to continue with the "build p605" edits"

3. 13:16, 29 August 2010

   Ucucha says "Feel free to unblock when you've fixed the problem"

4. 08:52, 4 May 2010

   CBM says "Unblocking your own bot in order to avoid fixing [it] would be an abuse of your administrator abilities. However, I assume that in this case you have fixed the problem before unblocking the bot." And indeed I had.

5. 10:33, 28 December 2009

   Arthur Rubin said "Sorry. Feel free to unblock"

6. 18:39, 9 December 2007

   Ryan Postlethwaite said "Feel free to unblock when it's corrected." and later said "sorry for making the block. Feel free to unblock when you're ready"

7. 13:17, 24 December 2006

   It is clearly stated in the unblock summary that the contentious task has been stopped.

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

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

Response to discussions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you can propose a way forward that does not leave me a leper in the community, tarred with the ArbCom brush, and feathered with editing restrictions, stripped of not only the rights to help the project in ways that it desperately needs, but of the rights a random new editor would enjoy then I am all ears.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@NewYorkBrad:

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

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

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

Incidentally "most" of your other colleagues have not said decline. Rich Farmbrough, 11:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC).

There are currently two decline votes, including yours.

I can see no argument that the finding is correct.

The way it moves us forward is to remove a finding that is false from the record. It also corrects the procedural errors of the previous amendment and of leaving the original finding in, which we knew from the case workshop was not supposed to be pejorative, but would appear that way to any casual reader.

Rich Farmbrough, 18:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC).

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

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

Statement by Rschen7754

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

Statement by Fut.Perf.

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

Statement by Mackensen

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

Statement by ErikHaugen

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

Statement by BorisG

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

Clerk notes

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

• @Rich I decline your request to remove Rschen7754's statement. --Guerillero | My Talk 08:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Comment: The FOF reflects those incidences where you either (i) unblocked your own accounts without consensus for the unblock or (ii) continued operating a bot after unblocking without entirely fixing the underlying problem which led to its blocking. You have not addressed either of these issues above. For example, it is poor practice - per WP:INVOLVED - for admins to unblock their own accounts because block durations have expired, yet you have done this. For these reasons, I am leaning towards declining this request.  Roger Davies ^talk 10:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
  • @ Rich: this is confirming the note I've just left for you, suggesting that if you have any other issues you'd like the committee look at now might be a good time. It can all be dealt with either as an omnibus motion or as a series of motions now.  Roger Davies ^talk 18:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• I'm inclined to decline this request. Looking through the events leading up to this finding, I believe that it is an accurate summary of the history. For example, in one discussion, Ucucha suggests Rich may unblock SmackBot when it is fixed. I cannot see that fixing it "as far as possible" (per block log) in 13 minutes would be fixing the matter to the blocking admin's satisfaction. The unblocks which Rich describes as "procedural unblocks", including unblocking a bot when his primary account was unblocked specifically to participate in arbitration, also fit under the finding of fact. Worm^TT(talk) 14:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

  @ErikHaugen, I've been watching things develop with interest, trying to decide exactly where I sit. I don't see anything particularly against policy with any of the unblocks Rich made, but the finding of fact still appears to be mostly correct to me. With respect to the Ucucha, Rich unblocked within 13 minutes of the block. In that time he discovered (or was informed) that the bot was blocked, analysed the problem, attempted a fix related to the problem and tested it. As a software developer, I cannot believe those steps were carried out thoroughly, especially given Rich's apparent uncertainty that it was definitely fixed. He did not discuss the matter with Ucucha prior to unblocking, who's response after the unblock was tentative at best. I do however see your point regarding the procedural unblocks and will take that into consideration. Worm^TT(talk) 09:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• Rich, I just don't see you addressing the actual substance of the finding above. You have unblocked your bot without having reached consensus or fixed the underlying issue (as clear by further blocks over the same issue shortly thereafter). What you're saying above is that you feel those unblocks were justified, not that they didn't happen? — Coren ^(talk) 14:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I did appraise the previous case (I would not have opined on this amendment request unless I had), and I see nothing amiss that isn't the usual result of prose written by committee: some of the wording is adequate rather than perfect but all of it is workable.

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

• I commented during a previous request on this issue - Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich_Farmbrough#Amendment_request:_Rich_Farmbrough - that I was disappointed that Rich Farmbrough was not seeing the reason why people were concerned with his conduct. It is particularly worrying that he is still looking at those incidents with a different perspective to the community and the Committee. Decline. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• Decline, broadly per my colleagues. T. Canens (talk) 15:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I looked into this a bit deeper, and it appears that the finding was amended without a formal motion being voted on and passed. While Rich did comment at the proposed amendment (and opposed it), this departure from what I understand to be standard practice does deprive him of notice that the amendment is imminent. I don't like passing amendments to old findings that have little substantive effect (hence my original decline), but in this case the process used to amend the first finding is questionable, and the amended finding is not particularly accurate. I'll be willing to support a change along the lines proposed by Salvio. T. Canens (talk) 08:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
    • After thinking about this some more, I'm not sure making that particular change is the best approach. Still thinking. T. Canens (talk) 11:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
• I don't particularly like the "on many occasions", which I'd personally be open to changing to "on occasion/occasionally"; but that's as far as I'd go. That said, I'm not particularly fussed about it; so I'll just go with the emerging consensus. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC) I am reconsidering. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
• Recused as a party to the case. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - I've read the requests for amendments and clarifications archived at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough and the amount of effort expended on this case since the close of the case is more than is reasonable. It would be better to either address all the remaining issues in one go (not as a series of separate amendments and clarifications), or summarily deny any further actions and draw a line under this and move on. Rich, are you willing to move on, and if not, what is needed before that point is reached? I'm asking because this edit back on 6 November 2012 where you say: "I had forgotten just how laughably appalling the conduct of the case was. Really time to start to unwind some of it I think." clearly shows that you intend to pick away at the case instead of accepting what was decided (even if parts were wrong) and moving on. Even making that edit offhand on the talk page of a closed case shows the wrong mindset. Carcharoth (talk) 18:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• The amendment request pretty clearly indicates that Rich has not taken on board the issues that brought him to arbitration in the first place. I do not think that any action is required, or even appropriate, under these circumstances. Risker (talk) 18:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comments/questions for Rich Farmbrough: (1) Could you please briefly explain what you mean by "procedural unblock." (2) Could you please advise whether your posted your above rebuttal to this finding while the case was pending; if so, please provide a link to that rebuttal and any ensuing discussion; if not, please explain why not. (3) I believe (hope) you meant to use a different word above than "prevaricating." Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• I see no "miscarriage of justice" that was committed by us in the earlier arbitration case, and I disagree that amending the decision would be appropriate. Decline, per Risker in particular and most of my other colleagues. AGK [•] 01:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Rich, an incorrect finding would be a miscarriage of justice, and anyway I think it's quite clear what I meant. Clearly, most of my colleagues have voted to "decline" here, and I don't know why you suggest they haven't. I don't see how this amendment helps us move on to more productive things; my vote stands, though if one of my colleagues wants to propose a sensible amendment to the finding in question they would probably enjoy my support. AGK [•] 13:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Six of us have declined. AGK [•] 13:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

---