Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment: Difference between revisions
Roger Davies (talk | contribs) →Arbitrator views and discussion: comment, leaning towards decline |
→Arbitrator views and discussion: I'd decline |
||
| Line 71: | Line 71: | ||
=== Arbitrator views and discussion === |
=== Arbitrator views and discussion === |
||
* '''Comment''': The FOF reflects those incidences were 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. [[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|''talk'']]</sup> 10:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC) |
* '''Comment''': The FOF reflects those incidences were 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. [[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|''talk'']]</sup> 10:17, 1 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, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ucucha&oldid=381685621#Cosmetic_only_changes 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. [[User:Worm That Turned|<span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>'''''Worm'''''</span>]]<sup>TT</sup>([[User Talk:Worm That Turned|<font color='#060'>talk</font>]]) 14:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC) |
|||
---- |
---- |
||
Revision as of 14:30, 1 January 2013
- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
| Request name | Motions | Initiated | Votes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Persistent WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior in WP:NCROY discussions | 10 May 2024 | 0/4/0 |
| Case name | Closed |
|---|---|
| Conflict of interest management | 13 Apr 2024 |
| Mzajac | 7 May 2024 |
| Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amendment request: Rich Farmbrough | none | (orig. case) | 1 January 2013 |
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!)
- 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).
- Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
- 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. - Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.
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:
Amendment request: Rich Farmbrough
Initiated by Rich Farmbrough, 05:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC).
- Clauses to which an amendment is requested
- 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 your 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
- 22:20, 30 April 2012
- Procedural unblock
- 00:29, 2 April 2012
- Procedural unblock
- 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."
- 23:39, 17 October 2011
- Unblock of temporary self block
- 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)
- 09:14, 3 February 2011 and
- 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"
- 13:16, 29 August 2010
- Ucucha says "Feel free to unblock when you've fixed the problem"
- 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.
- 10:33, 28 December 2009
- Arthur Rubin said "Sorry. Feel free to unblock"
- 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"
- 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).
Statement by {other user}
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}
Statement by {yet another user}
Clerk notes
- This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Arbitrator views and discussion
- Comment: The FOF reflects those incidences were 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)
- I'm inclined to decline this request. Looking through the events leading up to this finding, I believe that it is an accurate summary of the history. For example, in one discussion, Ucucha suggests Rich may unblock SmackBot when it is fixed. I cannot see that fixing it "as far as possible" (per block log) in 13 minutes would be fixing the matter to the blocking admin's satisfaction. The unblocks which Rich describes as "procedural unblocks", including unblocking a bot when his primary account was unblocked specifically to participate in arbitration, also fit under the finding of fact. WormTT(talk) 14:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)