Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Review closed

Original announcement

So arbcom passed a remedy admonishing Mathsci for battlefield conduct without actually passing a finding of fact saying that he engaged in battlefield conduct. Heh. T. Canens (talk) 03:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Shit. Mea culpa, I thought I had voted on all the Mathsci findings of facts, but I seemingly missed the crucial one. I'm actually stumped at what the pricedural process is now... Courcelles 05:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Probably to vote on the FoF on the PD page now as the correction of a "slip". Then the FoF can be enacted and the Final Decision updated. I think that's the least bureaucratic route,  Roger Davies ^talk 05:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I am relieved that Roger Davies and other arbitrators have addressed and will further address the problem of proxy-editing. Mathsci (talk) 07:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC) duplicated and unnecessary comments refactored from here - apologies to Roger Davies and other arbitrators

Duplicatory. Please keep discussion centralised here.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I have replied there. Mathsci (talk) 09:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Policy on voting

How far back can arbiters change their vote? Do they need approval from the committee to make such a change? Where in the rules is the right to change ones vote after the close ensconced? Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 10:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

If you're referring to the above incident, there was no change of vote. Courcelles voted on the remedy along with a comment which showed his intent, and his understanding of the issue, but had forgotten to sign off the finding. The guideline for the Clerks is "If there are any ambiguities concerning which proposals have been adopted, the Clerk should identify them so the Arbitrators have an opportunity to clarify them before the decision is finalized and announced". Slips happen, and now that the matter has been identified appropriate action has been taken. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Right, so how far back can arbiters go back and realize they voted wrongly? I have a very specific vote in mind where an arbiter very specifically complained about how they would have voted differently in a circumstance, so I want to know if that complaint was before or after the deadline. Hipocrite (talk) 12:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know which case you have in mind but there's a very big difference between changing your mind and promptly correcting an error or omission. There isn't arbitration-specific policy on this but the ""Not" policy says "A procedural error made in a proposal or request is not grounds for rejecting that proposal or request".  Roger Davies ^talk 12:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

How does the committee determine that something is "changing your mind and promptly correcting an error or omission," vs "changing your vote?" What is there to protect users from someone going back 3 years to change their vote on something? Can ex-arbs change their votes in closed cases? How about disgraced ex-arbs? Hipocrite (talk) 17:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

It's OK to change one's mind about something - indeed, it can be a sign of reflection. I am quite comfortable with the notion that an arbiter makes a vote for an action and then changes it during a case. Indeed, I did it myself in the just closed Race & Intelligence case when more information was presented. When the case is closed then a vote itself cannot be changed, but the arbiter may later change their mind about making the vote, and is entitled to say so. For reasons of stability of the project, Committee decisions are binding, but that does not mean they are always right, nor that everyone in the Committee agrees with them, nor that a Committee member will not have regrets about voting for a particular remedy. A request for amendment can be made if a remedy appears to be inappropriate, though there is an expectation that - depending on the amendment request - a reasonable time is given to allow the effects of the remedy to be felt. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

It appears to me that one can change their mind on something right up until the point a decision is made, and then you can't. Perhaps you disagree - as in this case, where you obviously disagree, in that you believe someone can change their vote after a decision was made, undoing the decision and reforming it in a different way. How long before a decision requires a "request for amendment," as opposed to just canvassing arbs that you think might change their vote after decision are made? Hipocrite (talk) 17:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an arb, but I would compare this to the practice of judges correcting an opinion after issuing it but prior to publication with issuing an order amending the prior opinion. Either way works, but the correcting prior to publication works only so long as it hasn't been published. Translating that to the wiki-world, I would say that after the point the decision has been archived from WP:AC/N, it should require an amendment to change as it has been "published to the archive," while the notice page itself is a bit like a slip opinion. MBisanz ^talk 17:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

It's OK for an arbiter to change their view, opinion, allegiance or religion, and they can express regret for decisions they have made, but they can't unilaterally go back to a closed case and change a vote. Outcomes of a closed case can only be changed by amendment when there is an open and accountable discussion voted on by the whole Committee. If there is an instance of an arbiter going back to a 3 year old closed case and changing their vote that would need to be pointed out as that would be an error. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• It might be a good idea for the Committee to update its Rules & Procedures to clearly explain when an Arb may return to cast additional votes after a case has been closed. MastCell ^Talk 21:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Quick question

Hello, just a quick question. It appears Risker gave the net fourth vote on closing the Rich Farmbrough case a bit of 24 hours ago. Could an arbitrator clarify whether it will be closed within the next, say, 12 hours? I'm asking so I know whether to list the RF case as closed for my Signpost article. Best regards, Lord Roem (talk) 12:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Probably not, as it's a weekday and the clerks may not be immediately available to do it.  Roger Davies ^talk 13:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

All right. Thanks! -- Lord Roem (talk) 13:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I might try to get to it today or tonight. --Guerillero | My Talk 17:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough closed

Original announcement

This has been a very bad decision. Undue weight was given to Brad being a bit stubborn, uncommunicative, and a bit uncooperative, and short shrift was given to the opinions of the many people who thanked him, gave awards to him, feel themselves and the project indebted to him, and the quite serious disruption to important projects and harm to the entire project that results from this action. Several of the "charges" against Rich seem to be very petty indeed. The words used to support "abusiveness" on his part were the kind of thing more mature Wikipedians would laugh off and take on the chin for the sake of the project. How many of us have suffered much clearer cases of "abuse" but didn't feel the need to push a formal process to have the person banned, effect on the project be damned, just because you have been insulted? And this man was very useful! This was no ordinary editor. His bots do the work of thousands of manhours in very short time and move the whole increasingly unweildy project forward by keeping an eye on thousands of things, catching serious errors that had stood for a very long time, making a mockery of the project. For more details, check out his user and talk pages, look at the praise for and accompishments of this good Wikipedian. For the other "offensives", they these ten administrators point to nothing that can be shown to have harmed the project, it was all depicted as a sort of defense of principles, only, and a look at the long list of accomplishments, praise, and Wikilove was not given due weight! There was even a kerfuffle about him changing tiny bits of whitespace, my lord, who cares? Let it go, for crissake, or better said for the sake of the project. Please run the process again, this time taking into consideration a thourough investigation into his accomplishments and the serious disruption to the project that results from this rash, uninformed, disruptive, and punitive decision. Chrisrus (talk) 20:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you meant Rich above where you said Brad. Kumioko (talk) 23:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

"Let it go, for crissake, or better said for the sake of the project." That would have been excellent advice to have given to Rich when he used his administrative privileges to do things like adjusting whitespace or capitalization against consensus and/or prior community restrictions. Wikipedia has a high tolerance for individual idiosyncrasies, which tends to evaporate when people try and use administrative and bot operator privileges to enforce theirs on the entire project. It is unfortunate that prior dispute resolution failed to communicate this message to Rich. Jclemens (talk) 01:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, maybe the benefits from his bots and abilities are important to consider when banning such important bots as helpful pixie bot and femto bot and others that we all rely on when deciding what to do about such things as whitespace adjusting. Let the committee consider both when coming to their decision this time. This is not just a case about unauthorized whitespace adjusting, it's also about lots of very important and good things that are done as well. It was not right to make such a decision without weighting the pros and cons properly. Chrisrus (talk) 05:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

This is a dangerous notion, that the transgressions of an editor can be mitigated or even absolved purely on the basis that they have a certain weight of good contributions. This mindset would allow the doctor that saves a hundred lives to murder his wife, or the soldier who protects his country by serving overseas to steal from people's homes. It sets double standards for editors that are entirely unreasonable - Rich is allowed to break the rules, but someone else isn't, and the decision isn't in any way related to what they actually did wrong, but how many brownie points they've earned? That's an untenable position for one to hold if it is one's goal to maintain the fairest possible environment. There should be no special treatment. It shouldn't matter if Jimbo himself broke the rules. If the rules were broken, an appropriate and consistent response should be given.

As for Rich's bots, nothing his bots do can't be done by bots written by someone else. He isn't indispensable - nobody is indispensable - and that's a good thing. Others will step in to fill the void. I looked at the BAG page last week and already saw a proposal or two for bot tasks to replace HPB. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 06:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

We're not here to have the fairest possible environment. We're here to build an encyclopedia. I don't have enough understanding of the issue one way or the other to weigh up the damage he was causing over the good he was doing, but my instinct is that the former was outweighed by the latter. I am not confident in the decision anyway. Egg Centric 22:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

(e/c_ I thought the idea was leave the damn whitespace and similar non-rendering cosmetic issues alone. And those bots did a mix of useful and useless stuff, and of the useful stuff, nothing jumped out at me as being especially important that couldn't be done by someone else without much fuss (and anything important and hard to replicate shouldn't have been approved without published source code). I commented for a while in the workshop (then disengaged because of RL stuff etc.) and supported somewhat different remedies, but I think we will get along ok without those bots. More importantly this decision makes me feel like arbcom's eyes are starting to open about automation misuse, compared to some earlier decisions that didn't do enough. Wikipedia is not a programmers' playground.

A quibble: I don't think the reminder to Elen should have equated Rich with his bots. Blocking a bot that's causing problems shouldn't be considered a big deal in general, unless there's wheel warring or similar involved. I can accept that in this particular situation it would have been better for someone else to do the block. So the remedy's rationale was mostly ok but I think it should have been framed as "Elen advised" rather than "reminded" (since reminding implies there is a pre-existing notion that someone didn't remember). 66.127.55.46 (talk) 06:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I take your point - Elen didn't forget, so much as think of the bot purely as a chunk of malfunctioning code, rather than an extension of Rich (who I wouldn't have actually blocked, regarding myself as WP:INVOLVED). It was a mistake in that it's obvious when you think of it that the bot could be seen as Rich-by-extension, so it was always going to be contentious. I certainly shan't do it again, should I find myself in that situation. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Prohibited

I don't see "prohibited" on Wikipedia very often, so I'd like a clarification. Is this just another way of saying "banned", or is there some significance to this usage? Nyttend (talk) 05:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Prohibited is the same as banned. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Have a bad feeling about this...

I hope that I'm proven wrong, but I don't think the automation restriction will work well. I think the suggestions on the talk page of the proposed decision (by CBM, IIRC) would have been better for all involved. Anyway, I have the first of what will probably be many questions about this automation restriction: I notice Rich has (without requesting it) been given the rollbacker userright; would using that be considered a breach? What about Twinkle? Huggle? Semi-automated scripts? Jenks24 (talk) 20:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed it's not a perfect solution, but it is the one we cobbled together in an attempt to deal with the situation. The essence is that the community had expressed concern about Rich's use of automation and trusted tools, and those concerns had not been adequately addressed by Rich; as such the Committee have taken away Rich's access to the admin tools and prohibited him from using any other form of automation. This, by implication, would include the Rollbacker, Twinkle, Huggle and AWB tools. Rich is advised to edit manually and in a manner that could not be mistaken for automated. If in doubt if he is permitted to use an aid he would be advised to avoid using it, and if he feels he needs or would like to use it, to seek clarification if he can use it. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

If you cobbled it together does this suggest this is temporary, and you are going to come up with a better solution given time? Egg Centric 22:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, I'm disappointed with your answer, but at least it's clear. Thanks.

On a side note, if the decision was just "cobbled together", what was the rush? I know each year incoming arbs pledge to get through cases more quickly, but surely if the solution was imperfect, a few more days could have been spent discussing and trying to improve it? Jenks24 (talk) 22:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

rollback a form of automation? suddenly I've got a bad feeling about this... Rd232 ^talk 22:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't wish to contradict my colleague here, and of course I wasn't in on the decision, but I thought the discussion had concluded that because Twinkle and Huggle can't be 'hacked' but have to be used out of the box, and Twinkle certainly forces the user to confirm the edit, they would be OK. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)