Case clerks: Guerillero ( Talk) & NuclearWarfare ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Newyorkbrad ( Talk) & Kirill Lokshin ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
I've seen bots get blocked for being malfunctioning, and their owners fixing the problem and then unblocking the bot. Would this no longer be permitted? -- Rs chen 7754 20:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, it would just be very unwise to unblock your own bots from now on - your bot gets blocked for some unanticipated mistake (which according to ArbCom is already a crime, you should have anticipated mistakes) - then you do your best fixing the problem, changing the code, etc. etc. - if you then unblock, the bot edits on, and the fix is not a perfect fix, and the bot makes a very related, or even the same, unanticipated mistake, then you would have unblocked your bot while not fixing the problem. And no-one can see whether you REALLY tried to fix your bot or not. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 05:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Here I gently chide an admin and BAG member for using evidence of manual editing (saving something then realizing the mistake and fixing it) to support a claim of automatic editing. Citing a <facepalm> as incivility worthy of a year's ban, desysopping and banning from using automation is cazy.
Rich
Farmbrough,
21:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC).
Regarding 3.3.2: how would someone on WP:AE determine whether Rich was using automation? It's notoriously difficult to tell what method was used to make an edit, and if Rich states that a sequence of 1,000 edits (say) was all made manually, there would be no evidence that could contradict this. Even 1,000 edits could be made manually, using tabbed browsing and patience. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 00:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Rich, the point is not whether you use automation or not - the point is that you are banned from using it. They do not have to prove that you are editing automated, if you do 3 edits in a row where you manually clean up three things (e.g., you used Google to find a strange misspelling in three Wikipedia pages), and you save those 3 edits (well within a 4-edit per minute level), you will be 'editing automated'. What, you might even be told off if you do those three edit on 3 different days, and editing in between respectively 53 and 69 other pages - you know how these edit restrictions are and can be used, you know what happened to Δ. And don't worry, because you are now here once, you will re-appear before ArbCom within a year after you are unbanned, and they will cite recividism, and even if they then also can't find anything substantive, they will ban you because you were banned before. There is probably only one way to handle with this - leave. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 10:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Dirk Beetstra asked me to comment here after a comment I made on Rich's talk page.
I've never had a problem with Rich's edits. I know people have been complaining about him for a long time, but the proposed solution seems awfully harsh for the offense. The incivility is barely uncivil, and half of the offenses date from 2010. It would thus seem to be a low-level irritant, hardly the kind of thing to ban someone over. The argument that you need to ban/etc. him because how would you know if he evades his restrictions seems backwards to me. I would expect that you would impose the restrictions, and if he evades them, then ban/etc. him. Well, I've never been on ArbCom, so I don't know how to do your job, but that's the impression I get as an outsider.
Also, Rich has been unfailingly helpful the times I've dealt with him. Currently I have a bot request that's been languishing for over a month. I wanted to lay the groundwork for a Wikiproject project to properly format the references of our thousands of language articles, by adding the necessary parameters to transclusions of the infobox so they can be quickly reviewed by hand. It got hung up on whether the bot should add a reference section, or whether a different bot should clean up afterwards by adding a ref section, but even after I removed that item from the request, it just sat there. (I've just posted it for the third time.) Rich was willing to do it, but his month block was imposed while we were still debating whether it was appropriate to add the reference section. He'd be willing to do it now, but for the threat of being banned. And now I'm getting busy enough with other things that I don't know if I'll be able to start the project if the request is ever approved—which would mean leaving c. 4,000 language articles without overt references, so that editors continually mis-tag them as unreferenced despite the fact that they are referenced.
No-one else steps in to take over from Rich when he's not here. — kwami ( talk) 07:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
@Kirill - Fram is part of the community, Fram is not the representative of the community, Fram is not the community. I ask, again, can you show that the community finds problem with Rich's edits, not only that Fram finds problem with the edits. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 08:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Your dismissive attitude ("No one cares..."; "Forget it and go and write an encyclopedia."; "There is no controversy here. Nothing to see, keep walking.") is a major part of the problem. I don't know how many people care about this, but I can tell you that I do. When I consult diffs to evaluate the edits, your bot's inconsequential changes waste my time. I've gone to your talk page to raise the issue, only to be reminded by the existing complaints (and your [non-]responses thereto) that you routinely ignore/dismiss such criticisms. So I don't bother to add my voice to the futile chorus (and I assume that others act in kind). —David Levy 23:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I understand that Rich's attitude to previous sanctions is telling against him here, but is there no other solution than sitebanning him. Could one maybe just restrict him from making any edits in Article space? He could contribute at places like Wikipedia:WikiProject Perl, he's been giving tutorials in coding which could continue, he just needs to stop contributing using automated tools himself for a bit. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 10:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
All I can say is that reading this does not reflect well on either ArbCom or Rich. One can think of all the metaphors (Sledgehammer <-> Nuts; Baby <-> bath water; etc.). I would encourage both the ArbCom and Rich to step back, to both get over their respective righteousness and self-importance, resolve this problem, apply mutual respect and all get back to work. What a waste of good time and electrons. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Why are some of you trying to bend over backwards to create a means of checking on an editor's contributions when they have apparently shown themselves incapable of living up to the trust that their privileged position already afforded them? Leaky Caldron 14:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
I think the whole automation thing is a red herring. Is it a good edit? Is it a bad edit? Some edits we can have a debate about, but that is not what is being discussed here. People have been kind enough to say that I "do a lot of good work" - maybe someone takes exception to that or maybe we should construct a balance and put grinding through hundreds of elementary particle templates on one side (as good), and removing markup (per guidance) on the other side (as bad). This is the model Wnt tried to introduce - and I think there is something to it, except that it is too complex to actually execute. I would encourage people to try it as a thought exercise. We have maybe 750 edits to this case. Maybe they are neutral, maybe they go to community building, (plus) maybe time wasting (minus). 1500 edits to tag some maps with GFDL, that was before automation at all "open in new tab., edit, ctrl F, ctrl V ctrl S (that was the save keystroke in those days), tab back, repeat, repeat..." - they are all on Commons now, so maybe that's neutral. Fixing up 30,000 US places demographics to be readable and correct text, including 3000 manually. Probably 100,000 typo fixes. Maintaining some 4,000 dated maintenance categories. That's all gotta be good. Being sharp when people are rude to me. Yeah, that's kinda negative (in some ways) - but I'm generally pretty laid back. I got called a "fucking liar" and didn't respond, and far worse things. I think I come out ahead, or at least break even on civility.
So the real question is are we looking backward or forwards? If we are looking backwards I think I have a substantial net contribution to the project. The worst that is being brought against me is saying "Tosh" or <sigh>, or deleting a few trailing spaces. And remember some of the things that have been fussed about, I have gone off and got consensus on, with no objections - as it seems to me was bound to happen.
And then if we look forward, what have I to offer? Well consider that on 24th March I addressed practically every incomplete item on the WP:BOTREQ, and they would all be done if not for blocking (over something we all now agree was pretty harmless, and most people would probably call useful). So as Kwami says, what has happened since? Basically sweet Fanny Adams, except that part of his task came within the purview of a previous BRFA and so could be completed by HPB. Does the community want me around, submitting BRFAs like they're going out of fashion, and solving issues for editors and readers, or would they rather BOTREqs get archived undone?
TLDR - I know.
Rich
Farmbrough,
01:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC).(Using some automation)
As I understand, ArbCom has no trouble to find that Rich has used undisclosed automation under 3.2. But still someone makes the argument that Rich needs to be site-banned because it's impossible to tell if he uses automation under 3.3? And people vote in favour? Galls (and guys), April 1st has been over for more than a month. I would also suggest you read up on Turing test. If you cannot figure out if certain edits are automatic, who cares? And why? -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 14:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
As a BAG member, but not speaking for BAG as a group, I'd like to make a few comments:
The line between "semi-automated" and "script-assisted manual", in my opinion, is another fuzzy line based on the level of human involvement is required in selecting and preparing the edit before presenting it to the user for review. If the script chooses the page and the edits to apply and the human just approves the edit, it's "semi-automated". If the human selects the page and then uses a button to activate the particular script, it's "script-assisted manual". WP:BOTASSIST addresses this issue, as well. In any case, the distinction rarely matters much except when someone is trying to wikilawyer around an accusation of running an unauthorized bot (e.g. the kind of wikilawyering WP:MEATBOT is intended to prevent).
As an editor, I'd also like to comment on something unrelated to Rich Farmbrough's bot activity. In regard to the "Rich Farmbrough's administrator status revoked" remedy, besides Rich's unblocking of his own bots, there have also been issues in the past regarding Rich's making untested, controversial, and/or contra-consensus edits to highly-visible fully-protected templates, with the same attitudes discussed more fully here with respect to his bot operation. I see Fram touched on this in his evidence, and it was mentioned in passing by Fram, CBM, and Elen of the Roads in the workshop. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Rich Farmbrough/October 2010 may also be relevant. Anomie ⚔ 16:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
This section reads... "Examples include cosmetic changes to non-rendered whitespace ( A, B, C, D, E), cosmetic changes to template invocations ( F, G), removal of comments ( H, I), and unapproved mass creation of categories ( J)."
Regarding
I exhort ARBCOM to use better supporting evidence for this resolution, if it is to pass. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
I want to note that admins sometimes unblock their own bot, but when they do so it's usually understood that the cause of the block was addressed, and it's usually done with the another admin's consent. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
That seems rather extreme. The problems are related to script/bot-based editing. I see zero benefits in banning Rich from editing articles 'normally', nor in depriving ourselves of his technical expertise in discussions. Rich, for example, could do a lot of good if he could work with the AWB team to engineer and tweak additional AWB fixes. Since these fixes would be vetted and implemented by the AWB team, we would not run into the problems that led to this case. As for problems of "enforcement", why not do some WP:AGF here and trust RF to keep his word, and trust admins to have a certain level of clue. Distinguishing this behaviour, from this isn't the hardest of things to do. A ban regarding "bot-like editing, largely construed", should certainly be considered before a scorched earth remedy. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
"implicit indication made that automation was used to performed them." should be "implicit indication made that automation was used to perform them."-- Felix Folio Secundus ( talk) 08:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Finding 3.1.6 is badly written, and ignores points made by arbs elsewhere on the page.
Administrators may not unblock their own bot if another admin has blocked it. As Special:Unblock says, "Administrators: If you or your bot have been blocked, you must not unblock yourself even if you believe the block is unfair, inappropriate, or in error. Instead, contact another administrator through e-mail, IRC, the mailing list, or by leaving a note on your talk page." (emphasis added)
What Special:Unblock (which isn't itself policy, of course) means in relation to bots is "don't unblock instead of discussing with others (especially the blocking admin)". That leaves room for the common WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY practice of a blocking admin giving permission to the bot operator to unblock after fixing the problem that was the reason for the block. By contrast, the Finding, in its first sentence, leaves no such room; it's translated into a blanket ban on unblocking your own bot. Whilst there may be a case for such a policy, it's not ArbCom's job to make it, so please don't. Rd232 talk 10:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
The particular text cited was added a little less than a month ago. The older version was in substantially less absolute terms: "As such, you should not unblock your own bot, in the event that it malfunctioned." The older version only covers bot malfunction blocks, while the current version covers every blocked bot. T. Canens ( talk) 08:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
On the other hand, WP:INVOLVED can apply to unblocking your own bots obviously. E.g. the section "Misuse of administrative tools", both the item on "Conflict of interest" and the one on "Reversing the actions of other administrators". Fram ( talk) 08:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Just gut-wrenching. Our priorities are fucked up. Jenks24 ( talk) 13:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
If I understand correctly, the reasoning for the site ban stems from a combination of the difficulty in enforcement of a compromise and Rich's history of breaching his edit restriction. Now, I would like to point out that Rich was of the belief that the restriction itself was illegitimate. Maybe, MAYBE, if he was asked to make a statement acknowledging the legitimacy of an arbcom ER he could be trusted to abide by it. There may need to be a sidebar that says that even people he does not care for *cough*Fram*cough* are able to bring complaints against him without disturbing that legitimacy. I would hope that Rich would get hung for being Rich and not for what betacommand did. Let's not kid ourselves... The siteban is because BC could AND WOULD defy any restriction. Rich isn't there yet, is he? 206.47.78.150 ( talk) 15:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
This discussion isn't going anywhere at all. Line of conversation needs a time out and a reset for it to continue. Will speak to editors individually on talk pages.
Daniel (
talk)
22:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
|
---|
ArbCom sets out in Principle 2, "Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship". Yet, in Finding of Fact 8, only two unblocks have been found (despite the claim of "many occasions") that might have violated policy...separated by two years. Two incidents, separated by two years, and ArbCom finds it necessary to desysop him? Please define "occasional". Two years time between administrative mistakes apparently isn't enough. What is enough to be "occasional"? Is this being done also because of incivility and poor decision making? One of your own has made just as many mistakes in a similar vein, yet no mention of her. Why? How is it that ArbCom finds enough grounds to desysop RF, but not Elen, who as a named party in this case used her administrative tools while blatantly involved to block a bot wholly owned and operated by RF? Elen's conduct, outlined here, was grossly out of line and in violation of policy. Yet, this PD page does not even mention her. One incident you say? How about Elen accusing RF of being "an anal retentive with OCD on the autism spectrum" [15] and asking Rich "Do you want your rattle back yet?" [16]? Maybe it's ok to insult and belittle because it's Rich? How about accusing someone other than Rich of ranting [17], and of living in a parallel universe [18]? How about accusing another editor of six years experience with 21,000 edits of "either not capable of editing, or you are a troll" [19]? How about telling yet another editor "Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out." [20]? Either your own Principle #1 on this PD page applies, or it doesn't. The hypocrisy here is absolutely stunning. The message is blatantly clear; a member of ArbCom can do whatever they like, break whatever policy they like, insult whomever they like, without any fear of consequences for their behavior. ArbCom, your integrity is on the line. Either you deal with the community fairly, and treat everyone as your own Principle #1 asks with "All participants are expected to conduct themselves according to the standards of collegiality and professionalism", or your integrity is empty. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 20:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
|
I am just a lowly content creator/editor. I am not an administrator, and have no desire to be such. So I do not know anything about the "big picture" or "running the encyclopedia." Indeed, I know nothing about operating bots, policies about bots, or governance issues. What I know is that Rich Farmbrough and his bots have done yeoperson work. And I know that from my viewpoint, the changes (some of which are small, e.g., fixing isbn number) make the articles look and function better. I do not have to know how to make a television to enjoy the picture. The encyclopedia is better for these changes. I also think that there are mitigating factors, not the least of which is that there were not clear and unambiguous rules clearly communicated. That the committee does not like some of these edits is a post hoc determination that is violative of due process. That it does not like the way that edits are made, without considering their validity and propriety, is a conclusion in search of a justification. There is no competent evidence presented. Mitigating facts and circumstances have been overlooked and not given due weight. There was no "just cause" for the actions. The committee seems to be overlooking a decade of good works and good faith. A year's ban for this seems to be entirely punitive, and totally disproportionate to the offense and the offender. Indeed, you seem to be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Wikipedia is a better place for his presence, and will be lessened if he is banished. As a labor arbitrator by profession and trade, I think it is incumbent upon the committee to consider the effect of this on Mr. Farmbrough, and on the wikipedia community. If one can be star chambered like this after all this good work, it will serve notice to all that there are no rules, and that there is no restraint. This is bad policy, and will inevitably drive away good editors, and we will all be worse off for it. I say this all with respect and appreciation for the difficulty of your task. But emotional arguments do not void the need for rules, laws, due process, and reason. That he may occasionally be prickly as a pear -- he has a heartfelt concern -- does not change the fact that he has, and continues, to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. This is about justice, not about "just us." Please take the long view, and apply reason and proportionality to your decision. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 21:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
.. but it is not against the spirit of WP:INVOLVED to block the bot of another party while both being a party in an open Arbitration case... Again, do arbitrators have any explanation why this fact is totally ignored? May I remind the Arbitration committee of the precedent there is to resolution on such actions? -- Dirk Beetstra T C 04:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
The evidence phase has closed. If you would like to bring a clerks attention of an issue, please send your request to the listserv or on one of the case clerks talk pages not in the thread itself. -- Guerillero | My Talk 14:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Although the evidence phase has closed, it may be of interest to people participating in this case that at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 April 30#The Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade (Export) (1966), Rich Farmbrough undeleted the history of a number of articles which he had written and which had been deleted at AfD, and the review of whose deletion he then requested. This appears to be an instance of using administrator tools in a case in which he was involved, contrary to WP:INVOLVED. Sandstein 05:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
|
I find it completely and utterly unacceptable that editors are directed by clerks to provide non-confidential material in a non-public forum instead of on-wiki. The move of proceedings to closed, off-wiki venues is one of the major causes for the erosion of ArbComs authority, and, I expect, for the siege mentality. Everything that can be handled on-wiki should be handled on-wiki. That may be less convenient in the short term, but ensures an open process that can be supported by a consensus of editors in the long run. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 16:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Tentative (precluding that AGK can show that he did get approval to use an (albeit approved) script (approved like AWB/ Twinkle are deemed approved for use) to run the task - if that can be shown, I will hat and strike this comment): "AGK has violated the letter and the spirit of the bot policy [22]: running a high-speed task without sufficient approval (getting to 150 edits per minute), running a high-volume task without sufficient approval (over 7000 pages), running a bot task from a non-bot account (using his main admin account), and running an unapproved bot task." -- Dirk Beetstra T C 05:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Interestingly, what I did do was omit templates that were listed in the database report but which are never protected. This careful pruning of the original list of templates reflects the sort of care that we expect of our administrators; the point is that, over time, Rich has neglected to take this sort of care to such a degree that his continued editing in this manner is a source of serious contention to the community. I intend to make no further comment on this issue, in no small part because it is a wild tangent. AGK [•] 01:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
In this "finding of fact", it states (the bold is my own addition):
Rich Farmbrough's editing history shows numerous examples of high-volume, high-speed sequences of identical edits ([15], [16]). These edits were not performed from a bot account or with a bot flag; nor did the associated edit summaries indicate the use any known automation tool; nor was any other explicit or implicit indication made that automation was used to perform them.
Loking at the links involved, I see lots of edits with the summary "automation assisted"; this would seem to contradict the bolded statement. Either better links should be found, or the FoF reworded in such a way that these links don't contradict it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
A much older but more flagrant example of editing with an undisclosed bot (and in this case rather dramatically misfunctioning bot) can be seen in this set of 14 edits) from RF's alter ego User:Megaphone Duck, which was after the last of these blocked with the edit summary "bot malfunctioning"... The saddest thing here is that he was aware of the problems after the first 7 edits, reverted himself with his RF account, and then went on to make the same error on the same seven pages and two more. The problems were so extremely obvious that not much harm was done (everything was reverted minutes later again by Rich Farmbrough and others), but it is a clear example of using the mainspace to test out undisclosed and apparently very buggy bots with very poor results. As far as I know, these edits (and this account) was not presented yet in this case, so it may be a new example (from late 2010 though) for many readers... Fram ( talk) 11:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
At this FoF, the case is being made that six edits per minute, especially sustained, is proof of an undeclared automation/bot (see especially the comments section). I took a look at my own edits vs. this metric for evaluating whether someone is using automation. For the record, I've used Twinkle once for a single edit. Since January 2011, I found 112 instances where I made more than 6 edits in a minute. Twice I exceeded 40 edits per minute (max 47), and 17 times I exceeded 20 per minute. None of these were done using any automation. I only used my fingers, my keyboard, and tabbed browsing. Manually sustaining 6 edits per minute is trivial. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 14:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
I am curious, as this already confused me in the Betacommand case as well: Which policy or guideline is the assumption that an "average of more than 4 edits per minute" means a use of automation based on? Please could someone point me to the page where a consensus was reached on how many edits per minute constitute "automation"? I am sure I must be missing something .... -- Toshio Yamaguchi ( tlk− ctb) 07:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
This is precisely the result that I thought would occur when the case was opened, basically in secret. When Arbcom and the community wants the community to know about a case they do a pretty good job of publicizing it. This one, IMO, was crafted to be a secret assembly. The majority of the community doesn't follow these so the only ones that know are the Accused, the ones doing the accusing and the judges. The only reason I even found this is because I looked at Rich's contributions. Other than that I wouldn't have even known it existed. This case, as with others that came before it dealing with individuals editing practices are routinely one sided. This is precisely the sort of beaurocaratic legal stiffling that is taking over the pedia and not only making it harder to use and edit, but more importantly less fun. More and more editors are turning to deleting anything they can find they themselves didn't create and kicking out the contributors or blocking the new ones. These are the same or similar people who are adding rule after rule and then only choosing to employ them when they feel like it. If Jimbo, the Foundation and the contributors around Wiki want to know why people are leaving at an increasing rate all they need to do is to look at results like this to answer the question. As useful as I would find many of the tools to be and as much as I could use them its days like this that I am glad I am not administrator. I would find it difficult to accept the bit when Rich was desysopped for some of the petty and poorly crafted reasons laid out in this case. Kumioko ( talk) 17:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Following a
discussion at Jclemens' talk page, support for
Principle 6 7 ("Unblocking a bot"), which had previously been passing, has collapsed. An alternative proposal (before the Jclemens TP discussion) was proposed at
Principle 7 8 ("Unblocking your own bot accounts"). However, that reading of
WP:INVOLVED appears to be stretch interpretation of policy; the policy there says nothing of unblocking bots after a malfunction has been repaired. Regardless,
FoF 8 ("Unblocking of SmackBot"), while 100% accurate, now seems a meaningless FoF. Per the discussion on Jclemens' page, the unblocking of one's own bots is common practice, and has been for many years. If there is improper action on the part of RF in unblocking any of his bots, then if ArbCom wishes to include that in the decision a FoF that addresses that issue needs to be raised (and hopefully based on actual evidence). --
Hammersoft (
talk)
21:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Note to ArbCom: Re-ordering principles/fofs/remedies after some have already been posted can really mess up discussion, as it did here in this thread. Please don't do that. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 00:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
This is question for arbitrators, I am not trying to start a long discussion. Does remedy 2 include bot accounts? The remedy says "Rich Farmbrough is indefinitely prohibited from using any automation whatsoever on Wikipedia. Any edits that reasonably appear to be automated are assumed to be so." — Carl ( CBM · talk) 02:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
"2) Rich Farmbrough is indefinitely prohibited from using any automation whatsoever on Wikipedia. Any edits that reasonably appear to be automated are assumed to be so." (my emphasis). What, approximately, is here a 'reasonable appear[ance]'? Is rollback automated? Or is fixing 2 typos in a row giving a reasonable appearance that he used some vague form of automated something? This is so utterly vague that it practically does the same as banning the editor, because that type of wording is too easy to wikilawyer into anything, and hence anything that appears to be automated will result in a block on Rich's account. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 05:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
(od) CBM: it seems to me that the most useful thing that could come out of this section would be a draft remedy to replace the existing proposal, with everyone here cooperating in the drafting. Roger Davies talk 12:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Re Roger Davies: I personally don't think a ban on all automation is necessary. I don't think the problem is the automation itself, which Rich is able to handle. The problem is the lack of consensus behind the particular tasks being chosen and particular edits that are being made.
Just brainstorming as a proposal, here is what I think might be effective at ending the problems:
Just to be clear, the point of this is to allow automation in a controlled way. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 13:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for this. Could we consider this in the following light? The scenario I'd particularly wish to avoid is a repeat of the "Category:Suspected sockpuppets" one. This one speaks to judgment and the ability to consider the possible consequences of an action. In this instance, the consequence is the linking of thousands of IP addresses to thousands of usernames and making those easily searchable. This has all sorts of current privacy/outing implications, and more so under the upcoming TOS. Here, it seems to me we need two restraints. The first is ensure that bot-actions are fully thought through before they're executed. The second to ensure that the process cannot be switched from a bot-action to a high-speed but entirely repetative but allegedly manual continuation of the same process. Roger Davies talk 14:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
General comment: I could support this kind of effort to get Rich back into using automation in a way that will hopefully prevent the same problems arising, but I do think some kind of substantial break is needed before attempting that. I'd say 3 months, during which he would hopefully be productive supporting others in developing bots. Without a break, I fear that he might end up trying to do the same tasks as before, and however good his intentions, that may lead to the same problems. With a break, there's a chance for a new beginning, I feel. Let's have an alternative remedy to 3.3.2, which allows a return after 3 months subject to agreement by Arbcom motion or by the community at a suitable venue. The details of any restriction on the return can then be worked out at the time, taking into account how the interim has gone. Rd232 talk 17:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't going to comment on the 'does he need a break thing, but Rich is currently nailing his own coffin shut by frantically trying to complete every task he thinks will need doing in the next five years, spawning a shedload of mistakes while he's at it - largely tiny, but he's trying to fix em on the run, generating more etc. He has the 'high anxiety' - he's not doing it to cock a snook, but because he's convinced he has to finish all this stuff. A short break might convince him that the project won't fall apart if he takes it slower. In the meantime, can one of his friends persuade him to slow down. He's going at it like John Henry against the steam hammer...and that didn't end well. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 15:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
While I have yet to go through the proposed decision, I would just like to apologise for times when my usually high standards of civility have slipped. Furthermore I accept as I said in my evidence that I have made errors, and not just technical errors, but errors of judgement. And I have been guilty of lack of clarity. All these flaws I will try to avoid in future.
Rich
Farmbrough,
03:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC).
Of course, the unblocking was not 'promptly', and Elen did not in any form acknowledge that she was actually involved. Still sweeping things under the carpet, ArbCom? And may I ask that ArbCom fully votes for this one, before the case closes? Thank you. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 04:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
as suggested above, Rich has made 50 times the number of edits as a busy editor and has thus made 50 times the number of enemies then I'd like to point out that he also has probably made 50 times the number of friends as well. He has been criss-crossing my watchlist (without being on it) for years now and I have always appreciated the work that he has done. A year with out having him show up daily on my watchlist would be like a year without orange juice. Like a year without sunshine. Einar aka Carptrash ( talk) 14:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I hope that the arbs will be very careful in the language in the decision about blocks by involved users. Apart from being a party to the arbitration case, Elen was not " involved", because her participation was only in an administrative role. Indeed she only entered the situation after a noticeboard thread about the edit restrictions.
In general, the entire framework of "involved" has problems for bot operations. The idea of involvement comes from content disputes, where an administrator who is a frequent editor on a page should not block those who disagree about edits on the page. But an administrator who blocks a misbehaving bot after seeing it reported to a noticeboard is not entering a content dispute, they are just acting as an administrator. It would be unfortunate for the language of this decision to impact that.
The true issue here is that an admin who is a party to an arbitration case shouldn't block another editor who is a party to the case, and a reminder to that effect is certainly reasonable. At the same time, the arbitrators were noticeably absent during the workshop period, and they would have been the appropriate people to take on an administrative role towards parties during the case. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 14:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
New Principle #9 is attempting to create policy where policy doesn't exist. The claim in the principle is that Special:Unblock describes policy with "Administrators: If you or your bot have been blocked". As previously noted, Special:Unblock ISN'T policy, and it isn't describing policy either. The reality, as shown here, is that unblocking your own bots is common practice and has been going on for years upon years.
ArbCom, you're really reaching here, and attempting to write policy. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 22:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
ArbCom decisions are made up of three components. The principle describes the policy position. The FoF details the context (or occasionally fails on the grounds that the infringement does rise to the level of a finding). The remedy weighs the principle against the context. I'm sorry if it's a bit complicated but that's how it's always been done and it seems to work well. Roger Davies talk 04:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
(od) ArbCom, as you rightly say, does not write policy. There are longstanding prohibitions in key policies which prohibit admins unblocking their own accounts. Now there's been some discussion suggesting that, notwithstanding these policies, the custom and practice is for owners to unblock their own bots. This, it seems to me, is a classic example of local consensus seeking to trump the longstanding very broad consensus of two separate policies. It needs a much higher level of consensus for such an important and radical change, and a demonstrably much higher level of consensus for ArbCom to endorse it as the new policy.
There's also, of course, the purely pragmatic issue here. Because of the capacity for the infliction of high-speed damage, the bot shouldn't be run again until whatever circumstance that led to the block is completely resolved. An uninvolved third party is probably a better person to evaluate whether the circumstances are completely resolved than the bot owner, who - entirely understandably - may take a more optimistic view. Simply from the point of view of protecting the encyclopedia, a general prohibition with occasional IAR exceptions is much safer than a blanket and completely unqualified "it's fine for admins to unblock their own bots". Roger Davies talk 04:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
It is obvious there is considerable ambiguity with regards to policy and unblocking your own bots. A debate has begun at Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy#Unblocking_bot_accounts regarding this issue, to clarify the policy and avoid misunderstandings. I propose, adding a new remedy written something like:
The community is urged to open up a discussion, by way of request for comment, to clarify unblocking policy with regards to owners unblocking their own bots. Subsequent to the discussion, Special:Unblock should be modified to accurately reflect the updated policy. This should be resolved within two months of the closing of this case. (adapted from Tree shaping)
Thoughts? -- Hammersoft ( talk) 13:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Minor point, I have indicated elsewhere the permission for unblock in both cited cases.
Major point, it is a fairly usual procedure for bots to have a method for stopping alternative to blocking, which is, rightly, seen as clunky and over-powered. For example Smackbot had such a mechanism, initially allowing anyone to stop it, including IPs, it was stopped hundreds of times, usually in error, sometimes for vandalistic purposes, sometimes for GF but wrong reasons, and, of course, sometimes for real bugs. Restarting was never an issue. Similarly when HPB's new control panel goes live, (assuming that certain proposals don't carry) there will be far more fine-grained control available to a selected population (I.E. admins, auto-confirmed, everyone, depending on protection).
Bonus point. Because this is an admin action it is being treated as sacrosanct. If blocking bots was available to all auto-confirmed editors this would not be an issue. Admins, by these attitudes, are elevating ourselves far more than is desirable (i.e. at all).
Rich
Farmbrough,
20:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC).
"Any edits that reasonably appear to be automated are assumed to be so" is going to cause trouble for as long as RF edits and the restriction is in place. This community loves witch hunts and mob lynchings, and takes events where a reasonable person would see a 10% chance of wrongdoing and blow it up to 90% and call for blocks and make huge AN/I threads. I say this because this is exactly what happens on AN/I on a regular basis. I'm not involved in this case, I really don't care one way or the other about any of it, except that I have to point out that you're setting up a massive mess for the future. I predict that eventually RF will make six edits in a minute, someone will scream automation, and the mob will kick in. I predict it happening multiple times in the next six months. I predict this because the community has trained me not to expect any better of it.
Just letting you know. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Looking at Rich Farmbrough's current edits, they are quite informative about what is part of the problem. Note, first, that he is now swift in attempting to correct his errors, which is (according to your point of view) what he always did or a huge improvement, but in any case a positive element.
What remains is that he sets out to make hundreds or thousands of edits, without first adequately testing them; and that he then rushes to correct these edits, but again without adequate testing.
Rich made a significant number of edits with the edit summary "redirect per WP:NASTRO (automation assisted)". I checked a few, and noticed two problems, one minor but that was happening on every single one of these edits, and one much more problematic but that occurred only occasionally. I filed a bug report to note these two problems [31], after which Rich Farmbrough stopped the task, set out to test some things (for some reason apparently not bothering to use the preview, thereby editing the same page 6 times in a row [32]), and then set out to correct the minor problem.
However, while doing this, he didn't correct the more major problem (redirects that were actually redlinks), even when he edited pages with this problem again, and even the examples I gave on his talk page (he finally did these with a second correction run on these pages while I was composing this). Normally, I wouldn't have needed to check such edits in the first place, never mind checking them again after they were corrected. With Rich, sadly, this remains something that needs to be done, because he doesn't do this effectively. The proposed removal of automation (or other means to stop the high speed editing) would solve this problem. Fram ( talk) 13:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Could some of you perhaps actually check his edits instead of complaining about someone who actually does the effort? He is now leaving on all these pages he turns into a redirect the Template:beltasteroid-stub, listing all these redirects incorrectly in Category:Main Belt asteroid stubs. So they probably all need another run to get corrected again. But somehow this will be my fault as well, of course... Examples at the time of writing include 47038 Majoni, 4704 Sheena, 4705 Secchi, 47162 Chicomendez, 4699 Sootan, 4700 Carusi, 47077 Yuji, 4708 Polydoros, 4710 Wade, ... As of now over 50 redirects created since 15.00 ( 4757 Liselotte and all the more recent ones). Fram ( talk) 19:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Hammersoft, your defense, while spirited, doesn't really make sense. Rich Farmbrough removed the "notability" tags from these articles/redirects, even though these added categorization. According to your claims, that went against my request. But on the other hand he did keep the stub tags, which are also templates that add categorization (besides doing other stuff: look at [42] and scroll to the bottom: the extra text is caused by the stub tag, something which categories don't do). Stub tags are, according to the guideline (and common sense), only supposed to appear on articles, not on redirects. So why did he keep them? Why doesn't he check his edits, and wonders whether the result is logical, guideline-compliant, and so on, before making dozens more of the same edits? If he isn't sure, he can always ask, he isn't "the last defender of the wiki" (to use your words about another editor), the edits aren't that urgent. Fram ( talk) 21:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Fram, this is a tempest in a teapot. Post to his talk page. You're right, I am unable to understand. I don't understand the principal by which if a person wants someone to do something different, they don't approach the person, instead they spend more than a dozen edits complaining about the person elsewhere. Since I am unable to understand, certainly further dialogue between us is pointless. I implore you to continue posting in this thread complaining about how bad Rich is; I am sure it will be effective in getting him to remove the stub templates. Though, I have to admit that I don't know how, since I am unable to understand. The incurably stupid, -- Hammersoft ( talk) 15:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Re Hammersoft: Today, someone asked Rich about some bot edits on his talk page [45]. He agreed to change the code; they posted again to point out the edits he agreed to stop were still happening; he left a longish reply, but the same changes are still being made four hours after he said he was disabling them. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 19:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
IMO, what ARBCOM is trying to do is to stop RF from acting like a WP:MEATBOT and generally prevent mass-editing. So they should simply quote WP:MEATBOT (or link to it), or say something like
Rich Farmbrough is banned from mass editing regardless of the method, broadly construed, for a period of <INSERT PERIOD>. That is, RF is banned from both running bots and from behaving like a WP:MEATBOT. This does not cover script-assisted vandal fighting (such as the use of rollback), neither should it prevent the use of assisted-editing to make improvements to specific articles, such as putting the finishing touch on an article after a rewrite/expansion, provided RF took part in the rewrite/expansion himself.
Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Without making any comment on the wiseness of a ban at all - I don't feel I'd be fit to judge because the entire case seems a bit silly to me, let me put forward my opinion that a year long ban is completely pointless. A two month ban would accomplish just as much against a good faith user such as Rich. Egg Centri c 14:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Since this case opened on 4 April 2012, the arbitrator counts have changed several times. This has a direct impact on the majorities to decide each principle / fof / remedy. It's changed from 9, to 10, to 11, and back to 9 again. I'm wondering how many more times the judges of the case are going to wander in and out of the room before the case closes?
Date | Active | Inactive | Recused | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|
4 April 2012 | 9 | 4 | 2 | |
13 April 2012 | 10 | 3 | 2 | Risker goes active |
3 May 2012 | 11 | 2 | 2 | AGK goes active |
11 May 2012 | 9 | 4 | 2 | David Fuchs and Newyorkbrad (who is the drafting arbitrator) go inactive |
12 May 2012 | 10 | 3 | 2 | David Fuchs goes active |
One can flippantly say "Well, it's back to the same count as on April 4" and you'd be right, but the problem here is arbitrators randomly going active/inactive right on the cusp point of needing 5 or 6 arbitrators for a majority to make a decision. 1 principle and 2 remedies are sitting on the cusp of acceptance, where one arb going active now before it closes would render those as not passing. 1 remedy is sitting on the cusp of rejection.
I understand that unforeseen circumstances arise. But this much variability in who is actually sitting the case is highly problematic. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 21:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
There has been lots of discussing about automation and manual editing but this may not quite tackle the issue. Consensus appears to be that RF doesn't always exercise sufficient diligence when editing and veers into controversial areas. In normal editing, this is not a significant problem because simple errors can be swiftly correctly by individual editor action and the controversial stuff resolved via discussion on the talk page.
However, RF has a penchant for high-speed large-volume editing and disruption flowing from sub-optimal edits rapidly escalates in proportion to the speed and volume.
The answer may be a remedy which makes introducing significant numbers of similar sub-optimal edits sanctionable. In other words, the same typo appearing once or twice (or even ten times is not an issue) but if the same error is propagated across tens of articles, it becomes actionable. If a remedy is constructed to address this specific problem - with sanctions at WP:AE on a sliding scale reflecting their volume and magnitude - Rf is completely the master of his own destiny. The burden of proof is obviously low, it's just a matter of linking to contributions, with a comment specifying the specific and serial error.
Thoughts, Roger Davies talk 22:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
See Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich_Farmbrough/Proposed_decision#Alternative_to_site-ban which addresses this directly. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
I started drafting my comments on the new material in the proposed decision yesterday. It looks as though meanwhile the case has moved along a million miles. There are substantial problems with both the arguments and the evidence used in the propose decision. I will need at least a week, possibly two to respond to these matters. I would hope that the case would not be closed until I had time to address these matters and Arbitrators have thoroughly considered what I have to say.
Rich
Farmbrough,
22:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC).
Rich, you have made 8,856 edits from your main account so far this month, and 2,503 since the 10th of May. I don't think the problem was a lack of time to comment; you just spent the time doing other things. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 11:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
At this point, having happened on several cases, I think it's high time for the arbitration committee to create a rule that any named party in an arbitration request is prohibited from editing either the Signpost's Arbitration Report or its talk page. Neutrally worded or not (and in RF's case, it's not), posting "please come and comment on the case" messages isn't good form. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
P.S. Since RF asked for comments about the blocking of Helpful Pixie Bot, I'll just say that I'm overjoyed that it's happening and that I hope that the next person who attempts to create an ISBN helper bot a) has second thoughts and decides not to, or failing that b) creates one that isn't horribly broken.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sven Manguard ( talk • contribs)
(copied from main case
diff. --
Dirk Beetstra
T
C
06:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC))
If I may, I don't know if I'm allowed to vote here, but I just went to leave a message about an important matter which I need his help with on Rich's talk page and I'm told he can't respond as he has to fight a movement to ban him from Wikipedia, and so I came right away to plead that this not be done. I have no idea what he's been accused of and honestly don't want to know. All I care about right now is that among the accusations doesn't seem to be any doubt whatsoever that he hasn't got some serious bot-chops like nobody's business, and that's what the "Category Minor Planets" redirection project needs and we are at a cruial point in right now and which Rich has been fantasticly helpful with. The project had hit another wall, with everyone at the BOTREQ at a loss for how to comply fully with the hoop-jumps they've written into WP:NASTRO, Rich came along and with a seeming flick of the wrist magically achieved what no one else either could or would do and were trying to tell me couldn't be done. I have no idea what he might have done so wrong but please know that he does alot right, some very important things others seeming can't. We need him! Now, I am sure you've just got his back up, and so it's hard in that situation to be under attack even if/when you've done wrong, but I'm sure Rich promises to get proper concensus before acting. I'm guessing when you're among the best, you can become arrogant. Maybe you ignore the squabbling masses and act without proper consensus. Don't do that Rich. On Wikipedia go with the flow or else the whole thing doesn't work. I imagine you get like you want to get things done without the tedious endless Entmoots that don't come to the right conclusion. We've all been there. Absolutely enfuriating at times! But we must all respect the limits of a hive mind. Moving too slowly. So say you're sorry and say you agree to respect the hive mind is stronger than even the Gods among us and if they say no no matter how wrong they are you must convince them or not act. There is no need to ban him, he will understand and grudgingly comply. There is no need to ban him! Before you vote to ban him, please think of all the good he does and how much people like me and the project need him and rely on him and all the bad that would result from banning him from the project. And Rich please just say you're sorry and promise to play nice or do whatever they want you to do and help me figure out where to store all these orbitboxes so we can eventually present them to the people as a significant notable whole in all their glory 4D graphic-astro-impact projection for experts to use to predict impacts, if that's what you were talking about. You know, the thing where Rich does his part to save the world. But in the meantime Wikipedia has no true notablity standards, and so long as WP:NASTRO goes unimplemented we're just going to have to hand everyone whose articles are being deleted on notablity grounds alone a link to WP:CRAPEXISTS and a sincere apology but we're working on it. Oh no actually, we're not working on that anymore because we've just banned the only guy who knows how to satisfy every unreasonable requirement of WP:NASTRO to find and fix all the thousands and thousands and thousands of violations. Can you do that? If not you, who? Who among you will see to it that WP:NASTRO is implemented in his absence? It's very difficult, have a look at this visual aid, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_d-gs0WoUw , and understand the enormous job it is to sort throught that haystack looking for needles of notablity, and think how on earth are we going to deal with all of these without Rich Farmbrough? Shudder to think! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_d-gs0WoUw Chrisrus ( talk) 05:14, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I have long enjoyed the contributions of Rich Farmbrough and his bots. I can see that he has gone through the arbitration process but there is a huge amount of text here and the enormity of this arbitration project makes it exclusive to users like me who want to know more and to participate but who cannot commit the large amount of time it would take to come to understand what is happening.
If I understand correctly, some community members are saying that Rich Farmbrough makes controversial automated edits against community consensus. I would especially be interested to learn more about compromises which may have been discussed with this user. I would hate to see useful edits from this user restricted, and it is not clear to me whether this case is actually asserting that nothing useful comes from this user. Actually I am confused about a lot of issues in this case and do not know how to come to understand what is happening without committing to a lot of study. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
@Roger Davies: "The dispute has become polarised and the community at large is broadly unrepresented." The community is represented. As the discussion says "Fram is not the community" Nor is CBM. Nor even both of them put together. A significant number of the commentators here who are broadly supportive are editors with whom I have had little or no contact, who are simply shocked at the way the case has gone. Many of those who have emailed me, or posted on my talk page, have no desire to get involved in these type of discussion - a position I have broadly held in the past. The draft of the proposed decision clearly did not pay any attention to the information I provided on the Workshop page. And from the comment, it seems that most of the other arbitrators did not consider it very closely. Indeed the fact that AGK said on the Evidence page that he would not be voting, and no one even noticed this, suggests that the proposed decision is all that was read. Refusal to allow me time to reply to the ongoing slanderous accusations reflects a continued thread of maladministration. There was simply no reason, especially when the committee itself had been so dilatory in the early stages to refuse this.
Case clerks: Guerillero ( Talk) & NuclearWarfare ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Newyorkbrad ( Talk) & Kirill Lokshin ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
I've seen bots get blocked for being malfunctioning, and their owners fixing the problem and then unblocking the bot. Would this no longer be permitted? -- Rs chen 7754 20:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, it would just be very unwise to unblock your own bots from now on - your bot gets blocked for some unanticipated mistake (which according to ArbCom is already a crime, you should have anticipated mistakes) - then you do your best fixing the problem, changing the code, etc. etc. - if you then unblock, the bot edits on, and the fix is not a perfect fix, and the bot makes a very related, or even the same, unanticipated mistake, then you would have unblocked your bot while not fixing the problem. And no-one can see whether you REALLY tried to fix your bot or not. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 05:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Here I gently chide an admin and BAG member for using evidence of manual editing (saving something then realizing the mistake and fixing it) to support a claim of automatic editing. Citing a <facepalm> as incivility worthy of a year's ban, desysopping and banning from using automation is cazy.
Rich
Farmbrough,
21:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC).
Regarding 3.3.2: how would someone on WP:AE determine whether Rich was using automation? It's notoriously difficult to tell what method was used to make an edit, and if Rich states that a sequence of 1,000 edits (say) was all made manually, there would be no evidence that could contradict this. Even 1,000 edits could be made manually, using tabbed browsing and patience. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 00:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Rich, the point is not whether you use automation or not - the point is that you are banned from using it. They do not have to prove that you are editing automated, if you do 3 edits in a row where you manually clean up three things (e.g., you used Google to find a strange misspelling in three Wikipedia pages), and you save those 3 edits (well within a 4-edit per minute level), you will be 'editing automated'. What, you might even be told off if you do those three edit on 3 different days, and editing in between respectively 53 and 69 other pages - you know how these edit restrictions are and can be used, you know what happened to Δ. And don't worry, because you are now here once, you will re-appear before ArbCom within a year after you are unbanned, and they will cite recividism, and even if they then also can't find anything substantive, they will ban you because you were banned before. There is probably only one way to handle with this - leave. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 10:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Dirk Beetstra asked me to comment here after a comment I made on Rich's talk page.
I've never had a problem with Rich's edits. I know people have been complaining about him for a long time, but the proposed solution seems awfully harsh for the offense. The incivility is barely uncivil, and half of the offenses date from 2010. It would thus seem to be a low-level irritant, hardly the kind of thing to ban someone over. The argument that you need to ban/etc. him because how would you know if he evades his restrictions seems backwards to me. I would expect that you would impose the restrictions, and if he evades them, then ban/etc. him. Well, I've never been on ArbCom, so I don't know how to do your job, but that's the impression I get as an outsider.
Also, Rich has been unfailingly helpful the times I've dealt with him. Currently I have a bot request that's been languishing for over a month. I wanted to lay the groundwork for a Wikiproject project to properly format the references of our thousands of language articles, by adding the necessary parameters to transclusions of the infobox so they can be quickly reviewed by hand. It got hung up on whether the bot should add a reference section, or whether a different bot should clean up afterwards by adding a ref section, but even after I removed that item from the request, it just sat there. (I've just posted it for the third time.) Rich was willing to do it, but his month block was imposed while we were still debating whether it was appropriate to add the reference section. He'd be willing to do it now, but for the threat of being banned. And now I'm getting busy enough with other things that I don't know if I'll be able to start the project if the request is ever approved—which would mean leaving c. 4,000 language articles without overt references, so that editors continually mis-tag them as unreferenced despite the fact that they are referenced.
No-one else steps in to take over from Rich when he's not here. — kwami ( talk) 07:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
@Kirill - Fram is part of the community, Fram is not the representative of the community, Fram is not the community. I ask, again, can you show that the community finds problem with Rich's edits, not only that Fram finds problem with the edits. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 08:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Your dismissive attitude ("No one cares..."; "Forget it and go and write an encyclopedia."; "There is no controversy here. Nothing to see, keep walking.") is a major part of the problem. I don't know how many people care about this, but I can tell you that I do. When I consult diffs to evaluate the edits, your bot's inconsequential changes waste my time. I've gone to your talk page to raise the issue, only to be reminded by the existing complaints (and your [non-]responses thereto) that you routinely ignore/dismiss such criticisms. So I don't bother to add my voice to the futile chorus (and I assume that others act in kind). —David Levy 23:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I understand that Rich's attitude to previous sanctions is telling against him here, but is there no other solution than sitebanning him. Could one maybe just restrict him from making any edits in Article space? He could contribute at places like Wikipedia:WikiProject Perl, he's been giving tutorials in coding which could continue, he just needs to stop contributing using automated tools himself for a bit. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 10:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
All I can say is that reading this does not reflect well on either ArbCom or Rich. One can think of all the metaphors (Sledgehammer <-> Nuts; Baby <-> bath water; etc.). I would encourage both the ArbCom and Rich to step back, to both get over their respective righteousness and self-importance, resolve this problem, apply mutual respect and all get back to work. What a waste of good time and electrons. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Why are some of you trying to bend over backwards to create a means of checking on an editor's contributions when they have apparently shown themselves incapable of living up to the trust that their privileged position already afforded them? Leaky Caldron 14:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
I think the whole automation thing is a red herring. Is it a good edit? Is it a bad edit? Some edits we can have a debate about, but that is not what is being discussed here. People have been kind enough to say that I "do a lot of good work" - maybe someone takes exception to that or maybe we should construct a balance and put grinding through hundreds of elementary particle templates on one side (as good), and removing markup (per guidance) on the other side (as bad). This is the model Wnt tried to introduce - and I think there is something to it, except that it is too complex to actually execute. I would encourage people to try it as a thought exercise. We have maybe 750 edits to this case. Maybe they are neutral, maybe they go to community building, (plus) maybe time wasting (minus). 1500 edits to tag some maps with GFDL, that was before automation at all "open in new tab., edit, ctrl F, ctrl V ctrl S (that was the save keystroke in those days), tab back, repeat, repeat..." - they are all on Commons now, so maybe that's neutral. Fixing up 30,000 US places demographics to be readable and correct text, including 3000 manually. Probably 100,000 typo fixes. Maintaining some 4,000 dated maintenance categories. That's all gotta be good. Being sharp when people are rude to me. Yeah, that's kinda negative (in some ways) - but I'm generally pretty laid back. I got called a "fucking liar" and didn't respond, and far worse things. I think I come out ahead, or at least break even on civility.
So the real question is are we looking backward or forwards? If we are looking backwards I think I have a substantial net contribution to the project. The worst that is being brought against me is saying "Tosh" or <sigh>, or deleting a few trailing spaces. And remember some of the things that have been fussed about, I have gone off and got consensus on, with no objections - as it seems to me was bound to happen.
And then if we look forward, what have I to offer? Well consider that on 24th March I addressed practically every incomplete item on the WP:BOTREQ, and they would all be done if not for blocking (over something we all now agree was pretty harmless, and most people would probably call useful). So as Kwami says, what has happened since? Basically sweet Fanny Adams, except that part of his task came within the purview of a previous BRFA and so could be completed by HPB. Does the community want me around, submitting BRFAs like they're going out of fashion, and solving issues for editors and readers, or would they rather BOTREqs get archived undone?
TLDR - I know.
Rich
Farmbrough,
01:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC).(Using some automation)
As I understand, ArbCom has no trouble to find that Rich has used undisclosed automation under 3.2. But still someone makes the argument that Rich needs to be site-banned because it's impossible to tell if he uses automation under 3.3? And people vote in favour? Galls (and guys), April 1st has been over for more than a month. I would also suggest you read up on Turing test. If you cannot figure out if certain edits are automatic, who cares? And why? -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 14:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
As a BAG member, but not speaking for BAG as a group, I'd like to make a few comments:
The line between "semi-automated" and "script-assisted manual", in my opinion, is another fuzzy line based on the level of human involvement is required in selecting and preparing the edit before presenting it to the user for review. If the script chooses the page and the edits to apply and the human just approves the edit, it's "semi-automated". If the human selects the page and then uses a button to activate the particular script, it's "script-assisted manual". WP:BOTASSIST addresses this issue, as well. In any case, the distinction rarely matters much except when someone is trying to wikilawyer around an accusation of running an unauthorized bot (e.g. the kind of wikilawyering WP:MEATBOT is intended to prevent).
As an editor, I'd also like to comment on something unrelated to Rich Farmbrough's bot activity. In regard to the "Rich Farmbrough's administrator status revoked" remedy, besides Rich's unblocking of his own bots, there have also been issues in the past regarding Rich's making untested, controversial, and/or contra-consensus edits to highly-visible fully-protected templates, with the same attitudes discussed more fully here with respect to his bot operation. I see Fram touched on this in his evidence, and it was mentioned in passing by Fram, CBM, and Elen of the Roads in the workshop. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Rich Farmbrough/October 2010 may also be relevant. Anomie ⚔ 16:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
This section reads... "Examples include cosmetic changes to non-rendered whitespace ( A, B, C, D, E), cosmetic changes to template invocations ( F, G), removal of comments ( H, I), and unapproved mass creation of categories ( J)."
Regarding
I exhort ARBCOM to use better supporting evidence for this resolution, if it is to pass. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
I want to note that admins sometimes unblock their own bot, but when they do so it's usually understood that the cause of the block was addressed, and it's usually done with the another admin's consent. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
That seems rather extreme. The problems are related to script/bot-based editing. I see zero benefits in banning Rich from editing articles 'normally', nor in depriving ourselves of his technical expertise in discussions. Rich, for example, could do a lot of good if he could work with the AWB team to engineer and tweak additional AWB fixes. Since these fixes would be vetted and implemented by the AWB team, we would not run into the problems that led to this case. As for problems of "enforcement", why not do some WP:AGF here and trust RF to keep his word, and trust admins to have a certain level of clue. Distinguishing this behaviour, from this isn't the hardest of things to do. A ban regarding "bot-like editing, largely construed", should certainly be considered before a scorched earth remedy. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
"implicit indication made that automation was used to performed them." should be "implicit indication made that automation was used to perform them."-- Felix Folio Secundus ( talk) 08:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Finding 3.1.6 is badly written, and ignores points made by arbs elsewhere on the page.
Administrators may not unblock their own bot if another admin has blocked it. As Special:Unblock says, "Administrators: If you or your bot have been blocked, you must not unblock yourself even if you believe the block is unfair, inappropriate, or in error. Instead, contact another administrator through e-mail, IRC, the mailing list, or by leaving a note on your talk page." (emphasis added)
What Special:Unblock (which isn't itself policy, of course) means in relation to bots is "don't unblock instead of discussing with others (especially the blocking admin)". That leaves room for the common WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY practice of a blocking admin giving permission to the bot operator to unblock after fixing the problem that was the reason for the block. By contrast, the Finding, in its first sentence, leaves no such room; it's translated into a blanket ban on unblocking your own bot. Whilst there may be a case for such a policy, it's not ArbCom's job to make it, so please don't. Rd232 talk 10:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
The particular text cited was added a little less than a month ago. The older version was in substantially less absolute terms: "As such, you should not unblock your own bot, in the event that it malfunctioned." The older version only covers bot malfunction blocks, while the current version covers every blocked bot. T. Canens ( talk) 08:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
On the other hand, WP:INVOLVED can apply to unblocking your own bots obviously. E.g. the section "Misuse of administrative tools", both the item on "Conflict of interest" and the one on "Reversing the actions of other administrators". Fram ( talk) 08:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Just gut-wrenching. Our priorities are fucked up. Jenks24 ( talk) 13:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
If I understand correctly, the reasoning for the site ban stems from a combination of the difficulty in enforcement of a compromise and Rich's history of breaching his edit restriction. Now, I would like to point out that Rich was of the belief that the restriction itself was illegitimate. Maybe, MAYBE, if he was asked to make a statement acknowledging the legitimacy of an arbcom ER he could be trusted to abide by it. There may need to be a sidebar that says that even people he does not care for *cough*Fram*cough* are able to bring complaints against him without disturbing that legitimacy. I would hope that Rich would get hung for being Rich and not for what betacommand did. Let's not kid ourselves... The siteban is because BC could AND WOULD defy any restriction. Rich isn't there yet, is he? 206.47.78.150 ( talk) 15:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
This discussion isn't going anywhere at all. Line of conversation needs a time out and a reset for it to continue. Will speak to editors individually on talk pages.
Daniel (
talk)
22:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
|
---|
ArbCom sets out in Principle 2, "Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship". Yet, in Finding of Fact 8, only two unblocks have been found (despite the claim of "many occasions") that might have violated policy...separated by two years. Two incidents, separated by two years, and ArbCom finds it necessary to desysop him? Please define "occasional". Two years time between administrative mistakes apparently isn't enough. What is enough to be "occasional"? Is this being done also because of incivility and poor decision making? One of your own has made just as many mistakes in a similar vein, yet no mention of her. Why? How is it that ArbCom finds enough grounds to desysop RF, but not Elen, who as a named party in this case used her administrative tools while blatantly involved to block a bot wholly owned and operated by RF? Elen's conduct, outlined here, was grossly out of line and in violation of policy. Yet, this PD page does not even mention her. One incident you say? How about Elen accusing RF of being "an anal retentive with OCD on the autism spectrum" [15] and asking Rich "Do you want your rattle back yet?" [16]? Maybe it's ok to insult and belittle because it's Rich? How about accusing someone other than Rich of ranting [17], and of living in a parallel universe [18]? How about accusing another editor of six years experience with 21,000 edits of "either not capable of editing, or you are a troll" [19]? How about telling yet another editor "Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out." [20]? Either your own Principle #1 on this PD page applies, or it doesn't. The hypocrisy here is absolutely stunning. The message is blatantly clear; a member of ArbCom can do whatever they like, break whatever policy they like, insult whomever they like, without any fear of consequences for their behavior. ArbCom, your integrity is on the line. Either you deal with the community fairly, and treat everyone as your own Principle #1 asks with "All participants are expected to conduct themselves according to the standards of collegiality and professionalism", or your integrity is empty. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 20:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
|
I am just a lowly content creator/editor. I am not an administrator, and have no desire to be such. So I do not know anything about the "big picture" or "running the encyclopedia." Indeed, I know nothing about operating bots, policies about bots, or governance issues. What I know is that Rich Farmbrough and his bots have done yeoperson work. And I know that from my viewpoint, the changes (some of which are small, e.g., fixing isbn number) make the articles look and function better. I do not have to know how to make a television to enjoy the picture. The encyclopedia is better for these changes. I also think that there are mitigating factors, not the least of which is that there were not clear and unambiguous rules clearly communicated. That the committee does not like some of these edits is a post hoc determination that is violative of due process. That it does not like the way that edits are made, without considering their validity and propriety, is a conclusion in search of a justification. There is no competent evidence presented. Mitigating facts and circumstances have been overlooked and not given due weight. There was no "just cause" for the actions. The committee seems to be overlooking a decade of good works and good faith. A year's ban for this seems to be entirely punitive, and totally disproportionate to the offense and the offender. Indeed, you seem to be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Wikipedia is a better place for his presence, and will be lessened if he is banished. As a labor arbitrator by profession and trade, I think it is incumbent upon the committee to consider the effect of this on Mr. Farmbrough, and on the wikipedia community. If one can be star chambered like this after all this good work, it will serve notice to all that there are no rules, and that there is no restraint. This is bad policy, and will inevitably drive away good editors, and we will all be worse off for it. I say this all with respect and appreciation for the difficulty of your task. But emotional arguments do not void the need for rules, laws, due process, and reason. That he may occasionally be prickly as a pear -- he has a heartfelt concern -- does not change the fact that he has, and continues, to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. This is about justice, not about "just us." Please take the long view, and apply reason and proportionality to your decision. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 21:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
.. but it is not against the spirit of WP:INVOLVED to block the bot of another party while both being a party in an open Arbitration case... Again, do arbitrators have any explanation why this fact is totally ignored? May I remind the Arbitration committee of the precedent there is to resolution on such actions? -- Dirk Beetstra T C 04:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
The evidence phase has closed. If you would like to bring a clerks attention of an issue, please send your request to the listserv or on one of the case clerks talk pages not in the thread itself. -- Guerillero | My Talk 14:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Although the evidence phase has closed, it may be of interest to people participating in this case that at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 April 30#The Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade (Export) (1966), Rich Farmbrough undeleted the history of a number of articles which he had written and which had been deleted at AfD, and the review of whose deletion he then requested. This appears to be an instance of using administrator tools in a case in which he was involved, contrary to WP:INVOLVED. Sandstein 05:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
|
I find it completely and utterly unacceptable that editors are directed by clerks to provide non-confidential material in a non-public forum instead of on-wiki. The move of proceedings to closed, off-wiki venues is one of the major causes for the erosion of ArbComs authority, and, I expect, for the siege mentality. Everything that can be handled on-wiki should be handled on-wiki. That may be less convenient in the short term, but ensures an open process that can be supported by a consensus of editors in the long run. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 16:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Tentative (precluding that AGK can show that he did get approval to use an (albeit approved) script (approved like AWB/ Twinkle are deemed approved for use) to run the task - if that can be shown, I will hat and strike this comment): "AGK has violated the letter and the spirit of the bot policy [22]: running a high-speed task without sufficient approval (getting to 150 edits per minute), running a high-volume task without sufficient approval (over 7000 pages), running a bot task from a non-bot account (using his main admin account), and running an unapproved bot task." -- Dirk Beetstra T C 05:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Interestingly, what I did do was omit templates that were listed in the database report but which are never protected. This careful pruning of the original list of templates reflects the sort of care that we expect of our administrators; the point is that, over time, Rich has neglected to take this sort of care to such a degree that his continued editing in this manner is a source of serious contention to the community. I intend to make no further comment on this issue, in no small part because it is a wild tangent. AGK [•] 01:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
In this "finding of fact", it states (the bold is my own addition):
Rich Farmbrough's editing history shows numerous examples of high-volume, high-speed sequences of identical edits ([15], [16]). These edits were not performed from a bot account or with a bot flag; nor did the associated edit summaries indicate the use any known automation tool; nor was any other explicit or implicit indication made that automation was used to perform them.
Loking at the links involved, I see lots of edits with the summary "automation assisted"; this would seem to contradict the bolded statement. Either better links should be found, or the FoF reworded in such a way that these links don't contradict it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
A much older but more flagrant example of editing with an undisclosed bot (and in this case rather dramatically misfunctioning bot) can be seen in this set of 14 edits) from RF's alter ego User:Megaphone Duck, which was after the last of these blocked with the edit summary "bot malfunctioning"... The saddest thing here is that he was aware of the problems after the first 7 edits, reverted himself with his RF account, and then went on to make the same error on the same seven pages and two more. The problems were so extremely obvious that not much harm was done (everything was reverted minutes later again by Rich Farmbrough and others), but it is a clear example of using the mainspace to test out undisclosed and apparently very buggy bots with very poor results. As far as I know, these edits (and this account) was not presented yet in this case, so it may be a new example (from late 2010 though) for many readers... Fram ( talk) 11:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
At this FoF, the case is being made that six edits per minute, especially sustained, is proof of an undeclared automation/bot (see especially the comments section). I took a look at my own edits vs. this metric for evaluating whether someone is using automation. For the record, I've used Twinkle once for a single edit. Since January 2011, I found 112 instances where I made more than 6 edits in a minute. Twice I exceeded 40 edits per minute (max 47), and 17 times I exceeded 20 per minute. None of these were done using any automation. I only used my fingers, my keyboard, and tabbed browsing. Manually sustaining 6 edits per minute is trivial. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 14:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
I am curious, as this already confused me in the Betacommand case as well: Which policy or guideline is the assumption that an "average of more than 4 edits per minute" means a use of automation based on? Please could someone point me to the page where a consensus was reached on how many edits per minute constitute "automation"? I am sure I must be missing something .... -- Toshio Yamaguchi ( tlk− ctb) 07:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
This is precisely the result that I thought would occur when the case was opened, basically in secret. When Arbcom and the community wants the community to know about a case they do a pretty good job of publicizing it. This one, IMO, was crafted to be a secret assembly. The majority of the community doesn't follow these so the only ones that know are the Accused, the ones doing the accusing and the judges. The only reason I even found this is because I looked at Rich's contributions. Other than that I wouldn't have even known it existed. This case, as with others that came before it dealing with individuals editing practices are routinely one sided. This is precisely the sort of beaurocaratic legal stiffling that is taking over the pedia and not only making it harder to use and edit, but more importantly less fun. More and more editors are turning to deleting anything they can find they themselves didn't create and kicking out the contributors or blocking the new ones. These are the same or similar people who are adding rule after rule and then only choosing to employ them when they feel like it. If Jimbo, the Foundation and the contributors around Wiki want to know why people are leaving at an increasing rate all they need to do is to look at results like this to answer the question. As useful as I would find many of the tools to be and as much as I could use them its days like this that I am glad I am not administrator. I would find it difficult to accept the bit when Rich was desysopped for some of the petty and poorly crafted reasons laid out in this case. Kumioko ( talk) 17:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Following a
discussion at Jclemens' talk page, support for
Principle 6 7 ("Unblocking a bot"), which had previously been passing, has collapsed. An alternative proposal (before the Jclemens TP discussion) was proposed at
Principle 7 8 ("Unblocking your own bot accounts"). However, that reading of
WP:INVOLVED appears to be stretch interpretation of policy; the policy there says nothing of unblocking bots after a malfunction has been repaired. Regardless,
FoF 8 ("Unblocking of SmackBot"), while 100% accurate, now seems a meaningless FoF. Per the discussion on Jclemens' page, the unblocking of one's own bots is common practice, and has been for many years. If there is improper action on the part of RF in unblocking any of his bots, then if ArbCom wishes to include that in the decision a FoF that addresses that issue needs to be raised (and hopefully based on actual evidence). --
Hammersoft (
talk)
21:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Note to ArbCom: Re-ordering principles/fofs/remedies after some have already been posted can really mess up discussion, as it did here in this thread. Please don't do that. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 00:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
This is question for arbitrators, I am not trying to start a long discussion. Does remedy 2 include bot accounts? The remedy says "Rich Farmbrough is indefinitely prohibited from using any automation whatsoever on Wikipedia. Any edits that reasonably appear to be automated are assumed to be so." — Carl ( CBM · talk) 02:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
"2) Rich Farmbrough is indefinitely prohibited from using any automation whatsoever on Wikipedia. Any edits that reasonably appear to be automated are assumed to be so." (my emphasis). What, approximately, is here a 'reasonable appear[ance]'? Is rollback automated? Or is fixing 2 typos in a row giving a reasonable appearance that he used some vague form of automated something? This is so utterly vague that it practically does the same as banning the editor, because that type of wording is too easy to wikilawyer into anything, and hence anything that appears to be automated will result in a block on Rich's account. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 05:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
(od) CBM: it seems to me that the most useful thing that could come out of this section would be a draft remedy to replace the existing proposal, with everyone here cooperating in the drafting. Roger Davies talk 12:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Re Roger Davies: I personally don't think a ban on all automation is necessary. I don't think the problem is the automation itself, which Rich is able to handle. The problem is the lack of consensus behind the particular tasks being chosen and particular edits that are being made.
Just brainstorming as a proposal, here is what I think might be effective at ending the problems:
Just to be clear, the point of this is to allow automation in a controlled way. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 13:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for this. Could we consider this in the following light? The scenario I'd particularly wish to avoid is a repeat of the "Category:Suspected sockpuppets" one. This one speaks to judgment and the ability to consider the possible consequences of an action. In this instance, the consequence is the linking of thousands of IP addresses to thousands of usernames and making those easily searchable. This has all sorts of current privacy/outing implications, and more so under the upcoming TOS. Here, it seems to me we need two restraints. The first is ensure that bot-actions are fully thought through before they're executed. The second to ensure that the process cannot be switched from a bot-action to a high-speed but entirely repetative but allegedly manual continuation of the same process. Roger Davies talk 14:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
General comment: I could support this kind of effort to get Rich back into using automation in a way that will hopefully prevent the same problems arising, but I do think some kind of substantial break is needed before attempting that. I'd say 3 months, during which he would hopefully be productive supporting others in developing bots. Without a break, I fear that he might end up trying to do the same tasks as before, and however good his intentions, that may lead to the same problems. With a break, there's a chance for a new beginning, I feel. Let's have an alternative remedy to 3.3.2, which allows a return after 3 months subject to agreement by Arbcom motion or by the community at a suitable venue. The details of any restriction on the return can then be worked out at the time, taking into account how the interim has gone. Rd232 talk 17:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't going to comment on the 'does he need a break thing, but Rich is currently nailing his own coffin shut by frantically trying to complete every task he thinks will need doing in the next five years, spawning a shedload of mistakes while he's at it - largely tiny, but he's trying to fix em on the run, generating more etc. He has the 'high anxiety' - he's not doing it to cock a snook, but because he's convinced he has to finish all this stuff. A short break might convince him that the project won't fall apart if he takes it slower. In the meantime, can one of his friends persuade him to slow down. He's going at it like John Henry against the steam hammer...and that didn't end well. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 15:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
While I have yet to go through the proposed decision, I would just like to apologise for times when my usually high standards of civility have slipped. Furthermore I accept as I said in my evidence that I have made errors, and not just technical errors, but errors of judgement. And I have been guilty of lack of clarity. All these flaws I will try to avoid in future.
Rich
Farmbrough,
03:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC).
Of course, the unblocking was not 'promptly', and Elen did not in any form acknowledge that she was actually involved. Still sweeping things under the carpet, ArbCom? And may I ask that ArbCom fully votes for this one, before the case closes? Thank you. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 04:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
as suggested above, Rich has made 50 times the number of edits as a busy editor and has thus made 50 times the number of enemies then I'd like to point out that he also has probably made 50 times the number of friends as well. He has been criss-crossing my watchlist (without being on it) for years now and I have always appreciated the work that he has done. A year with out having him show up daily on my watchlist would be like a year without orange juice. Like a year without sunshine. Einar aka Carptrash ( talk) 14:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I hope that the arbs will be very careful in the language in the decision about blocks by involved users. Apart from being a party to the arbitration case, Elen was not " involved", because her participation was only in an administrative role. Indeed she only entered the situation after a noticeboard thread about the edit restrictions.
In general, the entire framework of "involved" has problems for bot operations. The idea of involvement comes from content disputes, where an administrator who is a frequent editor on a page should not block those who disagree about edits on the page. But an administrator who blocks a misbehaving bot after seeing it reported to a noticeboard is not entering a content dispute, they are just acting as an administrator. It would be unfortunate for the language of this decision to impact that.
The true issue here is that an admin who is a party to an arbitration case shouldn't block another editor who is a party to the case, and a reminder to that effect is certainly reasonable. At the same time, the arbitrators were noticeably absent during the workshop period, and they would have been the appropriate people to take on an administrative role towards parties during the case. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 14:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
New Principle #9 is attempting to create policy where policy doesn't exist. The claim in the principle is that Special:Unblock describes policy with "Administrators: If you or your bot have been blocked". As previously noted, Special:Unblock ISN'T policy, and it isn't describing policy either. The reality, as shown here, is that unblocking your own bots is common practice and has been going on for years upon years.
ArbCom, you're really reaching here, and attempting to write policy. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 22:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
ArbCom decisions are made up of three components. The principle describes the policy position. The FoF details the context (or occasionally fails on the grounds that the infringement does rise to the level of a finding). The remedy weighs the principle against the context. I'm sorry if it's a bit complicated but that's how it's always been done and it seems to work well. Roger Davies talk 04:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
(od) ArbCom, as you rightly say, does not write policy. There are longstanding prohibitions in key policies which prohibit admins unblocking their own accounts. Now there's been some discussion suggesting that, notwithstanding these policies, the custom and practice is for owners to unblock their own bots. This, it seems to me, is a classic example of local consensus seeking to trump the longstanding very broad consensus of two separate policies. It needs a much higher level of consensus for such an important and radical change, and a demonstrably much higher level of consensus for ArbCom to endorse it as the new policy.
There's also, of course, the purely pragmatic issue here. Because of the capacity for the infliction of high-speed damage, the bot shouldn't be run again until whatever circumstance that led to the block is completely resolved. An uninvolved third party is probably a better person to evaluate whether the circumstances are completely resolved than the bot owner, who - entirely understandably - may take a more optimistic view. Simply from the point of view of protecting the encyclopedia, a general prohibition with occasional IAR exceptions is much safer than a blanket and completely unqualified "it's fine for admins to unblock their own bots". Roger Davies talk 04:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
It is obvious there is considerable ambiguity with regards to policy and unblocking your own bots. A debate has begun at Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy#Unblocking_bot_accounts regarding this issue, to clarify the policy and avoid misunderstandings. I propose, adding a new remedy written something like:
The community is urged to open up a discussion, by way of request for comment, to clarify unblocking policy with regards to owners unblocking their own bots. Subsequent to the discussion, Special:Unblock should be modified to accurately reflect the updated policy. This should be resolved within two months of the closing of this case. (adapted from Tree shaping)
Thoughts? -- Hammersoft ( talk) 13:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Minor point, I have indicated elsewhere the permission for unblock in both cited cases.
Major point, it is a fairly usual procedure for bots to have a method for stopping alternative to blocking, which is, rightly, seen as clunky and over-powered. For example Smackbot had such a mechanism, initially allowing anyone to stop it, including IPs, it was stopped hundreds of times, usually in error, sometimes for vandalistic purposes, sometimes for GF but wrong reasons, and, of course, sometimes for real bugs. Restarting was never an issue. Similarly when HPB's new control panel goes live, (assuming that certain proposals don't carry) there will be far more fine-grained control available to a selected population (I.E. admins, auto-confirmed, everyone, depending on protection).
Bonus point. Because this is an admin action it is being treated as sacrosanct. If blocking bots was available to all auto-confirmed editors this would not be an issue. Admins, by these attitudes, are elevating ourselves far more than is desirable (i.e. at all).
Rich
Farmbrough,
20:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC).
"Any edits that reasonably appear to be automated are assumed to be so" is going to cause trouble for as long as RF edits and the restriction is in place. This community loves witch hunts and mob lynchings, and takes events where a reasonable person would see a 10% chance of wrongdoing and blow it up to 90% and call for blocks and make huge AN/I threads. I say this because this is exactly what happens on AN/I on a regular basis. I'm not involved in this case, I really don't care one way or the other about any of it, except that I have to point out that you're setting up a massive mess for the future. I predict that eventually RF will make six edits in a minute, someone will scream automation, and the mob will kick in. I predict it happening multiple times in the next six months. I predict this because the community has trained me not to expect any better of it.
Just letting you know. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Looking at Rich Farmbrough's current edits, they are quite informative about what is part of the problem. Note, first, that he is now swift in attempting to correct his errors, which is (according to your point of view) what he always did or a huge improvement, but in any case a positive element.
What remains is that he sets out to make hundreds or thousands of edits, without first adequately testing them; and that he then rushes to correct these edits, but again without adequate testing.
Rich made a significant number of edits with the edit summary "redirect per WP:NASTRO (automation assisted)". I checked a few, and noticed two problems, one minor but that was happening on every single one of these edits, and one much more problematic but that occurred only occasionally. I filed a bug report to note these two problems [31], after which Rich Farmbrough stopped the task, set out to test some things (for some reason apparently not bothering to use the preview, thereby editing the same page 6 times in a row [32]), and then set out to correct the minor problem.
However, while doing this, he didn't correct the more major problem (redirects that were actually redlinks), even when he edited pages with this problem again, and even the examples I gave on his talk page (he finally did these with a second correction run on these pages while I was composing this). Normally, I wouldn't have needed to check such edits in the first place, never mind checking them again after they were corrected. With Rich, sadly, this remains something that needs to be done, because he doesn't do this effectively. The proposed removal of automation (or other means to stop the high speed editing) would solve this problem. Fram ( talk) 13:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Could some of you perhaps actually check his edits instead of complaining about someone who actually does the effort? He is now leaving on all these pages he turns into a redirect the Template:beltasteroid-stub, listing all these redirects incorrectly in Category:Main Belt asteroid stubs. So they probably all need another run to get corrected again. But somehow this will be my fault as well, of course... Examples at the time of writing include 47038 Majoni, 4704 Sheena, 4705 Secchi, 47162 Chicomendez, 4699 Sootan, 4700 Carusi, 47077 Yuji, 4708 Polydoros, 4710 Wade, ... As of now over 50 redirects created since 15.00 ( 4757 Liselotte and all the more recent ones). Fram ( talk) 19:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Hammersoft, your defense, while spirited, doesn't really make sense. Rich Farmbrough removed the "notability" tags from these articles/redirects, even though these added categorization. According to your claims, that went against my request. But on the other hand he did keep the stub tags, which are also templates that add categorization (besides doing other stuff: look at [42] and scroll to the bottom: the extra text is caused by the stub tag, something which categories don't do). Stub tags are, according to the guideline (and common sense), only supposed to appear on articles, not on redirects. So why did he keep them? Why doesn't he check his edits, and wonders whether the result is logical, guideline-compliant, and so on, before making dozens more of the same edits? If he isn't sure, he can always ask, he isn't "the last defender of the wiki" (to use your words about another editor), the edits aren't that urgent. Fram ( talk) 21:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Fram, this is a tempest in a teapot. Post to his talk page. You're right, I am unable to understand. I don't understand the principal by which if a person wants someone to do something different, they don't approach the person, instead they spend more than a dozen edits complaining about the person elsewhere. Since I am unable to understand, certainly further dialogue between us is pointless. I implore you to continue posting in this thread complaining about how bad Rich is; I am sure it will be effective in getting him to remove the stub templates. Though, I have to admit that I don't know how, since I am unable to understand. The incurably stupid, -- Hammersoft ( talk) 15:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Re Hammersoft: Today, someone asked Rich about some bot edits on his talk page [45]. He agreed to change the code; they posted again to point out the edits he agreed to stop were still happening; he left a longish reply, but the same changes are still being made four hours after he said he was disabling them. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 19:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
IMO, what ARBCOM is trying to do is to stop RF from acting like a WP:MEATBOT and generally prevent mass-editing. So they should simply quote WP:MEATBOT (or link to it), or say something like
Rich Farmbrough is banned from mass editing regardless of the method, broadly construed, for a period of <INSERT PERIOD>. That is, RF is banned from both running bots and from behaving like a WP:MEATBOT. This does not cover script-assisted vandal fighting (such as the use of rollback), neither should it prevent the use of assisted-editing to make improvements to specific articles, such as putting the finishing touch on an article after a rewrite/expansion, provided RF took part in the rewrite/expansion himself.
Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Without making any comment on the wiseness of a ban at all - I don't feel I'd be fit to judge because the entire case seems a bit silly to me, let me put forward my opinion that a year long ban is completely pointless. A two month ban would accomplish just as much against a good faith user such as Rich. Egg Centri c 14:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Since this case opened on 4 April 2012, the arbitrator counts have changed several times. This has a direct impact on the majorities to decide each principle / fof / remedy. It's changed from 9, to 10, to 11, and back to 9 again. I'm wondering how many more times the judges of the case are going to wander in and out of the room before the case closes?
Date | Active | Inactive | Recused | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|
4 April 2012 | 9 | 4 | 2 | |
13 April 2012 | 10 | 3 | 2 | Risker goes active |
3 May 2012 | 11 | 2 | 2 | AGK goes active |
11 May 2012 | 9 | 4 | 2 | David Fuchs and Newyorkbrad (who is the drafting arbitrator) go inactive |
12 May 2012 | 10 | 3 | 2 | David Fuchs goes active |
One can flippantly say "Well, it's back to the same count as on April 4" and you'd be right, but the problem here is arbitrators randomly going active/inactive right on the cusp point of needing 5 or 6 arbitrators for a majority to make a decision. 1 principle and 2 remedies are sitting on the cusp of acceptance, where one arb going active now before it closes would render those as not passing. 1 remedy is sitting on the cusp of rejection.
I understand that unforeseen circumstances arise. But this much variability in who is actually sitting the case is highly problematic. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 21:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
There has been lots of discussing about automation and manual editing but this may not quite tackle the issue. Consensus appears to be that RF doesn't always exercise sufficient diligence when editing and veers into controversial areas. In normal editing, this is not a significant problem because simple errors can be swiftly correctly by individual editor action and the controversial stuff resolved via discussion on the talk page.
However, RF has a penchant for high-speed large-volume editing and disruption flowing from sub-optimal edits rapidly escalates in proportion to the speed and volume.
The answer may be a remedy which makes introducing significant numbers of similar sub-optimal edits sanctionable. In other words, the same typo appearing once or twice (or even ten times is not an issue) but if the same error is propagated across tens of articles, it becomes actionable. If a remedy is constructed to address this specific problem - with sanctions at WP:AE on a sliding scale reflecting their volume and magnitude - Rf is completely the master of his own destiny. The burden of proof is obviously low, it's just a matter of linking to contributions, with a comment specifying the specific and serial error.
Thoughts, Roger Davies talk 22:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
See Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich_Farmbrough/Proposed_decision#Alternative_to_site-ban which addresses this directly. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
I started drafting my comments on the new material in the proposed decision yesterday. It looks as though meanwhile the case has moved along a million miles. There are substantial problems with both the arguments and the evidence used in the propose decision. I will need at least a week, possibly two to respond to these matters. I would hope that the case would not be closed until I had time to address these matters and Arbitrators have thoroughly considered what I have to say.
Rich
Farmbrough,
22:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC).
Rich, you have made 8,856 edits from your main account so far this month, and 2,503 since the 10th of May. I don't think the problem was a lack of time to comment; you just spent the time doing other things. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 11:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
At this point, having happened on several cases, I think it's high time for the arbitration committee to create a rule that any named party in an arbitration request is prohibited from editing either the Signpost's Arbitration Report or its talk page. Neutrally worded or not (and in RF's case, it's not), posting "please come and comment on the case" messages isn't good form. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
P.S. Since RF asked for comments about the blocking of Helpful Pixie Bot, I'll just say that I'm overjoyed that it's happening and that I hope that the next person who attempts to create an ISBN helper bot a) has second thoughts and decides not to, or failing that b) creates one that isn't horribly broken.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sven Manguard ( talk • contribs)
(copied from main case
diff. --
Dirk Beetstra
T
C
06:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC))
If I may, I don't know if I'm allowed to vote here, but I just went to leave a message about an important matter which I need his help with on Rich's talk page and I'm told he can't respond as he has to fight a movement to ban him from Wikipedia, and so I came right away to plead that this not be done. I have no idea what he's been accused of and honestly don't want to know. All I care about right now is that among the accusations doesn't seem to be any doubt whatsoever that he hasn't got some serious bot-chops like nobody's business, and that's what the "Category Minor Planets" redirection project needs and we are at a cruial point in right now and which Rich has been fantasticly helpful with. The project had hit another wall, with everyone at the BOTREQ at a loss for how to comply fully with the hoop-jumps they've written into WP:NASTRO, Rich came along and with a seeming flick of the wrist magically achieved what no one else either could or would do and were trying to tell me couldn't be done. I have no idea what he might have done so wrong but please know that he does alot right, some very important things others seeming can't. We need him! Now, I am sure you've just got his back up, and so it's hard in that situation to be under attack even if/when you've done wrong, but I'm sure Rich promises to get proper concensus before acting. I'm guessing when you're among the best, you can become arrogant. Maybe you ignore the squabbling masses and act without proper consensus. Don't do that Rich. On Wikipedia go with the flow or else the whole thing doesn't work. I imagine you get like you want to get things done without the tedious endless Entmoots that don't come to the right conclusion. We've all been there. Absolutely enfuriating at times! But we must all respect the limits of a hive mind. Moving too slowly. So say you're sorry and say you agree to respect the hive mind is stronger than even the Gods among us and if they say no no matter how wrong they are you must convince them or not act. There is no need to ban him, he will understand and grudgingly comply. There is no need to ban him! Before you vote to ban him, please think of all the good he does and how much people like me and the project need him and rely on him and all the bad that would result from banning him from the project. And Rich please just say you're sorry and promise to play nice or do whatever they want you to do and help me figure out where to store all these orbitboxes so we can eventually present them to the people as a significant notable whole in all their glory 4D graphic-astro-impact projection for experts to use to predict impacts, if that's what you were talking about. You know, the thing where Rich does his part to save the world. But in the meantime Wikipedia has no true notablity standards, and so long as WP:NASTRO goes unimplemented we're just going to have to hand everyone whose articles are being deleted on notablity grounds alone a link to WP:CRAPEXISTS and a sincere apology but we're working on it. Oh no actually, we're not working on that anymore because we've just banned the only guy who knows how to satisfy every unreasonable requirement of WP:NASTRO to find and fix all the thousands and thousands and thousands of violations. Can you do that? If not you, who? Who among you will see to it that WP:NASTRO is implemented in his absence? It's very difficult, have a look at this visual aid, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_d-gs0WoUw , and understand the enormous job it is to sort throught that haystack looking for needles of notablity, and think how on earth are we going to deal with all of these without Rich Farmbrough? Shudder to think! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_d-gs0WoUw Chrisrus ( talk) 05:14, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I have long enjoyed the contributions of Rich Farmbrough and his bots. I can see that he has gone through the arbitration process but there is a huge amount of text here and the enormity of this arbitration project makes it exclusive to users like me who want to know more and to participate but who cannot commit the large amount of time it would take to come to understand what is happening.
If I understand correctly, some community members are saying that Rich Farmbrough makes controversial automated edits against community consensus. I would especially be interested to learn more about compromises which may have been discussed with this user. I would hate to see useful edits from this user restricted, and it is not clear to me whether this case is actually asserting that nothing useful comes from this user. Actually I am confused about a lot of issues in this case and do not know how to come to understand what is happening without committing to a lot of study. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
@Roger Davies: "The dispute has become polarised and the community at large is broadly unrepresented." The community is represented. As the discussion says "Fram is not the community" Nor is CBM. Nor even both of them put together. A significant number of the commentators here who are broadly supportive are editors with whom I have had little or no contact, who are simply shocked at the way the case has gone. Many of those who have emailed me, or posted on my talk page, have no desire to get involved in these type of discussion - a position I have broadly held in the past. The draft of the proposed decision clearly did not pay any attention to the information I provided on the Workshop page. And from the comment, it seems that most of the other arbitrators did not consider it very closely. Indeed the fact that AGK said on the Evidence page that he would not be voting, and no one even noticed this, suggests that the proposed decision is all that was read. Refusal to allow me time to reply to the ongoing slanderous accusations reflects a continued thread of maladministration. There was simply no reason, especially when the committee itself had been so dilatory in the early stages to refuse this.