Salvio giuliano (talk | contribs) |
Duckduckstop (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 293: | Line 293: | ||
=== Statement by Italick === |
=== Statement by Italick === |
||
The edit in discussion does not appear automated. In any case, it did not require copy, paste, and search. Instead of just looking at the diff and assuming that it is automation, I opened the original page for editing in a window. Then I saw that setting up the new version is merely a matter of deleting numbers and punctuation after each link in the list, and deleting some blank lines. Nothing fancy was needed to do that. [[User:Italick|Italick]] ([[User talk:Italick|talk]]) 09:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC) |
The edit in discussion does not appear automated. In any case, it did not require copy, paste, and search. Instead of just looking at the diff and assuming that it is automation, I opened the original page for editing in a window. Then I saw that setting up the new version is merely a matter of deleting numbers and punctuation after each link in the list, and deleting some blank lines. Nothing fancy was needed to do that. [[User:Italick|Italick]] ([[User talk:Italick|talk]]) 09:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC) |
||
=== Statement by uninvolved duckduckstop === |
|||
well, here we are again. |
|||
has arbcom learned yet that micromanaging editors is problematic? when will there be civility enforcement toward admins here? |
|||
i see we have an admin who is blocked at bugzilla, acting the same way here. |
|||
i have heard it said that editors are a dime a dozen, and replaceable. is this case a refutation? is anyone else fixing isbn's? |
|||
is a high edit count rather a block me sign, since the error patrol has more to rake over the coals? |
|||
when you ask if he is "marking time", is that a refutation of fresh start? when you ask why not just edit by typing, is that a refutation of all the tools and bots, most of which have unintended consequences? i note that bots that delete references are allowed to run, but heaven help the bot that adds a typo. |
|||
stop blaming the editor, and start fixing the system. |
|||
if you don't like the editor's output, then give him the tools to reduce errors. |
|||
this kind of zero defect thinking in this case, is profoundly incompetent. |
|||
it leads to zero activity, and zero improvement. |
|||
and make no mistake, if you were to ever ask, why is there editor decline; this is a clarion call why. [[User:Duckduckstop|Duckduckstop]] ([[User talk:Duckduckstop|talk]]) 19:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC) |
|||
=== Statement by {other user} === |
=== Statement by {other user} === |
Revision as of 19:31, 14 April 2014
Requests for clarification and amendment
Amendment request: Rich Farmbrough
Initiated by Rich Farmbrough, 04:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC).
- Clauses to which an amendment is requested
- Remedy 2
- Motion 2
- List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
- Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
- Information about amendment request
- Strike motion 2
- Modify Remedy 2
Statement by Rich Farmbrough
The previous arbitration case defined an automaton tool in principle 3.1
An automation tool is a technology designed to facilitate making multiple similar edits that would be unduly time-consuming or tedious for a human editor to perform manually.
A "remedy" was passed (Remedy 2)
Rich Farmbrough is indefinitely prohibited from using any automation whatsoever on Wikipedia....
Presumably, since the drafting arbitrator had defined "automation tool", and since the initial complaint was that automation tools had been used in a way that caused issues disruption, by making multiple similar edits, automation tools is what is meant here. The actual wording is overboard and unenforceable.
For this reason I request that:
Request 1
The text of the first sentence of remedy 2 be forthwith changed to:
Rich Farmbrough is indefinitely prohibited from using any automation tool whatsoever on Wikipedia to make multiple similar edits.
Request 2
A, hopefully unintended, side effect of is my inability to archive my talk page, (possibly) to create lists of articles for people to work on and make other perfectly innocuous changes. Therefore I request the following to be added to Remedy 2.
This shall not apply to pages in Rich Farmbrough's own User; And User talk: area.
I note that a similar request was turned down two years ago as being "too soon." I hope this no longer applies.
Request 3
Motion 2 (which has been described by arbitrators as "draconian") was introduced in somewhat heated circumstances. I had mis-clicked on a tool I was using to compile lists and prepare text and made two "automated edits". Much ABF followed, together with many unfounded accusations and threats to bring out the ban-hammer. Nonetheless, the existing remedies were quite sufficient for a one-month block to be enacted. Given this the imposition of an additional editing restriction, especially one as broad reaching as this seems pointless.
Motion 2 has been subject to much abuse, resulting in a years bock over an edit that added references to a page, but caused an error due to the wholly manual omission of a "/". It was even suggested that editing the page to insert the missing "/" constituted automated editing.
Neither this, nor the subsequent request for AE, nor any other complaint based on the Motion 2 have had anything to do with "making multiple similar edits" - the effect has been not to prevent disruption but to create disruption.
Moreover the Motion forbids such simple tasks as cutting and pasting, making even raising this request sanctioanble. I have given elsewhere examples of perfectly normal, not say essential, editing techniques which are banned by this Motion 2. I will repeat them here if requested.
So request 3 is:
Strike Motion 2
@Beeblebrox. I think you confuse me with someone else. With the possible exception of the series of edits correcting the my own spelling error "Vertebrate zoology" to "Vertebrate Zoology", for which I apologized profusely and was blocked for a month two years ago, no-one has even suggested that I have done the type of multiple edits that allegedly caused disruption.
You might also want to look at some of the other parts of the case. For example this edit was considered a reason to remove my admin bit. And yet you can "sigh" in your edit summary with no consequences.
All I am trying to achieve here, is to restore sanity to the editing restrictions, not to remove them, however flawed they are. I can see no way these requested changes can harm the project, even if the manifest WP:ABF were justified.
I would really appreciate being treated in a courteous manner, and have the issues addressed, rather than coded and not so coded insults.
However, I will make an additional effort to move the dialogue forward: Suggest, please, an editing task which I could take on which would not violate Motion 2?
All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 21:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC).
Statement by Pine
Without wading into the details of Rich's motion I am hoping Arbcom can come up with a solution that will eliminate the need for constant supervision of Rich's situation, and reduce the frequency of trips to arbitration and arbitration enforcement pages. I think the original sanctions were intended to prevent disruption but if they have become an obstacle to Rich being a non-disruptive contributor and are frequently discussed at great length on arbitration and arbitration enforcement pages then I think it's time for a change. --Pine✉ 07:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- This is going to reveal that I haven't researched deeply into Rich's case beyond seeing how much text it has produced over the years, but wouldn't it be easy to have an arbitration remedy that prohibits disruptive automated editing, and leave the enforcement of that to the discretion of AE, ANI, and BASC? --Pine✉ 07:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Statement by {yet another user}
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}
Clerk notes
- This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Arbitrator views and discussion
- Here's what you are (deliberately?) not getting: The "too soon" response is not just meant to say that time needs to pass, it means that you need to spend some time where you are unblocked, actively editing, and not doing anything that could possibly be interpreted as violating or testing the boundaries of your current sanctions. So, yeah, still too soon for my taste. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- Just thinking out loud here, what would be the downside of exempting Rich's own userspace from the restriction? (Actually, I can think of one myself: that Rich would create buggy articles in userspace and then port them to mainspace. Rich, can you assure us you wouldn't do that?) Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- Speedily dismiss as essentially duplicating the clarification request. AGK [•] 10:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- Rich's sanctions were put in place to stop the past issues whilst retaining the editor. They were draconian and understandably so, but they haven't worked. We've now got two options, give up and block indefinitely or clarify the sanctions so that they keep the problems from re-occurring, whilst also being something Rich can work within. I spent a while trying to think of how best to phrase it, but simply put this motion was pretty much the solution I would have come up with. It's clear what we are currently referring to as "automation":
1) Numerous similar edits across multiple pages - i.e. traditional "bot" editing
2) Non-trivial find and replace across a single page - i.e. any find and replace that would require regex involvement. Also, "find and replace all" will fall under this. Each replacement should be checked manually.
3) Any other scripted manipulations of text, either directly performed on-wiki or performed off-wiki and moved on.
We were never just looking at number 1, so I'd deny Rich's first request outright. Regarding the userspace exemption, this would instantly sort the below clarification request. It's not generally an unreasonable request and I would be amenable to it in the future - possibly after 6 months of good editing. The very existence of the clarification request below does not give me sufficient faith that it would not be abused at the moment, so I would deny Rich's second request for the time being. Finally, motion 2, per my previous comments - is not something I'd be willing to remove at the moment. WormTT(talk) 10:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- By what measure, Dave, hasn't the restriction worked? The main page hasn't been tagged uncategorised recently; the boards aren't filled with people complaining; the bots aren't re-running to fix earlier errors (and introduce new ones). The lack of high-speed disruption looks pretty good to me, Roger Davies talk 11:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- We have two clarification requests, multiple emails and discussions in other fora regarding Rich within 3 weeks of his block expiring. That spells "something not right" to me. That said, I can't see any better solution. WormTT(talk) 11:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- By what measure, Dave, hasn't the restriction worked? The main page hasn't been tagged uncategorised recently; the boards aren't filled with people complaining; the bots aren't re-running to fix earlier errors (and introduce new ones). The lack of high-speed disruption looks pretty good to me, Roger Davies talk 11:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- The notion that someone is only able to archive their talk page by running a custom bot beggars belief. In a nutshell, the issue here is that Rich appears incapable of being completely satisfied with anything unless he has automated it. Summarily dismiss, Roger Davies talk 11:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- Not necessarily a "custom" bot; could Rich permissibly sign up for any of the archiving bots? Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- My own talk page has 32 archives, all of which I managed to create without any sort of automated tool. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- Decline. T. Canens (talk) 16:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- Decline, but allow Rich to use a bot to archive his talk page. I can't imagine how permitting him to do that could a. lead to disruption and b. be contentious. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Clarification request: Rich Farmbrough
Initiated by Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) at 08:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
- Callanecc (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
- Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Notification
- Fram (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Notification
- Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Notification
- HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Notification
- SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Notification
- DangerousPanda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Notification
- I've included the user who filed the request (Fram) as well as the admins who discussed it for notification purposes. I haven't included all users who commented, I'll leave that up to the arbs and clerks if they believe it necessary.
Statement by Callanecc
Fram (talk · contribs) submitted an arbitration enforcement request regarding some recent edits by Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs). I've copied the applicable contents of that request below so that they are recorded here with this request, I won't copy Rich's statement across in case he wishes to say something different in this context.
- 04:49 8 April 2014: whether the original page was created using automation may be hard to prove (although everything points in that direction as well). But this subsequent edit is clearly not manually made. Every instance of " (*" (an opening bracket preceded by a space, plus every character after that on the same line) has been removed, no matter if that was wanted or not. The result is that you get changes like:
- Albategnius (al-Battani) (1333*) to [[Albategnius
- Alhazen (al-Haitam) (2490*) to [[Alhazen
- Alicia (344*) Boole (340*) to [[Alicia
- Julia (1945*) Bowman (1924*) to [[Julia
- ibn Sina (1984*) (1965*) to [[ibn Sina
- Anna (530*) Johnson (516*) to [[Anna
- Lord (2752*) Kelvin (2702*) to [[Lord
- Leonardo of Pisa (2250*) (2223*) to [[Leonardo of Pisa
And about ten further instances of the same pattern. Perhap others will see this as a manual edit nevertheless, but to me it certainly matches "For the purposes of this remedy, any edits that reasonably appear to be automated shall be assumed to be so.".
- 06:27 6 April 2014 This one is taken from the end of this document, pages 104-105 (or from a different site with the same information and formatting, his page lists no source); note how, in Rich's article, four companies have a name ending in (a); 79 TOTAL Deutschland GmbH(a), Germany, 191 TOTAL Petrochemicals & Refining S.A. / NV(a), Belgium, 192 TOTAL Petrochemicals & Refining USA Inc. (a), United States, and 207 TOTAL UK Limited (a), United Kingdom. These just happen to be the same four companies that have a "*" after their name in the original document, indicating a footnote for "multi-segment entities". It seems unlikely that Rich Farmbroug made the same typo four times, matching exactly these four "starred" companies, the only ones to have that extra bit.
- User:Fram, Special:Permalink/603418882
The administrators discussing the enforcement request could not agree if using the find and replace function meets the criteria set down by the Committee and if it does what an appropriate sanction would be. Given the disagreement regarding this and considering the Committee's motion that further violations will likely lead to a site-ban I thought it was best to refer this to the Committee for appropriate action. I'll close the AE request with a message that I've referred the issue to here. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- @Beyond My Ken: It's not asking for it to be rescinded at all, it's asking if the Committee considers it to be a violation and if they do then asking them to take action. That's becasue the highest sanction AE can hand down (a one year block) has already been applied and hasn't worked, therefore it's the Committee's turn to decide whether to block again or enact the site-ban they threatened. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Statement by John Vandenberg
I was just about to close this as a 'close call but not actionable', but I was too slow and was edit conflicted twice, so I will post my draft closure decision here.
Most of the other admins here believe this doesnt fit within the arbitration committees decision, for a variety of reasons. Only Sandstein sees it that way, but I dont think it is healthy for him to be the leading enforcement admin on the third AE regarding Rich in a row. Given the other input to this AE, I dont think this is worth a clarification request. If Rich is trying to see how much he can get away with, it wont be long before there will be more a actionable AE request. These diffs are different from previous two reported to AE, and the general thrust of prior editing problems. The first diff is userspace, which should be ignored unless it is disruptive due to side effect on other users, which hasnt been claimed here. The second diff is a list article created by Rich (articles of this type are often created offline by manipulating other datasets) and the very minor issues in the initial version are within acceptable levels given the size of the page. It would have been easy to miss those '(a)'s even in a close review of the wikitext. If Rich regularly leaves small bits of junk in new content pages, this would be actionable, but not for just one instance. Rich, if you are going to create articles in this manner, I strongly suggest that you first of all push the data elements into Wikidata, and extract the data from there to obtain your draft wikitext table to be incorporated into the new Wikipedia article. That will reduce errors like the one Fram found, as it separates data extraction from data reporting, and utilises Wikidatas datatypes to validate the data. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Statement by Sandstein
Considering the surprisingly intense disagreement among administrators (and other users of unclear involvedness) responding to the AE request, I recommend that the Committee examine whether the restrictions imposed in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough should continue to apply as written (in which case, in my view, Rich Farmbrough's apparent use of search-and-replace functionality violates the restrictions and should lead to an enforcement block), whether the site ban announced in the decision as a likely consequence of violations should be imposed, or whether the sanction should be modified or lifted.
I have not followed the original case and therefore express no opinion as to whether or to which degree the restrictions are (still) needed to prevent damage or disruption to the project. Sandstein 10:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Statement by DangerousPanda/EatsShootsAndLeaves
I do implore ArbComm to review this situation, determine if the supposed transgression was indeed a transgression, and if it was, cast your stones upon the transgressor in the manner that you see fit.
Let me start by saying that I do not believe that I have been one of Rich's supporters in the past.
Personally, I find the AE Enforcement filing to have been distasteful, inappropriate, and simply "someone looking for a reason - weak as it was - to get Rich booted". In that light, I would actually desire sanctions imposed that would prevent such divisive and inappropriate behaviour from ever happening again, be it WP:IBAN, blocks, whatever. No editor should be targetted so regularly, and for such small things.
I suppose the predecessor to that, however, will be determining if using Find...Replace is considered to be an "automated tool" to make "automated edits", in contravention of the meaning and spirit of RF's restrictions.
I don't want to sound like a wikilaywer, but you'll also have to define what "editing Wikipedia" means. Is it the action of clicking "save" once? Or, is it sitting down, reading, searching, referencing, typing, copying/pasting over an entire editing session. For example, I may make some edits, go to ANI, use CTRL-F and search for a specific report, make some comments, go elsewhere and make article edits ... is all of this considered to be "editing Wikipedia", or just the few times I clicked "save" - this is important, because if I have a restriction against using a so-called "automated tool", and you consider Find...Replace to be "automated", then so is using CTRL-F because it prevents me from having to manually scan a page of words using my own eyes. If CTRL-F is "automated", I'll bet you'll need to block Rich a dozen times a day.
You'd then have to define if Copy...Paste is also an automated tool? Always? Sometimes? Never? It depends? For example, if I go to the article on Trinidad and Tobago right now, select a small amount of text, copy it, open the article on Tobago and paste it in ... am I using an "automated tool" because it prevents me from having to type the words manually? If copy and paste between articles is verboten as automated in that case, what about when I go to the top of the page and highlight the entire URL of the page I'm looking at, then paste it into a new browser window ... was that a use of an automated tool while editing Wikipedia?
Define the differences? Is there a difference between an "automated tool" and an "editing tool", or an "automated process", or "automated edits".
So, yeah, I was a bit cheesed off last evening when I saw the AE Enforcement request as I considered it petty, wrong, and harassment. So please, clarify for everyone edits, editing, automated proccesses and editing tools. Then, you'll need to cast stones in one of 2 directions ... or both. ES&L 11:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- @Fram: I'm one of your more vocal opponents? No, I grew up many years ago and don't play that game. You dropped by my talkpage, became offensive, I shut it down, case closed. Grudges are something that children hold. So, to close you down once is not being "a vocal opponent". To be forced to restate the same thing to you every time you re-hash the same stupid "he hates me" thing, again, it doesn't make me a "vocal opponent". You're the one bringing it up again and again, not me - which forces me to say over and over again "no, wrong". ES&L 12:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Comment by Beyond My Ken
The ArbCom remedy in the Rich Farmbrough case is quite clear. It (Remedy 2) says:
Rich Farmbrough is indefinitely prohibited from using any automation whatsoever on Wikipedia. For the purposes of this remedy, any edits that reasonably appear to be automated shall be assumed to be so. (emphasis added)
While some of the admins at AE expressed surprise that search-and-replace would fall under this definition, there can actually be no argument that a software routine which makes edits as specified by a human editor is not a manual edit, but the use of automation. Search-and-replace is so familiar to us that we don't think of it that way, but this is nonetheless true.
So, given the clarity of the remedy, and the fact that search-and-replace is undeniably automation, what's being asked for here is, in fact, not really a clarification of the remedy, but the rescinding of it, because it seems "nonsensical" to some. Perhaps they are right, perhaps it is "nonsensical" -- but it is also abundantly clear, and has been already used to block Farmbrough for a year. There is no difference here, despite Farmbrough's attempt to Wikilawyer the remedy into submission by reference to a definition of automation used in a different part of the Committee's decision (Principle 3.1), which does not and cannot overide the clear definition of automation given in the remedy.
Given all this, the Committee should reaffirm its previous remedy and sanction Rich Farmbrough appropriately. BMK (talk) 11:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- As to what an "appropriate" sanction might be, reading the Arb comments to this point, I'd say that sentiment is leaning towards RF's actions being a clear violation of the remedy, but perhaps only a technical one, and that having taken place in his userspace mitigates the violation somewhat. Therefore, I suggest that the Committee impose a significant block - say for a month - with a clear notice to RF that any boundary-exploration anywhere on Wikipedia, with no exceptions, will result in an immediate site ban, enforceable at AE. I think that would be a loud and clear message to RF, who can then decide if he is interested in continuing to edit here under those conditions. BMK (talk) 12:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Statement by Fram
EatsShootsandLeaves starts with "Let me start by saying that I do not believe that I have been one of Rich's supporters in the past.", but forgots to add that he is one of my more vocal opponents, having forbidden me to go to his talk page in the future, and concluding "Just when one thinks that someone is improving as a person AND as an editor - WHAM! - they fuck it up badly (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)" When one points out that one is an objective commentator, it may be more correct to indicate the position one has about both editors, certainly when he concludes "Then, you'll need to cast stones in one of 2 directions ... or both.", as if the possibility that no stones will be cast doesn't exist. As for the substance of his comments: the difference between his examples and what happened here is that the result is what counts; how you browse or read pages is of no consequence, how you find things is your business, but if someone chooses to replace hundreds of instances of "A" with "B" in one unsupervised go, including some "A"s that shouldn't have been replaced, then yes, that is automation as defined in the rstriction, and similar to the one that led to the previous year-long block. What message are you trying to send with wanting to silence the one person that did most of the legwork in establishing that there was a pattern of problematic editing in the first place, and who corrected hundreds of such edits after the case ended and it became obvious that no one else would? Fram (talk) 12:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
@EatsShootsandLeaves "close you down once" = told me not to come to your talk page again, with the clear wish that some other admin would block me if I did. "To be forced to restate the same thing to you every time you re-hash the same stupid "he hates me" thing, again, it doesn't make me a "vocal opponent".": let me count the ways: "restate", "same", "every time", "rehash", "same", and "again" in one sentence (and a few more in the next), wow, there must have been countless times I have made such "he hates me" statements. Shouldn't be too hard to find a few examples then. As far as I can remember, I raised the issue once before this. Please refresh my memory on all these other times. Fram (talk) 12:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
@Everyone who thinks I shouldn't be the one making these reports. While I can see your point, the problem is that the mantra some people use of "someone else will see it" isn't correct. As an example: I opened Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough in April 2012, and it closed on 15 May 2012. Lots of his edits (account and bots) were scrutinised at the time, but even so, a long series of errors (first made from his account as an unapproved bot test, then ran as an approved but buggy bot task) wasn't found until some weeks after the case closed (and then only accidentally, because I was checking edits made by another user, User:Jaguar), and then corrected. I started these corrections on 30 May 2012[1] and finished a few hundred error corrections later on 5 June 2012[2]. I have no interest in waiting until such things happens again, so I try to prevent this by checking early. It is not really logical that the "reward" for researching a case, bringing evidence, showing the harm done by the problems, convincing people through a long and laborious process (with lots of abuse from some people), and correcting the problems, is that one would not be allowed to follow up on it, to check that the problems don't start again, and even get threatened with an interaction ban by an admin (I thought that usually for an interaction ban, a series of problematic interactions should be established, not someone repeatedly but correctly pointing out problems with the edits by another user). Obviously, if the conclusion of the Arbs is that userspace edits, or single page edits, are not actionable under the restriction, then I will not bring such edits to AE again. But whether an edit is a violation is not dependent on who reports it. Fram (talk) 07:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Exasperation by NE Ent
Arbcom '12 messed this up. "Automation" is one of those words that we bandy about without thinking about too much -- it seems to have some sort of meaning so we're comfortable using it. It's a vague general nebulous concept, not something that is crisp and well understood. As an intentionally absurd argument, consider: on 4 April RF edited Poundworld, and since that time maybe 200 folks have viewed that page. Did RF make that edit 200 times -- no, it's automation! Or the text substitution of a {{u|NE Ent}} template is (or isn't), or the spell check built into the browser -- at one point Arbcom '12 members were arguing about whether that counted or not.
"may make reasonable inferences regarding the probable use of such tools on the basis of several factors, including the speed, number, timing, and consistency of the edits". Okay, so what if RF makes a series of 20 edits that are exactly 18 seconds apart? What if the 20 edits vary from 17 to 19 seconds, but are uniformly distributed instead of Gaussian -- or should "normal" editing be a Poisson distribution???
More ridiculous examples upon request.
The bottom line is that, despite Arbcom '12s good intentions, it is just inherently unreasonable to use "reasonably" in a remedy that references something as ill-defined as "automation." I think Arbcom '14 has to open this back up and provide a remedy that is clearly and unequivocally understood.
Note: I commented in the case pages under prior username Nobody Ent NE Ent 13:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- You're traveling through another dimension -- a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind. A journey into a absurd land whose boundaries are that of inanity. That's a signpost up ahead: your next stop: the Wikipedia Zone!
- Back in 1985 I had an Okidata 92 dot matrix printer hooked up to a Commodore 64 and some word processing package I've forgotten the name of; I remember how incredibly cool it was to be able fix things before committing them to paper as the human powered typewriter I had been using did. I'm sure there was a search and replace function. That was 39 years ago. It had a search and replace function. It's 2014 folks. It's not that the restriction is trying to make RF "edit like a human," it's forbidding him to. (At least a human of the third millennia CE.) Only on Wikipedia would the archaic "type weird symbols into a html text box" be considered "using an editor." There is a real world out there folks, can we try to act like we're part of it, maybe?
- If Rich's past wiki-transgressions are so heinous that he can't be trusted not to fall off the wagon and run a bot tomorrow if he uses spell-check etc. today, just end the farce already and site ban him.NE Ent 01:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Statement by Ohconfucius
The devil lies in the detail. The Arbcom definition of automation cited above remains very subjective and leaves a lot to be desired. In truth, our notions of what constitutes automation evolves with the state of technology. My take is that in today's world, where we rely on computers to do routine and mundane things, performing calculations (instead of longhand or mental arithmetic) or copy–paste (instead of handwriting) is so off-the-scale in terms of what might reasonably be defined or considered "automation". Clicking on the undo button for a series of articles is equally not automation. The beginning of true automation lies somewhere between running a single regex and a 20-regex script over more than a small handful of articles. The edits brought here as examples look like one-off edit of one single and simple regex at worst. Poundworld is not an automated edit. Even if this were in mainspace, it's the product of a simple regex that I'd be inclined to dismiss as a piss-take. This extraction seems like something that can be manipulated with a spreadsheet or word processor. It seems so limited end of my definition that it would be unreasonable to consider it a breach. In addition, RF's editing seems not to have fallen foul of the "speed, number, timing, and consistency of the edits" criteria either. -- Ohc ¡digame! 15:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Statement by uninvolved A Quest for Knowledge
I'll repeat what I said at AE:
I hadn't planned on commenting, but I am taken aback by the suggestion that Find and Replace searches aren't automated searches edits. As a software developer for the past 15+ years, I can say that using a text editor's search and replacement feature is absolutely an automated process and one that requires special attention to each and every edit. While I don't know the specifics of RF's ArbCom history, apparently this user has screwed this up so many times that the community has decided that they cannot be trusted to do this again. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Statement by Rich Farmbrough
I have little to add to what has been said, at the moment.
I would just like to remind Arbitrators (or point out if they didn't already know it) that it is not pleasant having people impugn one's motives at the best of times.
All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 23:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC).
@Harry: "Write an article..." what are John Valentine Wistar Shaw and Cayley's Sextic, chopped liver? And what is chopped liver anyway? All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 01:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC).
@Roger: You ask:
"If you're able only to edit by typing into a box and pressing [save page], does editing Wikipedia have any long-term attraction at all for you?
Or, to put it another way, are you simply marking time here, until the moment when your bot privileges are restored?"
Here are two completely different questions, both, if I may say so, rather confused. I think I made it clear in my email to the committee that I am mainly catching up on edits I wanted to make while I was blocked. And I think I also made it clear, that just because I ran bots and used tools, it did not mean that I was not a content creator - albeit overshadowed in my fields by people like Matt Crypto, Charles Matthews, MIcahel Hardy, Oleg Alexander, etc.. I do not like to sit comparing dozens of pairs of texts as if I were searching for V1 launch sites (perhaps an apt comparison). However I do like to see the encyclopaedia improved. I find it strange that people would fix an error without asking themselves "How widespread is this sort of problem" and "How can we prevent it happening" and "How can ewe fix it everywhere?" So does Wikipedia hold a long term attraction for me? Yes, if we are talking in the realms of a few years, I will continue to fix errors whether they are substantive such as this, or stylistic. I will even search them them out, so for example the previous mentioned error was discovered after finding a dubious statement supported by unreliable sources in one article, that was also present in about ten other articles. These statements are linked to the Jagged 85 case, which means they have been on Wikipedia for 6 years and are propagating across the Internet and print media, and back into other WP articles. (We do not have the manpower to deal with this sort of thing, despite tremendous efforts by some editors - kicking out someone who might make a contribution there seems crazy.)
Similarly I tagged some 3000 incorrect ISBNs in 2012, 2600 of them remain (and probably some have only had the tag removed) and another 3-4000 ISBN errors have been made since. As far as I know, no-one has made a concerted effort to fix these in my two years absence. I am most of the way through fixing the 24 Featured Articles, and have fixed about a dozen others, including some of the 100 odd Good Articles. In the process I have done the following:
- Edited by typing into a box and pressing [save page]
- Copied text from the edit window to use elsewhere
- Copied text from the page to use elsewhere
- Cut text by selecting it and pressing Ctrl-X
- Replaced text by selecting it and typing
- Pasted text from elsewhere
- Moved the caret by using the mouse
- Selected text using the control and arrow keys
- Used the scroll bar on the edit box
In the process of writing Cayley's sextic I also used the "Greek" gadget to insert π and θ (knowing full-well that there exits some combination of "alt" and numbers that will generate the symbol). I also cut-and-pasted the details of the references. And above, I cut and pasted the url of a diff.
So really the type of edit that is prohibited by the motion that is responding to my two mis-clicks in 2012 is pretty much inclusive of any serious editing. "But nobody would be such a jerk as to invoke the restriction for edits like this" I hear you cry. That, of course, is exactly what I thought. The purpose of this over-broad restriction, was to prevent what was seen as (perhaps reasonably) a work-around to previous restriction. In fact it provided another layer of "gotchas". I wonder if you can imagine what it is like working under these restrictions, and having people who don't know the facts say like "violation of all manner of BotOp, administrator, and consensus policies" or "apparently this user has screwed this up so many times".
The fact of the matter is, that, rightly or wrongly, the committee wanted to stop me using "automation tools", defined as "a technology designed to facilitate making multiple similar edits" - and this has resulted in me being blocked for a year over a single edit that provided references to an article, the only problem with that edit being a single character that was typed (or not typed, I forget) by hand. This was not, I believe the aim of the restriction.
So does editing Wikipedia hold any attraction? If people are going to edit cooperatively, then sure. If they are going to throw obstacles in my path for the sake of it, then not so much.
Am I marking time? Hardly! I think I have been pretty productive, I have in your area of interest, created at least stubs, or redirects for half the articles on this list. I have yet to attend to this problem with Elliot Roosevelt, and, have abandoned for now planned improvements to Carolingian Renaissance, because of the time I am spending on this, but please look at the work I have done in the last 2 weeks. It only scratches the surface, of course, but it is at least workmanlike, and an improvement. I also have spent some time at Teahouse and Help Desk, (which are the fora for being welcoming, rather than abrasive).
As to Fram's pathetic claim that he is forced to run around after me fixing my errors, I have always said that I will fix any errors brought to my attention. Fram reported three minor errors (two typos) on Jimbo Wales talk page, while I was blocked. Fixing them was the first thing I did when my block expired - Fram was happy to hunt for them to besmirch my name, but not to tell me about it. Similarly the Arb case was brought as a BLP issue - the world was about to implode because we were revealing who had had sock allegations made against them (this was debunked pretty quickly) my fourth edit was to address that issue. Although it was apparently vital enough that I should be whipped about town, have my rights removed etc. no-one was actually concerned enough to make sure that these details weren't exposed - except me. By their fruits shall ye know them.
All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 18:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC).
@Roger Davies 2: "The purpose is to permanently wean Rich off high speed edits with collateral damage to a slower considered style where every edit moves the article forward and requires no external intervention to fix." It would be interesting to see how either of the edits complained about contravene this purpose. Notably one is not to an article, and could never be an article, the other complaint is based on some crazy hypotheses that I would replace all occurrences of "(a)" with "*". RF 22:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
@T. Canens: No one has pointed out why these edits are "problematic". No one has pointed to any editing since the arb case that is problematic. Sure I worked on a lot of turtle articles, and using the same reference format as a colleague introduced a reference with a capitalisation error in it ("Vertebrate zoology" instead of "Vertebrate Zoology") into many of them. But it was correcting the error I was sanctioned for, not creating it.
Similarly the one year block which resulted from your previous "go ahead" to Sandstein was for adding references to an article. One. Article. Not for "making many similar edits to many articles" and certainly the only error there was a single character that was typed (or omitted, I forget which) by hand.
All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 22:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC).
A number of people have suggested that I am "testing my limits" or "pushing the envelope" - this simultaneously ascribes a level of both stupidity and bad faith that verges on bad faith and personal attacks - so much for claims to be "dispassionate".
Strange as it seems when I am editing my mind is not on "testing the limit" (which would be playing Russian roulette) or "not acting like a human" (which is a nasty turn of phrase), but helping people. I did not create Cayley's sextic out of some perverse desire to annoy ArbCom, but because it is an useful article. I did not clean up copy-violations such as Hidden Blade because I am "testing my limits", but because they break the law. I did not remove incorrect claims from articles as an act of defiance, but because they are misleading. I am not creating pages for Trinidad and Tobago portal to annoy other editors, but to be welcoming to Trinidadians and Tobagans. I am not working on [[Igbo] culture out of a sense of spite, but to redress systemic flaws in our coverage. I am not fixing ISBN numbers to... but you get the picture. Or I hope you do.
All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 03:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC).
Statement by Orlady (uninvolved)
I would like Arbcom to revise/clarify the restriction to allow use of copy-and-paste in user space. Rich's recent edits clearly did violate the restriction as worded, but it appears to me that the wording of the restriction went beyond the scope of what was called for in the Arbcom discussion. Using copy-and-paste tools in Wikipedia user space is indeed a violation of the restriction as worded, but I can't see how it does any harm. However, it harms Wikipedia's image (i.e., Wikipedia looks pretty foolish) if Wikipedia blocks or bans a productive contributor for that kind of edit. --Orlady (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Statement by Olive (not involved)
The real question ought to be, in an environment that is not punitive, whether Rich knew he was trespassing on an Arb Com restriction. I don't see that he did in which case he should be warned that this too is a way in which he cannot edit, rather than punish for ignorance, especially when even the arbs do not agree on whether he trespassed his restrictions . How can you sanction someone for not knowing. If that is the WP environment than as a collaborative project this fails. Further the tone of some of the arbs, and I do respect the job arbs have to do, is less than civil or respectful. That an editor may have transgressed does not mean they deserve to be treated in a less than respectful manner.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC))
Statement by Harry Mitchell
My first thought on seeing that this had come up again was "oh, for fuck's sake", which is still a fairly accurate summary of how I feel.
Fram: move on. You've been following Rich around for years, and if you subjected anybody to the sort of scrutiny you've been subjecting Rich to, you could find grounds to sanction them. I thoroughly endorse Beeblebrox's suggestion that you find something else to do. If Rich is a problem and continues to be so after this clarification request, others will pick up where you left off and, frankly, the complaints would have a lot more credibility if they weren't all made by the same person.
Rich: go and write an article or something. I'd love for you to keep participating in this project, but you do so on the terms of its community or not at all. It is difficult to imagine that community (or its representatives on ArbCom, think of them what you will) permitting you, at any time in the foreseeable future, to edit in a way that involves mass changes to multiple articles, such as with AWB and/or bots. I can see the argument that the current restriction is overly harsh or cumbersome, but you are not going to get it lifted by testing its boundaries, and even if you succeed in having it loosened, you will still not be permitted to make those sorts of edits. So I'm afraid your options for the time being are either to find something else to do which is permitted by your restrictions, or to find another way to fill your time. Don't just while away the time until you can get back to what you used to do, because (quite apart from the fact that you'll be waiting for many years at the very least) that's not healthy for you or for the project.
Arbs: I don't think there's much to be done for the time being. Either Rich will find something that he can work on without violating his restrictions, or he has no interest in contributing in a way that the community finds acceptable. Much as I hope it's the former, whatever the case, his intentions will soon become apparent. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Statement by Johnuniq
Rich should not do a search-and-replace in an article to rearrange whitespace or anything else—just edit text that will benefit from editing, and leave bot-like cleanups for others.
However, no bot-like cleanup has occurred in this case, and there is no reason to prevent Rich from doing search-and-replace while preparing an article in user space. Sanctioning an editor for saving a bad user-page draft would be Kafkaesque. Johnuniq (talk) 23:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Statement by Redrose64
As I understand it, Rich is being condemned for making edits that are "clearly not manually made"; to wit, using a regular expression search-and-replace.
If a logged-in user goes to Preferences → Editing, and enables both "Enable the editing toolbar" and "⧼wikieditor-toolbar-dialogs-preference⧽", they get the button when editing - it's close to the upper right corner of the edit window. This, when clicked, opens a dialog box for a search-and-replace function which handles regular expressions. It has buttons Find next Replace Replace all; the operation of these should be familiar to anybody who has used, for example, Windows Notepad. Automated process it may be; but then, so is the action that is triggered by clicking [edit], Show preview, or Save page - or by simply following a wikilink. These set in motion a number of SQL requests - they are automated processes.
I recall that Rich was required to blank his .js pages: I am not aware of any requirement that he should also disable features included within the standard MediaWiki interface. I think that it is unreasonable to expect Rich to use a subset of those standard facilities which are available to any logged-in editor. He may have been required to disable all gadgets - but the abovementioned search-and-replace function isn't a gadget.
The intent of the original judgement was surely to prevent Rich from making identical edits on multiple pages in a short time frame - edits that might violate, say, WP:AWB#Rules of use. The interpretation of this judgement has been twisted to the point that Rich cannot even make one edit to one page without it coming under scrutiny. No evidence has been provided that two or more pages have been subjected to identical edits. I would ask how Fram discovered the first edit given in evidence: it's in Rich's userspace (specifically, User:Rich Farmbrough/wanted/mathematicians), and is a page that has never been edited by Fram, so is not likely to be on Fram's watchlist. There are two ways that he can have become aware of that edit: either he is stalking Rich's edits, or was tipped off. I cannot say which of these actually occurred, but it does seem to me that certain parties are out for blood, which they intend to get by any means possible. If the edits that Rich made to a page in his own user space are not in accord with WP:USERSPACE, there are several available routes: (i) edit the page per WP:UP#On others' user pages; (ii) put it up for WP:CSD (see WP:UP#DELETE); (iii) take it to WP:MFD. There is no need to make a whole drama out of a non-issue.
Finally, I would like to point out that one of those complaining made this edit, to this very clarification request; notice that in the added paragraph, it includes the phrases "using a text editor's search and replacement feature ... requires special attention to each and every edit" and "this user has screwed this up so many times". I invite you all to observe what happened to the post immediately preceding the newly-added subsection. How did all those punctuation marks become altered to hash signs, if not by an inattentive screwed-up edit? --Redrose64 (talk) 23:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Statement by Italick
The edit in discussion does not appear automated. In any case, it did not require copy, paste, and search. Instead of just looking at the diff and assuming that it is automation, I opened the original page for editing in a window. Then I saw that setting up the new version is merely a matter of deleting numbers and punctuation after each link in the list, and deleting some blank lines. Nothing fancy was needed to do that. Italick (talk) 09:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Statement by uninvolved duckduckstop
well, here we are again. has arbcom learned yet that micromanaging editors is problematic? when will there be civility enforcement toward admins here? i see we have an admin who is blocked at bugzilla, acting the same way here. i have heard it said that editors are a dime a dozen, and replaceable. is this case a refutation? is anyone else fixing isbn's? is a high edit count rather a block me sign, since the error patrol has more to rake over the coals? when you ask if he is "marking time", is that a refutation of fresh start? when you ask why not just edit by typing, is that a refutation of all the tools and bots, most of which have unintended consequences? i note that bots that delete references are allowed to run, but heaven help the bot that adds a typo.
stop blaming the editor, and start fixing the system. if you don't like the editor's output, then give him the tools to reduce errors. this kind of zero defect thinking in this case, is profoundly incompetent. it leads to zero activity, and zero improvement.
and make no mistake, if you were to ever ask, why is there editor decline; this is a clarion call why. Duckduckstop (talk) 19:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Statement by {other user}
Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
- Recuse Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Recuse Rschen7754 18:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Arbitrator views and discussion
- I do not see the disputed edits as warranting any sanction. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- I remain of this view. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- The restriction is clear (and the edits in question constitute a violation) and it is also draconian. It would not have had to be that draconian if Rich hadn't continued to test the boundaries of his previous sanction. That said, although the disputed edits are indeed a violation, I'd say this is a case of de minimis non curat ArbCom. What worries me, however, is that Rich appears to be once again trying to test the boundaries of his restriction and to be doing so immediately after his previous block expired. So I'm really on the fence, but I think I'll probably go with a warning that further acts with the appearance of boundary testing will not be tolerated. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Did Rich's edits violate the letter of the very explicit restrictions he is under? I think they did. Is there any benefit to the project in making a big deal out of him editing anything in his own userspace in this manner? Probably not.
- Fram: I think you need to find something else to do with your on-wiki time. These prolonged interpersonal disputes reflect badly on all involved.
- Rich: Stop testing the boundaries of the sanctions. You know this is what you did. You're a long term, highly prolific contributor to this project. We want you to stick around or you would already be banned, but if you insist on playing these little games it may come to that. Is it really so hard to just not make any kind of automated edits? You're better than this, at least I hope you are. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- As has already been agreed, I consider Rich to have breached his restriction. More to the point, I have little remaining patience for his refusal to abide by the direction that he edit like a human. Taking into account Rich's long record of skirting this automation restriction, I would now recommend sanctioning him. AGK [•] 21:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- The edits in question pretty clearly violated his restriction, and as such, I think a sanction would be reasonable here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- The restriction is draconian; it was meant to be. It reflects the committee's and the community's exasperation at Rich's (and his enablers') efforts to push the envelope in every direction possible.
The intent is to give Rich a-fifth-or-sixth-absolutely-last-chance as an alternative to an indefinite site-ban. The spirit is to ensure that Rich's work comprises: click on [edit], type, then [save page]. The purpose is to permanently wean Rich off high speed edits with collateral damage to a slower considered style where every edit moves the article forward and requires no external intervention to fix.
In this context, the edits here clearly breach the restriction and, coming so soon after a twelve-month block, are deeply disappointing.
Now, Rich, I have a question for you:
- "If you're able only to edit by typing into a box and pressing [save page], does editing Wikipedia have any long-term attraction at all for you? Or, to put it another way, are you simply marking time here, until the moment when your bot privileges are restored?"
- Thanks, Rich. Your long posting really doesn't address my question; after all, you can keep yourself busy while marking time. Based on your email, and your postings elsewhere, it seems clear to me that you will not rest until you're back running bots all over the place, with all the attendant problems that has brought in the past. I am of the view that you now need to move on. Roger Davies talk 10:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- Fram. I agree. Automated and semi-automated edits get little or no scrutiny unless the edits are glaringly stupid or seriously flawed. Even then, the volume is such that it's exceedingly difficult to pick everything up. Given the history here, there is no reason to wait for another ["irregularity", Roger Davies talk 09:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- It looks like Rich probably used an automated technique off-wiki and then copied the results on wiki... to his userspace. Yes, it's a violation but the idea of blocking Rich for a year for a userspace violation seems excessive to me, sanctions should be in proportion to the violation.
In the general case though, Rich has been back for a short while and has been doing generally good work in that time. He appears to be primarily editing within his restrictions and it's a shame that these automated edits have been made. I'd be very interested to know his answer to Roger's question about the long term. WormTT(talk) 10:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC) - I agree with several of my colleagues that this is a clear violation of the automation restriction as interpreted and amplified by the motion, and with Roger's explanation of the reasons behind this admittedly draconian restriction. At this point, I have difficulty imagining an editing restriction that would 1) allow Rich Farmbrough to edit, 2) prevent the problematic editing identified in the decision and yet 3) not be susceptible to the sort of envelope-pushing we have seen so far with this automation restriction. Unfortunately, I do not think we have many other options open to us. T. Canens (talk) 22:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Motion: Rich Farmbrough
- For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.
In order to resolve the enforcement request referred to us, the committee resolves that:
- Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs) has violated his restriction against automated editing. That restriction clearly required he "make only completely manual edits".
- Accordingly, Rich Farmbrough is blocked for three months.
- Rich Farmbrough is warned that the committee is likely to take a severe view of further violations, and may consider replacing his automation restriction with a site ban.
- Support
- Proposed. If this violation had occurred outside his userspace, we would surely be site-banning him now: Rich has already had chance after chance. AGK [•] 10:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- It seems to me that the violation occurred in user space by accident rather than by design as Rich has not acknowledged that the edit breached his restriction. That said, the breach occurring in userspace provides some mitigation but not exoneration, especially coming so some after a twelve-month ban. The community does not expect the committee to reward intransigence so a block is an appropriate and proportionate response. Roger Davies talk 11:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- T. Canens (talk) 16:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Personally, I think 1 month would be sufficient. 3 months also seems excessive for this userspace violation, especially given his other edits during the time period. Time away isn't really what's required here, it's enlightenment - I don't believe that spending the additional 2 months away would help Rich to "get it". Hopefully the final statement is what will get through to Rich. WormTT(talk) 10:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- You have asked in another thread why Rich's restriction has not worked and voted here to not properly enforce after a violation. Are you deliberately undermining your own position? AGK [•] 14:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- I don't believe so, the sanction should be in proportion to the action - 1 month is sufficient when combined with a statement that "even minor issues can lead to indefinite in the future". I would support this if the block was for 1 month. WormTT(talk) 14:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- You have asked in another thread why Rich's restriction has not worked and voted here to not properly enforce after a violation. Are you deliberately undermining your own position? AGK [•] 14:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- In my view, and consistent with a majority of the AE administrators, the disputed edits do not warrant any sanction. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- I do think Rich violated the restriction, and I do think he did so deliberately in order to test the limits of it. I don't think this solution will actually solve anything. Rich will either learn to stop testing the sanction's limits and be allowed to continue editing, or he will continue and we will have to show him the door. He's already waited put a year-long block. If we do this we've just kicked the can down the road without resolving the underlying issue. Rich: your test worked. Here are the results: no, there are no exemptions to your restrictions and if you even look like you are testing them again a site ban is the likely result. Today, three months from now, whenever. Pushing the boundaries and then asking if it was ok is exactly the wrong way to go about it. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- Abstain
-
- Comments by arbitrators
-
Motion: Rich Farmbrough 2
- For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.
In order to resolve the enforcement request referred to us, the committee resolves that:
- Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs) has violated his restriction against automated editing. That restriction clearly required he "make only completely manual edits".
- A request for an exemption for his own userspace may have been granted if it had been asked for before this violation, but since it was filed only afterward that request is denied and Rich is advised that there are no exemptions whatsoever to the restriction and he may not make any further requests of this nature for a minimum of six months.
- Accordingly, Rich Farmbrough is warned that the committee is likely to take a severe view of further violations, and may consider replacing his automation restriction with a site ban.
- Oppose
- Opposing because I believe paragraph 2 is counterproductive; but this is certainly preferable to motion 1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- Abstain
- Comments by arbitrators
-
- Just a note that this is intended to be the official reply to both current requests here. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Amendment request: Argentine History
Initiated by Lecen (talk) at 20:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- Case affected
- Argentine History
- Clauses to which an amendment is requested
- List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
- Lecen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- Cambalachero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- MarshalN20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
- Information about amendment request
- Allow myself and the others to comment on each other only on this case (and nowhere else)
Statement by Lecen
Almost a year ago I brought to the attention of the committee that Cambalachero and MarshalN20 were systematically spreading misinformation on several articles related to Latin American History, using sources scorned by mainstream historians, who regarded them as pieces of political propaganda published by Latin American fascists.
At the end the committee agreed with me and Cambalachero and MarshalN20 were both topic banned indefinitely. I also showed to the committee that both users had continuously harassed me in an attempt to scare me off. Thus I eventually requested a mutual interaction ban, which was granted. The problem was that months later I made a good faith comment on this case right here which resulted on a one-month block for myself. This is something that I want avoid from occurring again.
I request the committee to make one simple modification to the mutual interaction ban that could allow me and the other two users to comment on each other in here, and only in here. I am not asking to be allowed to talk with them or about them on talk pages or anywhere else. I am not even asking to be allowed to talk directly with them in here, only to comment on them. To be more precise: Cambalachero asks for his topic ban to be lifted. I would like to comment on his request, to make my point whether or not it should be granted. That's all. Certainly the committee could show some faith on this experienced editor.
- Hello, Kurtis. I appreciate your words, but if you don't mind I'd like to say a few things to clarify:
- 1) "... articles on Latin American history are relatively free of "Fascist" POV-pushing (as you call it)" It's not I the one who call those sources "fascists". Historians do. Not only I brought to the Evidence page what kind of sources were being spread all over Latin American History articles, but I also took time to show how historians regarded them. You can see dozens of books there. But I went further than that. I reached the two greatest specialists in that subject (Fascist sources) in the United States and showed to the arbitrators the e-mails I exchanged with them. The two specialists were Michael Goebel (author of "Argentina's Partisan Past: Nationalism and the Politics of History") and David Rock (author of "Authoritarian Argentina. The Nationalist Movement: Its History and its Impact"). So, to make things clear: I never said anything, that would be my POV. The greatest specialists in the field are the ones who said it.
- 2) "Who cares what the other two editors who are sanctioned say about you at this point?" I don't care what anyone thinks about me. What I want is to be allowed to warn the arbitrators in case the other two users repeat their behavior regarding sources. I don't want to talk about Marshal nor Cambalachero. But I want to be allowed at least to say "Cambalachero is using Fascist sources again and Marshal is yet again supporting him" or "Marshal has shown no regret (and no recognition) on his actions and the ArbCom should think twice before allowing him to edit articles related to Latin American History". That's all. I am not asking too much. I am not even allowed to talk about the ArbCom case without being threatened with block!
- I came here, warned the ArbCom that two users were ruining the encyclopedia's credibility, they agreed with me and somehow I'm treated like the one who is guilty! I am a valuable contributor, I wrote 14 Featured Articles. I am not joking around. Do you really believe I enjoy wasting my time with Cambalachero and Marshal? I wish I hadn't, but there is no one else with enough expertise on Latin American History to stop those two. And the ArbCom wants to silent me! It makes no sense! This is like a fireman telling a person who is warning him about a fire in a building to "shut up". Does it make sense to you?
- Lastly, Marshal was not topic banned indefinitely from ALL articles related to Latin American History because he "misbehaved" on a couple of move requests. Are you kidding? Do you really believe that? See the ArbCom case! He was sanctioned so hard because he fiercely supported Cambalachero on the use of Fascists sources. See the ArbCom case. See the diffs provided. Every time someone tried to remove the sources Marshal reverted it back. Every time someone complained about it Marshal supported Cambalachero. He did that on 3rd Opinion, on mediation, on request for comment, on talk pages, etc...
- I don't want to be here. I don't want any of this. But I find unacceptable that Marshal and Cambalachero not only still do NOT recognize what they did, and thus, see nothing wrong with it, but also that NO ONE among the arbitrators say a word about it. --Lecen (talk) 02:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- Oddly, I am accused of "bullying", of having a "battleground mentality", of sending friends to harass MarshalN20 and Cambalachero but it's their friends who show up here, it's their friends who gang up to intimidate me and other users (see ES&L and Wee Curry Monster working together along with MarshalN20 and Cambalachero here, here and here) and it was Marshal who was said to have battleground mentality by the arbitrators. I wish I had friends to support me. Obviously that somehow the arbitrators will fail to see that Cambalachero, MarshalN20, Wee Curry Monster and ES&L work as a team and will persist on their side. --Lecen (talk) 14:24, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Statement by MarshalN20
Opening Statement(s)
|
---|
For Heaven's sake, this user needs to STOP claiming that I was topic banned for "systematically spreading misinformation." I have requested this casting of aspersions to be stopped both here at Arbitration Requests ([5]) and at the Administrator's Noticeboard ([6]). This needs to stop NOW, once and for all. I have exhausted all the formal venues to ask for these aspersions to stop. I don't know what else to do! Administrators and/or arbitrators, please take care of this situation.
|
To summarize, all I am interested in is that the mudslinging stop. If a user cannot make a simple request without resorting to insults (thereby aggravating the situation) or to "retire" if things do not go as planned, then WP:COMPETENCE trumps over any consideration of exceptions. Since this issue is nowhere near resolved, I plead the arbitration committee to please amend the case with an enforceable ruling that expands on the "casting aspersions" principle (which is not being followed); this enforceable ruling would apply to all sides of the dispute. I further ask that this enforceable ruling be applied in relation to the case, thereby preventing any third-party from continuing the trashy accusations. Best regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 14:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Statement by Kurtis
Am I the only one who finds a one-month block based on these two posts to be grossly disproportionate? Lecen himself requested the interaction ban to prevent the other two editors from slandering him, and as the person who filed the original arbitration case, it would make sense that he participates in subsequent amendment requests. I'm not saying that Lecen has never made any mistakes, but he is nevertheless a very productive editor who cares about the integrity of the encyclopedia. Are we really resorting to long-term blocks against positive contributors over something so trivial?
Where's the ANI thread about this incident? And why didn't Lecen press for an unblock from the very beginning? He has every right to have his voice heard. Kurtis (talk) 00:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- @MarshalN20: OK, I'll keep that in mind. Sorry for misrepresenting the situation; I just mentioned Lecen as being the person who requested the interaction ban because he was the one who filed the amendment request. I had little doubt that all involved parties preferred it that way.
- Another point is that the Arbitration Committee enacted the topic ban against your participation in the specified areas following a finding that you have "engaged in tendentious editing". Tendentious editing is defined as "a manner of editing which is partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole. It does not conform to the neutral point of view, and fails to do so at a level more general than an isolated comment that was badly thought out." Don't take this comment personally; I'm just reiterating that this is what ArbCom agreed upon based on a thorough review of the evidence. It has no relevance to my own views on the matter. Kurtis (talk) 00:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- @WTT: This, to me, seems more like venting frustration than something I would block over. Not the best judgment call on Lecen's part, but I don't think Sandstein's decision was condusive to a positive outcome, all things considered.
- @MarshalN20: I should also note that I did not do any in-depth research into the case; I just read the proposed decision, checked a few references (specifically the ones provided), and took David Fuchs word for it that there was more on the evidence page. I also skimmed through that one using the text search option for your name, but no pertinent results came up. I was too tired at the time to look through each and every link provided, so I'm sorry if my earlier comment indirectly cast you in an unduly negative light. If the whole page move thing was all you were sanctioned for, then the topic ban seems a little excessive in your case as well.
- @Lecen: My original comments still stand, and I don't think you deserved an outright block for those postings. But at the same time, please try not to stoke the flames with ArbCom. Trust me on this one, man. You got what you originally came here for — articles on Latin American history are relatively free of "Fascist" POV-pushing (as you call it). Who cares what the other two editors who are sanctioned say about you at this point? It only matters as much as you'll let it. For God's sake, don't put yourself in the firing line. Wikipedia's bureaucracy has chewed up more valuable editors than anyone should be shaking a stick at, all because they were too busy sweating the small stuff. Kurtis (talk) 02:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- @Lecen: I don't know much about Latin American history, so please forgive me for not realizing that historians classify specific sources as Fascist. That term has come to bear negative connotations due to its association with Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany - it refers to an ideology where subjugation to the state takes precedence over all. The only historical Latin American figure I'm aware of who is considered a Fascist dictator by academic consensus is Juan Perón, who is himself a divisive figure known to have had the genuine support of his country. The argument could also easily be made for Rafael Trujillo, and I would agree with classifying him as such. If you're willing to stretch the definition to include any totalitarian regime where an ideology is imposed on its people and a personality cult is established, Fidel Castro may also qualify. Otherwise, every other dictator you could name was merely authoritarian (albeit brutal in most instances), not Fascist.
- To no one in particular, I would like to apologize if my comments come across as ill-informed and heavily biased. I have not gone through extensive research into this case, and in fact prior to commenting here, I only knew of Cambalachero from ITN/C where he commented on the death of former Argentine dictator Jorge Videla. I supported a full blurb because he was responsible for tens of thousands of deaths, and I described him as one of the worst dictators in recent history; Cambalachero felt that this equated Videla to the likes of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao (who are of course in a league of their own). Because of my brief interaction with him, I was slightly intrigued when I saw the Argentine history case come up before ArbCom, but not enough to follow it closely. I harbour no prejudice against any of the editors involved. Kurtis (talk) 04:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Statement by EatsShootsAndLeaves/DangerousPanda
Lecen has been warned again and again to stop mischaracterizing the reasons behind Marshal's topic ban. He has been advised that making such false statements constitutes a personal attack. Yet again, he mischaracterizes those reasons. Is there any GOOD reason why Lecen is not currently indefinitely blocked for a) continual personal attacks, b) massive battleground behaviour, and c) what now appears to be an utter inability to act and behave within the community norms that they agreed to? Any desires to comment on someone else's requests, based on their history of making false and unfounded comments on users across the board, is simply spurious and unacceptable. ES&L 11:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- @Lecen : Accusing me of being "on the same team" with Marshal would show that you really don't know how pissed off Marshal was about a decision that I was involved with about an article. Let's just say that Marshal clearly didn't like me so much at the time LOL. I don't "side" with anyone - and suggestions that I a) hold grudges, b) run in a pack are suggestions that don't hold up under even the most basic of scrutiny. Oh, and retirement or not, we all know you're reading this :-) ES&L 12:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- @Arbs: is there a simple motion that can finish this off? Something along the lines of "All parties are reminded that they are subject to an WP:IBAN, and all restrictions of that ban. Lecen is reminded that re-interpreting ArbComm decisions to portray another editor in a bad light is both uncivil and a personal attack. Further such behaviours will lead to standard escalating blocks through regular admin action". This should prevent such problems in the future DP 10:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Statement by Cambalachero
I think that this request is completely pointless. The discussion where the interaction ban was enforced has been over since months ago, and there is no ongoing discussion where Lecen can't comment. He says "Cambalachero asks for his topic ban to be lifted", which is not true. I am not asking for that anywhere. If I ask for that someday, then that day he can simply ask some arbitrator for an exception, and it may be granted or not according to the circumstances of the moment and the arbitrator's best judgement. Or perhaps I will never request that: I may leave wikipedia in discontent, be blocked for some other issue, have to leave for real-life issues such as getting married or having sons, or lost the interest in history; and in either case Lecen would not need to say anything about anything.
Now, as for the request itself: all the drama after the topic ban that led to the interaction ban was precisely located here, not in our user talk pages or other project pages. By the way, I requested the interaction ban, not him, see here. So, making an exception only for Arbitration discussions is precisely returning to the very problem that we initially tried to fix with it. Still, there is a point in that he should have the right to take part in discussions about a case that he initiated. There's a possible solution: allow him to take part in such discussion, if it ever takes place, but focusing on some of the conditions drafted at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive 8#Conduct at AE. Basically, zero unsupported allegations, provide evidence without histrionics, no misrepresentation of evidence. And I might add, comments stricly focused on whatever it is being requested, and not using the discussion as an excuse to vent old grudges, pass judgements over other editors or praise himself. Those rules should apply for the 3 of us (Lecen, MarshalN20 and me), and enforced when needed. Under this conditions, I may accept Lecen to take part in such discussions. I leave it up to Arbitrators to decide if such rules should apply to this specific case or became a standard for all Arbitration discussions.
By the way, I would feel more confident in thinking that Lecen may follow such rules if he edits his original request here and remove all the parts of it that would go against those proposed rules. Cambalachero (talk) 13:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- My apologies if I commited a mistake replying in this amendment request. I will do as the Arbitrators say. Cambalachero (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Statement by Wee Curry Monster
I must admit to being unsurprised that this case continues to fester. I felt the original ruling by Arbcom failed to address the issue of battlefield behaviour based on my interaction with User:Lecen at Talk:Paraguayan War here back in 2012. A very minor comment of mine [10], pointing out the article name Paraguayan War was a minority term used predominantly in Brazil and that the predominant term in the English language was the War of the Triple Alliance prompted this bizarre response. I commented on his WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality during the arbcom case. I see nothing has changed.
If you are unfamiliar with Latin American history you may not be aware of the Revisionista movement in Argentine history, which seeks to revisit historical events from a Peronist perspective. It is a revisionist approach to history that to a certain extent rewrites historical accounts to fit a modern political agenda. An example would be the perspectives on Argentine dictator Juan Manuel de Rosas, who is regarded rather differently by the Revisionistas where he is generally regarded in a positive light. The revisionist view is pretty much mainstream in Argentina but not outside of the country. I am not aware of User:MarshalN20 supporting those views and as he is a Peruvian historian this is not entirely unsurprising.
As I see it, there is an unhealthy attitude within WP:BRAZIL, with a group of editors who act in co-ordination. Paraguayan War vs War of the Triple Alliance being one such example, where the article is maintained at a minority term not used in English due to the co-ordinated lobbying of editors is just one example. Its irritating to someone familiar with the subject and in a way damaging albeit in a minor way. At one time I demonstrated the redirect was hit 3 times more often than the article direct, so its not great from a server load perspective. What is of more concern is that having been unable to comment due to the interaction ban, other within this cabal continued to do so. Examples [11], [12], [13]. Lecen has been getting away with battlefield behaviour for years now, it seems that his prodigious output of FA articles has left him immune from criticism, his behaviour is also condoned by those in his group who lament every time he "retires".
The accusations of academic dishonesty have been repeatedly show to be unsustainable. It really is time that this was put to bed and this particular boil lanced. This request for clarification is yet another example of the system being used to continue to cast aspersions rather than a genuine need for any clarification. There needs to be a clear statement that these allegations aren't true and that there will be an exscalating series of blocks if they're repeated. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:37, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- I regard User:MarshalN20 as a wiki-friend, I make no effort to hide it. If I've felt his actions were inappropriate I've told him so, where I feel he has been unfairly treated I have defended him. An important difference is that where Marshal has been wrong, I would never defend him.
- As regards User:Cambalachero, even at our most charitable, neither of us would describe the other in friendly terms. We strongly disagree on a number of matters and have clashed on many occasions. Its simply another example of how Lecen's battlefield mentality sees conspiracy against him everywhere.
- To accuse User:EatsShootsAndLeaves of anything is simply bizarre and a further example of a battlefield mentality that sees conspiracies against User:Lecen everywhere. As can be seen here he favours neither Marshal or myself, he has simply commented because he saw inappropriate behaviour. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Statement by Kahastok
The original Arbcom case does not state, suggest or imply that Marshal was topic banned for "systematically spreading misinformation on several articles related to Latin American History". OTOH it does find as a matter of principle that "[i]t is unacceptable for an editor to continually accuse another of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch their reputation" - which is what Lecen is doing here. The fact that he repeats the attack in his request demonstrates why the ban is needed.
Lecen is appealing the scope of the interaction bans, not the topic bans. He does not need to comment on the reasons for the topic bans to make his argument. And these sorts of attacks are precisely the sort of the behaviour the interaction ban is in place to prevent. I would suggest that the spirit of WP:BANEX does not allow editors appealing an interaction ban to throw around accusations unrelated to the appeal about the editors with whom they are banned from interacting. So IMO the original comment should also be treated as an interaction ban violation. Kahastok talk 20:04, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Statement by {yet another user}
Clerk notes
Arbitrator views and discussion
- Generally with interaction bans, there isn't a problem with the interaction ban itself being discussed. I'd see that as the case here too - in situations where a party requests the interaction ban be lifted, then I would expect the other party to be able to comment on whether or not it should be lifted. However, should either Cambalachero or MarshalN20 ask for their topic ban lifted, I would not expect Lecen commenting. That line is clear to me. In the same way, it seems clear to me that Lecen has again breached their topic ban with comments about Cambalachero and MarshalN20 that are not relevant to the interaction ban, the entire first sentence of Lecen's request, for example. WormTT(talk) 07:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- @Kurtis: you may have missed Lecen's own comments at the AE request which firstly went on to further violate the interaction ban and secondly specifically suggested he be blocked for one month (or more) over the matter.[14] WormTT(talk) 07:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- I entirely reject Lecen's proposal that more rancour would be good for the project. Decline. AGK [•] 21:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- All three of the editors under this interaction ban need to learn to ask first and comment later. Ask ArbCom first if you are allowed to initiate arbitration requests, or comment at arbitration requests initiated by the other two editors. Then wait. And only if you are given permission should you then comment. It can be difficult to restrain yourself, but that is the point of an interaction ban (to separate people unable to restrain themselves when interacting). And the distinction between: (i) commenting on a specific request; and (ii) returning to general complaining about the other editors, is an important one. Being unable to distinguish the specific and general matters and keep them separate is another reason why interaction bans are imposed. At most what is needed here is a motion to formalise the 'ask first and wait' principle, and the 'keep things specific and separate, rather than lumped together and general' principle (if this has not already been made clear in previous clarification threads). Carcharoth (talk) 07:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- I am open to the idea that there may be cause to further ammend this decision, but not in the way being asked for in this request. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- Lecen was previously blocked for one month for allegedly violating the interaction ban by commenting on a thread on this page. Lecen opened that very comment by stating that he believed the comment was permissible, but that someone should tell him if it wasn't. In my view it was at least in a gray area, but an enforcement request was made against him anyway, and the one-month block ensued. Given that Lecen had suggested in good faith that he'd withdraw his comment if it were deemed to be disallowed, and that that he had no previous AE blocks, I thought this block was misguided or at least excessive, and had it been appealed to us, I would likely have voted to reverse it. (See my comment here). As for the current request, the interaction bans that were adopted state that they are subject to the "ordinary exceptions", which include "engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, that is, addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum. Examples include: asking an administrator to take action against a violation of an interaction ban by the other party (but normally not more than once); asking for necessary clarifications about the scope of the ban; appealing the ban." I can understand why Lecen thinks that if the other parties to the Argentine history case were to ask for their restrictions to be modified, he is an interested party with regard to such request, as the person who brought attention to allegedly improper editing in a topic-area unfamiliar to most of us to our attention. The question presented here, which I identify rather than answer, is how, if at all, we can gain the benefit of Lecen's substantive knowledge without renewing the feuding and name-calling that led to the interaction ban in the first place. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- We appear to have lost Lecen as an editor over the handling of this situation. This is very unfortunate and disappointed, but it probably makes this request moot. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- My opinion is that this request should be declined with the stern warning that future comments by Lecen about either party will lead to sanctions. If and when one of them asks for his sanction to be lifted, then Lecen may ask, without making comments concerning the requester's conduct, to be allowed to take part in the discussion. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- @DangerousPanda: I don't think a motion such as the one you propose would be a productive use of our time. I'm sure we have made our opinion rather clear. Anyway, to recap: the request for amendment has apparently been declined and the interaction ban is still in place as originally imposed. Any violation thereto may be sanctioned through AE. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)