< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 01:46, 2 April 2012 view sourceRich Farmbrough (talk \| contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors1,725,267 edits →Statement by Rich Farmbrough ← Previous edit		Revision as of 02:06, 2 April 2012 view source Rich Farmbrough (talk \| contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors1,725,267 edits →Statement by Rich Farmbrough: CheckpointNext edit →
Line 64:		Line 64:

	This lays the groundwork for particular claims, and is an unfair way to construct an argument, since it's assuming that which it's trying to prove.		This lays the groundwork for particular claims, and is an unfair way to construct an argument, since it's assuming that which it's trying to prove.

			Consequent Hersfold refers to a number of archives of information, which if read in detail will show, in addition to the unacceptable side of AN/I, detailed explanations of the cases in point. The vast majority of the threads are started by Fram, most of the rest by CBM or Xeno. In particular the so called "editing restrictions", which come from discussion - where there is precisely one !vote in favour of the ER. This has been declared to be good process by a number of luminaries, but (and maybe this is what Hersfold means when he characterizes me as spawn of the devil) it does not look that way to me, and I do not believe this is observer bias. I would never consider one !vote as enough for even an XfD, and would relist for further discussion.

			Maybe this was my mistake, not to "fight fight fight" at the time, but I was relieved that sordid unpleasantness and unpleasant sordidness were over. Which of course they were not, for those I might loosely describe as the awkward squad, would be back for another bite at the cherry, and another and another...

	=== Statement by {Party 3} ===		=== Statement by {Party 3} ===

Revision as of 02:06, 2 April 2012

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
]		2 April 2012	{{{votes}}}

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	21 Dec 2024	11 Jan 2025

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions

Motion name	Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions	1 December 2024

Requests for arbitration

Shortcuts

About this page

Use this page to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority).

Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests.

Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide to case requests. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace.

To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.

File an arbitration request

Guidance on participation and word limits

Unlike many venues on Misplaced Pages, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.

Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced.
In general. Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs.
Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.)
Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-llists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1-2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.
- Members of the Committee may also grant extensions when they ask direct questions to facilitate answers to those questions.
Refactoring statements. You should write carefully and concisely from the start. It is impermissible to rewrite a statement to shorten it after a significant amount of time has passed or after anyone has responded to it (see Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments), so it is often advisable to submit a brief initial statement to leave room to respond to other users if the need arises.
Sign submissions. In order for arbitrators and other participants to understand the order of submissions, sign your submission and each addition (using ~~~~).
Word limit violations. Submissions that exceed the word limit will generally be "hatted" (collapsed), and arbitrators may opt not to consider them.
Counting words. Words are counted on the rendered text (not wikitext) of the statement (i.e., the number of words that you would see by copy-pasting the page section containing your statement into a text editor or word count tool). This internal gadget may also be helpful.
Sanctions. Please note that members and clerks of the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions when necessary to promote the effective functioning of the arbitration process.

General guidance

This page is for statements, not discussion.
Arbitrators or clerks may refactor or delete statements, e.g. off-topic or unproductive remarks, without warning.
Banned users may request arbitration via the committee contact page; don't try to edit this page.
Under no circumstances should you remove requests from this page, or open a case (even for accepted requests), unless you are an arbitrator or clerk.
After a request is filed, the arbitrators will vote on accepting or declining the case. The <0/0/0> tally counts the arbitrators voting accept/decline/recuse.
Declined case requests are logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests. Accepted case requests are opened as cases, and logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Cases once closed.

User:Rich Farmbrough

Initiated by Hersfold 00:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Involved parties

Hersfold (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Elen of the Roads (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Fram (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Hersfold

Up-front disclaimer: My involvement in this situation so far has been that of an administrator. I am continuing in that role here; this is just as any other request for arbitration, and not an effort to start a motion in my role as an arbitrator.

Rich Farmbrough is, by several measures, one of the most prolific editors on Misplaced Pages. Registered since 2004, and an administrator since 2005, he has made close to a million edits on the project, more than any other human editor. However, many of these edits were made using the semi-automated tool AutoWikiBrowser, and have been the subject of significant controversy in the past and present.

As the links above demonstrate, Rich has, at least since early 2009, been using his bot (User:SmackBot, later User:Helpful Pixie Bot) and main account to make large numbers of edits that are not supported by community consensus and which not infrequently more damage than harm. After a number of similar incidents along these lines (the ] ANI archives above), discussions were held (the archives above) that resulted in a pair of editing restrictions placed against Rich, prohibiting him from making cosmetic changes or mass-creating pages from any account without explicit approval from the community or the Bot Approvals Group.

Rich was blocked on a number of occasions for violations of these restrictions, most recently a few days ago for a period of one month, when he mass-created a large number of “Suspected sockpuppets of…” categories, linking dozens of users to IP addresses in a manner that can be parsed by internet search engines. Just prior to the one month block, I had to threaten to block Rich – and did block his bot – to force an end to yet another series of violations.

Throughout this entire process, Rich has proven to be extremely dismissive of the community’s concerns, insisting in turns that his changes are for the good of the project and indeed are only doing good, that those opposing his actions are making similar changes yet remain unsanctioned, that those raising concerns about his actions are sticking too closely to the letter of the law for the sake of bureaucracy and drama. These often-invalid arguments are concerning themselves, but also a significant problem is the extreme difficulty involved in communicating legitimate concerns to Rich. WP:ADMIN states that administrators are expected to “lead by example behave in a respectful, civil manner follow Misplaced Pages policies.” The Bot policy requires that operators respond “cordially, promptly, and appropriately” to any concerns about their bots. Rich has adhered to neither of these policies.

It seems clear to me that Rich Farmbrough no longer holds the trust of the community. On two separate occasions, the community has placed restrictions on his ability to edit, and on numerous occasions, he has continued to defy the community on these grounds. He has repeatedly violated policy, refuses to acknowledge his wrong-doing, and acts with disdain towards any who oppose his actions. These are not qualities that should describe any Misplaced Pages administrator, and I ask that the Committee strongly consider removing Rich from that role. Hersfold 00:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

Unfortunately a combination of massive mis-representation, selection bias and misunderstanding have lead to a series of such accusations as Hersfold makes above.

First of all I would like to dispel the myth about non-responsiveness. Picking a few sections from March's talk page archive: well actually just look at the whole page. It's not perfect by any means, but I think the vast majority of entries speak for themselves.

Another salient example is the fact that I renamed SmackBot to Helpful Pixie Bot at the request of certain users who thought the name "SmackBot" might be seen as a remonstrance. I personally didn't think this was a problem, and was rather attached to the old name, but I was prepared to make the change.

One more general example is the redirection of asteroid stubs to asteroid lists. I am not wholly convinced that this is a good idea, but I am prepared to undertake it as part of community consensus.

To the particular. Before the "blow up" in September 2009 SmackBot had run on AWB. Because the then version of AWB wasn't able to deliver the community request for no cosmetic edits (resulting in about 2-3 per 1000) I rewrote the entire thing in Perl. This was, to say the least, non-trivial and not the action of someone who disregards community consensus.

If anyone still has doubt that I am responsive, especially to errors, please let me know and I will, I am sure be able to show copious examples to the contrary.

Hersfold says "large numbers of edits that are not supported by community consensus and which not infrequently more damage than harm" - this is simply wrong, both in premise and no evidence is adduced to back this up, introducing these four false claims

That the bot makes large numbers of edits that are not supported by community consensus
That I make large numbers of edits that are not supported by community consensus
That the bot edits "frequently do more harm than good"
That my edits "frequently do more harm than good"

This lays the groundwork for particular claims, and is an unfair way to construct an argument, since it's assuming that which it's trying to prove.

Consequent Hersfold refers to a number of archives of information, which if read in detail will show, in addition to the unacceptable side of AN/I, detailed explanations of the cases in point. The vast majority of the threads are started by Fram, most of the rest by CBM or Xeno. In particular the so called "editing restrictions", which come from this discussion - where there is precisely one !vote in favour of the ER. This has been declared to be good process by a number of luminaries, but (and maybe this is what Hersfold means when he characterizes me as spawn of the devil) it does not look that way to me, and I do not believe this is observer bias. I would never consider one !vote as enough for even an XfD, and would relist for further discussion.

Maybe this was my mistake, not to "fight fight fight" at the time, but I was relieved that sordid unpleasantness and unpleasant sordidness were over. Which of course they were not, for those I might loosely describe as the awkward squad, would be back for another bite at the cherry, and another and another...

Statement by {Party 3}

Statement by {Party 4}

Statement by {Party 5}

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/1/1)

Recuse, obviously. Hersfold 00:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I await Rich Farmbrough's statement, but my inclination is to accept in order to review whether 1) his ability to make automated or bot-assisted runs should be circumscribed with different sanctions and 2) his conduct makes him unfit to retain administrator status. AGK 00:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Awaiting statements, however, Rich, you were unblocked only to participate in this procedure. Neither you or your bots should be making any unrelated edits until this matter is resolved, or the one month term has run. (If this were decliend, you would be reblocked, as the block has been lifted ONLY for the purpose of your participation here.) Courcelles 01:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)