Initiated by Fram (talk) at 08:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

Rich Farmbrough arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Link to relevant decision: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough#Clarifications by motion

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Fram (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [1]

Statement by Fram

Rich Farmbrough has editing restrictions, one stating that he 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." and another that "Regardless of the editing method (i.e. manual, semi-automatic, or automatic; from any account), Rich Farmbrough is indefinitely prohibited from mass creating pages in any namespace, unless prior community approval for the specific mass creation task is documented."

One of the causes of these restrictions was the mass creation of script-generated biographies taken from the Dictionary of National Biography on Wikisource (see [[2]], which was also at the start of my evidence on the RF arbcom case).

Now, RF has created many more similar pages (same method, same problems) at Wikisource, and is actively looking for people to import these to Wikipedia, if possible by bot or script. His script adds very little of value to the existing Wikisource pages: an extremely rudimentary infobox, bolding of the page title, some seemingly random wikilinks (sometimes none at all), birth and death year cats, and (the only thing of potential value IMO) the references used by the DNB article presented in a Wikipedia-style at the end of the article. The pages he creates are taken from all kinds of Wikisource transcriptions, not all verified for correctness (of transcription, this is not about factual correctness).

Evidence of same kind of problems (examples, not exhaustive at all):

• Largely ruined pages: s:User:Rich Farmbrough/DNB/G/e/George Ridout Bingham: compare to s:Bingham, George Ridout (DNB00). It is quite revealing to open this page in edit mode, to see how the same nonsense appears in the persondata, defaultsort, and so on. See also s:User:Rich Farmbrough/DNB/A/m/Amelia Matilda Murray: compare to s:Murray, Amelia Matilda (DNB00); and s:User:Rich Farmbrough/DNB/R/i/Richard Nelson Lee.
• Introduing errors not found in the Wikisource page: s:User:Rich Farmbrough/DNB/D/a/Darlugdach ends with "the people of FrisinGenesi", which should be (and is in the Wikisource page) "the people of Frisingen".
• Random wikilinks not leading to anything or to the wrong page: s:User:Rich_Farmbrough/DNB/M/a/Mathew_Gibson, s:User:Rich Farmbrough/DNB/N/i/Nicholas Lyzarde, s:User:Rich Farmbrough/DNB/P/o/Policarpus Taylor (linking to yellowed, which is not really the intended page: the correct yellowed is explained at Admiral (Royal Navy) instead)
• Layout problems: s:User:Rich Farmbrough/DNB/A/u/Augustus Austen Leigh, s:User:Rich Farmbrough/DNB/L/u/Lucius Ferdinand Hardyman (as a typical small example, when automatically removing a q.v. with his script, he also loses the indication of the end of a sentence: further, he botches some italics and the rest of the article is italicized): compare to s:Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 24.djvu/376)

Note also that every page starts with {{subst:Quick infobox|..., but there is no Template:Quick infobox.

As for evidence that he believes these pages are ready to be imported, that he is actively recruiting people to serve as proxies to circumvent his restrictions, and that speed is the defining characteristic for his creations and the manner he uses:

• s:Category:DNB drafts states since its creation on 16 August 2014: "These pages are drafts ready to be copied into Wikipedia at your peril."
• His first statement on this[3], at the DNB project page, stated in part: "I will be creating draft article in my userspace on Wikisource. Anyone can feel free to let me know of issues, or to import the articles to Wikipedia, as they are of course, copyright free and attributed. If you have the rights you might consider an export-import solution." (bolding mine)
• Correcting his drafts on Wikisource is no use[4]
• Need more articles? You'll get them fast![5]
• Many are done (no indication which ones):[6]
• At another project, he is more cautious, but still advocating the "quick win" of importing his articles[7] (when, as seen above, it would be more useful to simply import the original wikisource page, if people want a page that needs a lot of work still).

I had put a note on the project talk page to raise my concerns[8]. The response[9] speaks volumes.

Considering the April 2014 clarification issued by the Committee that "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.", I would suggest that enough is enough, and simply siteban him for continuously trying to circumvent or violate his restrictions, and for basically not learning anything from his previous mistakes and the discussions and blocks surrounding them. Nothing less, including his last one-year block, seems to make any difference. A siteban won't stop him working on Wikisource, but it will at least stop the active recruitment on Wikipedia of editors to proxy for him. Fram (talk) 08:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Addendum: as an indication of the scale of the errors in his drafts: I noted above an article where he had changed Frisingen to FrisinGenesis. This was apparently a remnant of a completely unrelated task, where he auto-expanded some abbreviations to the full Bible Book name. He has now corrected these in his DNB drafts (which is good in itself), which gives an idea of the number of errors (and the fact that my list above was just the tip of the iceberg):
• Expanding "gen" to "Genesis": [10][11][12][13][14]
• Expanding "ez" to "Ezekiel": [15][16][17][18]
• Changing "john" to "John": [19]
• Expanding "dan" to "Daniel": [20][21][22]

After this was done, he did another run on the articles, changing "thither" to "there". Seven articles were changed, one incorrectly though, as "thither" was part of a title in that one, so the change made the article less correct[23], and would be hard to detect afterwards. Fram (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Wbm1058: I don't care what he does on Wikisource, as long as he doesn't try to find people to import these pages here as a way to circumvent his restrictions here. My links to Wikisource are only used to show that the pages are problematic. My request here is about his actions here. Fram (talk) 19:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@AGK: I don't really understand your statement about an "alleged import"; I have provided multiple piecees of evidence that Rich wants people to import these to Wikipedia: the category at Wikisource claims that they are ready to be copied into Wikipedia, this link is a section he started, called importing articles, where he specifically states "If you have the rights you might consider an export-import solution.", and elsewhere he also promotes bringing his drafts to Wikipedia as a "quick win"[24]. So it is obvious that he has already tried to "crowdsource" his automation, as you put it, and that he wants (or certainly wanted) these to be imported swiftly and preferably en masse. That no one so far has acted upon this (as far as I know) doesn't mean that he hasn't tried to breach the sanctions in this way, only that he was unsuccessful. The "proxying", brought up by others, is a red herring in that regard, as I am not seeking any sanctions against other editors, even if someone would have imported one of these. This request is only about the behaviour of Rich Farmbrough. He now claims that "I have never suggested using a bot or script to import the items, and indeed I would strongly disagree with doing that en masse, as it would break the proposed workflow."; I wonder how he reconciles this with his preferred "export-import solution" for someone with "the rights". I hope that, contrary to earlier ArbCom proceedings, he will actually explain what he intended, and not simply dismiss evidence without any justification for it. Note also this[25]: "As to importing, of course they would not be bulk imported to article space, but to my user namespace by default, or the project namespace by choice, which would create no issues for anyone, except to make mass updating difficult." This not only contradicts his advice to the gender project, but also would still violate his restrictions on mass creating articles, which clearly states that he is "indefinitely prohibited from mass creating pages in any namespace". Fram (talk) 06:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

In the interests of collegial working, and to save everyone's time, I would appreciate guidance form the Committee, as to whether they would like a point-by-point commentary on the above, a general statement, or, indeed, whether it is not worth responding to. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC).

I have drafted a statement which I will post later tonight or tomorrow, once I have removed or reduced those points that Kim has already made more ably than I.

I will just point out, for the record this absurd statement of Fram's, which I had missed amongst the cruft (I may later incorporate it into my general statement:

is actively looking for people to import these to Wikipedia, if possible by bot or script.

This is quite simply a chimera. I have never suggested using a bot or script to import the items, and indeed I would strongly disagree with doing that en masse, as it would break the proposed workflow.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC).

Statement by Wbm1058

No jurisdiction. Per Wikipedia:Arbitration, This Arbitration Committee's jurisdiction extends only to the English Wikipedia. See m:Arbitration Committee for other committees. Apparently Wikinews has a committee, but Wikisource does not. If you don't like what Rich is doing there, or in his own user space (which I'd assume was intended for debugging), then go to the Foundation and ask for an Office Action. – Wbm1058 (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Kim Bruning

Quick point of policy:Just pointing out that WP:PROXYING fails on both forks:

1. "Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned editor" . Rich is currently not banned. [26] (block expired in march AFAICT)
2. "unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits.". Which passes if an editor checks before submission to en.wp.

Even if we bend #1 to also apply to editing restrictions, #2 still applies full force.

Further, I guess Fram reads "are ready to be imported at your peril" opposite from me. (I read it as "Don't do it that way. (yet)").

Together with the fact that this is on ws instead of wp I'm not sure there's a case here for arbcom per-se. (Though Fram's frustration is quite understandable here.)

I know the tendency these days is to delete rather than improve, and ABF over AGF, but this is still wikipedia. :-)

You know, Rich can Code, and Fran knows their quality control. Could we establish procedures where Fram can cooperate with Rich to generate something that both would agree was useful? The large benefit to wikipedia if these folks could work together is obvious, imao. ;-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 13:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Worm That Turned, Sure! Hence, anticipating that line of argument: "Even if we bend #1 to also apply to editing restrictions, #2 still applies full force.".

--Kim Bruning (talk) 14:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Worm That Turned <3 :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questions and Comments by Robert McClenon

Fram has stated that many of the articles are "broken". I have not read the articles in detail, but would like to ask whether Fram's comments, such as that abbreviations for books of the Bible have been replaced with the names of the books, are valid. Is that criticism correct? If the criticism is correct, are the articles in Wikisource really ready to be pulled into Wikipedia, or will it be necessary for those copying the articles to make non-trivial edits? If, in your opinion, the articles are ready for Wikipedia, how is Fram mistaken? Why have you cautioned not to edit the articles in Wikisource? Am I correct in assuming that you are using a script in Wikisource? In that case, by overwriting and "rebreaking" any broken features in the script, it appears that you are proposing to place a large manual burden on Wikipedia editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from NE Ent

If RF does something, and Fram doesn't obsess over it, is it really disruptive? This we have jurisdiction over anything in the universe that might affect Wikipedia slope ya'll seem to be on recently should stop, because it diminishes the credibility of the commitee (i.e. good luck banning Erik Möller).

RF was banned from automation because he demonstrated a lack of judgement in using automation to affect articles. If he automates off-en-wp, there is no violation. If the introduction of the work product of those automations by another editor diminishes the encyclopedia, the responsibility lies on the editor who did the edit, not RF.

If the committee is going to establish a vicarious liability policy in that an editor who encourages another editor to do something is as responsible for the one who does it … please desysop Fram for encouraging [27] the behavior of Kafziel Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel whom ya'll desysoped. No, that's not a serious request, it's a Reductio ad absurdum argument for the principle editors are only responsible for their own behavior, not what others do. NE Ent 10:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Fæ

I have met Rich in real life many times, we have had great chats, as you might guess this includes our different experiences with Arbcom, and he is a fellow supporter of Wikimedia LGBT+. I expect the outcome here to be "I don't see anything that the committee should do", as others have highlighted. If Rich wants to play around with Wikipedia content away from Wikipedia, meh, this is something that is actually a good thing as if others are going to reuse his work to improve Wikipedia contents that's their editorial judgement, not Rich's.

The Wikipedia community has seen 2 years of Rich being publicly pilloried for his use of automation, or more accurately, even the appearance of automation such as simple cut & paste editing, has become a reason for eye-watering year long blocks. This has become a death of a thousand cuts, how about putting aside the punishment hat and instead talk realistic solutions that give Rich a way to regain his good standing as a Wikipedia editor, and we can all benefit from his significant talents and interest in writing better tools for our editors?

Those members of Arbcom who have not had a chance to meet Rich and discuss his passion for the English Wikipedia, I strongly encourage to take up the offer of a Skype call. Nobody can possibly doubt his good intentions, his enthusiasm for open knowledge and his great potential for helping to deliver on our shared mission. He is exactly the sort of long term Wikipedian you want to encourage.

Let's move on please. --Fæ (talk) 12:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I reject the point that this is out of jurisdiction, because the purpose of the pages in question appears to be an import into Wikipedia. If this is not the case, urgent clarification is requested. Otherwise, I would welcome a statement from Rich Farmbrough; in answer to his question, detail is welcome and, I think, important. If there is no meaningful defence against the allegation that Rich intends to introduce a large number of automatically-processed stubs, statements should focus with some urgency on how this is not – as it would then appear to be – another violation of the automation prohibition that was issued on a "last chance" basis. AGK [•] 21:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• If Rich assures us that the alleged import in question will not take place, I do not see much else for us to do. I would advise him not to attempt to "crowdsource" his automation, which would be a violation in spirit of his restriction, but until the committee receives evidence that such a thing is taking place, I do not see that we have anything to consider in this complaint. Perhaps Fram can correct me before I finalise my opinion on this request? AGK [•] 22:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• In response to Rich Farmbrough's question, I do believe a statement from him is needed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• We do not have jurisdiction over Wikisource or any other project but the English Wikipedia, but it has long since been established that we have jurisdiction over off-wiki conduct when it is undertaken with the purpose or outcome of affecting the English Wikipedia. A banned editor lobbying for others to circumvent the ban would fall squarely within that, so Rich, yes, a statement addressing that accusation is much needed from you. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Ah, proxying. Our policies on the matter are quite clear and I'm sure no one ever questions them. In any case - if Rich is "making a resource available for people" and the people are willing to take responsibility for the edits - I don't see anything that the committee should do here, we have no powers that would change the matter. I would certainly take into account that Rich has circumvented his topic ban through using another project should he ever request his topic ban be removed. Worm^TT(talk) 10:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  User:Kim Bruning - Rich is banned, not site banned, but topic banned - where the topic is a meta topic of "automated editing" and is covered by the WP:Banning policy. Worm^TT(talk) 13:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  User:Kim Bruning, indeed - hence my previous comment "I don't see anything that the committee should do here" Worm^TT(talk) 14:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated by Casprings (talk) at 13:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected

American politics arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

1. Remedy 1

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• None are directly affected

-->

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

No users directly affected. Will leave a notice on the talk page of America: Imagine the World Without Her

Information about amendment request

• https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics#Discretionary_sanctions_.28general_directive.29

I request that all Dinesh D'Souza political documentaries come under Discretionary sanctions, as an amendment to the American Politics case. The article and talk page of America: Imagine the World Without Her WP:Battleground behavior and a similar dynamic to other cases that deal with American politics.

Statement by your Casprings

I think this is the type of situration the decision was designed to deal with. I would also note that similar battleground behavior has been seen in noticeboards, such as this: https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Use_of_Breitbart.com_to_defend_America:_Imagine_the_World_Without_Her

@Collect: The request only asks for films from one director and one type (political documentary). That isn't particularly expansive.Casprings (talk) 22:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Collect: While you may disagree with the original decision, the logic was clearly to be flexible and quickly handle areas under American Politics quickly. I think that this request is in line with that. However, if the question is about the original decision, that is another issue.Casprings (talk) 22:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence (Might take a little while, as I am busy with work right now. However...)Edit Wars over content

1.[28],[29], [30], [31], [32]

2. [33],[34],[35],[36],[37]

I would note that 2. happened in the context of several heated exchanges on several different forms: For example,https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Use_of_Breitbart.com_to_defend_America:_Imagine_the_World_Without_Her and https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/Talk:America:_Imagine_the_World_Without_Her#The_Blaze

3. [38], [39],[40],[41], [42]

4.

Editors Seeing the page as a WP:Battle

1. [43]

2. https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/User_talk:VictorD7#America_Talk_page

@Seraphimblade: I can and will add more. However, before I do, I wanted to ask: 1. Is this what you are looking for? 2. How much more do you want? Casprings (talk) 00:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by VictorD7

Frivolous since activity on the article has been winding down anyway, in accordance with a movie's normal box office cycle. I'm also not sure what the basis for expanding DS to all D'Souza films would be. Seems arbitrarily broad. VictorD7 (talk) 17:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

statement by uninvolved Collect

OK -- if we add all films, books, people, events, magazine articles etc. which are remotely connected to "American Politics broadly construed" we likely would have over twenty thousand articles on the list in a flash. Possibly a lot more than that. Draw the line quickly lest this get really out of hand. Collect (talk) 22:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Casprings: Note the other request on this same page at this point wherein some estimate was implicitly asked for. "Broadly construed" is, in my opinion, intrinsically ill-advised as any sort of standard, and this request is sufficiently afield from the original ArbCom evidence and findings as to illustrate that problem. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Casprings: I demur. Collect (talk) 23:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DangerousPanda

Wholly unnecessary bureaucratic filing. The original decision was clear and flexible. If these specific items need to be subjected to the original case, it can happen without such a request for amendment - otherwise, you're going to create bad jurisprudence that requires everything to be vetted in triplicate before it can be subject to sanctions. Bad and poorly-thought-out idea all around. the panda ₯’ 15:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by A Quest for Knowledge

I'm confused. How can we possibly place the entire topic space of American politics under discretionary sanctions?? This is way too broad and overreaching. And what's the point of the discretionary sanctions broadly construed if editors have to ask for an amendment to include an article as part of the the sanctions? Are these discretionary sanctions different from all the other ones? What am I missing here? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gaijin42

A_Quest_For_Knowledge The entirety of AP is not under DS. Merely there is a policy that DS may be applied to any AP article, without a full case being required to do so. Individual articles or topics still need to be explicitly placed under DS, its just that taht can be now done at WP:ARCA for things under the umbrella of AP. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon

I think that the Panda and A Quest for Knowledge are mistaken, and Gaijin42 is correct. American politics is not under discretionary sanctions as such. The ArbCom provided an optional procedure for any subarea within American politics to be put under discretionary sanctions if necessary so as to avoid the need for full cases. This request by Casprings is correctly filed. However, he has not established (in my opinion) the need in this specific subarea. Has there been edit-warring or other disruptive editing? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of further evidence from User:Casprings of disruptive editing, I would be inclined to recommend that the ArbCom decline this request, but would ask Casprings to submit diffs. I have tried to address the comments of User:Roger Davies above, but will restate that Remedy 1 was meant to avoid either the need to overburden Arbitration Enforcement with issues arising from disruptive editing of tens of thousands of articles in the area of American politics (which would result from a blanket imposition of DS) or the need for full arbitration cases in order to impose discretionary sanctions on topic areas. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The statement by User:Roger Davies appears to propose to be a change to Remedy 1 to replace it with discretionary sanctions for all of American politics. Since Remedy 1 was reviewed by the community with an opportunity for comment before it went into effect, would the large expansion of discretionary sanctions also be reviewed in a somewhat more public place than this board? What is the thinking of the other arbitrators, who either voted for Remedy 1 or did not vote? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {yet another user}

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Casprings, could you please add more details (specific diffs would be most helpful) as to why you believe these restrictions are needed? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd be much more inclined to authorise DS generally, rather than do so piecemeal.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Robert McClenon My thinking here is that authorising DS for a couple of articles at a time is not very good use of either the community's or committee's time. Authorising for the entire sprawling topic will - initially at least - likely place burdens on WP:AE but it should be possible to identify groups of articles within the topic which are troublesome and authorise DS for the sub-sets.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Robert McClenon If there's compelling evidence of widespread disruption right across the topic, I'm not averse to authorising DS for all of it. However, identifying sub-sets and authorising just for those might well do the trick. What we probably need to avoid is strings of requests for DS, one or two articles at a time.  Roger Davies ^talk 01:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated by —Guanaco at 08:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al#Guanaco_desysopped arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Link to relevant decision

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Guanaco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• MarkSweep (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kelly Martin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Posted to their talk pages. —Guanaco 08:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Guanaco

Eight years ago, it was decided that I would be ineligible to reapply for adminship. I was 16 years old at the time. I have no particular interest in reapplying in the near future - I haven't actively participated in the Wikipedia community in several years. But this black mark is something that has bothered me, and I hope to rejoin the community at some point with a clean slate. —Guanaco 08:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf

People can change and mature significantly in 8 years, and processes like RFA are also more mature than they were back then so all the benefit from this restriction has been had already. The other two named uses have themselves not edited since 2008 and 2009, so there is little chance of negative interraction with them occurring. I therefore don't see any reason not to allow an application in the normal way if he wants to apply in the future - indeed there is I hope the potential that removing the restriction will spark a desire for this new, mature Guanaco to become an active contributor once more. Thryduulf (talk) 19:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other user}

Clerk notes

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

• Note: For the record, this request aims to modify an existing remedy, so a motion must be voted on and passed (instead of an informal majority opinion). - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 11:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• The motion has reached an absolute majority as of 08:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC) and will be enacted after 08:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussion

• This is a long time ago, and I think practice has since changed to generally leave whether to restore tools up to the normal community processes. I'd be inclined to remove the restriction and allow normal reapplication at RfA. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Seraphimblade. Carcharoth (talk) 23:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree that an arbitration sanction does not need to last more than eight years. If one checks the proposed decision page in the case, it is clear that the remedy is meant to mean that Guanaco may not submit another RfA without first getting ArbCom's permission. In light of the passage of time, I believe the consensus here will be that he has our permission, i.e. he may be a candidate at RfA like anyone else if he ever wants to, and the community will decide. If anyone thinks we need a formal motion to effectuate this outcome I will propose one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I support removing this restriction as well. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support removal of the restriction. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support NativeForeigner ^Talk 22:32, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support,  Roger Davies ^talk 07:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Motion

The second sentence of remedy 1 of the Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al case, currently reading:

is vacated and replaced with the following:

Enacted - Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. T. Canens (talk) 19:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. AGK [•] 21:28, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4. Strictly speaking, only via passing a new RfA. :) Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
5. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
6. NativeForeigner ^Talk 02:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
7.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
8. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 08:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
9. Worm^TT(talk) 09:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
10. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

Comments by arbitrators

Initiated by Robert McClenon (talk) at 02:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected

American politics arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested # Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics#Discretionary sanctions (general directive)

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Robert McClenon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

• CFredkin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Stevietheman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tiller54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Champaign Supernova (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

CFredkinhttps:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=User_talk%3ACFredkin&diff=622128624&oldid=622125680

Steviethemanhttps:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=User_talk%3AStevietheman&diff=622128985&oldid=622004228

NorthBySouthBaranofhttps:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=User_talk%3ANorthBySouthBaranof&diff=622129194&oldid=621857736

Tiller54https:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=User_talk%3ATiller54&diff=622129504&oldid=622129021

Champaign Supernovahttps:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=User_talk%3AChampaign_Supernova&diff=622129934&oldid=621440660

Information about amendment request

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics#Discretionary sanctions (general directive)

• Request that Mitch McConnell and Alison Lundergan Grimes be placed under discretionary sanctions until November 2014.

Statement by User:Robert McClenon

Edit-warring has been happening at Mitch McConnell and Alison Lundergan Grimes. (They are the incumbent, seeking re-election, and the opponent in the upcoming election for United States Senate from Kentucky.) The article for Grimes has been placed under full protection.

User:Champaign Supernova has had discretionary sanctions explained on his or her talk page, and that I notified all of the recent editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I partly disagree with User:Collect that there is nothing unusual on the Mitch McConnell page. Earlier this month, there was, in addition to an insertion not only of a mention of a particular fund-raiser, an insertion of a wildly speculative theory about the reason for the fund-raiser, that involved gross BLP attacks on the industrialist who was supporting McConnell. While this sort of dirty political attack may not be "unusual", it was very inappropriate in Wikipedia. It wasn't just a BLP attack on McConnell, but also on the businessman who was supporting him. It was in my opinion the sort of case where the existing right-left polarization in American politics is likely to affect Wikipedia that the ArbCom had in mind with the general directive. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As to "slippery slope" questions, the ArbCom does not have a crystal ball, but this seems to be precisely the sort of dispute area to which the general directive was oriented. I would hope that the imposition of discretionary sanctions in this case would send a signal to edit warriors in other sub-areas of American politics that they should edit in accordance with the usual rules, both before November 2014 and after November 2014. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, I do not see the need to impose DS on thousands of articles covering hundreds or thousands of elections that will be held on 4 November 2014. Second, any RFC concerning DS would not be closed until early October 2014 anyway, and would provide too narrow a window. Why not only impose discretionary sanctions on articles about politicians and elections in which there is edit-warring or other disruptive editing (such as the Kentucky Senate race)? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Roger Davies says, with regard to this motion and another, that he is not keen on a "piecemeal" approach to discretionary sanctions on American politics. A piecemeal approach is exactly what was stated in WP:ARBAP. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"In addition to any sanctions stemming directly from this decision, any new areas of conflict which involve contemporary American political and social issues may be placed under standard discretionary sanctions by the Committee without the need for a full case. Requests for new sanctions may be made at WP:ARCA. In evaluating such a request, the Committee will consider factors such as the length and severity of editor-behavior issues in the topic area, whether other remedies have proved inadequate to address the issues, and relevant community input."

First, the ArbCom can reverse Remedy 1, which was specifically crafted because cases involving American politics (with its ugly right-left polarization at the present time) kept requiring arbitration. Maybe, now that the ArbCom sees how it works, it was an honorable experiment that is a failure. Second, the ArbCom can expand Remedy 1 by extending DS to all of American politics. I would urge that the ArbCom not take that step, which would overburden arbitration enforcement, whose resources are needed in areas such as WP:ARBIP. Third, the ArbCom can use Remedy 1, knowing that Roger Davies can take the honorable role of a dissenting judge in voting against "piecemeal" application of discretionary sanctions to subareas of American politics. Fourth, the ArbCom can accept additional subareas of American politics for full evidentiary hearings, but that is what Remedy 1 was intended to obviate. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Details

History for Alison Lundergan Grimeshttps:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Alison_Lundergan_Grimes&action=history

History for Mitch McConnellhttps:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Mitch_McConnell&action=history

Reverting a fund-raiserhttps:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Mitch_McConnell&diff=621611111&oldid=621606775

Add endorsementhttps:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Mitch_McConnell&diff=621652104&oldid=621611111

Remove endorsementhttps:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Mitch_McConnell&diff=621675442&oldid=621652104

Add informationhttps:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Mitch_McConnell&diff=621676327&oldid=621675442

Remove informationhttps:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Mitch_McConnell&diff=621694341&oldid=621679946

Talk:Alison Lundergan Grimes#Censored content – See repeated claims of censorship, a common indication that POV-pushers object to removal of undue POV

Statement by uninvolved Collect

The McConnell BLP shows no unusual activity for a political BLP, and certainly the editing there does not reach the definition of "edit war." The Grimes BLP has more problems, primarily due to one editor using it to simply add "campaign fluff" (that is, positive statements about a candidate's positions while removing negative opinions sourced as opinions.) That, again, is typical "silly season" editing behaviour which does not reach ArbCom enforcement levels, even though it is to be deprecated. No sign that this is an apt case for "clarification and amendment" at this point at all. If these articles are added, there is literally no end to the number potentially added, and I suggest the ArbCom draw a line here that the matter is insufficient at this point. Collect (talk) 11:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Number of articles: A bit over seven hundred candidates for House of Representatives (some races have three candidates with articles), about seventy or eighty for Senate, and about twelve thousand state legislature candidates[44]. If we add notable local elections, add another thousand or so. Add about 250 "major issue articles" and we reach a rough estimate of perhaps fourteen thousand articles to be placed under this category. Not even counting articles about foundations, families, PACs etc. Collect (talk) 14:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@NYB - I perennially suggest such general restrictions on BLPs of political figures internationally for the respective "silly seasons" in various places -- not just the US. Canada, UK, NZ, Australia and other English-speaking areas are the primary focus of politically-motivated editors during political campaigns. And I agree this would be a community decision. Collect (talk) 14:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other user}

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary.Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

I'm not familiar with what a discretionary sanction is, and I don't understand what this proposal means or how it would affect me. I'm confused by my involvement here because none of the diffs listed above were edits made by me, or reverts of my edits. Is there anything I need to do right now? Champaign Supernova (talk) 03:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:CFredkin

It seems inappropriate for User: Champaign Supernova to be included in the sanctions, if he/she hasn't been accused of objectionable behavior. Or would the sanctions apply to all future editors of the articles mentioned for the time period specified?CFredkin (talk) 23:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Stevietheman

Despite the apparent declaration, I have not been involved in any edit warring. I protested this declaration here, which strangely came in the form of a welcome message for a 10-year wiki-veteran (me). I don't do edit wars and haven't been blocked for WP:3RR since 2005, and it was just one time. While there has been actual edit warring on the affected pages, there has also been what I think are seemingly biased accusations of "slow-motion edit warring" and "disruptive editing" which I have found to be overzealous. Here's the gist of the problem: People from both political camps are using these articles for electioneering purposes. That's bad, that's un-wiki. But I'd rather see admins use the regular tools at their disposal to settle things down, and especially deal with individuals causing the biggest problems. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further, the "Reverting a fund-raiser" item above was me going through the appropriate move of closing an RfC a week after asking if there were any objections to doing so, and removing content agreed to be removed by consensus (4 out of 4) on the talk page. It's pretty outrageous that doing something agreed to by consensus would be included here. I thought these requests were for dealing with egregious behavior. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Thryduulf

Regarding DS more generally, I think it would be better to allow for DS to be placed on articles about specific political candidates in the n months before an election via a lightweight procedure (say 2 or 3 uninvolved admins at AN or ANI agreeing they would be beneficial) rather than automatically enable them for all political candidates. I do agree though this should be discussed at an RfC. Thryduulf (talk) 16:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I certainly see the potential for problems to worsen here. I'm minded to grant this request. @Champaign Supernova: You can find the full details on what discretionary sanctions are here. In short, they're a way we can allow administrators to quickly address problems in areas where they're very likely to occur, and establish restrictions or remove editors from that topic area if the need arises. Establishing discretionary sanctions over the articles wouldn't change a thing for any editor who isn't engaged in misconduct, and can in any case only apply to misconduct that happens after the sanctions are imposed. It's not an action against any individual, and your inclusion on the request doesn't mean you're accused of any misconduct. The only reason you were probably included is because you edit in the area, so you should have the opportunity to comment on the proposal if you wish to, or (as you did) ask us any questions you might have. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Like Seraphimblade, I am open in principle to agreeing to this, but is there a potential for a slippery slope here? How many other articles may also need to be placed under such discretionary sanctions if people point to this decision as a precedent? Carcharoth (talk) 23:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I broadly agree with Seraphimblade. T. Canens (talk) 04:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Perhaps we could consider DS on articles relating to active candidates for office, in the X months leading up to the election. But I'd want to see this taken to an RfC for community input before taking it any further. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I hold similar concerns to Carcharoth. Although there does seem to be an issue here, I'm a little concerned that an amendment request will be necessary every time problems crop up in this area. Perhaps it would be wiser to broaden the scope of the sanctions than open the case to amendment requests that may well come back again and again. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not really keen on a piecemeal approach. I'd support something along the lines Brad has suggested, or even support authorising DS for the American Politics topic as a whole.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Given that this is the second time in quick succession that the American Politics topic area has come before us, I wonder if we should not explore some sort of other way to deal with controversy in this topic area (short of the wholesale application of DS to the entire topic, which I would oppose). I have no bright ideas at the moment but a separate, focussed consultation with the community may resolve this perennial question – better than a series of disparate filings would, at least. AGK [•] 21:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• We didn't impose discretionary on American Politics because it was too broad and nothing's changed there. We did invite these piecemeal options in the way we closed the case - I was hoping for something wider than specific articles though. I do like NYB's suggestion, I'd support something like that. If anyone else has any bright ideas on how to deal with the area, I'd be willing to listen. Worm^TT(talk) 09:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]