Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-06-19/Arbitration report

< Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost‎ | 2013-06-19
The Signpost
← Back to Contents
View Latest Issue


Arbitration report

The Farmbrough amendment request—automation and arbitration enforcement

Contribute  —  
Share this
By Neotarf

Richard Farmbrough

Editor's note: the "Arbitration report" invited Richard Farmbrough to comment on his recent request to the arbitration committee. In an effort to represent all sides of the issue, we also asked arbitrators T. Canens and Carcharoth if they would take the time to answer some questions about the case, since they both commented on the initial request. Carcharoth declined, but T. Canens agreed to talk to us from his own perspective.

Richard Farmbrough was set to have his day in court, but as events transpired, this was not to be so. On 25 March 2013, an accusation was made against Farmbrough at Arbitration Enforcement (AE), claiming that he violated the terms of an automated edit restriction. Within hours, Farmbrough had filed his own request with the arbitration committee, citing the newly filed AE request and claiming that the motion was being used "in an absurd way" in the filing of enforcement requests: "I have not made any edits that a sane person would consider automation."

The AE arm of the arbitration committee blocked Farmbrough for one year, after receiving a go-ahead from arbitrator T Canens and without waiting for input from either Farmbrough or the community. The committee, noting that Farmbrough was blocked, then declined to consider Farmbrough's request.

Meet Richard Farmbrough

Richard Farmbrough is something of an icon in the Wikipedia saga. In 2007, Smith Magazine interviewed him as one of the most prolific editors on Wikipedia. In 2011, he was cited by R. Stuart Geiger in "The Lives of Bots" as the creator of the {{nobots}} opt-out template and an advocate of the "bots are better behaved than people" philosophy of bot development. Farmbrough is also credited with coining the word "botophobia", to make the point that bot policy needs to be as responsive to public perceptions as to technical considerations. Farmbrough described himself to the Signpost as "a reader and sometime editor and administrator of the English Wikipedia ... [I've] contributed to and started many articles, worked on policy, edited templates, created and organised categories, participated in discussions, helped new users, run database extraction, created file lists and reports for Wikipedians, done anti-vandal work, and was a host at Tea-house. I also wrote and ran bots."

Genesis

SmackBot: the earliest incarnation of Farmbrough's first bot, Helpful Pixie Bot
Farmbrough's first bot was Smackbot, later renamed Helpful Pixie Bot "to be more welcoming". Helpful Pixie Bot worked mainly on article space, using mostly the AWB (AutoWikiBrowser) program for general clean-up, dating maintenance tags, checking and formatting ISBN numbers, and other tasks that are listed on its user page; it also ran tasks requested by individual editors or projects. Femto Bot was created later, and did more "meta" tasks, such as archiving and maintaining page lists for WikiProjects.

All of the bots' tasks were approved by BAG, the Bot Approvals Group, "although in the less restrictive environment of 2007 a more liberal approach was taken to 'obviously' good extensions of existing tasks than was later the case." Before being submitted to BAG's testing regime, bot tasks underwent a significant amount of manual testing. In one typical case, Farmbrough manually checked and saved more than 3000 edits over the course of six or seven weeks.

None of Farmbrough's bots are currently running. Some of the code and data from his bots is used in other bots, such as AnomieBot and AWB-based bots. AnomieBot has taken over some of Helpful Pixie Bot's dating tasks, but the other general fixes are not being performed.

Dwarves vs gnomes?

So what went wrong? "In September 2010 I made some changes to the general clean-up, there was some opposition and I agreed to revert the changes ... However, an avalanche had been unleashed, and the matter was escalated to ANI. Subsequently I removed all custom general fixes, and rewrote the entire bot in perl, since AWB at that time could not meet the exacting standards that were being demanded. ... One would think that having agreed to do everything asked, and even gone beyond it, the matter would have rested there; but a series of ANI and ARB filings ensued, some rejected out of hand, others gaining traction until by mid-2012 it had become impossible to edit."

As one observer put it, "What we are seeing here is 'The War of the Dwarves and the Gnomes'. Dwarves are editors who work mainly on content, and typically put a lot of thought into each edit; gnomes are editors who work mainly on form, and tend to make large numbers of edits doing things like changing a - to a –. Richard is a Supergnome, and the comparatively small fraction of errors generated by his huge volume of automated edits ended up costing the dwarves who maintain articles an enormous amount of time. Eventually, after repeated failed attempts to rein him in, the outraged dwarves banded together to ban him."

An automation restriction

The outcome of the 2012 Rich Farmbrough arbitration case, along with its subsequent motions, was not at all in his favor. It contained the wording of the automation restriction that has become so controversial: "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." A later "amendment by motion" stated "Rich Farmbrough is directed ... to make only completely manual edits (i.e. by selecting the [EDIT] button and typing changes into the editing window)".

Is typing four tildes "automation"?
What, exactly, are "automated edits"?
So did Farmbrough break his automation ban? And what exactly are "automated edits"? Opinion was divided over whether automation had been used. Some said there was no compelling reason to believe the edits were likely automated. Others speculated that the edits might have been done with the "search and replace" function in the edit window toolbar, and therefore not prohibited under the restriction. Still others said the edits could be completely manual. (Farmbrough told the Signpost that it was "a manual error incidentally" that gave rise to the AE posting.)

The Arbitration Enforcement administrator, however, stated that "it appears very improbable that this sort of repetitive change was made without some sort of automation, if only the copy/paste or search/replace functions (which are forbidden under the terms of the decision, which prohibits 'any automation whatsoever')", and defined "find and replace" as automation because "it produces the effect of many keystrokes with one or few keystrokes". If "search and replace" is automation, replied the commenters, then so is "copy and paste" or signing posts with four tildes. Farmbrough pointed out that caps-lock also fits the definition of producing the effect of many keystrokes with one keystroke.

Defining automation

What interpretation of "automated edits" is reasonable? We asked Farmbrough if some automated edits are potentially damaging and others not:


Chilling effect on bot operators?

It has been suggested that this will have a chilling effect on other bot operators, that they will be afraid of making mistakes and getting banned. Says one talk page commenter, "A lot of bot ops and potential botops think twice before starting a bot. I have talked with several editors who want too but are afraid if they make mistakes that the zero defect mentality will get them banned."

Arbitrator T. Canens responded:


Does it matter if edits are beneficial?

We did not think to ask whether sub-optimal edits are beneficial, as long as they move the project forward, but both Farmbrough and T. Canens identified this as an issue.

Said T. Canens, "It is very clear to me that the committee in both the initial sanction and the subsequent motion intended to ban all forms of automated editing whatsoever from Rich, regardless of whether any particular automated edit is beneficial. In general, this happens when the Committee determines that 1) the disruption caused by the totality of the automated editing outweighs the benefits of said editing and 2) there is no less restrictive sanction that is both workable and capable of preventing further disruption. In this case, for instance, given the high volume of Rich's automated edits, a remedy that only prohibits him from making problematic edits would be impractical."

Farmbrough stated, "What we should be concerned about is the encyclopedic project, is something someone is doing damaging or benefiting the project? If it is damging we should look at steps to address that, if it is benefiting we should look at ways to improve it further."

Procedural issues about arbitration and enforcement

The Arbitration Enforcement request against Farmbrough was initiated at 10:29, 25 March 2013, and closed less than 13 hours later, at 23:04, with only the accuser and the AE administrator participating. After a request to leave the case open a little bit longer for discussion was declined, discussion continued on Sandstein's and Rich Farmbrough's talk pages.

Farmbrough's block at AE

T. Canens' statement at Farmbrough's Arbcom request that "I think the AE request can proceed as usual", and Richard's subsequent block, received comments at various talk pages ranging from "[it is] somewhat strange that T. Canens should encourage blocking of an editor who has made an appeal to ArbCom" to "the comments from arbitrators seem to say 'block him, we're not going to change the sanction' (T. Canens) and 'we're not going to change the sanction because he's blocked' (Carcharoth and Risker)."

"I was amazed that one arb suggesting Sandstein go ahead was considered authority to do so," Farmbrough told the Signpost. "Even more at the circular argument 'Rich is blocked so the request to remove the provision he was blocked under is moot'".

We asked arbitrator T. Canens why he had Farmbrough blocked while his Arbcom request was still open.


Autonomy of Arbitration Enforcement administrators

There was also some disagreement over the intentions of the arbitration committee with regard to automation and role of AE.

According to one interpretation of the Farmbrough arbitration case, "it isn't the automated editing itself that is harmful/disruptive, and if there is no harm being done here then the 1 year block does not prevent any problems. So in that sense it is neither punitive nor preventative!" and "the Enforcement By block section says 'may be blocked...' which I can't read any other way than to imply that some discretion is given to administrators to not block or to block for a shorter period when, for example, the infraction was so exceedingly minor or when there is no or very little disruption."

According to another view, "the underlying decision of the Arbitration Committee to consider all automated editing of whatever nature by Rich Farmbrough to be harmful, and to ban all such editing. ... Because Arbitration Committee decisions are binding, AE admins in particular have no authority to question the Committee's decisions; they must limit themselves to executing the decisions."

We asked T. Canens if, under these circumstances, "the arbitration committee needs to clarify their intentions about automation and mass editing". Canen replied:


Is there a way forward?

"I just want to get back to editing" says Farmbrough. "Wikipedians do not edit for thanks and barnstars, though they are both nice to receive. It is however a big disincentive to edit, and part of the hostile environment, when there's a constant (and I do mean constant) threat hanging over every editor's head that they're going to have to spend days and weeks fighting off ANI threads and Arbcom cases every time they do something that someone doesn't like."

Given the absence of any other formal mechanism for dealing with automation disputes, that may be exactly what will happen once the block is over.

← Previous "Arbitration report"
Next "Arbitration report" →
+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.
  • Another prolific and valuable editor is biting the dust because Wikipedia insiders don't particularly like him. Rich is a martyr for the cause of content builders. Wer900 • talk 21:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually he is generally well liked, the issue is one editor who reports him for any minor point and an administrative process that cannot apply perspective. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 00:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's nice to see in depth material like this in the arbitration report. (It may have sometimes been like this before, but I don't remember it recently.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In depth" is nice, but the article would be better if it were less one-sided in Rich's favor. Fact is, he's blocked for a year because he's violated his sanctions multiple times, and been caught doing so despite his efforts to conceal his misdeeds. The original sanction would have been long since commuted if Rich had done the one thing requested: Put away all automation and type edits in by hand, like the vast majority of first time users do. The idea was to provide Rich an opportunity to have empathy with those whom his automation mistakes impacted. Instead, he has challenged the legitimacy of the sanctions, violated them willfully and repeatedly, and now seeks to be re-tried in the court of public opinion. The person who is solely and totally responsible for Rich Farmbrough being blocked for such an extended period of time is Rich Farmbrough--every process, at every turn, gave him ample direction on what to do, and ample opportunity to comply. It's a quite regrettable outcome, but one of his own making. Jclemens (talk) 23:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Took the words out of my mouth. Though you're the ex-arb in the room, so I guess it's for the best you're the one who said them anyways. :P I'll never understand how some people's response to a sanction can be to try every possible action except to willfully comply with it until they've proven it can be lifted (which, history has shown, is actually a lot easier than it sounds). This article, while interesting, fails to give due consideration to the reasons that ArbCom repeatedly denied RF's requests to lift the sanction. A two-sided examination of the events here would have referenced the unanimous dismissal of the "omnibus appeal", the fact that several arbitrators felt Rich's behavior could soon merit an indefinite ban, etc. I'm not saying Rich has no valid complaints, but let's remember that this is someone who has, among other things, attempted to get arbitration findings struck as NPA/BLP violations. I must say, I'm saddened to see material like this appearing in this section of the Signpost. Normally, at the end (well, now, the middle) of a dramatic week, you can always settle down with the Signpost and read a nuanced and balanced summary of whatever's unfolded. The Abritration Report, especially, has always impressed me with its neutrality, and this edition is an unfortunate departure from that tradition. This should have been published as an Op-Ed. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 00:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to say, being unfamiliar with the case, that it's not at all clear to me why Rich was sanctioned in the first place, let alone blocked currently. Powers T 01:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    And by that do you mean that you agree the article's biased, or that you agree with the viewpoint advanced in the article? — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 02:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have enough information to say. It feels like the article is incomplete, which some may read as biased. Powers T 23:49, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Incomplete, yes. When I first started the whole interview process, I had hoped for things to be wrapped up in a neat package. Apparently WP isn't like that. I would defend the neutrality of the report though: both Mr. Farmbrough and the committee had opportunity to articulate their views. I am well aware that this interview type of format takes the report out of its comfort zone, and that some readers may miss the usual formula. As for nuance, I hope it is still there, but that is up to the reader to judge. Neotarf (talk) 08:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well said, better than I could have done. Anomie⚔ 02:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I note one glaring error: AnomieBOT contains neither code nor data from any of Rich's bots, and the implication is frankly absurd. Since this piece calls out tag dating in particular, let's look at that. AnomieBOT's tag dating came about because Rich couldn't manage to keep his bot unblocked to do the task, and no one else wanted to do it long-term.

    Code first. It seems clear to me that even the first version of AnomieBOT's TagDater.pm is in a distinctly AnomieBOT style, but direct code comparison is of course impossible since Rich hadn't and hasn't to my knowledge released his code publicly.

    As for data, AnomieBOT's tag dating has two major sources: WP:AWB/DT for the list of templates, and the category hierarchy under Category:Wikipedia maintenance categories sorted by month to find pages with templates needing dating. Regarding the former, I note that, despite running his tag-dating bot, Rich appears to have made only two trivial edits[1][2] to WP:AWB/DT. Nor did he create Category:Wikipedia maintenance categories sorted by month, although he does seem to have played a part in some of the complex templates currently used in that hierarchy. I don't see that contributing to the templates used in an existing category hierarchy rises to the level implied here.

    As for the many lesser inaccuracies and omissions in this piece, I think I'll refrain from specific comment. There are enough people who idolize Rich for various reasons (the saddest being, IMO, those who hold him as some sort of mascot for people "oppressed" by "Wikipedia's [ArbCom/admin] oligarchy") that I don't want to get into a drawn-out argument with. Anomie⚔ 02:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • If this makes any difference, the exact wording of Farmbrough's statement to the Signpost was, "All AWB bots and AnomieBot effectively use some of the code/data from my bots which was turned into Wiki Pages." Neotarf (talk) 18:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since there are some remarks here about neutrality, let me make it clear that none of the opinions expressed in the piece are my own. I will try to find time to say more about this later, but for now let me just say that if someone has a question about who or what is being cited, I would be happy to provide more detailed diffs. Neotarf (talk) 09:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

None of the opinions, perhaps. But the selection of opinion to present leading to the POV? Anomie⚔ 12:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If there is some opinion or discussion somewhere that has been left out, anyone is welcome to add it. Neotarf (talk) 08:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably the worst-ever article I've read in the Signpost. If it was an essay by Rich about why he reckons he was unfairly treated that would be one thing, but it's basically an opinion article which cherry picks Rich's interpretation of events while leaving everything else out. Where's the coverage of his multiple attempts to push against his restrictions? (which is what contributed to the block). Some of the prose would be deleted from a stub article - for instance "It has been suggested that this will have a chilling effect on other bot operators, that they will be afraid of making mistakes and getting banned. Says one talk page commenter, "A lot of bot ops and potential botops think twice before starting a bot. I have talked with several editors who want too but are afraid if they make mistakes that the zero defect mentality will get them banned." - who has suggested this, and who is the mysterious "one talk page commenter"? Given the number of chances Rich was given there doesn't seem to be any imminent danger of them being "banned"(!) - are bot owners really so silly that this represents their consensus opinion? Nick-D (talk) 10:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D, if the links to the discussions weren't clear enough, this particular discussion took place on the blocking admin's talk page. I was not covering the arbitration committee at the time of any of Farmbrough's previous interactions with it, however, (if that question was not merely rhetorical) any available information about them would be found in the Signpost archives. It was not our goal to rehash material that has already been reported, but to provide the briefest of backgrounds for readers who are new to the situation. Neotarf (talk) 18:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If that was your intention, then I'm afraid that I don't think that it was successfully executed. This is a woefully one-sided view of things, which basically misleads readers by presenting cherry picked material focused on Rich's justifications for his actions. Nick-D (talk) 01:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The arbitration committee was given a chance to respond before publication, and they did so. If there is material somewhere that has not been represented, anyone is welcome to point it out. Neotarf (talk) 08:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am one of the editors who concluded that Rich Farmbrough was using automation in violation of his agreement not to do so. The spirit of the restriction was to not change a bunch of things with one mouse click or key press. Rich Farmbrough had a history of doing that and making the exact same minor error in many places. Rich made it clear in previous discussions that he realized that doing that was the behavior that he was not to repeat. One could argue that doing a search and replace and hitting the OK button after examining each replacement was allowed, but doing a search and replace and letting it make multiple changes all at once would be an unambiguous violation, and I am convinced that this is what happened.
Consider this edit. It may help to look at the before and after pages as well as the diff. Clearly he was attempting to fix the places where a word like Madhubala was surrounded by ‘ and ’ and also in italics using the usual '' wikimarkup. In other words, change ''‘Madhubala’'' to ''Madhubala'' by removing the ‘ and ’.
This is a standard automated-text-repair operation, and I have written small scripts to do things like it many times, usually on a batch of a few thousand documents at once. The ‘ is easy: just replace all instances of ‘ with nothing. Alas, if you then try to do the same with ’, you accidentally turn Bob’s hat into Bobs hat and actress’ family into actress family. Now of course if you are editing manually, you just remove the ’ from ''‘Madhubala’'' and not from Bob’s hat or the actress’ family. But how to do it with automation?
Here is where Rich Farmbrough appears to have made a programming error. After batch-replacing ‘ with nothing, he batch-replaced ’'' with ''. Alas, sometimes the second ’ doesn't have a '' after it, and so the programming error turns ‘Madhubala’ into Madhubala’ and ‘I got it’ into I got it’.
We know this was automated, because a human who is moving through text manually removing quotation marks simple does not remove multiple ‘ characters without removing the matching ’ character, but only when the ’ is not followed by two '' characters. There are mistakes that humans make and there are mistakes that only automated editing tools make, and this was the latter.
Also, missing the giant red error on the page indicates that he probably never read anything but the wikimarkup, and the edit summary ("Italics for book titles, not bold.") which confuses ''‘ with ''' tends to support this theory. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to follow this explanation in terms of the rest of the text, particularly the "Eureka" portion at the end. "And the way he had twisted the title ‘Eurek(h)a’ of the book" becomes "And the way he had twisted the title Eurek(h)a’ of the book", and "shamelessly borrowing the joyous quote ‘Eureka’ which meant" becomes "shamelessly borrowing the joyous quote Eureka’ which meant". But in the same section, "Mohan Deep got 'Eurekha!' vetted" and "Rekha was to talk about 'Eurekha' 4 years later" do not have the same error introduced.
For anyone trying to follow the "red error" issue, a red "cite error" in the main text is first introduced here [3] (not by Farmbrough) on 06:31, 22 March 2013, and another smaller red "unknown parameter" in the references section here [4] at 05:03, 22 March 2013. There are eleven intervening edits before Farmbrough makes the disputed edit. Ten edits after Farmbrough's edit, the article is moved from "Articles for creation" to article space [5] (again, not by Farmbrough) on 11:05, 23 March 2013‎ with both red errors still in it. The first red error (in the text) is eliminated here [6] at 11:09, 23 March 2013, about 13 edits after Farmbrough touched it, the second red error is finally removed, three weeks later, here [7] on 06:06, 15 April 2013, when the page number is added to the citation. Farmbrough made some 13 edits to the article before the error was removed, there were 85 edits by all editors altogether that left a red error still in the text. Neotarf (talk) 13:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will keep my comment brief but as I have stated in other venues in the past, the blocking of Rich and his bots over minor edits was a decision of monumentally poor judgement. Even more so given his eventual banning from the project was due to the extrmely poor wording of his sanction. Sepcifically the decidedly poor use and interpretation of the terms "broadly construed" which allow an administrator unlimited discretion. An editor being banned over little more than a difference of opinion about the types of edits that should be done is nothing short of just plain dumb. Every month Rich and his bots aren't editing is directly equivelant to tens of thousands of useful edits not being done, setting the project back in an unmeasurable amount. Kumioko (talk) 13:55, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Broadly construed" points both ways--it's easy to see why people who like to Wikilawyer hate it, because it's essentially IAR applied to sanctions: in any sanction that includes "broadly construed" it is very explicitly stating that the spirit counts, not just the letter. ArbCom tends to use a lot of "broadly construed", because people who are able to find consensus at lower levels of dispute resolution don't make it to ArbCom cases. Jclemens (talk) 02:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • But your assumptions are that the wording assumes that the editors is guilty and that every one of the 1400+ admins who could block that user, would do so fairly or has the same understanding or interpretation of the rules. Unfortunately that is often not the case. It doesn't have to do with wikilawyering and fankly I only see that as an excuse by those who support a system of making it easy for admins to eliminate editors without due process. Broadly construed measn that any interpretation of the judgement is justified. It has nothing to do with wikilawyering and everything to do with fairness and common sense. Kumioko (talk) 17:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Postscript. Several comments above have raised questions about neutrality in terms of the format of this arbitration report. As I said there, and will say again, comment was invited from both Mr. Farmbrough and the arbitrators. I also promised, somewhere upthread, to try to find time to comment about this at greater length, so I will say something more now about the writing of this report, and the departure from the usual arbitration report format.

When we first started discussing the possibility of doing an interview for the arbitration report, I knew immediately that I wanted to interview Farmbrough. When a disruptive user is indeffed, there is often a sigh of relief that goes up from the community. But with Farmbrough, that wasn't what happened. Instead, there was a whole dialogue that started up about process--the process surrounding arbitration enforcement and bot development, and people stated bringing up points about the structure of WP. In fact, the working title of this report was "The Farmbrough amendment request - a closer look at automation and arbitration enforcement".

While I was putting the report together, I was also trying to decide whether Farmbrough was a hero or a villain. But you would probably have to edit in the same area with someone to really answer that question, and as far as I know, I have never had any interaction with Farmbrough on WP at all. And I suspect the answer to that question is not that simple. I also didn't look at any of the diffs for any of his cases until after I had submitted the report, so whatever I wrote came directly from discussion about the current case, and not from trying to judge for myself what had happened.

My primary interest in writing this was to find out something about how WP breathes and grows, and sometimes hiccups, in the context of real users, not in the abstract. But if the comments here are any indication, most readers are not interested in the meta-type issues I tried to bring out in the report. They are interested in Farmbrough himself; and they are not finished with talking about what happened.

Neotarf (talk) 11:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Simply inviting comment isn't really enough for neutrality. In addition you've cherry-picked a few heavily biased "anonymous" comments, but didn't invite comment from any of the other users mentioned or anyone involved in the case beyond two of the arbs.
Regarding "When a disruptive user is indeffed, there is often a sigh of relief that goes up from the community. But with Farmbrough, that wasn't what happened.", that's not really accurate. Usually a sigh of relief goes up from part of the community while the disruptive user's supporters (their "fan club", although that term sometimes has a derogatory connotation) complain about every aspect of the situation. Sometimes there are not many supporters or they drop the issue quickly. In this case there are a fair number of them and the list includes some extremely vocal and tenacious members. In the end it comes down to trying to draw the line for how much disruption can be excused by good editing; look at some other cases where a disruptive editor also does good work, both where the user wound up banned and where they didn't, and you'll find the same thing.
Regarding "most readers are not interested in the meta-type issues I tried to bring out in the report", I for one don't see any meta-type issues in your editorial. When the whole piece is focused on the one editor and to a lesser extent his arb case, it should come as no surprise that people discuss that editor and that arb case. In a good case study, the meta issues are still clearly presented and are the real focus of the work. Anomie⚔ 13:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But this isn't a case study, and I am not presenting issues, or a point of view. Since my role here is to be a neutral observer, or at least to be equally detested by all parties, I can only point out issues that have already been raised by others. In a perfect world, PR specialists would give me pithy and quotable sound bites that were all understandable, and spelled correctly. But this is Wikipedia, in all of its chaotic glory, and even if I would like to make something up, I am stuck with what people have actually said. For example, I was particularly puzzled by several comments that Wikipedia had become a "personal fiefdom"; it was not clear how this might apply to the automation group. Also, I never did receive an answer to where someone could go for assistance if they had a problem with a bot. As far as I can tell, they take it to Farmbrough's talk page, where he still dispenses technical advice on occasion. And if you check again, I think you will find that arbitrator T. Canens did adequately explain the arbs' decisions (and the issues you brought up), even if he wasn't involved in the original case.
If you really don't see the procedural issues, I would suggest you go to the two talk pages linked in the report, and read the comments yourself. For those who automatically discount anything that isn't written by an admin, there are comments there by admins as well. There are plenty of editors there, who have taken the lead in trying to define and resolve some of the issues, instead of just complaining that no one else has resolved anything to their satisfaction.
I sympathize with anyone who has ever been irritated by someone else's editing, but clearly this is a complex situation. And it is likely to come up again, quite possibly with the same issues still unresolved. I too wish I had been able to stumble across some easy answers, wrapped up in a neat package, but this is Wikipedia: what you see is what you get. Neotarf (talk) 15:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Keep up with The Signpost on Twitter, Facebook or Mastodon.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-06-19/Arbitration_report&oldid=1191024923"