Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests

Involved party edit-warring over arbitration log

I logged a warning on WP:ARBR&I yesterday [1]. Another editor, who has been involved in the same set of issues and has a previous sanction against himself logged on the same page, took it on himself to unilaterally revert my log entry [2]. I'd ask arbitrators or clerks to keep an eye on the page and block offenders if this continues. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I haven't followed if someone has acted on this, but I suspect it would be handled readily at WP:AN/EW? MBisanz ^talk 19:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

There's been a significant amount of edit warring over this whole issue. I've just warned User:Youreallycan for inappropriate use of rollback at WP:AE [3], and will revoke rollbacker from any editor who uses it in this way again. There's no need to edit war over a warning, if it's been given, then it has, and that's all there is to it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Warnings are just logging the fact that notice has been served--they carry no implication of wrongdoing. Jclemens (talk) 04:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

YRC simply restored a comment from him that had been removed by FPS. FPS should not have removed the comment, and YRC was within his rights to restore it. The use of rollback (if such it was) is really rather irrelevant as it is substantially the same as "undo" for a one page, one edit, revert. Rich Farmbrough, 03:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC).

It was a comment under a level 2 header unrelated to any current enforcement request on WP:AE. If it belonged anywhere outside user space, WT:AE was probably the right place. Mathsci (talk) 05:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

My point is that the use or otherwise of rollback is a red-herring. There are good reasons to limit the use of rollback, and a friendly note that "undo" would have been more appropriate would have covered that. There is no point getting hung up on rollback vs undo vs revert in the normal course of events. There may be substantive issues about eidt-warring or, as you say, the appropriate forum, it is far more worthwhile to deal with those than muddy the waters. Rich Farmbrough, 13:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC).

Wait, what?

Are failed requests normally just deleted from the page, as done here? I looked in the archives, thinking maybe it was a copy-paste archival, but I can't find it there either. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

That's SOP. There's no copy/paste archive of declined requests; but a link to the case at the point it was declined is archived at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's a mess. Trying to find past diffs means wading through thousands of diffs. But we can fix it. Rich Farmbrough, 13:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC).

Yes, declined requests are simply removed from the page. A full copy of the old request is listed the index page you've been linked to above. AGK [•] 13:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, all. It just strikes me as weird that this is standard process. Even declined ANI reports just get archived. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

These are important enough - well certainly those that succeed that they should be sub-pages. Rich Farmbrough, 20:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC).

Rich, RFARs that succeed are moved to a sub-page: the opening statements by parties are recorded on the main case page, and opening statements by uninvolved editors are recorded on the main case talk page. AGK [•] 11:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

What a travesty

Well Arbitration committee, I certainly hope you are pleased with this outcome. Due to the ridiculously vague way that Rich Farmbrough's Arbitration restriction was written and the preposterous way that you determined constituted automation, Rich is likely about to be blocked for a year, see this discussion because he used excel to sort a table off wiki. Now I know that Rich had a restriction and I know that some of the Arb folks don't like him. But certainly, it should not be the policy of Arbitration that editors be blocked for a year, for using excel. This is just absurd. Kumioko (talk) 00:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

You're right. He should have used Calc. Tarc (talk) 00:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Lol, I just do not think that Arbcom or any reasonable editor would consider the use of excel to sort or even word to build an article offline, would consider that automation. Kumioko (talk) 00:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I do use Calc. I just choose not to call people out over it. Rich Farmbrough, 20:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC).

A travesty indeed. I'll just have to count to ten using an off-wiki automated tool (my fingers). --Beetstra (public) (Dirk Beetstra^{T C} on public computers) 08:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Just note that it Rich's claim that he only used Excel to sort a table, while the evidence very strongly suggests that he used automation (a script, a macro, whatever) to edit the table much more significantly (and that he didn't check the results afterwards, but just copied them to the article). Sorting a table through Excel doesn't introduce systematic errors in the reference notation used in the table, not does it cause the loss of a lot of data from it. The edit was a clear violation of the restrictions in letter and spirit, not some borderline case. Fram (talk) 08:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I do a lot of work with tables, and while a spread sheet works well to sort the table, as was done, the references get all messed up and have to be put back in by hand. There is a way to do it in the spread sheet but it is harder. I do not see that using fingers, toes, or a spread sheet constitutes using automated editing. The edit window was opened, text was entered, and the edit window closed. However, this after the fact discussion means nothing. I do think though that it would be worth asking is it appropriate in my case for a non-clerk and non-arb member to have issued a warning and closed the case? Is the closer a former arb or arb wannabe? Have the new arb and new clerks not taken their desks yet, and need outside assistance? Apteva (talk) 14:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

If you mean this request for arbitration, it was declined by a trainee clerk. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

And if you meant AE, it is always handled by volunteer administrators rather than arbs/clerks. T. Canens (talk) 17:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Speaking for me personally I don't have so much a problem with the AE admins determination on Rich's case. It wasn't their fault how Arbcom wrote the case. What I have a problem with is the extremely vague way the case was written so that nearly anything would be a blockable offense. I mean Excel as automation, come one. Cut and pasting a URL rather than typing it out, please. I think we need to add a helping of common sense to these cases. I admit I didn't agree with the determination in the first place and I think that the terms "community" and "majority" were grossly exhaggerated I think that punishing an editor for months at a time for doing constructive edits is just plain stupid and mean. Kumioko (talk) 17:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I think it decidedly unlikely that Rich manually inputted the data into his excel table. He used an automated tool to create that table, and regardless of what other utilities served as middle men in this process, the output that ended up on Wikipedia was errors. That is exactly why he was under restrictions. This is neither the fault of ArbCom nor the AE admins. Resolute 20:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Well we can argue about the symantics forever but the end result is the pedia loses whenever an editor is forced out. Especially one who had something like 5 million edits between him and his bots, many of the tasks BTW have still not been picked up. Its just another reason that I need to leave Wikipedia in the rear view mirror. No matter how much I believe in the project itself I also feel that the project is destined for failure because we have become so politically driven and too much power has been pushed into the hands of too few. When we have longterm editors who can't even edit a protected template and have to ask for someon else to post their work, who cannot do simple things because it requires admin tools they will never be allowed to have. Each day saddens me more and more. Every day I see good editors run down. It truly is time for me to go. Kumioko (talk) 20:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)