Arbitration Committee proceedings

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Designating Sri Lanka as a contentious topic	Motions	10 April 2024	0/0/0

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Apr 2024	04 May 2024
~~Mzajac~~	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	—	Case suspended

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	Motion	(orig. case)	27 February 2024
Amendment request: Armenia-Azerbaijan 3	Motion	(orig. case)	18 April 2024
Amendment request: Skepticism and coordinated editing	Motion	(orig. case)	16 April 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for amendment

Use this section:

To request changes to remedies or enforcement provisions, for example to make them stronger or deal with unforeseen problems.
To request lifting of an existing Arbitration sanction that is no longer needed (banned users may email the Ban Appeals Subcommittee directly)

How to file a request (please use this format!):

Go to this request template, and copy the text in the box at the bottom of the page.
Click here to edit the amendment subpage, and paste the template immediately below this box and above any other outstanding requests.
Using the format provided by the template, try to show exactly what you want amended and state your reasoning for the change in 1000 words or fewer, citing supporting diffs where necessary. Although it should be kept short, you may add to your statement in future if needed as the word limit is not rigidly enforced. List any other users affected or involved. Sign your statement with ~~~~.
If your request will affect or involve other users, you must notify each involved person on their user talk page. Return to your request and provide diffs showing that other involved users have been notified in the section provided for notification.

This is not a page for discussion.

It may be to your advantage to paste the template into your user space or use an off-line text editor to compose your request before posting it here. The main Requests for arbitration page is not the place to work on rough drafts.
Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.
Requests that do not clearly state the following will be removed by Arbitrators or Clerks without comment:
1. The name of the case to be amended (which should be linked in the request header),
2. The clause(s) to be modified, referenced by number or section title as presented in the Final Decision,
3. The desired modifications to the aforementioned clause(s), and
4. A rationale for the change(s) of no more than 1000 words.
Requests from banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Committee.
Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request unless you are one of those individuals.

Request to amend prior case: Date delinking (Lightmouse)

Initiated by Lightmouse (talk) at 12:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected: Date delinking arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

7.1): "Lightmouse is indefinitely prohibited from using any automation whatsoever on Wikipedia."

[1]: Remedy 7.1 of the Date delinking case, which as originally written prohibited Lightmouse (talk · contribs) from utilizing any automation on Wikipedia, is amended by adding the words "except for a bot task or group of related tasks authorized by the bot approvals group." Remedy 8, which limited Lightmouse to using a single account, is amended by adding the sentence: "He may also use a separate bot account for any bot task or group of related tasks approved by the bot approvals group."

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

Lightmouse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Amendment 1

Proposed amendment:

Clause 7.1): which said "Lightmouse is indefinitely prohibited from using any automation whatsoever on Wikipedia." is removed.

Statement by your username

The Lightmouse non-bot account and the related bot account (Lightbot) have been dealing with units of measurement for years and have played a part in significantly improving the accessibility, consistency and more functional linking of units of measurement that we now see on Wikipedia. Lightbot is currently authorised by BAG to edit feet and miles and there's an application to extend the scope to include inches. The workload of BAG is such that weeks have passed without a decision.

BAG and Lightmouse are in the unenviable position of having to debate code scope prior to testing rather than after. It means that non-bot automated edits must be elevated to bot status or remain undone.

Could I suggest that clause 7.1 be removed? This would reduce the administrative burden related to improving units of measure, which is a huge and ongoing task for Wikipedia. I believe it will be to the betterment of the project.

Statement by Gigs

The resumption of "MOS Warrior" tactics is not an acceptable outcome here. The manual of style is a true guideline that merely offers guidance, not a set of rules to be enforced using automation. Resumption of widespread and automated "MOS enforcement" will cause a lot of unnecessary conflict. The local consensus at MOS talk pages is often not reflected on a global scale, especially when it comes to units, which are often governed by different conventions in different fields of endeavor.

I remain unconvinced that Lightmouse understands that automation should only be used for truly non-controversial tasks. The correctness of a particular style is not important, what is important is whether the task is truly non-controversial.

The latest amendment was generous, and should not be expanded upon at this time. Gigs (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BAG, and outside commentary during the BAG process, absolutely does examine "whether" edits should be done. BAG should not and generally does not approve automated edits that are controversial in nature. The bar for "whether" an edit should be done manually is much lower than the bar for "whether" mass edits should be done using automation. Gigs (talk) 14:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kingpin13

I'm very disappointed by the direction this case is going. It seems to me that no one at ArbCom is really bothered by Lightmouse having made at least 4853 semi-automated edits from his own account, at speeds of up to 15 edits a minute (faster than we expect bots to go) and without BAG approval (all of this is neatly listed at this page) despite being under a sanction which clearly stated he was to take no semi or fully automated edits from any account except his bot account, and even then to only do so with BAG approval. I fail to understand the point of ArbCom making sanctions if they are not then going to enforce them, and thus far the only "enforcement" I've seen is further relaxing of the sanctions, which I don't feel was done in an entirely open manner (I don't feel the most recent amendment really took into account this request, which was closed as stale). Personally I feel the action which needs to be taken in this case is further restricting and enforcement, rather than simply looking the other way. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A slightly more accurate (and more worrying) tally of semi-automated edits:

09:37, 5 September 2010 - 12:22, 6 September 2010 - 1817 semi-automated AWB edits.
12:23, 6 September 2010 - 11:04, 19 September 2010 - 4690.
11:04, 19 September 2010 - 19:39, 17 October 2010 - 4535.
19:39, 17 October 2010 - 13:59, 18 October 2010 - 4963.
13:59, 18 October 2010 - 10:47, 28 October 2010 - 4676.

In total that's 20,681 semi-automated edits with AWB (judging by edit summaries) between 5 September 2010 and 28 October 2010. In addition, on the earliest page there are a few more AWB edits, but they date back to April 2009, and were not counted. Between 6 September 2010 and 28 October 2010 (nearly two months), around 94% of all of Lightmouse's edits were unit conversions in AWB. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 00:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other editor

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

Amendment 2

Link to principle, finding of fact, or remedy to which this amendment is requested
Details of desired modification

Statement by your username (2)

{Statement by editor filing request for amendment. Contained herein should be an explanation and evidence detailing why the amendment is necessary.}

Statement by other editor (2)

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

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

@Kingpin, did anyone file an arbitration enforcement request in respect of those edits made? –xeno^talk 19:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not as far as I'm aware. I spoke to NuclearWarfare about this here, and he suggested it would be best to wait until Lightmouse made a further request (unfortunately I completely missed the previous request). - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the right place to post this to ensure it gets seen, if it's the wrong place please move it.

1. Gigs asserts that I'm a "MOS warrior". I don't understand what the terms means but it sounds negative. I don't think it's helpful for all of us here to be categorised as pro-MOS or anti-MOS. Even if the MOS were deleted, non-bot accounts would still be used with automation for tedious but popular gnoming tasks such as maintaining units of measure, correcting typos, making formats consistent. Please focus on that.

2. There have been many debating points made over the months and several rulings with nuances. The edits quoted here were intended as compliant edits. Sometimes I've asked for clarification on details of rulings. As Arbcom members have commented, wording has sometimes had alternative interpretations that isn't always apparent to all, I've sometimes misunderstood and have actually been allowed to do things that I thought I couldn't. Instead of debating about whether a good edit should have been allowed within wordings of Arbcom rulings, I'd rather we focussed on the principle that there is no remaining requirement for Arbcom to prohibit the Lightmouse account from doing such edits that improve articles.

2. The conversion of feet and miles by Lightbot has already been approved by BAG. I have an application to extend that to inches. If converting feet and miles is acceptable, then converting inches should also be acceptable.

3. The prohibition on automated editing of units of measure was never an explicit Arbcom or BAG decision, it's a collateral consequence of the now-resolved date delinking saga.

4. Arbcom said Lightbot could run subject to BAG. I understood BAG members were going to examine technical issues ('how' and 'what'), not 'whether'. Thus there was no technical issue with automated editing of feet and miles. I don't believe there's a technical issue with automated editing of inches.

5. If one or more BAG members oppose implementation of the Arbcom decision, that's an option for the individual member. But for due process they should either recuse or appeal the Arbcom ruling. Can Arbcom and BAG please resolve this?

6. This application is not about bots or Lightbot. It's about the normal Lightmouse account. Like all other normal accounts, it should be able to use automation. If there is still Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt persisting from the now-resolved date-delinking sage, then might I suggest that Arbcom retains the scope of the restriction on Lightmouse automated editing of dates.

7. With regard to this application being 'too soon', I understand the point. I'd have preferred to make this application after thousands of successful bot edits across a wide spectrum. However, I've got several small scope applications at BAG but after several weeks there is no decision. It'll take years before the scope will increase beyond the current 'feet and miles' into a wide spectrum. There's a lot of trivial units work that would never justify a bot but needs automation.

I hope that helps. Lightmouse (talk) 11:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

I find zero compelling argument for revisiting this again so soon. Jclemens (talk) 20:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Awaiting response from Lightmouse to some of the comments above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would appear from what Kingpin is saying that we should rather be looking at a tighter restriction on Lightmouse. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]