User talk:Rich Farmbrough

Links FAQ Talk Archive Index follow my blog

This page- Drama free days 4487

Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib

Good tigings to you from a believer in One Creator of the Heavens and the Earth!

i see that you have edited the page Ali_ibn_Abi_Talib on Wikipedia, i must say to you that in Islam it is not allowed to put nor draw nor see the picture of a man

i strongly encourage you o remove the picture from the page of Ali_ibn_Abi_Talib

if you have any queries or questions on that please e-mail me asap, my email is saken_k@hotmail.com

With warmest regards, Saken ibn Amankeldi

Hello Saken. I am aware of this interpretation of Islam, also prohibitions on depicting any living thing, or indeed depictions at all. I had brought this matter up already, when we were discussing Image Filters, but was told that I was being foolish.

I suggest you investigate your browser settings and turn off "images".

All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 16:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC).

How many categories are there?

(Not including redirects). The Transhumanist 11:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

A lot! It depends partly on whether you include empty categories and red-linked categories. There are approximately 15,419 soft redirected categories. I'll have a look at the stats by namespace later. Rich Farmbrough, 17:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC).

Unfortunately we don't have a dump for all page titles, only all main-space titles which currently runs at about 9.3 million. Rich Farmbrough, 11:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC).

Namespace	Count
Main	9,375,576
Talk	4,540,406
User	1,457,343
User talk	7,775,605
Wikipedia	721,450
Wikipedia talk	144,174
File	810,359
File talk	138,924
MediaWiki	1,608
MediaWiki talk	937
Template	424,551
Template talk	177,834
Help	956
Help talk	463
Category	852,775
Category talk	587,880
Portal	109,930
Portal talk	25,669
Book	3,113
Book talk	2,904
Total	27,152,457

Articles become less important over time

Basically a tad over 1/3 of Wikipedia is actual article pages, and more than half of those are redirects. Rich Farmbrough, 21:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC).

At User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 99#How can I find this out?, User:Fram reported "850,875 categories on the English Wikipedia" at 12:43, 5 March 2012.

—Wavelength (talk) 23:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Here is a graphical representation of the change of emphasis as the encyclopedia has grown. The namespaces are numbered from the bottom. Rich Farmbrough, 01:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC).

Where is the legend to interpret the colors?

—Wavelength (talk) 01:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• I don't know that we need one. All we need to know is the bottom solid blue is articles. Less than 40% of the project is actual articles. We're here to write articles. We have absolutely no other reason for being here. That's it. Yet, almost 2/3rds of the project is non-articles. In the corporate world, this would be called corporate bloat. Virtually by definition, it's heinously inefficient, top-heavy, failure prone, and severely handicapped in terms of progress. Nicely done graphic Rich! --Hammersoft (talk) 13:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Namespace, the colored bands in order from the bottom are:

0 = Main (blue)

1 = Talk (green)

2 = User (red)

3 = User talk (light blue)

4 = Wikipedia (purple)

5 = Wikipedia talk (brown)

I am not convinced that the large number of non-article pages are evidence of bloat. According to Wikipedia:Wikipedians, there are 16.8 million named accounts. Yet the above chart (and table) shows there are 7.8 million user talk pages. So fewer than half the registered accounts have a user talk. Also, if there were one talk page per article, the green and blue areas would be the same width. To justify 'bloat' you would probably want to count edits rather than pages. - EdJohnston (talk) 14:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

That would be worthwhile,as would looking at size and splitting out redirects, dabs and stubs. Rich Farmbrough, 14:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC).

Thanks. My first effort in marrying Octave and Perl (and a tiny bit of The Gimp). A key would be nice, but would be a fair amount of work, even as a separate plot. I think there is more work needed on the main plot before that. Rich Farmbrough, 14:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC).

The percentage share of the namespaces measured in bytes.

The same general trends, user talk is the growth area, the big difference here is Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk - substantial, and the category and template namespaces become very small components. Rich Farmbrough, 18:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC).

Teahouse talkbacks

Hey Rich! Thanks for helping out at the Teahouse. Just an FYI, we created a lovely little talkback template that is Teahouse specific. You can find a link to it here. It's pretty valuable when letting folks know that you answered their question, since not everyone watches the Teahouse question page. Thanks again for all your contributions - Teahouse and beyond! Sarah (talk) 19:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, nice template. I made some suggestions on the templates talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 20:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC).(Using some automation)

Some baklava for you!

Thanks for helping me improve Generation time Trashbird1240 (talk) 14:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

If WP bans you its a case of them shooting themselves in the foot. I really mean that.

...William 20:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Rich Farmbrough, 22:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC).

Women's History redux

Do you have time to do some adjusting at User:AlexNewArtBot/WomensHistory? It's better, but still needs to be narrowed. And most of the articles this time don't seem to be about women.Maile66 (talk) 23:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 May 2012

• Special report: Wikimedia and the "seismic shift" towards open-access research publication

• News and notes: Finance debate drags on as editor survey finds Wikipedia too bureaucratic

• WikiProject report: Welcome to Wikipedia with a cup of tea and all your questions answered - at the Teahouse

• Featured content: Featured content is red hot this week

• Arbitration report: R&I Review closed, Rich Farmbrough near closure

• Technology report: Cross-wiki watchlist controversy; and is "go file a bug" really a useful response?

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 23:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough - "Closed"?

An arbitration case regarding Rich Farmbrough has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above.

The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs) 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.
2. Rich Farmbrough's administrator status is revoked. At any time after the closing of this case, Rich Farmbrough may request that his administrator status be restored by filing a request for adminship.
3. Elen of the Roads (talk · contribs) is reminded that an administrator who is a party to an arbitration case should not block another editor (or their bot) who is a party to the same case.

For the Arbitration Committee,

--Guerillero | My Talk 19:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Truly a sad day on Wikipedia. I for one am truly disappointed at this decision. Good luck Rich regardless of whether you decide to stay and edit or not. Kumioko (talk) 19:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

If at some point you are brave/stupid enough to Rfa again I'd support your candidacy. Nobody Ent 19:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Rich. At least you're not banned. I will support your RfA sometime in the future.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 19:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to hear this. Dsp13 (talk) 20:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Although I believe you've badly misused automation, I'd support your RfA. I really can't think of anything disruptive you've done with the mop, except possibly (temporarily) breaking the vast majority of article tagging templates. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, count me in too. — kwami (talk) 21:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree with the above. This is a shame. :( Acalamari 22:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not heartening to be part of project whose highest body is malfunctioning to the extent that Arbcom is so obviously doing. On the brighter side Richard it's clear you're not the problem but an Arbcom that would be out of depth in a puddle. Obviously would support your RfA anytime. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I would support an RfA as well, though I caution that standing for RfA any time before at least six months has passed will almost certainly not succeed. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

This is a very black moment in Wikipedia. The community has broken Wikipedia. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I would say "community" in this context, but more that a highly vocal bully-like minority within our community stood upon its pulpit and hoodwinked a marginally larger portion of the community into somehow believing that Rich Farmbrough had somehow truly done something horribly evil.

  Anyone who had made tens of thousands of edits is always going to have a few edits that someone, somewhere won't agree with or like, just as they will have also made a number of edits that someone else will really, really like. It is the balance that is important here, and it seems that a minority within the community seems to think that everything must be perfect and be in accordance with their own personal preferences.

  Any edits that certain people don't like will always become a major focus during any sort of community discussion or ArbCom case simply because every editor has at some point attracted the attention of someone who doesn't like something they've done, and what better way to "get back at" someone then try to dig up any dirt they can find during such a discussion? This often results in collateral damage to other parts of the project however when such individuals take things even further.

  My own message to the larger community is thus: Take what a highly vocal minority within our community has to say with a grain of salt, but do not ignore them entirely, otherwise they will grow even louder and their party will gain even more dissenters. --Tothwolf (talk) 05:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Rich .. to be honest- I don't know enough to say what is right or wrong here. What I do know is that you have dedicated a lot of time and heart to the project; and I personally do appreciate that very much. I can't imagine how difficult it was to endure an AC case, but you do have my sympathies, as well as my appreciation for all you have done (and hopefully will do in the future) for the project. All my best. — Ched :  ?  04:36, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
• It's closed unless we re-open. This case should be re-opened again but this time the committee should be instructed to give appropriate weight to testimony from RF supporters. A full investigation into the other side of the coin, his achievements and important ongoing activities, should be presented. Have them weigh the both sides properly before a final decision is made. Re-open the case and let supporters be heard in full this time. Save PixieBot! Chrisrus (talk) 23:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for all the support. Rich Farmbrough, 16:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC).

• I too would support an RFA if Rich should decide to re-run, and this is coming from someone who tries to avoid RFA like the plague.

  Clearly quite a number of people have absolutely no idea what it takes to make regular expressions and substitutions work. I give it two to three weeks tops before the backlog piles up and questions begin to arise as to "What happened to Helpful Pixie Bot and Femto Bot?" and "How do we now handle all the housekeeping work that these two bots previously took care of?"

  I personally see this similarly to what would happen if we were to shut down ClueBot.

  While there have been edits Rich has made that I've not agreed with, Rich appears to have always had Wikipedia's best interests in mind when he made changes, and I do not feel that this was considered at all during his ArbCom case. It would have been far far different if Rich had a history of attempting to cause problems, was a known troll, vandal, etc, but this is far from the case.

  From my own point of view, it was clearly wrong of ArbCom to go full-out and heavy handed sanction a long term valued contributor who has been instrumental in standardizing and automating so many tedious and pain-in-the-ass tasks as Rich has. The very idea that Rich should be indefinitely banned from using any sort of automation is simply absurd. It could also be that ArbCom doesn't really know what all Rich has done for us here on the English Wikipedia since so much of his work has involved changes to things that work behind the scenes, yet have a very widely felt effect. For that fact, perhaps a large portion of the community doesn't know either.

  The way I see it, Wikipedia is just about at a fork in the road. Many of the people with the technical know-how and knowledge of how and why things work the way they work have become disillusioned with the direction the English Wikipedia has been heading. Many of these individuals have left or slowed down in terms of their contributions, and/or have ended up sanctioned like Rich has. If things continue in this direction, the English Wikipedia is going to find itself without the technical backing that has allowed it to grow in the first place, and it's growth will stop and/or it will begin to regress (we are already beginning to see signs of both such scenarios).

  From that point, if people don't decide to step up and work towards changing these trends, one or two things will ultimately happen. The first is that Wikipedia will begin to be seen as irrelevant in the eyes of the general public. The other is that those technical minded individuals who have felt alienated will organize, possibly leading to either a fracture within the community or even a new form of "Wikipedia" that will make the current "Wikipedia" entirely irrelevant and obsolete.

  For those who don't think what has happened to Rich here can't happen to you or really has little long term impact on Wikipedia itself, think again. --Tothwolf (talk) 05:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

You would have my support at RfA as well. A dark day for Wikipedia.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 09:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

A cold one

You need this more than I do – Lionel (talk) 05:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Jovan Despotović

Thanks for the comments. I checked and it is these ISBN numbers are in the publications.--Despotović (talk) 14:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I am grateful for improving the text and for cleanup article to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. It is obvious that English is not my first language and that for any help are welcome because of all necessary changes by some editors which are modifying the article.--Despotović (talk) 20:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

A pleasure. Rich Farmbrough, 14:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC).

--

It's My Birthday

	My B'day Cake
	Hi!! Today is my b'day and I though of sharing this sweet gift with you!! Arnesh(২০১২) 16:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the Women's History New Articles

	The We Couldn't-A-Done-It-Without-Ya Award
	Thanks for stepping up to the plate and helping get this off the ground. Good luck with that you have on your shoulders right now. Maile66 (talk) 17:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The procedure was a success, but the patient died

I'm glad you're still here It's a silly accident that you and I have been mentioned in the same breath a lot lately and the two of us have hardly interacted in the past, but once I found out about your ArbCom issues I started to pay attention. Everyone on the English-language Wikipedia has benefited from your work and although it might be prudent for you to have a break in your administrator and bot-running responsibilities, you have doubtlessly been a real asset to the project and I'm glad that the members of ArbCom did not see fit to block or ban you outright. This tacitly acknowledges that your years of service have made this a better encyclopedia and I think that's inarguable, irrespective of any further issues with your methods or style.

I look forward to the time when you've proven to all your accusers and interlocutors that you're a responsible user, having made irrefutably good edits for several months, then apply again at RfA, make new bot requests, and get back to doing what you've been doing but without any associated drama.

For what it's worth, I'd like to ask you to reconsider whether or not you want someone else to run or curate User:Helpful Pixie Bot and User:Femto Bot.

By the way, welcome to the club (2,308 edits ago.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! I had forgotten that was going to happen. Rich Farmbrough, 01:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC).

I've already asked Rich about that but I think he is having a tough time thinking about this.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 01:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I can't blame him. I would be wrestling with it too frankly. Kumioko (talk) 01:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Resilient Barnstar
	You are handling this situation very well. Don't let this get you down. —cyberpower ChatOnline 21:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The arbfail award.

		The Arbfail Award
		For being one of the most helpful (former) bot-ops, and then fucked by Arbcom, I award you the Arbfail award.

Frood! ^Ohai _{What did I break now?} 23:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Seconded. You are the only one who took up my translation-template-linking bot task after multiple requests, and now the bot is dead. :( Thanks for at least generating the links for the ones that existed previously... I'll have to figure out what to do going forward. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Same here. It does seem like the people who go out of their way to help others are the first in line to face the firing squad. Viriditas (talk) 21:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The Torch and Pitchfork award.

		The Torch and pitchfork Award
		As someone who has also been pursued by the mob (in this case also sometimes referred to as "the Community" and/or "Arbcom") I present you with this time honored Torch and Pitchfork award. “ A torch and pitchfork, tools traditionally wielded by large groups on a Witch hunt or those attempting to get rid of an editor they don't like, have been used for centuries. Whether pursuing an Evil wizard, mad scientist or Bot operator, the mob ends up coming after the good guys, for one reason or another, eventually (like if we are providing aid to a Renegade Wikipedian). In these cases the best defense is to Shame The Mob. The next time Arbcom or the community mob comes after a Wikipedian, just do what any Wiki-hero would do...give a speech, and the mob is ashamed. Dejected, they turn and leave. ” --Kumioko (talk) 23:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Congrats on making the millionaires club

I also just wanted to say congrats on making the millionaires club. Only 2 editors in the history of Wikipedia have hit a million edits, you being the second. Kumioko (talk) 01:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

support

I found out on reddit that you had your privileges taken. I wasn't aware of the situation. Anyway, you have my support, so if there is anything I can do to help you, let me know. Be well. Greg Bard (talk) 02:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh I made it to reddit. Shame it wasn't about something good. Thanks for your support, Greg. Rich Farmbrough, 13:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC).

No good deed goes unpunished. Here is the link to the Reddit discussion. Be well, Greg Bard (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Think Fast! Records albums

Category:Think Fast! Records albums, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

After recent times...

Are you going to stay with us? Wether you have your tools and bots or not, you're still a valuable asset to this project. I hope you stay. MrLittleIrish ^(talk) 申 13:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I am still editing, because I still use Wikipedia, so I still see things that need fixing. What I have been able to contribute in the past, where there is a shortfall, is template wrangling, automation, and having the patience to fix long runs of pages, together with, I hope, a little insight into how things can be arranged to improve over the longer term without breaking stuff now. So all that has been removed, and one of the arbitrators has protected 7,000 more templates, effectively removing them from the area where I can contribute. Rich Farmbrough, 13:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC).

That's great to hear. I look forward to working with you on the project in the future. And, even if you do not wish to, I will support your RfA if you choose to run again. Again, you are a valued asset to this project. Keep up the good (even if manual) work :) MrLittleIrish ^(talk) 申 14:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Wait, what is this about protecting 7000 templates? Someone did that unilaterally? There was a huge ANI about something like that a year or two ago, that I did a lot of work to clean up,[1] so it's not good if someone did that again. Re RFA: I can't !vote but I'm fine with your staying on as an admin / becoming one again, as I said in the arb case. I have a much different view than yours about the proper role of automation on Wikipedia, but I respect your dedication. 66.127.55.46 (talk) 04:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it was AGK, the arb that said he wouldn't be voting on the case, but did. I am aware of the previous mess-up with protecting then unprotecting all "high use" templates. I just find this now typical, even without any ill will Arbs seem to consistently mess up. I am told some of them have a legal background. Maybe that means they had a parking ticket once, I don't know. Maybe the arb-com workload is too great (though there was only one case running). We all screw up from time to time, but when someone's reputation (and more) is at stake, it would expect more care to be given and taken. Thank you for your kind comments. Rich Farmbrough, 21:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC).

Thanks. I found some mention of the protections on the PD talk page but I'm amazed nobody has kicked up a fuss if that many templates were affected. I've been meaning to leave AGK a note but I've been 1) busy IRL; 2) feeling near-total apathy about Wikipedia at the moment. Even WT:HRT hasn't noticed these protections despite a few earlier posts complaining that there was already too much protection. 66.127.55.46 (talk) 10:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

mass creation of stubs with errors

Hi Rich, you were involved in this conversation a few months ago, so may be you want to take a look at the updates: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#.27Jaguar.2FSandbox.2F3.27_edits Azylber (talk) 15:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• I also need to notify you of this AN discussion Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive235#Rich Farmbrough. It's not too bad, just wondering why you had the edit filter manager flag taken away as well when ArbCom just said revoke the admin bit. You can contribute if you want. Rcsprinter (talkin' to me?) 18:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar (or two) for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For being only the second ever person to get to a million edits, especially under the circumstances. Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 18:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

	The Brilliantly Weathered Barnstar
	A real-world barnstar that has seen countless seasons, complete with barn, for a brilliant milestone and for braving the weather in style. – SJ + 06:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Rich Farmbrough, 10:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC).

Heads up

An editor trying to abide by an ArbCom decision?

I see you've been given the rollbacker userright, but I would advise you not to use it (just asked at the AC talk page and apparently that counts as automation). On a more important note, hope the decision hasn't hit you too hard – btw, your self-control is amazing, if it were me I think I would have absolutely lost it at some of the arbs who clearly hadn't even bothered to read all the information. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 22:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I removed it since the arbs included it in their view of automation and in hopes that a misclick will not result in you being blocked. If you have any questions or want it back anyways, feel free to drop me a message on my talk page or an email. --Guerillero | My Talk 17:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I guess you should also expect File mover to go soon too because I suspect its only a matter of time before someone presents th argument that its automtion as well. I think its compleltey absurd and outside the scope and bounds of arbcoms power to make the decision that these are considered automation but who can tell them no right? Kumioko (talk) 17:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Have to agree with this. Rich, if I were you, I'd strip any and all rights classes from your account. I have none, and it has served me well. If they have nothing to take away from you left except to ban you from the site, they have no power. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• See Rich? This is just one of innumerable ways in which traps will be set, whether inadvertently or not, to trip you up. You won't even know you're doing something wrong. You won't have anything that says "don't do this", but you will be retroactively found at fault for doing it. The ArbCom decision failing to identify the Rollbacker right as part of the ArbCom decision is just one of many pitfalls. At the noticeboard thread, one arb (SilkTork) thinks using rollback would be automation, so your rights to that are removed by Guerillero. Then Elen and Silk can't seem to agree as to what counts as automation. Granted, Elen wasn't sitting the case (as a named party) but it's obvious there's no consensus from ArbCom, or any indication that SilkTork is speaking on behalf of all of ArbCom in stating that rollback counts as automation. Then Courcelles chimes in and agrees with SilkTork, again without stating if it is personal opinion or the opinion of all of ArbCom. Not to worry, your rights are stripped anyway, and can not be restored on pain of ArbCom.
• ArbCom can't screw their heads on straight, but it's not them that is at fault, it's you. Isn't this fun? Not to worry though; ArbCom are professionals who are vetted for their skills in arbitration.
• I can readily imagine what someone's going to come after you with next; you're using the edit summary "Copyedit." quite a bit in your mainspace edits since the close of the case. In fact, this edit summary comprises 25% of your mainspace edits since the case was closed. Nevermind that the edits are spread out over days. It's "slow automation". Get it? That'll be one of the things they come after you with. Slow automation. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• "that counts as automation" - hm, maybe using browser or computer also counts as automation Bulwersator (talk) 19:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• It can easily be argued. See, rollback requires you to click a link. If you click "Save page" you are likewise clicking a link. In the rollback case, it undoes an edit. In the save page case, it applies changes to a database. Both are, to an extent, automated. Rich, I think you're going to have to request direct database access so you can make changes to articles without having to click the automating "Save page" button! --Hammersoft (talk) 19:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • And direct access to database, as using internet is also automation. But unfortunately database is also automated :) Bulwersator (talk) 20:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Hmm. Wikipedia-by-mail? Oh wait, the postal service uses automatic sorters, and Rich would know that, so he'd be taking advantage of automation. Oops. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Heh, you can't escape automation, can you? I think they meant automation without human intervention. AWB bots do it automatically by themselves, but RF will have to click the save button on a normal edit. They're not going to pick holes quite that far down, or everyone they've automation-banned would be under this situation. Nice to have a joke after the stress of the case, I expect for you, Rich. Rcsprinter (lecture) 20:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

To be frank, I will take the same approach I have always taken, that if something cannot be objected to by a reasonable person I will do it. The fact that there are unreasonable people on Wikipedia has rarely mattered, because 99 times out of 100 the reasonable folk tell them they are being unreasonable. I pointed out in a previous discussion that statistically I was likely to eventually run into this sort of problem, even if my "behaviour" was average or above average. I am not always proved right, but on this occasion I was.

As to editing by sending carrier pigeons to the server room, I had already run through those possibilities as rhetorical devices to use on ArbCom, but decided against using them. The final decision (which I have not read - even the proposed decision I was still working on detail) I imagine is worded in a nonsensical way, of necessity, since both the sentiment and logic that underlie it are nonsensical. That doesn't bother me much.

Rich Farmbrough, 21:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC).

• I can't help but wonder if this "no automation" bit means no regular expression text substitutions in an external editor? [Not that anyone could technically enforce this...but still...] Or even the very "automated" task of cut-and-pasting text to and from an external editor? While I said my bit above in a much more verbose manner, this whole concept of "no automation" is quite silly. This is ironically coming from someone who makes almost no automated edits here on the English Wikipedia, with the exception of the very very occasional use of HotCat. --Tothwolf (talk) 05:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Rich .. many editors on the Workshop and Proposed decision talkpage said things were unreasonable. Most of them telling that seemed quite reasonable (corroborating your 99 times out of 100') .. nonetheless .. you are restricted and desysopped. I am surprised that you still are considering that you will be saved by reasonable people - especially when people tell you that you will be caught in unreasonable situations, they will take you down, 3 typos repaired over 3 different days in a spree of 1000 edits .. AU-TO-MA-TION - 4 times the same edit summary. Do you really think that YOU can type those by hand - of course not.

@Tothwolf: does your browser have red wiggly lines under words it considers misspelled? Do you repair those typos? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Dirk — Depending on the text input mode, yes it underlines things it considers misspellings, clicking on the underlined text would allow me to change it (I wonder if this too would be considered automation?), but 99.9% of the time it is wrong, especially when I'm editing technical stuff. I generally do all of my major editing in an external editor though, which with a simple hotkey can spell check everything with a custom dictionary. Another hotkey allows me to reformat/preformat wiki markup. I can't imagine going back to using the normal edit box for anything but small edits. Say...what about web browsers that save frequently used text for text input boxes such as the edit summary box? That too could technically be considered automation, and I suspect the majority of editors have used this browser feature at least once.

Rich — Dirk and the others are correct, your detractors are going to try to find absolutely anything they can to use against you. Having had that done to me while under a different sort of edit restriction (that the individuals involved attempted to game over and over again while trying desperately to have me banned), the best advice I can give you is to refocus the majority of your time on something else (even a different wiki-project) until you can get this mess resolved. --Tothwolf (talk) 07:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Well using the same edit summary has been cited as "proof of automation" by Xeno, using different exit summaries has been cited as "proof of automation" by Hrsefold. "Too funny", as we say in on-line parlance. Rich Farmbrough, 19:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC).

• Rich has been given advice, all of it unsolicited :), by a great many of us. A very significant portion of that advice has essentially said "don't trust the system". Despite this, Rich has maintained a sense of optimism, of belief in his fellow wikipedian that the masses will see the day through and reason and intellect will prevail. I find that refreshing and laudable, even though I maintain a great deal of cynicism. Thank you Rich. You epitomize why Wikipedia has and can work. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Warmly seconded. Rich, you are certainly an inspiration, optimistically, statistically and otherwise. Thank you. – SJ + 05:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• So you're aware, your rollbacker right has been restored. Though, that doesn't mean using the right will not be without controversy. Be careful. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

CfD confusion

Please see here I think you mixed up two separate CfDs. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Yep. It came up with the incorrect section once and I did something different... got it wrong it seems. Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 21:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC).

Humour

Shakespearean Tales

I happened across this in the archives! —Sladen (talk) 11:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, hilarious isn't it. maybe we should ask for a second episode. Rich Farmbrough, 21:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC).

Template:Celan-up listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Celan-up. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Celan-up redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Bulwersator (talk) 18:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll let someone else celan that up. Thanks for letting me know. Rich Farmbrough, 21:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC).

A cup of coffee for you!

You were recently removed from the administrator class. I do not know enough about that situation to be able to comment on it, but I am familiar enough with your non-controversial work to be able to thank you for everything non-controversial you have done for the Wikipedia project. I am sorry to have to qualify my thanks, but I simply do not understand enough to be able to say more. I appreciate what seems to be your stated intent to continue to support the Wikipedia project. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I can assure you the case is very boring and could have been done in 10 lines and 15 minutes. Rich Farmbrough, 18:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC).

Hi Rich Farmbrough, I just noted that your Helpful Pixie Bot was blocked. Whenever I noticed this bot on my watchlist, I found these edits indeed helpful and want to thank you for that. I find that gratitude is often missing in this project and your Arbcom case appears to confirm that. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 16:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. I hope we can fix ArbCom into something more constructive in future. Rich Farmbrough, 00:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC).

arbcom amendment filed

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Rich_Farmbrough Nobody Ent 15:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Interesting response. Rich Farmbrough, 19:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC).

I have also made a request in the same thread - see Amendment 2. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Badmachine

You recently unprotected the page User:Badmachine. That page now reads "FOREVER DEATH TO TH3J35T3R", a reference to The Jester, who, although unidentified, is a living person. The comment was added on 17 May. This is only the latest in a series of incidents relating to the user page - perhaps it is time to say enough? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

You do realise that Rich was desysopped by ArbCom? --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 19:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I knew there was a case involving him, but I wasn't really following it. Sorry, Rich, I'll take this elsewhere. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

wow. -badmachine 20:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

May 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Toynbee tiles, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. SummerPhD (talk) 23:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Huh? He filled in a citation where one was asked for and you template a regular? A regular discussion asking him what his intent with that citation change might get you results more in line with what you're looking for? --Hammersoft (talk) 01:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I seem to have templated a regular. At first glance of this talk page, there is no obvious indication ze's a regular. Sorry if that's problematic, but I really can't poke around much to figure that out.

Yes, ze added a source. The text in question connects a work of fiction (that does not mention the tiles) with the tiles. The cite to the work of fiction merely serves to cloud the issue. Whomever added the text may have had a source. The edit I reverted, however, changes this from an unsourced statement to original research. (This would be similar to running across a claim that the Declaration of Independence contains elements in common with the Bible and mentions God several times and adding a cite to the Declaration of Independence.) - SummerPhD (talk) 02:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The solution would be to add a {{Citation needed}} to the uncited part of the sentence, not to remove the cite for the second part. And you can also use the template {{Ze}} if you wish, it will render gender according to the editor upon who's page it is used, or the user name given as an argument. So it refers to me as "ze" for instance, but Elen of the Roads as "she" and you as "ze". I have even set my gender preferences so that this works. Rich Farmbrough, 11:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC).

What is wrong with 'they'? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

"They" as a singular fell out of use until recently. On Wikipedia it might be taken as implying a role account for example. Most people are able to infer my gender from my first name, though I am sure there have been female Richards they were probably mostly mediaeval nuns. Had I wanted to conceal or obfuscate my gender I would have registered as R Farmbrough, if I wanted to proclaim some QUILTBAG status then I would do so clearly and unequivocally. Rich Farmbrough, 16:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC).

I still like it more than 'ze' .. however, I did think you were a medieval nun, but I never had a chance to look under your tunic to check. You should stop impersonating, people have been banned for less. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to wikipedia??? One of the dumbest messages I've ever seen on wikipedia..♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:55, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Templating a regular is "one of the dumbest messages" you've seen? Wow. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

hmm I'm not sure it's the template that does the trick. Penyulap ☏ 20:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 May 2012

• From the editor: New editor-in-chief

• News and notes: Two new Wikimedia fellows to boost strategies for tackling major issues

• WikiProject report: Trouble in a Galaxy Far, Far Away....

• Featured content: Lemurbaby moves it with Madagascar: Featured content for the week

• Arbitration report: No open arbitration cases pending

• Technology report: On the indestructibility of Wikimedia content

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 03:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Toolserver

Rich, can any of your former bot work be ported to the toolserver? Viriditas (talk) 07:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Possibly. I'm thinking about alternative strategies. Rich Farmbrough, 21:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC).

That's good to hear. I see someone has offered to run Femto Bot, which is great news. When you have some free time, I would like to discuss some ideas with you about how we can track statistics for DYK/GA/FA and other types of projects, specifically user statistics. Right now, TTBOMK, this is done manaully, which frankly is ridiculous. After all, it is now 2012 (going on 2013), and we should be able to see what types of work users have done, whether it is nominating DYK's, nominating and reviewing GA's, or participating in peer reviews and FA nominations and reviews. This information is not only valuable for telling us about a user (how many DYK's did they nominate vs. how many were declined, etc.) but most importantly, for giving us insight into which parts of the project need improving. For example, there is a huge backlog in the GAN review process (459 listed with 368 waiting to be reviewed). Since we have topic categories already in place, it would be helpful to see which topic areas are reviewed first and last, which have more passes than fails, and the length of time for reviews, etc. I think you see where I'm going with this, and I'm wondering how we can collect this data, or if it is already being collected. So there are two parts to this query: how do we collect data about user contributions to the article nomination and review process for display (like this), and how do we use that data to improve Wikipedia? No hurry on this, so take your time. If other areas of the project are already working on this, then let me know and feel free to disregard. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 08:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

It's time to start rebuilding your rep, and transcend...

There are those of us (many) who would like to see you get your adminship and bot status back.

Once the concerns in the ArbCom case have been remedied by you, and you have reformed your ways (in the eyes of those critical of your previous approach) for a healthy period of time, restoration of your bot privileges should take place in due course.

My guess is that a year would be enough. I think you can and should go for it.

But how? I have some suggestions...

First, swallow your pride and lose the attitude. Drop the defiant demeanor. Stop arguing. Avoid making snide or cynical remarks.

Second, publicly take responsibility for your actions and openly dedicate yourself to mending your ways. Post apologies to individuals. Post an apology to the community in general (in closing remarks of or as an amendment to your Arbcom case, so that everyone can see it in context).

Third, throw yourself into the project, into the very areas that have caused concern. You'll have to be creative, since you can't engage in bot tasks yourself...

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Join who? The bot department for one. The AWB team for another. Participate in the discussions there.

Many areas concerning Wikipedia automation have been neglected...

You could help with programming bots. And making code examples available to help others learn how to program bots.

Wikipedia should have an army of expert AWB users, but as of yet, it does not. You could help build and lead a corps of AWB volunteers.

Currently nobody reaches out to welcome and offer guidance to new AWB registrants.

The documentation on AWB leaves something to be desired. There are a lot of features that have no support documentation whatsoever. The AWB manual needs a programming-savvy editor to drive its completion.

You could provide further guidance at The AWB Task Page. Who knows better than you what needs to be done with AWB? Post (uncontroversial) tasks. You can also help by providing suggestions there on how to use AWB to accomplish the tasks posted by others.

You could help build Wikipedia's script resources:

There is almost a complete lack of Wikipedia-focused Perl scripts available. Wikipedia:Scripts/Perl scripts has a single script in it, and that was provided by you. How else can you help us here? My guess is there are a lot of editors besides me who would love to see the scripts you have used over the years.

The rest of the script department is in disarray. It needs someone to make sense of the chaos.

Many editors would like to make suggestions for MediaWiki features, but they do not understand Bugzilla. My guess is that most feature suggestions made at the Village Pump never find their way to Bugzilla, despite the referrals. How can you remedy these situations?

You are the expert on Wikipedia automation. Share your expertise. Help others get automated. And most importantly, help them avoid making the same mistakes you did.

If you can do this, productively in a cheerful and cordial manner, over the next year, I would be very surprised if ArbCom did not overcome its nervousness concerning you and welcome you back with open arms.

Wikipedia needs you. I look forward to seeing you rise to the occasion.

Good luck.

Sincerely, The Transhumanist 00:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

You know the plan was to deal with the backlog at requests for bot assistance then do some serious work. What I am interested in is applying serious AI concepts to Wikipedia (and in I have just finished doing some academic research, using some of these types of tools for analysis) and actually making a significant and substantive difference. Unfortunately there are too many people active on Wikipedia who would not just rearrange the deckchairs on the Titanic if it was sinking, but argue about the colour they should be, and even form a subcommittee to ensure that the spelling of the colours was doen in an even handed manner, to make any serious progress.

Your support has been appreciated throughout this process, as has that of many folk.

It's important though to understand other people's motivation. My motivation here is mixed, primarily I'm interested in improving the actual articles. In doing so I have found many other tasks that it actually makes sense to take on, in order to achieve that. Of course I get a sense of satisfaction in fixing 932 articles that broke GFDL, even though I had to do it manually. My motivation is not, however, to make Arbcom or the community think of me as a great guy, yes barnstars are nice, yes acknowledgement from established figures is nice, and from fresh starters sometimes even more so. But if the options open to me were effectively to continue improving the encyclopaedia until someone stopped me, or stop myself, my choice was to continue. There was always a chance that ArbCom would see sense, though with the case being effectively brought by two arbs, it may have seemed slim.

There seems to be considerable feeling that the ArbCom result is at best dubious, and at worst downright wrong. Apart from the actual flaws in the process and the evidence, which all seem to have been ignored by Arbcom (except one, which I received an email apology for) there is no recognition that I put in place three systems to deal with the alleged problems, in response to NewYorkBrad's questions (NewYorkBrad was the only Arb to get involved positively, as far as I can see- as drafting arb):

1. A log of current work
2. A full bug tracking system
3. A bot control panel

This is all more wasted work, to throw after a month working on the Arb case that was supposed to be contributed to the project.

Given all this, and while I'm sure it is meant well, I do not intend to "throw myself into the project" to try and "regain the respect" of those that ran this case.

I do other voluntary work, I have my own life to lead, there are other projects out there (such as the Singularity Institute) that I am interested in.

Bear in mind also that Arbcom refused me time to draft my defence, despite prohibiting me from doing so during the majority of the case.

They did not reply to my enquiry as to how many hours a day I should be expected to donate to the case.

So I will continue to edit Wikipedia, and maybe work at the Teahouse, and do some policy stuff. When and if I return as bot-op and/or admin, is not something I am worried about.

Rich Farmbrough, 02:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC).

AI? Sounds interesting. What were you planning to try on Wikipedia with AI? The Transhumanist 08:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Basically the sky's the limit. There are no reasons that an AI cannot understand the majority of information in WP articles and from RS (NLP). Then it's simply a matter of data verification, re-purposing to other languages and the like (the construction of a "simple" for each language for example). The next step would be customiɀed articles. Rich Farmbrough, 13:46, 26 May 2012 (UTC).

• "All your articles belong to us" :) Sorry, couldn't resist. Seriously, as the number of contributors to Wikipedia inexorably declines, routine maintenance work must be taken on by bots. This has already happened. It needs to become more and more pervasive if the resource is to be maintained. One of the greatest threats to the project is the ever reducing lack of human contributions. We have to counter that somehow, else the project is doomed. That's my take on AI type stuff. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not quite that bad. The possibility exists for en:WP to continue run by a skeleton staff, covering a limited (albeit large by previous standards) amount of knowledge, and with timely updates in the major areas (new countries, disasters, deaths, sporting events, majhor scientific breakthroughs). Rich Farmbrough, 15:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC).

Arbitration

Sorry about that mate "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. Rich Farmbrough's administrator status is revoked. At any time after the closing of this case, Rich Farmbrough may request that his administrator status be restored by filing a request for adminship." Just when you think the atmosphere is improving things happen all at once which makes you seriously question others users on here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Boo, hisssss... --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 12:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

For what its worth Arbcom is taking a lot of heat over the decision too. Too many aspects of the case are dodgy, poorly written based on incorrect assumptions and generally just not sitting well. Kumioko (talk) 13:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• And they've already shown how the community is going to screw this up. They themselves have been in a disagreement as to whether rollback counts as automation or not. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I thought your bots were making a constructive contribution. I guess some people just did not like the large number of edits showing up on their watch lists over and over. If you had just put in something to check before you saved the edit that it would affect the reader-visible article, that might have reduced the complaints against you. JRSpriggs (talk) 14:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think there any "invisible" bot edits for a very long time (years). Mainly one user made ongoing complaints about tiny fixes done at the same time as other fixes - that person has reverted over 1000 such changes, not just by me but by a significant number of editors. Rich Farmbrough, 14:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC).

Rich, please could you expand on what you mean by '"invisible" bot edits'? Are you describing wikicode changes, or running without a bot flag, or undeclared automation, or something else? AFAICS, Helpful_Pixie_Bot has been recapitalising templates[2] right until the very last edit[3] (and without a WP:BOTFLAG in sight). —Sladen (talk) 17:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

There is a perception, repeated even as far afield as Reddit, that I make edits solely for the purpose of deleting white=space. This has never been the case. There were technical reasons when SmackBot was running under AWB that some tiny percentage, less than 2-3 per thousand were like that. FUD, however has a life of its own. Rich Farmbrough, 22:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC).

Yes, there is a perception, and yes, it will be hard to supersede that perception. The percentage (even if "tiny") was presumably large enough to be noticed, and to bring the perception into being. That will be extremely hard to tackle; although overtime I hope it will be possible to demonstrate that it is no longer the case. Manual review before saving, more personalised/encompassing edit summaries, and avoiding "hot potatoes" are probably a good route to being able to demonstrate that the perception is no longer the case. That probably means no template case changing, no white-space removal (or anything you can recall remember as ever having been controversial). After 10–12 months of that I hope that it should be possible to point to a track record more easily disprove the perception (whether it was right, or wrong in the first place). —Sladen (talk) 14:41, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

It hasn't been the case for some 2+ years. Edit summaries are a route to blocking, that has been made quite clear. I am pretty much only editing articles I am reading. On Wikipedia everything is controversial. Dating maintenance tags was when we started out, and even now there are people who disagree with it - in fact there are people who actively try and get maintenance tags deleted, causing massive damage to the encyclopaedia for no benefit. "All that is gold does not glitter, Not all those who wander are lost; The old that is strong does not wither, Deep roots are not reached by the frost." Rich Farmbrough, 15:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC).

Archiving

Hi Rich. I saw your request to let Femto Bot continue to archive your talk page. I know you'd rather run it yourself, but if you're willing to send me the code I'd be happy to drop that into my bot's task list. If you'd rather not, no worries, I understand, but the offer's there if you're interested. Cheers, 28bytes (talk) 07:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer. I am scratching my head over the various ways forward. Maybe the simplest is to re-submit the amendment. Rich Farmbrough, 13:24, 26 May 2012 (UTC).

No worries. Let me know if I can be of service. 28bytes (talk) 13:56, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Rich, it might be wise to accept the assistance offered by 28bytes. Doing so would help demonstrate that you are genuinely interested in the end the end-goal of archiving, and not simply after "I can haz automation". —Sladen (talk) 14:28, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Two points.

1. Firstly if you think that Arbcom are paying any attention to this, when they can't even count votes properly, you are a starry eyed dreamer.
2. Secondly there are technical problems, my bots are developed to have the required functionality and no more, and are constantly being improved in line with the principles of Kaizen. This task is designed to run from my desktop, it will need re-purposing to run on the tool-server, and will need extra functionality that is currently extrinsic.

Rich Farmbrough, 15:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC).

Can you not use User:MiszaBot III to archive your talk page as many users do? JRSpriggs (talk) 04:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes I could, I used to use it but it archives stuff I want to keep , and keeps stuff I want to archive. Also it does not move stuff to my to-do list (though of course I am not allowed to do anything much now, so that could be moot). Rich Farmbrough, 06:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC).

I do my own archiving manually which gives me total control. However, I have configured some other talk pages for archiving bots, so if you want to use MiszaBot III but are afraid that doing it yourself might get you in trouble (considering the ban on your use of automation), then I would be willing to configure your talk page for you to use MiszaBot III. Just ask and specify what parameters you would like. JRSpriggs (talk) 11:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Femto Bot has the benefits of manual archiving and automatic archiving. I simply mark a section, and it gets archived to the appropriate place. Generally this is the archive, but it may also be to my to-do list. Future enhancements would have dealt with bur reports differently. Miza-bot also inserts un-needed spaces in headers which I find a bit ironic, since doing that automatically would have me hung drawn and quartered.

Many thanks for the offer.

Rich Farmbrough, 13:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC).

Lake Washington (Melbourne)

They are trying to delete Lake Washington (Melbourne) article. Can you help? Student7 (talk) 12:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Helped Rich Farmbrough, 15:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC).

Unsigned comment templates

Hi, I noticed your comments on Template talk:Unsigned and thought you might be able to help with this. Thanks. --xensyria^T 19:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately I do not have an admin bit at the moment. Rich Farmbrough, 15:24, 26 May 2012 (UTC).

Sorry to hear it. I just read a comment below that said how much of a better place you've made WP; I agree completely, and wish you all the best. --xensyria^T 11:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

replacing references temporarily

Using Perl, I've slurped an article.

I need to match the first sentence of the article, but intervening references with a period in them create an ambiguity so the script does not find the period at end of the sentence (it finds the period in the embedded reference instead).

So, I'd like to be able to save references off, and put them back again into the first sentence after I've extracted and processed it.

How can this be done?

This message is a copy. Please reply to the original at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#replacing references temporarily. Thank you.   The Transhumanist 22:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

P.S.: Rich, I'd like to shove all the references in the article off into an array or something, replace the references with XXXXX or some other code, and then after processing, substitute the codes with the original references. Those references not in or trailing the first sentence can just go bye-bye. The Transhumanist 22:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

P.P.S.: I've run into problems having regex strings inside array elements, as they don't seem to be interpreted literally in the regex. Unescaped special characters seem to be wreaking havoc. The Transhumanist 22:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I have answered in general at VP(T). Since I know the background I can answer more specifically here.

/^(([^\.]|<ref[^>]*\/\s*>|<ref[^>]*[^<]*<\/\s*ref>|)*\.)/

will probably match what you want. Rich Farmbrough, 13:17, 26 May 2012 (UTC).

Thanks

Hey, Rich, I haven't been following that Arbcom stuff closely (certainly not enough to express an opinion either way about its justness), but I've heard of it a few times. I just wanted to say thanks that, despite all the negativity and assorted crap you seem to be going through, you can still find the time to complete my answer at the Teahouse a bit. So, thanks! :) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:10, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Most welcome. I like Teahouse. Tea is a civilising influence, that's why the role of Lord High Teaboy is most coveted at the WP:Committee for getting things done - which you are cordially invited to join. Rich Farmbrough, 21:45, 26 May 2012 (UTC).

Dev changes

Hello, Rich Farmbrough. You have new messages at Kaldari's talk page.
Message added 05:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Replied on my talk page. Kaldari (talk) 06:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Appreciation

Hi Rich. I don't think we've ever interacted, but I've seen you around for years. I've always found you to be thoughtful, considerate and helpful. My perception has always been that you've gone out of your way to help others. At least that's what I've seen. And your generous help is all over the template namespace, which I am very thankful for. I followed the ArbCom case and was disappointed with the result. I'm sure it's not fun, but you've hung in there and that's commendable. I just wanted to let you know that there are a lot of people that appreciate all you've done for the project. I personally want to thank you for all your template work, but even more for hanging in there and staying with the project. It's actually an inspiration to me. So thanks for everything. Best of luck to you. 64.40.54.186 (talk) 09:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Well that's a nice high note on which to log off and attend to some Real Life matters for a while. Thank you. Rich Farmbrough, 09:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC).

Checkuser

Hi Rich, just a small clarification: I'm no longer a clerk. I stepped down when I was appointed to the AUSC. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for that. I had got somewhat confused. Rich Farmbrough, 13:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC).

If you're interested

As I see you have a 'Things that stayed too long' section on your userpage: Evan Schwenger (and subsequently Mr. E) was a Captain Regent of San Marino (replacing Orbello di Vita Giannini) for a considerable amount of time due to this edit [4] from December 2010. The articles could do with a bit of work, but this is hilarious nonetheless. RoyalMate1 21:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

You have a reply...

I've replied at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#replacing references temporarily.     The Transhumanist 11:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough

Resolved by motion that:

FoF 8 (Unblocking of SmackBot) changed to:

Rich Farmbrough has on many occasions, after another administrator has placed a block on his bot account, used his administrative tools to unblock his own bot without first remedying the underlying issue to the blocking admin's satisfaction or otherwise achieving consensus for such unblock (see block logs of SmackBot, Helpful Pixie Bot).

For the Arbitration Committee,

-- Lord Roem (talk) 15:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Amendment request rejected

This is a courtesy notification that the request for amendment you are involved in or are a named party to has been declined.

For the Arbitration Committee

-- Lord Roem (talk) 15:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Slander

Your recent edits to WT:AC/N could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. Making this edit in light of the previous counsel about Wikipedia:NLT#Perceived legal threats is inappropriate. Please do not reintroduce terms that assert or imply legal wrongdoing unless you intend it as a legal threat. Jclemens (talk) 19:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't template the regulars. Rich Farmbrough, 19:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC).

I second that! Templating the regulars...grr.MONGO 20:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

To quote WP:DTTR, "However using a pre-existing template as a guide, re-wording it or adding a personal message to it, is allowed." In the case where the notification could lead to a block, an outcome undesirable to everyone, I added a personal note to the attention-getting and explicit boilerplate verbiage--not as an insult to Rich, but to make the gravity of the situation as clear as possible. It appears to have been effective, but if my message was overkill in making it effective, you have my apologies for the excessive precision with which it was delivered. Jclemens (talk) 04:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's be clear, you choose to publish false statements giving a negative impression of me, and, knowing them to be false do not retract them. You then want to hide behind NLT. It simply won't wash. Rich Farmbrough, 12:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC).

furry

hello, i will look and see what i can do. would you mind linking me to them plz?

by the way, i didn't know you were interested in that wikiproject. i have serious concerns about the logo used in the furry wikiproject and portal, and have started a discussion here. i hope my asking you about this is not canvassing, but nobody else seems to give a shit about subtle advertising on wikipedia, or perhaps i posted my concerns in the wrong place, and i couldnt help but notice that you have 983,000+ edits, so you know the place better than i do. -badmachine 23:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm interested in everything, for my sins. It's a quiet project I think. I saw your post (I was looking at my watchlist to help one of the people who have just desysopped me - what a nice guy I am) - that's why I dropped the note to your page. I'll have a quick look. Rich Farmbrough, 23:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC).

The logo was used because it was available under a free license, and because an upright blue paw has commonly been used to indicate furry informational sites; for example, the favicon of PeterCat's Furry Infopage. badmachine is welcome to raise the issue at WikiProject Furry, which seems to me to be the appropriate venue. GreenReaper (talk) 02:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah I saw your username when I was checking the facts at WikiFur. It's interesting how a whole bunch of wikis peeled off from Wikia when they changed the skins. Something that the WMF should take into account when pushing cosmetic upgrades through. Doubtless the discussion can be moved there, to advantage. Rich Farmbrough, 03:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC).

i was visiting my mom in ohio, and travel back to sacramento tomorrow. i will try to remember to do that when i get back to my home ip, to keep my IP usage low. if anyone else is inclined to open it for me, id appreciate it, and if not, i can take care of it on Thursday. many thanks, -badmachine 04:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ opened

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 12, 2012, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 01:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

My word

I'm bored. I shall have to go to sleep. Rich Farmbrough, 03:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC).

If you are looking for something to do, perhaps you feel like adding turtle species or subspecies synonym to the infobox?

• Open the following cited pdf {{cite journal | journal = Verterbrate zoology | title = Checklist of chelonians of the world | year = 2007 | first = Uwe | last = Fritz | coauthors = Havaš, Peter | volume = 57 | issue = 2 | pages = | id = | url = http://www.cnah.org/pdf_files/851.pdf | archiveurl = http://www.webcitation.org/5v20ztMND | archivedate = 2010-12-17}}
• Move down the pdf past contents and higher taxa to about page 186 or higher. Find a species(two word binomial name subheading in bold italics) or subspecies(three word trinomial name subheading in italics), find the corresponding article on wiki(search for binomial name/trinomial name), the synonyms are the listed items in the pdf, add the synonyms to the infobox in the format, *''synonym'' -<small> person(s), year<small> for each one, add the synonym_ref(cite the pdf above with page number) and optionally add the binomial/trinomial name reference.
• See example diff of one I just did.
• There are about 305 turtle species/subspecies of which about 280 articles still require the synonyms adding.
• It takes a lot of time(5-25 minutes per article) to extract the names precisely and format the display nicely, but writing skills aren't required, nor is researching as the pdf has the information. Any questions please ask. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 12:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Synonyms was on my to do list. I'll take a look. Rich Farmbrough, 12:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC).

In the edits you have made you are missing a close for the small text </small>. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 13:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that. Rich Farmbrough, 14:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC).

Furthermore, the binomial name and first synonym are the same in Escambia map turtle, the "ex errore" is located at the wrong synonym in Yellow-blotched map turtle, and the synonym "Emys megacephala" has the name instead of the year in Northern map turtle. Fram (talk) 14:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Having the binomial/trinomial name and the synonym the same is not a problem. I know it confuses me also. If Fritz lists it in the pdf, then it's good enough for me. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 14:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Funny how all these biologists are either called "Ann" or have a first name beginning with J. Rich Farmbrough, 14:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC).

They should either all have the binomial name in the synonyms list, or none of them. To include it with some but not with others is not the best solution. I prefer to exclude them, no need to duplicate this immediately, but that is less important than having some consistency. Fram (talk) 14:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes I noticed that, I'll take your word for it. There are a number of advantages including it, clearly, which is doubtless why they do so. Rich Farmbrough, 14:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC).

I have been a little distracted, but at some point it will be turtles all the way down. Rich Farmbrough, 03:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC).

You forgot the "|synonyms" parameter here, with a poor layout of theinfobox as a result. Fram (talk) 07:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

A consequence of manual editing. Rich Farmbrough, 16:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC).

Turtles all the way down, Turtles All the Way Down, Turtles all the way down. Rich the redlink ex errore is not going to be notable, it seems to be a concept of the pdf your using, made up on page 169(If a genus-group name was misspelled, it is indicated by adding the epithet “ex errore"). The lower case use of the reference title "Checklist of chelonians of the world", rather then the journal case was derived from an FA discussion -"At the moment it's higgeldy-piggeldy with title case. The original case is irrelevant." - User:Tony1. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 13:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

There needs to be a glossary, I'm just looking at the best place for that, and to see if one already exists. Ex errore is also used by Reptile Database. The case, I think is fairly clear from the MoS, so no worries, I also have picked up the typo in Verterbrate. Rich Farmbrough, 13:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC).

But the Reptile Database is using the Fritz reference as a source, so I think it's only being recycled. Is there a none turtle use of "ex errore"? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 13:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Mountain Salamanders of the Genus Ranodon, Volume 6 uses it, along with number of other volumes and papers. Maybe they all derive from work by Fritz, it seems very much reptiles and amphibians, but certainly they go back as far as the 1980s . Rich Farmbrough, 14:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC).

Typos and stuff

At Spiny turtle, you changed the correct bluelink Testudines to the incorrect redlink Testudinesa([5]). And here ninteenth should be nineteenth. Please check your edits more carefully. Fram (talk) 13:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

If you see an mistake, hit edit and make a correction. Wikipedia isn't about making perfect edits. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 13:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

But if the errors give the impression of being errors in a script, then we have a problem, no? In the next edit at that page, he makes the exact same error, changing "19th" to "ninteenth" again. If you make that many errors, you aren't being careful enough; and if you make the exact same error a few times in a row, things get suspicious. And I am quite busy correcting other mistakes he made, so please don't tell me what to do with these further errors. Fram (talk) 14:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry about typos, I've checked around 1/4 million articles myself and had to stop when a database list got finished. So when new typos are made some of us are pleased to correct them! Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 14:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Fram, your being an edit stalker and these mistakes are petty. May I suggest you walk away and maybe edit something else for a while. You are clearly watching Rich's every edit waiting to drop a comment and start a new discussion and maybe even try to get him banned. Thats the only way you would have found these. Its getting a little old. Everyone makes errors and no one likes a tattle tail. Kumioko (talk) 14:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Instead of making his errors automatically, he now makes them manually (one hopes). My posts above have helped him find errors in the template he uses to edit the turtle articles, and made him aware (if necessary) that his century edits aren't supposed to be done. meanwhile, I'm still correcting hundreds of errors made by Helpful Pixie Bot at the end of March. As usual, some people are quick to defend RF, but very slow in actually doing anything about the problems he created. Fram (talk) 14:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Well I can say for certainty that if his bot was still running he would have fixed the errors himself if they were really errors. If you can provide an example of the types of errors you are correcting I might be willing to help fix them. Kumioko (talk) 14:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

By the way, any reason that you changed all instances of 6th century, 5th century, 19th century, ... to sixth century, fifth century, nineteenth century, ...? According to WP:ORDINAL, both are acceptable, and the general rule on Wikipedia is that when two methods are acceptable, we shouldn't change articles from one system to the other without good reason. Of course, if there is such a reason in this case, no problem, but otherwise such edits can best be avoided. Fram (talk) 14:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Reference

• Fritz, Uwe (2007). "Checklist of Chelonians of the World". Vertebrate Zoology. 57 (2). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2010-12-17. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Concerned Wikipedian

Rich, I don't think we've ever crossed paths on Wikipedia before, but I have noticed a great many contributions of yours pop up on my watchlist in the past few hours. While I understand that you feel hurt and wronged by what has happened to you in the recent past, I am concerned that your present actions will not lead to the resolution you desire, but rather to further sanction and further hurt. Good luck and take care. N419BH 03:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

You are probably right. However it seemed that presenting the facts to the committee would, if they were honourable, cause them to change their opinion. Of course people are very reluctant to change their opinions, so I may be onto a looser. As to the other matters, they mainly concern things I have uncovered as a result of being on the receiving end of the process, and the committee is already taking steps to rectify some of them, which is most gratifying, and even a little encouraging. Rich Farmbrough, 03:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC).

Perhaps the rest will come with time once cooler heads prevail. Everyone is dug into their trenches right now, which is not particularly conducive to the process of constructive dialogue. N419BH 03:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, maybe. Had they left me my admin bit (loosing which is worse than being banned, though of course they don't understand that) I could at least do "clever template stuff" while things cooled down. As it is they removed my four main fields of activity, bots, clean up, templates and vandal fighting. Rich Farmbrough, 04:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC).

There are always other wikis where Arbcom does not have jurisdiction. A history of positive contributions there subsequent to an enwiki sanction has in the past been used as evidence to re-welcome users back into the fold here. N419BH 04:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. The writ of Arbcom is very narrow. But unfortunately my language skills are also very limited. I also have a naive faith in human nature, and hope triumphs over experience time and again. (Also escaping en:wiki is hard, since I inevitably want to look something up, and that means I am going to be editing.) But I am really off to bed now. Thanks for your support. Rich Farmbrough, 04:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC).

All roads lead to Rome

Emotion is not in the equation, I compute the logical outcome and it is always the same regardless.

I like bot armies :), I only have one, and his hamster doesn't count for anything really, not even a 1/2, and doesn't annoy but a few people. (I guess loading him into some kind of mechanism that uses him as a projectile would change that, bah!)

So are you interested in making the changeover to the replacement when it arrives ? It is important to try to collect everyone, just to stay in touch for that new bright morning which inevitably follows the night. A new site would be fresh air to suffocating lungs.

Hey, are any of your dead bots easy enough for a moron like me to operate in the meantime ? I can't imagine for a moment that operating a bot to improve wikipedia completely within guidelines and community expectations wouldn't shit the living daylights out of some of your critics, and I'm just the editor to do it too. I lost all heart to turn wikigreen, but making positive edits solely out of spite seems right up my alley right now. Penyulap ☏ 20:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I'm ready to breathe space and a lot of people are, most hoping that it won't be necessary. There are many downsides to such a move, notably that, for example, if ArbCom did not exist it would be necessary to invent them.

As far as running the bots, there have been several offers, for which I am grateful, but I am looking at other strategies.

Rich Farmbrough, 21:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC).

breathe space. I know the real crew up there have considered killing each other before, but I wonder if it ever came to blows like that in zero-g (only read that far). I think I will finish this one.

I can't see the need for arbcomm in all of the successful models I have considered, which are all closer to existing schemes and boards, it was the wrong answer when it was created. Ha, I like those boards where they give the positions made up names, like king jackass and overlord. Penyulap ☏ 23:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Well you should consider joining the WP:Committee for getting things done. Rich Farmbrough, 00:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC).

reminiscent the movement to end all movements which began with itself, I'm not criticising implosions mind you, I like them, I just worried for a moment it was a diabolical plot to shut me up, but you're not the oracle of the equation, so that can't be. hmmm. So you really want to get things done? Penyulap ☏ 03:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

It was historically the advantage of Wikipedia. Provided you weren't doing something stupid people got out of your way, and even facilitated each other. Of course we have always had the rules lawyers and what Elen so prettily describes as the "anal retentive obsessive compulsives" but up til now they didn't run the show and were merely tolerated. Rich Farmbrough, 03:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC).

sounds like my old userpage. pawning wikipedia is a snap, there is no avoiding that reality, no limit to the resources available to do so, any Neanderthal could write a mask to sort the good from the bad, retentive is to think it can be saved.the party crashers can't be shown the door when the deed was signed over to them at the very start. Starting again isn't starting from square one, everything has already been done. Penyulap ☏ 03:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally oracles are the most crazy branch of mathematics going. But who knows, with quantum computing they may becme relevant. Rich Farmbrough, 03:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC).

my own 'beautiful mind' is more akin to Nash in the practical applications (not the other stuff). Penyulap ☏ 03:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

And of course the problem with space flight is that these puny ships kill you pretty fast. Rich Farmbrough, 00:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC).

Ha! Puny American! the Soyuz 18a lads, including one who designed the craft and was screaming at GC to hit the abort button after the craft lost it (they didn't have one at that time), they show you how it's done, barrelling out of control into what would be oblivion for the nasa shuttle. Anything you can walk away from. Still, taking out ejector seats (from the nasa shuttle), now there is a novel idea to improve safety, from the inventors of the facepalm. Penyulap ☏ 00:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

When seat belts became compulsory in the UK the number of accidents went up. Rich Farmbrough, 22:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC).

The only thing that matters

Re: this But what happens when we get to a billion, Rich? Keep your chin up, mate. Be seeing you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

{{Odometer long}} - but even then I will not be a number. Rich Farmbrough, 01:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC).

The Signpost: 28 May 2012

• News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation endorses open-access petition to the White House; pending changes RfC ends

• Recent research: Supporting interlanguage collaboration; detecting reverts; Wikipedia's discourse, semantic and leadership networks, and Google's Knowledge Graph

• WikiProject report: Experts and enthusiasts at WikiProject Geology

• Featured content: Featured content cuts the cheese

• Arbitration report: Fæ and GoodDay requests for arbitration, changes to evidence word limits

• Technology report: Developer divide wrangles; plus Wikimedia Zero, MediaWiki 1.20wmf4, and IPv6

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 09:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration

For anyone half-following this sorry tale, the current situation is:

• ArbCom is stone-walling any amendments supportive of me, while approving any that make the case look worse.
• ArbCom and the Aduit subcommittee is ignoring all communication from me
• Some small steps to ArbCom reform have been taken as a result of things that have been pointed out as a result of the case.
• Individual Arbs continue (at least until recently) to publish untruths about me in various fora.
• One Arb says I can have an apology or re-litigation.

So much for independent committee of trusted and wise users.

Rich Farmbrough, 13:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC).

Speaking only personally, though as a member of the AUSC, I'd like to point out that we are not ignoring your e-mails; we are discussing your request, but we have informed you we have received your email (28.05.12, 21.32 UTC). Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I only have the automated response. Rich Farmbrough, 16:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC).

Apologies, I have received a we have received your email email. Rich Farmbrough, 16:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC).

But the important fact, of course, is that you are discussing it. Thank you for letting me know. (See how I nearly got trapped in the game of "form over substance" there?) Rich Farmbrough, 16:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC).

• Like (I don't like what's happening, but like your summary of what's happening) --Hammersoft (talk) 14:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Well I was hoping we could take baby steps back to sanity. But refusal to discuss is rearing it's head. Presumably a deep seated fear of being proved wrong is coming into play. Where is Lord Denning when you need him? Rich Farmbrough, 16:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC).
    
    • Probably losing his head at Tyburn. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Amusing update. I just came across a 2009 conversation where two of today's arbs were having a pipedream about s system that would deliver what it was they banned me for. Rich Farmbrough, 19:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC).
  

• !!! Link? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

You want life easy! I'll give you a clue, it's Kirill Lokshin and Roger Davies.

I stated looking at the arbcom election statements to see if any of them had promised to be be impartial or anything, but they are too boring to read. I was slapped in the face by this:

“ I'm in the process of answering all my questions, and setting aside about an hour per day to do so. I submitted my candidature early in the election, so I am not attempting to answer them all at once; as a result, there may be a small delay. If you have posted a question, I will respond soon, and thank you for your patience. ”

This from the arb that said:

“ For my own part, I cannot agree that it could reasonably take you a fortnight to respond to the past few days' edits to the proposed decision. Frankly, I am at something of a loss as to why you have been regularly participating at the proposed decision talk page, but only now have much more to say. Perhaps you might explain this to me. Perhaps my colleagues will look less dimly on your request, in which case we will be in touch. ”

Funny that they never replied to my question about how many hours a day I should set aside for the Arbcom case. Incidentally AGK never did reply to all his questions, although he said he did. Rich Farmbrough, 20:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC).

Amendment requests declined

This is a courtesy notification that two amendment requests filed by you have been declined.

For the Arbitration Committee,

-- Lord Roem (talk) 19:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Also be aware that two arbitrators have now said you are abusing the process because you (1) made a request for fembot, (2) made a reconsider attempt because ArbCom's information was wrong, and (3) asked for a wording on an unrelated (to 1 and 2) finding that was favorable to you. This apparently counts as abuse of process. This is ArbCom. When they speak, they are right. When they are wrong, you're abusing the process. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • By their fruits shall ye know them. Rich Farmbrough, 22:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC).
    
    • Well, not so much evil, me thinks. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Moving evidence to workshop (WP:RFAR/Fae)

Hey Rich,

I just wanted to let you know I have moved yours, as well as Isarra's in a moment or two, evidence submission to the workshop page. Given the lack of diff's or supplementary links to evidence, the workshop page is a more appropriate place for what you posted.

Many Thanks
Seddon ^talk 22:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

If you would like to add diffs and then subsequently re-add then you are free to. As much trust as the arbs may have in you, I have to be fair in my judgement on this page and want one rule applying to all. Seddon ^talk 22:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• A workshop page. A page even some ArbCom members admit they never read. Where were the dutiful clerks when false evidence was applied against Rich? --Hammersoft (talk) 03:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The issue of non-cromulent evidence was raised at the time. At that point it was all "we are pretty relaxed about this stuff". Rich Farmbrough, 03:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC).

I need to look in more detail. Rich Farmbrough, 15:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC).

Bot request

Commons I just spent several minutes doing this at Commons--it seems like something that would be perfect work for a bot. Are you interested in it? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

As you can see from the discussions above on this talk page, Rich is no longer allowed to run bots. Are you asking him to write one and send it to you for you to run? Obviously you would have to debug and maintain it yourself. JRSpriggs (talk) 08:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Note that Koavf wrote Commons several times. Jenks24 (talk) 08:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, it did not occur to me that the ban did not extend to Commons. JRSpriggs (talk) 08:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• By policy, ArbCom's jurisdiction does not extend to Commons. Though, they've ignored that jurisdiction policy before. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Certainly there are a number of other projects such as Commons where Rich could do a lot of good work. Just because some of the folks in the English Wikipedia doesn't want his help there are plenty of others who would. Simple Wikipedia is another possibility. Kumioko (talk) 13:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• I agree. However, ArbCom has and will consider the actions of an editor off of en.wikipedia. They can't stop Rich from doing it, but they could permanently ban him from this project if he does something off this project which they do not like. I would think this is a good moment for requesting clarification from ArbCom about their intentions vis-a-vis Rich's use of bots on other Foundation projects. However, two arbitrators have made threats against him, should he request another clarification. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the opposite has happened in the past...a user has been sanctioned on enwiki, gone off to other projects, and their good work there has led to reduction/elimination of restrictions here. N419BH 17:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• Which further goes to show the inconsistency of ArbCom. :) --Hammersoft (talk) 17:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Well basically it seems the group culture (W.R.Bion, 1938, et seq) of the committee is such that once they have made a decison they are bound to it. Weakening is seen as "against the group". Even where they have admitted error they have not seen fit to change the ruling. Rich Farmbrough, 17:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC).

This is just my simple minded opinion but I would postulate that Arbcom has no authority outside En-wiki other than to refer the issue to whatever Arbom would apply to that Wiki (like Commons). It could be argued that if that Wiki didn't have an Arbcom that their authority is inherited but I would argue that since the Arbcom members are voted in by the "community" the community of the applicable Wiki would have to at least vote to agree that an Arbcom decision would have cross jusrisdictional authority. With that said the Arbcom has made some pretty broad and vague decisions of late so they might well think that their decisions apply to Facebook or twitter feeds. I would also like to state clearly and in no uncertain terms that the members of Arbcom should not be threatening Rich for asking for clarifications of their decisions. If they would have written them clearly and understandably, which they did not, clarification would not be needed. As it is they are written in such a way that they are almost unintelligable. Kumioko (talk) 17:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

This has been decided and is pretty clear...what you and I know as "Arbcom" is really the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee. Their dispute resolution jurisdiction is the English Wikipedia only. They have no jurisdiction in this area over any other wiki, hence their remedies apply to English Wikipedia only. However, they can and do take known behavior, positive or negative, on other wikis (and other sites for that matter) into account when making decisions. For Rich, this means that he is free to operate a bot on any wiki he desires (obviously excluding English Wikipedia) provided of course he complies with that wiki's local bot policy. If he performs this task well, it can be presented as evidence to Arbcom as to why an automation restriction is no longer necessary. N419BH 17:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict with above) Just to make it perfectly clear, Rich is welcome to run bots anywhere that will have him, just not currently on the English Wikipedia, which is the only place Arbcom's jurisdiction runs. This would mean any crosswiki bots would be out if they made edits here. Evidence that he can run bots elsewhere to spec, without drama, and with an effective system for managing errors would count in his favour if he were requesting automated editing back here at any time. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Evidence that I could do it here for 4 million edits, with drama from only two users, doesn't count then. Rich Farmbrough, 18:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC).
    

We've noticed you've been editing Wikipedia

Welcome to Wikipedia! It's great that you're having a go at editing but we notice that you've made a few edits that have angered the crosspatches here at Wikipedia. As you've only been here eight years, perhaps if you'd like to try the Wikipedia paddling pool you can experiment all you want without actually making improvements. We feel this would be best for all concerned.

Congratulations on your million! I would give you a barn star if I knew what one was. In the meantime, please accept this satirical patronising message as a reward for your hard work :-) DavidFarmbrough (talk) 08:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

BTW I was sent here because the stats from one of my pictures showed 1638 views, some of which were courtesy of your user page [6] DavidFarmbrough (talk) 08:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, and yes the cinemas, theatres and dance halls of England have an interesting history and some curators here on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, since some have become night-clubs, folk have sometimes assumed that articles can only exist for promotional purposes. Rich Farmbrough, 12:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC).

OIC. BTW Am I the only person who thinks that directing newbies (and oldbies!) to the "sand box" which is American for sand pit is a very patronising way to treat someone? I bet a few people don't bother to do anything else after being sent there. Couldn't they call it "test page" or something? DavidFarmbrough (talk) 18:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point. It's a term from computing, but probably is less welcoming than intended. It also has less savoury connotations. Rich Farmbrough, 18:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC).

(edit conflict)It's not even a 'Sandbox', it's a sandbox page. A sand box is, at least in my experience outside Wikipedia is a full test copy, although often outdated and already messed/tested on by others. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 18:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh I'm sure. Many people here in the USA say things to me which have no meaning outside computing and innuendo...but to them they're quite normal things. eg people here talk of a "bulletin board", well they mean a noticeboard, but to us, the only bulletin board we know is an electronic one. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 18:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• There are 10 types of people who understand Wikipedia; those who do, and those who don't. :) --Hammersoft (talk) 18:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Question

After just renaming an user (I have requested for mine) will all my edit counts and contributions be moved in the new account? And, what will happen to my signature? After renaming I may be able to log in with my new username and old password..right?--Jagadhatri(২০১২) 14:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Your edits will all be attributed to the new name. You can edit your sig in "My preferences" but the places you have already signed will have the old sig. You can request to have them changed at WP:BOTREQ though historically people have not been very receptive, there is some sign this attitude is changing. Rich Farmbrough, 14:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC).

So I will not need to start from beginning as my edit and contributions will automatically me transferred. But what do you mean by "this attitude is changing"? --Jagadhatri(২০১২) 14:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Well a few years ago a user suffering form Real Life Stalking requested their sigs changing - no one took it up. I changed some when I was doing other edits, and some senior bot people bitched to each other on a talk page about it. A more recent request received a more favourable reception, though I can't remember if it was actually actioned. Rich Farmbrough, 14:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC).

What is real life stalking? --Jagadhatri(২০১২) 14:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Stalking. I.E. not just following your edits whining about typos, complaining on noticeboards, interfering in processes you are involved with, making snide remarks and so forth, but extending that to often physical presence, phone calls, legal attacks, smear sites and so forth. Some of us just think that's part of life, but it's not a very nice part. Rich Farmbrough, 16:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC).

This quote sums it up well: "Stalking is a form of mental assault, in which the perpetrator repeatedly, unwantedly, and disruptively breaks into the life-world of the victim, with whom they have no relationship (or no longer have). Moreover, the separated acts that make up the intrusion cannot by themselves cause the mental abuse, but do taken together (cumulative effect)." Rich Farmbrough, 16:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC).

Barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		For helping out by adding turtle synonyms! Regards, SunCreator (talk) 18:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I've scarcely started. Rich Farmbrough, 18:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC).

Getting things done , -my ass

I'd like to, I really would, but considering that some of my inclusions add like 1GB for every 1k of article space, are you like looking at this the right way? I have serious doubts if I'd be the right person to do anything but set off avalanches.

Mmmmm the snow-covered mountain of stupidity Penyulap ☏ 19:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

1G! that's a good multiplier! How did you figue it out. Rich Farmbrough, 19:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC).

The multiplier being 8 million I suppose. If k=kb. Rich Farmbrough, 20:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC).