User talk:Rich Farmbrough/Archive/2012 November

Previous · Index · Next

Jump-to links
2024   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2023   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2022   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2021   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2020   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2019   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2018   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2017   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2016   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2015   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2014   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2013   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2012   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2011   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2010   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2009   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2008   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2007   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2006   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2005   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2004                                                           Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Thank u for your efforts vis-a-vis Penyulap! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Farmbrough, 22:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		Dear Rich, well done for contributing over a million edits to the English language Wikipedia. ϢereSpielChequers 13:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - and well spotted, I thought that day was still a way off. Rich Farmbrough, 22:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Howdy chief. This RfD relates to a set of redirects you created in 2006. - TB (talk) _Gospel_of_Matthew" class="ext-discussiontools-init-timestamplink">22:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just made an discovery about that redirect, that I posted to it's RFD, that answers your question about why nobody has written article. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 13:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:02, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bish, Elen, Rich: I've been trying to work out in my head how to say this, hoping to formulate something especially enlightened, pithy, succinct or compelling. Having crossed paths with all of you all overs the years, I've developed appreciation and respect for your efforts here. Seeing this develop has been like watching the beginning of a car crash: you see it develop, you know it's going to be bad, and there doesn't seem like there's a damn thing you can do to stop it. The best I've come up with is:

You're all acting like idiots, please stop.

I don't see specific enumeration, or relative ranking of your recent missteps, as a useful exercise. Penyulap was blocked by Coren back in July, followin an ANI discussion, so the good or bad of the block is on him. Whether or not Penyulap's talk page access is enabled isn't really significant to Wikpedia - the Encyclopedia. It's not that important, and certainly not important enough for ya'll to be at each other's throats. You all are hereby banned by the Ent from interacting with each other for a week or so, or until your brains return to their usually rational state. This ban will not be enforced by blocks, threats or noticeboard dramas, but rather (hopefully) by their being enough sanity in your respective brains to see the wisdom in what a very old Ent is sayin. Nobody Ent 15:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hooom now. I was being rather un-hasty in trying to unwind the sanctions a little at a time. It took longer than I ever expected. Rich Farmbrough, 21:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

It's been suggested by Bish & Elen that I'm not being helpful so I am redirecting my wiki-efforts elsewhere. Nobody Ent 22:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...is a great template. Thanks.

It's not important at all, but I thought I'd let you know that it's broken by {{u}} - I'd fix it but my templating skills aren't good enough to debug the problem.

Expected:

• {{u|Example}} → Example

Actual:

• {{u|Example}} → Example

Best, — Hex (❝?!❞) 15:18, 3 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

 Fixed, see here. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great! (To both of you!) Rich Farmbrough, 21:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Woo! Thanks Redrose64! :) — Hex (❝?!❞) 22:34, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a discussion about your apparent violation of your arbcom imposed restrictions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Rich Farmbrough. Note that the case also mentions that the alleged arbcom restriction violations are also clear violations of your indefinite Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Fram (talk) 09:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well of course you have. Rich Farmbrough, 14:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

--Redrose64 (talk) 09:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC) [reply]

--Redrose64 (talk) 08:40, 1 November 2012 (UTC) [reply]

--Redrose64 (talk) 14:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC) [reply]

--Redrose64 (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: I replied to your comments on the recruitment policy RFC. --EpochFail^(talk|work) 14:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 19:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Heyo. You may wish to re-write your comment at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 November 5#Template:This template is used in several articles, as the template is not intended to ever be used in articles, but merely as an info/warning ombox in Template: namespace. It and its main alias ({{SA}}) are transcluded in 117 instances (as template-documentation). ;) —Quiddity (talk) 21:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes...... your nomination said "all templates are in use on several articles"... maybe I need to work on my material. Rich Farmbrough, 21:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Copied and undented from Penyulap's talk page; that isn't the place for this. — Coren ^(talk) 00:43, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see you are prejudging the ombudsman complaint. But once the ombudsman complaint has been made, Courcelles should not be taking additional admin actions against the complainant. We have over 1,000 admins only a handful count as involved. And it would be bad enough if there was cause for the block, but clearly there isn't, which makes it look like a revenge block. That's why I describe it as a monumental gaffe. Rich Farmbrough, 22:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I'm not prejudging it; there is nothing to prejudge. The ombudsman commission handles very exactly one thing: violations of the privacy policy, and no violation of that policy has even been alleged. In fact, the "complaint" not only doesn't state what it's supposed to be about (except the block, which has nothing to do with the ombudsmen at all), it doesn't even name Courcelles!

I don't believe for a minute that you could be suggesting seriously that an administrator should be automatically considered WP:INVOLVED as soon as someone makes some vague complaint, regardless of merit or relevance. This isn't about propriety and involvement, it's about wanting to disqualify an administrator whose decision you find disagreeable; the putative email to the ombudsmen commission is just a pretext. — Coren ^(talk) 00:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really vague, it has always been accepted that checkuser is not to be used gratuitously, as it is an invasion of privacy. This is just such a gratuitous use. The argument that it was slap-dash just makes it worse. The complaint is clearly not about the block, but the use of checkuser.

And yes certainly Courcelles is the only admin Penyulap has complained about and suddenly he is blocking? He should know better. There are other reasons Courcelles should be recusing himself from dealing with Penyulap, which he is aware of.

I'm not sure why people have it in for Pen, and I have not commented on your block, nor indeed examined the circumstances, but almost every other sanction I have looked at has been without reasonable foundation.

This constitutes in my eyes bullying and possibly discrimination too. And yes I certainly find that disagreeable. Rich Farmbrough, 01:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Allright; you appear sincere, so I want to understand what you mean. How exactly is a normal sock sweep an invasion of privacy? I mean, yes – it reveals some technical information to the checkuser that can lead to a geographical location if they care to look it up (which is by no means habitual) – but the point is just "what other accounts are operated by this user, if any?" This is hardly gratuitous or unusual in the case of someone who has operated alternate accounts in the past; and Penyulap actually claimed he would sock around the block (whether in earnest or as a jest is unclear). — Coren ^(talk) 03:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's one of the reasons we don't do sock sweeps. We have a process where someone has to present a prima facie case that socking is going on, before a CU will look use the CU function. Arbitrators (or other check-users) are not supposed to go on fishing expeditions, (but they do, as we have recently discovered). From information leaked by people "doing their Wiki duty" I could, if I wished, almost certainly identify a number of editors, so this is not merely a hypothetical.

But for the purposes of this exercise, all you need to be convinced of is that there is a reasonable chance that Pen is making a serious complaint. At that point the person he is complaining about needs to disengage from admin actions.

I do not necessarily expect that Pen will, even if given the chance, even if he asks for an unblock, return to editing. And of course it is possible that if that happens he will be re-blocked. Yet I still think it is important that we really attempt to observe the types of protocols that work well elsewhere for matters like conflict of interest, for situations where we are incurring legal and moral responsibilities, for actions that do not fall within BRD. (And this is not a bright line, a few years ago admins would reverse each other's blocks and neither think anything of it. Now people get sniffy if you undelete a page, without great discussion, and make claims of wheel warring and the like.) But having a reliable trustworthy regulatory apparatus allows the day to day operation to be faster, more dynamic and (apparently) risk taking - without risking anything that can't be simply fixed (except perhaps dented egos - which should be checked at the edit button anyway). Rich Farmbrough, 04:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry if I rambled a bit, but it's very late. Rich Farmbrough, 04:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I have started a discussion at WP:AN#Rich Farmbrough's editing restriction. Fram (talk) 09:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		Purple Barnstar with Oak Leaf cluster
		I award you the purple barnstar with oakleaf cluster, for equanimity, under continual hounding. You have proven by your conduct, too good for this toxic culture; may you bring productivity to whatever team you grace by your efforts. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 22:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I don't mind the hounding - that's only one and a half people, it is that so many people are so easily taken in by it that I find a disappointment. Rich Farmbrough, 00:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

The community has restricted you per the following: Regardless of the editing method (i.e. manual, semi-automatic, or automatic; from any account), Rich Farmbrough is indefinitely prohibited from mass creating pages in any namespace, unless prior community approval for the specific mass creation task is documented. The definition of "mass creation" and the spirit of the restriction follows Wikipedia:BOTPOL#Mass_article_creation. [1] [2] is a clear violation of that restriction, as there is no prior approval. Accordingly, I have blocked you for two weeks, since you were already blocked for one week in September 2011 for violating this restriction. The rationale behind this restriction is the same rationale behind the automation restriction: complaints regarding mistakes such as inappropriate tagging, requiring users to check over your work.

For the record, [3] is highly inappropriate as a personal attack, and your battleground mentality at Courcelles' talk page is also worrisome (there is a difference between discussion and badgering). However, I did not factor either of those into the block. Also for the record, I haven't taken the time to figure out who Penyulap is, so I have no opinion in that matter. --Rschen7754 09:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So it took you four minutes to research this? Deliberative indeed. Including the time to type the, message it must have taken you maybe 30 seconds?

Rich Farmbrough, 10:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I actually typed it up in a sticky note beforehand and copied and pasted it here after the block. --Rschen7754 10:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Before the ANI/I was posted? Nice. Rich Farmbrough, 10:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Ah I beg your pardon. It was Fram that waited until the discussion was well underway before notifying me. Rich Farmbrough, 11:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

• Tough break, Rich. Once the pitchforks are out and flaming torches lit, they're never put away again. Personally I don't have a problem with adding WikiProject banners to the talk pages of relevant articles; and if the talk page needs to be created in so doing, then I don't hesitate. They're even sniffing around me now, claiming "the surprising rate (several edits on different articles per minute sometimes)" with no basis in fact (I've never done more than three edits in one minute, and rarely manage even two). So if I'm under scrutiny for my edit rate, what hope is there for any serious WP:GNOME? --Redrose64 (talk) 11:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree and unfortunately it was just a matter of time before someone found a reason, valid or otherwise to block you Rich. Its unfortunate to say but this is a large part of the reason I am not around anymore. I only wanted to comment here because of how stupendously stupid and petty the block was and I hope they (Fram, Rschen and Arbcom) are watching. Stupid blocks like this for petty reasons by people who do very little. Hundreds of thousands of edits a month now fail to be done because you and your bots are blocked and or restricted thanks to the "Wisdom" of Arbcom and a couple of their lackies. I hate to sound like a pessimist or a Redrose, they comment about anyone who does volume edits. Fram and a few others are systematically eliminating any editor who does volume edits for any reason they can find and its one of the many movements that is killing the pedia....systematically, deliberately and maliciously and no (Fram, Rschen and Arbcom) I am not going to "take it back" as an 8 year old would ask me to do (probably while puting and stomping their foot too I might add). I mean and believe what I said. Kumioko (talk) 12:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

<meh> If I was Rschen I would probably have thought I needed blocking. Rschen was doubtless biased by my calling out of Courcelles on his WP:INVOLVED block of Penyulap, but nonetheless can't be faulted for not knowing that Fram regularly attacks me using AN , AN/I, ARbcom and anything else he can. Nor could he be expected to know that the editing restriction is under dispute, and I had served notice that I was going to start addressing some of these historical anomalies.

It is certainly true that I won't be able to request administrator intervention in the case of Courcelles/Penyulap, so that is a shame. While Wikipedia is innovative, we have many of the characteristics of previous organisations, including documented cases of "bad eggs" in Arbcom, so why we think we should be free of people simply making wrong decisions based on prejudice and lack of application is a mystery.

I do think it is not a good idea to block an established editor who has only had 3 minutes notice of a discussion.

Rich Farmbrough, 12:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I had originally posted a variant this on a user talk page, last spring, but I think it applies here and to some other long time users, so I've essified it. Please see Pioneers. Nobody Ent 13:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, except that is a perspective, and hence distorting. Every stage of development good stuff is introduced, but due to lack of systems thinking the total effect is always more regulation, and generally more scope for incompetence and corruption. Thus when Wikipedia as a community was almost entirely on-wiki, there were still outrageous behaviours, but "by their fruits" you could know them. This, for example, was why well-behaved socks of banned users were widely tolerated. Nonetheless there were cases where the community felt it needed a decision making body, and a reasonably good stab was the original arbcom - I was never particularly interested in sanctioning other users, so I didn't follow the development, and only a year or so ago discovered the horrors of the Mantemorland case (where Arbcom went to town on the good guy and let the socking COI guy carry on). This was exposed by detailed work by a number of users - and the Arbcom mailing list of the time later leaked, making them (with notable exceptions) look even worse. Had the bulk of this discussion taken place on-wiki (as it could have) there is a good chance this foolishness could have been averted, and, even if it had not, no one would have been able to say "it was obvious I would have told you" - moreover the unwise remarks made in the ostensible private mailing list would probably not have been made in public. This was the highest profile and highest level cock-up, but we also had some other biggies like essjay and rlevese (the latter which we totally failed as a community to handle in a human way). These matters are all different but they share commonality:

• Process before people
• Lack of openness
• Jumping to conclusions

These are all things that have happened in pioneer societies, just less so. Hmm... just had a thought... I know that name. Rich Farmbrough, 14:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

AH yes, one of the twin gods of USRD. Rich Farmbrough, 14:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

The whole situation makes me quite angry frankly. That two established editors and admins should know better than to do this sort of foolishness and be allowed to get away with it. Just more drama from USRD members. If a regular editor did this sort of crap they would be scolded and blocked but because they are admins they are allowed to do whatever they want and all people say are, well they are admins so they must be right. Hogwash. This is why I quite editing and retired. Good luck Rich, I wish I could do something to help but at this point this system is hopelessly degraded to the point where Arbcom and rogue admins like Fram and Rschen have gotten too much control and editors are just a nuisance that needs to be blocked so that the admins will have a little less work to do. Kumioko (talk) 15:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep I wouldn't want to characterize Rschen as a bad guy, just over hasty. Block now ask questions later. Rich Farmbrough, 16:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

There are days when I regret my decision to retire from editing. Today was not one of them! In fact it solidified in my mind that the decision was the right one. With the situation you now face and the attitude of other editors about your grievace crimes of performing edits, I have truly seen that this place is no longer a good place to spend my time. I still very much believe in the project, however the beauracracy and process before people (or rather in my opinion process over pedia) mentality is going to and is, destroying the site. Good luck to you. I am not going to keep commenting because no one cares and they seem to have it in their head to block you or ban you at all costs regardless of what other policies are broken by the admins with that goal. Kumioko (talk) 19:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In all the excitement, some of us may have been mislead. While we may disagree with Rschen's actions, I agree with Rich that it is Fram's behaviour that is most disturbing. Fram raised a case against Rich at WP:AE, and the case was rejected. Before that case was even closed, Fram opened a new case against Rich at WP:AN, and only notified him of it 3 minutes before he was blocked. (The excuse was that Fram "forgot" it was "separate", even when they opened the new section on the new noticeboard themselves.)

Fram's not just finished with Rich, though. At the same time, Fram was also opening a proposal on WT:DYK (later moved to WP:AN) to ban another prolific content contributor, Laura Hale, from her main activity and the area she was advised to concentrate on in her last editor review. This nasty and vindictive proposal did not gain community support.

It seems like, if Fram can't get one person blocked, Fram goes after that person another way. And anyway, Fram goes after multiple people all at the same time - throw enough mud, and some will stick!

Fram, are you prepared to ask for the community's confidence in your continuing to hold administrator privileges on this project?

If not, please would you explain your reasons for not doing so? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm definitely involved in the LauraHale situation, but I thought that that discussion was ill-advised. --Rschen7754 01:23, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what further discussion would have done - it was a clear violation of the sanctions placed on you by the community. All that further discussion has done has given Kumioko another opportunity to further his vendetta against WP:USRD - which is neither here nor there, because USRD isn't connected to this block or the circumstances surrounding this block at all. I may be a prominent member, but I am not USRD, and USRD is not me, and none of the USRD prominent members (2/3 of which are non-admins by the way) are drama-generators as Kumioko claims. --Rschen7754 22:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think the language of the sanctions matches the old offenses. I do not think your interpretation of the sanctions language now matches the intention of the sanctions. I do not think that adding templates to (created) talk pages rises to the level of creating incorrect categories: extent of harm matters. I think fast manual editing should not be punished. And I think that error rate should be considered: IMHO, <2% is satisfactory. Jurisprudence, and that's what it is, requires more than the narrowest reading. That's what discussion would have brought to the table. I shall not pursue this further, but I wanted to make those few points clear, away from the clutter of the discussion elsewhere. --Lexein (talk) 23:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we had had the discussion you might have benefitted from it, rather than making assumptions. Always "better jaw jaw than war war". For example it is not a community restriction it is arbitrarily imposed by one editor. And I doubt it was intended to apply to talk pages or welcoming new users. To assume that you know everything about long running disputes based on a few lines of biased text is a mistake.

And doubtless I shouldn't have raised USRD, but there is no doubt that many "fellow Americans"^{[Reply to Rshen 1]} have treated Kumioko despicably, I am glad to hear that USRD members were not among their number.

I'm sure there will be no more drama-generating accusations of Kumioko having a "vendetta". And no more WP:OWNy approaches such as you made previously on my talk page. And no more WP:OWNy (and ABF)statements such as "I've seen instances where they try to claim our FAs but not our stubs, when they haven't even done any work on the FAs to begin with." Or decisions about banning users made within the USRD project.

But laying that aside (and I'm glad I reminded myself of these facts) there is certain irony in being blocked by an editor who may be WP:INVOLVED because he chose to intervene where I was calling another out on making a WP:INVOLVED block. And in the above section I mention why we need to be careful making blocks where WP:INVOLVED is an issue, firstly we must not be knowingly biased, secondly we must not be seen to be biased, and thirdly we must not be unconsciously biased. As I said in the other matter, there are over 1000 admins who are not involved. In future it would be wise to let one of them make the block instead of making it yourself.

Rich Farmbrough, 00:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I'm sorry, but how was I involved? I have only been involved in either situation in the administrative role, which is permissible per WP:INVOLVED. --Rschen7754 00:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh? So if you had not been an admin you wouldn't have commented? Your morals are predicated on your role? I take a different approach, however lofty Courcelles role, and however humble an editor I may be (and however much I find him likeable) I will not stand idly by while he makes a massive gaffe, that unfairly blocks another user. And leaping to the defence of a poor oppressed arbitrator, who is apparently cut to ribbons by my simply stating facts and offering advice may be all well and laudable, but to retroactively claim that you had your "admin hat" on (which again means you should think about what you are doing) is stretching a point.

I don't really mind that you blocked me, but you could at least take on board a little free advice for the future.

1. Don't jump in to situations you have only the faintest idea about.
2. Think about not just your doubtless pure intentions, but how it will seem to others.

All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 01:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

The issue isn't that you brought up a concern, the issue is that you were quite disruptive after it, posting section after section, post after post, without waiting for a reply. It was so bad that I was leaving a gentle note to begin with, which I would have escalated to a warning and then a block. Note that I haven't gone and blocked Bishonen, for example. There's plenty of people who are willing to take up your position in a more respectful manner; drop the stick and back away, please. The other issue is that it's obvious that you have an ax to grind against ArbCom; I've seen it on virtually all the drama boards. I don't believe in blindly endorsing all that ArbCom does (I have been sanctioned by ArbCom in the distant past) but this battleground mentality that you have is beyond the pale. --Rschen7754 01:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a battleground mentality - and is it not useful to ascribe one to me. Nor do I have an axe to grind against arbcom. I take issue with much of the way it is set up, partly for reasons of governance, one of which is the matter of checkuser privileges, which is open to abuse. I should point out that quite a number of previous members of arbcom have been shown to have feet of clay in very public fora, and if you look at the leaked arbcom mailing list with phrases like "any member of the committee, or ex-member that breaks ranks on this issue" showing how shot through with group-think it has been (see also the Mantemoreland affair). Of course we all hope that this bunch are better, certainly NewYorkBrad, Risker, Sir Fozzie, Roger Davies stand out as far as I can remember (probably others), and certainly Jclemens stands out as irredeemably bad (for example, boasting that, unlike other Arbs he does not deliberate). But statistically we can expect a bad egg from time to time, which is why these governance issues are so important. And, moreover, by not addressing them, a culture of abuse can proliferate, on the grounds that "hey we're the good guys, sure we're searching without a warrant, but no harm, no foul". These observations were not base on any interaction with Arbcom, they simply hit me in the face when I started to look at the rules governing arbcom (which I had to, since I was being persecuted there, and was expected to know and follow the rules, unlike the other participants, the clerk and the arbitrators ). Normally I take little or no interest in "the drama boards" and had just assumed that ArbCom was set up sensibly by the sage figures who founded it, up 'til Xeno's crazy motion on BetaCommand derailed community processes - even then I thought it was right process, wrong outcome, which happens.

My only other major issue with arbcom qua arbcom, did however come out of my case, when Roger Davies, I think it was, said after the case that most Arbs do not read the workshop. (Note, I had been advised by arbs or functionaries, I forget which, that I could make my refutations there, since the "case" is limited to 500 words.) The obvious result of this is that the committee largely goes with the drafting arb. For this reason I suggest that instead of the committee sitting en banc three or five arbitrators should hear a case - the workload being too great otherwise (and again leaked emails and general comments form arbitrators confirm this). I tried to gather information about this at Wikimania, while Riskier was forthcoming quoting figures around 40 hours a week, Courcelles and Kirill were vague.

So that's pretty much it. At some point I will have to spend time defusing the editing restrictions, then revisiting ArbCom, who I am sure did their best, but really I'd much rather get on with building the encyclopaedia, whatever you may think.

The only exception is, as I said, if I become aware of an abuse of power, or other malfeasance, whether through intent or error, I will try to have it corrected. And I am not apologetic about that.

Rich Farmbrough, 01:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Have you considered the possibility that your actions in "try[ing] to have it corrected" have been viewed as abusive? And yes, I was among the people expressing disapproval at Jclemens, but when he said he wasn't going anywhere, I dropped it as elections are a month away and it's not worth making a big stink about it. --Rschen7754 02:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't follow the Malleus case - and I believe that apart from that unfortunate turn of phrase I might have sided with Jclemens, but I know little enough about it not to want to express a firm opinion.

And of course some of what you say is correct, I should have re-factored my comments rather than adding to them. But the more I looked at what Courcelles had written the more I was shocked. One of the questions he censored twice was why he had described a light hearted reference to archive bots choking on Penyulap's page as " admitting he is just wasting the project's resources". And of course C is in daily contact with Elen of the Roads, who it had taken me two months to convince (and even then I needed help) of the obvious fact that she should not have blocked Penyulap's talk page access in the first place. (I do not comment on Coren's original block, because I have not researched it, but every sanction I have seen applied against Pen, except one trivial one, has been groundless, and that one would have been better left undone.) And only at this point did I return to check the content of Pen's talk page and found that instead of just an unwise, hasty and unfortunate block, this was in the class that, were it left unfixed, might, in fact should, result in de-sysopping Courcelles. At that point it was immediately apparent that Courcelles needed to take urgent action, so I left a note, then emailed him. I still think he does not see the gravity of what he has done. He deleted the public record of complaint against him, then blocked the user on demonstrably spurious grounds. At this point he has a maximum of 24 hours to revert himself before it is a resigning matter, in my opinion. Just possibly if he does it before it hits the media (and it will if he does nothing - Wikipediocracy are always on the lookout for "good" material, though luckily they don't take much interest in my talk page as far as I know) he might be OK. And this is not a Wikipedia matter only, this stuff follows you around - which is why David Gerard insisted that ArbCom rescind the false impression they put out that he had leaked checkuser results. Rich Farmbrough, 03:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

For the record, [4]. But honestly, there's plenty of other people involved in the discussion that your pitchfork doesn't need to be there as well. --Rschen7754 03:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's no a pitchfork. It's a wakeup call. And Courcelles is apparently a very deep sleeper. Rich Farmbrough, 03:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

To whom it may concern,

I have been following the conversation on Jimbo's page, and would be grateful if you could post the following there for me - under my own name of course, in the section Seriously, "deeply concerned ..." .

--begin--
This idea that Wikipedia is not "Real Life" is fallacious. I have had at lest two editors contacting me saying that they were suffering ill health because of abuse on Wikipedia, and two who have felt close to taking their own lives. In every case but one administrators (individuals, not as a cadre) were responsible.

You have to remember our editor demographic corresponds very closely to the suicide demographic. It is only a matter of time before "Wikipedia editor takes own life" is a headline, and I just hope that when that evil day happens none of us have anything to reproach ourselves with.

(Note: We have of course lost editors to suicide, but not due to Wikipedia a far as I know.)

Rich Farmbrough, 03:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]
--end--
Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 03:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

 Done Wifione ^Message 03:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Rich Farmbrough, 03:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Rich - really nice to meet you in Cambridge the other day. I see you've been involved at some point with WP:WikiProject French communes, and wondered if you knew any general context for a question I have about French communes. They've been relatively well-served by interwiki bot efforts: e.g. User:Rar's bot putting them up on uk.wiki in early 2010, with the result that the Ukrainian wiki has 30 times as many geotagged French articles as US articles. Do you have any idea why they should have been so widely ported across different wikis, compared to similar administrative units in other countries? Was the structured data for them fuller / available earlier / differently licensed / inherently more interesting than that for other countries? Any hypotheses or suggestions as to who might know welcome! Best wishes, Dsp13 (talk) 11:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I might modestly suggest when I had finished with them the infoboxes were all completely standardized on en: - they were presumably standardised on fr:, I can't really remember. They were also a hairsbreadth away from either being ported to {{Infobox settlement}} or having the infobox made into a wrapper, unfortunately they divereged.

The other nice feature is that they are dispersed across the world, and there are Commons maps for them all. Rich Farmbrough, 15:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I have sent an email, followed by a short postscript to the arbitration committee. 24 hours later I have had no response from a functionary that it has been forwarded to the list (or declined). The same thing happened in May, and I never got a response. I am aware that I am not the only person that ArbCom has ignored, however it seems to me that it is a matter for the Committee, although even then I would expect them to send me a mail saying "we have decided to ignore you" rather than the mailing list moderators.

I would appreciate some clarification of what's happening here, this is a time sensitive issue, and I cannot for the sake of the encyclopaedia simply let this matter drop. I will be deciding my next steps, if necessary, when I return to my desk in about 5 hours.

All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 06:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Just sent you an acknowledgement. Not sure why this didn't happen. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK thank you. Rich Farmbrough, 18:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Hi, Rich. I am contacting you because you recently left a comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3rd bundle of channel lineups. I have just created another AfD, nominating List of Net channels for deletion. If you are interested, you can leave a comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Net channels. Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 03:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi. If interested, see also a new AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of StarHub TV and mio TV channels. Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The UTRS system is hosted on toolserver. Who has access to this data? Rich Farmbrough, 20:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

 Done ϢereSpielChequers 22:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone send me the text of Salmon Fishing, please? Rich Farmbrough, 20:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks, that supports my contention, FWIW. Rich Farmbrough, 00:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

"This account has been blocked indefinitely because CheckUser confirms that the operator has abusively used one or more accounts."

Can someone change this to something that makes sense such as

"This account has been blocked indefinitely because CheckUser confirms that the operator has abusively used an alternate account."

Rich Farmbrough, 22:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

No. The original is better. It is possible that the operator has only one account, but edits abusively using open proxies. More often the operator is a serial sockmaster with many accounts that have been used abusively. To speak of an 'alternate' account in such circumstances is unhelpful as the sockmaster was usually blocked ages ago, and is in no position to create 'alternate' accounts. Your repeated contention that a blocked user can legitimately create an alternate account does not alter the actual block policy, which says that they cannot. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Your repeated contention that a blocked user can legitimately create an alternate account" I said this when? Oh you mean bittybattbotisnotabot? Completely different, and I have no problem with legitimate alternate accounts of blocked accounts being blocked (although in cases where it is clearly not necessary it is uncivil). And I never said that, because you never explained at the time it first came up, instead pointing to the Commons, you would have not looked so curmudgeonly if you had pointed to en: in the first place.

So laying aside the neat little dig that is so wide of the mark, (I am coming to know you better, I guess, Elen) lets look constructively at the phrasing.

The current phrasing is bad because it implies that abusing one account a.k.a. vandalism is quite possibly covered - and the way things are commonly worded "one or more" is often lawyer-speak for one. On the other hand you bring up three cases that potentially confuse the issue.

1. Open proxies. I don't understand why you mention this. An open proxy is just another IP address, either an account is used or an IP. (IP addresses are of course a consideration in their own right.)
2. Alternate is not a good word, I guess you are saying, though if the sockmaster is in no position to create alternate accounts, what is this thing we are blocking?

We have {{IP sock}}, so this should only be used on named accounts. If there is no other named account then this is the sockmaster, I would presume,and should be tagged as such.

We then can guarantee there is another named account involved (though we may, which is fine, just want to call them all sock puppets).

I would suggest then we can say clearly and without fear of contradiction:

"This account has been blocked indefinitely because CheckUser confirms that the operator has abusively used more than one account."

(OK there are still problems when they haven't been abusive, but we have templates for that - sock of an indeffed user, sock of a blocked user, I am sure are wordings I have seen. I even saw one that told the future and said it was an account that was going to be used abusively, but that is a tangent.)

So are we getting somewhere better than where we were?

Rich Farmbrough, 02:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Certainly one to discuss wider. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please take to the appropriate talk page then. Rich Farmbrough, 12:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

User:Dohardthings was warned for vandalism and (possible) socking, on 24 October. The user subsequently created a good faith article on the same day. On the 4th of November Elen of the Roads blocked this editor, for "abusive socking".

Can some uninvolved admin unblock, please.

Rich Farmbrough, 16:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

This was done with checkuser information (having seen the related SPI), so it's a checkuser block. --Rschen7754 19:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my edit notice. I am well aware that I often think things are clear when they are obscure. While I make mistakes, and despite Elen saying the opposite, I am by no means an idiot. Also I tried to be a little subtle and just get the consequences of a mistake dealt with rather than brandishing my pitchfork.

• Elen while casting her net wide on a different matter found that two accounts were editing using the same IP address, and one assumes the same version of the same browser. She blocked both as abusive socks.
• This is wrong for so many reasons:
  • Zerothly it looks like the net was cast far to wide, constituting fishing
  • Firstly both accounts had already been left messages telling them about socking
  • Secondly the vandalism from both accounts had stopped and one account was making positive contributions - no need to block
  • Thirdly when new users make socks we only block the sock, and not the master, while we explain the socking policy
  • Fourthly the abuse of the accounts did not fall under socking restrictions
  • Fifthly these accounts are obviously children, or as I prefer to call them "Editors of Tomorrow!" so that User:Meters took exactly the right line with the {{Uw-agf-sock}} template "Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia."

I would appreciate if, to help my communication skills improve, anyone could say which of the above reasons were not immediately apparent on a cursory glance at the evidence. Also where in my two line synopsis "User is bad, user is warned, user is henceforth good, user gets blocked" it is not obvious that this is a bad block? Rich Farmbrough, 22:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I'll do you one better and give you an explanation. One of the reason blocks are marked {{checkuser}} is because the checkuser has more information available to make a decision than non-checkusers do. For instance, I double checked Elen's block to see if it was reasonable to unblock, and found that the editor is (a) clearly not a child, (b) sufficiently technically astute to attempt to dissimulate the socking (though not very well), (c) attempting said dissimulation before they were warned, and (d) flat out lying about it.

Your assumptions were incorrect, which is quite normal since you based them on incomplete information. Where you erred is that in your zeal to find fault With Elen, you simply presumed that the blocks were bad even though you knew you did not have enough information to make a judgement in the matter. — Coren ^(talk) 23:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 CheckUser is not magic pixie dust

Conversely I think your AGF is failing. I did not label the section "Elen makes another idiotic block", rather made light of it, and suggested that the user be unblocked, not that Elen be reprimanded. We already knew that these two accounts were closely linked - it is obvious to anyone with a grain of sense, no super powers possessed only by the immortal few are required. I am though, delighted that checkuser has been upgraded to include an "age" field, and that you can tell the difference between dissimulation and dissimilation, so to speak. I hope that you did not make any bad faith assumptions - while I, for example use almost exclusively Palemoon to edit, I have at least five other browsers (and different versions of those) installed on a good half dozen machines, not counting machines used by other people (and often shared), and other devices that give browsing capability. Moreover my IP address changes regularly. Were someone to see editing from these different devices (especially when some were using other browsers as default) they might conclude that I was "sufficiently technically astute to attempt to dissimulate the socking (though not very well)". We can, for example, construct perfectly normal hypotheses that two children in the same class (pace your Child Catcher MediaWiki extension) were working on the same book review, with their laptops at child A's house and one of them decided to vandalize Camel and did so twice suing both accounts, either on the same machine or on different ones. Or their is one child who made two accounts, one on his laptop and one on the family computer. Or this happened at school. Or they moved between home and school, or between Child A's house and Child B's house. These are all typical behaviours for children, as is thinking they can "get away" with vandalism, until found out.

Alternatively you want us to believe that an adult, with ill intent but "1337" skills created an article on Salmon Fishing, vandalised Camel in a painfully obvious and childish way (perhaps a perl hacker?) and when rebuked created a childish start article displaying his 1337 skills (the html "big" tag) again, then ceased editing for 11 days.

(For the avoidance of doubt I have set up several MediaWiki installations including one at home, and I am familiar with the CheckUser extension.)

I'm sorry but unless a Lower Merion School type enhancement to vector.js has been slipped it I find your response a "bald and unconvincing narrative."

Rich Farmbrough, 00:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I guess it's a good thing you aren't a checkuser on enwp, then. — Coren ^(talk) 00:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and for the record, I don't want you to believe anything; you are quite welcome to believe anything you please. I suppose the mistake was entirely mine to take a moment to look into a matter you raised. — Coren ^(talk) 00:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, you made a reasonable fist of explaining it. Except explaining how Checkuser gives you the age of an editor. Or why a block was necessary when (presumed) socking had ceased. Really I don't care if this is a 90 year old editor with technical skills of Larry Wall, the simple fact is - warned about bad behaviour, stopped it - end of story. Rich Farmbrough, 01:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Ok, let's try this again without the snark. I suppose you can be earnest despite your needlessly combative tone. "Children" do not normally have a combination of six computers and browsers at home, generally do not take care to switch between them and back within a minute to create "alternate accounts", and do not make "productive edits" in good faith with a sock while vandalizing with others. They also do not create more accounts after being warned (but before being blocked) from yet another OS/browser. Funnily enough, pretending to be a child and making "childish" edits is a relatively common MO from a number of known trolls, and some editing patterns are quite recognizable to someone who has been looking an enwp logs for a while.

So, once more, checkusers make their determinations using information you are not aware of. That you find the conclusions unconvincing is, at best, uninformed musings. — Coren ^(talk) 01:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Oh, an no – just in case there was a doubt – I don't believe for a minute that there was a nice testing lab involved containing an impressive diversity of older computers handy for the shenanigans. It's much easier to use the nice UA switching option of one's browser than to edit from a museum of computing). — Coren ^(talk) 01:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite pleased with my deductions over what you were seeing, though I am regretting disposing of my Microvax, my Prime, my 3 Fujuitsu disk drives as big as washing machines which together had a capacity of nearly a Gigabyte (but no way to access them), and will have to console myself with another visit to Bletchly Park.

To summarise, there were six UA strings shared between Informationbuddy1 and Dohardthings in an way you haven't described and at least a seventh that Informaationstation1 used. This could be for several reasons, even as simple as not being able to log off. And a lot of people do keep old hardware and software running for many years. Of course it could be that someone was futzing with the UA strings as you suggest, and if you were seeing something like "Gekko" instead of "Gecko" it's a near certainty. But I'm not sure that's a hanging offence in Wikiland, indeed I have often thought of building a proxy solely to conceal UA information from the dataminers and others (See https://panopticlick.eff.org/ ).

Now you are perfectly correct that Informationstation1 was not created until the following day, but the fact remains that after the final warning at 21:54 there was no vandalism from any of the three accounts. The standard procedure in this case is to tell the editor to "pick one" (assuming it is one person and not two or three).

So, of course, you may have yet more secret information, and it is still not clear whether the blocking admin knew of the third account.

Regardless blocking is supposed to be used to prevent damage and I see no indication that these accounts were (subsequent to Meters rather good handling of the matter) being used for that.

It is quite funny that I get accused of not AGFing when actually I am AGFing about our Canadian friend. You may think me naive and trusting, and doubtless I am, but it has always seemed to me that the sane voices on Wikipedia, apart form those jaded by too much time vandal-fighting, are those who support trust, openness, forgiveness, second chances, growth opportunities.

There is little in terms of what this sort of user can do to damage the encyclopaedia that cannot be fixed almost trivially and prevented from recurring. Conversely, in the long term, there may be a great deal to gain.

And really the response to my initial posting should have been "<meh> unblock one" - instead, once the dynamic IP changes, our guy is free to create a new account, we no longer know who he is, and if he goes down the black hat route, he has found out how to sock successfully instead of unsuccessfully.

All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 04:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

(←) You're missing the point. It's not about how many UA strings there were, or how likely each was individually plausible (I'd have to check, but I'm pretty sure I saw one that claimed IE9 on NT4); it's about recognizing the "not a genuine child/newbie" pattern. I've often heard the "be nice to a vandal they may become a productive editor" meme, but I've never seen it actually occur. Newbies that behaved disruptively because they didn't know better? Sure. Users who started with "malice aforethought"? Never. (Or at least, if they do, it's by starting over; not by reforming the original troll accounts). — Coren ^(talk) 14:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK I'm afraid we're falling into a a predictable pattern here, and not making any progress. You keep changing the reason for the block.

• It started off "because they are socks". (Which we already pretty much knew, and head been dealt with by Meters.)
• Then it was "we know better than you". (Which may be true, but remember this admin blocked a user she was in an arb case with, another for posting a cartoon and a third for making jokes and editing on another Wiki. Also said another user could "come back if he changed his ISP" which turned out to be misplaced humour. I'm sure zillions of her blocks are just peachy, and she does extremely clever checkuser work. )
• Now it comes back to the vandalism. (Which we already pretty much knew, and head been dealt with by Meters.)

There are a bunch of points I'd like to make, and some of these are tangential, but they are relevant.

• We currently have about 2% of the Internet blocked with range blocks, and probably a lot more by device count
• We have a tag on the main page "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit."
• We have a toxic environment, anyone who does not keep their head down, and some who do, get dragged into conflict, and all except the incredibly patient and the sociopathic get burned out, kicked out or leave in disgust.
• We have, apparently, a recruitment problem as well. (I say apparently because the studies I've seen need more work, and there are variables that are not factored in - it could actually be much worse, as well as maybe much better than the headlines.)

Given that and the principle of AGF Meters did exactly the right thing.

Overriding her final warning with "well we are gonna block you anyway because we are super-scientists and behavioural analysts" is in any case wrong - it is Wikipedia going back on its word. And while you have analysed this in some detail which might mitigate that a little the Checkuser at the time was working on another case, and was not even able to spare the time to tag the user pages (the talkpages still don't have a notice, which is maybe a good thing).

Given the block was at least dubious, and that I requested an unblock, the response should have been to unblock, not to argue the toss.

Please link these three accounts, unblock one and leave the appropriate templates. The cost of reblocking if they return to their camel persecuting ways is minimal, certainly far less effort than we have expended here.

Rich Farmbrough, 17:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Well, two distinct points:

• First, you are correct about too many range blocks, most of them for too long and too wide. That's actually symptomatic of two distinct problems, neither of which is easy to fix: (a) understandable frustration at persistent vandals over large dynamic ranges, and (b) blockers who don't have enough knowledge to analyse topology and evaluate collateral damage. The latter is, thankfully, very rare from checkusers; but as long as admins get to do range blocks we'll keep running into that problem. That needs a fix in policy and thus community consensus.
• Second, for the specific case, I simply don't agree. You requested an unblock, I looked into it with some attention, and see no reason to unblock. The reason if you insist on a simple statement, is "they are vandal socks whose editing pattern is indicative of a troll and nothing else." — Coren ^(talk) 18:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rich, you know very well that administrators may not (ever) reverse a checkuser block without the consent of an editor who has checkuser access, so why have you repeatedly asked one to do so? AGK [•] 19:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I had no idea, Rschen's reply makes sense in that context. Issues that this raises I will put in separate sectionsRich Farmbrough, 20:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Handy hint - do not run wikilinks together. Rich Farmbrough, 20:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

(Explanation, made it look a if this was a Arbcom fiat.) RF

The second link was parenthesised, and therefore separate. AGK [•] 13:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still think it is at the very least badly handled. Blocking these two accounts, correctly tagging them and informing User: Informationstation1 that they must stick to one account would have been fine (though more aggressive than I or User:Meters would have done).

The thing that concerns me is abandoning principle, already in short supply, you can call it AGF, you can call it kindness, you can call it common human decency.

When we do this it damages not only the recipient of bad faith and the environment and reputation of the project, but it damages us.

Rich Farmbrough, 20:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

"(b) blockers who don't have enough knowledge to analyse topology and evaluate collateral damage. The latter is, thankfully, very rare from checkusers; but as long as admins get to do range blocks we'll keep running into that problem. That needs a fix in policy and thus community consensus."

More power to checkusers? When they don't even agree about blocks themselves? (Note, for example, Elen (the good guy in this scenario, please note) refused to block the /19 for fear of collateral damage, AGK just blocked an entire /16 - after all if people don't have an account they can't be pushed around by admins and arbs (yes I know that's not what AGK was thinking, but it's the effect, and it amounts to the same thing)). Rich Farmbrough, 20:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Rich, please leave this. You're making an ass of yourself, and I don't like to see it. What I said was that the tool isn't capable of returning detailed results for that particular /19. I'd already said I wasn't going to try any kind of a rangeblock when I checked the smaller range - it's one of the biggest cable providers in the area, lots of legit IP editors. On the other hand, blocking a /16 that has nothing but Chinese spambots on it is not a problem. You don't have access to the Checkuser wiki so you don't see a lot of the problems that get reported. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice of you, but I don't mind making a fool of myself in a good cause. We're all friends here and learning from each other - well I'm learning anyway.

You were looking at the \19 68.149.160.0 and AGK blocked \16 68.149.0.0.

This is mostly or all Alberta, specifically including Edmonton. If Chinese spambots (tofubots?) are working through a cable company in Canada then I have learned something else. If not, perhaps I am not quite the ass you think. Rich Farmbrough, 22:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

OK, I apologise, I see what you are looking at now. You're right, there's no way I'd have done that just to stop Br'er Rabbit. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's gracious of you, Wiki-apologies are few and far between. Rich Farmbrough, 00:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

AGK here fell prey to (a), not (b). Yes, I agree this is too wide. It's interesting, however, how you manage to twist agreement that range blocks are too easily misused to be widely available into some sort of power grab. One might think you have an agenda that's more about bashing checkusers than genuine care for the poor beleaguered blocked editors. — Coren ^(talk) 01:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I would have less issue with limiting it to checkusers if arbitrators did not have the checkuser power, but I suspect the real problem is philosophical, we have already removed a mass of rights from IPs (see the mountain of articles languishing at new article creation for a fraction of the loss we have sustained by this policy) and removing more is a perennial proposal. I also think we could find alternative solutions, for example reviewing range blocks, providing better tools for mask generation, educationwick. Similarly we could relatively easily make much checkuser activity public and reduce the amount of stuff that happens behind closed doors. There is definitely an elitist attitude, not just because of people's "hats" but because people are used to knowing best in their everyday circle.

And it's worth pointing out that I didn't say they should be less widely available, that concept was entirely introduced by you. As was the idea "everyone except us checkusers is an idiot", though you didn't phrase it like that. We should make another 20 checkusers, separate powers, create 500 new admins now and another 50 every month and make decent training available.

That would be far more use than abrogating yet more power to a small clique who, however hard they may try not to, are bound to suffer common viewpoints and misperceptions, and by all accounts are overworked, yet unable to take suggestions to reduce the workload, instead insisting they must also work at OTRS, Checkuser and who-knows-where else.

Rich Farmbrough, 02:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I didn't say that non-checkusers were idiots; it's a matter of it being difficult to assess the impact of a rangeblock when you can't actually see the usage of the range. Checkusers are just as fallible as any random editor; but they have considerably more data to base decisions on. — Coren ^(talk) 03:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But they can see what they need to make the range blocks they need to make. I.E. open proxy, hosting, school, congress, that sort of thing. And of course they can also see the anon IP usage of that range, which should give a good idea. They can't see the serial sock IPs, so they can't make those blocks in the first place of course, except when the IP's are sufficiently leaked. Rich Farmbrough, 03:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

• You are discussing my actions, so I wish to draw your attention to the following facts. (1) Account creation and anonymous editing from the /16 was blocked by me for 1 week. I calculated that this would obstruct the editing experience of only a few tens of people (who in any event were clearly directed to the account creation interface). This was most regrettable, but we must sometimes do these things. (2) This particular ISP assigns dynamic IP addresses to users across a /15 range, not a /19; the earlier block of a /19 was therefore useless. (3) You would be mistaken to imply or suggest that I blindly blocked this range, without giving serious thought to the collateral damage caused. As Coren says, we have enough data to assess the impact of range blocks, and (gasp!) we do actually use that data. AGK [•] 13:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to head this section "Wiki-break" because I would love to come back to editing, whether it's bot-running, turtles, viruses, templates, vandal fighting or hosting at tea-house.

Unfortunately when I look at the options open to me, I find I am hemmed in at every turn by the hasty actions of one administrator a couple of years ago that have gradually made editing a misery instead of a pleasure.

The option of a clean start is denied to me, the only way I can make the contributions I want to on Wikipedia is either if I fight to get the editing restrictions removed (they run 'til the end of time) and the arbcom decision overturned, or if the community were to offer me an amnesty. I do not have the energy for the former, and I can virtually write the script if someone were to request the latter.

While I enjoy a robust discussion, the conversations I have been having with (doubtless well meaning) arbitrators are such that they never give ground to mere reason, only (and then reluctantly, and not always) to incontrovertible fact. It also pains me that in order to get a tiny concession from an administrator it took two months of work and she was "quite upset" (which in British English means "very upset") at the end of it. I am not here to upset people, I am here to make knowledge available.

From 2007, following multiple bereavements I was suffering for a long time from clinical depression, a fact which I shared with no-one for at least three years. I am proud to have made it through this tough time, and working on Wikipedia, and the camaraderie helped. But starting September 2010, a particularly nasty AN/I thread was kicked off and from there on in things have been downhill. I have no intention of returning to those dark days, and having had occasion recently to review the AN/I threads and the Arbcom case I have been reminded how awful they were.

I happened to notice, this morning, that {{Wikify}} has been deprecated. I would have liked to have been on the discussion, as I have been very involved with that template - I took a brief look at the edit history, and saw that my last edit (in 2011) had been reverted by Fram. It brought it home just how much he is there at every turn, backed up by CBM and people who make their mind up before they know the facts, and then are not prepared to change it.

So as of now I will be doing the following:

• Logging out of en:Wikipedia
• Once my block has expired I will only fix articles I am reading, and that as an IP.
• I will pursue the current wrongful talk-page block of Penyulap, the abuses involved in that, and possibly his initial block
• I will consider helping with template coding if I receive email requests
• I will consider doing bot runs, if I receive an email request, but the requester will have to deal with ArbCom
• I may tinker with my user-space pages to prepare an appeal to ArbCom, but it is unlikely
• I may check my talk page from time to time, deal with archiving, and respond there.

To all other intents and purposes on en:Wikipedia, for the time being at least, this editor is:

All the best. Rich Farmbrough, 12:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

All the best Rich. I have hopes that Wikipedia will improve. It may not be now, but it will be in the future. I hope to see you come back when that happens. Don't let yourself get identified as you when you're editing as an IP.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 16:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rich, EN Wikipedia is currently in a bizarre state and after the way you've been treated I can see the logic in leaving. Personally I'm now spending most of my Wiki time on Commons rather than Wikipedia, and I must say that I'd recommend it. No Arbcom, much gnomish stuff to be done and it is easier to be productive. Hopefully we'll see more of you there. ϢereSpielChequers 17:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand how you feel Rich. Lord knows I have made my opinions about the situation known and I am sorry if I caused you any additional discomfort in that. I just couldn't sit by and watch the things that were going on. I basically retired from editing myself and only came back to comment on the block. Since you haev decided to Retire as well, I see no resaon to continue to fight an admittedly lost cause.

I truly do wish you the best and I hope this all turns out for the best. I will likely not be editing again after this either. I think this will be marked as one of the saddest days of Wikipedia. Good luck my friend. Kumioko (talk) 18:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are some real bastards around here.
You are not one of those.
The other languages of WP are a lot less vexing. Varlaam (talk) 00:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bastards! I was been wondering when it would come to this. This is a sad day for Wikipedia. The Bastards will be jolly proud of themselves. Whilst one might read the preceding phrase with a touch of irony, I'm actually sure the Bastards are actually proud of themselves for having eliminated "an enemy". But for me, I'm just gutted that one of my first ports of call just been hounded out of wiki-existence. <sniff, sob, blows nose on hankie> -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 01:55, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks It's been a pleasure getting to know you here and in real life as well, Rich. I hope that the time comes when you change your mind, but if not, I hope that you'll find some other venue for helping to give free knowledge to others. I don't know all of the ins and outs of all of your disputes, but I do know that you've been nothing but a gentleman to me and the world could use a few more of them. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is a real shame to see the second most prolific editor retire from Wikipedia. I too have had editing restrictions placed on me as a result of Frams actions. In both case the wiki-punishment does not suit the perceived "wiki-crime" IMO. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 14:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And for years, the single most prolific, for any newcomers reading this.

Varlaam (talk) 16:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fram should be the one retiring intsead of Rich IMO. Kumioko (talk) 16:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even though Fram has reduced my enjoyment of Wikipedia editing and is responsible for my editing restriction I would not want her/him to retire. However she/he should be concious of the fact that we are here to create an encyclopedia that is useful for The Reader. Hounding prolific editors who may make occasional mistakes or may ignore policy/guidelines/sanctions for the greater good should not be done. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps that was a bit harsh of me. It does seem to me though that the cost to the pedia from Fram's shenanigans and blocks is more of a harm than the good work that he does do. Perhaps if he doesn't pursue blocking every editor as though its his personal mission to see them banned for the most trivial of offenses, then I might feel differently. Perhaps if he starts using his admin tools as more of a tool than a weapon then that might help me to change my pessimistic and skeptical attitude about his actions. Kumioko (talk) 19:55, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am very sorry to see you go. It is disgusting to see how some long-term contributors are being treated lately. Wikipedia has a serious problem for sure. I wish you all the best. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 12:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I included you in the list on my userpage. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 12:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Best. Wifione ^Message 10:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Beryllium poisoning , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Scray (talk) 05:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All I have to say. Sorry to see you go; I really hope you reconsider. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Andra albums, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Mike Selinker (talk) 18:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Answer albums, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Mike Selinker (talk) 18:38, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Faze video albums, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Mike Selinker (talk) 19:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rich Farmbrough, this is Colton Cosmic. I noticed where you understood my position at Jimbo Wales' talk page. I am asking you to consider posting the following for me at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations (there's a "request" button halfway down the page).

Brace yourself for a lot of words. I am requesting a sockpuppet investigation on myself. The reason is that I was indefinitely blocked without discussion by "Timotheus Canens" on his sockpuppeting charges, which are not true. I view these charges as a slur on my integrity and I don't want them to sit on my user page for the next 500 years as if they were true. I have come to realize that that I need an admin ally for this. If that's you, I promise to adhere better to WP:CIV. I saw a wikihounding bully going at someone else,[5][6] and I saw a policy or guideline for admin behavior (I later found it was only "essay")[7][8] premised on a suicide metaphor and I responded too sharply to both of those.

Now, if you look at my talk page, there's a bunch of longwinded quarreling there. I regret that you have to read any of it to make a determination. I can tell you I didn't want to read it either, or respond to it. Where do they come from, I don't know. An editor MastCell I don't know from Adam pops up at my talkpage to interrogate me about prior accounts, without explanation, [9] and finishes by calling me a liar[10]. There's plenty more catcalling there from the peanut gallery, I don't think I should be blamed for that, or having to respond to it. I don't want you to have to read it.

The only stuff you need to look for, the pertinent matter in my view, is evidence of sockpuppeting or "abuse of multiple accounts," this is what I was purportedly blocked for. I never sockpuppeted. I never had "multiple accounts." I had a single previous account that I abandoned because of an outing, and moved on to the current. This is WP:CLEANSTART. I am not required to disclose the name of the previous account. That would defeat a major purpose of WP:CLEANSTART. In my view it would violate WP:FAITH as well. As a note, this seems to be the core motivation of those acted against me, from "Timotheus Canens" to BWilkins to ArbCom: they sniff and sniff for the prior account.

Now. CheckUser. I do *not* request a CheckUser on me. I do request to know if a CheckUser *has* been done on me. I am interested to know this, because I do suspect it, and there was never a basis for it.

Last, I never want to write longwinded detail, but the problem is I've found that admins rely on the allegations and arguments of others and find against me. So I have to address, I guess, the particulars of those that I suppose might work against me. Briefly: BWilkins never made me an offer, unless "give me $50 and I may give you my bicycle is an offer."[11] Nomoskedacity's accusation of 3RR violation does not stand up to scrutiny, I reverted twice, just look at it. [12][13] Beeblebrox' statement against me relies repeatedly on conflation and confusion,[14] it's sleight of hand, it's not straightforward at all, I never said I didn't block evade and she or he knows it, but at least she or he didn't call me sockpuppet. Last, ArbCom did not block me, it only declined without explanation to unblock me.[15] Any admin can unblock me. You're not going to risk the ire of ArbCom, you may find yourself at odds with "Timotheus Canens." You need more answers, unblock my page, and we'll go from there.

Thank you for your consideration, please do me an SPI and post the results at the top of my user page. Colton Cosmic.

Mr. Farmbrough, I understand if you choose not to do this. If that is the case, would you at least post at my user page that I maintain as of 25 Nov. 2012 that I did not sockpuppet or abuse multiple accounts. Colton Cosmic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.211.155.191 (talk) 16:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BWilkins "offer" was well meant, but fails in that transferring restrictions would invalidate the cleanstart, moreover if there were editing restrictions a cleanstart is not permitted (See my retirement statement above.)

My take on this scenario is not that you should not be blocked or banned, but that there is no clear case made, where it can be reviewed in the best wiki-traditions of openness. Moreover this seems to be a fairly endemic situation, ranging across the gamut from marginal value beginning editors, through established editors, to the very illuminati of the community (one previous arb was treated very shabbily by the community).

And, moreover, we get into convoluted situations where the original "offence" becomes irrelevant, but we are blocking or banning because of the way the editor responded to the initial sanction, regardless of it's merits.

Now as to your request, the checkuser audit subcommittee are the people to ask whether a checkuser has been done on you. If you feel that this has been abused then your only on-wiki resort, apart form Arbcom which essentially comprises the people who appoint checkusers, most of whom sit or sat on arbcom, or are arbcom clerks, is an Ombudsman. The Ombudsmen are listed on Meta.

Rich Farmbrough, 17:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beyond Eagle and Swastika, since you contributed to the article. Thanks. BigJim707 (talk) 03:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]