User talk:Rich Farmbrough/Archive/2012 December

Nomination for deletion of Template:Apple models
Template:Apple models has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 13:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Blockages
This is Colton Cosmic. Rich, well thank you for responding. I tried to see what you were hassled about too, but it got into a universe of tools and automated or scripted edits that I understand little. I've done plenty of edits but all of a simple hand-made variety. I saw where you had the week-long block on automated editing, I suppose it was that made indefinite at some point, as you still seem to be able to edit articles by hand. We both seem to have had troubles based on our response to blocks, which is held by some to be separable from the validity or abusiveness of the block itself. I see it in metaphor of a wrongly-convicted person escaping from prison. There is no moral failure in doing so. Of course I'm not so wrapped up in my own case that I don't recognize reality is generally more muddled than the metaphor.

I'll accept that BWilkins "offer" was not deliberately deceptive, but not that it was well meant. "You do X and I *may* do Y" is not an offer, unless stretching it as an offer of *consideration* in return for an action. "You do X and, if A, B, and C apply, I *will* do Y" is an offer. Anyhow the real motive was the confessed "talkpage stalker's" desire to sniff around my pre-clean start account. His or her subsequent attemptedly intimidating comment confirms there was little in the way of good intentions.

I would indeed like to know if a check-user was done on me, but right now I've got to get unblocked. Perhaps it was silly of me to ponder requesting an SPI on myself for vindication of whatever-his-name-was's uncommented, undiffed, policy-free block of me. I just need to find an admin willing to evaluate the evidence (none has ever been offered) and willing to separate my admittedly defiant response to the block from the circumstances of the block itself. Colton Cosmic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.211.155.135 (talk) 13:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 December 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 20:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Coordinate errors affecting multiple infoboxes
Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes. Your assistance would be appreciated. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Update small
You recently moved Update small to Update inline. I used the former name to avoid confusion with Update-inline, which is a different template. Your move ;-) Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, we had a conversation about this in April. AnomieBot was still breaking things so I've fixed them. Rich Farmbrough, 15:33, 10 December 2012 (UTC).

Nomination of Template:Lincoln cabinet sidebar for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Template:Lincoln cabinet sidebar is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Template:Lincoln cabinet sidebar until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Mitchumch (talk) 07:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for moving the discussion page.
 * In regards to your suggestion for merging the content to the infobox, could you check this edit on 00:44, 9 December 2012 for Abraham Lincoln to see if that would satisfy you concern. It was reverted by one of the notified users for this discussion.  I haven't received any communication with user Alanscottwalker, but I think I can address the white space issue brought up by the user.  Thanks again.
 * Mitchumch (talk) 08:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably you can negotiate that no problem, the best thing to do, though, is to wait for the TfD to conclude. Folk get upset, sometimes, if a template is orphaned before the TfD is finished. Rich Farmbrough, 12:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC).

The Signpost: 10 December 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 21:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Categorization
Rich,

Do you know of any way of adding all Talk: pages that are in both Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of mountains and Category:WikiProject British and Irish hills to a new category I created, Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of mountains in the United Kingdom. I was thinking AWB, but I am unsure on how to implement it and going through the whole category by hand is taking far too long. Thanks-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 20:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you cracked this, but if not, use the list maker from the tools menu of AWB - the way it works will be obvious once you open it. I would suggest that the next step is to change the template that is creating the "requested photographs"  category to create the sub-category by using a suitable parameter. Rich Farmbrough, 23:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC).


 * With some help from the bot requests desk yes, but thanks. Are you referring to the template? Do you mean I should edit that to allow adding a parameter to that so it adds it to the category automatically? Thanks -- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds  00:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes but I think it already has all you need. should do the job. Rich Farmbrough, 01:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC).

IPExchange
I saw your you listed on the iBridge entry. How about stating an entry for IPExchange? Steven McIntire ALLEN 01:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Your name has been mentioned
. I see Sandy.Georgia hasn't had the courtesy to tell you. I'm sure you'll have an opinion you want to offer. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 December 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 23:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

And people wonder why I don't like Arbcom (the process not the members individually)
This and the conversations occurring on the Arbcom talk pages these days pretty much sum it up. Welcome back. Kumioko (talk) 19:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I was pleased to see that Risker understood what I have been going through for the past two years. Unfortunately it seems that while  if it were part of her in-group, it would be legitimate suffering and grounds for complaint, if it is part of her out-group, then that's just peachy.  This is not uncommon where people see those of other groups as, not necessarily less than human, but certainly "tainted". I could cite the widow of an Irish terrorist who thought it was awful that her husband had been killed in front of his children, but just fine that he had killed terrorists on the other side, in front of their children. I could cite the lady experiencing prejudice, who, when Isaac Asimov suggested helping another discriminated against group, said "We need to take care of our own first" and could not see the contradiction.  But it was ever thus, and saving a small proportion who have the moral guts to say to themselves "There but for the grace of God go I"  probably ever will be.    Rich Farmbrough, 20:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC).


 * Generals in modern warfare are seldom injured as they are rarely ever in a position of danger. It is the soldiers, those on the front lines who are most often injured or killed who ensure those generals stay safe and protected, far from danger. It is those same soldiers who are then deemed by those generals to be expendable and the losses acceptable as long as the cause is justified. The generals themselves not needing to worry about the status of things in the trenches, on the front lines. In many respects this is akin to how the Arbcom and many in the admin corps view us normal editors. We are merely expendable and can be cast off when necessary or when deemed desireable by those in positions of power because in this caste system we are weak and without power. We are helpless. Kumioko (talk) 20:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
 * But it's "Saviour of 'is country," when the guns begin to shoot;
 * An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
 * But Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool - you bet that Tommy sees!
 * Maybe waxing a little dramatic, but it is a good verse. I do think, though, that the key issue is culture.  In fact I'd go as far as to say it is the only issue. Rich Farmbrough, 23:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC).
 * Maybe waxing a little dramatic, but it is a good verse. I do think, though, that the key issue is culture.  In fact I'd go as far as to say it is the only issue. Rich Farmbrough, 23:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC).

FYI
. Compare further discussion on Elen's talk. Bishonen &#124; talk 12:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC).
 * Thanks to you both for your input. @Rich:  Less verbose, please.  It helps others to think.  – SJ +  22:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, well, useful advice. I'm commonly accused of being too laconic.  Rich Farmbrough, 23:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC).

Season's tidings!
To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle
Did you go? How was it? The Transhumanist 02:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!


Happy children join me in extending the best possible Season's Greetings to you and your loved ones at this time of year, and if you don't celebrate the usual holidays (Diwali, Xmas, Hanukkah, Eid, Kwanzaa, etc....), then we will still wish you a Happy Festivus. All the best: HarryZilber (talk) 22:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Harry, this is more or less the best holiday greeting ever :) Rich, happy holidays from me too! – SJ +  02:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Transcend
My suggestion is to ignore the drama and contribute in ways nobody expects.

You could transcend all the bullshit and contribute, using your expert programming skills, in ways that will blow everyone's mind.

You could apply programs to articles off-line, and then upload the finished results one article at a time. (I'm not referring to typo-fixing or spell-checking here).

Do you have Wikipedia installed offline yet?

I'd say this may be the time for you to take Wikipedia's technology to the next level.

Make Wikipedia more intelligent. If anyone can do it, it's you.

Think about it. Look deep. Right now, experience a flash of genius. The Transhumanist 21:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the support.


 * It is frustrating because the work I was doing was really only very small parts of getting Wikipedia ready for adulthood. The lack of vision of some portion of the community took me by surprise, because those of us from "way back when" had to have vision in order to consider it worthwhile contributing to WP as is was all those years ago (and more so in earlier years, perhaps).  Nonetheless there is a great deal that I can contribute, even with these ridiculous sanctions in place, however I prefer not to discuss it because I know that there are folk who would attempt to sabotage it (much as I find it hard to believe emotionally, evidence cannot be forever denied).  Rich Farmbrough, 02:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC).

(Incidentally I am banned form using external programs to edit Wikipedia articles, and from using cut and paste.  Of course the restrictions are so ludicrous that I am forced to break them with every edit, some folk said that is why they were passed, I lean to believing in  incompetence rather than conspiracy.) Rich Farmbrough, 02:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC).


 * First of all, they can't ban you from editing a fork of Wikipedia that resides on your own computer. Because that's not this Wikipedia.  They can't override the GFDL.  Anyone can fork Wikipedia.  A fork is the best place to test new tools anyways.


 * Speaking of forks, none of the documentation I could find on installing Wikipedia locally were of much help. WikiTaxi was easy to understand and install, but it doesn't support copy and paste and therefore is almost useless.  I'd like a copy of Wikipedia on my own computer that looks, feels, and operates exactly like the one I access online with respect to browsing and editing, and that I can practice using WP:AWB on.


 * Do you have a copy of Wikipedia installed locally? If so, please explain step-by-step how you did it, so the rest of us can do so too without going bald from pulling all of our hair out!  If not, please install it, and record how you did it as you go.  Then tell us so that we can all benefit from having a Wikipedia clone to experiment on and use as a backup system.


 * Many editors would install Wikipedia locally if someone like you made it easy for them to do so. And I would be the first in line!  The Transhumanist 02:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem with doing that is that editing a fork has limited value. Should I make the fork publicly available maybe a little more, there are sites for such forks.  Eventually the content needs to be synchronised, though, sense is to make the edits here and let them flow out. There are a number of fork-bases already existing, some of which I may work on/with.  Rich Farmbrough, 02:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC).


 * Limited value, yes. A huge sandbox!  I want one.  I'm stuck.  Please help.  The Transhumanist 02:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Assistance request on the ACICS "talk" page
Rich Farmbrough wrote on my "talk" page:


 * I would appreciate your sage advice on Talk:Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools, in response to some areas of general ignorance of mine.  Rich Farmbrough, 18:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC).

To which I responded:


 * Okeedokie. I'll head over and see what you're talking about. Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 19:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: I've now written a quite long section over there. Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 05:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Many thanks! Rich Farmbrough, 00:32, 25 December 2012 (UTC).

The Signpost: 24 December 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 06:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Back
I know we don't see eye to eye on most things, but I just wanted to say I'm glad to see you back editing. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well that's nice of you. But I'm by no means back.  I consider writing some kind of Arbcom appeal, fro time to time, but very likely it would be a complete waste of time.  Moreover every time I look at the idiocy that happened it makes me feel ill.  And of course it continues.  Jclemens will probably fail to get in, but for the wrong reasons.  YOu may well fail to get elected, also for the wrong reasons.  Penyualp has had no response from the Ombudsman.  I have had no response from Arbcom.  Courcelles appears to be unaware he has done anything wrong.  Carl continues to edit war and vandalize and get away with it.  Fram is probably still creating thousands of useless categories, and if no longer persecuting Alan Leitfing will have found a new victim.  And I certainly see the usual suspects causing trouble and casting unwarranted aspersions on the community/WMF/Jimbo, when there are actually plenty of real problems to deal with.  Meanwhile little or no energy is left to deal pro-actively with tricky situations like caste in India, let alone creating new articles (we have abysmal coverage of viruses, very little on genetic codes, thousands of missing articles on notable people, most of our other language editions are a joke and we still block new editors rather than welcome them). Rich Farmbrough, 22:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC).


 * Here, here. Kumioko (talk) 02:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You should reset the drama free days counter above back to zero. The Transhumanist 02:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Derwick Associates
Hello Rich, I am reaching out after seeing your comment on the Derwick Associates page. It seems like you noticed a lot of NPOV and Undue weight, and I was hoping you might be able to lend an eye once again when you are free. Can you take a look at the Talk:Derwick Associates section? I posted it on the talk page with the hopes of opening a dialogue, but FinanceReferee hasn't commented. What are your thoughts on the matter? They receive a lot of media attention in Venezuela from the non-state-run media for corruption, so it seems strange to me that it isn't included. Should I pursue the incident on AN/I? Justiciero1811 (talk) 20:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * AN/I is only for situations requiring administrative intervention. The best places to get extra eyes are WikiProjects.aybe WikiProject Venezuela, WikiProject Business or WikiProject Energy.  I haven't the language skills to pursue the Venezualan media reports, unfortunately. Rich Farmbrough, 20:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC).

MfD nomination of QWIKI-NOWIKI
QWIKI-NOWIKI, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:QWIKI-NOWIKI and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of QWIKI-NOWIKI during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Keφr 17:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho


 Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to your friends' talk pages.

I just reviewed the ArbCom remedies and amendments...
It appears to primarily restrict automated contributions of any type, including meatbot activity.

That's not so bad. It just means you are a human editor again, and not a cyborg. :)

It appears you can still edit offline, but that you can't post anything generated in an automated fashion. Therefore, words from your own fingertips can be cut and pasted as per normal. They apparently want your edits to come from you and not a program. Period.

That's not so bad.

You have all of the privileges of an editor except automation. It appears that they want you to learn to be human again. Like you lost touch with your humanity.

It's starting to sound like we're in an Isaac Asimov novel.

My recommendations are to become a more close-knit member of the community, as follows:


 * Write and edit articles. Contribute facts, not just wikignome edits.
 * Participate in policy and forum discussions
 * Join in a WikiProject or two, and a help desk.
 * Participate in bot department discussions
 * Help other users to design and create bots - Share your expertise
 * Help enforce the bot rules
 * Become an admin again

You need to shrug off your reputations of being a lone wolf and loose cannon.

You can do that by getting more personally involved with the community. Become our teacher. Trust will build quickly.

Besides, you will have much greater impact when you start enabling others in the use of the tools you are so expert with. That is a great resource to Wikipedia, but it is of limited use when only in the hands of a single individual.

Please consider it. Thank you. The Transhumanist 06:45, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok I do (or did) all of the above, pretty much. I was probably one of the most frequent contributors to Bot discussions who has not been in BAG, I am (was?) a TeahouseHost, I answered many questions on WP talk:AWB (and logged many bugs), I have published more AWB settings files than anyone else, I have written custom AWB files for people, and I have loaned hardware to others to run their bots.  As for enforcing bot rules, the only current violator I am aware of got me a trout slap, last time I pointed out that he was bullying another editor at AN/I.  The matter of policy and process I am working on.  It's an uphill struggle these days, because we have an establishment, which reacts to any attempt at improving things as an attack on the status quo.


 * Lets look though at one example of sharing - just to see where it got me.
 * I share the code to resolve specific redirects. That is used by AnomieBot (and AWB) to duplicate a part of HPB's functionality  - I encouraged the duplication, just as I did with LegoBot and others.
 * AnomieBot then is tuned to operate slightly faster than HPB, in hidden code (Anomie says the bot code is published, but obviously this is selective, and probably, since Anomie produces such great code, controlled by a pragma or something). Net result, Anomie undermines the other good fixes that HPB was doing not merely by being a backup in case HPB fails, but by running constantly, and at a lesser time delay.
 * I get hung drawn and quartered, reservations that what I do will be lost are assuaged by the presence of AnomieBot.
 * Meanwhile the lack of the HPB fixes causes many problems on Wiki, six months to a year of my life are wasted, Anomie gets a job with WMF.
 * Basically one cannot write content without using cut and paste - suggesting that I type out my references and quotes in full is ludicrous. The fact is that to be a good arbitrator requires integrity, time, and an understanding of technical matters, process matters, content matters and people.   Very few folk can tick all these boxes, and very few arbs can either.  Total fail is not uncommon "Most of us have legal training" remarked one arb - which means "One or two of us have been to law school, and most of the rest have been sent on a day course about employment law at some time."  It is very difficult to deal with people who will make statements like this on a public forum and think it acceptable.
 * Basically one cannot write content without using cut and paste - suggesting that I type out my references and quotes in full is ludicrous. The fact is that to be a good arbitrator requires integrity, time, and an understanding of technical matters, process matters, content matters and people.   Very few folk can tick all these boxes, and very few arbs can either.  Total fail is not uncommon "Most of us have legal training" remarked one arb - which means "One or two of us have been to law school, and most of the rest have been sent on a day course about employment law at some time."  It is very difficult to deal with people who will make statements like this on a public forum and think it acceptable.


 * As for becoming an admin again I think an RFA would be a blood bath. I hope I am wrong.  I think also that Arbcom knew that, which makes the desysopping particularly disingenuous.


 * Well we have a number of new arbitrators now (soon), I tried a non-confrontational approach, asking to be allowed to archive my talk page at least, instead they banned me from making amendment requests for six months. It might be worth seeing if the current arbcom thinks that saying "Tosh" constitutes gratuitous incivility.
 * Rich Farmbrough, 13:04, 24 December 2012 (UTC).
 * Rich Farmbrough, 13:04, 24 December 2012 (UTC).

I've been browsing the messages above. There's so much anxiety on this talk page. It doesn't matter whose fault it was. Accepting that is the first step in your recovery. You understand how to repair relationships. You have to swallow something. It starts with two words. You know what they are.

Concerning your loss, just accept it. You should forget about using automation for awhile. It may feel like your right arm has been amputated, but it's only your cyborg arms that have been removed. Don't try to get your automation tools back. Not until you after you've been an admin again for at least six months. Rebuild the community's trust in your use of tools one stage at a time, starting with the only tools ArbCom has left you to work with: your fingertips on the bare keys.

RFA is also a ways off. At least a year. The community will respond to your nomination based upon the degree of your cordial community involvement, enthusiastic contributions, and positive influence. You must have a change of heart. You can't fake that. All residual indignation must be washed away for good. You must lose the attitude.

You've gotten so tangled up in an emotional thicket that you need to start over. They're basically requiring you to start over. So do exactly that.

Stop. From now on, avoid spreading negativity like the plague. Stop feeling injured, and griping, complaining, and maneuvering ArbCom amendments.

Then start up again with a fresh approach. Relax. Continuously use non-confrontational ways to promote progress and improve this encyclopedia. For every obstacle in this wiki, there are a dozen ways to creatively and peacefully transcend it. Find them.

Act swiftly, but be patient – there are many other things to work on here while you are waiting. Impatience breeds frustration, rashness, and editcountitis. Patience changes you. Gives you time to see things you would have otherwise missed. Provides opportunity to find diplomatic alternatives.

Focus on improving the encyclopedia and its community on-line, one word at a time. Diplomatically. You are limited to completely manual edits, that is, to human communication.

The point seems to be that they wish for you to forget about your rank on the List of Wikipedians by number of edits and concentrate on personal involvement with other editors. And to get over your difficulty in dealing with the people around here, regardless of how difficult they may be.

Therefore...

Be at peace.

Be nice.

Be effective, in the broadest sense of the word: by enabling and inspiring others to build.

See this as an opportunity to rise above all expectations. Including your own. How?

Lead, by teaching others how to build and assisting them in their efforts to do so. This isn't about you or me or ArbCom. It's about the Wikipedia community, and making knowledge freely available to all the people of the World.

That's worth swallowing one's pride for.

Wikipedia is on the cutting edge, as a presentation platform and also as a social experiment. It needs experts with vision. We are waiting for you to step forward.

Help show us the way. Not to fight, but to build. Build teamwork. Build pages. Build tools. Build departments. Build the best encyclopedia the World has never dreamed of.

Join the party. Mix and mingle. Start interesting conversations. Be the spark of the community's creativity.

You mentioned "getting Wikipedia ready for adulthood". That sounds like a good place to begin. What did you mean by "adulthood"? What features and tools would that require? What would a grown up Wikipedia be like? The Transhumanist 02:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I really appreciate the effort and intentions behind these posts.


 * None of the little effort I expend on en:WP these days is related to amending my Arb case, although I may attempt to try and fix that in the new year. I am trying to alert Wikipedians in a gentle way to serious threats.


 * In particular you may have seen the post I made at Village Pump. Editors' details are being subpoenaed wholesale - maybe because I couched this in slightly humorous language I have received no feedback from the community.  I, however, feel that the right to edit anonymously, provided no laws are broken, is worth fighting for.  Of course I choose not to edit pseudonymously myself.  But the vast majority of the community do, they seem however uninterested in this attack on their rights to privacy and the chilling effect this could have on free speech.


 * I have also been working on editor retention. (There are only three ways we can affect the amount achieved on Wikipedia: Automation and efficiency, editor numbers and editor time.}


 * I have also been helping editors who have been the subject of dubious sanctions, so far the items I have been working on this month have been successful.


 * I continued editing for a long time after the arb case. I didn't flounce out.   An editor who tries to forment disputes went to considerable trouble to get me blocked.  It's cool, it is just part of the Wiki-landscape.  But effectively my hands are tied vis-a-vis editing content, and my reputation, such as it was, is tarnished.  It is not unknown for Arbcom to reverse a decision, and it is merely an unfortunate series of events that led to the case ending how it did.  The vast majority of Arbcom are well meaning, intelligent people.  The biggest problem was the change of drafting arbitrator in the middle of the case (and that no-one was notified).  Leaking my first email to the other parties in the case wasn't exactly brilliant either...

.
 * Anyway, I tire of the case, and as I say, talking about it achieves nothing. I intend to persue a few of other key issues I outlined above, and I may potter or tinker.  But until things change there is little content-wise I can achieve on en:WP. Rich Farmbrough, 03:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC).


 * Then you are back! Cool.


 * By the way, talking about your community involvement has proved both revealing and interesting. That's a worthwhile achievement in my opinion, and a necessary step to earning back your revoked account privileges.


 * I'm still concerned about your attitude with respect to ArbCom's findings of fact. Your replies so far seem to imply denial of any rule breaking.  If and when you accept a nomination for adminship, the community will go over your and your bots' editing records with a fine-toothed comb.  So before then you will need to own up to any rule-breaking you did, however emotionally painful that might be to you.  Trust is based on honesty, and honesty includes taking responsibility for past transgressions.  To start over with a clean slate, you must first come clean.


 * Your current opinion on the types of situation that ArbCom expressed concern about, will also be extremely important. That is, how would you approach such situations that you might come across in the future?  For example...


 * If you were given the admin tools again, what would you do if you encountered a bot-running admin who unblocked his own bot after another admin had blocked it?


 * How would you handle an editor you found to be editing non-rendered white space?


 * Someone asks you what to do about a bot account running high-speed tasks. What would your answer be?


 * What's the difference between high-speed tasks that are allowed and those that are disallowed?


 * What is the proper procedure when you notice a run of high-speed edits on a personal account, with no AWB or other semi-automated tool tagline in the edit summaries?


 * What is an unapproved bot task?


 * What can legitimately be done with a bot on-the-fly?


 * And your views on other issues would also be examined. I'm guessing that due to the intensity of your ArbCom proceeding, some of the questions will be cutting or even wild...


 * How have you ruffled feathers in past discussions? How would you handle those discussion if you got to do them over?


 * Who are you more like, Teddy Roosevelt or Gandhi?


 * Do you intend to go for the top rank again on the List of Wikipedians by number of edits?


 * The community will want to know what your attitudes are, and that you do not feel that you are above or beyond the reach of the rules. They will also want to know that you are a people person and not a virtual cyborg gone rogue.


 * Repairing your reputation is going to take some self-searching on your part. But I have faith in you.  My guess is that most of the Wikipedia community does too.


 * By the way, welcome home. The Transhumanist 21:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * P.S.: I look forward to your answers to the above questions. I expect they will be most revealing.  The Transhumanist 21:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I have emailed you a brief example of why the FoF are an epic fail. The suggestion that (1984-like) I should admit to stuff I haven't done is not useful. As for the questions above, you will have to wait for any RfA for answers

It seems I always come across apposite quotes, in relation to the suggestion that we should here is one from Craig Murray:

"On the question of style, of course I agree that the objective of being an Ambassador is to maximise my influence. But you don't gain influence by being a pushover. You don't gain influence by never saying anything interesting, by sticking to the crowd.  You gain influence by being more informed.  Intelligent, articulate and outspoken.  You gain influence by being formidable, by being a factor that must be taken into account."

While I don't equate the hierarchy on Wikipedia with the people Murray had to deal with, there are non-trivial matters at stake here.
 * 1) The quality of the encyclopaedia, with all that rests on that.  Wikipedia per se may not be around in 100 or even 10 years, but it is very important at the moment.
 * 2) Discrimination. We know the effects this can have.
 * 3) Data protection and privacy.  This in turn can be life threatening in certain regimes.
 * 4) Defamation of character. this can affect the livelihoods of people, and more.
 * 5) Destruction of the community, alienation of contributors.

And it is important to remember while we look at our august administrators, arbitrators and other functionaries, that historically the roster includes sock-puppeteers, copyright violators and fraudsters. That is why process is important, we have literally life-and-death matters in the hands of the committee, who leak private information and make other egregious mistakes almost with every case. I should perhaps compile a dossier of these matters, there is at least one book in preparation on the seamy side of Wikipedia, but it will cherry-pick the "meaty" items, stalkers, mantemorland, essjay, Sigenthaler and so on. The truth is, appalling as these incidents were, if they were all there was it would not be a problem, the real problem is the ongoing low level abuse of the system as a tool of conflict, partly due to the abusers, partly due to the system, but mainly due to those of us that allow the abuse to continue.

Rich Farmbrough, 22:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC).