Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Rich Farmbrough/January 2011

__NOINDEX__

Automated creation of incorrect categories
User:Rich Farmbrough is again creating pages based on some script (I hope, it is the only decent explanation for the mindlessness of many of the creations), which generates a lot of incorrect stuff. This is the same thing that happened with previous script based creations he did (see the ANI archives for other examples of this).

In its current incarnation, this lead to the creation of categories like Category:Ice T albums (we already had Category:Ice-T albums), Category:Siouxsie and the Banshees albums) (there was Category:Siouxsie & the Banshees albums already), Category:Booker T. & the M.G.s albums for Category:Booker T. & the M.G.'s albums, and so on. Some have been redirected yet, some still need to be cleaned out. Thirteen categories he created between January 11 and today have been deleted. But this isn't a new problem, he created a number of similar categories in December as well, e.g. Category:Records albums. Over 200 were created and deleted at that time, but he doesn't seem to have learned from that experience.

The Category:Various albums was created, deleted, and recreated, apparently because some infoboxes list the artist for albums as "Various". We now have three articles with this stupid category, with the category explanation "This category contains albums by Various."

This is the umpteenth example of this editor creating a mess for others to clean up, because his scripts aren't tested enough and his edits aren't checked manually (or not good enough).

Can we please have an edit restriction on any automated, semi-automated, or appearing-to-be-automated page creation (articles, categories, templates, ...) for this user? Fram (talk) 10:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. I am finding this all a little bit insane. I have had to delete a fair number of duplicates—overall, there is a gross amount of duplication going on through this process. Nearly every category I check has some sort of problem—either a duplication, or an incorrectly spelled name, or something. The user is also creating categories for labels that do not have articles on WP, while consensus at CFD has generally been that if a label has no WP article, it should not have a category for its albums. More care and/or thought needs to go into the creation of these categories, so please, yes, no more of this category creation via script. It's creating more problems than it is solving. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: BOTPOL technically only applies to articles; I'd suggested extending it to categories the last time this happened, but didn't make the effort to really push it as a proposal. In any case, given that existing policy and Rich's existing editing restrictions, it seems entirely sensible and a small step to amend those restrictions and declare that for Rich, the policy covers mass creation in any namespace. In addition, somebody might make the effort to propose amending the policy, which seems a sensible move to me. Rd232 talk 11:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * All good ideas, in my opinion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 13:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment:
 * December The creations in December were all of categories that had members and yet were non-existent (red-linked categories). They were done in such a way that if the category became empty it was categorised as such and could be dealt with.  In most cases that meant deletion.
 * January Some of the categories created needed emptying, which has been done by an assiduous user. I deleted those that were emptied, however many had been created before, and I therefore re-created them as category redirects.  There is an automated process that moves articles between cat redirects and their targets, since people have used these categories before it seems wise to have the redirection.
 * Note: There is a lot of inconstancy over naming of record label articles, also there are notable labels (e.g. Compost Records) for which there are strangely no album articles, and (e.g. Authentik Artists) for which there are album articles but a persistent deletion of the label article. Also Category:Siouxsie and the Banshees albums is the correct location, (speedy rename being requested). Rich Farmbrough, 12:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC).


 * Comment. I don't think it's much of a defence to say that the December creations were just "red-linked categories" and thus it was OK to create them. Some of the categories were obviously inappropriately named, and many were misspelled duplicates of pre-existing categories. Users need to use judgment and put some thought into creating categories—like making sure a category does not exist for the same thing already—as opposed to just creating something because it was red-linked. When you see two categories— and on the same article as I did earlier today, you know someone's putting close to zero thought into the application of what they are doing. This type of problem was repeated many numerous times. Good Ol’factory (talk) 13:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "The creations in December were all of categories that had members and yet were non-existent (red-linked categories)." So why did you create and delete e.g. Category:Universals Records albums twice in two days? Someone repopulated it between the first deletion and second creation? Or wasn't your script list updated yet? Or the misspelled Category:Warnern Music Group video albums, which you created, modified three times, then deleted one minute after your last modification, only to recreate it three hours later and redelete it one hour after that again? Anyway, if categories are redlinked, the answer is not to automatically create these ctageories, but to check whether they are actually needed or just e.g. misspellings. That would avoid the creation in the same minute of Category:Switchblad Symphony albums, Category:Swithcblade Symphony albums and Category:Switchblade Symphony albums... No one has a problem with you generating a list of potentially needed categories, such a list is useful. But the automated creation clearly leads to many problems which could be very easily avoided, like the creation of misspelled categories. Fram (talk) 13:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes as you can see, as part of that exercise, extensive tidying up took place. The remaining categories from that exercise are


 * Category:1971 live live albums
 * Category:1976 Christmas albums
 * Category:1978 studio albums
 * Category:1997 (band) albums
 * Category:22-20s albums
 * Category:Alternative albums
 * Category:Anti-folk albums
 * Category:At the close of every day albums
 * Category:Christian alternative rock albums
 * Category:Northstar hip hop albums
 * Category:Samba albums
 * Category:Slapstick albums
 * perhaps you would like to resolve these flawlessly. Rich Farmbrough, 15:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC).


 * No thank you, I have cleaned up after you often enough. Fram (talk) 15:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well these categories are nothing to do with me, I did not create or delete them, nor did I categorise anything in them. I was just suggesting something positive for you to do. Rich Farmbrough, 16:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC).


 * Thanks, but I have enough positive things to do here, like creating articles and so on. I guess that most people who have had to tag, correct or delete your incorrectly created categories also have enough positive things they would rather do, but maintaining an encyclopedia doesn't just involve creations and additions, but also removing the mess created by others, and making sure that they'll create less mess the next time around. Your latest category creation of this type, Category:Chikayo Fukuda albums is already up for deletion (not by me, by yet another editor who seems to have problems with your creations), so you are still continuing this mess, despite the obvious objections of many people (and who in his right mind wouldn't object against the creation of a category like Category:Spigot Records, In-Effect Records albums? Fram (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * A particularly brutal example from today: Category:Mr. Bear Records, reissued on Spigot Records albums. Good Ol’factory (talk) 14:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough has now recreated Category:Yngwie J. Malmsteen albums, which was deleted at CfD (Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 23), created by Rich Farmbrough yesterday, and deleted by Good Olfactory this morning. He added it to the article Rising Force, which already had the correct Yngwie Malmsteen cat as well, and removed it again from that article some minutes later, at the same time changing the correct link to Jens Johansson to the redlink Jenshansson (presumably by trying to remove all instances of " J" from the article). That same removal of " J" resulted in changing the correct French interwikilink to an incorrect one as well. Note that all this happend with the edit summary "(Correct caps in section header.)", which was one thing that didn't happen at that article. Can someone please just stop this loose cannon now? Fram (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Rich even said to someone on his talk page offering to help clean up after him re the creation of bad categories Also might be worth watchlisting them in case I re-create them. What the hell? I've gone ahead, based on discussion, continuity with prior issues and a large dose of oh-for-god's-sake boldness, and amended Rich's editing restriction to prohibit unauthorised mass page creation in any namespace. I would expect the restriction to be temporary by virtue of soon being superseded by an amendment to BOTPOL. I would be heartily grateful if (a) we didn't waste any more time on this particular case of this problem; (b) Rich accepts the amendment; (c) someone else does the heavy lifting on moving forward the policy change. If/when it happens, the new restriction should be removed as redundant.

Of course, if anyone feels that this was too bold, and requires more discussion before reaching this outcome, well, go nuts. You won't be doing Rich any favours, since that will entail closer examination of how his behaviour, however superlatively good faith, too often skates disruptive editing. Rd232 talk 20:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * UPDATE: did it myself. RFC at Wikipedia_talk:Bot_policy. Rd232 talk 19:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Please do something. I don't know what I was thinking when I volunteered to help. I think the intentions are good but it has become quite painstaking to go through each one. And instead of just checking/correcting them, I also attempted to populate them, too. Whether red-linked or not, I'd check "what links here" for the label to see what other albums might be there that hadn't been categorize. Not a bad thing to do, I guess, for completeness, but much more of a laborious undertaking than I realized. The latest thing I'm seeing done is the addition of album categories to film articles because it has a soundtrack section (see Rocky II as an example). Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The population is cool, but not essential, the categories will eventually be populated. Thanks for your help so far anyway. Rich Farmbrough, 01:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC).


 * I fully support Rd232's amendment. But yeah, as Starcheer... says now we have the issue of tons of movie article being placed in "albums" categories because the article has a section about a movie soundtrack. I would venture to say that this would be a miscategorization. Perhaps a redirect like Rocky III (soundtrack) could be categorized in this way, but not the article Rocky III. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to ask the late arrival question... How are these categories being added? Manually, by script, or by 'bot? (One would think that category creation/addition wouldn't be done by a 'bot as it requires a degree judgment on appropriatness...) - J Greb (talk) 00:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * To me, it looks like script, though I am not sure. I believe it has something to do with what appears in the album template on a page, since he always seems to copy exactly what it says there, whether or not it is spelled correctly. It's not by bot I don't think—it's done through the account User:Rich Farmbrough. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a good point Olfactory. Excellent in fact. Rich Farmbrough, 01:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC).


 * Rich is also repeatedly creating categories like which have explicitly been merged and deleted via CFD. He has not learned from this ANI report and seems to continue to do what he was doing before, though at a slower pace. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The idea is to resolve these issues properly, rather than relying on the somatic information, if someone is creating an album article and they put in a label description that seems sensible to them they will recreate the category, or at least have to hunt for the correct one.  By having a category redirect these problems can be avoided, since a.) they will see the correct category if they look and b.) Russbot will correct it if they don't. Rich Farmbrough, 01:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC).


 * Yeah, but you didn't create a redirect! You created a new category. You've now done it twice for this particular category and countless other times without even realizing you were creating a duplicate. Maybe you should do some hunting before you create a category in the first place. ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Or it can be built into the infobox, with a switch reading the proper parameter and adding the category. Anything not in the switch list - that is the existing categories and known likely alternate spellings and typos - gets put into a tracking cat - "Album articles with unclear lable information". It may not be the nicest solution, but it keeps scripts from (re)creating bad categories. - J Greb (talk) 01:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that the didn't only repeatedly create the EMI category, but that he also created the now empty Category:EMI Music albums as well, which is one more to delete. Fram (talk) 08:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There is actually significant subtlety over EMI record labels, with nearly 100 listed on WP alone (Thorn EMI group was composed of several hundred companies), including the massive HMV, Harvest, and Columbia labels if I am not mistaken, and 1.3 million songs in their current holdings. It is by no means obvious that Wikipedia wishes to categorise some, many or all these together as your tone seems to imply.  Rich Farmbrough, 15:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC).

Do I understand well that RF can create (OK) and delete (as an admin) their own pages at their own will? Not even a Speedy needed then? (Deletion of self-created pages documented: "The Category:Various albums was created, deleted, and recreated, apparently because some infoboxes list the artist for albums as "Various". " as fram wrote above), Oh these admins. -DePiep (talk) 02:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As a note, and a note it is: RF is an admin and also an edit filter manager. They know what language is allowed an not. This person can block me!? -DePiep (talk) 02:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If an admin is the creator and sole editor of a page, I don't see a problem with him deleting it himself, especially if it is a very recent creation. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

What is the status here?
Honestly, how long are we going to let a person run a bot that is so fundamentally flawed? Someone needs to dig up Kurt Cobain and inform him that, sorry, MTV Unplugged in New York is now an Iron Maiden album. Tarc (talk) 22:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, Rich's editing restriction was extended now to cover creation of categories by script, so I assume he won't be doing this by script anymore. Right Rich? Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope that's correct. But even if Rich does desist from doing this particular sort of task, the latest episode is a further reminder of the folly of letting an editor use an unauthorised bot which doesn't even identify itself as a bot. Unless that wider issue is tackled, we'll just have more of these problems popping up in different areas.
 * I don't know why Rich believes himself to be exempt from the two basic rules of bot usage (prior approval of the bot and seeking consensus for the bot's tasks) ... but it's astonishing that this has gone on so long. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, just block him and be done with it. Does anyone believe that his creation of exactly one category per minute between January 16 20:45 and January 16 21:40 was not script-assisted automated category-creation, throttled to be at one a minute only to give a slower (non-bot like) appearance? Fram (talk) 12:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that he is now working on fixing some of the problems he created. The list he is working off of is here. (When I saw the list I thought, "holy crap"—it does give you an idea of the scope of the problem we have been dealing with.) Anyway, I asked him if he was still using the script and he said he was not. I have checked most of the recent creations and they aren't problematic like the script-assisted creations were. I am happy for him to continue if he's fixing what he broke. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Why, after so much drama already, is this editor running what appears to be an unauthorised bot right on the edge of what was explicitly banned? It's time that RF got a bot account, and sought approval from WP:BAG in the same way as other bot owners do. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about right now? As far I can tell, he has not used a bot nor a script to create categories since this discussion began. He's (manually) working on this list, he tells me, so the real issue at this stage is if that is OK or not. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Taking a very small skim... I have to ask where and how he's generated/generating this list... looks like a few "Doesn't look like an preformer" are actually preformers. And I swear I see at least one "Change the category title to a redirect" hash sign included. - J Greb (talk) 04:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be nice if Rich were actually commenting here so he could answer our questions. Maybe he needs to be invited back here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I invited Rich back to comment. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The reason I didn't comment here is that there was little to be served by doing so. There is a huge task in cleaning up the cats which will have to be done manually, and there are thousands on the list.  Certes many are false positives, and doubtless, given band naming conventions, there are more that are not on the list - as I remarked to Good Olfactory this is a first cut. I'm not sure why J Greb " has to ask" ' where and how he's generated/generating this list... ' certainly the question would be welcome on my talk page as one of curiosity or collaboration.  Putting it here looks like an attempt to keep the ANI running. Rich Farmbrough, 10:06, 19th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).


 * The long and the short Rich is that the list you compiled looks like a 'bot result - little or no evaluation done, just raw data. And I'm sorry for asking it here, but this is where the general discusion is happening and the list was pointed out to the rest of the community. - J Greb (talk) 11:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The list is merely, as I said, a first cut of examining all the album artists categories. And it is fairly raw, also needs updating. For these reasons it is in my userspace rather than being dropped off at WP:Albums. Many of these will be perfectly fine categories, and some that I have skipped will be wrong. However a good fraction of these need some kind of fix up.  Rich Farmbrough, 18:57, 19th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).


 * This is ridiculous. If a bot account functioned the way whatever Rich is running off his main account is, it would have long since been blocked and not unblocked without assurances from the owner that it will be much more careful. This is just the latest in a string of issues caused by Rich, whom, I hasten to add, I respect deeply, but who is editing so negligently that it's disruptive. He's racked up the best part of a million edits by leaving an unattended AWB bot running 24/7 for months editing much faster than the rules allow, then there was the tagging of the Main Page (yes, the front page of the website, the one that's viewed by 6 million people a day) with uncategorised with AWB and now this. When are we going to apply the same rules to Rich as we do to everyone else? If this continues, I seriously think it's going to have to go to ArbCom if he won't follow the rules of his own accord and the community won't make him. Sorry, Rich, I've a lot of respect for you and you've done a lot of good here, but the rules are there for a reason. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   04:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What is ridiculous is that an issue that was being discussed between me and Good Olfactory on my talk page gets dragged here by the user who's actions recently caused the departure of an esteemed colleague. I am certainly glad to see this particular "incident" is not gathering the same level of hostility from bystanders, it is still wearing and unnecessary.
 * The difference between a polite and friendly conversation started by Good Olfactory, and involving people who actually work on the albums (notably Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars), and bringing something to ANI speaks to collegial behaviour vs. battleground behaviour. For myself I prefer the former. Rich Farmbrough, 10:06, 19th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).


 * Rich, thanks for explaining your views on the tone of HJ Mitchell's comment's.
 * However, HJ Mitchell is not the only editor to express concern about your use of a bot which from your main account, without prior approval per WP:BOTPOL. That's a legitimate ANI issue, and it would be helpful if you would respond to the substance of those concerns. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not a comment on the tone of HJ Mitchell's comment's, and I'm sorry you would read it that way. In terms of the suggestion about running an AWB bot I assiduously avoided having AWB source for years, partly because I didn't want to accidentally end up developing it, partly because, I didn't want version control issues but mainly so that I could categorically deny suggestions that I had "hacked the source."  I was eventually forced to do that or be blocked. I certainly have not "left an unattended AWB bot running for months 24/7 editing much faster than the rules allow", although I understand that impression may have been formed. My average edit rate is about one edit per four minutes. Rich Farmbrough, 17:56, 19th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).


 * Personally I do not care how these edits are being made, only that they stop...either voluntarily by you or involuntarily via block. If edits like the one I noted at the beginning of this sub-section are still happening, then your contributions to this project are dipping into the "net negative" category. Tarc (talk) 18:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If you read the thread, you will see that that is exactly what happened, once Good Olfactory began discussing it with me. Rich Farmbrough, 18:07, 19th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).

Blocked 72 hours
I have just blocked Rich for 72 hours for (repeated) violation of his edit restrictions. Clearly, they are not working, and I propose amending them by cutting the Gordian knot thusly:
 * (a) Rich is banned from using AWB to carry out any tasks not specifically authorised via BRFA;
 * (b) Rich is banned from applying general fixes and automated redirect replacement via AWB, except where the redirect replacement is an authorised task
 * (c) all existing authorisations are revoked and must be re-applied for.

The intention is for simple, straightforward tasks like Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 43 to be permitted with a minimum of fuss and risk, whilst more complex tasks are discussed with due care with respect to the risk of things going wrong again. Rd232 talk 20:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Will this prevent things like the addition of unsubstituted date parameters in templates, which had happened in the past, and seemed to be solved or avoided, but which happened again at least the 18th at 19:37 and 19:38 and was mentioned at his talk page at 19:59; which then happened again at 22:24 the same day and which I again mentioned on his talk page at 22:37; and which happened yet again yesterday at 17:43 and 17:44? It doesn't seem as if just mentioning this on his talk page has any effect, and neither had the previous blocks any lasting effect apparently. Fram (talk) 08:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Please accept my apologies for reverting Fram's comments above. I rolled back from my watchlist and must have hit this entry instead of the one I was aiming at. Completely unintended, sorry. Struway2 (talk) 09:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We'll let it go this time. But if it happens again, we'll have to apply an appropriate punishment. Such as forcing you to watch every episode of Gilligan's Island with no commercial breaks. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Small" chance of that. Doc   talk  09:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That will definitely be on my "don't miss" list. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I know this has been suggested before, but I really gotta ask, do we really need the bother of him here? I understand that Rich has (currently) 855,633 edits on Wikipedia, making him one of the most prolific editors here and has done alot of good, but his blocks (all of which have happened since September 2010) have been about AWB or mass-creation (at least from what I can tell) and I am not seeing much effect they have had on him.  If not an outright block (of the indef kind...there I said it), then some sort of ban on using AWB (which seems to get him in trouble) and mass-creation.  Just seems that it could put some of this continous problems (and ANI threads) to rest. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 09:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Is a bot allowed to run when its operator is blocked? User:Femto Bot is still running. One can also wonder why a task that was approved to run with a frequency of "Estimated number of pages affected: Currently 1 per run, frequency likely to be weekly or monthly" currently runs every 7 hours, and whether updating the same 55 pages for one project every 7 hours is really an effective use of resources, but that's a different discussion. Fram (talk) 21:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the bot for 72 hours, I don't know the specific rules, but it seems logical to me that if someone is blocked for misusing bots the bots have to be blocked as well. I invite any admin who disagrees to unblock - I won't take offence. ·Maunus· ƛ · 21:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Femtobot does a number of things, you only pointed to a BRFA approval for one of its tasks. Rd232 talk 21:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the only edits it did where for that task (it also archives RF's talk page and so on, but that was not relevant to my post). Fram (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Please just indef block him until some indication that things will really change
Thanks to User:USchick, who nominated one of the pages for speedy deletion, I just stumbled upon an example of mass article creation from September 2010. Over 100 pages were created (all of them in the Category:Queen's Awards for Enterprise, most of them empty (apart from a date) and unsourced, and since then not improved (it wouldn't be so much of a problem if he created the framework automatically, and then filled the contents manually). A typical example is The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Export & Technology (Combined) (1975). These were a violation of WP:BOTPOL. Furthermore, as far as I can tell, we have e.g. the articles The Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade (Export) (1967), The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation (Technology) (1967), and The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Export & Technology (Combined) (1967), but in reality until 1976 there only existed one award, the Queen's Award to Industry. This means that we have three incorrect empty articles for that year alone, and that we lack the correct article. So that's 100 empty and possibly incorrect articles created in violation of the bot policy (23 page creation in one minute, 22:56 on 21 September 2010, is not manual...). Note that even when the article has contents it is highly unreliable, e.g. The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Export & Technology (Combined) (1971) and The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Export & Technology (Combined) (1972) have the exact same content and source? Note also in those examples how the accessdate for the source is always today, thanks to some parametrised dates..

How many more instances of such incorrect runs have gone unnoticed in his hundreds of thousands of edits? No idea, the sheer volume of his edits make any decent scrutiny next to impossible. But the more one looks at them, the more it becomes clear that the error rate is way too high and the policy violations way too frequent. Looking at his response to the block, all I see is "Your link 15 is manually corrected by me.", "The white space edit are due to AnomieBot getting there first.", and "Also the edit to Fitness boot camp does create a substantive change" (when asked what that would be, no answer followed). When the blocking admin stated "I'm tired of your excuses and playing the victim; man up and take responsibility for your actions.", his full answer was "I think I do. There is, however, an old adage, "If it ain't broke don't fix it". While I think there are limitations to that particular saying, it is born our of experience." I have corrected more than 60 of the categories he created, and many more are still in need of such correction. I now will nominate the 100 pages mentioned above for deletion. Many other people are also busy correcting the mess he created. This is a never ending problem (see Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Rich Farmbrough), and short blocks are not helping at all. Fram (talk) 10:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

RFC?
If the following hasn't yet been tried, what about starting an RFC/U on Rich Farmbrough? RFC/Us have proven to be successful and helpful. Given the fact that the amount of (expanding) editing restrictions, ANI threads, blocks of both Rich Farmbrough and his bots, etc seemingly haven't helped, I don't expect any further editing restrictions or blocks to be helpful. Hey Mid  (contribs) 14:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have confidence in an RfC being helpful here, it is not as if Rich Farmbrough isn't aware of what people believe is wrong with too many of his edits (AWB, bot, scripted, ...). It would just mean a month more talking about this. If other people feel that an RC truly may be useful here, they may of course create one, and I will leave my input there, but I don't think that it could achieve a lot. I may be biased by having followed some rather unsuccessful Rfc/Us, like the one about Gavin Collins, community banned a few months later, A Nobody (community banned half a year later), Benjiboi (indef blocked a year later), or the (only?) one I started, Requests for comment/Guido den Broeder, who was later banned, unbanned and rebanned... RfCs for well-established users with a wide range of problematic edits rarely have any success, in my opinion. They are better used to address one specific problem. Fram (talk) 14:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My question wasn't whether an RFC/U would be useful or not – my question was whether starting an RFC/U would hurt anything or not. I'm well aware that several (or many) RFC/Us haven't proven to be successful, but, if I recall correctly, Nyttend's RFC/U was successful and useful. If an RFC/U on Rich Farmbrough were to be filed, I would not be the filer, as I'm very little knowledgeable about the dispute and bots. Also, Rd232 recently started an RFC regarding mass article creation by bots here. Hey  Mid  (contribs) 16:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm normally a keen recommender of RFC/Us, but in this instance, the substantial repeated discussion already had at AN/ANI kindof-sortof amounted to an RFC/U. Combine this with the complexity and relative obscurity of the issues (most users don't know that much about bots/AWB) and the abundant prior feedback and Rich's attitude, and I can't see RFC/U achieving anything. However if Rich wanted one in preference to other alternatives, I'd support that, if during it he agreed not to operate Smackbot/AWB. Rd232 talk 04:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)