Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Rich Farmbrough/October 2010

__NOINDEX__

Admin tools misuse by Rich Farmbrough


User:Rich Farmbrough has misused his admin tools to speed up some out-of-process category elimination. First, Rich Farmbrough removed the "all articles" category from 18 maintenance templates, as far as I am aware without any discussion, notificiation, ... This is about cats like Category:All articles with specifically marked weasel-worded phrases, Category:All unreferenced BLPs, ... So far, this is somwhat normal WP:BRD editing, although it usually works better if you make such changes after some discussion and with consensus.

Worse is that Rich Farmbrough then went on to delete Category:All accuracy disputes, one of the categories he depopulated, only two days after he made the template change. He used the C1 (speedy delete, empty for four days) reason, which was obviously incorrect. His response to this was not some "sorry, I messed up", but "It was empty, but someone who didn't know what they were doing tampered.": a clearly uncivil comment, aimed at me, as I undid his emptying of the cats. He seems to have a problem in acknowledging mistakes, like at Template:BLP unsourced, when his addition of findsources had to be removed for the second time( (but it obviously is not his fault).

Can someone have a chat with Rich Farmbrough to remind him that he should remain civil, be open for criticism, and obviously follow the rules for the use of admin tools, like waiting four days before deleting an empty cat, even assuming that deleting a cat you have first emptied without any discussion is not a conflict of interest comparable to opening an AfD and then closing it as "delete"? Fram (talk) 14:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * RF again?! Sheesh, as if being sent to ANI barely three weeks ago wasn't enough. StrPby (talk) 14:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh well I haven't really edited since then. Strangers have made their home on my talk page and it's hours a day spent defending myself against a mixture of ludicrous attacks, reasonable concerns from people who nonetheless don;t actually read the replies and evrything in between. Rich Farmbrough, 15:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC).


 * This user has become increasingly recalcitrant - the "I'm right and will do what I want" attitude needs to go. Upon being queried about their editing they either go off on a tangent or simply stop replying . They also recently reprogrammed AWB to remove the edit summary that denotes the edit as semi-automated - an inappropriate maneouver in light of the conditions upon which they were unblocked. Perhaps RFC/U is necessary here? – xeno talk 14:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Xeno, there was never any agreement, moreover the discussion on an agreement, (5 edits maybe out of dozens? hundreds) which might have been useful, were not mainly by involved parties. Rich Farmbrough, 15:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC).


 * I don't hang out here too much... but I do see RF around here a lot... and usually not in a positive manner.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hm, I can see why it seems that way, there was a massive discussion a few weeks ago that changed title at least twice, but apart from that I rarely visit ANI. Rich Farmbrough, 15:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC).


 * Adding: talk evasion. Two questioning posts by me about these edits on his Talkpage were hushed, unanswered, to Archive within hours . After that, I received an uncivil snap . -DePiep (talk) 15:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * DePeip you know full well that was a response to your threatening "Harrass or talk" post on my page of a few days ago, followed up by today's "stick the knife in" edits. A "snap" is really rather a mild response. Rich Farmbrough, 15:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC).

This is not the first example of a unilateral action, although it is the first one I know of that involves rapid category deletion. A concrete example: earlier this year R.F. unilaterally edited Template:Portal and Template:Portalbox (protected templates), removing parameters that were actively in use, and then began going through (via an unauthorized bot job) to change the template invocations on thousands of articles to match his changes to the template. This seems similar to the case at hand, which also involves changes to highly-used protected templates. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 15:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikibreak for me. Enough of this hounding. Rich Farmbrough, 15:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC).


 * It is not hounding to ask users to comply with editing guidelines and community norms. – xeno talk 15:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Rich, from an outside perspective, this does not look like hounding. Rather it looks like multiple editors disagreeing with the process you use, if that is the case the only solution is for you to adapt. Or for you to win them round to your view with proper discussion. I strongly disagreed with some of the WP:LINK advice the other day, but when it became very clear multiple experienced editors disagreed with my view I accepted it and work within those limits. Such is how "working within consensus" works. --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 15:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Recently I have slowly been coming round to the idea that Rich Farmbrough is not a net positive for this project. He does a substantial amount of good work, but the amount of mistakes and drama he causes is now outweighing this, regrettably. I do not believe he can be trusted to operate bots nor the administrator tools. He needs to stop automated editing altogether. I do not think another ANI discussion will achieve anything, but not sure what the next step should be. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I strongly suggest an WP:RFC/U be started on Rich Farmbrough; I don't think there is any other action that can be taken here at ANI at this time. –MuZemike 19:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Again ? Really? Proposed: Rich Farmborough be indefinitely restricted from running bots, using AWB, making bot-like edits, or making more than 4 edits per minute. → ROUX   ₪  21:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, there has never been a formal one started. But I suppose everyone is used to the 150+ KB threads we usually muster from here, and the fact that nobody is willing to do any legwork, sit down and collectively discuss how to handle this without pitchforks and torches. –MuZemike 21:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * At this point in time I'd be happy for those to be added as an editing restriction. But I also agree with MuZemike, and think we can discuss this in a more productive manner then we have done thus far, so I would see a RFC/U as my preferred option from here - Kingpin13 (talk) 21:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see any point in wasting time on an RfC/U. It's just another month for Rich to evade criticism--oops, I mean go on a Wikibreak--and create more disruption. This page shows well over a year of the exact same disruption over and over and over and over. An RfC/U will just rehash what has already been stated. adding a subsection for editing restrictions. → ROUX   ₪  22:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The proposal is about botting. If I read others here well, it's also the word controversial that is a returning disruption (combined with high botic numbers indeed). This thread started about and misusing admin tools, and lack of searching consensus (like editing a protected template without discussion nor serious testing ). So I suggest adding along the lines of: "no controversial editing" and "no editing of (admin-only) protected pages", and "broadly interpreted". This all might sound harsh at first for the addressed editor, but they are the same rules any other editor has to live with when logging in. -DePiep (talk) 09:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit restriction proposal for Rich Farmbrough
Proposed: Rich Farmbrough is indefinitely restricted:

- from using AWB or any other mass-editing tool;

- from running bots of any sort;

- from making bot-like edits;

- from making more than four edits per minute;


 * Clarification: I intended this to be similar to the restrictions placed on Betacommand when he was originally banned from using bots or automating his edits in any way. No idea where to find the diff of those restrictions though. → ROUX   ₪  03:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Infractions to be dealt with via the usual series of escalating blocks. He may appeal these restrictions six months from the day they are implemented, or from the date of the last infraction, or from the day the last block from the last infraction is lifted, whichever comes later. → ROUX   ₪  22:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - as proposer. Enough is enough. → ROUX   ₪  22:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - seems like a solution to the immediate issues. Off2riorob (talk) 22:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Keeps making mass edits to add his own preferences to articles without discussion or consensus. So I agree that he needs to slow down, and stop making these bot-like edits, and stop using mass-editing tools to help him do this. His speed, lack of discussion/peer-review etc, have all led to too many mistakes. Including mistakes with his administrative tools, such as the recent uncat-tagging of the main page (which was done because he was making bot-like edits, apparently without properly reviewing them), and the changing of a fully protected template, which added ~"do not use this template in the article space" in massive red letters to about 23k articles (and it was against community consensus to add this template anyway - really needed to discuss (or at least test) before editing a fully-protected template like that). In some ways, even worse than all this, is his lack of collaboration or discussion with others when issues are raised (at times his lack of communication seems to be in violation of the bot policy). This is a shame, because Rich is a nice guy, but he's causing too many problems by using his programs to force his own preferences upon others. (I'm not however, convinced that 4 edits a minute is slow enough, and "bot-like" edits could be better defined). I've also left a note about this at WP:BON - Kingpin13 (talk) 22:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support While I'm sure he thinks he's improving the encyclopedia, this user has been making too many errors for too long and the "I'm right, I don't even need to explain myself" attitude must go. Can we add "from editing protected pages without first establishing consensus" to the restrictions? Anomie⚔ 23:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - This has been an escalating problem. Combined with the evasive attitude, something needs to be done. I think the restrictions need to be clarified however. In particular, what are "bot-like" edits? Obviously, making the same change to 100 pages in a row is bot-like, but what if its only 30 pages, or 10? Can a single edit be "bot-like"? Vague restrictions will just lead to more drama later when there's confusion over whether or not a violation occurred. Mr.Z-man 01:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support It is deemed by the community that his edits are disruptive. I don't agree with the "from making more than four edits per minute" comment though in case he's fighting vandalism. Secret account 01:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Too many controversial edits this frequently? Obviously, hasn't understood something. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  02:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Seems like a good idea. Being brought to AN/I and receiving various warnings doesn't seem enough. Bejinhan   talks   06:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC) Per explanation here. After much thinking through and weighing both sides of the argument, I'm striking out my support. Nevertheless, don't count me as opposing it either, because of some outstanding issues and questions Rich has yet to answer.  Bejinhan   talks   10:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Kingpin13 describes the situation perfectly: Keeps making mass edits to add his own preferences to articles without discussion or consensus. I've seen several instances where he doesn't like a template name, so he changes (moves) it, and then continues with AWB to replace all instances of the old name to use the new name.  This is effectively a rename without going through WP:requested moves, which should be the discussion forum for template names with thousands of transclusions.  Rich initially did not respond to my request to stop these edits and seek consensus for the move, but only changed behaviour after his other actions led to the previous large ANI discussion.  — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 07:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 'Support, sadly. Many of his bot edits are useful, but the unwillingness to openly discuss the problems with many of his othere edits (or, usually, some part of otherwise good edits) and to accept that his opinion may not (yet) have a sufficient consensus to be bot-implemented are a serious problem. Coupled with botlike edits on his main account, and the strong suspicion that he runs AWB without the AWB edit summary, and other problems, make me believe that a restriction is indeed necessary. We shuold be aware though that this means that a number of useful cleanup tasks will no longer be done. Fram (talk) 07:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 'Caution – be careful what you wish for. I'm all for careful editing, but this move to block one of WP's most active editors strikes me as being potentially disruptive. I hope there are editors here who know how to step in to fill the breach once the detritus-eating Smackbot is switched off. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Doubt It: We don't have that many bot operators, so without a bot like Smackbot, I shutter to think what we are going to do. I believe the part about running a bot should be removed, at least until another user, who has the technical skills and the continous availability to operate it, can be found.  We don't want to be without a well-used and much-needed bot like Smackbot. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 08:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Does he publish the source code anywhere? If so, we could just create a duplicate bot. If not, would Rich be willing to transfer control to another member of the 'bot cabal'? If not, this might not be a good idea. I see it as a "the pilot isn't ideal, but we're still stuck on the plane with him" situation. Until we have damage control set up, Smackbot is too valuable to lose. Sven Manguard  Talk  08:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think he did post some, if not all, of the AWB regexes for SmackBot the last time this happened, but I don't know where they are (or if he even did). ( X! ·  talk )  · @977  · 22:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a note on the collateral from this. He runs five bots. Sven Manguard  Talk  08:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, far too much collateral damage blocking this user from using/operating bots until a backup plan for them is in place. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 08:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Far too much collateral damage caused by the bots. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * While this is an important point; only two of the five are active ( and . And of those only SmackBot seems to be majorly active (to the point of doing crucial, missable work) --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 08:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but exactly what tasks does SmackBot do which are going to significantly harm the encyclopedia if they're stopped? Maybe the template tagging I suppose, but that should be easier enough to write a replacement for, and it only needs to run once at the end of every month I understand correctly. If I get the time later, I'll try and sort through the BRfAs for SmackBot and (possibly the other bots) and see what they're actually approved to be doing. But there are a large number of BRfAs, so we'll have to see if I manage to get to it or not - Kingpin13 (talk) 08:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Is this Wikipedia held hostage by a private bot? Wow. Unless there is a negotiating team with secret results, I'd say cut it and accept the (unknown, undescribed, possibely zero) collateral effects. -DePiep (talk) 09:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Reluctant support. He has shown he is unable or unwilling to adjust his bots to follow consensus, guidelines, and policy.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Support current proposal. Not to the point enough. As the thread shows, some requirement in edit with a consensus and not abusing admin tools is needed. Broadly interpreted. Still, I do not support any watering down of the current proposal. -DePiep (talk) 09:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC) (not an admin)
 * You mean that this restriction should be more focused on misuse of his admin tools, then misuse of bots/tools? Maybe true, but I don't personally see that as a reason for opposing this. However, maybe we should add a reprimand for performing controversial administrative action without community consensus? As well as possible wheel warring at Template:BLP_unsourced (if we see editing fully protected pages as administrative action that is). - Kingpin13 (talk) 10:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, is what I mean. And since other editors here (Kingpin13, Sladen, Xeno, Farm, e.a., who have had far more experience and patience in this) already describe this same angle, I leave this kinda strategic choice and move into Support. Meanwhile, we can see the future. There's a pattern. -DePiep (talk) 11:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support, with regret... demanding punishment is the wrong direction: all that is being requested is simple compliance with Wikipedia policies. Ideally an editor (admin) would police their own edits (bots included), especially if previously notified of an issue by others.  For several years I have experienced a sinking feeling seeing SmackBot walk across my watchlist, and have generally had to clear up after it: that takes time that could have better been spent on tackling vandalism or working on article content (I presume the situation is similar for others...). To just revert/clear-up is not constructive, so I have reported the damage or issue to Rich's talk page, with diffs.  I report bugs so that they can be fixed, not silently ignored as one-offs or super-efficiently archived in record time without response.  The archiving is having to being done because there are so many open issues on Rich's talk page at any one time—this highlights the core issue, (1) unsatisfactory communication arguing the merits of the bug reports (rather than just fixing then), thus keeping the discussions open, (2) lack of oversight on the edits being made in the first place, (2a) -at an unmanageable speed, (2b) -of a quality, or nature, that is not desired by the rest of Wikipedia.  The last time Rich was brought to ANI, the immediate concern was not being able to respond because of being blocked.  After some hinting, Rich adjusted his unblocked request to be on the basis that he wished to respond to ANI (this ability was granted within the hour, but then not used—instead once unblocked, the automated edits started again), and still no replies on ANI until heavy prompting.  Here, at ANI again, and we suddenly have a conveniently-timed Wikibreak...  If a user is unable, or unwilling to police, justify, or accept their own [automated] actions, then the Betacommand-style restrictions are probably going to have to be the next step.  I hope the door will remain open for Rich to reform and become a functioning part of Wikipedia again, but that further infractions will be met by restrictions at the next notch up and not merely slide back down to zero everytime as we have seen to-date.  My own analysis of batches of 50–100 edits at various times has shown a consistent 90–95% success rate (5–10% failure rate) which equates to 10,000s of damaging edits forced through for the sake of what are seemingly mostly white-space changes, template renames by the back door, or hidden-category fixes (aka all diff noise).  For those who are worried about the potential missed jobs that SmackBot and semi-automated-Rich do, I suspect that it will be possible to cover for these (and more) purely through the time-savings generated from not reviewing/clearing up the current edits, or going round in (the same) circles on User_talk:Rich.  —Sladen (talk) 09:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose, as far as I see the threads, nothing is breaking Wikipedia, it is just that either edits are unnecessary, could be done even better, or are not liked by some/many. Suggestion: maybe Rich can check the changes to the page just before saving them (it should be easy to check whether the page only contains changes of capitalisations, or whether there are double tags left, or whether the edit is practically going to be a nul-edit (I must say, I don't think I saw such suggestions, yet!). --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Rich is perfectly aware that he should be checking edits before saving them, rather than using automated tools to make edits without approval, or not paying due care and attention when using semi-automated tools. He's been warned multiple times by me, other editors, and other members of BAG, that he's violating the bot policy by not checking the edits, and violating AWB Rules of Use by using it without checking his edits properly. The problem persists. - Kingpin13 (talk) 10:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Then enforce that, as I say, 'either edits are unnecessary, could be done even better, or are not liked by some/many', and that is IMHO not solved by restricting the use of bots. If an editor is editing a BLP, entering the correct 'the person was born in 2010' (while the info is already in the infobox), then we block that editor, because he should have entered 'the person was born in May 2010', or, even better, 'the person was born on the 31st of May, 2010' (or should it be 'the person was born on May 31, 2010', or 'the person was born on the thirtyfirst of the fifth month of two thousand and ten'; whatever is added: BANHAMMER this editor, I say, he is entering a date in a format which is certainly going to be unliked by some, which is unnecessary as it is in the infobox, and it could in all forms be done even better!).  Can I have diffs of actually BROKEN pages after Rich/his bots edited (and it better be diffs (pl), and a significant number in relation to the number of edits which did not break anything).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * User talk:Rich Farmbrough/Archive/2010Sep, User talk:Rich Farmbrough/Archive/2010Oct, User_talk:Rich Farmbrough/Archive/2010Oct—my recent reports; searching User:Rich Farmbrough/Talk Archive Index for "SmackBot" and the dozens of pages linked from it should give some idea of scale. —Sladen (talk) 11:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Searching for the word "save" on Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Rich Farmbrough may give some insight into what is happening... default AWB has safeguards to ensure editors do review, and manually click save. —Sladen (talk) 10:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Noting, that Rich can do these edits as well by hand, entering a capital first letter for a template, or mistakenly add a closing and opening tag .. I think that this restriction is NOT solving the problem. If anything, the bots ánd Rich should be blocked indef for this behaviour.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * To Slaten: No: AWB does NOT have safeguards to ensure editors do review. You can still just press SAVE and ignore.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup, and given that this is contrary to WP:AWB and AWB's warning messages, what do you suggest? —Sladen (talk) 10:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If a user breaks pages continuously and does not respond to warnings, you block the user; If a user is, on his account, breaking pages using AWB, then you block the user. Same for a bot, if it continuously breaks things, you block the bot. So, what got broken (all I see are capitalisations which are unnecessary, some unnecessary close-open tags which indeed could have been removed, and some cases where an already 'broken' page gets 'fixed' into another 'broken' form)? --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * (I now see that the close-open-tag-bug was also a case of a template that was broken before the bot attempted a repair .. ). --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Example of RF edit disrupting a template. See current Template:BLP unsourced/sandbox: before/after template code together. (After this edit, in case sandbox changed). The error does not show in template-space (nor WP:SANDBOX). Now take care, know what you do or drop it. To show the error: 1. Open (don't save!) a new page in mainspace for sandbox, 2. Copy-paste the /sandbox code, 3. Preview & check what you see. 4. Then, cancel the edit (never save it). -DePiep (talk) 13:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, DePiep. Now, this section starts with "Proposed: Rich Farmborough is indefinitely restricted: - from using AWB or any other mass-editing tool; - from running bots of any sort; - from making bot-like edits; - from making more than four edits per minute;", and hence, I am, logically, asking for edits with a form of mass-editing by Rich Farmbrough (can someone please fix the title of this section) which break pages.  The edit that you cite, is preceded by this, and followed by this.  This has nothing to do with his bot or otherwise automated edits.  Last time I checked, Rich Farmbrough is a human (a type of creature known to err) running scripts and bots (which we suppose not to make errors, but which may propagate errors which are there already; as we said, the editor before the bot may have been human, and those are .. known to err and to make mistakes in formatting).  This example edit that you present could looks like a human error.  Now .. do we have a significant number of bot/automated-edits which result in broken pages, or are all the automated edits merely things which are maybe unnecessary (capitalisation of templates, certain combinations of close-open-tags, whitespace), which people don't like (again, capitalisation of templates, changes of whitespace), or which reform a broken format into another broken format ('(Sentence).(ref), (sentence starting with a lowercase)' -> '(Sentence).,(ref) (sentence starting with a lowercase)'; note, this is still not broken, both versions are however wrong, and that edit included 10 other things, even when previewed it could easily be missed, and what are we talking about, one comma!)?
 * So, I think the result of this thread is, that we ban a useful user and admin from editing using automated scripts, bots, etc., because he does not break Wikipedia with them. However, as was shown here, he does break them non-automated, but that is not what this thread is about.  I am at a loss.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 14:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * @Dirk Beetstra: Here is an example of a broken edit that occurred during an unapproved bot job to change the syntax of the portal template. This  is an error (the bare subst tags) that I have pointed out to R.F. numerous times, but which somehow has never been fixed. Here  the bot added a references section to a disambig page that didn't have footnotes to begin with. Here is an example of an error from September 2010  that was first reported in December 2009  but not (apparently) fixed. You can find many more examples of broken bot edits by looking at the history of R.F.'s talk page and SmackBot's talk page. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 14:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In his last trial run for Smackbot (but as far as I know, also before this trial run), he adds defaultsorts for articles that don't need a defaultsort, for multi-word articles where the second word is not capitalized. As I said there: "The effect of your defaultsort additions for different capitalisations is that in e.g. Category:Legal term stubs, Judicial misconduct is now incorrectly placed before "Judicial assistance", "Judicial deference", "Judicial economy", "Judicial estoppel" and "Judicial immunity". However, if you would add such a defaultsort to all these pages, the end result would again be the correct situation we had before all your changes, but with the added disadvantage of an incorrect defaultsort if any of these pages ever get moved. So: why?". So one thing his latest bot run breaks is the correct sort order of articles in categories, for no apparent benefit. Fram (talk) 14:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Also @Dirk Beetstra (edit conflict) It really depends on what you mean by "break". I think you mean to make the page look completely wrong, so that no one - not even Rich - could say that the page should be like that. I will just note that I don't think we should only be looking at these kinds of edits. There's not much evidence of this, there is however some, for example his tagging of the main page, which is a case I feel highlights more than one of the problems people have with Rich: first he runs a unapproved bot against botpol; he messes up badly because he's not actually checking the edits; doesn't discuss it well when it is brought up with him (although in this case of course he did revert his edit) again in violation of the botpol. This is of course just one example, but if you would please take the time to actually read through the other threads listed at /Rich_Farmbrough you would see there are many more problems. For example I quickly found this edit by looking through that page for about 30 seconds. Then of course, there are other problems, part of the proposal is no more AWB, this seems to make sense since Rich has managed to break every single one of AWB's Rules of Use. The rest of the proposal is more focused on bots (although AWB can be used to run bots, so they're similar concerns). As mentioned Rich has managed to violate multiple parts of the bot policy, so it would also seem to make sense (to me) to prevent him from using bots. He doesn't need to have actually "broken pages" to cause problems, there are many more ways that bot operators can disrupt then breaking pages. Some examples of how he's caused problems/violated botpol, not necessarily breaking pages: Consumed resources unnecessarily (relevant section of botpol); used bots for making edits against consensus just because he feels it's a good task (ditto before); failed to provide informative edit summaries (ditto before, example: recently made a series of high speed edits without edit summaries; removed "using AWB" from summary"; recently made a series of edits with a typo in the edit summary which caused confusion); similar to this is the problem of communication, too often he doesn't address issues fully, or at all (relevant section of botpol); making edits which only move around whitespace.change capitalisation etc. (relevant section of botpol; also failing to discuss bots before running (e.g. not getting approval) (relevant section of botpol); running admin bots on his own account, which has caused even more disruption then would be possible on a separate bot account (relevant section of botpol, and this, more relevant to running it on his own account). He's been warned again and again about these issues.. I think it's about time to just put a stop to them. I think all of the restrictions will hep put a stop to some of the things I've mentioned here. - Kingpin13 (talk) 14:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * (e/c)And of course, there was the tagging of the main page as uncategorized, which he didn't revert for more than 10 minutes. Not to mention the damage to community health that results when one user is allowed to repeatedly circumvent consensus and policy. If a new user came and made the exact same edits, he'd likely be blocked without discussion for running an unapproved bot. Mr.Z-man 14:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Carl and Fram. These are properly errors or edits which indeed break things.  Many however long time ago, and scattered through time, and mainly 'single' incidents amongst many good edits:
 * The first one is done using AWB on his main account; those are not necessarily 'unapproved bot edits', it is followed IMMEDIATELY by a non-automated edit (so I doubt even if it was an unsupervised edit, he might have genuinely have missed it - the result looked good, maybe he did not check the diff (yeah, he should)).
 * Second, single mistake in a long, long list of edits without further problems. Note, that here the bot does do it correctly just before the noted edit .. is this really a bot error, or a Wikipedia glitch; yes, Wikipedia has glitches, it is the only way I can explain this between all edits ending up in the correct namespace on two different wikis ..).
 * Third, the most recent one did get solved by Rich himself half a day later.
 * Four and five don't have diffs, but there it seems indeed that there was something wrong. Note, the bot was blocked and I presume not unblocked before it was really stopped - we don't try people twice.
 * Fram's example: did it go on after trial? After all, trials are to test things and see if things go wrong so they can be fixed.
 * Many more examples, OK, sure, if there are new tasks, then new errors/mistakes come up. Questions: Are errors generally fixed, and new ones come up?  Are there long, long lists of breaking edits, or are they, as most mentioned here, single mistakes in long lists of edits.  Does he not even respond and just continue, or does he try to explain that certain things are uncatchable and are merely due to mistakes already there, or which don't actually break a page.  I do recall that he was actually fixing a problem he generated lately.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: edit was meant to be just after Fram. I should have added, and I can add that still after Kingpin's comment, that none of those are presented here, it is just proposed that he stops editing using automated scripts. This section however is a subsection of something else, abuse of admin tools. I guess I should read up... --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not only "wrong"/article-breaking edits that editors have an issue with, but also trivial and inconsequential changes, such as changing the first-letter casing of templates, replacing templates with template redirects, replacing template redirects with templates, changing the ==spacing around headers==, and similar sundry changes. These edits bloat up diffs making it difficult to see what was actually done, and represent a personal preference that does not have consensus or approval; and when done on their own represent a violation of AWB's rules of use. His response to queries about these issues has been sub-optimal in the past. I really wish Rich would just remove these unnecessary rules from his ruleset and none of this would be necessary. – xeno talk 15:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As you know I dumped the entire ruleset. I am now on 30 hours plus working on this ANI. Rich Farmbrough, 01:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC).


 * I know, Xeno, and I see the point, but I think it goes far to present mainly that type of edits, although they are annoying (and I am all for convincing Rich to stop doing that), to actually ban an editor from doing automated edits at all (which does not stop the problem, as he also does it by hand). I am more for the proposal below (by User:Bsherr), and the use of blocks when things continue.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * BAG's authority really only extends as far as users recognize it. There's also a bit of a catch-22 there: in that a BAG member will dispute certain edits/request they stop, and as a result, some users will consider them 'involved' for the purposes of issuing blocks. See also some of the comments after Rich's recent block. I realize that this proposal will effectively stop the majority of R.F.'s editing (and also leave us without a bot to date cleanup tags) so perhaps someone should put forth an alternative? – xeno talk 15:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you Beetstra. And your point, by now. is? -DePiep (talk) 19:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Xeno, I think I gave alternatives, and I do think that an uninvolved admin can block Rich if he is to continue with edits which are .. purely cosmetic. Face it, Xeno, by far the most of the automated edits are NOT BREAKING ANYTHING, and some of the real mistakes I see presented are single-off-edits, some purely because the script is fed a broken page to begin with.  It is, and every bot owner will testify that, impossible to write a script that will take every possible broken input and repair it.  Some mistakes are inevitable, and if I understand Smackbot - it is doing a huge variety of cleanup tasks, and I presume that in every new task there will be unanticipated cases (hey, I gave a COIBot example above, COIBot is doing ONE THING with the linkreports, it does that already for years, and then, inbetween the hundreds of edits a day, it makes (over the last 2 months) 2 mistakes .. without that the bot changed in any form.  Bot mistake?  Wikipedia glitch?  Bug?  And now extrapolate that to a bot that does many different things on pages which are all pre-edited by humans who may have made mistakes already.
 * DePiep, all that are presented are single 'mistakes', and what you present is a human edit, nothing bot-like. Then this thread starts with 'he is doing something bad without bot', and then it switches to 'lets ban his scripts/bots'?  So why ban him for scripting/botting if he makes normal-editing-mistakes?  By the way, you swapped a comma for a period ..
 * I see the point of people, but IMHO a) you are not presenting it, b) it seems on single mistakes (where the bots or the script BREAK a page) which are difficult to catch, or due to being presented broken pages, c) on every mistake (even if understandable, or which could have been met with 'oh, lets repair it manually, can happen') Rich is confronted with 'you are/the bot is making yet another mistake, repair it, NOW', and d) a lot of the remarks are due to, I agree: unnecessary, cosmetic changes. Yet, for the 'repair it, NOW'-type of remarks on errors which are either uncatchable, totally isolated or pretty isolated (as I have shown above), Rich is asked to explain over and over and over (I understand his remark that it is wikihounding; I still think that the 'subst:' error is NOT an error of AWB, it is an error of Wikipedia, how is it otherwise possible that on all his date-tagging most, almost all, go right and some go wrong, and you do not see it in a preview, if I type here subst:something, it is only substituted on saving!).  Questions, and hence, my reluctance to swap from oppose to neutral or even support: a) Did he explain, at least once, why certain mistakes (which break pages) happen?  b) Does he make large rows of the same mistakes (which actually break a page) in a scripted/botted way, and does he not try to repair those, or are all single mistakes in long rows where edits around don't make the same mistake, but are editors still asking him to explain the single mistakes over and over?  And c) are we really asking for a ban on scripted/botted edits where we all have as only concern, that the edits are purely cosmetic, and that he should stop with that?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "are we really asking for a ban on scripted/botted edits where we all have as only concern, that the edits are purely cosmetic" <-- I'm not at this time. As I've told Rich numerous times, I just wish he would remove some rules from his ruleset. In my opinion, he simply needs to stop making changes for the sole purpose of aligning the wikicode with his personal preference that have no effect on the rendered page (even if he is there for some other, substantive, reason). If an alternative proposal that addressed that, I would oppose this and support that. – xeno talk 13:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Still, to me that is banning on scripted/botted edits for automated edits, which, albeit annoying and useless etc., still are purely cosmetic and don't break anything. There are other solutions mentioned here (which can be enforced by blocks) which are not this draconian.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 14:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I have not supported this proposal and would oppose it if a suitable alternative was put forth. But it should not be incumbent on uninvolved administrators to have to place blocks to get him to stop making the wikicode-equivalent of ENGVAR changes - he should just stop doing them. – xeno talk 14:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * See . – xeno talk 15:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I don't see why the BAG can't do this in a rational way, instead of an arbitrary and blanket restriction like this. It would be far better to channel Rich's enthusiasm and talent, under the step-by-step guidance of the BAG, rather than effectively end his most significant contribution to Wikipedia. If there's something proposed that the BAG can't handle, then I'm all ears. --Bsherr (talk) 15:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * How is BAG supposed to do anything? BAG's remit is the approval of bots. He's running bot tasks on his main account, and running tasks without approval, including some that violate the bot policy. He's circumventing BAG, its now a general administrative issue. Mr.Z-man 18:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I admit I'm not 100% familiar with how bots work but if one of the concerns is the loss of useful bots, couldn't RF be restricted to approved bots with none of the other stuff allowed on his main account? Obviously the bots be restricted to what they are approved for. Now it's possible RF may misuse the approved bots and we will have to block the bots anyway but it seems to me that's something we can cross if it comes to it, and hopefully it won't. RF would be entitled to ask for more bots and the BAG will consider those requests as normal. Actually I admit I'm not sure why RF is being prevented from running all bots if the concern is his misuse of bots on his main account not the misuse of his approved bots which are said to do good work. I do agree however we shouldn't allow ourselves to effectively be held hostage because of some useful bots, even if RF isn't trying to do that (in fact it's been a concern of mine for a while) Nil Einne (talk) 19:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That seems entirely practical (a rare quality in this discussion, I think). Though I share Ruslik's confusion below as to what constitutes bot-like edits. --Bsherr (talk) 19:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This issue has been going on for around two years. Rich has always been restricted to only running approved bots. He continues to run unapproved bots. Continues to run even his approved bot against bot policy. He's been warned about it before. Been told to stop before. I think your method has already been tried, and has failed. Besides, what you're suggesting is only what the bot policy already requires, so how telling him to do that is going to make much difference I don't really see, it'll just be exactly the same situation - Kingpin13 (talk) 19:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I obviously don't really know anything about the history here but if the problem is RF is already ignoring clear cut policy i.e. don't run bots without approval, and only run your approved bots in accordance to approval then I'm not sure if there's need to this or not in the current form. He can and should be blocked if necessary for ignoring policy on not running unapproved bots until he hopefully understands it's not acceptable. No need for long discussions since there's already consensus running bots without approval is a blockable offense and RF already knows of that policy. The only issue here might be what constitutes a bot, and I can understand the requirements for specifying that RF can't run automated tools that are considered bot like or more then 4 edits a minute if that's necessary. In terms of the approved bots things, isn't there also already a process for dealing with this from the BAG? When his bots aren't doing what they are approved for they can be blocked. Ultimately if he continues the approval will be withdrawn. If he's been shown to not be trusted with bots, I would presume he wouldn't be granted any more approvals or at least he will be under a very short leash. To put it all a different way, we may very well be at the stage where we have to ban him from running bots, I'm just not sure why or how we got here in this way since it seemed this should have been dealt with without needing any proposals specific to RF (except perhaps for the ones on bot like edits). If the BAG isn't properly dealing with people who are misusing their approved bots or if we aren't dealing with people who are using bots without approval properly then perhaps we have more fundamental issues that need to be resolved? Nil Einne (talk) 22:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - per this. Too many serious concerns over a long period of time, with no change in sight. Offliner (talk) 19:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Many of the edits that his bot make are extremely useful with the exception of some unnecessary ones which I can live with. We shouldnt be restricting a user fro doing so many edits that they fill watchlists. I rather enjoy it when my watchlist fills up because that mean the articles I care about are getting love. The more love they get the better they are. This is a very expereienced user with a skillset that is extremely rare. Especially with so many of the other bots and their operators being restricted (some for much more sever infractions than a few unnecessary edits) we are running out of people with the skillset to be able to run a bot. --Kumioko (talk) 19:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I do not understand how banning approved bots can help in preventing Rich Farmbrough from running unapproved bots. In addition, what is a bot like edit? I also do not understand how you are going to prove that somebody uses AWB or any other mass-editing tool? I also want to note that this thread began because Rich Farmbrough misused the admin tools by making controversial edits to protected pages. And what solutions is proposed here? Banning him from running approved bots? So, if someone misuses tools, the best remedy is banning that person from running bots? Ruslik_ Zero 19:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's dead on, Ruslik. That's exactly the concern. --Bsherr (talk) 19:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a general problem even with the approved bots in that Rich isn't operating them with-in the bot policy (e.g. not communicating well with others is against the bot policy). So in some ways nearly all the so called approved-bots Rich runs are actually not approved by policy. In ambiguous cases the Bot Approvals Group often decide if a edit is semi-automated, automated or manual, see the bot policy. But in general it's pretty easy to tell, for example simply the same kind of edit being made to multiple pages over and over again. However, this could maybe use more clarification. It'll be clear if Rich is making these kinds of edits, and the AWB edits are the same. It's these kinds of edits which are the problem anyway, so although maybe he could try and get around it and use AWB, it would be pointless, and wouldn't matter.. I don't think you should oppose this simply because of what the thread started with, this is more relevant then you might think. It relates to Rich using bots to implement his preferred template names, content etc. Just as he used the admin tools to change the unsourced template to his preference. - Kingpin13 (talk) 19:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support with a caveat or two. The first would be to exempt currently approved bots that opperating within the policy. And possibly those that Rich can and does bring to the benchmark. The second would be to ammend the "from running bots of any sort" to:
 * from running bots of any sort aside from those falling within the above list.
 * from altering the purpose of the bots in the above list.
 * from requesting permision for a new bot or to alter one of the bots in the above list.
 * from requesting others alter one of the bots in the above list.
 * That may allow for some of the "good works" to continue while underscoring the unacceptable behaviour. - J Greb (talk) 21:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The trouble is telling how this would be different from the present. Rich currently (same as everyone else) is only allowed to run approved bots within the policy(s).  —Sladen (talk) 21:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I'm looking at the hew and cry about the loss of SmackBot. IF that one is running within policy, it bay be worth exempting. Beyond that... I guess the question is, if this was any other editor, wold it have been allowed to get to this point? Or would the 'bots have been taken away from them without this much noise and hand wringing? If this is a special case where a community ban is the only way to correct the behaiviour and/or limit the damage, then the criteria needs to be crystal clear, even if it replicates standing bot operation policy. - J Greb (talk) 21:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I would exempt bots currently approved to continue acting as they do now. If this is too broad, can modify it to simply allow certain named bots to perform certain tasks as they do now.  This would transform a "hammer" approach into a "scalpel" approach. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 22:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If he's not using the bots according to how they've been approved, why cannot the BAG just revoke the approvals and ask him to reapply, as was done with SmackBot just recently? Why prevent him from continuing to use them both properly and improperly? --Bsherr (talk) 22:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Support some action per most of the above. I would suggest my modification of J Greb's caveat above and propose that emptying widely-used categories be considered a "bot-like" edit.  Normally, I wouldn't consider it as such, but that was part of the immediate offense here, which allowed him to try to justify deleting the "empty" categories.  Considering that this wasn't itself a bot edit, I would oppose this particular sanction, as it addresses a completely different issue.  --Philosopher Let us reason together. 22:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC) --Philosopher Let us reason together. 13:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Halfway tally: Again, a pointed ANI request is drowning in a "please explain again" multiline. Our best editors, with more right of speak than I have, have had to spend their money. And not a decisive admin in sight. Let me be clear: The way RF edits, is not the way we want it. Now you from here go, grand admins. -DePiep (talk) 22:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC) (not an admin)
 * Than what would you propose? I see three alternative possibilities - a short-term block, removal of admin tools, or a ban.  None of them strikes me as a great solution at the moment.  --Philosopher Let us reason together. 22:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not propose a single decision. The thread now is tentatively researching sideways. I think there is enough material for an admin to step ahead in main line. That is: to conclude. -DePiep (talk) 23:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC) (signing completely)
 * Oppose at this time. For one thing, the changes that started this discussion were made by hand, and somehow banning automated edits is a rational, relevant, and proportional response that will prevent him from making the same non-automated mistake in the future?  I don't get it.  It's like a seeing a little kid slowly walk into a busy street, so you punish him by telling him that now he's not allowed to run at full speed inside the house.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * RF is not a kid. It's about: why do they behave like such. Any suggestion preventing? -DePiep (talk) 23:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * comment At this point I have to ask, why is he still an administrator? If he can't be trusted to edit properly there is absolutely no reason for him to have the tools. By his own admission he's basically gone from one screw up 3 weeks ago to this one even after a break.--Crossmr (talk) 23:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - If multiple experienced users are having a problem with the way he edits, and these editors according to him are 'harassing and hounding him', I don't see any other way to do this. He needs to answer for his edits, and he needs to change his behavior.  I thought the previous thread was supposed to rectify this.  It obviously didn't, and something needs to be done.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 02:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support I support the current sanctions but in light of this edit and the editors lack of willingness to address the issues I would also support a ban. We don't need this kind of help. Adam in MO Talk 04:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support (wrist slap only), for category changes without adequate discussion – Seems to be the only thing he has done wrong here. I call this punishment thread a HUGE over-reaction. The punishment should fit the 'crime'. I will ask all assembled to consider Fram's original complaint, which has little or nothing to do with Rich's use of bots. I hate to see the angry lynch mob out, with the tricoteuses shouting from the wings. Oh, I remember the previous thread, where the OP made pathetic complaints over capitalisation of Cite, was an attempt at tarring and feathering for inconsequential edits, and for destroying the tranquillity of their watchlists. RF (with Smackbot) is the single most active editor on WP, doing almost all of the janitorial editors that nobody could be arsed to do. I, too, occasionally also wish that Rich could be lower-profile, but I accept seeing his name on my watchlist because I know from experience all he is doing is in good faith, and >99.5% appropriate and good for WP. Seems like this thread is a reprise by others who are annoyed with seeing Rich's name repeatedly on their watchlists, nitpicking on an apparent offence not all that related to his bot operation, and attempting to sanction him for it by taking away his bots.... I don't know how many of the presently assembled, prior to complaining that somehow they have been wronged, have taken a look at Rich's userspace, where he is highly transparent of his thinking and his daily activity. Maybe Rich is also 'guilty' of simply trying to do too much. No wonder he stopped blogging at 23 September. 'Multiple experienced users' can tune out his activities by clicking out the minor edits on their watchlist if they can't be bothered to read his blog. An editor with such a huge number of edits can be expected to have a proportionately busier talk page, give account for his actions, and also increases the archive frequency; it is understandable that some may feel frustrated that their thread has disappeared before they consider the matter resolved, but they need to consider its technical, and not any attempt at evading discussion. Just because a small number of editors did not receive what they considered to be totally satisfactory responses does not mean Rich did not make any reasonable and reasoned attempt at explanation. There seems to be quite a lot of explanation on that page, albeit it sometimes brief and geeky responses. This can be one possible area of improvement. The self-appointed "judge" hereabove has been highly unfair. He posted a "This has to stop" admonition, only ever having made ONE previous attempt to correspond with Rich on any subject, back in July 2009. I don't call this a reasonable discussion; the 'solution' he proposes reeks of petty vengeance, the underlying reason I fail to fathom. As to accusations of uncivil responses from Rich, I would note that there seems to be a not-so-civil comment from the accuser himself which may have led to that retort. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Petty vengeance? Retract that immediately. I proposed these restrictions solely because RF's bot and bot-like operations have been causing repeated disruption, with little to no change apparent on RF's side. The simple fact is that he is using AWB and bots in direct contravention of the rules he agreed to when starting to use them. → ROUX   ₪  06:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Both of you, please calm down and back off. Assume some good faith on each others' parts.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to ignore this, GWH, because at no point did I not AGF, nor was I 'not calm'; what Ohconfucius said were blatant personal attacks. I guess it's only blockworthy when I do them.→ ROUX   ₪  07:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "The simple fact is that he is using AWB and bots in direct contravention of the rules he agreed to when starting to use them." 'Allege' and 'suspect' are words you can use. Rich is still allowed to run scripts. I'm pretty sure you can't prove he's using AWB, contrary to his interdiction. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 06:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Proportional reaction, please. I've been watching this for while in disappointment. The thread is short on specific evidence and long on group outrage. I don't know Rich F. well at all, but I do know that he has made WP a whole lot better, and does a gigantic amount of work on our behalf. There may have been a few indiscretions, and perhaps there has been mounting frustration on the part of some editors that has burst out here like a volcanic eruption.
 * The four bullets seem to be out of kilter with the crime (in fact, they look a bit petty in part, given the stature and expertise of the user and the length of his commitment).
 * Indefinite restrictions exact a heavy toll on a user, psychologically. It is impossible not to feel totally rejected. A finite restriction is in order, during or after which one or two skilled admins/mediation people should, by arrangement here, enegage with Rich and work through the issues.
 * We cannot afford to alienate valuable users, especially those who've given a large chunk of their life to WP. AGF needs to be more up-front in the remedy here—not the all-too-typical easy, ham-fisted way out. ANI should be more positive, healing, and educative in its approach—especially where experienced users are concerned—rather than blurring the line between punishment and site protection. Tony   (talk)  05:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose suggestion, support wrist slap per Oh. I've been around long enough to know that: a) Rich can be curt in his responses; curter than many of us would like; and b) for some unfathomable reason he has blessed us with enormous assistance and positive contributions that far outweigh those of any other editor I can thing of ... with the possible exception of DGG.  The proposal is way off, IMHO, and for the reasons expressed by many editors above I support a wrist-slap, tempered reaction here.  I should add, that I personally found Rich to be shorter than I would have liked in my brief interactions with him.  But still recognize that his assistance to the project far outweigh my mild, personal annoyance.  I also note that those of us who have made more than 50,000 edits seem to coalesce most strongly about this view -- perhaps it is because we have seen more of his contributions over time.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No improvement in sight: only checking his latest 20 AWB edits, made this morning, there are problems with adding unnecesaary defaultsorts (as explained at the latest Bot request and above) here, here, here and here (why did that last one need an AWB edit anyway?). This one is a good example of not checking the edits enough, moving an article from a May 2007 to an October 2010 backlog. I have not listed his changes of template names and capitalization when he does another change to the template as well, like correcting the date parameter, even though such changes are controversial as well. But here he doesn't even make a change to the date of any parameter, but still made a change to the capitalization of one. And I have no idea what he wa doing here: the section=y was correct, section with a date is incorrect: and no extra "date" parameter is used on the "multiple issues" template, every issue has its own date. This means that from his last 20 AWB edits, at least seven were partially problematic. Errors will always happen, but this rate is way too high, and at least some of the problems have been discussed with him before. Fram (talk) 07:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Er no, Fram the expert parameter needs an explicit date, section is a deprecated parameter but can take a date, the template is specifically built that way for simplicity "Each parameter can be set to any value without harm. However, many categories sort articles by the month in which they were tagged. Therefore, please set the current month as the value, or the month when the article was originally tagged with that issue." The issue of defaultsorts is dealt with elsewhere and if it wasn't for the it wasn't for the hundred plus hours I have spent dealing with these two ANI's would have been resolved by now. The next example adds "Category 1974 births" to the article. Moving a few items into this months category is reasonable in the scheme of things - there were probably two out of 13,000, both could be caught by more sophisticated rules - again having to do the stuff manually as part of my response to the previous ANI takes time from tasks like this. Now I don't expect that you would know about the Multiple issues stuff, but I do find it annoying after I have explained so much to you about the way the dated categories work that you still automatically assume that I don't know what I'm doing.  Rich Farmbrough, 07:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC).


 * "Section is a deprecated parameter"? That's not what the template doc says. And which "expert" parameter? "Multiple issues" is not an expert parameter, and you'll notice that adding the date to the "multiple issues" doesn't add an extra category to the page. This "date" parameter is also not included in the template documentation, probably because it isn't used on this template. You state that "you still automatically assume that I don't know what I'm doing.", but I don't do that. I check what you do, and only then do I conclude that you too often don't know what you are doing, and that you don't even seem to consider that you may be incorrect. Making errors is not your main problem, weall do that, but the way in which you react when they are pointed out to you, and the habit of continuing to make the same errors over and over again when you should now better is a real problem. Fram (talk) 07:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I notice that you struck the "deprecated" part while I composed my reply: however, you replaced it with "can take a date", which is incorrect. The only parameter it takes is "=y". The "sections" (plural) parameter can take a date, but that is something different. And the basic fact that "multiple issues" doesn't take a date stands, of course. By the way, since my previous post you did two more AWB edits, containing many useful corrections. But one minor error made me chuckle: you shouldn't have changed the incorrect "date=1560-1620" to the even worse "date=1560-16-20", like you did in here somewhere... Fram (talk) 09:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No. Section can take a date. That is how the template is built. Al parameters in that template can take a date:  almost all of them support a date, only one of them has any behaviour that requires anything other than a date. The name of that parameter is "expert", I think.  It takes a subject name like "expert = trout" as an alternative to a date.  If it is used like that then a parameter called "date" is required.  Having a date parameter is useful, because it meant that all cleanup templates took a date parameter, adding it as default is useful because people who add  "expert" often forget to add it, or don't know they have to.  Unless someone has completely overhauled those parts of the template since I wrote them, which I doubt.  Rich Farmbrough, 01:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC).


 * "Section can take a date" ... which doesn't do anything. It doesn't generate an error, but it has no effect whatsoever to add a date to it, it doesn't add or change any of the categories. And the more general date is only working when you also have an "expert" as one of the issues: but adding the date up front is ridiculous, this means that if someone adds an expert tag in June 2011, it will be tagged as needing expert assistance from October 2010, which is obviously wrong. But thanks for the reply anyway, it looks like a typical attempt at looking for excuses instead of just saying "oops, my mistake". Considering that looking at your twenty latest Smackbot edits from this morning, there were still a number that added your preferred defaultsorts, there were still template capitalization changes, and there were among those twenty two edits which didn't fit the edit summary (i.e. no changes to section heading capitalization, only a move of an external link or an addition of persondata), I don't see any improvements. Fram (talk) 14:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Checking the responses the complaintant recieved from Rich all seem reasonable to me. If Rich says something was broken before, then I AGF that is what is so. Also, making something negative out of his "Mack the knife" reply seems out of proportion. His talk pages handle a large volume, and as far as I can tell he responds to every one that is not nonsense. I do not see any uncivil remarks. He is doing a large volume of "janitorial" maintenance and as has been said has valuable skill set. If it were me, I doubt I would be able to respond to that volume of queries on my talk page. He does and does incredible amounts of work with his bots at the same time. Also, I have personally benefited from his skills as an adminstrator in the past. He is one of the quickest responding Admins that I have come across. He seems to be very level headed as well - especially as an Admin. And I am sorry to say that this ANI does not appear to be the appropriate venue for the initial complaints which started this thread. And, agaiin, sorry to say, the additional complaints do not seem to be a big deal either. Maybe this is not wikihounding, but I am not sure this is an appropriate use of ANI. imho. Steve Quinn (talk) 07:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You consider "Now I don't expect that you would know about the Multiple issues stuff, but I do find it annoying after I have explained so much to you about the way the dated categories work that you still automatically assume that I don't know what I'm doing. " (from the post above yours) to be "reasonable", taking into account that he is actually wrong? Fram (talk) 09:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * He's being a lot more polite to you than you are being to him. Try harder to assume good faith. Jehochman Talk 11:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The above is not about being polite, it is about being unresponsive to criticism. Instead of checking whether a complaint has merit, he just supposes that he is right and that the person complaining is wrong. This has little to do with AGF. But feel free to point out (here or at my talk page) where I was impolite to Rich Farmbrough. Fram (talk) 11:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, do you consider it polite that he is discussing me behind my back with other editors,
 * This was OK for you to do at Village pump? Rich Farmbrough, 18:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC).

and is repeatedly stating patently incorrect things about me in those discussions? At User talk:Off2riorob, where you also felt the need to comment, he states "So I think, while there are still problems to resolve, (and I have submitted about 12 BRFAs to move things forward, plus reorganising the way my talk page works - I have about 150 threads a month to deal with) there are no "immediate issues" simply an editor who was peeved about a bold change and decided to report me for "abuse of admin tools" - which would of course make him, as the reverter, a "wheel warrior" - I just wish he'd told me he was reverting, ANI first, talk afterwards seems a bad move. " I was not peeved about a bold change, and I did not revert his admin tool abuse: the abuse, as clearly explained at the start of this thread, was his out-of-process speedy deletion of a category he had started depopulating only two days before. This deletion was undone by User:Philosopher, not by me. He also misrepresents the concept of wheel warring: reverting admin actions isn't wheel warring: only further back-and-forths can be wheelwarring. No such actions have been done. He makes similar claims at User talk:Kingpin13, again claiming that I brought him to ANI over the reverted actions, and indicating that apart from wheel warring, he also seems to be confused about the concept of WP:BRD, e.g. "Anyway Fram reverted 15 template edits and then seems to have taken the view that it is BR ANI." and "And my comment to Fram in the edit summary "BRD the D is there for a reason" was to encourage him to discuss with me after he reverted me." First of all, that edit summary was placed there a week after my revert, and in an edit which had nothing to do with the previous revert. But more importantly, BRD is editor A changes, editor B reverts, editor A (not B) starts the discussion if the edit summary for the revert doesn't convince him. 18:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Think. I didn't know you had reverted me. I had no reason to suppose that my changes were opposed, this is not the situation of two editors who are "regulars" on certain articles, and will see each others changes. Simply reverting those edits (which I did not complain about, or re-revert, after I had found out about them) does not tell me that you disagree with what I am doing.  You are doing neither of us a favour if, by avoiding the simple step of dropping me a note, I carry on doing what you object to.  It's not a big deal that you didn't drop me a note, but it would have been better if you had, that's all.  Rich Farmbrough, 18:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC).
 * Instead of repeatedly complaining to other editors that I don't follow BRD, he could have started the discussion at the talk page of the reverted articles, at some general discussion forum, or even at my talk page.
 * I could? Or I could have started it on ANI like you did. This has cost me maybe 25 hours of editing time already, let alone what it has cost others. And why? Your pride was wounded because you created Category:All Unrefernced BLPs I suppose - that's the way it goes, I created a bunch of the All articels.. categories myself.  We can have a proper discussion about their utility elsewhere, but bringing ANI becaue you were miffed at template edit....  Oh well.  Rich Farmbrough, 18:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC).


 * Similarly, he could participate more actively here and address any problems he has with me or anyone else here, instead of going to other editor's talkpages to discuss this ANI and my actions. A rough count indicates that he has discussed this ANI section on some 18 different user talk pages. Fram (talk) 12:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "A rough count indicates that he has discussed this ANI section on some 18 different user talk pages" and that's a bad thing? Rich Farmbrough, 18:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC).


 * I am also confused at your rebuttals at the users' talk pages, it makes it hard to follow along. And at least for my part, you haven't replied to my reply yet. Moreover, many of the responses are tangential, and do not address the root of the issue. – xeno talk 18:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * They are not rebuttals, I am asking editors to support statements they have made here. If they support with hearsay, misunderstandings, or assumptions, I am providing a little more accurate hard information.  One editor has withdrawn their comment to review in more detail.   Kingpin has agreed he was mistaken.  Another editor says he can't follow the technical discussion.  If I had brought these d disucssions here, not only would the thread have bloated, but the baying mob would have jumped in on every  thread, and no discussion would have been possible.  It is interesting to see people who have never spoken to me jump in and say "this must be stopped" but not particularly useful, especially those who don't know what it is that must be stopped.  I am reminded of a friend of my father's whose hobby was going on protest marches. He didn't care what it was about, he simply enjoyed the walk, and the spirit of the thing.  He had one banner that he carried, that said simply "SHAME!" Rich Farmbrough, 01:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC).


 * How come this last edit (by RF) has es section title: "spacing around header" (non existent), instead of regular section title "Admin tools misuse ..."? -DePiep (talk) 02:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a quick note on "Kingpin has agreed he was mistaken", to make sure that this comment isn't misleading, I agreed that Rich's actions at Template:BLP_unsourced, should note be considered wheel warring, having made the previous statement "[...] As well as possible wheel warring at Template:BLP_unsourced". However, I do partly agree with Rich that ANI thus far hasn't been very helpful at solving this, from my talkpage: "ANI doesn't seem to be resolving this issue very well, looking at this and previous threads. You can see that I, and others, supported a RfC/U, and this has also been supported at previous threads (also by me and others, if you do a quick search through your subpage)" - Kingpin13 (talk) 13:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose in lieu of . – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 15:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * All I am seeing is one trivial complaint after another. I certainly don't see this ANI as an appropriate venue for this. "Spacing around header" - I don't think it gets much more trivial than that. This stuff should have been handled on category talk pages, template talk pages, and aritlce talk pages. I can clearly see Rich's rational responses as compared to the trivial muck raking that appears to be going on this thread. "One editor has withdrawn their comment to review in more detail.   Kingpin has agreed he was mistaken.  Another editor says he can't follow the technical discussion".  Steve Quinn (talk) 05:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Break

 * For ease of editing. This section has already become rather huge.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 09:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Take the matter to WP:RFC if there are lingering concerns.  The user should be given a chance to respond to thoughtful criticism, and should have a chance to take any advice on board before sanctions are implemented.  I am concerned that this discussion includes comments by people who have not fully informed themselves of the circumstances before voting. (See Groupthink.) ANI is poorly suited to handling this sort of issue.  RFC would be much better. Jehochman Talk 11:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As much of his history, this discussion, and his recent edits show, he usually doesn't take such chances but just goes on and on and on. I share your concerns about some comments, but probably am not thinking about the same people you do... And an RfC/U is not suited for the discussion of actual editing restrictions, as it is "an informal non-binding process". Many people here seem to believe that we are beyond that stage and that formal and binding resolutions are needed. Fram (talk) 11:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * For an editor who has added so much value to Wikipedia, we should not be doing this on ANI. RFC would be much better. After an RFC is completed, if a sanction is needed, come here and link to the RFC results.  Jehochman Talk 12:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It now seems that Fram has started certain Farmbrough-like bot actions, and lighting up my watchlist like a Christmas tree. Where should I complain/who should I complain to?? ;-) -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Those edits don't contain undesirable, unnecessary, and disputed capitalization/template redirect/header spacing changes. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 14:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Knit away, X. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * RFC is a waste of time. It's a wasteland of pointlessness. It will carry on for a month or two. Rich is under no obligation to respond and anything concluded there is non-binding. Telling people to take it to RfC is like telling people to shove off and run around in circles for awhile so you hope they'll forget about it.--Crossmr (talk) 22:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * He was given a chance to respond. His response was to claim he was going on a wikibreak. That tells me he doesn't want to respond.--Crossmr (talk) 22:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - in my humble opinion, the underlying problem is one of unilateral actions. This requires a change in his approach, of setting up discussions, and establishing consensus. I think a RfC could address this, and then if we can't persuade him there are good faith concerns with his approach, we should consider applying restrictions. PhilKnight (talk) 12:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support in the interim in the mean time have an RFC/U his actions are not proper behavior for any editor especially an AdminThe Resident Anthropologist (talk) 13:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Jehochman and PhilKnight. Biophys (talk) 14:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion. Just came across this, don't know Rich Farmbrough from Adam's off ox or what this is about, but: the title of thread is "Admin tools misuse by Rich Farmbrough" and it appears to be about, at least orginally, misusing the admin took by unilateral action. Assuming that this is problem to address, I suggest admin recall.

Here's what I suggest:
 * No need to open a RfC/U, just open a section right here with the simple request for six signatures from editors in good standing requesting a recall. (This is the default requirement for recall, and since Rich hasn't offerred another via the admins-open-to-recall option, we'll go with that.) From what I see above, this should be a formality and take minutes.
 * Assuming six signatures, open an RfA. Yes that's correct. RfA's can be opened on editors who are currently admins.
 * I have to go don't have time now to explain how to handle the who-closes question and how to gruntle the 'crats so they won't bollix it, but I do have ideas. Nutshell: Rich doesn't pass the RfA, he's an admin so we can assume he's a person of honor, he'll step down voluntarily (If not, there are ways... don't have time to explain now, but let's assume this won't be an issue).

Granted Rich has not said that he is voluntarily open to recall, but that's a technicallity. BTW I myself went through recall and it worked perfectly well, nothing to be afraid of of. What say you? Herostratus (talk) 19:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "Granted Rich has not said that he is voluntarily open to recall, but that's a technicallity" No, it's not a "technicality". Recall is a voluntary process. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 19:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * rm "Another break" section title (3 deep): break is practical, not topical. It will flow OK -DePiep (talk) 19:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine then as I mentioned above, remove his bit. If he can't be trusted and we need to put these kind of restrictions on him, he shouldn't be an administrator end of story.--Crossmr (talk) 22:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough editing restriction: alternate proposal
Regardless of the editing method (i.e. manual, semi-automatic, or automatic; from any account), is indefinitely prohibited from making cosmetic changes to wikicode that have no effect on the rendered page (excepting those changes that are built-in to stock AWB or those that have demonstrable consensus or BAG approval). This includes but is not limited to: changing templates to template redirects, changing template redirects to templates (see here for AWB stock changes on this item, with the understanding that bypassing template redirects will only be done when there is a substantive edit being done), changing the spacing around headers and ordered lists (except to make an aberration consistent with the rest of the page), and changing the capitalization of templates. Furthermore, prior to orphaning/emptying and deleting categories or templates, the appropriate processes (WP:CFD/WP:TFD) should be engaged.

Thoughts? – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 15:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What about emptying and deleting categories? This is what happened in the immediate incident.  --Philosopher Let us reason together. 15:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Added a sentence, though that is expected of any editor already. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 15:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless a guideline directs such a change. There's always the potential for future guidelines on the matter. Otherwise, it seems a fine proposal to me. --Bsherr (talk) 15:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's covered by 'demonstrable consensus'. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 15:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Good enough. --Bsherr (talk) 15:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Support --Bsherr (talk) 16:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this has become stale now, but I'll revisit if that seems to change. --Bsherr (talk) 19:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this is agreeable, this has my support. Rich, I hope you will do an effort in checking the diffs before you save, and not save them if they are mere changes of capitalisation, etc.  Real mistakes, well, we all make them (as do our bots), I do hope your fellow editors will treat them for what they are.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Now that's a whole lot better, being a lot less disruptive and punitive. But how about discussing with Rich about the categories' name changes and moving, instead of immediately reaching out for punishment? -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 15:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. This proposal is more about setting a bot policy rather than addressing or remedying the allegations. Bot policy should be debated elsewhere. Glrx (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Policy already exists to prohibit these changes (WP:AWB #3/4), this is more of a compliance issue. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 19:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * We're prohibiting him from something that's already prohibited (using a bot or script to make cosmetic changes) and telling him to use the processes that he's already supposed to be using (CFD/TFD). Is there any substantial difference here from doing nothing and hoping the problem resolves itself? Mr.Z-man 21:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose there's also the prohibition of using even manual methods to make those cosmetic changes, and it looks like even if those cosmetic changes are made at the same time as another edit they would still be disallowed (without bot approval, which I suppose is already bot policy). To my mind this is just because it's difficult at times to tell if Rich is making manual, semi-automated or fully automated edits from his account (because, as you know, in violation of the bot policy he appears to make all three from his main account, without using proper edit summaries). Personally I think we should be stopping this problem there. With enforcing the bot policy and stopping him from making any bot like edits from his account, as proposed above. But would also support this alternative proposal after the original one. - Kingpin13 (talk) 21:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Alternate proposal

 * 1) Rich Farmbrough may not average more than 8 edits per minute, averaged over 15 minutes, with the exception of fighting vandalism.


 * 1) Rich Farmbrough must check a random sample of 100 edits from every 2,000 edits made by his bots. If more than Three violate the Bot policy, he must end the task.
 * 2) If Rich runs a task that affects more than 2,000 pages, he must first seek community consensus at the bot noticeboard.

These are based off the current restrictions on Betacommand. Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 16:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why you're proposing an alternate when there's a fresh alternate immediately above that addresses the concerns more directly. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 16:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose no. Doesn't help deal with the actual issue. Also, number one is too fast. 8 edits per minute is pointless, even approved bots are generally expected to be throttled to one edit every ten seconds (6epm) which is slower then what you propose Rich uses on his main (non-bot) account (bots doing non-urgent tasks may edit approximately once every ten seconds). Number 2 makes running bots at all rather pointless, because the whole point of bots is that they don't require a load of checks. If Rich actually used BRfA then they could just be trialled like any other bot. Number three is redundant to the bot policy.  - Kingpin13 (talk) 16:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hm, you use AWB? I already slow myself down, throw in extra breaks etc. When you are doing a visually trivial change reviewing it only takes seconds, if that. That's why the suggestion I made (which I will dig out in a minute) focussed more on size of task - it would be unreasonable to prohibit, for example, fixing 23 misspellings of "mispeling" however fast the edits were. Rich Farmbrough, 19:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC).


 * My point is that restricting you to 8epm is pointless, because the problem is bot-like edits, and 8epm wouldn't stop bot-like edits. I also agree then when using AWB (I do occasionally use it), depending on the task, it is possible to just take a couple of seconds to review the edit, if you are doing exactly the same thing to multiple pages (e.g. removing a category, adding a tag to the top, renaming a template etc. etc.) But some of your AWB edits seem to be much more complex, and would need more reviewing. Also, I'm confused, what suggestion you made? It's been a bit more than a minute, if you could find it that would be great, thanks.. - Kingpin13 (talk) 13:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No I lost it. Rich Farmbrough, 19:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC).

Take a break
This thread is growing long and contentious. You will notice that WP:ANI is not an option on the dispute resolution menu. Please, go to dispute resolution with these issues. This is not an incident that can be thoughtfully and fairly addressed by this board. We must stop the groupthink that's going on here. Jehochman Talk 22:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Statement
Thank you for the effort to find an acceptable remedy for the issues raised on this page. This is, though ANI. I stands for "Incidents". The incident reported here was that I edited some templates, and got reverted. It is fantastic the the community cares enough to post so many kilobytes of text dragging in every single thing that they can think of, no matter how flawed or groundless. After all the white heat of discussion will doubtless clear out the dross leaving a spear of burning gold. And indeed I am infinitely grateful to those who have challenged the more otiose suggestions, and in my opinion done an incisive and clear job. But meanwhile I have an ANI page of my very own - even with its own little archive box prepared - no doubt someone, somewhere is hoarding diffs for Arbcom. And for what? The word "Wiki" for those that have forgotten is Hawiian for "Quick". We do things quickly, we make things quickly we fix things quickly and yes, occasionally, we break them quickly. But there is always someone to tell us when we get it wrong. And for myself I am always prepared to pick up the pieces - and not just from my own inevitable errors. Today I fixed one of the pages that was broken due to too many expensive function parser calls, for example - sure there are many people that could have done that, but I did it. And I do a lot of that sort of thing - I have created literally thousands of templates - ever seen a stub tag on an article? That's using one of my templates. Virtually every article that has a tag is using one or more of my templates, and there are hardly any of the 5 or 6 hundred clean up tags that I haven't edited, fixed or created. I have created thousands of categories. I have copy-edited thousands of articles. I have made over 12000 edits to user's talk pages - anything from a templated welcome through a vandal warning, to a thank you or a near essay. I have worked on MoS, on policy, on guidleines and on BotPol, I have done a stint at AfD. I have investigated certain content issues in detail, and resolved disputes. I have filed approximately 40 BRFAs, made what I hope were helpful comments on other's BRFAs. I have run database scans, AWB jobs, built and designed processes for stuff I have been working on, and for others. I have manually tagged thousands of maps GFDL before AWB was a twinkle in anyone's eye. I cleaned up every invalid ISBN on Wikipedia with the help of a great team. I have had some three thousand threads on my talk page over the years, and no, contrary to what some would have you believe, complaints are very much in the minority. After the last ANI - raised hastily - where I was unable to take part for the first two days due to being blocked by an overzealous blocker, I have dumped about 6000 rules from my main bot and spent literally hundreds of hours writing, researching and doing other stuff which is 99% completely un-necessary as a result of it. I have also made some useful improvements to my talk page archiving and bot alerts and archiving, as well as created some rather nice pieces of code to do a few tasks around the wiki. So having said this what is the crux here:


 * 1) I edited some templates in a way that could be interpreted as a Bad Thing. I got reverted.  I did not re-revert as has been suggested. In fact I didn't even know I had been reverted until I revisited the template a few days later.  The poster doesn't even object to these edits.
 * 2) I deleted a category that had been empty for two days instead of four.

That's the "incident". What did Fram ask for? De-sysop? Bot restrictions? Editing restrictions? No. He asked "Can someone have a chat with Rich Farmbrough..."

OK so I have had some 20 or 30 people "chat with me", and tell me all the stuff Fram asked for, in spades, and a lot more.

"But wait!" I hear you cry "What abut all that other stuff?" Well here's the deal:


 * I have a bunch of bot accounts - that seems to frighten people. Well please come to BRFA and see what they are doing - the short answer is apart from two they are doing nothing. They have never edited (or maybe have 1 or two edits to create their own user page). So what about those two? Are they scary?  Well I would say not - the reason I have two is to split different types of work:
 * SmackBot does mainly clean up tasks, mainly in article space. It regularly makes 5-600 edits a day of which all but 2 or 3 will succeed inputting an article in a dated clean up category. Those that fail need manual work, sometimes a few minutes, sometimes hours.  SmackBot makes three sorts of changes in its normal run, the brilliant built in fixes created by the skilled AWB developers, its own custom, and extensive set of changes around dating of templates, and a handful of other clean up rules.  I threw in fixing cite redirects in early September and no-one seemed t mind for about 3 weeks then all hell broke loose.  Not a big deal I took the rules a out, although there was some confusion, partly my fault (and partly not!) over timing and one or two other things. Then the previous ANI blew up - both like a hand grenade and like Aunt Petunia. As a result I pulled out ALL the second and third class of rules.   Seems responsive?  Ditching hundreds of hours of work to keep people happy? Maybe. As a result SmackBot is a shadow of its former self, and needs human assistance to run.  This has been explained clearly but there are still those who don't get it.  Let me say again - all custom F&R  rules have been dropped subject to BRFA. Every one. Even though this introduces bugs that I have to clean up.
 * Femto Bot is a much much smaller bot, and busies itself around my talk page, BRFA, creating categories, updating backlog pages and that sort of stuff.  Smarter, more like Beezle maybe -even though it seems to be staging a minor rebellion right now - maybe it senses that I'm not giving it much attention.

So these bots are fully (or almost fully) under my control, and performing according to BRFAs - Femto's can be seen neatly laid out on its user page, as that is one of its jobs. SmackBot's are a bit of a mess as I was refactoring them after the last little difficulty - but they are all there. But the crux is these bots are not germane to "the incident" and not a threat.

What about my other edits? Well yes it's true that I edit a lot, and that I use AWB - it's fantastic, anyone who has a repetitive change to make, or wants to spell check a bunch of articles (as I was doing to the WP 0.8 articles before things went pear shaped - there were thousands with errors - which I presume have now been shipped), or even just wants a quick preliminary clean up of one article should use it. It's also true that I try and take frequent breaks, keep my editing speed down to 3 a minute or maybe do a bunch pause, do a bunch, or do them at about 1 per minute between other tasks - because it keep people happy - and it is also true that it's a terrible waste of my time and I should just BRFA the job and put it aside for however long the BRFA takes.

So here we are - what is to be gained by limiting my editing speed? By banning my bots? By removing my AWB bit or admin bit? If there is a problem, there is my talk page, there is email, there is a stop mechanism for SmackBot. Conversely if you need a database scan, an AWB run, a template crafting, or a bot task carrying out there is my talk page - there are other places too - but I think it fair to say I am not just a net contributor to the project, I am a substantial contributor.

Response
Rich Farmbrough, 03:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC).


 * I don't mean to sound rude, insulting, or off-putting, but it is rather wrong of you to list your talk page as an option, given the several examples given above where you archive without solving the raised issue. This does need to be fixed, as I told you on my talk page.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 05:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you Rich. I was going to say some of the same things you have said. If there is a problem bots can be stopped until the issue is solved. Also, these issues should have been brought to category talk pages, or template talk pages, or article talk pages, or even bot talk pages. Bots have talk pages, and I know on some bots any query on their talk page automatically stops the bot. There is also the possiblity of asking Rich to respond on any editor's personal talk page, and from experience, I know that Rich will respond. There was no need for this ANI. ANI is a step taken to deal with editors who show no willingness or ability to edit according Wikipedia guidelines and policies. This ANI was not about that. How could Rich possibly have an overall long term success rate creating useful templates, and also be effective as an Admin if he did not fit in with the Wikipedia culture.


 * Also, what just came to mind, is how many people really understand the technical issues? Those issues, in particular need to be handled at a different forum.


 * I think what happened here is patently unfair. This is becasue, as stated above, there were no issues that could not have been handled elsewhere, first. Also the allegations of him not reponding on his talk page appears to be very one sided, because there are obviously a lot of other options open for communication. First, walk in his shoes. Looking at what Rich does on any given day shows me that he is one of the busiest editors on Wikipedia.


 * I believe he has effectively cleared the air here. And he is only human. He cannot be expected to function as a robot. Also let us keep in mind that he has volunteered to accomplish hurclean amounts of work. And I don't think this is appreciated, as shown by this ANI. Also, really, that template does not belong in an ANI discussion. It is a quite over-the-top. Could someone please remove it? Steve Quinn (talk) 06:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There was one other thing that stood out. If there is an edit that Rich did that you don't like, then revert it. There is no need to make a big deal out of it. As Rich himself stated earlier, he didn't even notice for a couple of days. I doubt having his edits reverted here or there, where editors disagree is really going to matter to Rich. Especially, given the large volume of work he accomplishes, on any given day, week or month. And yes, I agree that Rich is a substantial contributor to Wikipedia. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC) 06:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have. Nowhere during that walk did I see it justifiable to remove the query whilst refusing to respond to it.  If I were busy, I would leave it there so I wouldn't forget when I did have time to address and fix it.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 08:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Steve, thanks for your comments. However, I have to say, they frankly seem very uninformed, and I suspect just what you’ve picked up from reading this thread or something. Because a number of the things you say don’t make much sense. For example, you criticise users for not having stopped the bot or discussed it on talk pages. Now fairly recently the bot was in fact blocked, for making small cosmetic changes only. Was the issue resolved? No. But Rich still seemed to think it was okay to unblock the bot himself (noting as he did so that it hadn't been fully resolved), to continue running it. It was blocked again, and then unblocked when Rich indicated the issue was resolved. Is the issue resolved? No, I wouldn’t say so, considering Rich simply turned it off on the bot (although the bot is still making cosmetic change even today, it isn’t purely cosmetic), and started making the edits from his own account instead (e.g. here, and here). Is this the kind of response you are praising in your comment? Also you say about a message to the talk page stopping the bot. This is true for SmackBot, also should be true for Rich when he is running AWB (this is a feature built into AWB). And yet, when messages are left on the talk pages, Rich has appeared to simply ignore it (presumably getting rid of the new page banner by visiting his talk page, or changing the AWB code), and continued to do the editing the message was about (see User_talk:Rich_Farmbrough/Archive/2010Oct for an example). I saw a user complaining about this just recently. It’s also quite clear that Rich is breaking the bot policy regularly (for example running bots on his main account). Has been warned about it breaking it (and also received a block, see here). Continues to break it. Is this the willingness to edit according Wikipedia’s policies? As to technical knowledge, a number of BAG members have commented here (myself included). It’s amusing that you say “And he is only human. He cannot be expected to function as a robot.” Considering Rich appears to very often run robots on his account (in violation of the bot policy, for example the edit which placed Uncategorized on the main page, was apparently run by a bot, if not then it was a clear lack of compliance with AWB, which is just as big an issue). A problem which comes from this is that Rich makes a lot of edits from his account. That means it’s very difficult to keep track of what’s going on, and very difficult to simply revert the edits as you suggest (again a rather uninformed suggestion, considering that when an editor did just that at Theorem, Rich simply reverted the edit back). I would encourage you not to criticize users for not having attempted to take these courses of action before ANI, when they already have, and it hasn’t worked. - Kingpin13 (talk) 13:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Kinda Important
 * The above is reasonable guesses from reading the block log. I am going to address only the Uccha block, the first mentioned.
 * The block was not due to any of the other factors that have been complained about - it was a one off that was quite reasonable, although a stop would have been just as good, Uccha was not to know that.
 * The unblock was not to "willy nilly" continue but because the problem was fixed - the symptom however can recur. As I have pointed out many times, there is an approximately 0.3% rate of failing to get an article into it's correct dated category - and that I then sort those articles manually.  (This is also explained in detail on my FAQ.) This is perfectly acceptable, because it does not require re-work and does not create any problems.  That is what I referred to when I said "as far as it can be" - the symptom not the problem.
 * Further I had discussed with the blocking admin about the problem before the block they said on blocking:
 * The unblock was not to "willy nilly" continue but because the problem was fixed - the symptom however can recur. As I have pointed out many times, there is an approximately 0.3% rate of failing to get an article into it's correct dated category - and that I then sort those articles manually.  (This is also explained in detail on my FAQ.) This is perfectly acceptable, because it does not require re-work and does not create any problems.  That is what I referred to when I said "as far as it can be" - the symptom not the problem.
 * Further I had discussed with the blocking admin about the problem before the block they said on blocking:
 * Further I had discussed with the blocking admin about the problem before the block they said on blocking:


 * As SmackBot was still doing the same thing, I've now blocked it. Feel free to unblock when you've fixed the problem. Ucucha 13:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There are two factors to consider here
 * because of the sheer volume of work there will be more incidents. (For example SmackBot gets a message about every 10,000 edits. I get one about every 200 edits.) Comparing them with a user who has maybe edited 120 article on tran-Siberian railways, making a total of 10,000 edits and concluding that I am a "worse" editor because there are more incidents is fallacious anyway.
 * Even looking at the list in relative terms is not valid. This is elementary probability theory. Do I have to explain it or do you all get it?
 * Rich Farmbrough, 20:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC).


 * chunk refactored
 * (to avoid Steve's comment being out of context, here is a link to the changes made to my message since this post below - Kingpin13 (talk) 19:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC))
 * Kingpin, you have just made a number of assertions. I would appreciate it if you would please provide diffs to back these up. Also, your account sounds very one sided. My experience with Rich is that he is a reasonable person. So I am willing to bet he provided some sort of ratiionale for his actions. This is why diffs in this matter would make the difference, because your account above, differs from my experience. Also it differes from what I have observed on his talk page. His talk page has many people who ask questions, to which he provides a reasonable response. I notice that sometimes when other editors become demanding, or make accusations (maybe without merit), he does not have time for this. And the place to deal with more involved issues is on the relevant talk page - just tell him there is a discussion taking place at such and such a talk page. This gives him the opportunity to continue his work, check on the discussion as it develops, and respond where necessary. In any case, please provide diffs, or this conversation is still very one-sided.
 * (to avoid Steve's comment being out of context, here is a link to the changes made to my message since this post below - Kingpin13 (talk) 19:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC))
 * Kingpin, you have just made a number of assertions. I would appreciate it if you would please provide diffs to back these up. Also, your account sounds very one sided. My experience with Rich is that he is a reasonable person. So I am willing to bet he provided some sort of ratiionale for his actions. This is why diffs in this matter would make the difference, because your account above, differs from my experience. Also it differes from what I have observed on his talk page. His talk page has many people who ask questions, to which he provides a reasonable response. I notice that sometimes when other editors become demanding, or make accusations (maybe without merit), he does not have time for this. And the place to deal with more involved issues is on the relevant talk page - just tell him there is a discussion taking place at such and such a talk page. This gives him the opportunity to continue his work, check on the discussion as it develops, and respond where necessary. In any case, please provide diffs, or this conversation is still very one-sided.
 * (to avoid Steve's comment being out of context, here is a link to the changes made to my message since this post below - Kingpin13 (talk) 19:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC))
 * Kingpin, you have just made a number of assertions. I would appreciate it if you would please provide diffs to back these up. Also, your account sounds very one sided. My experience with Rich is that he is a reasonable person. So I am willing to bet he provided some sort of ratiionale for his actions. This is why diffs in this matter would make the difference, because your account above, differs from my experience. Also it differes from what I have observed on his talk page. His talk page has many people who ask questions, to which he provides a reasonable response. I notice that sometimes when other editors become demanding, or make accusations (maybe without merit), he does not have time for this. And the place to deal with more involved issues is on the relevant talk page - just tell him there is a discussion taking place at such and such a talk page. This gives him the opportunity to continue his work, check on the discussion as it develops, and respond where necessary. In any case, please provide diffs, or this conversation is still very one-sided.


 * Furthermore, as per his statement above, he has already gutted his bots, and human assistance is required. I don't see that he can do anymore. In addition, if you and a few others are technically savvy I think it would be appropriate to discuss the technical stuff in another forum with Rich. Heck, why not use your talk page, Kingpin? Steve Quinn (talk) 18:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, I not talking about following him around so his edits can be reverted wherever he goes, as you suggest, by keeping track of his account. Apparently, that is what you have in mind (see above) - I think that is uninformed. I am guessing it is understood what I meant, but I will pretend that it is not understood and be more explicit. If an editor happens to notice an edit that he or she does not agree with, then simply revert. And if Rich decides to revert the edit that still does not warrant an ANI. Did anyone say "Hey, Rich, there is a discussion on the Theorem talk page regarding your recent edit, please attend." I doubt it. I bet someone went scre-e-e-e-aming over to his talk page. How productive is that? Certainly not as productive as building consensus or agreement on the article's talk page.  Steve Quinn (talk) 18:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Dædαlus, you really seemed to be focused on this one issue. He has already explained that with the amount of traffic his talk page gets, he has to archive a lot sooner than most people. I doubt he removed the query. I am guessing the query got archived, before you came back to see his response. It was a timing issue. If he does not archive at a certain rate, his talk page would grow to unmanageable proportions.


 * Please provide a diff of the particular query, and I will pull if from the archives to see if there was indeed a response. Keep in mind Rich has to keep on top of stuff, and serve his own needs as well. He has right to do that, in order to stay organzied and do his job here. I reccomend that in the future you ask Rich to respond on your talk page, and continue any discussion on your talk page. This is because any query on his talk page will be archived much quicker than most talk pages. Steve Quinn (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * My assertions are based mainly on memory and experience, unlike some of your own which appear to be simple guess work (for example "I bet someone went scre-e-e-e-aming over to his talk page", which did not happen in this case). But sure, I can provide links if you need them. If you don't mind I'll add them to my previous message to avoid repetition (I'll add a link to the diff to avoid your comment being taken out of context). While he may have taken out the purely cosmetic changes from SmackBot, it is still making cosmetic changes to pages. He is also apparently running around after it making the exact same changes, which kind of defeats the point of turning them off on SmackBot (and is also making purely cosmetic changes from his own account: refer to my previous message).What "technical stuff" is there to discuss? And my talk page is not the correct place to discuss Rich.. Rich's talk page is. Why is there a problem with posting to his talk page? And using article talk pages isn't appropriate, because as I mentioned before Rich is running unapproved bots/running semi-automated processes/running broken bots. You know what bots do? Make effectively the same edits, over, and over, and over again. It wouldn't be realistic or sensible to raise the issues at the articles' talk pages. Similarly, this makes it pointless and petty to revert an edit, because that same edit is being made to hundreds upon hundreds of other pages. Also, as Rich said he normally ignores reverts to his edits, so this isn't going to help communication is it? Also, per BRD (which Rich apparently supports) Rich should be the one to discuss, since he's making the change. So it's hypocritical to not accuse Rich of not discussing, but accuse only other editors. - Kingpin13 (talk) 19:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In response to your message to Dædαlus. Rich now manually indicates to User:Femto Bot when a thread is ready for archival, and the archiving of threads on his talk page has nothing to do with the time. He does not archive at a certain rate. You really need to review the facts before making these kinds of comments here. - Kingpin13 (talk) 19:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Concerning Dædαlus, once again you have misconstrued what I am saying. Apparently we are all supposed to conform to your point of view in this matter. Steve Quinn (talk) 19:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? You said it was a timing issue, timing is irrelevant since Rich manually decides when a thread is resolved, and indicates that it should be archived. The timing has nothing to do with the archival, it's his responsibility to make sure threads aren't archived too soon or before issues are resolved (for example, I didn't feel that my concerns raised here were addressed properly before Rich decided he's had enough discussing and archived the section). You also say "If he does not archive at a certain rate [...]", which indicates you think he archives at a certain rate, which he doesn't. This suggests to me you aren't actually fully aware of how Rich's talk page is managed, and I hoped to inform you of the facts of how it is archived. Nothing in my comment was a point of view (except maybe the last comment): "Rich now manually indicates to User:Femto Bot when a thread is ready for archival" is undeniably true, not a point of view. "... the archiving of threads on his talk page has nothing to do with the time" Although of course, Rich's judgement as to if a thread is ready for archival might include considering the time since the last comment. From your message you seem to indicate that you think Rich's talk page archiving is done with a conventional archiving bot, which judges when to archive by the time since the last comment "archiving at a certain rate", which does not happen on Rich's talk page. I agree this could have been clearer, still not a POV. "He does not archive at a certain rate" as I just pointed out. " You really need to review the facts before making these kinds of comments here" maybe this is what you were referring to? This may indeed be a point of view. But do you disagree with this? Do you think that maybe you don't need to review the facts before commenting here? Do you think it's acceptable to make guesses at what is going on instead of actually researching to make a more informed decision? Regardless, this is getting slightly off topic, I would prefer if you didn't make personal jabs like that in the future. - Kingpin13 (talk) 20:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I declare you the winner and all-time champion of ANI discussions and ANI arguments for 2010. Please collect your prize at the door Steve Quinn (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "Excuse me?" What the heck was that? Steve Quinn (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * How is that comment constructive? If you want to give me a barnstar you can use my talk page. Thanks . Also, excuse me: Said as a request for an apology, - Kingpin13 (talk) 20:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And I would appreciate it if you wouldn't interpert for me, what I am saying. Also, I would appreciate it, if you slowed down and understood what I am saying. Steve Quinn (talk) 20:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You know what, I do apologize for that statement. I will assume good faith in this matter, and attribute this to someone who appears to be well intentioned, and I that I am simply not being "heard", or correctly understood Steve Quinn (talk) 21:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, the reason that I declared you the winner is that this conversation appears (to me) to be very argumentative, rather than a discussion at this point. Steve Quinn (talk) 21:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. However, it's not really a matter of assuming good faith. More a matter of not making personal attack whatever the case. If I appear to have misunderstood you, then all you need to do is clarify, rather than making sarcastic remarks about me. That's not a reason for declaring me "the winner", I suggest you strike that comment about me being the "winner", and the comment about me trying to force "my pov" on others, as I see them both as personal attacks. You might find the atmosphere less argumentative if you quit making such personal jabs. It might help discussion if you instead replied to the matter at hand, for example focusing on my 20:12, 23 October 2010 comment. However, I'm going to get some sleep and a break from this. I suggest you take some timeout from this issue too. Hopefully when we return we will both be in a better mood. - Kingpin13 (talk) 21:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no 'winner' here. There are only losers; the wikipedia community, who has to deal with this problem continuously with no sign of change.  The fact of the matter is is that multiple users have taken issue with Rich's edits, and instead of addressing those issues, he archives the threads and refuses to address them.  As an admin, he has a responsibility to address the concerns of others regarding his edits.  It is in the admin policy.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 21:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * OK this is part of the problem. Now I hear, "it is not a matter of assumeing good faith". For me, yes it is. And this is the type of thing where my statements are being interpreted for me. Then I see that I might find the atmosephere less argumentative if I quit making such "jabs". The atmosphere was argumentative before I made either of those remarks. Those remarks did not come out of the blue.


 * And so far this is the whole context of my "discussion" with you. I don't see you taking responsiblity for creating an argumentative atmosphere in the first place. And then I have to back track from there to show where and how I am being misinterpreted, where my statements are being interpreted for me etc., etc. But this is the pattern. When I take resposibility, such as the above you point fingers, without realizing what your part in this matter is. The feedback on my statements before those remarks were not fairly represented, and this feedback appeared to me to advance a position. So if you want to maintain this position, I declare you the winner. And please proceed with this conversation without me, because you win. Steve Quinn (talk) 22:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

When I talk about accountability, I'm talking about Rich, not you.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 22:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

And really Steve, if you're trying to be insulting, keep doing what you're doing, because that's all it is. As King said, I suggest you strike your jab; declaring people 'winners' in what so far has been a civil discussion is nothing but disruptive. This conversation, this discussion is not about one side winning or losing, it is about a solution to a problem that won't go away.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 22:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Daedalus969, my comments are not directed at you. They are specifically directed at Kingpin. I didn't think you were talking about me at all. OK this coversation really needs to get back on track. So, in the interest of that happening I am striking all of my irrelevant comments. I may try to have a conversation with Kingpin over at his talk. I apologize that I don't appreciate Kingpins style of discussion. But then everyone is different. Steve Quinn (talk) 22:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * And I apologize to Kingpin, and everyone on this thread for not dealing with this better. Steve Quinn (talk) 22:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, Kingpin I am looking at the diffs you provided. Thanks for providing them. Also I will try to clarify whatever I need to clarify. Steve Quinn (talk) 22:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Daedalus969 if you could provide a date and an approximate time that you posted a message over at Rich's talk page, which did not get answered, I am willing to do a little resarch and try to find it. I am interested. Thanks. Steve Quinn (talk) 23:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As King has said, it would be better if you read all relevant material before commenting. There are several diffs in this very sub page; several diffs that are quite easy to find. Now, I'm not quite sure what your game is, and I realize the latter may seem uncivil, but given your past behavior at this thread it seems a resasonable assumption to me. I never stated that I had posted a message to Rich's talk page, only to have it unanswered and unresolved, I stated that it had happened to several others. There are others diffs in the previous ANI thread where Rich was blocked. If you are going to comment here, I suggest you go read that as well, as it is highly relevant material.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 04:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Deadelus never, as far as I can tell, posted at my talk page. He is simply responding to the hearsay on the ANI. Unfortunately his quite reasonable outrage at my alleged refusal to discuss anything with anyone, appears to others as if he is yet one more person that I have cruelly snubbed. Rich Farmbrough, 04:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC).


 * Are you trying to be insulting? Are you trying to be uncivil?  First, let me get a small, minor thing out of the way, that may very well have been a mistake, but given that it has happened several times, I'm beginning to think otherwise; It is Daedalus.  Not Deadalus.  Big difference, one is a mythical greek architect, the other implies a lack of life.


 * With that out of the way, do not act like you know my motivation for posting anything. Last time I checked, you weren't a telepath, so don't act like you know my reasons for anything.  Maybe you haven't noticed, but I contribute quite regularly to ANI, mostly to threads that are involved with sockpuppets, but threads nonetheless that I am uninvolved in.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 05:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Semms od that you
 * I've reverted your disruptive refactoring of my comment. It was written as a two paragraphs, not a series of broken up lines.  You've been responding in ways that are not disruptive on a point-by-point fashion, so it's hard to believe you're doing it for any other reason than to piss me off.  Don't do it again.  If you're going to reply to me, do it below my own reply, not in it.  I haven't bothered restoring your comment because you completely ruined the spacing and it was frankly too much for me, aside from my feeling of anger that an -admin- would do such a thing, when they have shown they are quite capable, and as past patterns have made obvious, do so more often than what you did to my reply today.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 06:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a perfectly acceptable way to respond to a comment.this ANI is not about your skill at spacing a talk page comment, or it is not supposed to be. You should be assuming good faith. If you can't control your anger you should definitely walk away form ANI.  As far as your user name goes, it is easy to mis-type, Steve does the same thing in the comment immediately below. I apologise for mistying it, but if you have a problem with it you should try my surname - even I get that wrong. Rich Farmbrough, 18:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC).


 * Deadelus, there is no perecentage in accusing me of something. I was only trying to help you. I assumed that you were upset because Rich did not respond on his talk page. Archiving his talk page was the discussion of the moment, especially between Kingpin and I. Jeez, if I had known you were talking about a comment that you left on this thread, I would not have even bothered bringing it up. And I reccomend don't be pointing fingers at me commenting about my past behaviors. I was not the one being argumentative, so please point your fingers at someone else. This is ridiculous. Now Kingpin, in the section below is staying on topic. So let's all stay on topic. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Steven, I am going to point to your past behaviors when they repeat themselves. You are the one that decided to make jabs at people calling them 'winners'.  Not me, not anyone else.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 07:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions from xeno and Kingpin

 * Rich, can you adhere to the (imo, reasonable) considerations I put forth above in ? If so, this thread can be closed. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 13:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I can see they look reasonable. But just grepping your last two edits a few minutes ago (for a neutral edit rather than one of mine)  "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Edwin_R._Thiele&diff=prev&oldid=392539123" - removal of linefeeds wouls be not allowed here. (The other edit was a revert.)   Rich Farmbrough, 20:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC).


 * If you want Rich, I can work with you to try and write some C# code to undo any cosmetic changes made with-in AWB. I might try and take a look at writing a plugin, but there's a high chance I won't get anywhere with that, and obviously it's not worth my time unless you use it.. - Kingpin13 (talk) 14:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * very kind of you. It's kinda self defeating.  The purpose of having these minor fixes in AWB is so that they just get done.  They don't take edits, they don't take concentration, they don't get editors dragged to ANI (as has happened in the past) for making thousands of edits all of which were trivial, albeit good.  It's like the action of the sea polishing pebbles.  This stuff should never cross the minds of any of us who don't either work on the guidelines for minutae, or program bot frameworks.  Rich Farmbrough, 20:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC).

Talk page archiving
This is what caused the previous ANI. Let's close this part of it down once and for all. (Some hope.)


 * What happened: I virtually cleared my talk page leaving just a note asking people to please keep their arguments in the appropriate threads. The note was illustrated with pictures of stress relieving items like slinkys, fluffy kittens and so forth - this was to make it clear that this was about removing the stress and tension from the page - too subtle maybe.


 * Why I did it: there were about 35 threads on my talk page about 2 or 3 were on-going. Sladen and Xeno had started to add comments to other, simple, answered queries, relating to the ongoing discussion. I collapsed some of these and was editing another, then thought I'd archive the thread. Reviewing the page, and bearing in mind that about 28 of the other threads were complete, and there was really nothing that needed to be there- or so it seemed, I thought -just archive the lot and start again with clean threads.


 * What happened: within 30 minutes I was reported to ANI, and within a few minutes of that I was blocked. The blocking admin could not have investigated in that time.  He certainly didn't talk to me, before, nor afterwards did he respond to a message on his talk page - 18 days and counting.


 * Am I making this up?

Here's the edit history;


 * 1) (cur | prev) 21:11, 28 September 2010 X! (talk | contribs | block) (2,721 bytes) (→Blocked: new section) (undo)
 * 2) (cur | prev) 21:03, 28 September 2010 Q Science (talk | contribs | block) (2,051 bytes) (→FYI) (undo)
 * 3) (cur | prev) 21:01, 28 September 2010 Xeno (talk | contribs | block) (1,914 bytes) (→FYI: new section) (undo)
 * 4) (cur | prev) 20:53, 28 September 2010 Rich Farmbrough (talk | contribs | block) (1,633 bytes) (undo)
 * 5) (cur | prev) 20:52, 28 September 2010 Rich Farmbrough (talk | contribs | block) (1,624 bytes) (→Threads) (undo)
 * 6) (cur | prev) 20:32, 28 September 2010 Rich Farmbrough (talk | contribs | block) m (1,545 bytes) (lets have a clean out) (undo)
 * 7) (cur | prev) 20:29, 28 September 2010 Rich Farmbrough (talk | contribs | block) (48,380 bytes) (→Parser functions on my userpage) (undo)
 * 8) (cur | prev) 20:28, 28 September 2010 Rich Farmbrough (talk | contribs | block) (48,399 bytes) (→British Waterways, AWB and the cite tool) (undo)
 * 9) (cur | prev) 20:27, 28 September 2010 Rich Farmbrough (talk | contribs | block) (48,344 bytes) (→Level two headline) (undo)
 * 10) (cur | prev) 20:24, 28 September 2010 Rich Farmbrough (talk | contribs | block) (51,191 bytes) (undo)
 * 11) (cur | prev) 20:23, 28 September 2010 Rich Farmbrough (talk | contribs | block) (51,191 bytes) (undo)
 * 12) (cur | prev) 20:20, 28 September 2010 Rich Farmbrough (talk | contribs | block) (50,945 bytes) (→Clarify date from /// format) (undo)
 * 13) (cur | prev) 20:14, 28 September 2010 Headbomb (talk | contribs | block) m (50,604 bytes) (→Could you not capitalize citation template in the future?: if) (undo)

I include Headbomb's edit because I totally missed it - as a result of the flooding of my talk page by what seemed like tag teaming editors. I apologized to Headbomb for missing that, when I came across it later.


 * Was I wrong to archive all the threads? Yes, technically, and practically it didn't calm the situation - a month later I am still sitting up to 5 6:30 in the morning typing at ANI. But really it shouldn't have been a problem.  Anyone could have pulled  a thread back from the archive if they wanted to. Anyone could have started a new thread - not at ANI.  Or emailed me, or telephoned me.  But that's what happened, so we live with it.

Rich Farmbrough, 04:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC).


 * Oh yes I then introduced a new archiving system that is far more responsive and suited to a heavy traffic talk page like mine. Rich Farmbrough, 04:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC).


 * Rich, are you actually aware of why you were blocked? The reason given was (Running unauthorized bot without approval on main account, is clearly being disruptive (uncatting Main Page, controversial spacing changes, etc)), which wasn't to do with the archiving, although no doubt that contributed to the decision. However, if we look at the thread, instead of the rather selective history you provided, User_talk:Rich_Farmbrough/Archive/2010Sep, it's obvious you were aware of the issue, regardless of if you were aware of Headbomb's most recent message (which I think was quite easy to spot, but maybe that's just me ;D). So claiming you didn't see Headbomb's message isn't really relevant, nor is claiming the block was too soon, since you had about three days to deal with the issue you were blocked for. Also, even since then you've continued to archive threads before users feel that they are properly resolved. However, this is focusing on one very specific part of a large issue. - Kingpin13 (talk) 06:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh yes. Funnily enough I read that. What I am trying to do here, KingPin is separate out issues. There is above a perfectly nice and genuine editor being tag teamed by senior Wikpideans, and a self confessed inhabitant of ANI over the issue of my "Constantly archiving pages without replying to people".  There are several things wrong here things wrong here - I will discuss them below. Rich Farmbrough, 13:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC).


 * This section is not about what issues I was aware of. Nor is this ANI.
 * Claiming? AGF - if you can't find any GF to A, go and look at Headbomb's talk page - I would have no reason to apologise to him for missing it if I hadn't missed it. Rich Farmbrough, 13:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC).


 * Yes it is relevant for two reasons - somewhat contradictory at first sight, but actually illustrating the same point.
 * I missed a comment due to people making unrelated edits in threads, that swamped my "you have messages" bar.
 * I carried on missing it because I archived the page prematurely
 * The common point is, if you mess with stuff, you break it. Rich Farmbrough, 13:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC).


 * No one has said as much to me, AFAICR. I have changed my talk page notice. Rich Farmbrough, 13:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC).


 * Good I'm glad you understand that. Rich Farmbrough, 13:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC).


 * I've reverted your refactoring of King's post. You may have told me to assume good faith, but everything has it's limits.  There is nothing 'perfectly acceptable' about completely destroying the structure of someone else's comment.  Please stop doing it, and leave the comments how they were written.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 20:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And I've reverted you again. King isn't the only one who has a say in how a post is structured; frankly I find his comment impossible to read, as it is difficult to tell where his ends and yours begins.  If you continue to do this, I will ask for uninvolved assistance.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 21:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact, directly from WP:TPO: Editing – or even removing – others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 21:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Daedalus, while it may not be perfectly acceptible, I think it's likely Rich was trying to conveniently respond, rather than doing something malicious. I've made a suggestion below in DePiep's thread on the same subject, which I hope can resolve this. --Bsherr (talk) 01:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Meta

 * Rich, are you actually aware of why you were blocked? The reason given was (Running unauthorized bot without approval on main account, is clearly being disruptive (uncatting Main Page, controversial spacing changes, etc)), which wasn't to do with the archiving, although no doubt that contributed to the decision. (Kingpin from above)


 * Oh yes. Funnily enough I read that. What I am trying to do here, KingPin is separate out issues. There is above a perfectly nice and genuine editor being tag teamed by senior Wikpideans, and a self confessed inhabitant of ANI over the issue of my "Constantly archiving pages without replying to people".  There are several things wrong here things wrong here - I will discuss them below. (RF from above)


 * 1) One of the editors appears to be in the argument because he enjoys getting into ANI  discussions. That's fine. However these are actually complex issues.
 * 2) While I am happy for you guys to tag-team me, if you enjoy it, it's plain wrong to do it to an uninvolved editor.
 * 3) Tag teaming in a relatively private environment like this sub-page is fine from the point of view of creating a discussion, in theory, but on ANI, and with complex issues it creates a shell game. Especially when the mix of editors includes malicious ones and uninformed ones and a mixture of both. The result is a massive dispute and a blackening of an editors name for no reason.  Icarus' father above  states that he took the word of other editors about matters. I have not read enough of the thread (yes my own ANI achieved TLDR)  to comment conclusively but some of them were comprehensively refuted by Dirk Beestra (what a guy!).  Other editors made similar comments - they were going by the amount of noise generated which is not proportional to any actual issue.
 * 4) Mixing the issues up is a shell game. Unintentional perhaps, but a shell game nonetheless.
 * 5) This is ANI.
 * 6) First ANI was called about talk page blanking.
 * 7) Addressed above - do not, please drag that section into a discussion about other issues.
 * 8) This ANI was not about that - basically it's a red herring.  But I wanted to clear it up.
 * 9) Calls for banning have been allowed on ANI, they do not belong there the belong on another noticeboard.
 * 10) Issues that have been resolved are re-surfaced repeatedly. As are issues that are new to the debate. This just means it gets bigger and more complex.  See Arbcom cases for how this can happen even in a relatively controlled environment. You want a multi-megabyte discussion, I can't stop you but I do know that at some point it ceases to become "a chat with Rich" as Fram asked for and becomes a drain on my time - well actually that point is long passed and now verges on the abusive.  Nonetheless I do not think I should allow editors to post what X! calls "Wild assumptions with nothing to back them up". therefore I will not let the shell game continue.


 * Rich Farmbrough, 13:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC).

Meta 2
In order to address points closely I sometimes split other's comments. Icarus father has suggested that this is probably a de-sysopping offence, so I leave his comments in peace, not in pieces. If anyoen else ahsa a problem with it, let me know. Rich Farmbrough, 20:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC).


 * Is there a specific reason you referred to me in such a way? I'd love to hear it.  That aside, don't you dare tell others 'what I have said'.  That you would be de-sysop'd for refactoring another's post?  I didn't say anything of the kind, what I said is that I would expect better of an admin to not completely destroy the structure of others' comments.  Do yourself a favor and don't put words in my mouth.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 21:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes it avoids typing your name, and risking upsetting you by getting it wrong. However you seem permanently upset anyway so it's wasted effort. Rich Farmbrough, 01:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC).

Daedelus said this:

"::::I've reverted your refactoring of King's post. You may have told me to assume good faith, but everything has it's limits. There is nothing 'perfectly acceptable' about completely destroying the structure of someone else's comment. Please stop doing it, and leave the comments how they were written.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 20:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)"


 * And yet you said that I said something completely different; that I said 'desysopping was a possibility if you didn't stop'. Wrong, as clearly noted above, I said no such thing.
 * Secondly, 'Icarus's father' as I'm sure you may note, has far more letters, and more chance for mistakes than typing my username does. Even then, you could easily call me Dae.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 01:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Was the block too soon
nor is claiming the block was too soon, since you had about three days to deal with the issue you were blocked for. (Kingpin - copied from above)
 * I didn't make any such claim. I made two factual statements, backed by logs, and one reasonable conclusion that implied that the block was to fast not too soon. However this ANI is not about the previous block, regardless of its speed. Rich Farmbrough, 13:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC).

Edit warring by User:Rich Farmbrough
Today/yesterday, Sunday October 24th, between 04:12 and 20:47 UTC (16,5 hrs), you made 23 edits to this page. They were interleaved with 11 other edits, by some 5 editors. So far, so good.

Of your 23 edits, there were three deletions of other editors text from a discussion (,, , edits by Daedalus and Kingpin13). The last one could only be done by using rollback-rights, which is prime topic in the Original Post of this thread: abuse of admin-tools. Also, after you tried to collapse a negative about yourself, it was undone and you just re-undid it : adding up to four. In the end, you left the page unreadable, but that is my personal impression only (although there will be standards for readability of a thread).

Altogether, I state that you disrupted the discussion here (by trespassing 3RR alone, and I mentioned more). Clearly, I could or should report this at ANI. But I don't think this is an indicent. And of course: we are at ANI here already!

A good advice was written here, but it did not happen and I am less patient. You have removed other editor's contributions from a discussion, you hided and re-hided a serious proposal (that was about you), and you disrupted the page. This is my conclusion: either you start talking & cooperating with the community, or your ANIs will escalate. -DePiep (talk) 23:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Editor notified here -DePiep (talk) 00:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Again..why hasn't he had his bit removed? As this discussion continues it's become more and more apparent that the community shouldn't trust him with ability any greater than the distance they could throw him--Crossmr (talk) 00:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Cross see the section "Meta 2" above. It's very straightforward. DePiep, also, is not the community, he is my favourite wikistalker. Rich Farmbrough, 01:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC).


 * It looks to me like he's just providing line item comments and collapsing older discussion to make the page more readable. It would be better to ask his reasons. Are you assuming good faith, DePiep? --Bsherr (talk) 01:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It pains me to say it but I have yet to find an edit where he has. Originally I tried to assume it was the language barrier, but it has gone on for too long. Rich Farmbrough, 01:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC).


 * Rich, it would be better, I think, to address the concerns of several users about refactoring, if, instead of inserting running comments into another's original comment, you did this in a copy of the original comment. (We might even hit that impressive 200KB milestone sooner.) --Bsherr (talk) 01:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have illustrated here more of the same, as written in my first post in this thread, long ago: "Adding: talk evasion". And indeed, RF, no edits to be seen: because others reverted your deletions. Btw, RF, from this very reason I am interested in edits by someone who is on a wikibreak. Bsherr, am I to ask for a reason? BRD is already in this thread. -DePiep (talk) 17:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The problems are still there
In case anyone missed it, the problems that started all this are still present. Basically, he is still doing the same sorts of things that started all this discussion. After all that has been said, he is still changing capitalizations. Sure, he claims to have fixed it once someone complained, but that is not the way to operate. I don't know about everyone else, but I think this problem needs to be fixed. Q Science (talk) 17:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * AWB changed Prime Minister to prime minister
 * AWB changed General Secretaries to general secretaries
 * He wrote a template to change cleanup to clean up based on OED. When there was a complaint, he changed it to clean-up suggesting that not using a hyphen is "some twentieth century American invention". However, we are supposed to use American English, not OED. Webster says that cleanup has been a word (without a space or a hyphen) since 1872. The person making the complaint provided four (4) solid references which Richard chose to ignore. Of course, there were additional snide remarks by Richard making it clear that he controls the tool and that he does not care what anyone else thinks.


 * Changing the capitalization of text is very different than changing the capitalization of template transclusions. It looks like Rich responded to each concern timely and attentively. And your statement that we're supposed to be using American English is not correct, I'm afraid, per the MOS. In fact, OED is a perfectly good source, especially because it tends to cover both British and American English. --Bsherr (talk) 20:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not to speak for the user, but it also looks like Wavelength was satisfied in the end. --Bsherr (talk) 20:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)