User talk:Rich Farmbrough/Archive/2013 January

Previous · Index · Next

Clean start

Look at the contributions of He to Hecuba. I'd do that again. I have psychological issues with editing from an account I've fucked up with. --Claritas § 23:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Well then, it seems that ArbCom are not able to rule in this matter. It appears to me that you will be under the same sort of restriction under CLEANSTART, i.e. to avoid XfD (and any other problem areas) like the plague, as you are editing under Claritas. If you were to follow CLEANSTART, there are only four things that can happen:

1. You go back to your conflicts and get outed, and sanctioned
2. You go back to your conflicts and no-one notices (unlikely)
3. You edit productively and no-one notices
4. You edit productively and get outed nonetheless - there is then a fight over whether this is CLEANSTART or abusive socking - but if no abuse has taken place, it is hard to make the case for abusive socking.

If you are not concerned about being outed, I can see little downside in CLEANSTART. As Carrite mentions, though, you may wish to simply consider switching accounts, in a transparent way.

Rich Farmbrough, 19:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC).

Its truly unfortunate how the rules work with regard to clean start. Its a catch 22 if you ask me. If you tell someone then its not really a clean start, yet if you don't let someone know then its possible they'll come after you for socking. The rules are simply not very allowable to those who just want to start new and most editors aren't very good unfortunately at assuming good faith. The only way an editor can really have a clean start is by being somewhat good at deception. The other possibility is to go work on one of the sister projects for a while such as Simple, Wiktionary, WikiSpecies, etc. Kumioko (talk) 20:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

A good suggestion. I hope Claritas gets the new name they want, but if not that is another possibility. Rich Farmbrough, 05:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC).

The Signpost: 31 December 2012

• From the editor: Wikipedia, our Colosseum

• In the media: Is the Wikimedia movement too 'cash rich'?

• News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation fundraiser a success; Czech parliament releases photographs to chapter

• Technology report: Looking back on a year of incremental changes

• Discussion report: Image policy and guidelines; resysopping policy

• Interview: Interview with Brion Vibber, the WMF's first employee

• Featured content: Whoa Nelly! Featured content in review

• WikiProject report: New Year, New York

• Recent research: Wikipedia and Sandy Hook; SOPA blackout reexamined

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 06:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Keadle

Since you approved it at AfC , you may want to comment. We don't have an established practice of notifying here, but I think we should. DGG ( talk ) 05:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 20:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC).

Your amendment request

Hi;

Might it not be easier if you consolidate all your likely amendment requests into one? That is, if you have anything else you'd like the committee to look at, ask now? It can then be dealt with either as an omnibus motion or as a series of motions.  Roger Davies ^talk 18:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know. While I respect that Arbitrators will not have the knowledge and memory of the case that I have (and I have forgotten most of it) so I do not take issue with those who are unsure of the meanings behind the wordings, and the processes that were followed, I would have thought this is a very simple amendment and I certainly did not expect to be on the receiving end of at least three ad hominem attacks from arbitrators over it. Given that it is unlikely that I can expect agreement over some of the more tricky matters, I would really have to evaluate whether it is worth while trying to demonstrate to the Committee that I am not, and never have been "gratuitously incivil" and that I was not an "unresponsive bot operator". And without achieving that certainly some of the more complex arguments, which will probably require empathy, analytic skills and unclouded judgement will be completely wasted.

By taking baby steps we can, I hope, eventually come to agreement on each point either that I need to repent and recant or whatever it is, or that the finding is wrong.

Even if I were convinced that the committee was receptive to an omnibus motion and that they would consider it on it's merits, rather than with a jaundiced view, which I have to say does not seem to be the universal case, there are still four problems.

1. The work involved in putting it all together is huge. Arbs may complain about the time spent on this amendment, but it has cost me probably 75 hours so far. And this is possibly the second simplest to create (and the easiest to judge).
2. The stress is also enormous, multiplying that up 10 fold is not an attractive proposition.
3. An Omnibus motion will go off in all directions at once. While that is fine for normal Wiki discussions, in this case it will be difficult to contain and I will get hit with not having time to respond - just as happened in the original case.
4. An Omnibus motion will attract more trolls.

Rich Farmbrough, 19:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC).

Thanks for the response. I see where you're coming from but I disagree with the approach. Just out of curiosity, how did it take you 75 hours to put the current amendment together?  Roger Davies ^talk 19:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

For what little my opinion on the matter is worth I agree with Rich, although I see your point also Roger. I think breaking it into pieces would be much more managable and practical. Creating a giant omnibus as you put it would just create another big drama fest and I agree with Rich that some members of Arbcom are going to be much less likely to accept a large change. Multiple smaller changes are much more likely to be fairly judged and considered. Kumioko (talk) 20:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Well I fear I was being over optimistic anyway. It will probably take me a couple of days to believe some of the responses. "The amendment request pretty clearly indicates that Rich has not taken on board the issues that brought him to arbitration in the first place" is this not the ultimate Catch 22? If you request an amendment you don't "deserve" it. On the plus side AGK has said there is a miscarriage of justice, and so with him on board, maybe something good will happen after all. Rich Farmbrough, 20:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC).

It didn't, that is a rough estimate of the total time spent on it. Actual drafting and pasting the right diffs and so forth, of the amendment as posted, my first save was at 22:51 on my local wiki, the final draft was posted at about 5:54, a relatively "mere" 7 hours. Add to that the investigation, deciding what action to take, technical work on the local wiki and so forth, together with the time spent since, 75 hours is a reasonable estimate. You could even say I have spent the last six months on it. Rich Farmbrough, 20:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC).

Barnstar

That's very sweet of you, Rich. What came across as cool was probably just trying to keep interventions short and get on with real life! Anyway, thanks and keep up the good work. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Template:Fair use logo listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Fair use logo. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Fair use logo redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

		Best wishes for the New Year!
		Wishing you and yours a joyous, healthful, and productive 2013! Please accept a belated thank you for the well wishes upon my retirement as FAC delegate this year, and apologies for the false alarm of my first—and hopefully last—retirement; the well wishes extended me were most kind, but I decided to return, re-committed, when another blocked sock was revealed as one of the factors aggravating the FA pages this year. Maintaining standards in featured content requires vigilance, dedication and knowledge of people like you, who are needed; reviews are always welcome at FAC, FAR and TFA requests. Somehow, somehow we never ever seem to do nothin' completely nice and easy, but here's hoping that 2013 will see a peaceful road ahead and a return to the quality and comaraderie that defines the FA process, with the help of many dedicated Wikipedians! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I have always viewed FA as a nice club that helps editors to improve articles, but not something that is of much interest to me - I want to see all articles improved. But you have made me more interested in the FA?GA processes, I will try to find some time to spend if/when I return to proper editing. Rich Farmbrough, 23:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC).

Keep on

You gotta keep on and come back to Wikipedia my friend. Dudes like you are the reason dudes like me are still fighting. Ramwithaxe talk 09:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I estimate it will take a month or so to sort out the Courcelles affair, then I need to examine some of the previous actions in regard to Penyulap. Then I will need to unwind the arbitration case which will probably take a year or longer. Then the editing restrictions. Then I will need an RFA... at which all the previous items will be re-hashed. It would be an attractive result if it could be achieve, but the work and grief to achieve it are enormous. Rich Farmbrough, 18:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC).

Getting older, I am realizing sometimes the pencil-pushers win, but ultimately all lose. If you are unable to find your way through that maze of red tape and remain lost to the website, your eloquence and clear-minded presence as a Wikipedian will be missed. Ramwithaxe (talk) 05:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

James Clemens

Thanks. That is what I wanted to do, but could not find out such a page (somehow I could not find "cwt" anywhere around...) - Nabla (talk) 10:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration motions

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that the Arbitration Committee has proposed, and is voting on, motions that would affect you. You may comment on these motions in your statement. For the Arbitration Committee Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 12:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Polandball

I like this one. Rich Farmbrough, 00:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC).

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

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment that:

In the Rich Farmbrough case, the revised Finding of Fact 8, enacted on 28 May 2012 is vacated. Nothing in this decision constitutes an endorsement by the Committee of Rich Farmbrough's use of administrative tools to unblock his own accounts.

For the Arbitration Committee, (X! · talk)  · @114  ·  01:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Discuss this

Wooot! Party on my talk page! Rich Farmbrough, 02:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC).

Well that's a start right...I think? But unless I missed something, Arbcom took away your admin tools right, so how does this even apply? Isn't this sorta pointless? Kumioko (talk) 02:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

No not really. If I were to re-apply for admin tools, with a finding saying I abused them, it would be a very hard task. Also it shows that Arbcom can make the right decision, they are not totally immovable. Thirdly it removes an untruth about me, which is good. The amendment was draining, however. The next step (if I take it) will probably be much more so. We shall see. Rich Farmbrough, 02:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:QWIKI-NOWIKI

I've closed the discussion as userfy. The page has been moved to your userspace at User:Rich Farmbrough/QWIKI-NOWIKI. bibliomaniac15 22:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 02:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC).

Fur all teh epic lulz...

A reliable source for being 2th

might wanna see this. Buggie111 (talk) 02:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you teh lulz are always epic. Of course I am indeed 2th, so A7 does not apply. I guess BLP-prod next.. lets see. Rich Farmbrough, 02:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC).

Weh? Yu iz fur shizzilz? My bad, bro. Buggie111 (talk) 02:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes indeed, Justin was kind enough to mention my name in an interview I believe, so there is a RS somewhere. Back when I was 1th there were also a couple of articles, one by Richard Knight I think, and one in Britain's oldest newspaper. I also get a rather flattering mentch in A Wikipedia Readerin the article about bots. Rich Farmbrough, 02:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC).

Lol, and it's gone... Bbb23 who is extremely ubiquitous right now. Rich Farmbrough, 02:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC).

Searches related to Rich Farmbrough - how do i set up a wikipedia page - wikipedia bots - boni - you are now a google autocomplete after only "rich fa"! Surely that has to count for something :) --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 02:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Cool 7 characters of auto complete... one's Google number. Telegraph article where it is mentioned that I am 2th. Rich Farmbrough, 02:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC).

Oddly it was (as I predicted) BLP-prdded but still A7'd. (out of process) a minute later. Rich Farmbrough, 03:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC).

Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill

Hi, Rich Farmbrough. Thank you for cleaning-up the Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill article. However, there is a related discussion if the Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill was split correctly from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and if it should be merged back there. Relevant sections for this discussion are this and this. Your comments are appreciated. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 18:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Please don't leave tests hanging around

If you need to test things outside of userspace or sandboxes, then at least remove the test again afterwards. Things like this shouldn't be left around. Fram (talk) 07:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• No offence to you, Fram, but... I don't know how Rich feels about this, but your continued presence around his talk page could give the erroneous impression that your are continuing to hound him. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 08:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I was checking empty maintenance categories to delete, like I have done often recently (e.g. yesterday as well), and noticed some strange things with one of them. Keeping quiet just because the editor that caused this was Rich Farmbrough doesn't seem helpful. You may note that I e.g. didn't comment on his Arbcom motion, despite his repeated incorrect statements about some of my actions there. Fram (talk) 10:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
    • What stands out is the regularity with which you seem to crop up at places where Rich does. Then you meet back at his talk page... I won't comment any more. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 12:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Manifestly I am unable to look at this as viewing deleted pages is denied me (thanks Fram!), of course I used to delete test pages myself but that also is denied me (thanks Fram!), however without being able to look I would say that this would have had a speedy notice on it. Rich Farmbrough, 14:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC).

Having an automatically added delete tag is hardly a reason to leave things like {{Cleanup/sandbox|date=January 2013|reason=nfkjnr}} {{NAMESPACE}} in it, which added it to maintenance categories for no good reason at all. Your current lack of admin tools doesn't prevent an undo of your changes, does it? Fram (talk) 14:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh well, if that's what you mean then you are certainly correct. I would have thought it is no big deal though. And at the risk of an arb case for "responding inappropriately" I might suggest that

Hi Rich, you left a sandboxed template in a cleanup category last night, thought you would like to know! Love from the land of Poirot.

would have been a better approach. Rich Farmbrough, 14:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC).

Spreading insincere love is not one of my habits. Fram (talk) 14:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Well that part was a joke. But again I should have known better. Rich Farmbrough, 14:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC).

I'll try to use a more friendly tone next time I see something I think you should know. Of course, having negative comments by you about me at the top of this page hardly encourages me to do this, and finding that you felt the need to add some more here on 15 December doesn't make it any better. I can understand a wish to get things going again with a slightly more friendly and positive note, but leading by example would have perhaps been better than first posting a cynical "thanks Fram!" and then asking that I change my approach. Anyway, enough about that, like I said, if I do come across more things I believe should be noted here (whether positive, neutral, or negative in content), I'll try to bring it in a less negative register. Fram (talk) 15:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, at the very least it can no no harm. Rich Farmbrough, 19:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC).

The Signpost: 07 January 2013

• Op-ed: Meta, where innovative ideas die

• WikiProject report: Where Are They Now? Episode IV: A New Year

• News and notes: 2012—the big year

• Featured content: Featured content in review

• Technology report: Looking ahead to 2013

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 12:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

--

Category:Project-Class Editor Retention articles

Category:Project-Class Editor Retention articles, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

For your list

Hello Rich Farmbrough, I have noticed your "Things that stayed too long" list on your user page, and thought you may like to add [1] to it. However, it stayed on WP just five days, which may not be such a long time for inclusion in your list. Best, Toccata quarta (talk) 09:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, yes 5 days isn't so long (but still too long). A little amusing though. Rich Farmbrough, 00:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC).

Wikidata weekly summary #40

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

• Development
  • Bene* developed a new tool to show existing or missing items for a given Wikipedia category
  • Selenium test-groups for (non)experimental features (bugzilla:43828)
  • Notification for IP edits that IP will be logged (bugzilla:42954)
  • Verified fix & added Selenium tests for broken error-reporting on label/description uniqueness constraint (bugzilla:43301)
  • Label-edit-button links to Special:SetLabel when JavaScript disabled (bugzilla:43814)
  • Updated PHP, MySQL, Ruby, Selenium, etc.. on internal test server and enabled APC + memcached
  • Work on AbuseFilter to make it work with Wikidata content (bugzilla:42064)
  • Implemented length constraint for labels, descriptions and aliases (configurable with a default of 2500 UTF8 characters)
  • Implementing a new mechanism for dispatching change notifications to client wikis
  • Worked more on how Wikidata changes are handled in the client watchlist (bugzilla:43124)
  • Some work went into using Solr for the search. Still very simple
  • Prepared improvements to our puppet files on labs
  • Worked on statements UI (snaktypes/references)
  • Fixed bugs in UI event handling of widgets
  • Put EntityId parsing code into a dedicated class
  • Finished EntityDiff cleanup
• Discussions/Press
  • Reworked inclusion syntax completely 1 2
  • Updates to time and space model
  • Is there a need for bureaucrats?
  • Planned improvement to the search field
• Other Noteworthy Stuff
  • Deployment on the Hungarian Wikipedia is still planned for Monday (Jan 14th)
  • Jens writes a bit about Wikidata’s mascots
• Open Tasks for You
  • Give feedback on inclusion syntax draft version 3, the updated time and space model and the plans for improving the search field
  • Hack on one of these

Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 16:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Rich Farmbrough. You have new messages at John F. Lewis's talk page.
Message added 21:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Confused too. Mind explaining as your message was sort of, out of the blue. John F. Lewis (talk) 21:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Saw your response, all is good. Rich Farmbrough, 21:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC).

--

Handbook of Texas bot

Hi Rich,

This slipped my mind - and maybe yours too. This Bot Request page also slipped off my Watchlist, so I forgot. You offered on here to take care of this if you could. I'm in no hurry. But if you know for sure you cannot do it, is there a way to pull this request out of the archives and put it back out there. I don't know what your permission status is on these things. Thanks for offering, whether you can do it or not. — Maile (talk) 14:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes I started on this Christmas morning when I was on Santa detail. Looks like it is actually a bigger job than I thought, some 1570 pages (I had assumed I think that "MM" was always the first part.) It's a two minute job with AWB or day or so by hand. I am "allowed" to request the ability to make automated edits from the day after tomorrow, however there seems to be an impasse which I need to get my head around. Rich Farmbrough, 21:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC).

Yeah, I was kind of surprised with your original estimate of 120 pages. I have no idea what it would really be, but the Texas project itself has almost 30,000 pages with the project banner. You must feel like you've had a foot holding your neck to the ground for the last few months. It's probably more notable who manages to get around having this happen to them. The longer I'm on planet Wikipedia, the more I'm amazed. — Maile (talk) 23:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Original Barnstar
		Thanks for all your tireless work. Materialscientist (talk) 04:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Well thank you! Rich Farmbrough, 04:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC).

IMDb task

Hi Rich, Merry Xmas and all that. I just saw at the top of your talkpage you say about emails possibly being filtered off as spam; I was wondering if this might have happened to my emails reminding you of that IMDb correction bot task. If so, how are you getting on with it? If not, I'd like an update anyway please. Thanks Rich. Rcsprinter (Gimme a message) No, I'm Santa Claus! @ 10:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Still waiting. Rcsprinter (natter) @ 05:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I did something preliminary on this. I'll download the Simple dump overnight and see if I can achieve something tomorrow. Rich Farmbrough, 03:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC).

How did it go? Rcsprinter (chat) @ 20:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't have AWB privs on Simple (thought I did) I have requested them, lets see what happens. Rich Farmbrough, 10:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC).

Category backlog, project backlogs?

Greetings! Thank you for your contributions here. I am active with WikiProject Medicine, and I contacted Alvin Seville to thank them for their edits to Category:Wikipedia backlog. I also expressed my interest in getting a page like that established for content tagged as being under WikiProject Medicine. In an ideal world, I think bots would keep project-specific backlog pages like that maintained indefinitely. I'm sorry to hear a related bot of yours was blocked. Do you think you could help me get a bot like this going? Maybe a former bot of yours could be fairly easily tweaked and then it could get community consensus to run on WikiProject backlog pages. Unfortunately, I don't have any programming skills, but I think it would be cool if I could write my own bots eventually. Biosthmors (talk) 04:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I tired to introduce an optional subject based classification of backlogs, it was, however, scuppered by Wikilawyers, and to my shame, not particularly good ones. It would be relatively easy to set something up for WikiProject Medicine, if I could get User:FemtoBot allowed to operate then it could do that. Alternatively there may be another way to provide a solution, I'll think on it. Rich Farmbrough, 03:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC).

Thanks for thinking about this. We know at WP:MED we have a mess on our hands. And we know that this and this are horribly inadequate at describing that mess. I'm bet that if you have a good workable idea that I could drum up support for you at WP:MED/WT:MED to get it going. Biosthmors (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Any ideas? Thanks again. Biosthmors (talk) 23:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 January 2013

• Investigative report: Ship ahoy! New travel site finally afloat

• News and notes: Launch of annual picture competition, new grant scheme

• WikiProject report: Reach for the Stars: WikiProject Astronomy

• Discussion report: Flag Manual of Style; accessibility and equality

• Special report: Loss of an Internet genius

• Featured content: Featured articles: Quality of reviews, quality of writing in 2012

• Arbitration report: First arbitration case in almost six months

• Technology report: Intermittent outages planned, first Wikidata client deployment

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 14:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thanks so much for all the work you do Kipsizoo (talk) 11:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I do what I can, thanks for the barnstar. Rich Farmbrough, 00:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC).

Wikidata weekly summary #41

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

• Development
  • We are live on the Hungarian Wikipedia \o/
  • We have an intern for a week, Marius aka User:Hoo man. He’ll be working on the wizard for linking a new Wikipedia article to an existing item or creating a new item for it if none exists yet. (the first two stories here)
  • Refactored sites code to improve design
  • Changed item datatype to use entityid as datavalue rather than string
  • Added lots of new Selenium tests
  • Changed AbuseFilter so Wikibase can hook into it
  • Implemented new change dispatcher script
  • ~=[,,_,,]:3
  • Working on combining successive changes to avoid watchlist clutter
  • Claims error handling (i.e. they now show error messages when needed)
  • Implemented initial version of Solr-based search for Wikidata in extension WikibaseSolr
  • Started investigating use of Lua/Scribunto for the Wikibase client
  • Updated the Wikidata Vagrant development machine
  • Improved the setup via puppet on Labs
• Discussions/Press
  • Latest updates on time and coordinate datatypes
  • Schedule for the reconfirmation of the first round of admins
  • RFC on en:wp about the transition to language links from Wikidata
  • Signpost, among others, covers the deployment on the Hungarian Wikipedia
• Other Noteworthy Stuff
  • Congrats to our sister Wikivoyage on their official launch
  • There’s now a manual for using the Pywikipediabot on Wikidata
  • Deployed new code on wikidata.org
  • Community Portal got a rework
  • Tried to drop www from Wikidata URLs but that was more difficult than expected. Sorry for the issues it caused. We're working on resolving the remaining ones.
• Open Tasks for You
  • d:Wikidata:Press coverage needs some love and attention
  • Hack on one of these

Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 15:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

|}

AE clerking

You did the right thing by not moving Fram's comment to their section. Uninvolved admins clerking a case is one thing, but you were correct in thinking that you placing that in their section might have been construed as you editing someone else's section, the very error Fram made. Good call on that one. I post this here rather than the case to avoid going off on side topics there. KillerChihuahua 13:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, this stuff does tend to get dragged into the mix. I commented point by point inside someone's comment on AN/I once (a common method of reply in the old days) and got accused of vandalism and edit warring. Rich Farmbrough, 19:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC).

Edit that appears to be automated

Instead of immediately starting an WP:AE section, I thought it better to first get your input on some edits that concern me. Over the last few months, you have made many edits that appear to be at least partially automated, with e.g. whitespace removals all over articles, the replacement of all parameters in the persondata template (from uppercase to lowercase, something which was discussed a few times already and which I thought you had said you would stop doing), repeated exact same minor errors, and so on. None of these caused serious problems though, so I left it alone.

An edit from yesterday[2] insert much more serious problems though, and the only expanation for these errors that I can reasonably think of is that you ran a script across a number of sources, and dumped the result in the article. While this is only one page, it is still using automated editing, and a return to the problems that caused the restriction in the first place.

• The entries for Assam are completely wrong, probably because the pdf used ([3]) starts at 1, goes to 24, and then starts again at 1 (which are details of number 24), to continue after 96 again with 25. A human wouldn't have much problems with this, but a script or bot can't handle this and creates lists like the one we have gotten here.

• The entries for Chattisgarh are botched at entry 26, which has a subset in the original pdf [4], which causes the script to go all haywire here.

Less serious contentwise, but typical of the use (and lack of control) of a script are the following issues:

• When there are multiple entries (column one) or multiple designations (column three), a "return" is only addad after the first one, not noticing that more than two entries are possible. See e.g. Andra Pradesh 1 or 26 for examples of the first, and Andra Pradesh 15, 23 or 26 for examples of the second (layout problem)

• Strange entries in column 2. See e.g. the first entry for Assam (with the thrice repeated " ,,,"Andhra Pradesh "), or the wrong ordering of Bihar, where 124 b and 124 a are placed before 1 - 2 - 3..., or the first entry for Chattisgarh; again something a script botches but a human hasn't any problem with.

I have stopped checking in detail after Chattisgarh, skimming the rest of the very long page seems to show similar errors all the way down.

Basically, it looks as if by using a script to generate this long page, you produced something that at first glance seems a nice piece of work, but that on closer inspection is seriously deficient, with a whole lot of entries simply missing and a lot of other, smaller errors. I'ld be glad to hear another explanation for this, which would save us the hassle of another acrimnious AE debate. Like I said, I don't see what that explanation could be, but I have been proven wrong before... Fram (talk) 15:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• The problem with the tea workers is one I thought I had dealt with when creating the entries. The order within state is more-or-less arbitrary, I considered a column for entry number, but this is actually very minor (I could have used page number, possibly to better effect). I was also thinking when I created this part of the table that we might want to break it down even further by caste name, but the quality of the data does not seem to be good enough to justify doing that.
• Again the Chattisgarh problem is a result of separating out Islamic castes in the source, and not knowing til I go to the end the exact layout I was going to use.

Obviously I have been limited in the tools I can use over the last month, working on this table, and reluctant to post my results. However there comes a point where the list is better where other people can see it than sitting on my infrastructure.

Most of these problems are due to sorting the table, which was necessary because the data was loaded by hand. An automated load would of course have not needed a sort.

And of course sorting is automation, but anyone who thinks that sorting 2,500 entries by hand is a 21st century option probably still uses file cards.

As to the carriage returns, it would be easy enough to put them in automatically, however for the names in particular the sources layout is relevant, distinguishing in some cases between synonyms and different castes. Were we to break down the names to one per line, we might as well follow the plan of one table entry per name. But this is a bad idea, because the exact disposition of qualifications such as "excluding those who have converted to Christianity" would then need to be resolved. However if the article regulars think this is useful I'm sure it could be accomplished.

In summary thanks for pointing out the limitations and errors, as I remarked on the talk page this is very much a "first cut" and subject to improvement. I will address the issues you raise and I'm sure there are more which the article regulars will bring to light, or I will find myself. This is however an important list, and it needs to be present and being worked on.

All the best. Rich Farmbrough, 17:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC).

So by doing it by hand, you have produced errors which appear to be only possible when this had been created by some script or similar automated tool? And you get the same errors with every individual source you use? I think this'll have to go to WP:AE, as nothing you claim here is in the least convincing (and you are incorrect as well, in cases where the source has multiple lines, you always reduce them to two lines, one for the first entry and one for all the others; you claim that for this "the sources layout is relevant", but you don't follow that layout but impose and arbitrary (or, more realistically, badly coded) one.Fram (talk) 08:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you are missing the fact that mediawiki tables respect the first line break, but the rest of the text is treated as standard wiktext, therefore single line breaks are treated the same way as spaces. I would be interested in where you still see the two-line scenario you discuss, as I spent over two hours yesterday resolving these issues. Rich Farmbrough, 08:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC).

I am not discussing the cleanup you did after I found the problems and raised the issue here. I am discussing your initial edit only. I have raised the issue at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Rich Farmbrough. Fram (talk) 08:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I would note that there is absolutely no way Fram could have found this list without going through Rich's edits looking for something. Its obvious that Fram is just trying to look for things to get Rich banned from the project so I have commented as such in the enforcement. This is the conduct I have come to expect from many in the community these days though. Kumioko (talk) 12:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

He has already admitted a much, several times. After all if Fram doesn't control me looks like no one else will, right? Rich Farmbrough, 12:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC).

I continue to be hopeful that at some point the Arbcom will think for a few seconds on why it always seems to be the same 2 charachters submitting claims against you. Unfortunately I don't have much faith in the committee after the last couple years. Maybe the new one will change my mind but being that all of the people on the committee where already part of it to some degree either as a member or a clerk, I don't have much faith that they will look at this for what it is, a joke. I cannot believe that someone other than me hasn't noticed that CBM and Fram always seem to be the ones submitting these cases, not just on you, but in general. Fram has spent more time at Arbcom than some of the members. I cannot say how disgusted I am with the pedia, the Arbcom and the culture that we are fostering in this place these days. Its becoming more and more like the American Congress. MOre politcs, more beauracracy, more fingerpointing and less work. I don't know how much longer I can continue editing here. The entire community should be ashamed. Kumioko (talk) 16:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, I have submitted cases on one editor only, Rich Farmbrough, and have participated in only one other case, Betacommand (and even then not in all incarnations of that case). I may be forgetting something here, but it looks to me as if you are (again) imagining things here. I don't care that your opinion of me is quite low, but that doesn't mean that you should just start making things up, like you seem to do time and again when you are discussing me. Remember my supposed involvement with the US roads project? Fram (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Good luck

Well I wanted to be the first one to wish you good luck. I have done everything I can to stop this stupidity but unfortunately they keep letting Fram do whatever he wants. I expect to be blocked myself soon because I told him what I thought of him on the discussion so I think its only a matter of time before someone blocks me for personal attacks. Of course they'll leave him be to continue his crusade against some other editor. Kumioko (talk) 00:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

January 2013

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 months for violating the restriction requiring you to edit Wikipedia only completely manually – that is, by typing text into the edit window – as explained and agreed to by you here. Please refer to the enforcement request for further details.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block.  Sandstein  21:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

---

Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

And who does that help? (Actually it seems that I am not "welcome to make useful contributions" - perhaps the template needs changing?) Rich Farmbrough, 22:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC).

Rich, I'm sorry to see you treated so disgracefully. I wish I knew of a solution for this aspect of Wikipedia's disfunctionality. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'm unsatisfied by Sandstein's assertion of a violation as of 21:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC). There's no link to a diff showing any such violation. Sandstein? A bit trigger-happy here, IMHO, unless you can show what edit was the problem. --Lexein (talk) 04:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

  Did you read the AE page linked from the "enforcement request" phrase above? -- Scray (talk) 04:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

  I have read this; and other writings. I don't have the energy to search where I read this but I did read something to the effect that RF could not edit in any manner differently than a new editor would do after pressing the edit button. I disagree with any assertion that suggests copy-pasting is an advanced function that a new editor would inherently never employ. --My76Strat (talk) 05:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

  @Scray - yes, thanks, I read it, but I see that I was unfortunately unclear in my statement. I mean the diff proves only that a single large edit was done, not that automated edits were done. The complaint asserts further that Rich made errors in that and other edits, but I dismiss that because I make errors, and sometimes it takes me a year to notice and fix it, if somebody else doesn't first. It's not deliberate, and it's personally embarrassing, but so far, none of my article edits, and as far as I can see, none of Rich's edits, damage the project. Now, note that I generally dislike massive article edits because diffs are hard to follow and vet (and I've reverted three such big edits as too much at once), but obvious spreadsheet additions such as this one aren't too bad. So I'll stand by my point that there's no diff illustrating an actual violation of the no-automation ruling. To rephrase, composing tables in a spreadsheet constitutes no vio of the ruling or agreement. There just an allegation, and what I believe was an overzealous, opportunistic, bad-for-the-project block, which I'd like to see reverted or severely shortened by some sturdy, tree-like pro-editor administrator. --Lexein (talk) 05:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• The block may be overturned by community at WP:AN/I--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 05:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

If this is true, we should let people know. And if not... then let's not do things that way. Does the veneration of ArbCom's august authority completely override all consideration of whether an edit improved the encyclopedia or not? Wnt (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I also agree that this was a bad decision based on a bad call. If someone wants to take this to ANI for review I would also support it. Kumioko (talk) 03:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think I'm trying to shoot the messenger by suggesting that User:Fram ought to be subject to a total ban against any interaction with Rich Farmbrough. He has been asked nicely before, and has declined, merely promising to be more civil. Yet seems to come back with constant stream of examples of big and small perceived problems with Rich's work. It seems pretty clear to me now, that Fram has an enormous bee in his bonnet wrt Rich, and has been demonstrably stalking Rich and subjecting him to incessant harassment. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 03:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• So have I got this right? Rich is banned because of one edit to improve an article on a suspicion of using a method of automation that is not explicitly banned in the sanctions against him? Do those who are hounding Rich not understand things like rationality, cost benefit analysis and turning a blind eye in order to advance any improvements to Wikipedia? Blocking should be a protection measure and a punishment for disruptive editing. It should not be readily used on editors who make huge improvements to Wikipedia. And it seem Rich does make a lot of improvements to Wikipedia. Oh, BTW Rich, a few more edit summaries would be nice. If you are doing a lot of the same edits it typing one character should make the past edit summary come up. Well Firefox does that for me. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

That's pretty much it except he's not banned, he's just blocked for 2 months. Several of us fought the issue because a one year block was absurd. I also agree Fram needs to step away, I even started an ANI discussion but of course it was closed almost immediately. This unfortunately is the sort of thing I have come to expect from the admin community these days though. Block first, possibly ask a couple questions. Ignore any advice from those who are not admins then continue on. I do not have a very good attitude about the state of things these days. Kumioko (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The wrong types of human behaviour are unfortunately making it past the keyboard and in to WP discussions. Two types of human behaviour is the desire for power and the desire to punish. I think this is yet another case where these wrong types of human behaviour by admins has trumped rational decision making. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree, I think that's part of the reason that we are losing editors and admins at an incremental rate. People generally edit because its enjoyable and it feels like they are contributing to something meaningful. But if its not enjoyable there are other ways to spend ones time. This is going to sound really bad but I don't intend it to be. I think part of our problem is that Wikipedia generally attract a certain type of individual. These are intelligent folks who tend to have trouble interacting socially. Intraverts if you will. So that manifests itself on wiki because generally people who are antisocial in real life are probably going to be at least the same if not worse on here. Kumioko (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. Interesting premise about the introversion. Could it be that introverts are able to be online extroverts? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I imagine that happens as well. Kumioko (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I think there's a lot to be said about that theory. If people had to post in their real names (i.e. if they had something personal at stake when making a comment), they might behave quite differently – more like their 'nornal' personae. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 01:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• On doing a bit more reading it seems that the accuracy of the edits by Rich is a contentious matter. And rightly so. Accuracy is paramount in an encyclopedia. Also, there is enough bad faith edits without the regular editors making mistakes. An occasional mistake is acceptable (we all make them) but regularly making errors is unacceptable. So is insufficient care being taken by Rich? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • It's a basic building block of Wiki that perfection is not required. The pillars says "Be bold (but not reckless) in updating articles and do not worry about making mistakes." Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 13:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Exactly, What happened to Rich is just one of many examples of how some members of the community who think they know more than the rest of us and think we need to listen to them, are eroding the pillars and making editors leave. Kumioko (talk) 15:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Sure, perfection is not required but as an encyclopedia relied on by millions of people accuracy is very important. We demand it of bio articles and we should apply the same standard to the rest of WP. How long will it be until someone is hurt or even dies as a result of information gleaned from WP? Not a likely scenario I admit but worthy of consideration. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Actually the precise problem is that the rules keep shifting. One time it's about errors, another time errors are acceptable, but I "refuse" to correct them, another time it's a technical breach of rules (blocked for a month for correcting two spelling mistakes). Similarly some arbs have stated publicly that it is thought crime my "Mindset" or "Failure to internalise"!
      • I asked in the Arb case if there were any known errors that I hadn't corrected, and a resounding silence ensued.
      • Rich Farmbrough, 04:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC).
        

MfD nomination of User:Rich Farmbrough/blog

User:Rich Farmbrough/blog, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rich Farmbrough/blog and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Rich Farmbrough/blog during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  17:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I suspect it would have been easier just to ask RIch if he would request its speedy deletion, or move it so it's not called a "blog". The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The timing is also incredibly poor since Rich is currently blocked and cannot participate in the discussion or edit anything outside this page. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Went and had a look at the mfd, and closed it as snowball keep. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It just got snowed as keep.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 03:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Kosh won't let it lie, and has DRV'ed it. I imagine a similar outcome will conclude there. Waste of community time and energy. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

And got trouted for this.Rich Farmbrough, 11:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC).

Proposed interaction ban between Fram and Rich Farmbrough

This message is to notify you that I have started a discussion at ANI for an interaction Ban for Fram and Rich Farmbrough. I know that you cannot participate in that discussion but I believe you can still edit here. Kumioko (talk) 12:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind, its closed. Kumioko (talk) 13:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

For the benefit of context, and Rich being able to read it upon his return, the proposal was here [5]. —Sladen (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 January 2013

• News and notes: Requests for adminship reform moves forward

• WikiProject report: Say What? — WikiProject Linguistics

• Featured content: Wazzup, G? Delegates and featured topics in review

• Arbitration report: Doncram case continues

• Technology report: Data centre switchover a tentative success

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #42

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

• Development
  • Updated demo system
  • Improved design of sites code in core
  • Fixed SQLite compatibility
  • Worked on implementing references handling in statements user interface
  • Useful error messages will be shown in statements user interface in case of data value mismatches
  • Switched the demo system to Labs’ puppet
  • Selenium tests for length constraint, claim edit-conflicts
  • Setting up dispatcher script on internal test machine
  • More work on wikibase.getEntities() function for Scribunto/Lua-Templates
  • AbuseFilter is now working with Wikibase
  • The change dispatcher script is now ready for use on the WMF cluster
  • Initial implementation of {{#property}} parser function for the client
  • Created a widget for the client to connect a page to a Wikidata item and add interwiki language links to a page
  • Preparing a page to list unconnected pages on the clients
• Discussions/Press
  • VIAF
• Events
  • InfoLunch at Hasso-Plattner-Institut
  • Deutscher Sprachtechnologietag
  • upcoming: FOSDEM
  • upcoming: talk about MediaWiki groups
• Other Noteworthy Stuff
  • Reconfirmation of temporary admins
  • Next deployment (Hebrew and Italian Wikipedia) still scheduled for 30th of January as planned
  • Planning for Wikimania in Hong Kong
  • Wikimedia data center move went rather smoothly
  • Request from the Bosnian Wikipedia community to be among the next to use Wikidata
  • Project about paid editing that might also become relevant for Wikidata at some point
• Open Tasks for You
  • Hack on one of these

Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 14:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Note reply

Hello, Rich Farmbrough. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Discussion.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Curb Chain (talk) 09:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea. I tried to avoid getting entangled in CSS (or indeed many large areas of Wikipedia) to focus on the content end, with a little bit of policy and welcoming work. And it is probably only there that I have succeeded. You may want to go and ask one of the CSS specialists. Rich Farmbrough, 11:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC).

The Strange Love of Martha Ivers ‎

The reverted section by User:Highlander should be reinstated but read "Van Heflin was helpful.... " and be cited to Let's Face It: 90 Years of Living, Loving, and Learning, Kirk Douglas, p21. (Stanwyck, apparently, ignored him for two weeks). The second sentence should not be included as it is too ephemeral. A nice note should be left for the user. Rich Farmbrough, 11:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC).
--

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Well done, you're the second highest contributor on Wikipedia! KEEP IT UP!

Rich Farmbrough, we moved your Teahouse host profile

Hello Rich Farmbrough! Thank you for being a host at the Teahouse. However, we haven't heard from you lately, so our bot has moved your Host profile from the host landing page to the host breakroom. No worries; you can always just Check in and our bot will move your profile back. Editing any Teahouse-related page will do the same thing for you. If you would prefer not to receive reminders like this, you can unsubscribe here. Thanks for your help at the Teahouse! HostBot (talk) 06:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: this HostBot feature is currently operating under trial mode. See this bot request and this discussion for more information.

The Signpost: 28 January 2013

• In the media: Hoaxes draw media attention

• Recent research: Lessons from the research literature on open collaboration; clicks on featured articles; credibility heuristics

• WikiProject report: Checkmate! — WikiProject Chess

• Discussion report: Administrator conduct and requests

• News and notes: Khan Academy's Smarthistory and Wikipedia collaborate

• Featured content: Listing off progress from 2012

• Arbitration report: Doncram continues

• Technology report: Developers get ready for FOSDEM amid caching problems

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)