Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard +  Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics ( Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks +  Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

There really is a lot of stuff to go through given what the case was allegedly based on. Rich  Farmbrough, 00:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC). reply

I think this arbcom case is absurd. I have noticed for some reason that many of the editors in the top editors list are being targetted on at a time for their work on Wikipedia. I do not think this is a coincidence but I fail to understand why a group of users would want to target the editors doing the most to build and maintain the pedia. Rich did some minor edits, so what. Every little edit helps the pedia a little bit at a time. I find it surprising that Rich would continue to endure this constant harrassment and I am surprised that the community has continued to allow the constant hounding of Rich by users like CBM, FRAM and others. Its the same 3 or 4 editors almost always that find the "problems" and most of these editors do very few edits to actually improve article content. Sure they run a couple bots and do some admin actions and those are important. But that is not what we are here for. WE are here to build an enyclopedia, these other actions are just nice to haves and in many cases just distract us from the bigger goal. If the intent is to limit editors to a certain number of edits then fine but otherwise someone with some common sense should drop this case. 138.162.8.57 ( talk) 14:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC) reply

The point of arbitration cases is to determine whether the detriments that the subject (or subjects) of an arbitration case have caused outweigh the good contributions they have left. It's up to the arbs to determine what is appropriate and what is not by weighing the evidence provided. Welcome to Wikipedia, perhaps, you can create an account and log-in =) Regards, Whenaxis ( contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 22:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC) reply

I can not speak for CBM and "others", but I do believe I do and have done my share of "actually improving article content", e.g. by creating over a 1000 articles (inlcuding lots of DYK and a few GA). On the other hand, most problematic edits by Rich (apart from the very buggy article creation script he used) do very little to improve article content, and are largely cosmetic, e.g. changing Encyclopedia to Encyclopaedia, or U.S. to US. This doesn't mean that, when done correctly, they aren't useful, but they are not improving the actual content one bit.

And I'm sad to say that no one has informed me of the conspiracy to get rid of the editors in the "top editors list", I certainly am not a part of it. IF you have any evidence of such a conspiracy, please raise it at the appropriate boards immediately. Otherwise, please stop sprouting unfounded accusations. Fram ( talk) 07:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC) reply

I got my username fixed so I am going to try and use this rather than the IP. Just to calrify I agree that Rich has done some bad edits and has employed some bad judgement on some tasks. The majority of this case though seems to revolve around minor edits though which to me is a waste of time arguing about. If the MOS says that something should X instead of Y and someone like Rich does it, especially with a bot that can be ignored, then there is no harm done and the edits are just complying with the MOS. As I mentioned before many times I see articles improve incrementally from these types of edits and in the end it is helpful and improves the articles. As for the conspiracy, it is a perception that I have seen that several of the editors in the top 20 have either been run out, myself included or are under scrutiny. I find this especially puzzling when they are doing the same kinds of edits as others who are not mentioned at all. This gives the impression that some users are being targetted. As I have mentioned before FRAM, you CBM and others sepnd entirely too much time bickering about minor edits. Their minor and not worth the effort and time that you are wasting to argue about them. Especially when not all of us think they don't benefit the pedia. IF actual problems occur such as breaking things, creating erroneous categories or various other things I have seen then I am on board that we need to fix that quick but these minor edits are just a waste of a lot of editors valuable time. Thats just my opinion. Kumioko ( talk) 17:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC) reply

None of my complaints, evidence, ... in this case are about minor edits as such, all are about actual errors, edits that break things or otherwise contain way too much errors. I don't get why he still changes things to fit his preference, ignoring the guidelines that clearly state that such changes shouldn't be made at all, but I have only brought him to AN, ANI or ArbCom for more serious business, not for this. Fram ( talk) 18:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC) reply

You see this is where your failure to understand and work together leads to problems. For example the case where you said "7 errors out of 39" - and I pointed out the 5 of what you had said were errors were actually correct, but, while accepting that you still insisted that it was 7 errors out of 39. That plus the fact that you instruct other editors on what to do. It's only later when you start saying things that are certainly false - and you should know are false that things get really bad. If you were to cultivate being friendly and polite instead of peremptory and dictatorial you might find you get better results. For myself I have had enough of you, a message you don't seem to understand. Perhaps if we were face to face you would pick up on my body language? Or perhaps not. Rich  Farmbrough, 02:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC). reply

For someone so adamant that the rules of an ArbCom case should be followed to the letter, your posts are very thin on actual links or diffs. Since I have no idea what "case" you are talking about, or where I supposedly started "saying things that are certainly false", I have no possibility to reply to it, and will regard it as a figment of your imagination and a personal attack until you provide a link or diff. Apart from that, of course I am aware that you have had enough of me, so what? If you would do some basic checking and correcting of your edits, you wouldn't see me on your user talk page anymore. But I am not going to let you continue to make articles get worse or to mass create extremely badly formatted articles or wrong categories only to spare your feelings. Fram ( talk) 06:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC) reply

The point is that if you are unable to interact positively you should not interact at all. If you had respect for other users "feelings" they might welcome your interaction. For myself everything you say, even if you change, will be tainted with you toxic style and weasel words. As far as things that are certainly false, your comments on the workshop are full of them, and I have drawn attention to some of the more ridiculous. Rich  Farmbrough, 13:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC). reply

Are there any discussions of this case taking place on privileged channels (i.e. the ArbCom mailing list or a non-public Wiki)? If yes, do Hersfold and Elen still have access to these channels? I would consider that a very serious structural problem of the process. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 09:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC) reply

They do not. The Committee has a number of secondary mailing lists available for use in cases to which an arbitrator is a party; one of these is being used for this particular case. Kirill  ^[talk] 13:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Thanks, that's good to know. It might be a good idea to make these inner workings more transparent. Of course, as far as I'm concerned, it would be an even better idea to conduct much more business out in the open to begin with. I'm not nagging, I'm just telling you (plural) again and again and again ;-). -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 13:41, 21 April 2012 (UTC) reply

In case it is not obvious, I strongly endorse Stephan's ideas in this. -- Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Funnily enough these alternative mailing lists were mentioned in this weeks Signpost (which I am not allowed to comment on). I hope they are more secure than the previous mailing lists. Or maybe Stephan is right and I should not be hoping that. Rich  Farmbrough, 04:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC). reply

I'm not sure where (or even whether) to mention this, but on the validity of the edit restrictions:

1. days before the edit restriction I imposed, a much harsher one (banning AWB/bot activity) got substantial support ( here)
2. I thought the proposed restriction was not unduly onerous - and really not that much more than a requirement to follow relevant policies as interpreted by the community. It seemed a sensible compromise between the "stop him, he can't be persuaded to act as we want" camp, and the "let him be, he's basically doing nothing wrong" camp, and by making very clear the desired interpretation of policy, I thought that it would be much easier for Rich to understand what exactly the expectations were of him, and that those expectations had the backing of the community.
3. I took Rich's response to my "cutting of the Gordian knot" ( here) as accepting that decision.

Rd232 ^talk 17:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC) reply

1. This has already been covered in the "workshop". While the initial !votes were largely in favour, later !votes tended to be against. This proposal was so harsh that it was the editor who kicked the discussion off that proposed the alternative.
2. The proposed restriction was not in absolute terms onerous. It was stupid, badly worded and un-necessary though.
3. I did not read your statement properly, as I have said several times since, which was a failing on my part. I was under the impression that you had carefully reviewed the whole thread, and a substantial amount of background material, hence my comment "Thank you for reviewing this ungodly mess." That was further to my previous "Uninvolved admin would be good. But if they can get through it in a couple of hours I would be amazed. This debate has eaten hundreds of hours of my time, and every time we get close to closing it down there is a change of venue." Foolishly I thought you had done so and made a new carefully considered hand-crafted Editing Restriction, not simply cut and pasted the ER made by the guy complaining in the first place! At that point I was willing to go along with almost anything after being worn down, but had I realised this was the case I would have objected most strenuously. Nonetheless it did reduce the drama and we were able to work together for some time on it. Once your moderating influence was gone and the more aggressive and provocative attempts to fight every tiny thing came to the fore, I thought it best to repudiate the restriction entirely, even though I am still following it almost completely. Rich  Farmbrough, 04:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC). reply
   

I have been tempted to comment on many of the statements of evidence in this case but stopped short of doing so, deciding rather to leave my comments here were they can be easily read or if desired ignored without having to mine 5000 characters deep in diatribe and hyperbole. I do feel I need to comment though because I have noticed a trend in arcom cases dealing with editors that once here they seldom go in what can be coined as favor towards the accused. Part of that I feel is because these cases get so long and so charged with emotions the only ones that want to participate are the accused, the accusers and the arbitrators. As with real life few ever take time to comment if not to complain, here too seems to be that trend. So as such here are some notes of mine.

I do agree that Rich has made many mistakes but IMO and in context to the just shy of 1 million edits he accomplished more good has come of it than harm. I do agree that Rich has done some tasks and edits that could be perceived as iritating and he does need to watch his editing closer. That said, having seen his edits, a number of these were done in frustration at multi week/month wait times in BAG and constant hounding by editors like FRAM and CBM who seem to spend more time watching his edits than working on problems with their own bots and editing. Some where done on request from others who solicited Rich for his knowledge as a bot operator and were not done as a whim task that Rich thought needed to be done. I would also like to comment on a couple of the specific things that seem to be recurring themes in this case.

1. Rich has done some bad edits, sometimes in high volume. We all make mistakes and to that there can be no argument. As far as I can tell though once notified he fixes the problems if he is notified. The only time I have seen Rich get upset about being asked to fix a task is when some editor goes irrate on his talk page with threats of blocks and such.
2. Rich has violated his edit restriction. I agree this is true, however as noted from several others the edits done seem to be largely for the improvement of WP and not in malice. I believe in the legal profession this would be referred to as The spirit of the law rather than the letter of it.
3. Rich has been uncivil. To some users who continue to hound him yes, but not to users who are civil to him.
4. Rich has done minor edits. Yep this ones true too. Some editors like CBM and FRAM find these types of edits to be quite irritating and some find it annoying when their watchlists clog up. To address the latter first. I have never and will never give any weight to the argument that a user needs to slow down because they are filling up watchlists. This sort of argument is just plum stupid. On the point of minor edits. The minor edit argument falls into a scale of editing IMO. There are some on the extreme left like FRAM and CBM that think they should never be done, there are those of us (and I cound myself among this group) that thinks that if the edit needs to get done then it needs to get done, minor or otherwise and if I can program a bot to do some of these minor things without editors fiddling with it then all the better. Most users I believe probably fall somewhere in between and probably don't bother fighting it as long as it doesn't affect them too much.
5. Creating poor quality things like DNB pages, categories and the like. This is probably the only one I do agree might be a problem with Rich. Rich sees a problem and wants to fix it whether that is a missing category, article or other. That is admirable and I believe his heart is in the right place but I do think that sometimes he rushes the product out before its ready and it causes problems. These are the ones I think he needs to look at. Again though, in the cases I have seen if he is told about the problem and given a chance to fix it he does.

In the end I think that many of these problems have been blown out of proportion. So many editors are hounding Rich about every little edit I have trouble in finding their statements credible and I don't blame him for largely ignoring anything some of them say. Particularly from CBM and FRAM following him around and Wikiwhining about minor edit violations, even undoing the edit (which to me is even worse than doing the minor edit in the first place). Some of the other editors complaints have merit but these too badger him incesently. Kumioko ( talk) 18:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC) reply

I agree with every single word of this. Where have I seen this before? -- Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Kumioki, I think it's a shame you didn't put this into evidence, where it would actually be considered by the Arbs voting on the case. I thought in the long discussions you had with Rich on his and my talkpage, we were actually getting to some level of understanding about how he could avoid further editing problems. I thought you had a very good insight into things. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 23:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Thanks, frankly given the state of my own reputation these days I didn't think that my opinion would be much help. Aside from that the case is so fragmented it would have been hard to find a good place to drop it in. With that, I believe if the arbs wish to use the information above in consideration to the case at hand they can. Although arbitration is a semi legal process and the determination of such is a sort of defacto legal binding agreement, there is no reason I can think of that the information contained on a Arbom case's talk page cannot be taken into consideration as testimonial evidence. Sorta like a side bar I suppose. Thats just my opinion though. Kumioko ( talk) 00:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC) reply

I'm sure they will read it - I was only thinking it's more in the spotlight if its on the evidence page, and there isn't really anyone speaking up for Rich. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 00:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Yeah that's true good point. But then thats the problem with these arbcases. Generally the only ones talking are the accused, the accusers and the arbs. Most folks don't watch these pages and those that do are typically not here to defend. If you work in the dark only the shadows know. Kumioko ( talk) 00:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Elen, I still think you completely misunderstand the tenor of Kumioko's comments on your talk page. While Kumioko does not agree with everything I do, even excluding errors, he was there in a somewhat heroic (considering the battering he himself has taken) role, very politely, and pretty much correctly, disagreeing with those who were on your talk page to attempt to get you to block me.

Kumioko, Beetstra and others have brought out some of the deeper aspects of this case, like CBM's obsessive reversion with other editors (i.e. not just me) over a number of issues, Fram's lack of clean hands in terms of AWB errors, and so forth. There are other matters I chose not to bring up here, as I do not wish to construct a tu quque defence. It has to be said though that the evidence offered by the parties is extremely poor, I could have constructed a better case against me!

I am simply amazed that there seems to be no middle ground between meaningless stringing together of rules to arrive at an inappropriate conclusion and airy-fairy "Rich did something monstrous" predicated on no more than a half-thought out posting by a vexatious user.

The way to approach Wikipedia issues is with a thorough understanding of both the human and technical issues. For example going off half-cocked on a month long block might be excusable, but as soon as there were grounds to think that the reasons were wrong (or I would have said grounds for doubt) an un-block would have been appropriate. The first part is a failure to understand the technical issues, the second a failure to understand the human issues. Palming the whole thing off onto ArbCom is plain wrong.

I am of Rich  Farmbrough, 00:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC). reply

No, I still think the month block was about right. And I sincerely hope you didn't create all those sockpuppet categories because you were going for the million edits. That wouldn't be good. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 23:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Hm, that is pretty much a personal attack. Which is to be expected I suppose. Rich  Farmbrough, 21:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC). reply

Not at all intended as a personal attack, so I apologise that this was how it could be taken. It is easy (I have done it myself) to focus on a deadline or outcome, and rush things. I only meant that I hoped it wasn't rushing to beat Koavf that might have made you a little careless - and given people another stick to beat you with. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 11:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Elen, question, do you think that people grabbed the stick because it was R.F. who was creating the categories? Because I have the strong impression that if other editors would have done the same (and other editors have done the same), that the stick would just have stayed in the corner, and it would not have been touched. -- Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Similarly, do you think that the stick is forced back into the corner, when other editors who have a general trust of the community are performing mass-amounts of edits (at speeds where human evaluation of every single action is impossible), and which are demonstratably against previously established consensus. -- Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Regarding the first question, Rich has an explicit edit restriction against mass creation of categories (or any other pages), which other editors don't. — Carl ( CBM ·  talk) 13:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Elen did mention that in the block-log, indeed, but on the talkpage the description is "... The community neither needs nor wants those categories - mostly if it needed them, it created them as it went along. You have succeeded in badging editors as socks/masters who were actually cleared, and you are connecting IPs with sockmasters, which is in breach of the privacy policy...not to mention that since the cases are older than Noah, the IPs are almost certainly being used by some poor innocent by now." - hence my question, was the stick grabbed because it was R.F. who was creating the categories - because that stick would NOT have been grabbed (and has not been grabbed) for that reason if someone else than R.F. would have created the categories. -- Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Well, if another editor had similar editing restrictions, and a similar record, they would have got the same penalty. The fact that Rich has editing restrictions is key here - he had the equivalent of nine points on his license. The next ticket he got resulted in disqualification. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 15:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC) reply

So, the block was solely because he was violating the edit restriction? -- Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC) reply

No, it was because Greyflood drew me with a green beard. Dirk, why do *you* think I blocked Rich, because you obviously are of the opinion that it's for something else? Elen of the Roads ( talk) 12:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC) reply

I just wanted it to be clear, thanks. -- Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC) reply

People might surmise that it was because I left you a note about your previous action. Or they might think that you had seen some leaked ArbCom information that shows the case is not going as you wish, and you felt the need to create more drama. That's why you shouldn't be taking admin actions when you are involved in an Arbcom case with someone. I find it very worrying that this is not immediately obvious to you, even as an admin, and certainly as a recused Arb, and that you have not reverted yourself yet shows a lack of common sense, never mind ethics. Rich  Farmbrough, 16:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC). reply

?? I think Dirk's asking about why I blocked, you, not HPB. That particular problem had been flagged on my talkpage in December - I'm surprised you risked running the bot with your "enhanced" version of general fixes, as I would have thought it was pretty much bound to do something like this. If it won't do it again, just restart it. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 16:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Elen, indeed, my question was regarding your block of Rich one month ago. My question was a genuine one, and your sarcastic answer (I hope you know that giving sarcastic answers is something that people actively are trying to use against Rich ... but I don't expect that you will defend Rich's side of that argument) is the evidence that your block was solely because you interpreted that Rich was editing outside one of the restrictions, and that you did not take into account the faulty accusations that were presented (also by you) surrounding those actions (the visibility remarks are moot, and not due to Rich's actions, and other editors who have mass created the exact same categories (sometimes months after the population of the category) did not see any opposition against it - meaning that that part of the opposition is solely an opposition because Rich is performing them, not because there is an opposition to the task itself - The only reasonable interpretation is: Rich is performing a task, so there must be something wrong with it, lets stir up the drama (or the other way around: an arbitrator is performing an absolutely massive task on their main admin account - there can not be anything wrong with it, because it is an arbitrator doing it, so we squelch the AN (or AN/I) discussion). Do you see how the sheeple are thinking here on Wikipedia. Are things done by Rich really wrong, or are you, like many editors here on Wikipedia, following the rest of the sheeple?

That you blocked HPB, however, shows that you are following the rest of the sheeple. And I am sure, that the Arbitration committee will follow suit. -- Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC) reply

You have repeatedly claimed that other users are or have been mass creating these old sockpuppet cats as well. Could you please provide evidence for this? So that other people can also judge the similarities (or not) between the cases. Fram ( talk) 07:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Of course, thanks for asking. The user I found was User:Pascal666, see e.g. editing sprees in this list of contributions (I did not count, but I think there are several hundreds created). As an example, here you see the creation on 11:42, 18 July 2010‎, 4 days short of 6 months after user:Grahyafilms ( 16:19, 22 January 2010), User:Rahulkrish5 ( 16:19, 22 January 2010‎) and User:Randolf ambrose ( 16:19, 22 January 2010) were tagged (the sockmasster, User:Rahulrkrishnan was tagged on 16:18, 22 January 2010‎. The mass-creator of these categories, Pascal666, states "I was not involved too much in the sockpuppet processes. I was involved more with categorization. [[Special:WantedCategories]] lists the top 1000 categories that do not exist but have member pages. A large portion of the list was sockpuppet categories. Creating these categories removed them from the list so that useful categories could be found and created." and "I don't remember any specific discussions about creating these categories, but that may be due more to the lack of my memory than the lack of such discussions. I would consider creating them basic maintenance (back when I had more free time I used to be a bit of a [[Wikipedia:WikiGnome|WikiGnome]]). A lot of users either don't take the time to create categories or don't know how. The sockpuppet categories in particular were a mess because a lot of users would simply create them and paste in text from a similar page or put whatever they wanted there. A correctly created sockpuppet category should contain only the {{tl|Sockpuppet category}} template and nothing else." - that of course does not mean that there is no previous discussion regarding this (and I am happy to see it if there has been). -- Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC) reply

I have notified Pascal666 of this discussion, they indicated earlier that they were interested in participating in discussions regarding the mass-creation of these categories. -- Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC) reply

I found in the first set of 500 contributions that I linked to above well over 100 suspected sockpuppet category creations. These creations go back months from that list, and continue also later in time (August 2010). -- Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Thanks. Fram ( talk) 09:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC) reply

While I still don't feel that these should be created like this (long after the fact, and without knowing anything about the case or the validity of the tags), at least for these cases an actual reason for their creation was given (when asked about them by Dirk Beetstra on his or her talk page): to remove them from the page of "most wanted" categories so that other (probably more needed) categories would become visible on that page. (Obviously, the same effect can be had by removing the tags from the user (or IP) talk pages where the cats are incorrect or outdated). The effect of this is that all the cats he created (in the link given above, haven't checked whether it is true for other runs) have multiple suspected socks, not one. I have asked on the workshop page for an actual reason, an actual benefit of creating these cats in the case of Rich Farmbrough, but haven't gotten a response there yet. Apart from the first few, all of them seemed to have only one entry, so the "mostwantedcategories" reason can't apply there. Fram ( talk) 12:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC) reply

That is of course a personal opinion to which you are entitled. If all the other categories are created, certainly also the ones with only one member will appear in that list. But I understand that that is an argument that is also true for the thousands and thousands of sockpuppet categories that are not in the first 200 of the holding categorie, and those do not show up in Google (while those in the first 200 do, before the noindex was applied). Note, currently, the special page only lists pages with 6 members and more, while the example I showed here was a category containing 3 members, which would now be unlikely to be in the special page (but may have been in 2010, though I think it is unlikely they were in it then either). -- Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC) reply

I was just going by the explanation given on his talk page, I haven't checked whether it was a realistic explanation or not. But if you go to the bottom of the page [1], you get pages with only two members, so his explanation seems to be plausible at least. You only checked the first 100 (default view), not the full list presumably... Fram ( talk) 14:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Could be, so it is not even unlikely that the page contained categories with only one member in the time that Pascal666 was editing. In other words, Pascal666 did not do anything else than what Rich Farmbrough is now accused of as being bad edits.

So we are back at the same point: people yell at edits that Rich Farmbrough makes, because they are made by Rich Farmbrough, and hence, they must have errors, must be bad. Therefore absurd and pathetic edit restrictions are applied, and hence we are here. May I ask who reported that the creation of these sock categories by Rich Farmbrough was very bad? -- Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC) reply

So basically, when you make a mistake in checking a page, you believe it is unlikely that the explanation given by the creator is correct (so much for WP:AGF on your part), but when it is pointed out that it was probably correct after all, you just jump without any justification to the explanation that RF probably did the same, even though the available evidence doesn't support this at all. Furthermore, it is not because one other person did the same in the past, that it automatically becomesa good thing to do and tat editors can switch their brain off, ignore their existing restrictions, and go on a creation spree that serves no purpose at all (at best) or causes problems and makes earlier errors worse. The rest of your post is basically a group of non sequiturs, mixing cause and effect, e.g. ignoring the fact that the restrictions were created after real and obvious errors were created over and over again, not after the creation of these categories. Fram ( talk) 07:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Eh, I actually believe that the creator is giving a correct explanation, Fram. And I have not said that it was OK to ignore the edit restiction. It is however a problem if editor switch their brain off and consider that because R.F. is breaking an edit restriction, it must be a bad thing, and find errors where they are not - it may even be wanted to create the categories (something that I think is unlikely that you will concede). And, you did not answer the question who was the original reporter of this "creation spree that serves no purpose at all (at best)"? -- Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Why would I "concede" something I don't believe is true? I don't find "errors where they are not", I have explained at length why the creations were wrong ad shouldn't have been done. If you want anyone to concede that these creations were nevertheless wanted, perhaps you or anyone (perhaps, wild idea, the person who actually did create them) can finally answer here or (preferably) at the question at the workshop page what the actual benefit, the reason, the purpose of creating these pages was. As for your final question: have you even followed this case? Or are you just responding at random, without fully understanding the background and the circumstances? Fram ( talk) 12:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Indeed, it is in your opinion just a mindless creation - lacking (at that point) the faintest consideration that maybe there is a good reason to make these categories (if even to clear them out of a maintenance page), and that they do no harm whatsoever anyway. And regarding your rhetoric question, yes, I did, and no, I don't. -- Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Considering the way other people reacted when they learned of these category creations, it certainly wasn't only my opinion though. Taking into account that after being blocked for a month and after more than a month of this ArbCom case, still no good reason to create these categories has been given (as they weren't listed in any maintenance category, and even then it would still be a mindless creation, taking the easiest solution instead of looking for a good, individual one), I feel that my opinion has perhaps just a bit more weight behind it than yours, which seems to be based on wishful thinking and an a priori belief that the blocks and this case have to be based on wrong ideas. Fram ( talk) 14:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Well, Fram, you are making exactly the point that I am trying to make, I am considering 'the way other people reacted when they learned of these category creations'. -- Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC) reply

(deindent) Some people claim that the creation of these sockpuppet categories makes no difference at all (now that the noindex of the main category has been implemented at least, so not at the time of their creation). Apart from begging the question of why people make edits that are supposed to don't make any difference, the claim isn't true. Note the difference when doing a simple in-Wikipedia search for two usernames, 10clagre and 0XQ. One has a blue suspected sock cat, one has a red suspected sock cat. Surprisingly (or, perhaps, not), only the blue one appears in the search. In some cases, appearing in the search is obviously an improvement, and for those the cat should be created or kept. In other cases, it isn't an improvement at all but actually worse to have the blue cat (and thus the search result) (e.g. the Ghirlandajo cat that was speedy deleted as a G10 violation, or in the many old IP connecting cases), and instead of creating the cat, the tag should have been removed from the page. 07:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Nice, those misinterpretations, can you do the same with the full search: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&search=10clagre&fulltext=Search&ns0=1&ns1=1&ns2=1&ns3=1&ns4=1&ns5=1&ns6=1&ns7=1&ns8=1&ns9=1&ns10=1&ns11=1&ns12=1&ns13=1&ns14=1&ns15=1&ns100=1&ns101=1&ns108=1&ns109=1&redirs=1&profile=advanced and http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&search=0XQ&fulltext=Search&ns0=1&ns1=1&ns2=1&ns3=1&ns4=1&ns5=1&ns6=1&ns7=1&ns8=1&ns9=1&ns10=1&ns11=1&ns12=1&ns13=1&ns14=1&ns15=1&ns100=1&ns101=1&ns108=1&ns109=1&redirs=1&profile=advanced. Clutching at straws, Fram. -- Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC) reply

What is the difference between your (supposedly "full") and my searches? Using your two page-filling links, I still get the suspected socks cat as the third result from the first search (after the User and User Talk page), and no suspected sock cat from the second (User, User talk, and then the page Laboratory animal suppliers in the United Kingdom). I can imagine that you start clutching at straws indeed, thanks for letting us know this, but why waste our time with posting the same thing I already posted? Fram ( talk) 08:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Why would people search for '10clagre' or 'OXQ' in Wikipedia? -- Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC) reply

They may not do this for these persons, they may well do this for their own IP address or still active people or well-established editors, like Ghirlandajo. As long as the category for his "suspected sockpuppets" wasn't created, it was highly improbable that someone would stumble across it by accident. By creating it, that chance was significantly increased. Fram ( talk) 14:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Sure, if they do for their own IP address or username, they would also be able to see the tag on their user- or usertalkpage. -- Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Bzz, wrong! The tag is placed on someone else's page (or another IP page), to claim that user X is a sockpuppet of you. You don't notice this on your own user or user talk page at all... I can place a tag on a random user page claiming that he or she is a suspected sockpuppet of you, and you wouldn't be aware of the tag or the redlinked category (note: I obviously won't do this, it would be vandalism and a WP:POINT violation). Fram ( talk) 14:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Now that is an interesting point. I have to have a better look at this - may not be today that I have time for that. -- Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC) reply

"Bzz, wrong!" - I thought this was supposed to be a serious discussion about how I was on the verge of destroying all of Wikipedia by creating these, long established and harmless, categories. Not a puerile point scoring competition. Oh well. Rich  Farmbrough, 16:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC). reply

Nice to see that you haven't made a single post about why you made these edits, but have the time and need to reply to one more light-hearted interjection in this tak page discussion. You clearly have your priorities in the right order... But of course, one wonders why you want to lecture people about "puerile point scoring competition" when in the previous sentence you try to have a "serious discussion" and go on to ridicule it with the claim that you were supposedly "on the verge of destroying all of Wikipedia"... Yes, of course, we only block people who are on the verge of destroying Wikipedia, not just people who are otherwise disruptive. Could you please leave us alone if you don't have anything constructive to add? 20:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Rich, that what your 'Bzz, wrong!' was utterly unnecessary, a wrong tone in the discussion, and not constructive in any form. I just chose to ignore the sarcasm of that (but on second thought - Rich is being accused of being sarcastic...).

I agree, Fram. Searching for a username will result in one maybe finding the page of a category (if created) that accuses you of having sockpuppets. For most of the categories I checked, however, the named account, the sockmaster, was tagged appropriately, only a few don't have that. It took me even more effort to find someone for who the category page was not created, who had other accounts linked back to himself, but not have any comments on their page. So basically: you're right, there are accounts who are linked together through a category that does not have the associated category page. Of those, some may be searching for their username, which for some, irregardless whether Rich created the category page or someone else, may figure out that someone accused them of using sockpuppets. Some of those cases may indeed be wrong, where the other account was tagged in bad faith. That contains quite some 'some' in it. And note, some of them probably even want to know that they have tagged sockpuppets (I just had a look at my own categories/ + - never considered that someone accidentally or in bad faith may have tagged someone as my sockpuppet). Many of the sockmasters even have an SPI on their name.

Even if ALL those editors and/or IPs who do have a category (with or without associated page) on their name with members would search for their username, only a fraction would not have noticed that on their own account already (as they are tagged as sockmasters). It would certainly be a commendable action to get those for who the sockmaster is untagged or improperly tagged out of the system (which would be a major improvement to the system), but I don't think that Rich is making so many more sockmasters visible which would otherwise not have been visible at all, that are not tagged on their own pages already. And then the whole group of editors who are 'sockhunting'/looking for socks will not get results on their search in looking for a suspected sockmaster (and that is lack of maintenance). And if someone is badly tagged as sock (whether or not with an existing category page): that can always be resolved through de-tagging - emptying the category and deleting the category page (if it exists).

So, in short, while I see your point, I still do not see grave error in the creation of these categories, it is actually a very minor effect that you describe - certainly not of the level of "mindless, bot-like fashion, ignoring all potential problems this may cause". -- Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Oh darn, the one that I did find (non existent category page with contents, where the named account is not tagged as sockmaster) has actually both the userpage as the user talkpage deleted. <Sigh> not having this category properly tagged probably resulted in deletion of the page - there have in the past been recurring discussions about the deletion of user and usertalk pages of users who have become inactive - and IIRC the consensus generally was that those pages of editors accused of sockpuppetry, who have incoming links, and some other cases should never be deleted (see e.g. the last remark in this thread, before deletion. We even had an ArbCom Case desysopping an admin who was en masse deleting user and usertalkpages of such editors. Aargh. -- Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Just as I start to think, as I inevitably do, maybe someone is just trying to do what they can, and have an unfortunate turn of phrase, they kick you in the guts. A timely reminder, and worth the pain. Rich  Farmbrough, 00:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC). reply

I have, effectively, made some some offers in the workshop. Other parties are invited to consider them positively or make useful suggestions. So far most of the suggestions do not seem to me to actually resolve any underlying disagreements. It would be good to actually do some "workshopping" now we have, more or less, bottomed out the facts. Rich  Farmbrough, 15:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC). reply

It says at the top that the deadline for closing the workshop was yesterday, though. I wonder how strictly those are enforced. Jafeluv ( talk) 10:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC) reply

There is active discussion and NYB has been asking questions to the parties. I am not going to try to close the workshop unless the arbs suggest it or the conversation goes down hill. It take a bit for things to move past this stage -- Guerillero | My Talk 14:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC) reply

It hardly matters. No one has deigned to answer my questions - which would at least create a framework for moving forward. No one has made any positive comment (even to support) proposals which nominally deal with their issues. Of course they have very different issues, one from the other, but still something positive would be nice. While the other parties are quite happy to give lip-service to a collegiate approach within their statements with faint prasie and backhanded compliments, actually taking the trouble to think of something positive, to propose or support a compromise, or admit an error seems unlikely to happen. One lives in hope. I am of Rich  Farmbrough, 00:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC). reply

I'm not answering your questions as some of them are leading, "have you stopped beating your wife"-type questions worded to support your view of things, and the rest have already been addressed in evidence. They're not offers to find a middle ground at all. Hersfold non-admin^{( t/ a/ c)} 18:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC) reply

OK, thanks for sharing your concerns. Can you give me an example of a "have you stopped beating your wife" type question, so that I can improve it? Rich  Farmbrough, 11:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC). reply

For question one - error free editing is an impossible goal. I reckon I have to correct about a third of my edits, but I don't make many edits. I also very rarely break the wiki (and I have a team of kindly wikignomes who follow me around and fix what I miss). People do get blocked for incompetence, they make so many really annoying errors that the community bans them. So ditch the straw man, and ask is there a some level - absolute or percentage, that is 'too many' errors. Does it depend on the type of error? Is it more of an issue where the errors are harder to fix? That looks like you're actually holding a discussion as to whether high volume edits can be treated the same way as my bumblings - ie does BRD work for automated edits, which is the discussion at hand. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 12:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC) reply

OK the point of the question was to lay aside, clearly, that anyone was proposing error free editing was a reasonable expectation. I'm sorry if this seemed like a "straw man" argument - starting from common ground is often useful - indeed it think it is the purpose behind the "findings of fact" type of statement in ArbCom discussions.

So far most of the criticism is fairly squidgy, based on impressions, and, dare I say it, hearsay. On the other hand at a first approximation, I have cited a set of 1096 manual edits with a maximum of 13 errors (all corrected) and a set of 164,919 automatic edits with about a dozen corrections required (all done of course). So I'm quite happy to look at error rates. I have added some questions relating to this area. Rich  Farmbrough, 21:13, 28 April 2012 (UTC). reply

Let me also expand on the purpose behind asking about the NOINDEX issue, which is maybe what Hersfold is referring to (I have no idea why, but it is possible). It seems to me that this issue is substantially resolved, and was at the very least verging on a non-issue to start with. If everyone agrees with that (and no one has given cogent reasons not to, though a valiant rearguard action is going on) then we can put the issue to bed, and focus on the core issues instead. Playing round-the-mulberry bush with issues is not helpful, well it's not helpful to me, for example to provide what I think is a good explanation of one issue, only to have the matter moved to a different topic I have addressed elsewhere.

The crucial matter here is addressing:

1. The perceptions of what has happened - which has involved calling a few people on their claims.
2. What has actually happened, where I hope everyone now has some idea
3. What the attitude of the various parties actually is - for example I am not blasé about errors.

With that background established, we can look forward to see

1. What we should carry on doing, that is working well
2. What we can do differently for better results

Unless we can move forward on these issues, and make a definitive break with the snide comments, niggly reports and groupthink of the past, progress will be extremely hard. Nonetheless it will occur. If I have to document every edit and compute statistics of every series of edits I make, track response times, make comparisons with measured norms and so forth, in order to convince people that the overall quality of my work is a benefit, I will. But, to mis-quote Douglas Adams, "Everything would be much simpler if everyone just got along". Rich  Farmbrough, 21:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC). reply

"I have cited a set of 1096 manual edits with a maximum of 13 errors (all corrected)" and so on. Links? If you have the means to identify all your errors with such certainty after the fact, then what is the problem in correcting them? Why can you be so certain now that there was a maximum of 13 errors (and what was the minimum number of errors, by the way?). Do you consider changing a piped link into a piped redirected link an error or not? Probably not, since a fair number of those haven't been reverted to their better original state.

A short search found e.g. [2], where you change in a publication title "North Carolina USA" to "North Carolina US", even thoug the actual publication uses "USA" in its title ("Proceedings of the...") [3] This error has not been fixed, and so presumably is not included in your count of "maximum 13 errors" either. Fram ( talk) 07:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Of course not, I was looking at a different set of edits. And it's amusing to see my prediction being born out, that investigating in detail and identifying possible errors would be used to attack me, even if the ingenuity of the attack falls far short of what I expect. I have done a further analysis on 10,000 edits around October of which circa 1100 replaced USA with US. Examining the 90 where USA was part of a title or link, only 14 were possible errors, (when I have re-reviewed them I will give the final number) including the one you identified, and Smita Agarwal which was corrected almost immediately it was made. Again we lay low three myths the truth is:

1. I look for errors
2. When I find them I fix them
3. The error rate is - even in the worst cases, pretty low. Here, if we assume an average of 5 changes per edit, this type of error was 0.0028%.

Rich  Farmbrough, 18:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC). reply

When you don't provide anything that anyone else can verify, you can hardly claim to "lay low" any myths. You make unsubstantiated claims, which we have to take at face value. Thanks, but no thanks... Fram ( talk) 20:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC) reply

"In addition, the cometary is filled with assumptions of bad faith. " I think this process so far is extremely shaky, completely the opposite of what I had expected. It also seems to be basically destructive rather than constructive, effectively locking the parties in a room for a month, and maybe peeping in through the spyhole from time to time. It needs rethinking from a more creative point of view. Do we not have any highly trained facilitators or mediators, with detailed technical knowledge of Wikipedia and every subject it covers? Rich  Farmbrough, 16:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC). reply

It's the clerk's responsibility to manage conduct in these cases. Guerillero's comment wasn't directed at anyone in particular, that I see, nor was intended as interpretation of evidence as you claim, but was meant to address the comments back and forth about it. When discussion becomes unproductive, it is well within the clerk's authority to bring it to a stop, and in extreme cases apply blocks and other administrative remedies as necessary.

If you have a problem with the Arbitration process, the appropriate place to bring it up is at WT:AC or the annual Arbitration RFC, or you can run to be on the Committee yourself next year; as the big orange box at the top of the edit screen for this page says, "The purpose of this page is to discuss Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough/Workshop". What might also help with your apparent misconceptions is actually reading the Guide to Arbitration and past cases, something I've recommended to you several times now and yet I still don't think you've done. No, things aren't perfect, but keep in mind everyone here is a volunteer, same as you. We've only so much time to work on it, and expecting that we all be highly trained mediators is both impractical and preposterous. Hersfold non-admin^{( t/ a/ c)} 17:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC) reply

If you have an issue with my clerking I ask that you approach me directly. As Hersfold correctly guessed, I was not talking about the evidence; I was referring to the back and forth between the several editors who were discussing it. -- Guerillero | My Talk 18:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Indeed I know what "commentary" means. And I don't think you should be commenting on the commentary. You hatted the discussion, why become an involved party? Rich  Farmbrough, 10:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC). reply

Hersfold of course I have read GtA. And taking issue with a hyperbolic comment does not advance things. I do stick by my statement that the proceedings are largely destructive, and attempts to move things forward have been rubbished, not least by you. Rich  Farmbrough, 12:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC). reply

I may close editing of the workshop soon. The discussions seem to have reached the saturation point and are now just going in circles or rehashing old disputes. Does anyone have an objection to this? -- Guerillero | My Talk 18:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Stick a fork in it... -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 21:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC) reply

It's been done for a while. On the other hand, I expect the editing would just move to a talk page.

What would be helpful for me is an estimate from the arbs on when the draft final decision will be posted. — Carl ( CBM ·  talk) 11:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC) reply

There is little constructive going on. Elen seems to want a constructive discussion, but has not answered the the questions she said would be useful. Hersfold seems to have wandered off. Fram is still arguing over stuff we laid to rest on day one. So might as well close it. Rich  Farmbrough, 12:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC). reply

Indeed, lets move on - time to discuss further on what ArbCom thinks about it on the talkpage of the proposed decision. Any idea on the ETA of that? -- Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Let's close it, Rich isn't answering any questions in a meaningful or fact-based fashion anyway, and the rest of us have mostly said what we have to say by now. Fram ( talk) 14:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC) reply

'Rich isn't answering any questions in a meaningful or fact-based fashion anyway'? In other words, he is ranting and lying? -- Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC) reply

No, he is often dodging the question (e.g. the recent example where I posted four cases of him editing through the full protection of one single template; only for him to start about an older example at the same template, and then remarking that that fifth edit, which he brought up, was before the protection was implemented...) And of course the many instances where he makes claims or "findings of fact" without presenting any evidence to back it up, even after it has been explicitly requested. That doesn't mean that those statements he makes are lies, only that we have no means at all to judge their veracity or to contradict them (it's rather hard to proof that a claim of doing something sometime somewhere is wrong when you don't know what the "sometime" and "somewhere" are, and the "something" is rather vague as well). Fram ( talk) 15:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Fram can't hear my replies. Nor does he deign to reply to my or Elen's questions, although asking one of his own. Rich  Farmbrough, 23:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC).(Using some automation) reply

Which question by Elen of the Roads? Fram ( talk) 05:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: the proposed solution - i.e. death penalty is up, if anyone wants to read it. Rich  Farmbrough, 23:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC).(Using some automation) reply