Rich Farmborough

[Vigilant]

He's indef'd for being a jackass and seems to be using his talk page for something other than requesting an unblock.

Why is that?

[Beeblebrox]

Obviously because he is a misunderstood genius who is just trying to help us poor fools.

I zapped it, we'll see what happens. My admin tools are off the table when it comes to Rich but if he persists, which he almost certainly will, revocation of the talk page would seem in order. He's always been his own worst enemy (although I think he imagines I actually fill that role).

[The Blue Newt]

Obviously because he is a misunderstood genius who is just trying to help us poor fools.

I zapped it, we'll see what happens. My admin tools are off the table when it comes to Rich but if he persists, which he almost certainly will, revocation of the talk page would seem in order. He's always been his own worst enemy (although I think he imagines I actually fill that role).

From a sideways perspective, I’ve never seen exactly why he is seen as so egregiously bad, but I haven’t run into him that much.

What exactly is his perceived major malfunction(s)?

[Beeblebrox]

Obviously because he is a misunderstood genius who is just trying to help us poor fools.

I zapped it, we'll see what happens. My admin tools are off the table when it comes to Rich but if he persists, which he almost certainly will, revocation of the talk page would seem in order. He's always been his own worst enemy (although I think he imagines I actually fill that role).

From a sideways perspective, I’ve never seen exactly why he is seen as so egregiously bad, but I haven’t run into him that much.

What exactly is his perceived major malfunction(s)?

Making mass edits that do more harm than good, over and over and over again, look at his block log and his multiple entries at WP:RESTRICT (T-H-L) for instance.

from 2010

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

2011

Regardless of the editing method (i.e. manual, semi-automatic, or automatic; from any account), Rich Farmbrough is indefinitely prohibited from mass creating pages in any namespace, unless prior community approval for the specific mass creation task is documented. The definition of "mass creation" and the spirit of the restriction follows Wikipedia:BOTPOL#Mass article creation.

2020

Rich Farmbrough is not permitted to make any mass changes to articles, broadly construed, and regardless of editing method, cosmetic or not, without a demonstrable consensus from the community that he is explicitly permitted to do so. Further, he is entirely prohibited from using Auto Wiki Browser or directly making any edits to Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Template redirects or any other page related to the governance and use of automated or semi-automated tools. Any such changes desired must be proposed on the appropriate talk page, and may only be enacted by other parties. This sanction does not replace or nullify other pre-existing sanctions on this user, and may be appealed no sooner than one year from the date it was approved by the community.

again in 2020, when he gamed the previous restriction

Consensus in respect of Rich Farmbrough's editing restrictions shall be defined as approval at WP:BRFA or a formally closed WP:RFC with more than ten non-canvassed participants.

These are all community sanctions that are still active, which is probably why he doesn't appeal the block, there were more than this, imposed by ArbCom, that he managed to appeal.

So actually, it's not just the mass editing, it's the wikilawyering and end-running of restrictions, and acting like he didn't know any better when these things are pointed out, basically complete disrespect of the idea that the entire project is not his laboratory for his bot/ mass editing whims, that introduce errors as often as they fix them.

[The Blue Newt]

Obviously because he is a misunderstood genius who is just trying to help us poor fools.

I zapped it, we'll see what happens. My admin tools are off the table when it comes to Rich but if he persists, which he almost certainly will, revocation of the talk page would seem in order. He's always been his own worst enemy (although I think he imagines I actually fill that role).

From a sideways perspective, I’ve never seen exactly why he is seen as so egregiously bad, but I haven’t run into him that much.

What exactly is his perceived major malfunction(s)?

Making mass edits that do more harm than good, over and over and over again, look at his block log and his multiple entries at WP:RESTRICT (T-H-L) for instance.

(much snippage)

So actually, it's not just the mass editing, it's the wikilawyering and end-running of restrictions, and acting like he didn't know any better when these things are pointed out, basically complete disrespect of the idea that the entire project is not his laboratory for his bot/ mass editing whims, that introduce errors as often as they fix them.

Ahh, getting all DIcKlY oN Wiki. Carry on with the Act of Faith, then.

[stedil]

There was an extended discussion about this here.

The explanation:

In my "to do" list above I have generally, and more so as time progressed, listed just the article title, occasionally with a cryptic note to myself, precisely because I don't want anyone to be troubled by receiving accusations of proxying.

I suspect that he thinks he will be unblocked at some point. He is recording "issues" on his talk page that he plans to fix once unblocked.

[Vigilant]

He thinks the rules don't apply to him, regardless of what everyone else says.

[Vigilant]

This entire section is an attempt to get people to edit by proxy for him.

[The Blue Newt]

This entire section is an attempt to get people to edit by proxy for him.

Given that the problem isn’t the quality of every edit, but the tsunamistic volume of them, good and bad, isn’t this more or less a Good Thing?

[Vigilant]

This entire section is an attempt to get people to edit by proxy for him.

Given that the problem isn’t the quality of every edit, but the tsunamistic volume of them, good and bad, isn’t this more or less a Good Thing?

He's indef'd.
He's using his talk page for things that are explicitly forbidden.
Others who do this lose talk page access immediately.

[The Blue Newt]

This entire section is an attempt to get people to edit by proxy for him.

Given that the problem isn’t the quality of every edit, but the tsunamistic volume of them, good and bad, isn’t this more or less a Good Thing?

He's indef'd.
He's using his talk page for things that are explicitly forbidden.
Others who do this lose talk page access immediately.

Yeah, many, probably most, would, yep. My question is whether doing this universally, across the board, lockstep is a good thing, or whether this is an exception which someone interested in creating a reference work would allow.

Now, I greatly doubt that he’s been given this latitude for this reason, Wiki doesn’t work that way. It’s broken, and, I think, broken to the point where its collapse would be progress. When exceptions are made to rules, it is almost always personal, or because it drives some agenda. I get this, yeah.

[Vigilant]

This entire section is an attempt to get people to edit by proxy for him.

Given that the problem isn’t the quality of every edit, but the tsunamistic volume of them, good and bad, isn’t this more or less a Good Thing?

He's indef'd.
He's using his talk page for things that are explicitly forbidden.
Others who do this lose talk page access immediately.

Yeah, many, probably most, would, yep. My question is whether doing this universally, across the board, lockstep is a good thing, or whether this is an exception which someone interested in creating a reference work would allow.

Now, I greatly doubt that he’s been given this latitude for this reason, Wiki doesn’t work that way. It’s broken, and, I think, broken to the point where its collapse would be progress. When exceptions are made to rules, it is almost always personal, or because it drives some agenda. I get this, yeah.

Exactly this.

[Beeblebrox]

I think it is fairly obvious that Rich has been given repeated chances to prove he can stop acting the fool, and has deliberately squandered them all, to the point where there is no room left for assuming good faith with him.

Something just kind of clicked in my mind while writing about this yesterday, maybe because all their names have come up recently. Fae, Rodhullandemu, and Rich are all basically the same scenario.

*former admins
*sanctioned by both arbcom and the community
*sanctions treated by them with nothing but contempt and derision
*playing the victim no matter how many people try to explain why they are the problem
*eventually, finally, exhaust the patience of even those who have bent over backwards to be nice to them and help them overcome these issues

They each have a different style when on the ropes, Fae goes into hysterics and blames homophobia, Rod makes creepy insinuations and suddenly has debilitating health problems, while Rich has a "aw shucks I was just trying to help" routine, but the intent for all three is the same: deflection from the real issue.

[Vigilant]

Why do you think it takes en.wp sooooo long to reach the pint where they are able to rationally evaluate whether someone is a clear net negative?

[Beeblebrox]

Why do you think it takes en.wp sooooo long to reach the pint where they are able to rationally evaluate whether someone is a clear net negative?

Well, all three of these folks were "legacy admins" and I think that exacerbates the issue. The ole Super Mario problem.

They are also all British. I don't know that that is actually relevant, but so is our old friend Eric Corbett.

[owl be it]

Obviously because he is a misunderstood genius who is just trying to help us poor fools.

I zapped it, we'll see what happens. My admin tools are off the table when it comes to Rich but if he persists, which he almost certainly will, revocation of the talk page would seem in order. He's always been his own worst enemy (although I think he imagines I actually fill that role).

Beeblebrox, I know that you think you are really cool, but I get the impression that you are a silly geek.

[Beeblebrox]

Obviously because he is a misunderstood genius who is just trying to help us poor fools.

I zapped it, we'll see what happens. My admin tools are off the table when it comes to Rich but if he persists, which he almost certainly will, revocation of the talk page would seem in order. He's always been his own worst enemy (although I think he imagines I actually fill that role).

Beeblebrox, I know that you think you are really cool, but I get the impression that you are a silly geek.

I mean, I won't deny that, but I am not at all sure how that diff demonstrates that.

[owl be it]

Obviously because he is a misunderstood genius who is just trying to help us poor fools.

I zapped it, we'll see what happens. My admin tools are off the table when it comes to Rich but if he persists, which he almost certainly will, revocation of the talk page would seem in order. He's always been his own worst enemy (although I think he imagines I actually fill that role).

Beeblebrox, I know that you think you are really cool, but I get the impression that you are a silly geek.

I mean, I won't deny that, but I am not at all sure how that diff demonstrates that.

You and Rich are the only two people in the world who care enough about his talk page to edit it! I say you're at least as much of a weirdo as him. Two peas in a pod...

[Vigilant]

Obviously because he is a misunderstood genius who is just trying to help us poor fools.

I zapped it, we'll see what happens. My admin tools are off the table when it comes to Rich but if he persists, which he almost certainly will, revocation of the talk page would seem in order. He's always been his own worst enemy (although I think he imagines I actually fill that role).

Beeblebrox, I know that you think you are really cool, but I get the impression that you are a silly geek.

I mean, I won't deny that, but I am not at all sure how that diff demonstrates that.

You and Rich are the only two people in the world who care enough about his talk page to edit it! I say you're at least as much of a weirdo as him. Two peas in a pod...

I'm the one who brought it up and you're the one who's commenting.

That's a full pea pod.
YAHTZEE!

[turnedworm]

Have to say, the busy-bodies here are just as bad as the busy bodies on Wikipedia. The only difference is that I (as blocking admin) wouldn't be summoned here in the same way, I suppose.

So, let's be clear. The rule on Wikipedia is "editing of the user's talk page should be disabled only in cases of continued abuse of their user talk page, or when the user has engaged in serious threats, accusations or outing which needs to be prevented from reoccurring" link

This idea that "you are only allowed to use your talk page for unblock requests" is simply wrong and I don't believe it's as common as people think. Yes, I have described editing your talkpage as "frowned upon" and I'm fully aware that there are a few admins out there who do pull it anyway - I'm not one of them. I considered whether it should happen at Christmas but haven't felt the need to yank TPA in a decade.

I couldn't care less about Rich leaving notes about areas he sees as problems on his talk page. If someone agrees that they are a problem and goes ahead and fixes them, that's not not a big deal. Wikipedia is a better place, and the wildflowers haven't been run over by Rich's lawnmower.

Long story short, there are millions of pages on Wikipedia that I spend my time not looking at. Rich's talk page is just one. I suggest you do the same.

[The Blue Newt]

Have to say, the busy-bodies here are just as bad as the busy bodies on Wikipedia. The only difference is that I (as blocking admin) wouldn't be summoned here in the same way, I suppose.

So, let's be clear. The rule on Wikipedia is "editing of the user's talk page should be disabled only in cases of continued abuse of their user talk page, or when the user has engaged in serious threats, accusations or outing which needs to be prevented from reoccurring" link

This idea that "you are only allowed to use your talk page for unblock requests" is simply wrong and I don't believe it's as common as people think. Yes, I have described editing your talkpage as "frowned upon" and I'm fully aware that there are a few admins out there who do pull it anyway - I'm not one of them. I considered whether it should happen at Christmas but haven't felt the need to yank TPA in a decade.

I couldn't care less about Rich leaving notes about areas he sees as problems on his talk page. If someone agrees that they are a problem and goes ahead and fixes them, that's not not a big deal. Wikipedia is a better place, and the wildflowers haven't been run over by Rich's lawnmower.

Long story short, there are millions of pages on Wikipedia that I spend my time not looking at. Rich's talk page is just one. I suggest you do the same.

That’s begging the question. Some people apparently seem to view RF’s behavior as “continued abuse of their talk page,” to wit, proxy socking. I’m not sure I agree with that, for the reasons you mention here, and I mention above, but this isn’t just some form of curtain-twitching nosiness.

[Vigilant]

Move along, everyone.

There's an encyclopedia to build.

So, David, why is Rich treated differently than other indef'd editors?

[turnedworm]

Because admins are not a homogenous group.

Many didn't indef him. I did.

[turnedworm]

That’s begging the question. Some people apparently seem to view RF’s behavior as “continued abuse of their talk page,” to wit, proxy socking. I’m not sure I agree with that, for the reasons you mention here, and I mention above, but this isn’t just some form of curtain-twitching nosiness.

I disagree, I see this absolutely as curtain-twitching, of people who have nothing better to do.

I don't buy into the great Wikipedia game, vandalism / counter vandalism, discouraging behaviours by deleting a persons work - I don't generally care who makes a good edit, if the edit is good. This isn't a big deal.

[The Blue Newt]

That’s begging the question. Some people apparently seem to view RF’s behavior as “continued abuse of their talk page,” to wit, proxy socking. I’m not sure I agree with that, for the reasons you mention here, and I mention above, but this isn’t just some form of curtain-twitching nosiness.

I disagree, I see this absolutely as curtain-twitching, of people who have nothing better to do.

I don't buy into the great Wikipedia game, vandalism / counter vandalism, discouraging behaviours by deleting a persons work - I don't generally care who makes a good edit, if the edit is good. This isn't a big deal.

Someone capable of noticing how much damage an industrious vandal, incompetent, or crank can do might have a different opinion from you.

[ArmasRebane]

Given that Rich basically treats Wikipedia as a game or therapy, it definitely seems like he's the kind of person who should be restricted from making edits to his talk page. Some people need to be cut off.

[Vigilant]

Maybe Rich needs a SanFranBan.

Shades of Russavia.

[Beeblebrox]

Given that Rich basically treats Wikipedia as a game or therapy, it definitely seems like he's the kind of person who should be restricted from making edits to his talk page. Some people need to be cut off.

This is where I'm at with it. I wasn't watching his page either, and I'm not watching it now. I readily admit I became aware of his edits through this thread. And in many if not most other cases, I wouldn't care either, but in this case, I see it as an extension of the problems that led to his indef block in the first place. Rich has repeatedly made his contempt for any restrictions placed on him clear. Using his talk page for some sort of personal note-taking is just more of the same. Talk pages are for communication with others, note-taking belongs on a subpage or a sandbox. The fact that Rich does not have access to any of that is exactly the point. It's another end-run. I don't think Wikipedia editing is healthy for Rich, It seems to bring out his worst qualities. So I think the TP needs to be pulled as much for him as for anyone else.

That being said, I've said my piece about it and what will happen will happen.

[Vigilant]

It's always interesting to see which questions people refuse to answer.

[Anroth]

I don't mind in general when people do that sort of talk page editing after being blocked.

Just makes it easier to identify their enablers when they proxy for them.

Noted, added to list.

[Anroth]

Why do you think it takes en.wp sooooo long to reach the pint where they are able to rationally evaluate whether someone is a clear net negative?

It doesn't take that long to rationally identify someone is a negative long term. It's done all the time at an early stage by multiple people. The problem is that they are not listened to, primarily because they are not admins, but mainly because as a group admins think more about harm to the work than harm to other editors.

E.g., in a situation where someone was previously topic banned, and is now causing issues in a new area, there is absolutely no benefit to adding another topic ban. It just moves the problem down the line and inflicts them on more unsuspecting editors in another area. And this is pointed out at that time. But because admins don't really care about those future people, editors like Mathsci get to inflict misery on others for years more until they reach a critical mass of pissing off enough normal editors that the admin enablers are effectively overruled.

Take a look at C of E's request to have his bans lifted. C of E is a racist troll with antiquated political views and no inclination to work well with others. Their bans have removed the ability to cause disruption that they have demonstrated over an extended period of time to multiple editors, and done exactly what was needed. There is no benefit to lifting them. C of E has not changed their personality, political views and lifting them is just going to cause grief to someone else in the future.

It's the lack of consideration for future risks that is the cause of why it takes so long to get any real action taken, not the identifying of problem behaviours.

[Inner Focus]

Guess who just got unblocked.

[stedil]

Rich Farmbrough/ER (T-C-L)

Those edit restrictions are a mouthful.

[rnu]

18:26, 31 December 2023 MSGJ talk contribs unblocked Rich Farmbrough talk contribs (Rich states they will not break editing restrictions)

Going by his block log this is totally someone who can be trusted to comply with editing restrictions.

[Beeblebrox]

Yeah, this won't end well. Worm's comments are on point.

Rich, I blocked you indefinitely because you stated, clearly, that you felt the burden of the restrictions would be intolerable and you would not go along with them. Your unblock request simply stated your "intent" to follow them. Based on your history, I'm expecting you to breach your restrictions and claim good intentions. Please do prove me wrong.

Anyone who needs four seperate editing restrictions just to keep their endless disuption to a minimum obviously is not a good fit for the project. I'm rather astounded that such a lame unblock request got taken seriously. His "ooh did I violate the restriction? I had no idea..." act is played out.

On the other hand, there is a certain simple logic to basically daring him to actually keep his word for once.

The problem with Rich isn't just that he makes thousands of automated edits, lots of people do that, Rich is just exceptionally bad at it and relies on his "poor me" bullshit to hget him out of trouble each time.

[orangepi]

There is "Rich the editor", who edits Wikipedia articles manually. He may not be the best editor, but he isn't bad.

There is also "Rich the bot operator", who is banned and will remain banned.

Can Rich the editor be unblocked while Rich the bot operator remains banned?