Page semi-protected

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
"WP:RFA" redirects here. You may be looking for requested articles, recently featured articles, requests for arbitration, or requests for assistance at Wikipedia:Help desk.
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.
RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
Rich Farmbrough 2 65 43 14 60 23:59, 4 July 2015 2 days, 6 hours no report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

Last updated by cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online at 16:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become administrators (also known as admins or sysops), who are users with access to additional technical features that aid in maintenance. Users can either submit their own requests for adminship (self-nomination) or may be nominated by other users. Please be familiar with the administrators' reading list, how-to guide, and guide to requests for adminship before submitting your request.

This page also hosts Requests for bureaucratship (RfB), where new bureaucrats are selected.

About administrators

The additional features granted to administrators are considered to require a high level of trust from the community. While administrative actions are publicly logged and can be reverted by other administrators just as other edits can be, the actions of administrators involve features that can impact the entire site. Among other functions, administrators are responsible for blocking users from editing, controlling page protection and deleting pages.

About RfA and its process

Latest RfXs (update)
Candidate Type Result Date of close Tally
S O N
Mdann523 RfA Withdrawn 1 Jul 2015 21 23 6
Ser Amantio di Nicolao RfA Successful 26 Jun 2015 116 6 3
Voidxor RfA Withdrawn 16 Jun 2015 13 22 8
As11ley RfA WP:NOTNOW 10 Jun 2015 1 9 0
NeilN RfA Successful 7 Jun 2015 168 5 5
Weegeerunner RfA Withdrawn 5 Jun 2015 0 7 3
Jacob Lott 8 RfA WP:NOTNOW 27 May 2015 0 5 0

The community grants administrator status to trusted users, so nominees should have been on Wikipedia long enough for people to determine whether they are trustworthy. Administrators are held to high standards of conduct because other editors often turn to them for help and advice, and because they have access to tools that can have a negative impact on users or content if carelessly applied.

Nomination standards
There are no official prerequisites for adminship other than having an account but the likelihood of passing without being able to show significant positive contributions to the encyclopedia is low. The community looks for a variety of factors in candidates; discussion can be intense. For examples of what the community is looking for, one could review some successful and some unsuccessful RfAs.
If you are unsure about nominating yourself or another user for adminship, you may first wish to consult a few editors you respect to get an idea of what the community might think of your request. There is also a list of editors willing to consider nominating you. Editors interested in becoming administrators might explore adoption by a more experienced user to gain experience. They may also add themselves to Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls; a list of names and some additional information are automatically maintained at Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls. The RfA guide and the miniguide might be helpful, while Advice for RfA candidates will let you evaluate whether or not you are ready to be an admin.
Nominations
To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow these instructions. If you wish to nominate someone else, check with them before making the nomination page. Nominations may only be added by the candidate or after the candidate has signed the acceptance of the nomination.
Notice of RfA
Some candidates display the {{RfX-notice|a}} on their userpages.
Expressing opinions
All Wikipedians—including those without an account or not logged in ("anons")—are welcome to comment and ask questions in an RfA but numerical (#) "votes" in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections may only be placed by editors while logged in to their account. The candidate may respond to the comments of others. Certain comments may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors, sockpuppets, or meatpuppets. Please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning. Your input (positive or negative) will carry more weight if supported by evidence.
To add a comment, click the "Voice your opinion" link for the relevant candidate. Always be respectful towards others in your comments. Constructive criticism is useful for the candidate to hear so they can make proper adjustments and possibly fare better in a future RfA attempt. You may wish to review arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. Irrelevant questions can be removed or ignored, so please stay on topic. If you are relatively new to contributing to Wikipedia, or if you have not yet participated on many RfAs, you may wish to read Advice for RfA voters.
The RfA process attracts many Wikipedians and some may routinely oppose many, or even most, requests; other editors routinely support many, or even most, requests. Although the community currently endorses the right of every Wikipedian with an account to participate, one-sided approaches to RfA voting have been labeled as "trolling" by some. Before commenting or responding to comments in an RfA (especially Oppose comments with uncommon rationales or which may feel like "baiting"), consider whether other users are likely to treat it as influential or take it very seriously and whether RfA is an appropriate forum for what you would reply. At the very least, not fanning the fire will avoid making the situation worse. Remember, the bureaucrats who close discussions have considerable experience and give more weight to constructive comments than unproductive ones.
Discussion, decision, and closing procedures
Most nominations will remain posted for a minimum of seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page, during which users give their opinions, ask questions, and make comments. This discussion process is not a vote (it is sometimes referred to as a !vote, using the computer science negation symbol). At the end of the discussion period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion.
Consensus at RfA is not determined by surpassing a numerical threshold, but by the strength of rationales presented. As a rule of thumb, most of those above 80 percent approval pass; most of those below 70 percent fail; the judgment of passing is subject to bureaucratic discretion (and in some cases further discussion). In calculating an RfA's percentage, only numbered Support and Oppose comments are considered. Neutral comments are ignored for calculating an RfA's percentage but they (and other relevant information) are considered for determining consensus by the closing bureaucrat. In nominations where consensus is unclear, detailed explanations behind Support or Oppose comments will have more impact than positions with no explanations or simple comments such as "yep" and "no way".
Typically, a nomination may be closed as successful only by bureaucrats; and, in exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats may extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination to make consensus clearer. They may also close nominations early if success is unlikely and leaving the application open has no likely benefit and the candidate may withdraw their application at any time for any reason. If uncontroversial, any user in good standing can close a request that has no chance of passing in accordance with WP:SNOW and/or WP:NOTNOW. Do not close any requests that you have taken part in, or those that have even a slim chance of passing. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting, or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may also delist a nomination. A list of procedures to close an RfA may be found here.
If your nomination fails, then please wait for a reasonable period of time before renominating yourself or accepting another nomination. Some candidates have tried again and succeeded within three months, but many editors prefer to wait considerably longer before reapplying.


Current nominations for adminship

Current time is 17:52:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


Purge page cache if nominations have not updated.



Rich Farmbrough

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (65/43/14); Scheduled to end 23:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Nomination

Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs) – I'm nominating User:Rich Farmbrough for two reasons. First, I have observed the quality of his work on Wikipedia — both before I took a long wikibreak back in 2007, and since I returned earlier this year. Second, I think we should right a historic wrong: he was an admin once before; he was removed by the Arbcom for allegedly using his admin tools incorrectly (see WP:ARBRF). This finding was soon vacated, however. His admin privileges should have been restored forthwith, but somehow that got overlooked. At any rate, the issue was a long time ago, and even if the ruling stood (which it didn't), I believe it would be of little significance today. David Cannon (talk) 12:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I am delighted to accept the nomination. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC).

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I will do whichever tasks come to hand. Most likely a little anti-vandal blocking, a little CSD work, and some XfD closes. My (previous) admin-stats are available on a list here. I didn't do many (any?) unblock requests, though I am minded to do them, because by the time I have given the matter full consideration, someone else has either accepted or declined. For the same reason I don't believe I made or will be likely to make any controversial XfD closes or blocks.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Some of the back-office templates I have built have been very efficient at labour saving. Articles like Whittington's Longhouse, Statue of John Bunyan, Bedford and Janet Harmon Bragg are nice to have created. Articles I started but didn't contribute a huge amount to such as Black Lives Matter, Je suis Charlie and 2009 Fort Hood shooting are probably more important. I have been working on viruses, which is a huge area we only scratch the surface of - starting alphabetically at Abaca bunchy top virus. Getting discretionary sanctions removed on six old arb cases [1] was a nice administrative achievement. I am rather pleased with the essay WP:Wikipedia has more... which gives the lie to some common press pot-shots at Wikipedia coverage. I also rewrote a policy once, but I can't remember which one...
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Yes, I have dealt with it with humour, discussion and by walking away from the conflict, mostly the latter. I intend to continue to use these solutions, though I hope I become ever more adept at choosing the right mix.
Additional questions from User:DESiegel
4. What is your view of Process is important?
A: I have sympathy with the essay. Indeed I have taken more than one functionary to task for bypassing process. Specifically process is critically important where significant social impact is in the balance, for example deleting something which has taken a lot of effort, blocking users, imposing restrictions or iBans. The crux of the matter though is in the first paragraph " Poor process or no process ultimately harms the product." This is precisely what IAR is for. In some cases our process is poor or inapplicable to a special circumstance. In these cases we are faced with a trilemma, do the wrong thing because process says so, do the right thing, or change the process. Changing the process is a default in quality control systems I am familiar with, at least as part of the solution, by raising a corrective action.
I also think an important point made is that process is important for larger communities, and has become more important for en:Wikipedia over the years. Of course this is also why sub-communities sometimes wish to have special dispensation, which can cause friction with the rest of the community.
5. How strictly should the literal wording of the speedy deletion criteria be applied?
A: In terms of not deleting pages that do not meet the criteria, very strictly. (This was not the case last time I looked at what happens, I hope it has improved since.) In terms of allowing pages to move to the next step in the deletion process if their is reasonable doubt that they should be deleted, I would show leniency (actually I would perform the equivalent of WP:BEFORE prior to an apparently valid A7, which would probably mean that someone else had speedied it before I reached my conclusion).
6. What is the place of WP:IAR in carrying out administrative actions?
A: I would not apply IAR to an admin action unless it was a clearly necessary to avoid significant damage to the project or a person. I would not however have a problem with an admin who used IAR in a sensible non-contentious manner.
7. An admin is often expected or requested to help others, particularly new users, and to aid in calming disputes, either resolving them or pointing the participants to proper venues for resolution. How do you see yourself in this aspect of an Admin's role?
A: I am certainly willing to help new users and have spent a considerable time at WP:Tea House, and in welcoming and inviting new users there. I can, and have, pointed people to such places as WP:RSNB. As to calming disputes, that is a difficult matter, especially given the asynchronous nature of Wikipedia, but I hope that by encouraging people to focus on the content, rather than each other I have had that effect a few times.
Additional question from Winner 42
8. Why should the community trust you with adminship after you have repeated violated Arbcom editing restrictions resulting in several blocks including a one year long block in 2013?
A: I was editing a draft article (articles for creation as was) to help someone at WP:Teahouse. Here is the offending edit (note the page was successfully moved to main-space the following day). I was taken to Arbitration Enforcement by the only person who has taken me there, who was obviously following my edits very closely. From that edit he deduced that I was using search and replace, and should therefore be severely punished. Since this seemed an absurd use of the specific restriction, I asked for the Committee to rescind it. User:Sandstein asked the committee if he could go ahead with enforcement while the requested amendment was in progress. At 21:13 one arbitrator (not the committee) replied that he thought it could go ahead, since he had pre-judged the request. At 23:03 he imposed the 1 year block. I had had no time since the response from the committee to put my side, nor had I any intimation that one person could speak for the committee (and in fact they can't).

If you want some idea of the level of understanding the enforcing administrator displayed he believed that this edit was a sign of automated editing.

If you think that helping a new editor with a draft article as illustrated in the edit concerned is a good reason for a year-long ban, that's fine. I will continue to copyedit articles, even hopeless looking ones, and try and make them presentable. I hope I will make less and less errors doing it, though age, eyesight and general deterioration might have something to say about that. I would not have thought that that edit was one speaking to trust on a personal or community level, or use of admin tools, such as they are. Please feel free to ask supplementary questions on this point.
Additional questions from User:GregJackP
9.What is the most significant featured article that you have worked on?
A: Note: User:GregJackP has found answers that satisfy him, and has voted support. I do not keep track of the status of articles I work on. If anyone else really wants the answers to these two questions, please ping me.
10.What is the most significant good article that you have worked on?
A:
Additional question from Mkdw
11. For those of us not familiar with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough, would you in your own words summarize what happened?
A: OK, it's tremendously complicated because the roots go back to 2009, a very different time in en:WP. The case itself was over three years ago.
This summary will therefore necessarily miss a lot out, but I am happy to answer any questions arising. Also I can't claim an infallible memory, but I will check what I can.
I operated a bot, originally called SmackBot, later renamed (different account, same software) Helpful Pixie Bot, because someone didn't like the name "SmackBot" and I'm nice like that.
The major changes that this bot made were "dating maintenance tags" - the back end category and template system is largely my work, unless it's been re-written in the last few years. AnmoieBot has now taken over this task.
The bot originally ran on AWB, and made the standard AWB fixes, and a few others, as it dated tags. After some concerns I removed all the custom fixes, and eventually, because AWB couldn't ensure that no cosmetic only edits were made, and at the same time all essential fixes were I rewrote the entire thing in perl. (The number of "cosmetic only" edits was vanishingly small, but it needed addressing.)
Sometime prior to the case being opened an Arbitrator by the name of User:Hersfold (since resigned left the project) asked me to make a change to a bot task. I agreed but it took some time to implement (a few hours at most). He became rather angry, and blocked the bot while I was coding. I completed the changes and after an exchange of words got it running again.
A while later I emailed my impressions of this event to User:Elen of the Roads, another arbitrator (also now left), when IIRC she asked me about it. She later asked me if she could share it with Hersfold. Somewhat foolishly I said yes.
Shortly after Hersfold brought an arbitration case against me. Named parties were Herfold, Elen of the Roads, me and User:Fram (inactive for some time, if not left).
The crux of the case was that I was "going against community consensus" "Dismissing community concerns" "failing to lead by example"
I sent a preliminary email to the Committee, which they should have restricted the circulation of (they have a special list called the B-list for this). Of course they sent it to Hersfold and Elen too.
The drafting arbitrator was User:Newyorkbrad for whom I have a great respect. The deputy was User:Kirill Lokshin (who had previously had a disagreement with me over the banner name of a WikiProject he was effectively running).
During the course of the case, Newyorkbrad fell ill.
When the draft proposal was issued I was shocked. It did not to me reflect the progress we had made at the workshop, though sadly some had not been prepared to engage constructively there. I presume that it was a rush job since the drafting arbitrator had changed during the case, but it may be that Kirill remembered the disagreement, consciously or subconsciously. Be that as it may, I asked the committee for a fortnight to response. They denied it. The "findings" were found and the "remedies" were remedied.
Later I had one of the four (negative) findings overturned. It is one of the two that are factual, and was hence easy to disprove. The other factual finding is equally easy to disprove, but the Committee refused to even look at it. In fact the first comment called it (a finding ) a remedy. That is the finding that I broke bot policy. The three cited pieces of "bot policy" are not and never have been bot policy.
Other findings are are also weak, two of the three items listed as "gratuitous incivility" were made in the workshop page under a misapprehension, due to two sets of comments running together. I had reverted these as soon as it became clear what had happened. The third was perhaps a little incvil I remarked when someone "piled on" to a discussion "Sancho arrives" - implying that they were tilting at windmills, and assisting a Don Quixote. But to find even that level of incivility they had to go back to 2010!
So were there problems? Yes, of course, I made mistakes, and even did things that were unwise. For example when Fram announced he had opened his nth report on me at AN/I I responded with a sigh. I would have done better to not respond at all. But to me this does not rise to the level of being remotely sanctionable.
Even during the case I had put into place an issue tracking system, so that a) people would be assured that any issues was being attended too b) I could show that I was responsive to issues and c) if I wasn't there would be no doubt about it.
What has changed since the case? Well the named parties apart from me have left the project as has the only other person who presented a non-negotiable face to our discussions. I have doubtless learned to avoid being a named party in an arbitration case (I encouraged ARBCOM to accept the case in my nativity). I will not be making literary illusions, nor using the inflammatory "sigh" or "facepalm" in the future. I will continue to, for example, cut and paste ISBNs rather than type them in by hand as I am supposed to according to my restriction.
Please feel free to ask supplementary questions here, at my talk page, or by email.
Additional question from User:Stuartyeates
12. On which topic do you consider yourself to be furthest from the general Wikipedia consensus?
Probably as User:BDD says, keeping redirects that are "neither new nor harmful".
Additional question from Мандичка
13. Would you operate a bot or automated tool again, if such sanctions were lifted? And is it true the one-year ban was for copying/pasting? I'm very confused by this. Who would expect ANYONE to retype ISBN or book titles? (Are you already required to retype URLs in refs?) МандичкаYO 😜 22:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
A: Lets split this into three answers, since there are three questions
  1. I would definitely want to resume my own talk page archiving. The way I had it set up enabled me to keep items on my talk page until they were dealt with.
    As to the rest I doubt if I would want to put the effort into it that I did before.
  2. The one year block (not ban) was for working on a draft article, I have mentioned above (Mohan Deep), it turned on me messing up some quotation marks (which, by the way I fixed in subsequent, sequential edits). The accusation was "smart search and replace" rather than "cut and paste". Another edit was mentioned where I added a reference to many points in an article, and left the "/" off the foot-note list. The blocking admin also referred to the addition of the "/" as apparently automated, which shows he hadn't looked at the complaint properly.
  3. I am officially limited to editing by "typing in the box". Attempts to elucidate whether exceptions can be made for certain things have not proved fruitful, and are considered "pushing the envelope". I'm pretty certain that no-one objects to me cut-and-pasting ISBNs etc, but it also seems likely that no one will come out and say that.
Additional question from User:Wbm1058
14. Sana'a Governorate, with less than a million inhabitants, has at least 435 populated places, according to Wikipedia. Most of these 435 articles were orphans, until I added links to them from the main Sana'a Governorate article. Many of these small villages can be found listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject History Merge/33 (see items #79–285). While these stubs were created by automated edits of another editor, you "Redirect(ed these) to proper name title using AWB", resulting in a large addition to the WP:CUTPASTE backlog. Noting that this repair requires administrator privileges, do you pledge to promptly clean these up by doing history merges, if you are granted adminship? Would you be willing to clean these up if the Arbitration Committee granted you temporary adminship so that you could complete this one specific task? Regards, Wbm1058 (talk) 23:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
A: There was insufficient creative content in those stubs to cause copyright problems, and I'm sure that if there had been we could have negotiated with the author of the stubs to resolve those issues. Nonetheless if you think it useful, in either circumstance it seems fairly trivial to fix.
Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia says "Wikipedia's licensing requires that attribution be given to all users involved in creating and altering the content of a page. Wikipedia's page history functionality lists all edits made and its users. It cannot, however, in itself determine where text originally came from. Because of this, copying content from another page within Wikipedia requires supplementary attribution to indicate it." This doesn't allow for exceptions due to "insufficient creative content". Generally, attribution may also be given via an edit summary or note on the article's talk page, but you did neither of those. Because apparently a bot has detected that this is history-mergeable content, that is the preferred solution. The problem is that relatively minor cases like these are cluttering up the histmerge backlog, possibly obscuring more serious cases so that they aren't being tended to in a timely manner. I'm taking your answer as a "yes", as I really want to support your candidacy. Wbm1058 (talk) 13:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Additional question from SNUGGUMS
15. If you become an admin again, under what circumstances would you be open for recall?
A: If by recall you mean a reconfirmation, let me give a few options - though I have thought about recall, I have never reached a definitive cconclusion:
Please note that I voluntarily released and re-applied for my bot-bit when an editor cast doubt on the legitimacy of the bit.


Additional question from Leaky
16. Your Arbcom case is too long for any sensible person to wade through. However, a remedy I came across was "Rich Farmbrough is indefinitely prohibited from using any automation whatsoever on Wikipedia...." Is this still active? If not, what replaced it? If so, how does "prohibited from using any automation whatsoever" stack up with having Admin buttons?
A:

General comments

  • <I have moved a longish and not really fitting discussion from this section to the talkpage. Bishonen | talk 16:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC).>

Discussion

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Support
  1. Contrarianism ;) Unanimity is boring. Still here after various dramas; obviously has the good of the project in mind even when there's dissent about particular actions. Thank you for the virus articles. I think there's a fair general case to be made in favor of responding to specific opposing concerns instead of templated questions like 4-7 and 9-10. A response to Q11 would be a good idea, though. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks for the detailed answer to Q11. Reading the history of this case is a real eyeroller. Noting here as the first respite one reaches after the walls of text above that I find most of SilkTork's commentary to be in very poor taste; it reads much more like an attempt to extract another pound of flesh than a neutral correction of purported errors. Just oppose already. Meanwhile I'll update my contrarian support to a bolded-vote support. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  2. Desysopping for the smackbot thing was absurd – a really stunning example of the letter of the law trumping the spirit of the law (as well as common sense). I don't think there is any reason to think that he will cause any problems as an admin; any concerns about his automated editing seem totally orthogonal to having the bit. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:59, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
    He was an admin before and I have sources that say he was wrongly stripped of his duties. And i would love to be a victim of one his blocks. As a vandal ,I know he would be a good blocker.He started pages,has a cool usertalk page and he has knowledge of bad articles that shouldn't be there. He reminds me of a younger NeilN circa 2009. Jameslucindo1 — Preceding undated comment added 06:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
    This user was created during the RFA and is now blocked as a vandal-only account. Soap 16:27, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support From one former admin to another. I probably wouldn't pass a second RFA, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't be a good admin again if I did. I think you'd do fine with the bit again too. INeverCry 07:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  4. Strong support - great editor, great bot operator, all the perceived problems he caused are minor storms in a glass of water, turned into a cyclone by a couple of editors and ArbCom - made a great admin, still will make a good admin. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:08, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support A consistently good editor for a very long time. I am confident that he will be a valuable asset to WP. Rich should be reinstated as an admin Audit Guy (talk) 09:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  6. Regardless of its merits, and at the least I thought it excessively long, the last block was over two years ago. I have found Rich very helpful in his ability to create lists, I admire the way he renamed SmackBot when I and others requested him to do so. I am confident that if we give him back the mop he will use it with kindness and in the interests of the pedia. ϢereSpielChequers 10:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  7. Support I have every confidence that Rich will be a positive benefit to the project as an Admin. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:34, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  8. Support His blocks were a long time ago, and I don't see why that should prevent him from becoming an admin now. If someone makes a mistake, and we shouldn't let that affect them forever. Whatever it was that he did wrong, even if it wasn't a mistake, we need to forgive eventually; people change. He was blocked more than a year ago. He's been a helpful contributor since then, and that's all that should be considered. If we never completely forgive people who have been blocked, we'll miss out on some great admins, and it looks like Rich would be one. It doesn't make sense for a block to automatically disqualify people from becoming admins, no matter how long the block lasted. As long as they improve the encyclopedia, their RfAs should be considered. This is completely separate from the arguments about whether he even should have been blocked. I won't comment on this case in particular, but just the history of blocks, which are completely at the discretion of the admin and can therefore be unfair, shouldn't mean anything alone. KSFTC 13:22, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  9. Support Looking around and per comments above and think RF will do fine as an admin. (Littleolive oil (talk) 18:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC))
  10. Support Rich deserves a lot more good faith than is being shown on this page. As WSC points out above, the last block was 2 years ago and many established members of our community feel it was excessively punitive. Anyone who spends time with Rich cannot doubt he is one of the good guys, and though he ran repeatedly into issues with his gnomic pursuit of automation years ago, there never was any doubt about his ability with the mop. If you want to oppose, sure you are welcome to your opinion based on the facts, but let's avoid using RFA as a medieval town pillory; we would like more people to follow the open path that Rich has, rather than hounding those with past issues into faux retirement and a clean start. -- (talk) 13:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  11. Support I find the apparent desire of a former arbitrator to retry the litigation where that arb was one of the primary proponents of the decision which was later "substantially altered" by removal of a major charge to be distasteful in the utmost, and possibly indicative of a less-than-collegial attitude here or even evidence of prejudgment in the original decision. Such argumentation should be restricted to the talk page for the RfA and not given prominence here. If RF engages in improper use of a bot, the community is well able to handle the issue. The expressed opinion is, IMHO, contrary to Wikipedia dicta. The only issue here should be "does this person understand Wikipedia policies, procedures and guidelines, and act in full accordance therewith". Collect (talk) 15:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  12. Support- basically because a few of the opposes are vicious ad hominems and should not stand unchallenged. Reyk YO! 16:34, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  13. Support per Dirk Beetstra, Fæ, Collect Reyk, et al. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  14. Support RF is experienced, knowledgeable, cool-headed and a hard worker. RF can be trusted with admin tools. It is unimportant that an administrator never have had any friction with authority on this site. If somebody has not at any time experienced any friction with authority at Wikipedia, it is probably because that individual has been much less involved in building and managing Wikipedia than RF. Italick (talk) 17:26, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  15. Support - No comment. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:26, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  16. Support - Per a number of others above. I'm uncomfortable with how the bit was taken, and believe in a second chance; those outweigh any reservations. --Drmargi (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  17. Support, weak due to lack of answer to my questions. I did go through his articles created and noted that several have been taken to GA/FA status. GregJackP Boomer! 21:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  18. Support. Nobody has raised objections with his (prior) admining, and I find his answers to be satisfactory. Alakzi (talk) 21:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  19. Support I said "meh", the previous abuse was quite a long time ago and I personally don't think it's destructive (on a serious level like outing/stalking), every people deserve second chance. And now it's the time to give Rick Farmbrough to give his second chance.--AldNonUcallin?☎ 22:12, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  20. Support. Basically per WereSpielChequers. I don't remember where I interacted with him, but I know I did somewhere, I remember that he was very helpful. The 2013 block was over 2 years ago now, and looking at the reason for it, it seems to me to be an absolutely absurd block by somebody who was just looking for an excuse. Although he may have indeed had problems in 2012 and before, that's was 5/2 years ago, and shouldn't be held against him for what he is now, which appears to be a helpful, courteous editor who would be a benefit to WP with the admin tools. StringTheory11 (t • c) 22:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  21. Support An experienced, knowledgeable editor. I reject the suggestion that being nominated by someone else is an act of hubris. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  22. Support Whenever I've come across this editor's contributions they have always been helpful and constructive. Past malfeasance aside, he's had a clean block log for the past year, and I think he would have a positive impact on the project as an administrator. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE
    ) 00:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  23. Support - Disclosure: I know Rich from many wikimeets in the UK, and I can confirm that in person he's gentle, witty and very bright. On wiki he used the admin tools for seven years without problem and has made a million edits. How's that for dedication to the project? I have no idea why he'd want to go back to admining again after the way he's been mistreated by so many sad, vindictive people. As usual, this broken process shows how poor some folks are at judging who is actually trustworthy. --RexxS (talk) 00:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  24. Support. I've found Rich to be thoughtful and helpful. Sarah (talk) 03:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  25. Shouldn't have been de-sysoped in the first place. Jenks24 (talk) 04:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  26. Support. Like RexxS I have met Rich many times and found him to be a person of very mature age, temperament, and dedication to Wikipedia. Having read his history, I find it peppered with comments and actions by sysops who have either already slunk away or dissappeared under a cloud. Rich can easily expect more respect from the community than he's getting in the lower floors of this page - 'low' is the operative word and anyone who in all honesty would think again, would also find thart the arguments are not in the slightest bit compelling. I am greatly disturbed by SilkTork's attempt to completly scupper this RfA from the word go with such an almost unprecedented long speech while saying he isn't voting. It's a tactic I personally wouldn't dare resort to however strongly I felt. And for anyone who has been following recent discussions, such 'non-vote' comments do the most damage - every other oppose being simply an unresearched pie-on. An extroadinarily engaged editor, Rich is one whom we need to keep on board and trust with the tools too but I have no idea why he'd even want to go back to editing at all after this character assasination. Thank you so much to you down there in the bargain basements where words come hard and cheap. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
    The nominator made a factually incorrect statement that ArbCom desysopped Rich Farmbrough for using his admin tools incorrectly, and that the finding based on his desysop was later vacated so he should have had the tools returned. It is normal in RfAs for factually incorrect statements to be challenged. As I am not ivoting in this RfA, the place to put such a challenge is in the Comments section. If the nomination had not been incorrect, I would not have commented at all. Looking back at my comment, I agree that it is worded rather too strongly - I guess I was responding to seeing that some of the support comments had accepted the nomination statement at face value ("Desysopping for the smackbot thing was absurd"). A more open and less misleading and inaccurate RfA, one in which Rich Farmbrough admits he made errors in the past but that he has changed and is moving forward positively, might well have worked, and I might have supported the nomination. But here we are, with a divisive RfA based on misinformation, and the nominee making no attempt to clear that up, but still presenting himself as the one who has been wronged. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  27. Support (moved from neutral) I started writing a response to Kudpung's comment, adding some positive aspects about Rich's editing career, then realised that had persuaded me to take a more positive stance. I'm sure his comment wasn't directed at me, but one of the reasons I went with "neutral" is because I've met Rich at some of the London meetups, and as everyone else has said, he's a nice guy with a good attitude and sense of humour, and I felt that might cloud my judgement a bit. The other reason is I'm not sure he'd like adminship and it might cause him grief. Still, I don't think anyone's brought it up yet, but his actual aptitude and ability to use the tools isn't really under question - his AfD score is good (the tool trips up because he seems to !vote "Keep or merge" a lot) and a spin through his contributions reveals lots of article work. The only real time I've worked with him is getting Je Suis Charlie on the front page via WP:DYK, but that's just the sort of interactions I like on here, strong content work. Bottom line is when I looked at what Rich does now and how he does it, it's exactly what I'd want out of an admin - somebody who's here to make the encyclopedia better, not make friends and form a social network. As for the edit on Mohan Deep that got him a year's block - how many "automated" tools do you know that accidentally mistype "controversial" as "cntroversial"? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  28. Support - can't see why not. Deb (talk) 11:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  29. Support (moved from neutral). After reading over Rich's responses to the adminship questions and reading all the support and oppose comments, I think we need an editor who is as hardworking and dedicated as Rich as an admin (again). We should give him a second chance, because it seems that he was trustworthy in areas that didn't involve automated tools. Epic Genius (talk) 12:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  30. Support ~ per WereSpielChequers, Collect, Reyk, Kudpung, et al. Cheers, LindsayHello 13:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  31. Support A truly focused, hardworking, public-spirited, consummate and level-headed editor. Rich, definitely deserves another chance to be Admin. People grow through experience, can't see this editor letting the community down if handed the tools. Stanleytux (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  32. Support on condition that RF doesn't reward me with cider. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  33. Support - Rich is not a block-happy admin by his history, but rather one who has turned his energy to building articles instead. Despite his past desysopping and blocks, I feel he is a net benefit as an admin.StaniStani 20:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  34. Support: 354 drama-free days and counting! A good attitude and a strong commitment to this wiki. My impression is that he won't return to the behavior which got him in trouble in the past, which involved his use of automated editing, not use of admin tools. He has a lot of technical knowledge (programming and templates for example) and is an asset to the site. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  35. Support I think Rich will be a net positive for the project, regardless of past drama. As a community we need to be able to get past these things, people can and do change. If there was drama without the long history of positive contributions then it would be another matter, but the pluses are all there. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  36. Support:Net positive, we all occasionally have issues, I don't see the past drama having any influence on his ability to use the tools wisely. Has been helpful to me in the past. Would be nice to have him back. Montanabw(talk) 21:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  37. Support. I can't see this succeeding - but who knows? Unlike some opposers, I rather like his responses here. I can't see there being a problem with him having the tools. He knows what not to do if he gets them back. Peridon (talk) 21:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  38. Support precious noticing what is "soul destroying" - trusted, - my only supporter on the Jimbo Wales page, when I said "This user learned that the flowers of kindness, generosity, forgiveness and compassion do not grow well on a soil of people thinking of other people as toxic personalities." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  39. Support I think this all the objections hinges around an arbcom case and its consequences, and I think his explanation is satisfactory. Block logs do not always tell the full story, and should tempered with his achievements. Do I trust him with being an admin? Yes. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 23:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  40. As with RexxS and Kudpung above, I have also had the benefit of meeting Rich Farmbrough in person (one of the first Wikipedians I ever met, in fact) and possess knowledge of his real character: he is highly experienced/knowledgable, has a positive demeanour and is a good person, which is what counts the most. I believe he is the type to learn from past mistakes and I think that's what he has done here; if he wants some extra tools again to help out, so be it. Evidently, however, I do not want to be let down so I advise Rich to exercise extreme caution when using the tools should this candidacy end with a successful result. You're a good person and are definitely worth having around: let's keep it that way. Acalamari 23:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  41. After some thought, I believe that Rich Farmbrough has sufficiently demonstrated that he is willing to learn from his mistakes, and I believe that his explanations are enough. I trust him with the mop, thus I will support. --ceradon (talkcontribs) 00:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  42. Support. Not much chance of this RfA passing now, but I personally think RF has the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart. — sparklism hey! 09:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  43. Support. I've seen Rich around at various discussions and he's played a positive role. I'm always impressed when someone continues to make a large contribution after being demoted, and I'm happy for him to have another turn at admin.-gadfium 09:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  44. Support. If, as people love to claim, it's easy to remove the bit it will be easy to demote Rich if he makes a serious error. Intothatdarkness 14:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  45. Support. I've been editing for a few years without an account (I never saw a good reason to have one) but I created one just so that I could support Rich Farmbrough here. I've seen his name several times in my editing and never had a problem with anything he's done. The "arbcom" stuff is way too complicated for me to understand but it was long enough ago that he deserves a second chance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChocolateMouchoirs (talkcontribs) 14:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  46. Support. Originally, I didn't believe RF's answer to #8 (or comment that the year-long block was due to "for a one-character typo"), because that seemed so unjustified and absurd that I thought he had to be twisting the truth; however, from all I can find out about the block that account of what happened seems to be genuinely true. Unfortunately, my support won't balance out even one of the ill-justified opposes based solely on the year-long block [as over ~70% support is needed to promote a candidate], but I can only vote once. Additionally, RF's answer to #11 was fairly convincing (which I read after spending an hour or so going through the case myself) and while the case does bother me, it's not enough to make me oppose. Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 14:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  47. Support, very dedicated user who has done a lot for the encyclopedia, and continued to do it after his desysopping. I'm not sure whether or not the desysop was wrong — RL stuff prevents me from researching it in enough depth to say — but I do think he has lived it down and deserves another chance. And like Opabinia regalis and Kudpung above (Supports 1 and 26), I too object to User:SilkTork using his ex-arb heft, such as it is, to poison the well in the "General comments" section. Compare my reply to ST in the same "General comments" section. Bishonen | talk 16:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC).
  48. Support Obviously Agreed. Fine by me. Good luck in advance.--Grind24 (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  49. Support - 1. An experienced editor 2. He has continued to make good contributions since losing his previous adminship 3. Demonstrates transparency and willingness to discuss matters for improvement. Dunville (talk) 02:39, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  50. I have nothing to add to the compelling supports above. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  51. Support (moved from oppose) Net positive. As more support !votes came in, I found them more compelling. Has he made mistakes? Sure. Was the last block over the top? Yes. It was fifteen months ago, and the blocking wasn't for "trolling, incivility, etc." (someone wrote that). I'm sure people will be watching him closely, but I have confidence that he will be a good admin. BenLinus1214talk 12:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
    I concur, except the most recent block took effect 27 months ago, and it expired 15 months ago. Italick (talk) 20:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  52. Support: A net positive! - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  53. Support - it's complicated, but mostly per Diannaa and Kudpung. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  54. Very Strong Support Candidate will be an outstanding Administrator. He has been on my Watchlist for about six years because I go there to learn. I especially agree with comments by Kudpung, et al. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiyang (talkcontribs) 17:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  55. Support This person can be trusted to be polite with all other users in all contexts. In their history on Wikipedia they have been at the center of controversy over the use of automated tools. I appreciate their initiative. I recognize that this user used automated tools even after being directed not to do so, and was blocked, and I think that the experience has made this user aware of the Wikipedia community's process for bringing users who are out of step into conformity with the processes which consensus enforces. I like that this user tried new things. They have brought a lot of positive change to Wikipedia - negative changes also, but not with ill will, and nothing I know of that has not been fixed, and the negatives are small compared to the positives.
    This is an experienced Wikipedian who makes mistakes because they try new things. I feel that this person's ideas and background make them different enough from the norm that it is meaningful to say that this person brings underrepresented perspectives from an underserved community to Wikipedia.
    The areas in which this person has in the past had conflict are unrelated to the duties of adminship. Admins need not be conservative Wikipedians; they need to only present in a manner befitting of adminship and this person's ability to address conflict make them suitable to fulfill the duties of adminship. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  56. Support, moved from oppose. I've read more about the history of the blocks, and I encourage everyone else to do the same—something stinks and I'm not sure it's Rich Farmbrough. I've also read and considered the opinions of supporters, many of whom I respect. --Laser brain (talk) 21:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  57. Support - The past issues have little predictive value in determining if Rich Farmbrough would abuse admin privileges. My impression is that he would not, and that his taking on this role would be positive for the project. On a side note, I find SilkTork's "general comments" section to be wholly inappropriate for an RfA. In past RfAs that I've participated in, such comment's are almost always swiftly moved to the talk page. I'm disappointed that this hasn't happened in this case.- MrX 00:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
    MrX, I never thought of that. Done. Bishonen | talk 16:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC).
  58. Support Per Kudpung, Ritchie333, Diannaa, Free Range Frog and Epic Genius, in particular. Dennis Brown's neutral comment also leads me toward support. The nominator did make a factual error but I have reviewed the arbitration case page because of the questions raised about the error and I do not believe the misstatement should discredit Rich. It appears to me that the mistake was unintentional and not intended to mislead. I think Rich's answer to question 11 is a good summary. Although I assume his opponents would (and do below) raise a few negatives that he has not included, I think the supporters have properly weighed the matter as of the present time - not by looking at it as if the controversy were new and Rich had no further history. I am also persuaded by the many comments, not all in this section, that point to Rich's good history as an administrator. Donner60 (talk) 02:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  59. Support A few blocks don't mean a thing! Rich has been doing good here! Almost 1 million edits! [2] CrazyAces489 (talk) 07:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  60. Support - I'm switch to support after reading Rich's answers to my questions. I find the one-year block he endured to be outrageous and contrary to all common sense, and I think we're lucky he elected to return at all. МандичкаYO 😜 08:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  61. I require competence of prospective admins before endorsing their candidacy with my support, not that they be well liked by everyone they ever met. I doubt that anyone would voice a challenge against Rich's competence, including those who oppose him today. For me this is an easy decision.--John Cline (talk) 10:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  62. Support. I've come across Rich in technical places that few editors go, such as here, so Rich is in the elite top-tier of Wikipedians in the category of technical abilities. What I've seen of his work generally leaves me with a most positive impression. I agree with those finding the one-year block he endured to be outrageous. The speediness of that block's implementation, without much of any hearing or due process, reflects badly on the committee which implemented it, especially in light of their record of allowing editors guilty of far worse offenses than Rich ever committed to delay their cases for lengthy periods based on dubious claims of real-life demands on their time. The more appropriate response to automated editing issues would be to ask that he revert all contested automated edits, and only implement harsher penalties if he refused to do that. I hope that his first use of the tools, if returned to him, will be to clear out all items at Wikipedia:WikiProject History Merge § The reports that he is responsible for, as this has been a long-neglected administrative area. It would be fitting if this RfA were ultimately decided by a committee, and that committee chose to undo the controversial decision of another committee. Wbm1058 (talk) 11:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  63. Support. Clearly competent, and if I'm shown to be wrong later, de-sysops are cheaper now than they ever have been. I'll also note that I find Silktork's well-poisoning comment in extremely poor taste. HiDrNick! 13:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  64. Strong support. One of Wikimedia's most dedicated contributors, and one for whom there is no real reason to doubt his ability to use the administrative tools. bd2412 T 13:44, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  65. Support at the end of the day, I still think that giving RF the tools will be a net positive for the project. If this RfA is successful, I also encourage RF to respect the editors who opposed by being extra careful with admin actions. Pichpich (talk) 16:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Extremely strong oppose - Absolutely and positively is not qualified in any respect to be an admin, as his past history, loss of rights and numerous sanctions indicate. The block log itself is a travesty. The idea that he would try for the bit again is hubris in the extreme. I find this request to be appalling. BMK (talk) 00:28, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
    Um.. so I am willing to take on additional work, and you find that appalling? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC).
    No, I find it appalling that you apparently have so little self-knowledge and no clue about your standing in the community that you would cheerfully accede to this nomination; the last thing we need around here is a truly clueless admin. I would withdraw your nomination before someone feels it necessary to actually list point for point, item by item, the numerous reasons that you should never again be an admin -- oh, but I forgot, those are all "problematic", everything ever said about you, every block, every sanction, every ArbCom finding, every loss of rights, they're all "problematic" in one way or another in the world according to Rich Farmbrough. BMK (talk) 03:08, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
    Look, we all make mistakes. It makes for a much happier world if we are given the chance to make amends for them. Let's give Rich a break! David Cannon (talk) 03:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
    You were gone for a long time, so I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt: Rich has been given many, many breaks, and he screws them up each time. Besides, we don't make people admins to give them a "break", we make them admins because we trust them to do the job right. You may trust Rich, other may as well, but many people don't, because of his history of not being trustworthy. It's really as simple as that. BMK (talk) 03:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  2. Tentative Oppose. No explanation of previous removal of the bit. The above "vacated" link goes to a struck out section but many other sections that are relevant to adminship remain. The silence bothers me, and without further explanation, I'll accept the the other sections even if they are stale because there is no information about what has changed. Glrx (talk) 01:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
    Please feel free to ask questions about the sections that interest you. I still have my partly drafted response to the proposed decision, which I was denied time to complete, so I will probably be able to answer, despite the passage of several years. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC).
  3. Oppose - Even if part of the case was vacated, there are still other concerns from that case. The findings regarding conduct, as well as his block log, give me pause. While the following does not bear on my decision, I also think that the holding an RFA to "right a historic wrong", as the nominator put it, is a bit out of place; RFAs should be solely held to examine an editor's work and ability to handle the tools, not to right a perceived injustice. Rich has done good work, but there is too much here that makes me uncomfortable with him having the tools. Sorry. -Pax Verbum 01:26, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
    Please note the nomination was with my permission, but without my input, as it should be. If I remember aright the other findings are also a little problematic. Sadly the committee denied me the time to write a proper defence, and has since shown that it is unwilling to reconsider the other findings, even when they are patently wrong (diff can be supplied on request). I would be happy to answer questions if you think I have been "unresponsive" or "incivil" since the case. If not then either something has changed, or nothing was wrong in those respects in the first place. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC).
    That's why I mentioned that the nomination bit would have no bearing on my decision. I do have a question though, and to be quite honest an answer will not change my !vote, but I am curious: why have you responded to almost all of the oppose votes (at the time of this edit), rather than answering the questions that others have asked above in the interview section? It seems that answering those questions might help allay some people's concerns or help to drum up support. Terribly sorry that this RFA has started out on such a negative note; you have had some good contributions, and I wish you all the best! -Pax Verbum 03:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks. The reason is that I glanced at the page and saw the opposes just before I went to bed. Being unable to sleep I decided to pop in and respond. I hadn't seen any of the questions until just now. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 05:49, 28 June 2015 (UTC).
  4. Oppose. I'm sorry, but checking your block log was enough in itself to make me oppose. Someone who had a one-year block expire only a bit more than a year ago is not fit for adminship. --Biblioworm 02:06, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
    Well a one year block for a one-character typo was a little extreme... especially as there was no time given to discuss the matter. I believe the blocking admin made a comment to the effect that he would have lifted it if I had requested, but sadly he did not say that until the year was up. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:26, 28 June 2015 (UTC).
  5. Oppose. No answers to questions, extremely extensive block log, currently subject to an ArbCom-imposed restriction and two community-imposed sanctions, loss of community trust, personal lack of trust in his judgement, likely net negative. Moved from neutral. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 02:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
    This oppose dated rather quickly, and if one looks at the diffs is at best misleading. "Taking nearly 9 hours to answer q 4" would have turned out accurate, though considering the time zones a little inconsiderate (the candidate has put himself in the category "Wikipedians In England" so it is only polite to allow him some sleep at that time of day). But when you made this comment the first three questions had already been answered and question 4 had been up for barely two and a half hours. It used to be that RFA candidates could expect 24 hours before being asked if they were going to answer a question. No wonder people think RFA is broken if you can get opposes for not answering a question within two and a half hours of it being asked. ϢereSpielChequers 21:23, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
    @WereSpielChequers: My apologies, I've stricken that part. I see that the entire oppose was too harsh, so I'll come back in a bit and change it. Thanks. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 21:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks for striking that bit. I didn't challenge the rest of what you said because there is a legitimate difference of opinion as to how one treats the other issues and how long a period of uncontentious editing is needed to restore people's trust, and some of us do treat lapses from our fellow volunteers more harshly than others do. ϢereSpielChequers 21:40, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  6. Oppose - Very extensive block log and the subject of current sanctions which have been repeatedly violated. If we cannot trust him to obey Arbcom sanctions, how can we trust him with adminship? Choosing to badger oppose !voters instead of answering questions also reflects poorly on the candidate. If I were to support this candidate, I would expect all findings of fact relevant to Rich to be found false and be removed by motion of Arbcom as well as several years of productive, block-free contributions to Wikipedia. Winner 42 Talk to me! 03:02, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  7. Strongest Oppose - Per block log. I cannot have an admin who has been blocked for a year plus having editing restrictions. I cannot have an admin who had have an ArbCom imposed community sanction and also I do not think he is fit for the tools. - EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 03:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  8. Oppose I still come across {{Use dmy dates}} templates placed in articles about American people and subjects by RF. This was done in a WP:POINTy fashion in clear violation of MOS:DATETIES. I do not care how much time has passed there is no way that I could trust this editor with admin tools. MarnetteD|Talk 03:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Yikes. This is one of my "things" (MOS:DATETIES, on both sides of the pond, is very important to me). @MarnetteD: do you have a recent diff that shows an example of this? (In the meantime, I will refrain from any voting here...) --IJBall (contribstalk) 03:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
    IJBall I have great respect for DATETIES and WP:ENGVAR. I haven't had to change one recently but that is because I haven't been editing film and actor articles as much in the last couple months. If you want to dig into my edit history look for articles about silent film actors. I can say that the ones I find have been there for years so another angle is to look for edits by RF circa 2010. MarnetteD|Talk 04:03, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
    Another way to search would be to create a tracking page using {{trackingcat}} for that template and then look at the articles listed there. I am not quite sure how to do that but I think it already exists somewhere so another editor may be able to show you how to get there. MarnetteD|Talk 04:07, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. I see no reason whatsoever why someone with such a record should be trusted with admin tools. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  10. Oppose because I don't trust the nominee with more tools. I, too, was tempted to post neutral to avoid the pile on but I'm not actually neutral, so I can't in good conscience do that. – Athaenara 06:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  11. Strong Oppose: The most important characteristic of an administrator is restraint. Regardless of user rights, everyone is bound by the consensus of the community. This nominee has repeatedly disregarded that consensus, as evidenced by the repeated violation of sanctions. I have little faith that he will show more restraint in the future given how frequently he's been given the opportunity to make that change and failed to do so. ~ RobTalk 08:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  12. Strong oppose - I'm sorry, but you have repeatedly broke your editing sanctions and as such we can't trust you. Please come back in a few years. I saw your previous RFA in 2005 was successful, but then you had your administrator privileges (along with your edit filter manager privileges) revoked by the decision of an arbitration request in 2012 due to repeated abuse. We can't trust a former administrator that has been abusive in the past. When an administrator becomes abusive there is no really turning back. --TL22 (talk) 12:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  13. Oppose While I believe Rich has the best interests of the project at heart, the problem I have is that his definition of "best interests" is idiosyncratic and he doesn't accept it when decisions go against him. That's not something we need in an admin. Anomie 13:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  14. Oppose Lack of good judgement, inability to see the concerns that the community has had with him over the years, and general lack of the temperament expected of an admin. The inability to listen to what others say when it is different than what he sees is very very troubling. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  15. I've had pleasant personal interactions with Rich, and that almost makes me want to go with "neutral", so as not to pile on. However, for the reasons discussed above under #General comments, I feel that opposing is the right thing to do. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:26, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  16. Oppose No doubt someone will quickly jump to correct me, but surely the access to various buttons would contravene the candidate's Arbcom sanction relating to not using automation in any form? Leaky Caldron 17:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
    I can't see that it would. The automation they mean is surely high speed bot work, not using Twinkle on individual cases. Peridon (talk) 19:10, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  17. Oppose. I have no confidence in the nominee's judgment. AGK [•] 17:40, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  18. Most definitely not. --Rschen7754 17:57, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  19. Oppose very worrisome block log, especially with the most recent being a one-year-long block. I'll grant that was back in 2013, but it feels too soon since such a lengthy block. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  20. no. Cloudchased (talk) 20:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  21. Oppose on ideological grounds. Wikipedia has enough admins, the last thing we need is more oversight, more blocks and more topic bans. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:39, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
    You know what's funny? Out of 1,348 Administrator on English Wikipedia only 306 of them are active currently, you notice it's not even 10% of them.--AldNonUcallin?☎ 22:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
    Minor point: 10% of 1348 administrators would be about 135; 306 is closer to 23%. – Athaenara 10:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
    I don't believe in that my 7 years as admin I handed out any topic bans. Nor do I think I blocked many, if indeed any, editors other than drive-by-vandals. I am (was) one of those admins who uses the tools to marshal pages not people. For people we have discourse. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC).
    Handpolk and Rich Farmbrough, what is wrong with "more oversight, more blocks and more topic bans" if the shoe fits? Flyer22 (talk) 04:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
    If the shoe fits, nothing. But that's just vandals and uncovering socks and stuff. That all seems to be managed pretty well right now. For the stuff that requires a human to make a judgement call, I would prefer Wikipedia to be far more free-wheeling with less oversight. If one editor calls another a name, there doesn't need to be four admins there an hour later, debating how long to block him for. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 05:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
    Handpolk (last time WP:Pinging you here), given that WP:Administrators are prone to make mistakes, just like any other human, sometimes we need at least two of them to make sure that the right call was made. I understand that too many cooks in the kitchen is often problematic, but having just enough cooks there can be beneficial. Flyer22 (talk) 06:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
    The problem with that example wasn't too many admins being there, it was any admins at all being there. Wikipedia has major admin overload. It's like one of those small towns with too many bored cops, looking to bust you for any minor infraction. The encyclopedia isn't improved by blocking and banning everything that gets out of line. Nor is it improved by endless, hard to understand policies and guidelines -- but that's another matter. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 07:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
    @Handpolk: Bans are a community decision - they can't be handed out by admins singlehandedly, except in certain topic areas, see WP:Banning policy. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
    Wikilawyer my point all you want, admins make the final decision -- and they hand out blocks like candy on halloween. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 01:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
    There are often better ways to resolve a problem than sanctions. It is sadly true that talking people down from conflict does not guarantee that it won't re-arise, but the same is true of sanctions. The difference is that many sanctions actually deprive us of positive contributions. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC).
    Er, 306 is 23% of 1,348. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
    So, Handpolk, if push comes to shove we can safely discount your vote as being an expression of general antipathy to all things adminship rather than having anything whatsoever to do with the current candidate. Thank you for your candour. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
    ควาย, absolutely not. My vote is for no more admins. That's a perfectly valid reason to oppose. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
    By your logic, it doesn't matter if an administrator is an absolutely perfect, flawless candidate. I must agree that that is not a valid reason to oppose. You haven't identified any actual problems with the candidate here and won't do so with other candidates you oppose because of your "Wikipedia has enough administrators" argument, so what legitimate reason does the closer of this RfA have to actual pay attention to this vote? Dustin (talk) 15:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  22. Oppose There are way more editors who are more suitable to be admin. OhanaUnitedTalk page 22:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
    I'm sure that is true. Please see if you can nominate one or more of them. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC).
  23. Oppose - I really wanted to support you, Rich Farmbrough but the arguments made by few above are pretty convincing for me to sign in this section. Basically, I feel that you have applied a bit too soon since your last block from the ArbCom. Give it an year or two, without getting into trouble, and I shall be happy to support. — Yash! (Y) 23:23, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  24. Oppose - Sorry but I can't support someone who's been blocked for an entire year, We all fuck up but you have to have fuck up pretty badly to be blocked for a year, I get the block was 2 years ago but it just doesn't fill me with any confidence sorry. –Davey2010Talk 00:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
    Being blocked for 1 year really does not require much misbehavior. The length of a block is whatever the administrator selects when the block is put in place. RF was given the "honor" of a block that actually would end after a year, in favor of the commonplace indef block that does not expire. The ArbCom gave the risible ultimatum to RF that he may continue editing Wikipedia, provided that he does not use technology. (Actually, it was automation that he was ordered to stop using.) The block was soon given by an administrator who found fault with RF allegedly using copy-and-paste to change some text before submitting it. It seems sensible to me for RF to have waited his 1 year block out instead of appealing. You might have noticed that ruffled feathers can stay ruffled around here for immensely long periods of time (as in years). The year off allowed some tensions to somewhat cool down before RF's return to editing. After the year, there would also be changes in the composition of ArbCom and the group of administrators who actively mop and politick. Italick (talk) 01:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
    I get where you're coming from but surely you can see it does look bad having a years block, Maybe he did fuck up badly - Maybe he didn't but at the end of the day the block log isn't impressive and quite honestly I don't trust him with the tools but thanks for your reply anyway. –Davey2010Talk 02:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
    Don't you think this seems a little un-thought-out? A blockee is entirely at the mercy of the blocker; if the latter chooses out of vindictiveness to give a huge block (i am not passing judgement here on the current candidate's log, simply pointing out the error in the argument), then you would not trust the blockee? Do you not think that some admins make bad mistakes, or act contrary to INVOLVED, or have a bee in the bonnet about particular users? You say "[m]aybe he didn't", but you're judging him as though he did anyway? Cheers, LindsayHello 09:19, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
    Some admins do make mistakes but I'm pretty damn sure 12 admins have not made mistakes, Look as I said above I don't trust him with the tools and the block log itself doesn't fill me with any confidence - You may support him but I don't, so there was no point in replying as I'm not going to change my mind ....Davey2010Talk 14:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
    When you express an opinion, you should be prepared to have that opinion challenged. Don't snap at people who attempt to discuss your opinions with you. Alakzi (talk) 15:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
    Don't get me wrong I always expect someone to want to discuss my opinions and I'm always happy to discuss them but I don't get how challenging my oppose in this case helps?, I opposed per the block as well as the block log like everyone else here but noted anyway. –Davey2010Talk 15:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
    Oppose - I don't mean to pile on, but I'm not seeing any evidence that you can be trusted with the mop. It's too soon after your last block, and I fear that you'll get into similar levels of conflicts and get into a lengthy de-sysoping process again. You and a lot of other people seem to be on really bad terms, and considering that your ArbCom block ended a little over a year ago, some of these conflicts might influence your or their behavior in discussions. I'm not convinced yet that we can move past these disputes and that discussions you're involved in can be resolved fairly and without baggage. Unfortunately, we don't want that kind of environment. Give it a year or two more, and I would probably support. BenLinus1214talk 03:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
    Hi, I understand what you mean about the divisions potentially affecting decisions. But I didn't mean to suggest that RF was still on terrible terms with others in my comment to Davey2010. A whole other year has passed since the block that ended last year. The complete opposite of a dynamic where administrators are mutually contentious is groupthink. That wouldn't be better for content or fairer to editors. I find myself agreeing with Мандичка's observation that RF tried to be helpful in the wrong way, and he was not put on leave for "trolling, incivility or rudeness, inserting POV, sockpuppetry etc.". Italick (talk) 03:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  25. Oppose An administrator needs to set an example and harmonize with the community. The history of blocks is simply not acceptable for an admin. Chillum 04:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
    That's some first-rate victim blaming, Chillum. Alakzi (talk) 15:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
    If you want to explain your comment you are welcome on my talk page. Chillum 00:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
    As I've explained to you previously, Chillum, your talk page is for examining your behaviour, not anyone else's. It is more than a little disconcerting that you don't understand Alakzi's point: Rich was the victim of monumentally over-the-top block on the English Wikipedia and sat it out with dignity while contributing elsewhere. And following that, you have now contrived to blame Rich for someone else's bad judgement. Is that clear enough for you now? --RexxS (talk) 00:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
    You use the singular of block, but I see several. Are the blocks from 6 different admins all bad judgement? If I did not get Alakzi's point it was probably because it was very brief and contained no evidence. Chillum 13:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
    I haven't looked into any of the blocks except the AE ones personally, but I'm not hopeful that they'd been handed out fairly. Alakzi (talk) 16:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  26. Oppose - The past issues and blocks would be enough to oppose; however, Rich's attitude at this RFA is perhaps the most compelling reason behind my oppose !vote. The statements he has made at this RFA indicate that the lessons that should have been learned from past incidents have not been learned. The attitude regarding the last block is quite troubling. Rich has stated that he was given no time at Arbitration Enforcement to discuss the issue surrounding his last block; however, he made over 50 edits from when the enforcement request was opened until when it was closed, including a request for amendment to his ArbCom case; ample time was (over 12 hours) was given to respond to the enforcement request. I find the claims that there was no time to respond to be nothing more than a poor attempt at revising history, and the attitude Rich has taken in that attempt to revise history is, in my opinion, the most compelling reason to oppose this RFA. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  27. Anomie puts it well, unfortunately. For me to support Rich for adminship, I would need to be convinced that he has fully outgrown his past tendencies, which will take years. At this juncture, I feel that Rich Farmbrough has demonstrated a fundamental unsuitability for adminship, which means I cannot say with any confidence that I will one day support him. Kurtis (talk) 05:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  28. Oppose. While I am sometimes happy to forgive and forget, in this case too much has gone on to quell my internal disquiet.  Philg88 talk 06:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  29. Oppose Someone with such a turbulent history just isn't right for this job. Rcsprinter123 (chinwag) @ 09:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  30. Oppose - Troublesome block log. Tiptoety talk 09:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  31. Oppose As noted by several others, I too have noticed a reluctance to listen to those who don't entirely agree with him (here is a recent example). I am not convinced he demonstrates sufficient care and judgement to fulfil an admin role at this time. Burninthruthesky (talk) 15:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC); inserted permalink 06:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
    I read the exchange on Wikipedia talk:Harassment and Rich's conduct comes across as civil and polite, even though he is disagreeing. If it was problematic, surely somebody would have called him out for it on thread? Indeed, I read "Warnings and blocks can be very distressing, and are certainly unwanted" and found myself thinking "couldn't agree more". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
    I would have preferred not to have to clarify my point three times. I wouldn't say that was "problematic", but neither would I say it was "exemplary" as expected from an admin.
    Also, comments like, "With the wording as it stands, messages from the Arbitration Committee constitute harassment to their victims, as they are both annoying and unwanted." don't inspire my confidence in a deep understanding of policies to be upheld. Burninthruthesky (talk) 17:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
    Since the "non-exemplary" matter you refer to will eventually be archived, I'm linking to this WP:Permalink version of it. Flyer22 (talk) 02:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
    Thank you. I have incorporated it into my original post. Burninthruthesky (talk) 06:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
    Oppose per block log and general attitude on display at this RFA. --Laser brain (talk) 16:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC) Reconsidered. --Laser brain (talk) 21:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  32. Oppose not convinced that they've learned lessons from previous blocks and arb case. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  33. Oppose - no chance, sorry. GiantSnowman 12:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  34. Oppose From what I've seen at RfD, Rich tends toward fairly extreme inclusionism. Alone, that wouldn't cause me to write my name down here, but combined with all of the other issues being raised here, I would not be comfortable with this. Also sorry. --BDD (talk) 18:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
    Hey that's ok. I am fairly extreme (compared with other RfD regulars) on keeping redirects, following the dictum "Only delete new or harmful redirects". This was written by people who know what they were talking about. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC).
  35. Reluctant oppose Rich is a hard-working, highly experienced editor and I do believe he has Wikipedia's best interest in mind. And he is being supported by many admins and other users whose opinions I respect. However, I do not believe he has an appropriate temperment/attitude for an administrator. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
    Well I'm glad it's reluctant! Thank you for that. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC).
    I think RF probably has the right temperament/attitude to be an administrator. He was an administrator for 7 years, during which time he was exceptionally active here. I'm not reading a long recital of complaints that purport his abuse of the office. In my reading of the opposed and neutral comments, they seem largely confined to the trust issue surrounding the past embroilments over bots. Italick (talk) 03:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  36. Oppose Read all the questions/history above, and I just cannot see this user being trustworthy enough to be an admin. Having disagreements with other editors is normal, but even if they were acting in good faith (which they probably were), this amount of history/problems cannot be forgotten. It's only been a few months since unblock, I'd say come back in about a year. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
    @Joseph2302: His last block expired 23:06, 25 March 2014, fifteen months ago - more than "a few months", I'd say. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
    15 months is still not a long time. If we count that date like a clean start, then they've had at most 15 months of good editing. If you don't count it as a clean start, then the history suggests they are too problematic to be an admin IMO. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
    This is, again, victim blaming. Why are you calling the recipient of a year-long block over a completely harmless edit in draftspace problematic? Authority is not self-justifying; it is not unthinkable that the blocking admin erred. It is not unthinkable that ArbCom erred. Alakzi (talk) 22:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
    In fairness, not all !voters can be expected to look beyond the "headlines" and I didn't expect them to. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC).
  37. Oppose. I feel User:Rich Farmbrough does not need Admin: And for the sake of Wikipedia, one cannot put admins all over the place. (I am an active editor but not an admin, and I have no idea why this is all in italics). His User:SmackBot was disabled for causing trouble, so once deleted it rose like a phoenix as User:Helpful Pixie Bot. If that cannot do what it needs under user privileges, then it should not exist. Call me an idiot, but every idiotic thing I say is under my same old username: the only exception is when I accidentally forget to log in, and given a chance I correct or add to the IP to make sure that any shit comes back to me, I don't do anonymous stuff. Neither does R. F. to give him credit, but is, in my view, a vagrant wanderer over the last seven years I have edited Wikipedia for any little lodge he can stand his stall. He deleted my infobox tmplates, my translation templates, he basically put his paws in where he has no expertise: He fucked up Hungarian translations when my wife and I were living in England, but my wife is Hungarian and I am living in Hungary (she happens to be working in England now) and between us we may just know a little more about Hungarian subjects than R. F. does, and may be able to translate them better than he. His bot has mucked about with my French translations, sometimes almost immediately after I have put the {{translated page}} tag on, and literally I have had an {{edit conflict}} with the bot. I suggested to R. F. that his bot should stand off an hour before even attempting to make good (this was User:SmackBot), but got the usual reply, i.e a polite "fuck off".
    Please don't ask me for histories or examples, he is like Macavity, the Mystery Cat, whenever you do something, Rich or his bot is behind you cocking it up. Put an {{inuse}} or {{underconstruction}} tag on, the bot ignores it. (And I think that it is R. F.'s call there to say that it doesn't, and prove it: believe me, I can read code. I can read bollox too.)
    It doesn't matter, in a sense, since User:Helpful Pixie Bot can run on its own account without admin privileges. In which case, there is no need for admin privileges for its owner, is there?!
    R. F. was an admin. There is a reason he now isn't. I am not and don't want to be. The very idea that R. F. so soon applies to be an admin is indicative of why he should not be. I should like to have various gnoming privileges, since I do a lot of work at WP:RFD and it would be handy, but the other regs at RfD close things for me etc if we get WP:CONSENSUS: which is what I thought it was about. rickipedia.org is open for sale. Si Trew (talk) 01:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
    Hi, Do you mean to say that User:Helpful Pixie Bot still does stuff? It looks to have stopped running in 2012 based on this. [3] Italick (talk) 02:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
    BTW: if ($temp_text =~ /{{\s*((no|)bots|editing|in[ _]*use|GOCE-?inuse)\s*[\|}]/i) {print "In use, skipping.\n"; next} Face-smile.svg All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC).
  38. Oppose - I thank Rich for the various good work done here, but count me as among those who can't get past his block log. Jusdafax 14:12, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  39. Oppose as I can't support anyone who has editing restrictions. -- Tavix (talk) 14:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  40. Oppose. The editing restrictions and numerous blocks make this editor too much of a gamble, especially considering the extreme difficulty involved in removing administrators who shouldn't be administrators. Coretheapple (talk) 14:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  41. Strong Oppose per BMK. --AmaryllisGardener talk 21:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  42. Oppose - Although the block log is very concerning, it was long enough ago that I'm willing to let bygones be bygones. However... I'm really not happy with some of the responses from Rich to some of the opposers earlier in this (and his supporters have been way OTT, although that is not a direct influence on my vote), nor am I happy to support someone with multiple ArbCom or community sanctions that are still active. I don't, personally, feel that the answer to Q15 is good enough (the recall numbers are way, way too high - may as well chuck another 0 on the end... it's essentially saying "yeah, I'm open to recall, if a ridiculous number of people say I should be recalled"), I'm not convinced by the response to Q11 personally (I don't have time to delve into it in-depth myself though), or the response to Q8 (an indication that Rich would be more than happy to violate restrictions if he felt he could get away with it - not what I'd want to see from an admin). However good a regular editor Rich may be - and from what I remember seeing, I do believe that he is an asset as an editor - he is not, in my opinion, a suitable candidate for the admin role. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  43. Oppose - Clearly this is a community member with a complicated history on the project, including a great deal of constructive work. But while his advocates may succeed in proving that he has been a net positive asset to the project in general, that's still a far cry from the exceptional standard of conduct expected of a mop candidate, especially one who has previously been relieved of those very tools. The numerous blocks, restrictions and other sanctions (handed out over the course of years), and the amount of community effort required to address the behaviours which led to them, paint a picture of an editor that is not particularly well-suited to a mop, being possessed of disposition that allows him to readily dismiss his community consensus and his restrictions. Frankly, I'm not sure it's ever appropriate to allow the re-nomination of a desysoped former admin -- with the possible exception of cases in which the ruling that stripped the user of their tools is itself overturned -- and in this case in particular the argument looks pretty poor, all context considered. I'm simply not prepared to support the nomination given the mixed track record and the fact that some of the sanctions were applied just within the last few years. However, in attempting to make sense of the wildly conflicting accounts of the candidate's behaviour, I searched through his contributions a decent bit and did feel that his behaviour in discussions was generally civil and collegial, so I'd not rule out being convinced to change my !vote in a future nomination, once he has put some more distance between the rockier elements of his past contributions and his current and more consistently non-contentious endeavours. Snow let's rap 04:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
    It can be appropriate to allow the re-nomination of a desysoped former admin, particularly if they have explicitly been told that they may be nominated. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough#Rich Farmbrough's administrator status revoked which says "Rich Farmbrough's administrator status is revoked. At any time after the closing of this case, Rich Farmbrough may request that his administrator status be restored by filing a request for adminship." There is no minimum time limit other than the RfA be filed after the closure of the ArbCom case, there are no other conditions; so the filing of this particular RfA does not breach any terms. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Neutral
Leaning oppose. I don't find that I trust RF after the ArbCom tumble. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:16, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Moving to oppose. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 02:34, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Elaborate? Dustin (talk) 02:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  1. Neutral because I don't want to pile-on. Jianhui67 TC 04:06, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  2. Neutral for now, pending answers to questiosn and further responses from Rick. DES (talk) 04:28, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
    Neutral for now, leaning support because a) BMK is in opposition, and b) everyone deserves a chance to redeem themselves. I'll wait for his answers before I make a firm decision. GregJackP Boomer! 04:39, 28 June 2015 (UTC) moved to support, GregJackP Boomer! 21:16, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  3. Neutral because I don't want to pile on. The history of sanctions is too long. If this editor went a few years without getting into another fracas, I could consider supporting. I feel this nomination should be withdrawn before it becomes too unpleasant, as it has no chance of succeeding. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:50, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  4. Neutral, leaning support I did some serious investigation here, of the user talk page and other sections. It appears to me that there was a pattern of problematic editing (violation of sanctions, the behaviours leading up to the ArbCom case itself, etc.) but that it stopped a while ago (summer of last year or so) based on the AE, AN, ANI and user talk page contents. There is certainly no doubt that Rich has done massive contributions to Wikipedia and is highly dedicated to the project. He also currently holds some permissions (template editor and edit filter manager) that require almost admin-level degrees of trust (since any misusage - either deliberate or by mistake - can cause large scale disruption). Finally, even if this RfA is successful the restrictions on automated editing don't magically become nonexistent or unenforceable, and most of the issues in the past had to do with these and not with admin tool usage. Still, given the long history of problems I'd recommend to wait a bit longer before requesting the mop back. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks for doing that investigation, it's pretty tedious stuff. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC).
  5. Please appeal the ban first.--GZWDer (talk) 16:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
    Thank you for that suggestion. I have thought of appealing the arb case, however I would much rather work on the project. I am also somewhat cynical about the likely response. Nonetheless I recognise it is something I will probably have to do one day. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:08, 28 June 2015 (UTC).
    1. On the fence. You seem like a good editor, Rich, but I also see that you have gotten many blocks and a prohibition from using automation. I'll have to think about this awhile. Epic Genius (talk) 23:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC) moved to support. Epic Genius (talk) 12:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
    Neutral, leaning support - I think Rich Farmbrough's block drama appears to be related to eagerness and thinking he is helping (with misplaced overconfidence he wouldn't get caught...) rather than trolling, incivility or rudeness, inserting POV, sockpuppetry etc. Ultimately he was trying to be helpful, though doing it the wrong way. Thus I don't agree with the personal attacks or statement that this is an "appalling" nomination. It was done in good faith and I don't see why RF can't conceivably one day be restored to admin. Maybe 2016. (moved to support) МандичкаYO 😜 00:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  6. Neutral about this RfA which will almost certainly not succeed. But I do want to offer moral support to Rich. I read years of drama about Rich's problematic automated editing but don't recall commenting much about it myself, as others more knowledgeable than I were dealing with the matter. But since his return, I have found him to be friendly, helpful and committed to the encyclopedia. I see him helping out at the Teahouse often. Clearly, the job of administrator is not the best role for him right now, given the past, but I want to encourage him to continue on his current path as a productive editor in other areas in the future. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  7. Neutral Thank you Rich Farmbrough for answering my question. That's just about the longest answer I've ever seen to an optional question, so thank [you for] going to that length to explain. I believe the more prolific an editor an editor is the more controversial they become. I think there are very few us of, even on the outskirts, that aren't at least familiar with your name. While some of your past actions have given me much to think about, I haven't seen too many examples lately. It's a fine line between the actions of your past or your recent activity as to whether it defines you as an editor. I think there's just too much history to sort out that I couldn't make an informed decision and therefore remain in the neutral section. Mkdwtalk 04:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
    I think you are correct that very few people will be able to make a "fully informed decision", there is simply too much data, and too many sprawling discussions. Indeed I have to check details myself. Thank you for giving the matter thoughtful consideration. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC).
  8. Neutral, leaning support. In general, I think you'd be a thoughtful admin - as you once were. But even if the arbcom proceedings were a goddamned disaster, it's still clear that those findings hold a lot of sway among the community. The oppose section shows this. Your block log, however explained, is also a concern - enough so that you'll get opposes just for its length. So I think you'd be a fine admin that lacks the trust of a good portion of the community, and that's an unfortunately untenable position. Good luck to you. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:19, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  9. Neutral mainly per Mkdw. From what I've seen recently I would easily !vote support, however I'm just not knowledgeable enough about past events to trust myself to do so. Kharkiv07 (T) 20:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  10. Neutral I believe that bot operators and admins should be separate for separation of powers reasons. This is not a comment on the current candidate's competence to be an administrator, but a philosophical position, which is why this is a neutral and not a oppose. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
    Hi. I don't want to say that RF is not a bot operator, only to be proven wrong. But I was under the impression that he could not be a bot operator while abiding his automation restriction. That strikes me as inconsistent. RF may very well have lost his interest in operating bots here after the unpleasantness with ArbCom. Why not formally pose the question of whether he desires to operate bots again, if his restriction should be rescinded? Italick (talk) 21:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
    FYI I asked this. МандичкаYO 😜 22:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
    Neutral, leaning oppose Ordinarily I consider a neutral vote in an RfA a wasted one, but not this time. I was all set to oppose, per WP:IDHT; Diannaa's support vote almost persuaded me to support too, but there's this re-arguing of the Arbcom case with no real insight into what got the community up in arms. I'd like to hear a hint of acceptance of responsibility, rather than a downplaying of the issues (which we're all privy to anyway). Miniapolis 22:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC) After further consideration, moving to support
  11. Neutral Not a comment on the candidate, but on his being under far-reaching and fuzzily defined sanctions that mean he could rightly or wrongly be "pulled over" at any time. This would be the more likely on any use of admin tools. No, the sanctions must get lifted first, then with a continued positive history he can certainly be considered for adminship: Noyster (talk), 09:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  12. Neutral Miniapolis and others make some valid points, and I honestly don't think you would intentionally do anything bad with the tools, but your adminship comes with a lot of baggage, including an ongoing ban. Part of the reason I can't support is the fact that you will draw a lot of negative attention due to this, and you will be under constant scrutiny. Of course this is unfair to you, but such is life, and in the end, it would be a distraction and an ongoing source of drama. Because I don't question your intent, I won't oppose either and I think you have the best of intentions, even when you've screwed up. Dennis Brown - 12:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks. The "unwanted attention" has been pretty constant until relatively recently, so it's something I can live with, although it is not pleasant. Cost of doing business. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC).
  13. Neutral - at best. Not forgotten is an incident in which I was dramahounded through IRC, I believe for having the audacity to post a link to a WPO thread. Biased against Wikipediocracy, which isn't a reason to oppose here, but certainly not a candidate that I support and trust with blocking buttons either. I do think his year-long block for violation of semi-automated editing sanctions was way over-the-top, I wish to state. Carrite (talk) 14:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
    Thank you for the last part. I believe the link was to a thread that "outed" someone, presumably not intentionally on your part. I did not mention the matter in a general IRC channel but in direct IRC chat with an oversighter - no drama there. I apologise for upsetting you. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC).
  14. No opinion. While I have run across Rich from time to time, I can't say I've had enough direct interactions with him to have any firm opinion here. Maybe it's "bush league", but I like to have some personal interaction with an RfA candidate before I'm willing to vote "for"/"against" or take the time to dig deeper. Aside from that, my biggest concern with this candidacy is it very "controversialness" – after the last week or so, the last thing we need is any more drama in the Admin corps... --IJBall (contribstalk) 04:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

About RfB

"WP:RFB" redirects here. For bot requests, see Wikipedia:Bot requests. For help with referencing, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners.
Shortcut:

Requests for bureaucratship (RfB) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become bureaucrats. Bureaucrats can make other users administrators or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here, and remove administrator rights in limited circumstances. They can also change usernames for most users and can grant or remove bot status on an account.

The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above; however the expectation for promotion to bureaucratship is significantly higher than for admin, requiring a clearer consensus. In general, the threshold for consensus is somewhere around 85%. Bureaucrats are expected to determine consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions.

Create a new RfB page as you would for an RfA, and insert {{subst:RfB|User=USERNAME|Description=YOUR DESCRIPTION OF THE USER ~~~~}} into it, then answer the questions. New bureaucrats are recorded at Wikipedia:Successful bureaucratship candidacies. Failed nominations are at Wikipedia:Unsuccessful bureaucratship candidacies.

At minimum, study what is expected of a bureaucrat by reading discussions at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship including the recent archives, before seeking this position.

While canvassing for support is often viewed negatively by the community, some users find it helpful to place the neutrally worded {{RfX-notice|b}} on their userpages - this is generally not seen as canvassing.

Please add new requests at the top of the section immediately below this line.


Current nominations for bureaucratship


There are no current nominations.

Related pages