Misplaced Pages

:Requests for adminship/Rich Farmbrough 2 - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Handpolk (talk | contribs) at 21:39, 28 June 2015 (→Oppose). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 21:39, 28 June 2015 by Handpolk (talk | contribs) (→Oppose)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Rich Farmbrough

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (18/21/6); 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 Misplaced Pages — 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 was a nice administrative achievement. I am rather pleased with the essay WP:Misplaced Pages has more... which gives the lie to some common press pot-shots at Misplaced Pages 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:Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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:
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 Misplaced Pages: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 coimments 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.

General comments

RfAs for this user:
  • Links for Rich Farmbrough: Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
  • Edit summary usage for Rich Farmbrough can be found here.
  • The nomination statement is factually inaccurate and misleading. I was part of the Committee that voted to desysop Rich Farmbrough. Rich was brought to the Committee because the community had been concerned for some years with his editing pattern and behaviour. The community had imposed restrictions on Rich; but those restrictions were not working. The Committee looked into the case and decided to desysop Rich for his history of misconduct, poor judgement, and generally not working in a trustworthy and collegiate manner. The finding regarding unblocking of his own bots was problematic from the start (I commented at the time that not all the instances of unblocking of the bots were inappropriate), and after two appeals by Rich to reword the finding, the Committee decided to vacate that finding as it was not an essential finding anyway - he had not been desysopped for unblocking his own bots, but for his general history of misconduct and disruption. A year after that finding was vacated, the Committee had to formally warn Rich via motion that continued violations of the bot restriction would be enforced by a site ban. Essentially, there is evidence that Rich Farmbrough was a problematic user for years before the ArbCom case, and continued to push the boundaries of acceptable behaviour after the case. I assume the nominator was unaware of the history of Rich Farmbrough and the full details of the case, otherwise they would not have proceeded with a nomination and a misleading statement that could potentially harm their reputation in future RfA nominations. SilkTork 07:47, 28 June 2015 (UTC).
User:SilkTork - I am willing to let you, for the moment, make claims about collegiality, incivility, judgement etc, as these things can be somewhat subjective, but you will please strike the suggestion about trustworthiness. I note also that the "remedy" said that I am free to seek re-appointment by RFA. It is somewhat disquieting that, not content with the opprobrium you have heaped upon me in your role as an arbitrator, you choose to interfere with the process here. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 09:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC).
You are welcome to seek re-appointment by RFA, and I'm not stopping that, nor am I ivoting in this RfA. I am commenting on the nomination statement, which you have accepted, even though you of all people, know it is factually incorrect and misleading. Your acceptance of that statement, and your challenge of it here, will allow others to assess how trustworthy you are. For my part, I can confirm that your deceitful behaviour was a key factor in the decision to desysop you. This finding: , drew attention to deceptive behaviour on your part. I don't expect you to accept that, as a significant part of the issue surrounding you is your consistent failure to understand the issues surrounding you. I never found you to be a malicious or unpleasant person, and I didn't want you to be site banned, but it did disturb me then, and it continues to disturb me now, that you will not accept that the community has serious concerns about your editing methods and your attempts to deceive the community regarding using automated tools. To be clear - if someone is being deceptive, they cannot be trusted. If someone doesn't accept their actions are disruptive and of concern to others, and so continues those actions despite informal and formal request to stop, they cannot be trusted. That you don't accept that your actions were not trustworthy doesn't in itself encourage trust. SilkTork 12:30, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I think I now have some explaining to do — and an apology to make, both to Rich and to the Misplaced Pages community. I nominated Rich as someone I like and respect, as a friend and fellow-editor. Having been away for most of the last 7-8 years, I was not aware of the complex issues surrounding this case, and had no idea how controversial this nomination would prove to be. I think I was remiss in not investigating that matter for myself and taking the trouble to hear all sides of the argument before nominating Rich. I am sorry that have opened up divisions in the community with this nomination. I promise to be more careful in the future before nominating anybody else. And Rich — I apologise to you, too — for exposing you in this way to the airing of past mistakes that I'm sure you wish with all your heart would be forgotten about. Having said that, I believe very strongly in loyalty. Even though my decision to nominate Rich now appears to have been too hasty, I will not abandon him how. I'll stand by my friend and colleague while the process takes its course. I will fully support whatever decision the community ends up making, and, once again, I will be more diligent in researching future nominations. David Cannon (talk) 14:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Discussion

RfA/RfB toolbox
Counters
Analysis
Cross-wiki
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)
  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)
  3. 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)
  4. 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)
  5. 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 09:08, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  6. 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)
  7. 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)
  8. 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)
  9. Support His blocks were a long time ago, and I don't see why that should prevent him from becoming an admin now. KSFT 13:22, 28 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. --Fæ (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 Misplaced Pages dicta. The only issue here should be "does this person understand Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, it is probably because that individual has been much less involved in building and managing Misplaced Pages 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)
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)
  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 Misplaced Pages. 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)
    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. ~ Rob 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. Misplaced Pages 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)
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 04:06, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  2. Neutral for now, pending answers to questiosn and further responses from Rick. DES 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 I saw the block log. My initial thoughts are "usual suspects" and I see no sanctions placed for over 2 years. Clearly Rich has seriously rubbed people up the wrong way, but I'm a strong believer in people moving on from past misdeeds and reforming. If he keeps his nose clean for another year, I could be persuaded to support then. Ritchie333 08:16, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  5. 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
  6. Please appeal the ban first.--GZWDer (talk) 16:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)