Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rich Farmbrough

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Rich Farmbrough

final (22/0/0) ending 17:08 8 February 2005 (UTC) Thank you all very much.

Rich Farmbrough has been editing Wikipedia since 2 May 2004. He has worked uncontroversially on some of the highly active articles dealing with current news subjects, like Cassini-Huygens and 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, which I think shows good collaboration skills. He has helped significantly with the image tagging project and does a lot of housekeeping work, so I think Wikipedia would benefit from giving him the ability to handle more of the chores around here. --Michael Snow 17:08, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Candidate please indicate acceptance of the nomination here

I accept nomination.

Support

1. Michael Snow 17:09, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
2. He's been a consistantly good editor for a long time, I'm sure he'll be a fine admin. Rje 19:23, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
3. Support. Bart133 (t) 01:22, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
4. David Cannon 00:44, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC). Good researcher and an invaluable asset to Wikipedia.
5. Definitely. --Lst27 (talk) 01:30, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
6. Jordi·✆ 07:41, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
7. Slowking Man 07:47, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
8. Acegikmo1 20:34, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
9. Ryan! | Talk 20:40, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
10. Great stuff. -- Hadal 15:08, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
11. Support. JuntungWu 06:25, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
12. A strong user. ClockworkSoul 13:50, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
13. Tuf-Kat 04:05, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
14. Support. Antandrus 04:07, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
15. Neutrality^talk 04:14, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
16. Support. jni 10:55, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
17. Support. ugen64 16:06, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
18. Support! -- Chris 73 Talk 10:35, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
19. Sounds good to me. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 16:49, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)
20. Strong support... and insert clichè of choice regarding shock and surprise as to why this guy isn't an admin yet! - Lucky 6.9 21:42, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
21. SWAdair | Talk 06:42, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
22. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:34, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Strong oppose. Needs more experience fighting vandals, forgers, and trolls. Will support in 3 months, if I see more evidence of initiative being taken in these areas. 172 11:31, 04 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The above vote was not left by 172; see this diff. This same anonymous user has attempted to impersonate RickK; see this diff. -- Hadal 14:51, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

1. 172 is usually a good judge of character, so I'll back him up on this. Also, this candidate has a minimal number of edits, having only been around 10 months. More experience needed. Cranberry 14:01, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You consider ten months and circa 8919 edits to be minimal? -- Hadal 15:08, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

S'OK Cranberry has been around for 4 days, and has 45 edits. A significant proportion of which are to the articles edited by 69.243.41.28, who forged 172's entry above, as well as missing wikipedian Nathanlarson32767. He's doubtless testing my reaction to vandals, forgers and trolls. Rich Farmbrough 01:04, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Having locked myself out of my account (Cranberry), I am using this IP address to retract my vote in the Rich Farmbrough RFA. In addition, I am crossing out the forged 172 vote. 166.61.192.33 04:11, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

• Could someone clarify why all his edits are minor? Does he only correct typoes and whatnot? or does he accidentally have his Minor Edits default on? Kingturtle 07:25, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hard to tell with so few edit summaries, but it seems to be mostly (at least the past couple weeks) date wikification, by section, regardless of whether the same date is already wikified previously in the same paragraph. And an occasional spelling or capitalization correction. Niteowlneils 05:03, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Since I got busy outside wikiland "big" edits have gone by the board. However you may remember Spaghetti House Siege, which you very kindly improved. Rich Farmbrough 21:49, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, that was at least 3-4,000 edits ago, so I didn't remember it, but I do recognize it. Nice article, nicely referenced. Niteowlneils 03:13, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. Either he has the default on, or is one of those that consider creating a new article "minor"[1]. Similarly, I know some other Wikipedians would mark this[2] minor, but I would never mark adding or deleting content minor. Guess we'll have to wait for an answer from him. Niteowlneils 05:33, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes I had minor edit on by default, I turned it on when I was tagging the US map images, probably better to take it off now, have done so. Rich Farmbrough 16:22, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A. Speedy deletes and any requested as appropriate.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. I was pleased to make a significant contribution to tagging images, and would have liked to have done more. I have made some contributions to mathematical articles including Fundamental theorem of projective geometry which is a very small article but needed. I have substantially modified the sense of Pedro Lopez, which is a result of trying to verify data in an almost scholarly manner. The details of my research are in (Talk:Pedro_Lopez).

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and will deal with it in the future?

A. I have had no conflicts (except with vandals). Discussions over issues have been resolved amicably.

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.