User talk:Rich Farmbrough
Contact me via Rich Farmbrough 17:45 3 March 2006 (UTC).
ArbCom
You made some excellent points, but they will never truly be addressed. Also, you said that a lot of the process problems wouldn't have changed the result but don't be so sure. A lot of the process problems are indicative of the failed process as a whole, and the community (with the idea of consensus) takes a back seat to a few people who end up making arbitrary decisions. You point out what the community has failed to address - ArbCom has been a sort of court set up by people who want to be lawyers/judges but shouldn't be acting that way on wiki. Too often do the people let some really bad people get through (sock puppets, harassers, plagiarists, etc) while even condoning their actions while harming those unfairly who do try to help. The best part is that they hide behind AGF while never relying on it themselves except in the worst situations. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- It was important that my comments on the process not be taken as "sore looser" talk. There are difficulties with the elections, of course, primarily that we don't get people who have been working in the DR arena, and even if we did, there is no community oversight of those processes. We are mostly too busy with the "actual work", important though these functions are. Rich Farmbrough 20:45 21 May 2012 (GMT).
- Let them take it as a sore loser - the most important people to listen to are those who are damaged as a result of such matters. There are only a few actions that should be banned: real life stalking, outing, plagiarism, and sock puppetry. It seems that ArbCom has given a lot of those people a pass (Jack Merridew and Rlevse, for example) while aggressively targeting those who don't do such thing. There are people that do actual harm to the encyclopedia and to others, and the system is ensuring that those are the people with the most authority and power. The "DR Arena," if it is to be credible, should probably be filled with outsiders that have professional background, with identities well-known, and disconnected from the "power structure" (i.e. popularity contest that leads to rights on site). Ottava Rima (talk) 20:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Flooding recent changes
Hi Rich, I have blocked you because of flooding recent changes. Please apply for a flood or bot flag before doing this kind of stuffs. I appreciate your help in fixing this. Please let me know when you turned down this fixes (before applying for the flag of course) and I will quickly unblock. Thanks and sorry! — T. 05:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- I had already finished. Whats a flood flag? I have already finished. No problems. Rich Farmbrough 19:38 16 July 2012 (GMT).
Wikimedia Travel Guide: Naming poll open
Hi there,
You are receiving this message because you voiced your opinion at the Request for Comment on the Wikimedia Travel Guide.
The proposed naming poll opened a few days ago and you can vote for as many of the proposed names as you wish, if you are eligible. Please see Travel Guide/Naming Process for full details on voting eligibility and how the final name will be selected. Voting will last for 14 days, and will terminate on 16 October at 06:59:59 UTC.
Thanks, Thehelpfulone 22:06, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Your comments are invited on four current FDC proposals
Hello! As you may know, we've opened the community review period for the current funding round in the Funds Dissemination Committee process. I noticed that in the past you expressed interest in the FDC, since you were a nominee for the committee. I'd like to invite you to review the 4 proposals (totaling $1.3 million USD) that were submitted to the FDC, and to ask questions and share comments about those proposals. You can help to ensure that they have high potential for impact regarding the movement's goals. The FDC especially values comments by community members and will take them into account when they prepare their recommendations. Let me know if you have any questions! --Katy Love, Senior Program Officer, Funds Dissemination Committee, Wikimedia Foundation, 22:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
HIV/AIDS project
Are you still interested in the "HIV-AIDS project"? πr2 (t • c) 13:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, definitely. Various things have been diverting my time away from it. Rich Farmbrough 02:51 16 March 2013 (GMT).
The Stethoscope: A Wiki Project Med Foundation Review (Issue 1)
Wiki Project Med Foundation (WPMEDF) was formally incorporated in New York as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit. Our mission is bold like Wikipedia's: Imagine a world in which every single person is given free access to the sum of all medical knowledge." That's what we're doing.
In this newsletter:
- Designing our logos and name: How and why we made them
- Creating Our Board: Who's involved and what they're doing
- Adding 70+ Interested members: Participants from all over the globe
- Furthering ongoing projects: Expanding exciting in many directions at once
- Proposing Wikimania presentations: Sign up for the talks that interest you
- Taking on on social media: Up and running with outreach (plus business cards!)
- Charting pathways for how you can help right now: a great list easy and important areas to contribute
We aim to run The Stethoscope at least once per quarter and no more than once per month. We only send to people who already signed on as WikiProject Med or Wiki Project Medicine Foundation interested members/participants. If you do not want to receive the newsletter, please add your name here.
It's been a pleasure so far, and we have so much more to do. Wishing you happy Spring up North and pleasant Autumn down South.
- --Jake and the rest of the Wiki Project Med Foundation Team, Ocaasi (talk) 20:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
File:Ar level1 area.png
Hi Rich Farmbrough, File:Ar level1 area.png needs your attention. --Sebastian Wallroth (talk) 20:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
File:Ar level1 total.png
Hi Rich, File:Ar level1 total.png needs your attention. --Sebastian Wallroth (talk) 20:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. Rich Farmbrough 01:17 10 September 2013 (GMT).
Letter petitioning WMF to reverse recent decitions
The Wikimedia Foundation recently created a new feature, "superprotect" status. The purpose is to prevent pages from being edited by elected administrators -- but permitting WMF staff to edit them. It has been put to use in only one case: to protect the deployment of the Media Viewer software on German Wikipedia, in defiance of a clear decision of that community to disable the feature by default, unless users decide to enable it.
If you oppose these actions, please add your name to this letter. If you know non-Wikimedians who support our vision for the free sharing of knowledge, and would like to add their names to the list, please ask them to sign an identical version of the letter on change.org.
I'm notifying you because you participated in one of several relevant discussions. -Pete F (talk) 22:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Superprotect letter update
Hi Rich Farmbrough,
Along with more hundreds of others, you recently signed Letter to Wikimedia Foundation: Superprotect and Media Viewer, which I wrote.
Today, we have 562 signatures here on Meta, and another 61 on change.org, for a total of 623 signatures. Volunteers have fully translated it into 16 languages, and begun other translations. This far exceeds my most optimistic hopes about how many might sign the letter -- I would have been pleased to gain 200 siguatures -- but new signatures continue to come.
I believe this is a significant moment for Wikimedia and Wikipedia. Very rarely have I seen large numbers of people from multiple language and project communities speak with a unified voice. As I understand it, we are unified in a desire for the Wikimedia Foundation to respect -- in actions, in addition to words -- the will of the community who has built the Wikimedia projects for the benefit of all humanity. I strongly believe it is possible to innovate and improve our software tools, together with the Wikimedia Foundation. But substantial changes are necessary in order for us to work together smoothly and productively. I believe this letter identifies important actions that will strongly support those changes.
Have you been discussing these issues in your local community? If so, I think we would all appreciate an update (on the letter's talk page) about how those discussions have gone, and what people are saying. If not, please be bold and start a discussoin on your Village Pump, or in any other venue your project uses -- and then leave a summary of what kind of response you get on the letter's talk page.
Finally, what do you think is the right time, and the right way, to deliver this letter? We could set a date, or establish a threshold of signatures. I have some ideas, but am open to suggestions.
Thank you for your engagement on this issue, and please stay in touch. -Pete F (talk) 18:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)