Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BU Rob13: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Tryptofish (talk | contribs) →Oppose: oppose |
m Fix Linter errors. More needed. Leaving font tags for bots. |
||
| (24 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate rfa" style="background-color: #f5fff5; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a '''successful''' [[wikipedia:requests for adminship|request for adminship]]. <strong style="color:red">Please do not modify it</strong>.[[Category:Successful requests for adminship|{{SUBPAGENAME}}]]''
===[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BU Rob13|BU Rob13]]===
'''Final (155/30/6); ended 03:10, 9 July 2016 (UTC) — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 03:10, 9 July 2016 (UTC)''' <!-- Template:finaltally (automatic) -->
====Nomination====
Line 158 ⟶ 160:
#:Clarification: I moved my !vote to neutral and back again. Although I still have a few reservations, nobody's perfect and Rob will probably be a net positive. <font face="monospace">'''[[User:Chickadee46|Chickadee46]] ([[User talk:Chickadee46|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Chickadee46|contribs]]) ([[WP:MCW]])'''</font> 19:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. I have looked through BU Rob's work and I'm very impressed. We need more administrators willing to work on backlogs and the more mundane side of adminship. Rob has clearly built up good faith with the community, doesn't get into disputes, and has earned his right to "the tools". It'll be a travesty if he's nitpicked into failure by the process because this is the sort of person we need. [[User:KaisaL|KaisaL]] ([[User talk:KaisaL|talk]]) 01:22, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
#'''Support''' For sure, I have been looking forward to this RfA. I find the assumption of bad faith by Stemoc to be repugnant and in no way compelling. <small>[[User talk:HighInBC|<b style="color:Green">HighInBC</b>]] <small><sup>Need help? '''<nowiki>{{ping|HighInBC}}</nowiki>'''</
#'''Support''', per my interactions with him at BRFA and elsewhere. A great contributor and obviously a net positive. [[User:Enterprisey|Enterprisey]] ([[User talk:Enterprisey|talk!]]) <sub>(formerly [[User:APerson|APerson]])</sub> 01:38, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
#{{ec}} '''Support''' - A no-brainer. Backlog-clearing is truly unglamorous, yeoman's work, ''but it's important work that has to get done, nonetheless.'' Rob has a solid track-record of thoughtful, civil contributions to discussions. I'm very heartened to see the diff cited above - there's no shame in changing your mind. In addition, they've been singularly helpful in dealing with the notorious LTA Никита-Родин-2002: They started an [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#30.2F500_in_response_to_.D0.9D.D0.B8.D0.BA.D0.B8.D1.82.D0.B0-.D0.A0.D0.BE.D0.B4.D0.B8.D0.BD-2002 ANI thread] that authorized 30/500 protection, and have contributed a large percentage of the reports to the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/%D0%9D%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B0-%D0%A0%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BD-2002 SPI]. Good luck, [[User:GeneralizationsAreBad|GAB]]<sup>[[User talk:GeneralizationsAreBad|gab]]</sup> 01:39, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Easy choice for admin. Will use the tools well!<span style="white-space:nowrap
# '''Support''' – TfD and CfD could definitely gain from a dedicated Admin, and I've never seen Rob have a bad interaction with anyone. Plus, he's done good work around the project. --[[User:IJBall|IJBall]] <small>([[Special:Contributions/IJBall|contribs]] • [[User talk:IJBall|talk]])</small> 02:02, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
#'''Support''' -[[User talk:Fastily|<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS';color:Indigo;font-weight:bold;"><span style="font-size:120%;">F</span><span style="font-size:90%;">ASTILY</span></span>]] 02:16, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Line 168 ⟶ 170:
#:::'''Support''' Rob is an active and productive participant at TfD and CfD, both areas in need of additional admin help. The fact that Rob is a bot op and familiar with software development is a huge plus, which is great, given that some admin backlogs do require technical competency. I also don't find the large number of edits in a short period of time troubling, as Rob's track record hasn't given me any reason to suspect foul play. -[[User talk:Fastily|<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS';color:Indigo;font-weight:bold;"><span style="font-size:120%;">F</span><span style="font-size:90%;">ASTILY</span></span>]] 02:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
#'''Absolutely''' - Seen you around, absolutely would trust with the tools. [[User:SQL|<span style="font-size:7pt;color: #fff;background:#900;border:2px solid #999">SQL</span>]][[User talk:SQL|<sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!</sup>]] 02:22, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
#'''Support''' From looking at his contributions and his experience, I strongly would trust him with the tools. [[User:MrWooHoo|<
#'''Very strong support''' I participated in the long and frustrating dispute at [[carnism]], and found that Rob was always a fair-minded voice of sanity and policy (including when disagreeing with me): [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACarnism&type=revision&diff=673954351&oldid=673950980] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Carnism&diff=next&oldid=673716517] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACarnism&type=revision&diff=673532986&oldid=673531003]. I quickly came to admire his temperament and clue. Since then, I've seen his work around WP and always found the same thoughtful, well-informed, and patient contributions. He would be a wonderful admin. [[User:FourViolas|FourViolas]] ([[User talk:FourViolas|talk]]) 03:28, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
#'''Support''', based on review. [[User:Kierzek|Kierzek]] ([[User talk:Kierzek|talk]]) 03:29, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. [[WP:NETPOSITIVE|Net positive]]. He knows what he's doing. '''<font face="Papyrus">[[User:Anarchyte|<
#'''Support''', clearly a levelheaded editor who is an unambiguous net positive. The only concern I might have is his quickness to go to arbcom over the nikita socks, but this is relatively minor. Happy to support.[[User:Tazerdadog|Tazerdadog]] ([[User talk:Tazerdadog|talk]]) 04:05, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - Barring evidence to the contrary, I am willing to trust that Rob has nothing but the best of intentions and will do well as an administrator. [[User:Kurtis|Kurtis]] [[User talk:Kurtis|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 04:32, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
#:<s>'''Support''' Meets my personal checklist, answer to #4 is quite acceptable. A burst of enthusiasm is to be expected, and while the learning curve here is steep, it can be negotiated in different ways.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 05:49, 2 July 2016 (UTC)</s> Striking vote, as the basis for it was a bit mistaken, to fault myself. Will continue to monitor discussion.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 08:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
#'''Support''' -- I can't say whether or not my own bad behavior has sponsored, in whatever capacity, the sourness and suspicion that is currently in the Oppose section and that is almost certainly to come to this RfA. Whatever the case, this candidate is qualified and willing. Even if he has had past accounts, I'm hesitant to say that a more than stellar track record in this name does not compensate. BU Rob13, I wish you well. Don't let the suspicion get to you. --'''[[User:Ceradon|<b style="color:grey">cera</b>]][[User talk:Ceradon|<
#'''Support''' per [[Special:Diff/726784329]]. [[User:SSTflyer|<span style="color:DarkSlateBlue">SST</span>]][[User talk:SSTflyer|<span style="color:DarkRed">flyer</span>]] 07:37, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
# '''Support.''' By my investigation, Rob is an editor with obvious clue, the right temperament, and a proven track record in both content creation and nontrivial maintenance work. His answers to the RfA questions are spot on. (I was particularly pleased with his helpful links, for example, his links in question 2 which cite non-admins' authority to close CfD and TfD discussions: it's a small detail many editors, myself included, would have overlooked.) The suggestion that his history is too good to be true is akin to [[Russell's teapot]]: all steam and no substance. If his history is unusual, it is only because his intelligence and assiduousness are unusual. <span style="font-weight:bold">[[User:Rebbing|<span style="background:#f660ab;color:#60f6f6">Rebb</span>]][[User_talk:Rebbing|<span style="background:#60f6f6;color:#f660ab">ing</span>]]</span> 07:40, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
#'''Support''': having looked through some of Rob's previous contributions at XfD and on talk pages, he seems to be very clueful. I am especially pleased with his willingness to judge consensus on the basis of the arguments given rather than simply looking at numerical weight – something which, though it ''is'' policy, is not always followed. As for the single oppose rationale that Rob was suspiciously competent as a beginner: well, if it turns out that he has spent a year of his life and 46k productive edits solely to become a rogue admin, then he can be blocked and dysysopped, but I judge the likelyhood of that actually being the case as vanishingly small. [[User:Caeciliusinhorto|Caeciliusinhorto]] ([[User talk:Caeciliusinhorto|talk]]) 08:02, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
#'''Support''', obvious. '''[[User:Graham87|Graham]]'''
#'''Support''' – Having looked through his edit history, Rob is definitely suitable for adminship. I do not foresee him misusing the tools. [[User:Z105space|Z105space]] [[User talk:Z105space|(talk)]] 08:42, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
#'''Support''', [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement/Precious#BU Rob13|precious]], and with [[User talk:Izkala|clue]], --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 08:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Line 203 ⟶ 205:
#'''Support''' haven't managed to take as thorough a review of this editor as I would normally, but a quick flick through suggests they are a net positive to the project, and a good candidate for adminship. Go for it -- [[User:Samtar|'''sam'''''tar'']] <sup><small>[[User_talk:Samtar|talk]] or [[Special:Contributions/Samtar|stalk]]</small></sup> 16:19, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
#For the sake of conciseness, I'll say "per all of the above." [[User:Epicgenius|Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium, now featuring BB-8]] ([[User talk:Epicgenius|talk]]) 16:58, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
#'''Support''' as he has done some excellent work for Wikipedia as a non-admin and I believe these will be further accelerated through adminship. The first Oppose is a complete violation of AGF which needs looking into. --[[User:Patient Zero|<
#'''Support''' They seem polite and friendly and you really can never have too many level-headed, fast-learning admins willing to clear unglamourous backlogs. Students make a full time occupation of learning things quickly and very well by reading them. I have also found Wikipedia to be quite easy to learn, though I tend to be cautious anyway. After seeing the mess and heartbreak that a new user acting with good faith and no competence can cause, I wish we could stop automatically suspecting new competent account. We want new users to read a few policies before editing, if possible. [[user:Happysquirrel|Happy Squirrel]] ([[user talk:Happysquirrel|talk]]) 17:54, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
#'''Strong support''' from the first time I interacted with Rob after a TfD closure I wondered how he wasn't already an admin. I have no reservations. [[User:Wugapodes|Wugapodes]] [[User talk:Wugapodes|[t<sup>h</sup>ɔk]]] [[Special:Contributions/Wugapodes|[kantʃɻɪbz]]] 18:03, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - [[User:CAPTAIN RAJU| <span style="color:Teal; font-family:Parchment;font-size:13px; ">CAPTAIN RAJU
#Makes mistakes, but everybody makes mistakes. The important thing in the context of Wikipedia is a willingness to admit mistakes, coupled with an understanding of which fields one's not competent to act in, and I can't see any obvious issues here. <small>@[[User:Stemoc|Stemoc]], what does it ''matter'' even if he turns out not to be a new user? I can think of at most five examples in the entire history of Wikipedia of people getting a sock through RFA, and not a single one of those socks actually caused any problems; if some hypothetical Bad User wanted sysop access that badly, there are considerably easier ways to get hold of an admin account than working for a year at creating a false identity.</small> ‑ [[User:Iridescent|Iridescent]] 18:33, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
#:<small>Robdurbar ([[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-04-23/Robdurbar|context]]) was at least briefly problematic, thought that was a long time ago. Wifione ([[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione|context]]) was much worse and much more recent. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 00:27, 3 July 2016 (UTC)</small>
Line 223 ⟶ 225:
#'''Support''' I'm also impressed with the candidate's content creation and level-headed-ness. This, having a clue, strong nominations, and the the backlog clearing makes the candidate easy for me to support. - '''[[User:Tucoxn|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#522C1B">t</span><span style="color:#522C1B">u</span><span style="color:#417DC1">coxn</span>]]'''\<sup>[[User_talk:Tucoxn|<span style="font-family:serif">talk</span>]]</sup> 04:33, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
#We've interacted a lot through bot approvals. Rob is careful and sensible, and from his record I can't imagine him having anything but the best of intentions here, and we've seen the quality of work he can produce. There's some concern in the oppose section about account age, but really, we've had plenty of greener admins who have done just fine. — [[User:The Earwig|<span style="color:#060;">Earwig</span>]] <sup>''[[User talk:The Earwig|<span style="color:#000;">talk</span>]]''</sup> 07:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - A year is long enough to learn the ropes. I don't see a temperment that I think would lend itself to wielding the admin status like a badge to sway arguments either. [[User:James086|James086]]<sup>[[User talk:James086|<
#'''Support''' We need more admins, see no reason to think he'd abuse the position. [[Special:Contributions/PeterTheFourth|PeterTheFourth]] ([[User Talk:PeterTheFourth|talk]]) 10:24, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
#:<s>'''Support''' I was going to !vote oppose as per {{noping|Semtoc}}'s point below, which was a phenomonally perceptive one; but BU_Rob's answer to Q4 is comprehensive enough to distill any doubts as to this candidate.</S> [[User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<sub
#'''Support''' [[User:Oripaypaykim|Oripaypaykim]] [[User talk:Oripaypaykim|(talk)]] 11:31, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
#'''Support''' First bumped in to BU Rob at TfD and impressed by his workrate. The favourable impression has been continually enhanced by encountering his contributions elsewhere, particularly at CfD and closing an RfC I'd raised. Given that he's used the AWB and TE tools so effectively we can only look forward to what BU Rob will achieve with the mop. Wholehearted enthusiastic support, [[User:For (;;)|for (;;)]] [[User talk:For (;;)|(talk)]] 11:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Line 244 ⟶ 246:
#'''Support'''. He is experienced and willing to work in some underserved areas that desperately need help. He seems calm and courteous and has avoided drama. I am particularly persuaded by the strong nominations from two people who have worked closely with him and are in a far better position than anyone else to know about any problems of editing style or temperament. --[[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 22:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
# '''Support''' I've seen nothing but good things from Rob. He has a need for the tools and wants to work in areas that need more admin attention. — [[User:JJMC89|JJMC89]] <small>([[User talk:JJMC89|T]]'''·'''[[Special:Contributions/JJMC89|C]])</small> 22:25, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
# '''Support''' No complaints. [[User:Dschslava|<
# '''Support''' - Based on my experiences with Rob and what I've seen poking around prior to weighing in here, I think he generally shows pretty good judgment. It seems meaningful that if I were asked to estimate how long his account had been around, I would've said at ''least'' 12 months :) Seriously though, it takes effort and understanding to blend in with the "experienced" crowd, so as long as there aren't outstanding concerns of abusing multiple accounts (and it looks like that business has been cleared up sufficiently), then supporting makes sense. — <
# '''Support''', as the co-nominator. My comments are above. [[User:Good Olfactory|Good Ol’factory]] <sup>[[User talk:Good Olfactory|(talk)]]</sup> 01:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
# '''Support''' Good answers to the questions (I'm particularly impressed with the level-headed answer to question 4) and solid contributions. Should be a fine admin. — '''''[[User:Mr. Stradivarius|<span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius</span>]]''''' <sup>[[User talk:Mr. Stradivarius|♪ talk ♪]]</sup> 07:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
# '''Support''' Reasoned and capable, wants to work in areas that really need extra manpower, and based on my limited observations, certainly a good team player. -- <span style="font-family:Courier">[[User:Elmidae|Elmidae]]</span> <small>([[User talk:Elmidae|talk]] · [[Special:contributions/Elmidae|contribs]])</small> 07:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
# '''Support''' Some newbies stumble and fall coming out the gate because they haven't quite grasped a sense of WP community, the latter of which is far more difficult to comprehend than authoring articles or figuring out code; some get up, brush themselves off and try a different approach, learning as they go; others leave in frustration never to return, while <s>a few</s> some keep repeating their unsocial behavior and eventually get mopped away. My take on this candidate is that he has the necessary skills to do the work and while he may need a bit more polish in a few minor aspects of communication, (who doesn't?), he's a fast learner, keeps improving, and by all measures appears to be amicable. I believe he'll be a trustworthy mopper. <sup>[[User:Atsme|<
#'''Support:''' Capable. Will be a net positive. - [[User:Ret.Prof|Ret.Prof]] ([[User talk:Ret.Prof|talk]]) 12:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Based on my interactions with Rob, I have no doubts he will make for an excellent admin. —''[[User:Ruud Koot|Ruud]]'' 13:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Line 256 ⟶ 258:
#'''Support''' per nominators. I am impressed by BU Rob13's answers, and I think that the answers to Q1 and Q2 clearly indicate the need for the admin tools. From reading through his talk archives, BU Rob13 appears level-headed and always willing to explain himself. I don't think that BU Rob13 would abuse the tools and I believe that he would be an excellent administrator. <span style="font: 13pt 'Arial';">«</span> '''[[User:dtrebbien|D. Trebbien]] ([[User talk:dtrebbien|<span style="color: black;">talk</span>]])''' 15:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
# '''Support''' - will be a net positive. [[User:Keilana|Keilana]] ([[User talk:Keilana|talk]]) 16:42, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
# '''Support''' '''<sup>[[User:Babymissfortune|<
# '''Support'''- I foresee no issues with his selection. Clearly a net positive for the project IMO. <span style="border:1px solid #FFFFFF">[[User:Aloha27|<
#'''Support''' Qualified candidate with sufficient experience. The opposes, as of now, appear to be largely speculative with little or no support, so I have no concerns in my support. --[[User:I am One of Many|I am One of Many]] ([[User talk:I am One of Many|talk]]) 23:54, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - trustworthy editor. [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 00:52, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Very quick learner, approachable and open minded. Also fully dedicated to whatever task he takes up. [[User:Lizard the Wizard|<
#'''Support''' I see no issues. Definite net positive. [[User:Mr Ernie|Mr Ernie]] ([[User talk:Mr Ernie|talk]]) 02:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
#To balance out more nitpicking that does the community no favours. --[[User:Closedmouth|Closedmouth]] ([[User talk:Closedmouth|talk]]) 03:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Line 267 ⟶ 269:
# '''Support'''. Great to see a willing and qualified relative newcomer. I see in some opposes that Rob sometimes acts like he is relatively new, but that is to be expected with someone who is relatively new. It does not, however, impact ability or trustworthiness, and temperament is excellent. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 06:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
# '''Support''' - e.g. based on the examples of Rob's editing highlighted by the Oppose !votes. <b>[[User:DexDor|DexDor]]</b><sup> [[User talk:DexDor|(talk)]]</sup> 06:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Not convinced by the "only 9 months of experience" that the opposing camp frequently repeats. If you can judge someone's maturity and decision-making skills with less edits and shorter time frame 8-10 years ago, surely you would be able to make a more informed and better decision with slightly more time and slightly more edits now? [[User:OhanaUnited|<b
#'''Support'''. Happy to do so. [[User:SlimVirgin|SarahSV]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</sup></small> 06:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Candidate's work at TfD and CfD would be greatly helped by adminship. Keep up the good work. [[User:Jc86035|Jc86035]] ([[User talk:Jc86035|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jc86035|contribs]]) <small>Use <span class="nowrap">{{[[Template:Reply to|re]]|Jc86035}}</span> to reply to me</small> 09:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Line 280 ⟶ 282:
#'''Support''' Both because I believe the editor is a net positive and because of the thoughtful answers on questions 7 and 12. [[User:Mizike|Mizike]] ([[User talk:Mizike|talk]]) 17:33, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - not least to counter some of the highly unreasonable opposes. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]</span> 17:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. I don't see any problems. AfD stats look good. [[User:Bearian|Bearian]] ([[User talk:Bearian|talk]]) 20:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
#'''Support''', because he seems to me to be a good candidate, capable and a net positive.[[User:Moriori|Moriori]] ([[User talk:Moriori|talk]]) 21:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
#'''Support''', I have seen him around countless times and have never had any issues with the way he presents himself. He has a good understanding of how guidelines should be implemented and how to solve problems when they arise. I believe he will add tremendous value to wikipedia given adminship, as he already does. [[User:CCamp2013|Chase]] ([[User talk:CCamp2013|talk]]) 22:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Line 287 ⟶ 289:
#'''Support'''. Looks to me like thirteen is our lucky number this time. The oppose section isn't resonating with me at all; your "résumé" is credible to me. [[User:Wbm1058|wbm1058]] ([[User talk:Wbm1058|talk]]) 03:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
#'''Support''' because Wikipedia needs more active administrators and this user is clearly a net positive. '''[[User:kennethaw88|kennethaw88]]''' • [[User talk:kennethaw88|talk]] 05:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
#'''Support'''- net positive. [[User:Reyk|<
#'''Support''' Well qualified, thoughtful and productive editor in multiple namespaces and who will become more productive as an admin. Anything over 5 months of tenure is more than enough to understand Wikipedia's fundamental goals and processes. [[User:DaGizza|<
#'''Support''' Sure!! --'''[[User:Pratyya Ghosh|<span style="color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">Pr<span style="color:red;">at</span><span style="color:blue;">yya</span></span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:Pratyya Ghosh|<span style="color:orange;font-family:Verdana">'''(Hello!)'''</span>]]</sup> 13:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Convinced by nom. [[User:Deryck Chan|Deryck]][[User talk:Deryck Chan| C.]] 16:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Line 294 ⟶ 296:
#'''Support''' – Mature, balanced and courteous, while firm when necessary. In policy debates, Rob effortlessly cuts to the essentials, a plus against overzealous [[WP:LAWYER|wikilawyers]]. — [[User:JFG|JFG]] <sup>[[User talk:JFG|talk]]</sup> 16:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
#'''Support''' ~ having spent a bit of time on it, i cannot find a reason not to: Candidate appears to meet my criteria, none of the opposes are completely convincing. Happy days, '''[[User:LindsayH|Lindsay]]'''<sup>[[User_talk:LindsayH|Hello]]</sup> 17:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Most of the opposes are either unconvincing or too controversial. Also, we need more admins working in deletion areas, so I don't see why he can't be one too. [[User:Minimac|<
#'''Support''' - I have nothing but praise for Rob's work on the encyclopedia. I first saw him at the GAN page and read an article that he nominated. I was very impressed by the efforts he had put into developing it. Going through his contributions, I do not see any red flags that would make me second guess his abilities. As far as the concerns with the RfC closure goes, {{u|Newyorkbrad}} has done a great job explaining Rob's rationale and in my understanding he acted fairly enough. This might be one of the few rare cases with the perfect application of the [[WP:IAR|fifth fundamental principle of Wikipedia]]. '''''<span style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC">[[User:Yash!|<span style="color:black">Ya</span>]][[User talk:Yash!|<span style="color:black">sh</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Yash!|<span style="color:black">!</span>]]</span>''''' 18:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. I've run across Rob quite a few times, and he strikes me as someone who tries to do the right thing. Sure he makes mistakes, but this is a Request for Adminship, not Sainthood. Reasonably clueful, won't delete the main page, seems likely to be a net positive. The mop is no big deal, and Rob seems qualified to me. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup>[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]</sup> 18:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Line 305 ⟶ 307:
#'''Support''' Editor appears to have the experience necessary to improve the encyclopedia in his areas of interest. Most importantly, everything I've seen from this editor indicates that he always keeps his cool and remains civil and cognizant of relevant policy. What more could we want in an admin? [[User:Ajpolino|Ajpolino]] ([[User talk:Ajpolino|talk]]) 03:18, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
#'''Suport''' Completely trustworthy and civilized. Has created many quality pages and done much admin-like tasks. Don't see any issues with giving this one the mop! [[User:FiendYT|<span style="color: darker">FiendYT</span>]] [[User talk:FiendYT|<span style="color: lightblack">★</span>]] 06:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Like the answers to the questions. Not overly concerned about the short editing tenure when there are enough edits to get a good feel for the candidate. [[User:Aircorn|AIR<
#'''Support'''. Decent answers to the questions and I'm not freaked out by the fact that his account is only a year old. I think giving him the tools is very likely to be a net positive for the project. [[User:Pichpich|Pichpich]] ([[User talk:Pichpich|talk]]) 17:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Has done good work, seems to understand policy, answers to questions were good. [[User talk:Becky Sayles|'''<span style="color:#0092d6; background:#bae9ff"><sup> B </sup><small>E </small><sub>C </sub><small>K </small><sup>Y </sup> <sub>S </sub><small>A </small><sup>Y L </sup><small>E </small><sub>S </sub></span>''']] 19:16, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Line 316 ⟶ 318:
#'''Support''' per Athomeinkobe. [[User:Fences and windows|<span style="background-color:white; color:red;">Fences</span>]]<span style="background-color:white; color:#808080;">&</span>[[User talk:Fences and windows|<span style="background-color:white; color:black;">Windows</span>]] 05:55, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
#'''Support''' per Athomeinkobe. I really really wish I had gotten here sooner, because they seem to have captured my sentiments precisely. None of the oppose rationales I'm seeing are persuasive - and they are balanced against a good amount of clueful editing and considered opinions. No objections, good luck. [[User:Ultraexactzz|UltraExactZZ]] <sup> [[User_talk:Ultraexactzz|Said]] </sup>~<small> [[Special:Contributions/Ultraexactzz|Did]] </small> 15:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I do appreciate a few of the concerns of the oppose voters, but I don't see enough to warrant an oppose vote against the support reasons. I am also OK with his answer to my question about legal threats. [[User:Sir Joseph|Sir Joseph]]
#'''Support''' I think the candidate can be trusted. The objections below have not convinced me that making the candidate an admin won't be a clear net positive. [[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] ([[User talk:Pincrete|talk]]) 20:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
#'''Support''' We require excellence, not perfection. [[User:DavidLeighEllis|DavidLeighEllis]] ([[User talk:DavidLeighEllis|talk]]) 23:21, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
# '''Support''' [[User:Vik-Thor|VikÞor]] | [[User talk:Vik-Thor|Talk]] 00:22, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
#'''Support''', without hesitation. [[User:BD2412|<span style="background:gold;">'''''bd2412'''''</span>]] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 02:21, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
#Was going to close this, but am instead adding my support. Nine months is enough time to learn the important things especially if one is active, which he has been. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] 02:23, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Based on a modest review of contributions. --[[User:Joe Decker|joe decker]][[User talk:Joe Decker|<sup><small><i>talk</i></small></sup>]] 02:48, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
=====Oppose=====
Line 325 ⟶ 331:
# [[WP:NOTQUITEYET|I don't think Rob is ready quiet yet.]] While he makes good edits and his DYK track record is impressive, he has only been a member here for a year, with a four-month period of low activity in there too, making his high edit count kind of suspicious. He has made 46,000 edits in eight months of active editing, and half of them are automated. I don't think that eight months (or even a year) is long enough to be able to familiarise oneself with all the policies quite yet, so I think that if Rob were to keep this up for another year or two, I would not hesitate to support. [[User:YITYNR|YITYNR]] <sup>[[Special:Contributions/YITYNR|My work]] • [[User talk:YITYNR|What's wrong?]]</sup> 15:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
#:Discussion moved to [[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/BU_Rob13#YITYNR.27s_Oppose|talk page]].—<sup>[[User:Cyberpower678|<span style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberpower</span>]]</sup><small><sub style="margin-left:-10.1ex;color:olive;font-family:Comic Sans MS">[[User talk:Cyberpower678|<span style="color:olive">Chat</span>]]:Online</sub></small> 13:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' -- This editor is still wet behind the ears and needs some more experience. I also feel as if they don't appreciate other editor's opinions during content disputes, such as on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Catherine_Zeta-Jones#Infobox Catherine Zeta-Jones]. It's their way or nothing. Not good. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">[[User:Cassianto|<
#:Discussion moved to [[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/BU_Rob13#Cassianto.27s_Oppose|talk page]].—<sup>[[User:Cyberpower678|<span style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberpower</span>]]</sup><small><sub style="margin-left:-10.1ex;color:olive;font-family:Comic Sans MS">[[User talk:Cyberpower678|<span style="color:olive">Chat</span>]]:Online</sub></small> 13:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
# '''Oppose''' - Only nine (9) active months at Wikipedia and these frequently marked by an astronomical edit count typical of automation. Sorry, insufficient tenure for a lifetime appointment as an administrator. Way, way, way, way too much danger that accounts showing such a track record are alternate accounts of another editor. [[User:Carrite|Carrite]] ([[User talk:Carrite|talk]]) 14:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Line 331 ⟶ 337:
#:Discussion moved to [[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/BU_Rob13#Dr._Blofeld.27s_Oppose|talk page]].—<sup>[[User:Cyberpower678|<span style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberpower</span>]]</sup><small><sub style="margin-left:-10.1ex;color:olive;font-family:Comic Sans MS">[[User talk:Cyberpower678|<span style="color:olive">Chat</span>]]:Online</sub></small> 14:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
# '''Oppose''' - 9 months is not enough.--[[User:Catlemur|Catlemur]] ([[User talk:Catlemur|talk]]) 17:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
#:What isn't nine months enough for? [[User:KSFT|<
#::It's not long enough to really judge somebody's behaviour. You could go nine months on here without a single conflict if you only edit and do certain things. That's why relative newbies are more likely to be given tools than experienced writers here because they've not been involved in many disputes.♦ [[User:Dr. Blofeld|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#aba67e">''Dr. Blofeld''</span>]] 10:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
#:::{{yo|Dr. Blofeld|prefix=}} I agree. I didn't even have a user talk page until almost seven months after I joined. [[User:YITYNR|YITYNR]] <sup>[[Special:Contributions/YITYNR|My work]] • [[User talk:YITYNR|What's wrong?]]</sup> 11:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Line 379 ⟶ 385:
#'''Oppose''' Per Softlavender, MSJapan, and Hobit. [[User:Kiwifist|Kiwifist]] ([[User talk:Kiwifist|talk]]) 22:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. I have been seeing the concerns about experience and maturity, and had been planning to give the candidate a pass. However, I just saw a very ill-considered comment directed at me at the current RfB, so I am moving from support to oppose. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 00:06, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' - This will likely pass, and length of time and automated editing concerns don't concern me in this case - his work at CfD appears exemplary - but I find I agree with [[User:Tryptofish]] on 2 counts, one, that that comment (setting aside using the term "vote") didn't seem to [[WP:AGF|presume the good faith]] xaosflux seemed to give Tryptofish's perspective, but also the concerns about "tone", and examples of interaction with others, noted above. This falls to "is responsible" and "is civil/agf/eq" in my [[User:Jc37/RfA/Criteria|criteria]]. Perhaps with more experience? Time will tell, I suppose.- <b>[[User:Jc37|jc37]]</b> 00:46, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' - I agree with <span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">[[User:Stemoc|Ste]][[User talk:Stemoc|moc]]</span> and others on this one. The User is too much of a newbie for an adminship. He doesn't have enough time or experience dealing with other editors to have authority over them. If he has used another account in the past, let's see it. He should have at least a couple of years experience before adminship is considered. I don't think that's an unreasonable requirement to put on aspiring admins. [[User:Britcom|<font face="Rockwell, helvetica" color="red"><b><i>Br</i></b></font><font face="Rockwell, helvetica" color="blue"><b><i>it</i></b></font><font face="Rockwell, helvetica" color="black"><b>com</b></font>]] 01:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
=====Neutral=====
Line 388 ⟶ 396:
#:::{{u|Carrite}}, you know the answer yourself. In the same manner that I can unabashedly say that I adore your contributions and effort to improve Wikipedia (you know that already), I can say that not everyone, including Rob (and least of all editors like me), understands Wikipedia and its culture as good as experienced editors like you or Wehwalt or Brian do. New editors through their various experiences try to learn how to interact with other editors. If you trawl my contributions (even just a month ago), I've managed to make a fool of myself and quite easily. It was a lesson for me which hopefully improved me. I am confident that Rob too has had these experiences and has become a better communicator than he was during those days. Rest, I will leave to your judgement, because whatever you do decide, I'm very confident that would be a right judgement. [[User talk:Xender Lourdes|<span style="color:#0000FF;">'''Lourdes'''</span>]] 16:57, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
#::::Being a mature Wikipedain is very different than being a mature person. Maturing as a person can indeed take more than a year, for some more than a lifetime. Maturing as a Wikipedian in a year is very doable for an intelligent and already mature person. <small>[[User talk:HighInBC|<b style="color:Green">HighInBC</b>]] <small><sup>Need help? '''<nowiki>{{ping|HighInBC}}</nowiki>'''</sup></small></small> 18:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
#'''Neutral''' for now per the interaction between Rob and [[User:Flyer22 Reborn ]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=716803180&diff=prev here]. I took my time thinking this one over because of the relative newness of this editor and some of the legitimate concerns raised by the !oppose votes from users I respect. I can see both sides, as I've seen some users dive in pretty fast and establish competence after nothing but previous wikignoming as an IP, and yet other new users seem oddly precocious. I guess my own view is that I don't see Rob engaging in the drama-mongering typical of the usual returned user so I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I'm not at all bothered by the "hanging" remark above; frankly, he made a very good point that should have been well-taken and in the world of tone-deaf wikipedians, an ability to have a bit more sensitivity and thoughtfulness is a plus. At the end of the day, I hope that Rob will be aggressive enough in looking at SPI cases should he come across one, given that he is a bit sensitized to the issue. Sock-hunting is a game of [[whack-a-mole]] sometimes, but it is needed and there there is an art to it—the science doesn't always have the perfect formula. [[User:Montanabw|<
#:<s>'''Neutral, leaning support'''(moved from support).</s> (moved back to support) After seeing the close as an involved editor, YITYNR's comment about not having a talk page after 7 months, and similar difficulties, I'll have to move to neutral for now. <font face="monospace">'''[[User:Chickadee46|Chickadee46]] ([[User talk:Chickadee46|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Chickadee46|contribs]]) ([[WP:MCW]])'''</font> 15:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
#:Why would YITYNR's lack of a talk page after 7 months have any bearing whatsoever on Rob's suitability for adminship? [[User:Caeciliusinhorto|Caeciliusinhorto]] ([[User talk:Caeciliusinhorto|talk]]) 18:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Line 409 ⟶ 417:
<!-- Please do not submit comments before the RfA starts. Feel free to remove this notice once the RfA has been transcluded. -->
<!-- Place a horizontal rule (----) between separate discussions for organization. -->
:''The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either [[{{NAMESPACE}} talk:{{PAGENAME}}|this nomination]] or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.''</div>
| |||