Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BU Rob13: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
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]]===
Line 208:
#'''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 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>
| |||