Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BU Rob13: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
m Fix Linter errors. More needed. Leaving font tags for bots. |
||
Line 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)
Line 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)
Line 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|<span style="color:#0000FF;">'''Patient
#'''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)
Line 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 style="color:green;>'''Muffled'''</sub>]] '''''[[User talk:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<sup style="color:red;">Pocketed</sup>]]''''' 11:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Line 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|<span style="color:#2B65EC; background:#FFFFFF;">''' Aloha27'''</span>]] [[User talk:Aloha27|<span style="color:#FFFFFF; background:#2B65EC;"> <small>talk</small> </span>]]</span> 18:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
#'''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 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 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 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)
| |||