Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BU Rob13: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 12:11, 8 July 2016

Revision as of 14:39, 8 July 2016

Line 353:

#'''Oppose''', regretfully. I don't have a problem with that close referenced above, by the way, and I found his answer to my question perfectly acceptable, and I don't base my oppose on it. But I think Softlavender summed it up well, and I would join Sagaciousphil. This is a fine candidate, but not yet. I think taking care not to jump into a situation unless you understand what is going on is Admin 101, and is good practice for anyone. In the Zeta-Jones example, I don't think he grasped either FAC or the infobox controversy. The second should have sent him running for cover. A lot of times the best thing an admin can do is stay completely out of things, not even edit. I don't see this candidate at that level of awareness yet, nor would I expect him to know all that after nine months. I think there would still be too much on-the-job training. In the interests of TLDR, I omit my usual rant about what ham handed admins have done to drive off content contributors, and why I am reluctant to take such chances with candidates..--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 10:23, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

#'''Weak oppose''' My gut says that this is a bad idea. I don't have a problem with 9 months per se, but I think the involved close and a few other issues raised (including <s>civility</s> frustrating others because he was jumping into situations without seeming to fully understand them) make me believe the candidate needs a bit more time--both to gain polish and to see if we are getting a pig in a poke (I'm slightly worried this is a sock). Wehwalt did a better job of explaining my thoughts on the "not yet" part. [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 02:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

#:Just noting that I agree with this user on the CU issue. CU historically hasn't been used to show someone isn't socking on en. Not that the check was wrong per se, I'm not clear enough on the rules. Rather than it was unusual and not something I'm fond of seeing continue. [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 14:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

#'''Oppose''' The large percent of automated edits (in a single year) combined with the observed poor decisions within the previous two months (the RfC closure) is problematic, but this is someone who shows promise: The editor is eager to edit, which the project always will need, but that zeal needs to be tempered with wise judgment and demonstrated policy knowledge. Those qualities are bubbling up, but they are not yet distilled enough for my taste. I look forward to supporting this editor's adminship six or 12 months in future should there be no additional blemishes (and presuming this RfA is unsuccessful). [[User:Fdssdf|Fdssdf]] ([[User talk:Fdssdf|talk]]) 16:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

#'''Oppose'''. Rob's answer to my question (Q21) did not allay my concerns. He essentially repeats everything he said before, meaning he hasn't changed his mind, despite the clear implication from my question that, as another CheckUser, I disagree with his policy interpretation. I like Rob personally, but I'm afraid I also agree with many of the other opposes that he's not yet ready to make the kind of deliberative judgments required of an administrator.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 00:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)