Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BU Rob13: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Sir Joseph (talk | contribs) |
→Oppose: comment to Hobit |
||
Line 362:
#'''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)
#::{{re|Hobit}} I'm not sure what you mean by "historically", i.e., how far back you're going and even how you would necessarily be aware of what CheckUsers have done, but in my relatively short history, I've done it, and I know other CheckUsers have done it, and regardless of your preference, the practice will no doubt continue at the discretion of the CheckUser.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 15:34, 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)
| |||