Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Robdurbar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Robdurbar

Final (48/3/2) Ended 20:45, 2006-08-12 (UTC)

Robdurbar (talk · contribs) – I've been thinking about applying for this for a while, but what with a couple of holidays that I had in June and July, didn't think it was appropriate till I was back contributing more regularly. I think that in my year or so here I have amassed enough experience and knowledge of policy to be a useful admin. The majority of my work is on creating articles, and I'm enjoying WP:AfC, which I only recently discovered. My main hope as an admin would be further work on similar 'request' style pages - I feel that this is where most users have intereaction with admins and thus is where work can be most effective. I would initially hope to work on WP:RfP and the 3RR noticeboard, before getting into more complex admin areas such as Wikipedia:Requests for investigation.

Anyway, I hope that I have proved myself to be a solid and dedicated user over the months that I have been here and feel that I will be of even more help to Wikipedia as an adminRobdurbar 20:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: What, here? --Robdurbar 20:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: As I noted in my opening statement, I often feel that the place where most users interact with admins is at the various 'request' pages, such as the request for page protection or the 3RR reporting board. As a result, I'd like to help patrol these areas and more complex ones, such as the request for investigation, at a later stage. I'd also appreciate the ability to rollback more easily where I see vandalism, and would throw in the odd helping and at AfD's etc. if I can.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Well the List of best selling music artists probably stands out as one of pride to me; OK its not perfect, but I'd like to think that the turn around I performed on the page has been pretty impressive, considering too that it's a relatively high profile page. United Kingdom is now a well sourced and full article, and I believe that I have highest contribution levels to that; British nationalism is decent enough and almost entirely me, which adds a sense of pride too.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: The two most obvious conflicts that I have been involved with were at Democratic Peace Theory and British Isles. The former was very early on in my Wikipedia career and I think shows how I started out - bold, fair, but a bit too eager to edit out of my depth and not appreciative enough of the importance of sourcing. I withdrew from this article as I felt that I was unable to help furhter in its development.
The British Isles conflict (the ends of which are still ongoing, but it appears to be settling down) has been much more recent. It flared up whilst I was away from Wikipedia (at the World Cup - jealous?) and was baisically caused by a lack of understanding between British and Irish users. I would like to think that my approach - always considering other points of views, trying to merge the ideas of others - was key in moving away from arguments over the merits of terminology to actually settling the article.

Optional question from Lar:

4. (one big long question about categories of admins and your thoughts about them) Are you aware of the notion of adminstrators saying they're willing to be voluntarily recalled or reviewed, by a less onerous process than a new RfA (or worse) arbComm action? What do you think of the idea? Would you consider placing yourself (placement should only be done by oneself) in such a category if you were made an admin? Why or why not? Are you aware of the notion of Rouge admins? What do you think of the notion? Do you see it as purely humorous or do you see what it's driving at? Would you consider allowing yourself to by placed in this category (placement is traditionally done by someone else) if you were made an admin? Why or why not? (note: both these categories have some controversy attached to them, for different reasons, and note also, although I am a policy and process wonk I am in both categories, and finally, note that there is no wrong answer here...) ++Lar: t/c 18:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I think calling that a 'question' (single) might fall foul under the Trades Description Act! In seriousness, though, I am vaguely aware of this review category, yes. I recall looking at it approximately 2 months ago (I think) and noting that it wasn't particulalry populated. I think that some sort of admin review system would be a theoretically good feature in Wikipedia; clearly, though, we should always make sure that any new administrative proecdure that we create is 'cost effective' - so we would need to create a method that does not take editors away from improving the encyclopedia more than it benefits the community as a whole. I think - without having ever read too much about it - that I would be vaguely supportive of the admins for recall thing and would certainly consider adding myself. What would probably stop me at the moment is the vagueness of the category - excatly what is a ' "re-confirmation" '- is it an RfA style vote, or a discussion? As it's voluntary I can see no harm in such a category as it currently stands
As for Rouge Admin - I was previously unaware of this. However, I think it has been created in good faith as a joke and that this is clear to anyone reading the page. That said, I have my reservations about it - it could be viewed as little more than a personal attack on Wikipedia's critics and as such is not likely to ever help relations. Indeed, if Admins for Recall suceeds in creating a good impression of Wikipedia, then Rogue Admin runs the risk of unintentionally giving a bad impression. As with AfR, I don't see it doing much harm. However, I would not liked to be placed in this category as I don't see it helping the project in anyway. --Robdurbar 20:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Comments

Last 5000 edits.Voice-of-All 07:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Viewing contribution data for user Robdurbar (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page) (FAQ)
Time range: 193 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 7hr (UTC) -- 06, Aug, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 12hr (UTC) -- 26, January, 2006
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 81.75% Minor edits: 86.46%
Average edits per day: 17.04 (for last 500 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 519 edits): Major article edits: 99.56% Minor article edits: 88.89%
Analysis of edits (out of all 5000 edits shown on this page and last 33 image uploads):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 1.18% (59)
Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 3.14% (157)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 41.54% (2077)
Superficial article edits marked as minor: 17.33%
Unique image uploads (non-deleted/reverts/updates): 18 (checks last 5000)
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 1568 | Average edits per page: 3.19 | Edits on top: 11.06%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 60.04% (3002 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 9.1% (455 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 11.48% (574 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 16.22% (811 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 59.5% (2975) | Article talk: 21.82% (1091)
User: 0.86% (43) | User talk: 11.78% (589)
Wikipedia: 3.86% (193) | Wikipedia talk: 0.88% (44)
Image: 0.26% (13)
Template: 0.78% (39)
Category: 0.06% (3)
Portal: 0% (0)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.2% (10)

Username Robdurbar
Total edits 7313
Distinct pages edited 2208
Average edits/page 3.312
First edit 16:16, July 5, 2005
(main) 4673
Talk 1416
User 80
User talk 672
Image 17
Image talk 3
Template 46
Template talk 10
Category 7
Wikipedia 333
Wikipedia talk 56
Support
  1. Support per nom. Michael 20:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support looks good. Rama's arrow 21:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support There appears to be nothing to fear. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 21:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support Looks good to me. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 21:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support Seems like a sensible, level-headed candidate for adminship.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  21:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support. Nothing really seems awry. alphaChimp laudare 22:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support Nothing to make me vote against, always a good sign. RandyWang (raves/review me!) 23:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support I see no reason to oppose. The Gerg 23:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support per nomination statement. Roy A.A. 00:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  10. Merovingian - Talk 00:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support per nom and above. Newyorkbrad 02:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support - good editors make good admins abakharev 04:41, 6 August
  13. Support - no doubt. Stubbleboy 05:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support. Wohvere, I stume ót kastern, thaw ebt thwí lal het epople thwí eseth trosnomčilālý gehu tídē tunsćo? RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 06:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support A good user. --Siva1979Talk to me 06:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support, good user. --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 07:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support, I've seen him around, he's done good things and I don't see any indication that he'd abuse or misuse the tools. - Bobet 07:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support 300 WP namespace edits and many more talk prove familiarity with WP, an understanding of the community and the skills needed for advanced editing. --Draicone (talk) 11:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support Reliable user, no qualms about handing him the mop. Oldelpaso 13:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support. - Mailer Diablo 16:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support no problems that I can see. --Guinnog 16:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  22. per nom, Highway Return to Oz... 17:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support no reason not to. —Khoikhoi 21:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support fine editor hand him the mop Æon Insane Ward 22:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support His efforts to improve DPT were evenhanded and useful; even if they have been swallowed up again. Septentrionalis 00:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support. Good answers, solid user, and meets my criteria. Themindset 05:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support. Experienced, solid user. Zaxem 10:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support. Seen you around. Deb 19:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support. Good candidate that is deserving of the status. violet/riga (t) 22:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support. Fair minded editor, will make fair minded Admin. MelForbes 01:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support. - SynergeticMaggot 02:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support, looks good to me.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 14:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support -- Tawker 16:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support The 3RR backlog could use some attention and as such, I'd love to see this candidate be equipped with the means necessary to address the situation He seems like he would be a great resource there with his seemingly level head and NPOV (I haven't yet met the user but per a look at his edits and talk page, I feel comfortable with my two cents) hoopydinkConas tá tú? 19:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 22:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support looks good to me. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 23:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support with no reason not to. —Xyrael / 17:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  38. No reason not to support. Shimgray | talk | 18:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support. More patient than I am with British Isles, for one thing. Alai 23:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support, edit history looks good; grasps WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and the essentials. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 05:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support - impressed by his contriubtions. I'm sure giving him the admin tools will benefit the articles. Aquilina 17:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support --Jay(Reply) 21:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support - no indication editor will abuse tools. Jayjg (talk) 19:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support. DarthVader 00:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 09:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  46. Support will use the tools well. --Alf melmac 13:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support Seems solid and experienced.--Runcorn 15:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support per nom.Bakaman Bakatalk 19:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose
Oppose Read the subheading "Vandalism and personal attacks" under the most recent archive posted by Robdurbar. Then read the "Recent edits" Robdurbar posted on User talk:Koavf. He either did not understand WP:VAND or chose to ignore it when reprimanding another user. Considering that incident, it is too soon for adminship. NOBS 18:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Stricken as the user has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Tchadienne. Ral315 (talk) 20:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
This was edit conflicted with the above but I thought I'd include it anyway -
Having inverstigated this a bit, I think this came from a time when I engaged with Koavf and User:Wikima on a couple of pages involving Western Sahara. The following diff shows Kovaf reverting an edit by Wikima [1] and labelling it as vandalism. I reverted, on the grounds given in the edit summary. At User Talk:Koavf#Recent edits I questioned Kovaf's labelling of the edit as 'vandalism' - as I explained at the time, I think Wikima was attempting to improve the article and, though I didn't necessairily agree with him, I felt it was an inappropriate revert carried out by Koavf (re Wikipedia:Vandalism#What vandalism is not)
The quote from WP:VAND that User:Koavf put here on my user talk page seems fairly irrelevant - it discusses edits to Wikipedia policy pages, with which I had not been involved with Wikima or Kovaf (indeed Wikima, has just 3 Wikipedia space edits which were 6 months prior to my interaction with him/her. Thus I think it was Kovaf, if anyone, who had been slighlty confused over policy. --Robdurbar 20:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Weak Oppose does not meet my standards with not enough Wikipedia space edits. Sorry. —Mets501 (talk) 18:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC) Changed to Neutral
lol, 12 edits off. Ironically, by the end of this RfA I'll probably have 350. Can't win 'em all. --Robdurbar 20:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  1. Oppose Per above. --Masssiveego 06:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Sorry, oppose. 0FA and too few WPspace edits. -- Миборовский 23:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Hells no. And dont ever strike out my vote again. Tchadienne 23:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Just to clarify, it wasn't me who struck out your vote. --Robdurbar 19:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Neutral
  1. Neutral I was being a bit silly opposing on such narrow criteria, especially when you're very close to the mark. I just feel that Wikipedia space edits tell a true understanding of Wikipedia policy, but your other edits in other categories outweigh it. —Mets501 (talk) 18:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral, would prefer to see a higher Wikipedia namespace edit count in order to show a better policy knowledge all-round. Stifle (talk) 22:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.