Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Robth

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] Robth

Final (52/2/5) Ended Thu, 14 Sep 2006 20:03:28 UTC

Robth (talk · contribs) – Robth is a great user here. He's very involved in cleanup work, and he's done some great writing. In particular, his work at WP:CP would be enhanced if he had the ability to delete copyright violations. In tricky situations, he's shown himself to be balanced, restrained, and tactful. He's a great asset to the project, and I don't believe he would abuse his admin abilities.– Quadell (talk) (bounties) 13:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you, Quadell. I accept. Thanks in advance to everyone for your consideration. --RobthTalk 19:22, 7 September 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: Working the back end (tagged for a year or more) of the cleanup queue has been, as Quadell noted above, the source of most of my experience with maintenance type work; it's taught me how to spot speedy deletion and prod candidates (since the deletion of something that's been cleanup tagged for a year is rarely controversial, I tend to use AFD only for weird cases), and given me a nose for copyright violations; I've also been lending a hand at WP:CP recently, dealing with entries there that don't require administrative tools to resolve. This being the case, I would anticipate working on deletion, helping with clearing out prod categories when their time comes and with keeping the backlogs at C:CSD and WP:CP under control. The delete button would also be occasionally convenient while working on the cleanup queue, since speedy deletion candidates do pop up there from time to time.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I'm fond of a number of ancient Greece articles I've worked on, but Epaminondas in particular stands out. It took a good amount of help from more experienced writers to get it into its current condition, as I was quite new and inexperienced when I wrote it, but perhaps because of that newness it's--I don't quite know what to call it--zippier, livelier, than most of what I've written since. If it had pages, it would be a page turner; as is, I guess it's a "scrollbar-clicker" or something.
On a very different note, I'm also pleased with articles like Badan Intelijen Nasional, a respectable little stub that I was able to carve out of a massive, unusable essay that I found on the cleanup queue, in spite of knowing little to nothing about the subject.
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: I've been around a few conflicts, but haven't really been in conflict with anyone myself. One of the (few) advantages of communicating through an online medium like wikipedia is that you always have plenty of time to think before you type, and I take care to use that time well. As a result, I think I've been a positive influence in a few heated discussions; recently, I helped defuse a tense situation at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pericles. I'll continue to take the same approach in the future.


Comments

Robth's editcount statistics from Interiot's tool. (aeropagitica) 20:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I see that my low participation in *FDs is, quite reasonably, a concern for some people. (By the count on my watchlist, I have commented on less than an a dozen AfDs and TfDs combined.) To make it clear, I assure you that, if promoted, I won't do anything so darned foolish as running off and starting to close *fDs; Wikipedia is large, and that's an area I haven't spent time in; I'll make sure to stick to what I'm confident I can do a good job at. --RobthTalk 06:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support per nom - good vandal fighter. Michael 19:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support positive experinces with him Jaranda wat's sup 20:15,7 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support Answers to questions, edit summaries in contributions and statistics show that this user would use the admin tools sensibly. (aeropagitica) 20:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support An excellent editor who is already active in important admin-chore areas. --Jay(Reply) 20:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support, diligent and considerate, an excellent editor in every respect. Kirill Lokshin 20:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support. Excellent editor, who I believe would not abuse his admin tools. --Nishkid64 20:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support Great candidate; has been around for quite a while, is obviously a trusted member of the community, and is willing to help out on a large backlog in WP:CP hoopydinkConas tá tú? 21:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support I've seen him around - enthusiastic and very helpful editor. And he's willing to help out at a backlog that needs attention.--Konstable 22:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support, but I'd like to see more involvement in the Wikipedia space in the future. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 00:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
    I support Robth so much, I supported him twice. Or something. ;) Anyway, I just removed my second support, since he pointed out my mistake. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 09:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support - per nom and decent upload log --T-rex 00:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support per nom. —Khoikhoi 00:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support WP:CP !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! alphaChimp(talk) 01:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  13. Merovingian - Talk 01:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support AdamBiswanger1R.I.P. Steve Irwin 02:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support Small number of AfD's is a concern, but I had a look at them and found them well-reasoned, with various instances where other editors seconded his opinion. No concerns there, and everything else I've seen is beyond reproach. ~ trialsanderrors 06:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support One of the best editors in Wikipedia. If he wants it, he deserves to be an administrator.--Yannismarou 06:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support. - Mailer Diablo 09:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support - My interactions have always been positive and I feel he/she would do a great job as an admin. InvictaHOG 10:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  19. Weak Support. Lack of AfD participation normally precludes a support. However, user is a respectable and reasonable person, and I believe s/he will neither intentionall abuse the tools nor get into situations where s/he may come to unintentionally misuse them. - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support - Terence Ong (T | C) 17:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support. Having the know-how to deal with WP:CP = definite support. -- Steel 18:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support 3FA. WP:CP :) Dlohcierekim 18:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support Quality contributor, just be careful about XfDs.-- danntm T C 20:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support Can be trusted and will use tools in less looked at areas of the 'pedia. Yanksox 21:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support per Yanksox and others above. Has made valuable contributions and can use the tools effectively. No one area of activity should be a sine qua non for adminship. Newyorkbrad 22:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support per above. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 23:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support Rama's arrow 00:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support. Let's see. Does great anti-vandalism work. AGF. Seems quite reasonable in all other cases. -- RM 01:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  29. Strong Support. Great editor, with whom it is a pleasure to work.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 02:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support per above. --Gray Porpoise 02:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support Must. Crush. Copyright. Backlog. BaseballBaby 03:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support meets the critera of Tawkerbot -- Tawker 04:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support. The attitude of the candidate is admirable, and having more people who don't just spend all their time on RC patrol is a good thing. Batmanand | Talk 13:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support We definitely need more people to deal with copyright stuff. XfD participation doesn't bother me; he said himself that he doesn't plan to close them. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 15:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support great editor; has done a lot of work on WP:CP--TBCTaLk?!? 20:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  36. Very Strong Support Like Robth, I take much interest in ancient Greek topics; and I still remember my satisfaction when he started writing his brilliant articles, especially on periods partly ignored by wikipedia like the 4th century BC. Robth would be, IMO, the perfect admin., with his great expertise and a guarantee of remaining well anchored to the namespace.--Aldux 21:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support. Given that he's not planning to close XfDs immediately and wants to work on the copyright backlog, I see no reason why not. BryanG(talk) 04:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support per WP:BULL -- Samir धर्म 10:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support. — FireFox (talk) 11:32, 10 September 2006
  40. Support. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support The minor lack in AfD isn't reflective of any lack of participation or knowledge about WP, TewfikTalk 02:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support Per above. Knows about WP, despite afd. Atlantic Gateways 03:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support, as above; there's plenty of things to do other than XfD's, and the copyright backlog is always really large. --heah 02:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support Candidate has indicated that he won't participate in XfDs, so I see no reason to call him out on that. WP:CP must have quite a backlog; it'd be nice to see an admin over there. — riana_dzasta wreak havoc|damage report 04:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support Good editor. Garion96 (talk) 09:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  46. Support It looks this candidate has the focused eye for speedy deletes and copyvios. So the lack of AfD activity is not too critical. Everyone has their own specialties. So no probs here. JungleCat talk/contrib 18:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support Doctor BrunoTalk 18:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support You gotta support this editor Hello32020 19:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  49. Support 3 FA's under his belt - my kind of admin.--Mcginnly | Natter 15:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  50. Support. Good edit history, like the FAs. Jayjg (talk) 17:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  51. Support solid writing experience, cooperative attitude, and not afraid to help reducing backlog. This is the kind of admin we need more of. — mark ✎ 11:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  52. Support - In spite of the minor concerns below, I think this is a worthy candidate. --Guinnog 16:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. It seems like featured article is your niche and you've recently started working copyright problems where we could always do with more people, but your lack of experience in Articles for Deletion (about 10) participation per se is a bit of a concern. --  Netsnipe  ►  03:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose: Albatross2147 11:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral Lack of participation in AfD articles and the low edits on Wikipedia namespace is a major concern here. However, you are a fine editor and unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral Fails my criteria of atleast 5000 edits --Ageo020 21:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
    Comment Why 5,000 edits? Nearly all of the administrators on Wikipedia now would not have passed their RFAs, using those criteria. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral per Siva. Tango Alpha Foxtrot 22:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral, fails two of my standards, which usually is an automatic oppose; but I will wave the standards and vote neutral due to the users contribs to FA. Themindset 18:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. Neutral. I'm appreciative of the editor's commitment to rewriting articles to improve flow; however, I'm worried about the lack of participation in AfDs, per Netsnipe. Espresso Addict 14:51, 13 September 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.