Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Robchurch

Robchurch
[ Vote here] (34/11/4) ending 22:14 September_7 2005 (UTC) -

Rob Church has already been doing some advanced admin work, with among other things Ed Poors RFAr. He knows policy well enough, and kate's fine tool says he's safely past the 1500 edits required by those afflicted with edicountitis. :-) --Kim Bruning 22:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, and am pleased to be considered as trustworthy enough for this position. Thank you, Kim. Rob Church Talk 22:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Support

Oppose
 * 1) First one is always free. Kim Bruning 22:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) A good friend of mine, RobChurch is intelligent, reasonable and friendly, all three of which are vital to the success of admins in the field. He has proved himself invaluable in many respects, including mediation regarding the Ed Poor RfAr, and a primary founder of the WP:FAD project. I am certain that he would be a great asset to the community as an administrator, and I can grant my personal trust in his abilities. --NicholasTurnbull 22:34, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) I thought you were one. There were a few edits w/o summaries, but nothing bad... Ryan Norton T 22:42, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support; would make excellent admin. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 23:28, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Andre ( talk ) 23:31, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Support, an outstanding candidate. Rje 23:37, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Nuke from orbit. And if that doesn't work, support. R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 23:51, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Extreme eggplant Mountain Dew that lesbians love support -- Phroziac (talk) 00:05, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Since no one else has used this yet "I can't believe he isn't one already". 75% is in my opinion a bit high in determining say, a VfD concensus, but all indications point to a level headed and non-extreme POV concerning this. Hamster Sandwich 01:28, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) I'll settle just for Support. feydey 01:42, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. Jaxl | talk 03:18, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) A fine edit history, earning my Support. --Alan Au 05:07, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Support Proto t c 09:32, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Support I could have sworn you already were. I see you everywhere, doing virtually everything! Acetic  ' Acid  09:49, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Merovingian (t) (c) 12:23, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Duh. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 14:31, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) Support. No question. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:35, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) Support: A sane and energetic editor who will, I think, be a sane and moderate administrator. Geogre 19:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) Support. Going by previous interaction I expect he'll treat admin rights carefully and thoughtfully. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:17, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) Support Baaaaaa. No good reason not to, breif interaction suggests good reason to.--Tznkai 20:31, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 21) Support.  Ral  315  00:18, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 22) Support, as per the trifecta of SlimVirgin, Geogre, and Mindspillage, (yeah, yeah, and the rest of you people, too). ;-) Func( t, c, @,) 01:05, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 23) Support.  Jtkiefer  T - 02:41, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 24) Support Evil Monkey&#8756;Hello 09:09, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 25) Strong support. Rob's good judgment will make an excellent admin; every time he's alerted me to a problem user on the #wikipedia IRC channeltime, I wound up agreeing with analysis. Rob has also impressed me with his precise understanding of both the mechanics and the '''purpose' of the RFArb process. I'm a better man because of Rob's intervention, and I look forward to his joining the Mediation Committee in the near future. Uncle Ed 14:58, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 26) Support. All-around good guy. FreplySpang (talk) 23:35, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 27) Support Per those above. Bratsche talk 17:17, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * 28) Support. Screw editcountitis, Rob is a good user to talk to and every time I seen him around, he is very civil with everyone. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 29) Support. Normally I wouldn't consider 2 months enough, but 1500+ edits wins over that. N (t/c) 16:17, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 30) Support Por supuesto.  V. Molotov [[Image:Flag of California.svg|25px]]  15:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 31) Support, fight editcountitis... er, accountageitis! - ulayiti (talk)   (my RfA)  15:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 32) Support, expect him not to abuse admin powers. 172.162.10.219 19:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC) Sorry, not logged in. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:19, 2005 September 6 (UTC)
 * 33) Support. Has made an very strong impression on me in his short time here. As many of the oppose votes below point out, tt's something of a gamble to support such as relatively new user. With Rob, however, I think it's a very safe bet. Fernando Rizo T/C 01:06, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 34) Support CambridgeBayWeather 02:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC) Somehow ended up on this page instead of the correct one. CambridgeBayWeather 03:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Eh, I don't know you very well. --WikiFan04Talk 17:24, 31 Aug 2005 (CDT)
 * ... you are seriously going to start proving a point expertimentally on Requests for adminship? Because that has been done before and nothing good came from it. You were not promoted because you have close to no experience and interaction on the project, that's it. Move on. --Sn0wflake 22:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Snowflake please don't bite the newbies :) (I should note that on requests for buerocratship I've seen people oppose for the same reason... so at least its a reason... even if an infuriating one :)) Ryan Norton T 23:00, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Even so, Ryan Norton, I really have to agree with Sn0wflake on this one. It seems as if WikiFan04 has been deliberately voting Oppose just to prove a point, and I dont think that its fair to the candidates. "I don't know you very well?". If you have only managed 700 edits in 19 months, obviously, you cant know anyone because you are not very involved in the project. Oh well, what can you do?  Journalist C./ Holla @ me! 
 * WikiFan isn't a newbie. But, this bitterness about not becoming an admin is going to make things worse for him next time around. Andre ( talk ) 23:31, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * RN, I don't think said editor fits the usual definition of a newbie, and should have known better, but nevertheless, I merely believe that with this behavior the editor has ensured that he will not be promoted to the status of admin - which seems be of meaning to him - any time soon. --Sn0wflake 23:51, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Not voting, but I think the Catch 22 aspect is quite amusing. -Splash 00:17, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 05:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Slightly oppose. You seem to be a serious and dedicated Wikipedian, but you are also very young here. Your account was registered two months ago but you did less than 75 edits in your first month here, which is really not much and leaves in fact only 1 month of active work to judge your contributions. You do not seem to meet your own standards for adminship yet. Sam Hocevar 13:12, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose.  Rob, I like what I've seen of you, but I don't think that 1 month of active editting and 1 month of occassional editting is enough time to have sampled the full wiki experience and be prepared for adminship.  If this were a couple months later, I expect you would have my full support.  Dragons flight 02:37, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Weak oppose, agree with Dragons flight, too little experience. &mdash; J I P  | Talk 15:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. Agree with Dragons flight completely. Jonathunder 15:56, 2005 September 5 (UTC)
 * 6) As above. &mdash; Dan | Talk 16:57, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose, I believe I have seen you on occasion and thought good of your work. However,  your first edits were on  the first of July which is a little to soon for me. I believe by November I would support your nom. but an admin IMHO needs more experience. Falphin 23:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose, as above. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 15:52, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose for reasons cited by Dragons flight &mdash; Ringbang 19:45, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose, not enough time - yet. --Sn0wflake 03:27, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Not enough edits or time (only 2 months). BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2005-09-3 04:05
 * 2) Although I agree with most of the other admins who voted support above, I do feel uncomfortable that this user has only been with us since 1 July, with only less than 75 edits in that first month. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:26, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral. Not enough experience. Keep up the same pace of editing for a few months and I'll gladly support in the future.  android  79  17:42, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral more time, Derktar 00:04, September 7, 2005 (UTC).

Comments
 * Questions for the candidate are at the top, just below the nomination notice. --Alan Au 23:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I put it back below... someone can revert it back to top if they think it looks better that way :). Ryan Norton T 23:13, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Hey! Let the candidate organise the page the way he wants, that gives us an impression of what kind of person he is too, doesn't it? :-) Kim Bruning 23:17, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I did explain why I'd done this, when I did it (see (currently) bottom question), but if people object, that's fine. I just think it's unusual to vote for someone without understanding them first. Rob Church Talk 23:35, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't care.... I just put it this way becuase that's the way the others were... feel free to change it back :) Ryan Norton T 03:17, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Yet another apparently excellent candidate that I would like to watch for a couple more months before forming an opinion. --Tony Sidaway Talk 03:07, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * edit count Ryan Norton T 03:15, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Regarding the edits in July, all I can assume is that I must've created the account earlier than I remembered. My real wiki-ing started in August, and I don't remember doing a lot in July; unless the account was created at the end of that month? Rob Church Talk 20:24, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:


 * What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with?
 * I already do a lot of recent changes patrol, particularly, monitoring of new pages. A rollback link would be useful for reverting simple vandalism, and blocking persistent vandals would also be a help. I would also patrol WP:AIV, as I know what it's like to be a regular user fighting persistent and mindless vandalism. I do participate in the messy process that is VfD, and would like to be able to help clean up backlogs and close old debates. I have a reasonable grasp of copyright laws, and would also be able to clean up after articles with those issues, once the time period is up.


 * Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * I suppose the first contribution I really noticed as being unusual was Federal Firearms License. I spotted what appeared to be a copyvio'd stub whilst on new page patrol. Unable to find the copyvio, I cleaned up and expanded the article. Other contributions I'm pleased with are Wyatt Eaton and Nedrick Young, for similar reasons.


 * 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?
 * I avoid edit conflicts like the plague; if someone makes a revert I don't agree with, I start a discussion on the article's talk page, usually proposing compromises and then drop a link to it on their talk page. I revert bad faith edits once, and then leave the article as-is, only adding or correcting content. In the interests of full disclosure, I was originally one of the initiating parties in the Ed Poor ArbCom case. I am pleased to say that, through informal mediation, we were able to reach an agreeable settlement, and were able to withdraw the case. Insofar as I can gather, Ed bears me no ill will, and we all learned some lessons during that process.

''Questions I (the nominee) expect will be asked, and would like to answer now:


 * Why did you move the questions above the votes and refactor the page?
 * I prefer to be transparent and open about things, and I'd rather people based their votes on their impression of me overall, coupled with the impression derived from my answers. I think it's madness to vote before you see someone's opinions and planned implementations.


 * What do you consider consensus to be?
 * Consensus is an interesting thing, sometimes difficult to determine; it's certainly not a straightforward majority vote. In looking to determine consensus, I'd look for a 75% or higher general trend towards an idea, but also consider the bigger picture. All opinions must be taken into consideration if a decision is to accurately represent the wishes of the community. I appreciate that in being promoted to admin, I'd be labelled as a trusted member of the Wikipedia community, and would respect that trust. If in doubt, I'd seek advice from a more experienced admin, bureaucrat, etc.