Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Robchurch 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Khoikhoi (talk | contribs) at 23:44, 21 May 2006 (s). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Robchurch

[{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Robchurch 4|action=edit}} Discuss here] (92/12/2) ending 16:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Robchurch (talk · contribs) – Rob is an amazing contributor to Wikipedia. He's been around for quite a while, and was previously an admin. There's a fair bit of community history to consider (noms RfA 1 (unsucessful) and RfA 2 (successful)) He voluntarily deadminned himself as a way to make amends and to apologise for actions he felt were inappropriate, and after some time, he asked for the community's support again (RfA 3), which the community chose not to give. It takes a big person to decide you're wrong, atone, and go back and ask, and keep contributing anyway even after the community chooses not to support your request.

Lesser folk would perhaps have thrown in the towel, but Rob has not. Since that failed RfA, he has continued to contribute to the community in many ways. He's one of our most prolific developers and always stands ready on IRC to answer questions, help out newbs, give advice, explain how esoteric things work, and just generally be fun and helpful. A fair bit of what he does with the software and mediawiki pages needs admin power to actually implement (editing protected templates, style pages, and the like) So he has a need, beyond just fighting vandals and so forth, a need that we should grant because it will help him make the software better for all of us.

What you, dear reader, have to consider though, is not just that history of contributions (you've probably recently used code he has touched, like namespace filtering in watchlists, tres useful!) because adminship is not a trophy, not a reward... but rather this: will Wikipedia be better or worse off if Rob was given adminship again? To me the answer is clear, however you might view what has happened in the past, we need people like Rob working hard to help the encyclopedia out, and if he's willing to take on the admin bit again, we should give it to him. Wikipedia will be better off if Rob is given adminship again. I am proud to be bringing this nomination before you, and I ask you for your support. ++Lar: t/c 03:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ho hum. Well, I'm quite flattered to read the above, and I think I'm going to accept. Perhaps I'm not the most active editing-wise these days (you think some of these articles are crap? You should see bits of the code powering them!), but I have missed the utility of certain of the tools. Editing pages in the MediaWiki namespace is useful, although not necessarily dire, if I can grab a local sysop, but it wouldn't be unpleasant not to have to bother one. People keep mistaking me for an admin, and while I have to forward their queries to another trusted user, it would be nice if I could actually help them. We've all come across a page that needs deleting, or a user needing blocking, even in passing. Frankly, I'd find adminship useful, but I wouldn't necessarily be the most active admin on En. Whether or not that leads you to place positive or negative comments below, go ahead...I'll soak it all up. And thanks to Lar for the nomination, and thanks to anyone who supports or opposes. I look forward to reading your comments. Rob Church (talk) 16:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A comment about the nominating statement, which I've only just now read. (I'm not certain where this goes): The statement in nominating Church is incredibly disingenuous/misleading and begs clarification. Church "voluntarily deadminned himself as a way to make amends and to apologise for actions he felt were inappropriate, and after some time, he asked for the community's support again." For actions "he felt were inappropriate? That wasn't some magnanimous judgment call on his part. The man admittedly lied against a user (me), fabricated accusations and submitted them in evidence in an ArbCom proceeding. And "after some time"? He waited less than ten, whole days and never completely came clean about the full extent of his calculated misrepresentations. deeceevoice 16:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You've only just read the nominating statement? So all your previous commentary was without the benefit of reading and reflecting on what I wrote? I think your comment (and my response) belong in the comments section but I'll leave it to someone else to redact it. Suffice it to say that I reject the notion that my carefully considered nomination, and the wording thereof, was "incredibly disingeneous". That's right up against the edge of incivility, I'm afraid. I knew of Rob's history before I nominated him, I gave the links I felt were appropriate, and I put it before the community as a question, will WP be better off with or without Rob as an admin. I think you've made your feelings clear but I am wondering how many times you're going to make the same points (which themselves carry a bit of misrepresentation don't they??? It is now not 10 days after his voluntary desysopping but 5 months... the community did in fact say 10 days was too soon... you write as if it were still 10 days after... how disingenious is that?) over and over? It's not good to harangue people too much, it detracts from the point you're making. But giving you tips on good communication styles may not be the best use of my time, I'm not sure. I would caution you against going beyond legitimately making your points and venturing into the area of disrupting this RfA... it's not really a good thing to do. ++Lar: t/c 23:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. First one's free... ++Lar: t/c 03:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. He can handle admin tools. — TheKMantalk 16:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support I find this user very helpful. Computerjoe's talk 16:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. --Ligulem 16:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support, has shown great growth and maturity - this editor's character arc would make for a novel. BDAbramson T 16:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support – he was one before, and the world didn't end then – Gurch 16:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support --ForestH2 16:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support, of the strongest nature. --lightdarkness (talk) 16:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support I'm amazed Rob isn't already (still) an admin. —Pengo 16:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Of course. Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Well, at least we know he's not pining... ;) RadioKirk talk to me 16:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Strong support, even though he hates me. --Rory096 16:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I hate to correct you there, Rory. Rob Church hates everybody. /me ducks and runs --Andy123 talk 16:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Um, you sure you want to do this Rob? May $Deity bless your soul. Kim Bruning 16:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC) (3* edit conflict)[reply]
  14. Support. I do think that the DCV pile-on was a terrible thing, but I also think no one understands that better than Rob. Chick Bowen 16:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You're kidding -- right? See my comments throughout, and watch for his responses to my questions. deeceevoice 17:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Yes, the world did not end there... and moreover we should not "worry about the world ending today. It’s already tomorrow in China". I find his association with wikipedia is remarkable, and he deserves to be re-sysoped. The past should not deter us. --Bhadani 16:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. 3rd edit conflict support. Alphax τεχ 16:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Afonso Silva 16:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Editconflict Support per Rory096 WerdnaTc@bCmLt 16:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support It takes great character, as the nominator said, for one to step down from the position of administrator when one does something wrong. joturner 17:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC) Retracting vote... will vote neutral or oppose later upon further review. joturner 14:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that he didn't completely come clean -- and waited less than 10 days before asking to be re-adminned. What kind of message does it send to continue to renominate him -- when other users are subject to harsh sanctions for periods of a year and more for doing far less? I keep reading admins are held to a higher standard. Clearly, this is not the case. deeceevoice 17:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Weak Support per Rory096.Voice-of-AllTalk 17:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Seen Rob around, and is a solid contributor. I've no promblems with supporting him. The Halo (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. He can be trusted not to abuse the tools. --TantalumTelluride 17:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, really? See my comments here. deeceevoice 17:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support, if only to let him edit the MediaWiki pages himself. (Though I guess he could always commit a code patch to let him do that...) What's the point in denying the admin bit from a dev, anyway? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support A non-sysop developer? Also a great editor. Raichu 17:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support A solid contributor. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support No point keeping him from the tools. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 18:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 18:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. Robchurch has shown himself to be a very capable admin in the past, and, perhaps more importantly, a very honest one too. Not everybody would have responded the way he did following the sordid business with Deeceevoice. Rje 18:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He still didn't completely come clean about his fabrication of evidence before the ArbCom. And he hasn't been a "civilian" long enough. Other editors are sanctioned for much longer periods for far less -- and this guy was asking to be readminned only ten days after having lied before the ArbCom. Confirming him would send a pretty sorry message to the community about how seriously admins are expected to take their responsibilities, and about how they can behave in the most outrageous fashion with relative impunity. deeceevoice 17:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem here is that Rob has done a lot of good work and made one very serious mistake. He has made what, to me at least, appeared to be a very heartfelt apology, he has been in the doghouse long enough. What message does it give to the community if we show we cannot let bygones be bygones; at some point we have to move on. We have to accept that we are all human and therefore make mistakes, I doubt Rob will repeat what he did to you, and I have never questioned his ability to use the tools in the way that they are meant to be used: therefore I have supported his candidacy. Rje 18:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not a "problem." The real problem is the tremendous disparity in the way lumpen are dealt with when they screw up and when administrators do likewise. It would be hard for me to come up with a remotely equivalent kind of offense on the part of an everyday editor, but it's very easy to point to countless instances where far less serious infractions have been committed by editors, and they've been dealt with extremely harshly by comparison. Where is the disciplinary process for Church? Putting someone on probation for a year or more, or blocking them for, say, a month for incivility or some other infraction -- but then reconsidering Church's adminship 10 days after he libels another user before the ArbCom (and once or twice after that) is appalling. If, indeed, administrators are held to a higher standard, then he should be banned from adminship for at least a year. And that's not even dealing with him as sternly as others have been dealt with for less egregious conduct. It's not about whether he would do it again. (And, again, he still hasn't totally confessed the extent of his lie.) It's about whether he should be punished in a manner even remotely commensurate with the way others on the site are punished for misconduct. This sort of thing is precisely why disciplinary proceedings on this site are seen as a sham and why administrative authority and bodies like the ArbCom are held by some in such contempt. There's one set of rules for everyday editors, or those who are controversial, and another set of rules for people in authority or who are well liked. In matters such as this, Wikipedia shouldn't function like a popularity contest. If one abuses one's authority in a scandalous fashion in the manner of Rob Church, then they should be appropriately penalized. And this hasn't even begun to happen in Rob Church's case. And the willingness on the part of so many to just shrug and look the other way is all the more reason why such penalities should be codified -- and upheld. This page is a perfect example of the abject hypocrisy and illegitimacy of the project's "governance" mechanisms -- and I use that term loosely. It merely engenders contempt. deeceevoice 18:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. Looks good. — Rebelguys2 talk 18:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Kusma (討論) 18:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Jaranda wat's sup 18:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support We've had our differences, but this is the best thing for the community. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 18:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support - what was it I said before, "all-around good guy"? Yeah, that. Also, learns from his mistakes, and makes great contributions behind the scenes as a developer. If the sysop bit will help him do that, I think he should have it. FreplySpang 19:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support made a good admin before and will make a good admin again. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 19:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support RicDod 19:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support per Pegasus. --Tone 20:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support again. --Alan Au 20:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support What do they mean incivil - Rob's always f***ing civil. --Doc ask? 20:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Naconkantari 21:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. Mackensen (talk) 21:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. — FireFox (U T C) 21:06, 20 May '06
  42. Support. He seems like an excellent contributor. Dakpowers | Talk 21:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. --Sean Black 21:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support- I know this user will not be misusing admin tools. Reyk YO! 21:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Dell Tech Support You need to reboot. Sasquatch t|c 21:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That reminds me, I actually have to call Dell... --Rory096 22:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support - Gosh, the second person I've wanted to support this week, what is going on here? We need less qualified candidates so I can ignore this place again -- sannse (talk) 21:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. That's scorching! Mike H. That's hot 22:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. 'Support, The kinda guy you thought was an admin already. Vulcanstar6 22:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Extreme stabbage Support: untiringly helpful, even while he's engaged "stabbing" the system back into shape. Never mind civil: bugs don't deserve civil. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 22:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. We need more rouge good admins, who use common sense but are willing to own up to their mistakes. --JoanneB 22:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. DarthVader 23:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support, same as the last couple times I supported him, blah, blah, good guy, trusted, could use the tools, had the good sense to know when the screwed up and should get the mop back now. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Why, of course. feydey 23:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. looks good to me. Semperf 00:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Edit conflict support. Excellent contributor. Though if we don't re-admin you, will you write more code instead? :) And of course, please work on the civility, if something you want to say seems like it might cause offense, it probably will. - Taxman Talk 00:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. Of course. Shimgray | talk | 00:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. OMG he's not one? This user does too many important things not to have Admin capabilities. Bastique▼parler voir 00:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support. Rob has learned the lessons he needed to learn when he was desysopped; he has also been doing very significant work on the MediaWiki code. Thryduulf 01:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support --M@thwiz2020 01:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support, of course. —CuiviénenT|C, Sunday, 21 May 2006 @ 01:32 UTC
    Moved to oppose. —CuiviénenT|C, Sunday, 21 May 2006 @ 20:47 UTC
  60. I agree with the nominator's opening statement, and my interactions with Rob have all been positive. Redux 01:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support. Seems to have a good sense of self-judgement. RandyWang (raves/rants) 02:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Unquestioned support. Quite a help to the encyclopedia. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 02:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. Everything I've seen from this editor has been positive, and his hard work is evident in everything he touches. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 03:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support Pepsidrinka 03:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support Rama's Arrow 03:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support. I agree with Lar, and while there have been incidents in his past, it's to his benefit that he apologized. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 03:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support Joe I 04:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Weak Support I don't really see why he needs sysop powers, and he has been a bit uncivil in the past, but still, he's so cuddly! :P Master of Puppets Your will is mine. 04:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support all is forgiven, I think - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 05:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support, five months is long enough, and Robchurch's contributions in that five months have been positive. --Deathphoenix ʕ 05:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support as I did on his last RfA.-gadfium 06:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support He desysopped himself, therefore he shouldnt have to go through this again 100% support. Mike (T C) 06:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Kotepho 08:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC) Could use the tools and I don't see him abusing them now.[reply]
  74. Support Will (albeit infrequently) use the tools well. --Alf melmac 11:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support. He has my full confidence. enochlau (talk) 11:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support. Garion96 (talk) 12:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support. He has shown that he is accountable to the community by stepping down when he made a mistake. Haukur 12:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. support William M. Connolley 11:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Syooirt, great user. --Terence Ong 14:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support He can handle it. — Brendenhull 15:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Rob Church hates WP:100 supports support. :P :P This user is clearly an asset to the encyclopedia. His contributions far outweigh the glitches that his system might have ;). The user shows good judgment all around, and though he might be cold and brusque at times, he has always meant well for the encyclopedia. Wikipedia would definately be a better place with administrators like him. Amen. --Andy123 talk 16:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Strong support. Incredible asset. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 17:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support on WHEEELS!!! Everything checks out. --D-Day(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?) 18:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support. jaco♫plane 19:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Martin 20:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. What, are you kidding? I didn't know he was up for it. We tried and tried to get him to accept it before. Heck yes, I support. Geogre 21:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support, History is checkered, sure, but also full of great contributions. Rob knows scrutiny on his admin actions will be close and constant, and I don't think he fancies another big incident. Deizio talk 21:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support. Kukini 22:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support An A+ Wikipedia user. Mr. Turcottetalk 23:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support, dedicated, trustworthy and previous unsavoury events show welcome awareness of his own past failings. --Nick Boalch\talk 23:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Double edit-conflicted support. While I'm fully aware of the circumstances surrounding this RfA and Rob's interaction with the community, I'm willing to give him the chance. Let's not forget that everyone will keep their eyes on him, and many will raise the matter should any reason to question his judgement or actions as admin ever arises. Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 23:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support per above. —Khoikhoi 23:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose, fails the civility test. Ted 20:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a test now? I didn't even take it, let alone pass...--Sean Black 21:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the test belongs to Ted, although I'm not sure why. People place way too much emphasis on personalities for admin capabilities over necessity. Rob is certainly mature enough to not create dramatic problems. Bastique▼parler voir 00:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. This is, indeed, a prime criteria for the job (but not the only one). He did not show much maturity in his response to mediakiki vs wikimedia. That you don't consider civility to be important certainly underscores my vote against your admin. Ted 03:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I'm quite frankly amazed that hardly anybody seems to be concerned by Rob's blatant incivility, and that many people are indeed making a joke of it. His answer to my question seems to write it off as merely "a character flaw". Well YES!, I would say it is a pretty major character flaw for an admin to be attacking people for typing "mediawiki" rather than "wikimedia". What is he going to do when somebody is vandalising?! If he finds users so irritating then perhaps being an admin is not such a good idea. There is no reason that he cannot avoid acting in this manner, and I am surprised that the community is not insisting that he changes his behaviour before making him an admin. There are plenty of editors who invest as much, if not significantly more, effort in Wikipedia, and such behaviour would normally move those editors nearer to a "Request for Arbitration" rather than a "Request for Adminship". I don't see why the fact that Rob's contributions are on the development side should mean he is held to lower basic standards of behaviour (regardless of whether the tools would help his contributions). NickelAndDime 01:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What I "wrote off as a character flaw" was my tendency, as humans do, to snap from time to time. Usually, of course, this is done with a handful of darts and a haphazard throwing motion. We all have bad days. Rob Church (talk) 03:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Rob showed good judgment in desysopping himself voluntarily, but I still feel this user is too prone to incivility and rashness. His blocking of slimvirgin here: [1] was done without any discussion with the user before hand. Also, the edit summary cited below by Nickel is frankly aggressive --Knucmo2 23:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh? Robchurch has never blocked SlimVirgin. Your diff is of Rob asking SlimVirgin to block someone else. Chick Bowen 00:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    My mistake, I worded it wrongly. --Knucmo2 01:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. STRENUOUS OPPOSE Yes, I accepted Rob Church's apology -- though he never actually confessed to completely fabricating a vicious e-mail during an ArbCom proceeding which I never sent.[[2],[3] The issue here is time [and integrity, given Church's only partial retraction of his admittedly false charges against me]. That ugly incident took place less than six months ago. When one considers that people can be placed on probation for an entire year for far less, that someone can behave in so tawdry a fashion as Church did and still repeatedly be recommended for adminship -- and that he would have the gall to even allow his name to put forward -- all within five months of disgracing himself -- is pretty hard to take. The man had the gall to ask his adminship be approved less than 10 days after deliberately and calculatingly fabricating/falsifying evidence before the ArbCom, giving the excuse that at the time he believed his actions were for the good of the project. That, to me, is extremely alarming. The man shouldn't even be considered for adminship for at least a year. The hypocrisy in this is just amazing -- a complete double standard. deeceevoice 03:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've asked him a few questions below with regard to this nasty incident, with links to his fabricated "evidence" and subsequent retraction and apology below above. I'm awaiting a response. deeceevoice 06:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The following exchange was removed from the Q&A segment:
    But thanks for the comment. :p Though inappropriately placed, it was useful. I've revisited my questions and revised them. deeceevoice 13:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then I will give you a link instead: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/loadques.html and suggest to Robchurch that he does not attempt to reply to such questions. -- sannse (talk) 10:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm certain RobChurch is intelligent enough to understand that he may answer in whatever way he chooses -- or not at all. The fact remains he still has some explaining to do, and you've already registered your support for his nomination elsewhere. The questions stand/remain, and I'm certain many are waiting to see how he responds. I should add for the record that I accepted Church's sincere apology, noting that it took a great deal of character to at least partially come clean; he certainly didn't have to. It's a safe bet that people would have believed his version of events over mine. That does not, however, address the issue of whether or not true contrition and fairness would beg a full and accurate account of what transpired (or, more accurately, did not transpire) between us and a suitable period of time when Church would be voluntarily ineligible for adminship. The fact that there is no formal requirement that a similarly disgraced admin be ineligible for adminship for a specified period of time (certainly, given other sanctions regularly levied as a result of far less egregious conduct by users not entrusted with admin powers -- and admins theoretically are held to a higher standard -- a year seems more than fair) is, IMO, scandalous and a perfect example of how Wikipedia is appallingly dysfunctional. Also for the record, I don't bother following Church's affairs; however, I was alerted to this nomination by another editor -- who, doubtless, shares with me some of the same questions and concerns.deeceevoice 12:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. On the one hand is the undoubted technical ability, understanding of the project, and doing the right thing by stepping down voluntarily. On the other hand, Robchurch is the most aggressive genuine admin candidate I've seen here. I can't take the voluntary desysopping into consideration as I wouldn't have supported him in the first place. Other users aren't cut the slack that Rob seems to get in my view. Possibly it's because he's such a good contributor to the project, but adminship leans much more heavily on civility than editing/technical quality in my view. MLA 07:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per MLA. SushiGeek 08:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per MLA. The edit summary below is good evidence of what I've seen from Robchurch on a regular basis. — GT 09:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Regretful oppose per User:MLA. Please consider stress reduction and getting a mentor.  :) Dlohcierekim 13:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose You are a nice person and an asset to the community in the various jobs that you do now. Your current inability to handle stress does not make you a good candidate for administrator now [4] I’m concerned this promotion will jeopardize the many positive talents that you bring to the community. FloNight talk 16:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Very strong oppose Admins are expected to uphold standards. This edit summary was left by Robchurch 3 days ago: "It's called MediaWiki, not fucking Wikimedia. I question how you can repeatedly confuse a piece of software with a bloody organisation." I don't think this is the standard that should be set. I fully recognise Robchurch's other valuable work for Wikipeida. Tyrenius 18:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose Admins must operate under stress and are often called to sort out conflicts. Looking at the discussion and the replies, it appears that RobChurch still has some distance to travel. However, past actions encourage me to re-evaluate this opinion afresh if this matter arises again. Stephen B Streater 19:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose due to actions regarding Deeceevoice and other uncivil behavior. As a side note (not influencing my decision), it's kind of odd that 20% (60% of the total of his main page edits) of his edits are on talk pages. — Yom 20:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Changed to Oppose per MLA and Tyrenius. —CuiviénenT|C, Sunday, 21 May 2006 @ 20:47 UTC


Neutral

  1. Does not appear to meet WP:1FA, but has made significant contributions in other aspects. - Mailer Diablo 17:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Today's the 20th, 1FA says it only applies on the 21st and later ;) --Rory096 17:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, he seems to meet "Exceptional service to the welfare of Wikipedians (e.g. Esperanza)." --Rory096
  2. Impressive contributions tempered by scarily uncivil edit summary below = Neutral. Rockpocket (talk) 06:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Comments

  1. Comment I am concerned by this edit summary and have raised a question below. NickelAndDime 18:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User's first (and only) edit – Gurch 19:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    While someone is going to point out that this was this user's singular contribution, their account being created just before, I thought I'd answer it anyway, since it's a perfectly justified question. Rob Church (talk) 18:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User's last 5000 edits (I doubt there will be any issues here).Voice-of-AllTalk 17:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

User contributions
--Viewing contribution data for user Robchurch (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page)-- (FAQ)
Time range: 246 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 17hr (UTC) -- 20, May, 2006
Oldest edit on: 16hr (UTC) -- 17, August, 2005
Overall edit summary use: Major edits: 54.39% Minor edits: 80.18%
Article edit summary use: Major article edits: 97.03% Minor article edits: 97.02%
Average edits per day (current): 20.29
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/major sourcing): 1.88% (94)
Unique pages edited: 2386 | Average edits per page: 2.1 | Edits on top: 13.6%
Breakdown of all edits:
Significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 28.14%
Minor edits (non-reverts): 34.76%
Marked reverts: 10.5%
Unmarked edits: 26.6%
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 25.5% (1275) | Article talk: 9.18% (459)
User: 8.3% (415) | User talk: 20.04% (1002)
Wikipedia: 30.66% (1533) | Wikipedia talk: 3.68% (184)
Image: 0.78% (39)
Template: 1% (50)
Category: 0.14% (7)
Portal: 0% (0)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0.02% (1)
Other talk pages: 0.7% (35)
Username Robchurch
Total edits 5897
Distinct pages edited 3165
Average edits/page 1.863
First edit 22:43, July 1, 2005
 
(main) 1672
Talk 490
User 547
User talk 1166
Image 39
Image talk 5
MediaWiki 1
MediaWiki talk 7
Template 57
Template talk 23
Category 7
Category talk 2
Wikipedia 1689
Wikipedia talk 192

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 noted above, I wouldn't be the most active En. admin, but I could see myself deleting the odd page (within the usual consensus and policies), blocking the odd idiot (again, respecting the usual expectations surrounding that), editing the odd bit of interface text to reflect changes to the software. And I think most administrators will agree that the tools are just useful to be able to call up. Rob Church (talk) 16:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Do I get to list code here, too? In the past few RfAs, I used to list things like Federal Firearms License, which I recovered from a nasty, copyright-infringing stub, Project Honey Pot, Nedrick Young, another emergency recovery job, etc. I think User:Robchurch/Software speaks for itself as to my other levels of involvement. Rob Church (talk) 16:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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: Yes, yes, and the reverse, of course. It's impossible not to ruffle a few feathers, inadvertently or otherwise, in a project of this vast scale. Since the last kerfuffle, of course, I've had to start interacting with users from various other projects, in other languages. Reading bug reports and helping people in IRC channels can really test your temper. Overall, I think I'm known for being a bit blunt and usually slightly tactless...up to you whether that's a good thing.
There will be those of you whose memories go back as far as the Deeceevoice incident, for which every comment I made in my apology still stands. And there are those of you whose memories go back as far as the RfAr filed against Ed Poor by myself and some others, which was resolved amicably for all. Rob Church (talk) 16:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question from NickelAndDime 18:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Could you please explain this edit summary?
A: Hm. Difficult. I think it's a mixture of pedantry and irritation. When you're interacting with people, trying to be helpful, often taking flak from all directions, you can end up pushed fairly far towards burnout, and I try to completely avoid that. I think we can none of us state we don't lapse. Perhaps no edit summary would have been better than a somewhat vitriolic one, but then, in my defence, I try to avoid "just losing it", but like any other human, of course I'm prone to from time to time. As a developer, I think I'd state that users are simultaneously your best inspiration and your greatest irritation. Evaluate this character flaw, if you will, in your own way. Rob Church (talk) 18:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from deeceevoice 03:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Why did you only partially recant your lie [bogus] ArbCom charge[s] against me?
2. How can could you have the gall to allow your name repeatedly to be entered into consideration for adminship [less than ten days after commiting such an egregious offense, and then repeatedly thereafter] mere weeks after such scandalous behavior? How can you countenance such a self-serving double standard?
3. How can you justify do you regard the double standard of someone being placed on [lengthy] probation [in some cases, for as long as a full year] for committing a far less serious offense [say, incivility or edit warring] than you did when you [admittedly] lied about a "venomous" e-mail which I never sent and entered your fabrication as evidence against me in an ArbCom proceeding? Would you be in favor of the institution of a mandatory period of adminship ineligibility of, say, at least one year for such [and similarly serious mis]conduct?
4.And, finally, do you not think editors who conduct themselves in such a shameful manner should be stripped of, and barred from, adminship for at least as long (12 months) as someone who is deemed guilty of a far less serious infraction -- say, incivility or edit warring -- is placed on probation or watch? We're told that admins are held to a higher standard; however, such is clearly not the case. deeceevoice 03:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Robchurch_4&oldid=54435162"