Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Robchurch 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Robchurch[edit]

Final: (142/61/10) ended 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]

Support

  1. First one's free... ++Lar: t/c 03:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Retimestamp this to show that yes, I really meant it when I nomed him, and yes, I'm that much of a process wonk. ++Lar: t/c 21:04, 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. BD2412 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. 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]
  20. 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]
    I have read all your comments on this page, and I have reviewed the evidence that you've provided. I must admit that Rob has room for improvement, but I think he is genuinely sorry for the mistakes he's made in the past. Furthermore, I believe he is an asset to the project and that he would be more productive with sysop rights. --TantalumTelluride 22:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. 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]
  22. Support A non-sysop developer? Also a great editor. Raichu 17:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support A solid contributor. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support No point keeping him from the tools. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 18:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 18:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. 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]
  28. Support. Looks good. — Rebelguys2 talk 18:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Kusma (討論) 18:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Jaranda wat's sup 18:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. 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]
  32. 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]
  33. Support made a good admin before and will make a good admin again. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 19:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support RicDod 19:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support per Pegasus. --Tone 20:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support again. --Alan Au 20:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support What do they mean incivil - Rob's always f***ing civil. --Doc ask? 20:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Naconkantari 21:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. Mackensen (talk) 21:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. — FireFox (U T C) 21:06, 20 May '06
  41. Support. He seems like an excellent contributor. Dakpowers | Talk 21:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. --Sean Black 21:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support- I know this user will not be misusing admin tools. Reyk YO! 21:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. 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]
  45. 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]
  46. That's scorching! Mike H. That's hot 22:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. 'Support, The kinda guy you thought was an admin already. Vulcanstar6 22:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. 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]
  49. 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]
  50. Support. DarthVader 23:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. 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]
  52. Support Why, of course. feydey 23:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. looks good to me. Semperf 00:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. 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]
  55. Support. Of course. Shimgray | talk | 00:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. 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]
  57. 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]
  58. 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
  59. 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]
  60. Support. Seems to have a good sense of self-judgement. RandyWang (raves/rants) 02:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Unquestioned support. Quite a help to the encyclopedia. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 02:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. 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]
  63. Support Pepsidrinka 03:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support Rama's Arrow 03:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. 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]
  66. Support Joe I 04:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    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 PuppetsYour will is mine. 04:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC) Withdrawing support per Crzrussian and evidence brought up by others. Sorry. Master of Puppets That's hot. 21:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support all is forgiven, I think - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 05:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC) Withdrawing support per recent failure to be civil. Sorry. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 17:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. 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]
  68. Support as I did on his last RfA.-gadfium 06:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. 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]
  70. Kotepho 08:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC) Could use the tools and I don't see him abusing them now.[reply]
  71. Support Will (albeit infrequently) use the tools well. --Alf melmac 11:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support. He has my full confidence. enochlau (talk) 11:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support. Garion96 (talk) 12:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. 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]
  75. support William M. Connolley 11:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Syooirt, great user. --Terence Ong 14:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support He can handle it. — Brendenhull 15:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. 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]
  79. Strong support. Incredible asset. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 17:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support on WHEEELS!!! Everything checks out. --D-Day(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?) 18:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support. jaco♫plane 19:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Martin 20:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. 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]
  84. 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]
    Support. Kukini 22:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC) After further review, I have to withdraw this support. Civility seems to be questionable, at least in recent history. Kukini 05:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support An A+ Wikipedia user. Mr. Turcottetalk 23:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. 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]
  87. 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]
  88. Support per above. —Khoikhoi 23:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support - whilst I agree Rob may have the odd edit summary, I don't think he's one to abuse the tools in any manner that has to do with adminship. He's not going to screw with the buttons, why not let him have them -- Tawker 00:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support without question --rogerd 01:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support - I don't think that withholding adminship status should be used as a form of punishment. The purpose of withholding adminship should be to protect the users of wikipedia from rogue behaviour, and only that. I don't think that Robchurch is any more likely to engage in rogue behaviour than any other successful candidate. - Richardcavell 01:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support Danny 01:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Strong support for Rob. -- I@n ≡ talk 02:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support amazing guy too. -Mysekurity [m!] 03:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  95. Support. Antandrus (talk) 04:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support It would be nice if he could maintain a bit more civility, but I have a really hard time imagining him abusing the tools, which is (IMO) the most important thing to consider in an RfA. AmiDaniel (talk) 04:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Crazy I'm 100 Support Get's his tools back. -Mask 06:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support. Sensible person, and a strong record of service to the encyclopedia. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support. Ral315 (talk) 08:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support. NoSeptember talk 10:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support per above.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 13:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support. Kuzaar 13:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support, you keep telling those idiots, Rob. Proto||type 13:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support. A great candidate.--Jusjih 13:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support per nom. --Mhking 13:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support. Incivility is obviously not a good thing, but as the nominator says, Wikipedia will probably be better off if Rob is an admin. Schutz 14:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  107. support Justforasecond 15:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support, as a great editor and developer.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 16:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Suppport --Jay(Reply) 19:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support --Elephantus 21:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support- no reason to believe he'd misuse the tools. Those who oppose re-adminning would do well to remember that the only reason he lost his sysop bit in the first place was that he voluntarily gave it up. Friday (talk) 22:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And this gives us an opportunity to reevaluate whether he should have been made an administrator in the first place. —CuiviénenT|C, Monday, 22 May 2006 @ 22:23 UTC
  112. Support. Jayjg (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support--ragesoss 23:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support --Splarka (rant) 05:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Strong Support - He's a great developer, a great contributor, has great reason to merit the mop, and, on a more humorous note, he is a veritable Troll di tutti troi. Butchered Italian intentional. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 06:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  116. My long overdue resupport  ALKIVAR™ 06:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support - Dedicated developer, no reason why he shouldn't be given the tools back. --Scott 09:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support. ~ PseudoSudo 10:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support - Always friendly on IRC, and good user. See no reason for him not to become a sysop again. -- Tangotango 13:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support I've seen some of his admin work in situations some time back, and I think it was very good (even if he may lose his temper from time to time, as some people have apparently observed.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Clear support per Andy123 and Fut.Perf., to name two. Joe 17:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support In my (albeit limited) dealings with him, he was always polite and courteous. His contributions are well-known, and if he feels that the mop-and-flamethrower will help him continue, then I have no problem with that. Good Luck! -- Avi 19:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Another Support. Below concerns about civility seem overstated. Opabinia regalis 20:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That is your opinion, but WP:CIVIL should be a non-negotiable policy for a party interested in becoming an administrator. Silensor 22:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Forthrightness is not incivility. Personally, I'd like to see more admins who don't suffer fools gladly. Opabinia regalis 22:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support. I'm confused by people citing a totally unsubstantiated oppose (MLA's). Robchurch is helpful, dedicated, and intelligent. Rob may not always be too tolerant with fools but I've found him far less abrasive than Tim Starling who no one complaints about having the sysop bit on Enwiki. We're not electing Rob to be captain of the Wikipedia welcome wagon here... We don't expect all admins to have deep technical understanding although it's important that there are admins with it... so we shouldn't expect all admins to be great people people. What matters is trust. Rob already has it. This RFA should be merely perfunctory and I'm disappointed in the people who are opposing. --Gmaxwell 22:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, I am disappointed with your disappointment. Silensor 22:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we should take it that people "citing" MLA's oppose are saying that they agree with the opinion expressed, not that they are basing their own judgement solely on his statement. This RfA is not about the position of the people contributing to it, but about the candidate. If there is concern about the basis of opinions, then that should also be addressed to the support votes, none of which provide any substantiation and some of which provide no reason for supporting either. However, I think the emerging tendency to cast aspersions on the credibility of those participating is not a practice to be commended or perpetuated, nor is the characterisation of those whom Robchurch has been intolerant with as "fools" (in one case for writing "wikimedia" instead of "MediaWiki"[1]). I totally agree "what matters is trust" and though I have no problem trusting Robchurch's intelligence, excellent work and genuine motivation, I do not at the moment trust his ability to interact with other editors, particularly in stress situations. I hope that he will address this serious shortcoming, and then I would be very pleased to support. Tyrenius 04:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support. I have refrained from voting thus far because I didn't want to get involved in any arguments with anyone. However, some of the opposes here seem a bit frivolous. Is Rob Church incivil? That's for you to decide; I go for no, but I'm lenient. Does that have anything to do with his being admin? If Rob had said that he was going to 'welcome newcomers, solve disputes, answer questions, be a friend to everyone, mediate, and talk to everyone', then yes, it'd be a problem. However, all Rob has stated he'd use his sysop powers for is implementing things and editing protected pages (MediaWiki) so he doesn't have to make others do it for him, and then the odd block and delete. It's my opinion that no matter how incivil you may think he is, that has nothing to do with editing protected, site-wide pages. Furthermore, I don't think he'd be going around flaunting the admin thing, and any incivility he had would be his own, not that of the admins, nor Wikipedia. Also also, I find his behavior merely in line with the developer/hacker/whatever brain-mode, with different views on how one interacts with people. Adminship shouldn't be reserved for people persons. We'd miss out on a lot of great contributors that way, and Rob Church is an excellent contributor who would benefit Wikipedia with his sysopping. --Keitei (talk) 23:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support. I don't pretend Rob has had an unblemished Wikipedia career; but I would remark that nor have any of us here on Wikipedia. Show me a Wikipedian who considers himself without fault, and I shall show you an irreflective self-deceiver - Rob has admitted fault on a number of occasions, and apologised. Deeceevoice was quite wrong to assert that Rob Church asked for adminship ten days after his desysopping, as I nominated him for adminship on my own recognisance, not on Rob's request. I felt then, as I feel now, that Rob is an exceptional asset to Wikipedia, and that he would simply be more useful as an administrator to the project. I call on all of those Wikipedians with an interest in our project's success to ignore the cat-calls spoken by those who gravely misunderstand the purpose of this project, and to consider this candidate upon his own merits. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The purpose of this project is to write an encyclopedia. Do you honestly believe that every single oppose comment is without merit or made by someone who misunderstands what the goal of this project is? Silensor 00:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody's perfect, and today for example I was kind of rushed in reverting some changes and upset some people. However, based on some of the diffs below (Dewet's vote), Rob's rudeness is not an isolated incident, but more like a trend. Rude people are bad enough to have around as editors, not to mention as admins. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What have been trivialised as "cat-calls" are serious, substantiated and legitimate concerns. Five months ago RobChurch wrote this: "What I did that I am appalled with is this; I lost my head and let myself type faster than I was thinking."[2] Current evidence indicates this character trait is still active. This is a worrying consideration, as headstrong action can easily lead to considerable damage.[3] I can see no indication in the oppose votes that any of these editors have not understood that the goal of Wikipedia is to create a free encyclopedia. I do, however, see evidence that they also realise the only way to achieve this is through temperate interaction with other editors. Tyrenius 03:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I regret you misunderstand me. By no means do I dismiss all oppose votes as cat-calls - I admit that Rob has made his mistakes - and was, rather, referring obliquely to Deeceevoice, without wishing to be too explicit; alas, clearly, it is necessary for me to be explicit here. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 23:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support. His responses have satisfied any lingering concerns. --Dragon695 02:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support per support by all of the right people and oppose by all of the right people. --Cyde↔Weys 06:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Support. Lar's nomination sold me. Rob's done a lot of good things here and used the tools well before the oft-referred-to incident. -- Samir धर्म 09:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support his comments do it for me. An experienced user who wants the tools cos it makes editing on Wikipedia a bit easier and allows him to contribute more. We can learn from our mistakes. --Robdurbar 18:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC) Have read more into 'the incident' and decided to oppose.[reply]
  130. Now, as ever. --Merovingian {T C @} 00:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Support - a great programmer! :) --Filip (§) 01:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Support per Nicholas Turnbull and because I truly believe an admin is more valuable the more learning experiences s/he has gone through and the more conflicts s/he has successfully weathered. And because some of (some of) the Opposes are so petty. Bishonen | talk 10:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  133. Support Enough time has passed since the Deeceevoice incident and Robchurch has again proven himself to be a good editor.--Alabamaboy 14:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support Strong Support Great editor and Great Developer abakharev 05:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Support. the wub "?!" 16:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Support Has the skills, has the credibility. - Amgine 16:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support I thought I voted, but guess not. Anyways, Robchurch is definitely worthy of the mop. I've seen him around and his contributions are always solid. In addition to his reponses below, I'm convinced Rob's ready for adminship. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 17:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support, absolutely. James F. (talk) 18:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Support. I saw the RfA the first day it was up and didn't vote. I've talked to admins and users in #wikipedia about it, trying to decide if I should get involved or not. Some like the guy, some can't stand him: They call him abrasive and uncivil. The problem is, they also call him an impressive editor. They call him technically excellent. I've yet to see an example of something more than the result of a technically minded person having a bad day and snapping at someone. I do that myself, and I'd like to think I'm painfully friendly on here. Civility is an important consideration for the job, granted, but not all admins are cookie-cutter and made to do the same job. I spoke with him on IRC just a few short minutes ago and have decided that the question at the top has an answer: Will Wikipedia be better or worse if Rob Church is made an administrator once again? His contributions in the past have already bettered Wikipedia, and with the tools he needs firmly in hand, he will better Wikipedia once again. ~Kylu (u|t) 22:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Support. If someone wants adminship, they should get it. It's no big deal. Also, Deeceecee should calm down.--Frenchman113 on wheels! 12:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Support, you havn't ever lost faith. --Xyrael T 13:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Support. ShortJason 17:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Support I think this renom came a little too early but if it doesn't pass, that may make the next one harder. Rob's contributions as an editor and a dev are enough that I trust his judgement that it's useful for him to have admin bits, and that he understands the need stay cool in things like edit summaries in the future. I've looked over the deeceevoice stuff and can't make any sense of it (and the most serious allegations appear undocumented), so I'm not persuaded by it. Phr (talk) 22:18, 27 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: [4] 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.[[5],[6] 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:
    • And, most importantly, have you stopped beating your wife? -- sannse (talk) 05:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Struck through as inappropriate and contributing nothing to the discussion. [see thank you note below] Unless you're RobChurch, you have no business commenting here. deeceevoice 06:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    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]
    Regretful oppose per User:MLA. Please consider stress reduction and getting a mentor.  :) Dlohcierekim 13:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Switch to neutral in light of user's contributions. :) Dlohcierekim 13:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. 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 [7] 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]
  8. 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 Wikipedia. Tyrenius 18:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. 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) Weak oppose: OK I'm softening here. I'd prefer it to have someone more even tempered, but I've come across some posts and I'm moving towards taking the risk. Forgive but don't forget. Stephen B Streater 19:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. 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 user talk pages. — Yom 20:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Changed to Oppose per MLA and Tyrenius. —CuiviénenT|C, Sunday, 21 May 2006 @ 20:47 UTC
  12. Oppose as per Tyrenius. Tintin (talk) 01:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose, SqueakBox 01:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose Honorable as stepping down was, the offense was exceptionally immoral and wrong. And the edit summary pointed out by User:Tyrenius shows you still can you use some improvement. Perhaps I'll support later; September perhaps. joturner 03:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose on concerns of civility, which is quite important among admins. Perhaps in a month or two with a cleaner record? Kukini 05:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose Per Tyrenius. That edit summary was just too recent. GizzaChat © 07:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose as per Tyrenius, Kukini and other users above. Likely would make a good admin, due to technical and project understandings. But WP:CIVIL is non optional, it is a necessary for all users (more so for administrators).--blue520 08:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose per MLA and Tyrenius. Zaxem 09:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose: too many intemperate outbursts. Jonathunder 13:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose; civility is absolutely necessary of admins. Everyone is ignorant of some things, and it harms the project to lash out at those who are ignorant of different things than you. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 14:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose: cursing others in edit summaries, as he has done, including very recently, is just not OK. Thumbelina 15:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose changing from support. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 17:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose. A valuable user... but I'm not sure that I'd want you to be an admin again. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 17:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose per MLA and Deskana. Royboycrashfan 21:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose per recent civility issues. Master of Puppets That's hot. 21:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose, civility doens't suddenly become optional just because one is a developer. Past behaviour on the IRC channel is also absolutely not consistent with the kind of high standards Wikipedia should look for in an administrator. Warrens 21:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is not #wikipedia. 86.133.210.63 23:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed.
  27. Oppose Per above civility concerns. DGX 00:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Weak oppose as per User:Spangineer and other evidence. Good faith admin actions and good faith participation in the Wikipedia community are just as important as good faith edits and good work ethic to me. — Donama 01:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. By God, I wish I could support, because I have immense respect for Rob and his contributions here. Even so, seeing the kind of anger reflected in the edit summary above, I can't help wondering what kind of vitriol would be dished out for vandalism—and though I concede that it's entirely possible that Rob meant it in a humourous fashion, the same would still apply were this true.
    Short version: I firmly believe that their words, as well as their actions, are what give administrators the moral authority to deal with vandals. <random>(But given the swearing I've directed at myself when dealing with ParserFunctions, what does that do to my moral authority, I wonder?)</random> Ingoolemo talk 04:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose. Technical yes, but severely lacking in the civility department, sorry. Silensor 06:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose. As per all of above. Civility is big deal indeed. Anwar 07:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose per above.  Grue  07:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose, regretfully. Clearly you are liked and your contributions are respectable. I admire your willingness to admit when your actions have been inappropriate and to try to make amends. However, administrators need to follow the rules, all of the time, and I don't think you've demonstrated that you are ready to do that given your comments in the edit summary noted above. I think it is too soon for the community to be considering this. Accurizer 13:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose per the rude edit summary mentioned above. Such an angy outburst because of a simple mistake is not acceptable. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose; it may only be one edit summary, but it's an extreme one, and it's recent. It can't be outweighed by good editing, because good editing doesn't require being an admin. --Phronima 16:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose per Tyrenius and above. Perhaps I'd support in the future. VegaDark 18:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Strong oppose unfortunately, but cannot in good conscience support with such glaring incivility even recently. dewet|✉ 19:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Even in his recent interactions with other users ([8] [9] [10]), he's been ranging from gruff to plain vitriolic. This is unacceptable for someone who will interact with less-experienced users. dewet|✉ 20:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to be confusing vitrol and bluntness.--Sean Black 19:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose. I'm afraid I don't trust Rob Church to stay civil enough. It's not just that quoted edit summary, it's a general impression from many conversations involving him. I agree with MLA's comment "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...". Great work as a developer, but I think there are others more suited for the admin mop. Petros471 19:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose per MLA. Wile E. Heresiarch 21:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose per civility issues. Robert 22:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose per Tyrenius. G.He 23:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Oppose, recent activity level much too low. Rob had a decent 1,648 edits in November 2005, but less than that (approximately 1,400 edits total) in the six months since then, only 80 of which were to articles. — May. 24, '06 [00:17] <freak|talk>
  43. Weak oppose per many of the comments above. Will reconsider after more time, and better temper control. BlankVerse 05:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Oppose civility Mexcellent 06:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Oppose, sorry, but the dcv thing is too much for me to support. Stifle (talk) 15:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose this time - while it would be "nice" for Rob to be able to edit the MediaWiki pages himself, he needs to have an actual sense of what he did. The time thus far is not sufficient, in my opinion. -- nae'blis (talk) 15:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Opppose We all make mistakes; but we should all be punished too. Its not Rob's fault that he was nominnated again but he should have turned it down. After a sufficient period without nominations and votes he should reapply for adminship. --Robdurbar 18:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not quite correct to say "It's not Rob's fault" because that leaves the impression that I nominated him without checking with him first, which, as anyone who knows me can attest, is just not my style. (and in general is a bad practice, I think) Rob was aware, and approved, of my creating this nomination. Hope that helps clear things up a bit. ++Lar: t/c 18:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, no offence intended!--Robdurbar 07:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Insert non-formatted text here[reply]
  48. Oppose (deleting votes is a no-no) Recent interactions with this user don't exactly motivate me to support at this time. - Nathan (talk) 22:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Oppose per nathan. ILovePlankton ( L) 22:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Oppose per Tyrenius, edit summary and most of the concerns raised above. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 05:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Oppose I really wish I could support, because I know all the good he does as a developer, but the civility concerns raised are simply too much. Civility is the first necessary quality in an admin. Xoloz 16:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Strong Oppose per MLA and the nominator. Adminship is not a reward for good technical skills, and having more admins who have civility problems is definitely not good for Wikipedia. Also, editing other users' talkpage messages and using an abusive edit summary in the process is absolutely unacceptable. Cynical 21:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Oppose reluctantly due to temperment and civility concerns. Yamaguchi先生 01:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Oppose due to tcivility concerns. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. 'Oppose reluctantly due to civility concerns. Brevity due to 84 kb long page. --Firsfron 06:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Oppose civility is important to me. Dmn € Դմն 12:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Week oppose The civiliy problems bother me, but otherwise a good user. I would sugust withdrawing this RFA and retrying in 3-6 months. ---J.S (t|c) 17:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Oppose, too many civility and credibility issues for my taste. Angr (talk) 22:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Very, very, very weak oppose Everything tells me to support you, however, like these disturb me too much. I am very sorry. Yanksox 14:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Oppose. Rob's done some sterling work for wikipedia, but adminship requires a higher standard of civility. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 19:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Oppose. Civility, in edit summaries and otherwise, is a policy that I expect all editors who have been around long enough to run for administrator to follow. The diff that Yanksox and others have provided is recent enough that I express great reservations with Rob's becoming an admin at this time. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 20:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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
    • Ah, it's the 21st on my timezone, at least. In any case I wish him all the best in his RfA, which I think should easily pass. - Mailer Diablo 17:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment- I don't want to fail the Civility test, but I think this user deserves a special exception for exceptional wiki-ing.;). Cheers  :) Dlohcierekim 22:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC) :) Dlohcierekim 04:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Impressive contributions tempered by scarily uncivil edit summary below = Neutral. Rockpocket (talk) 06:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral Best of luck; I can't support and won't oppose. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 15:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral, more or less per Rockpocket, though I'm leaning very slightly toward support. Obviously, Rob is a very capable and knowledgeable user, and I don't think that admin tools would be abused. However, I do believe that the civility concerns are legitimate, and, taken in the context of being an admin, might give some less thick-skinned users a bad impression. — TKD::Talk 00:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral, leaning towards support. Pretty much exactly what TKD said. --kingboyk 19:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. neutral as per above. Would love to vote support, but some of the comments raised by the oppose contingent are a bit too clear-cut for me to wholeheartedly add a support vote. Grutness...wha? 02:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Weak Support per Rory096.Voice-of-AllTalk 17:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed from support.Voice-of-AllTalk 04:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral Eh... I'm not too sure, so Neutral it is. If he succeeds, I recommend watching him closely for 2 weeks to a month. (Hopefully, that was ok to say.) --Shultz IV 07:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral. Valuable to Wikipedia either as an editor or admin. Not quite ready to support, but he does seem to need the tools. GChriss 22:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral. Valuable to Wikipedia as an editor and more :) Dlohcierekim 13:31, 27 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]
  2. 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]

<...discussion continued on Talk page>

Hmm, I typically find that Rob Churches "angry" comments are more of the "letting off steam" variety rather than that there's actual anger or malice behind them. So I'm slightly less worried about incivility, looking at his comments in context. Sure he uses rude wording from time to time. But there's no attitude of biting people behind it. If such an attitude were there I'd oppose in a trice, but it's not, and thank goodness for that. :-) Kim Bruning 09:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In other news. I think people should be forgiven for things that happened 3+ months ago, else we would need to recommend that all people failing Requests for Admininship should quit and return under a different nick. (The editcountitis not-so-cabal ;-) support at around 3 months and 1500 edits, after all) Kim Bruning 09:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that the margin for approval was much higher at the start with almost everyone supporting the promotion (82:9 prior to my vote which is over 90% in favour). But recently, its been much more even (17:20 against). I'm not sure why this is, but could it be that people who deal with RC the most heard about the poll first, and voted first, and support him? Relative strangers like me, with a more superficial knowledge of the candidate are more critical, on the basis of a handful of possibly unrepresentative quotes. Or could it be that when people look more deeply, they are more likely to be opposed. Stephen B Streater 08:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose votes are far more contagious than support, so they aggregate after a delay. If someone digs out a snappy edit summary, then opposers begin to pile-on (of course everybody is entitled to their opinion, AGF, etc.). RfA candidates are generally scrutinized heavily. Opposing seems to be the default human reaction (that's why selling stuff is so difficult). Also admins seem to be taken as half-gods on this wiki. Nevertheless, there are half-gods without the sysop bit. A good thing would be to split off the blocking feature from adminship (admin-light). Not every admin wants/needs to be a blocker. And this is the most controversial feature of sysophood. (Permission to move this post to the talk page is hereby granted) --Ligulem 09:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Personaly I'm not so worried by the edit summary as by his answer "I try to avoid "just losing it", but like any other human, of course I'm prone to from time to time". He is not offering to change. Quite honest I think, but am I happy with admins losing it? I have a more detached view of WP and haven't "lost it." But I know how frustrating people can be - people often get frustrated with me ;-) But overall, the older abuse of power is the important thing to me. Perhaps RC can avoid controversy in future, as it would be bad for WP if every decision was challenged with an ad hominem attack "We know what you're like". (Permission to move my posts here to the talk page is hereby granted). Stephen B Streater 09:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Username Robchurch
Total edits 5926
Distinct pages edited 3168
Average edits/page 1.871
First edit 18:43, July 1, 2005
 
(main) 1672
Talk 491
User 551
User talk 1176
Image 39
Image talk 5
MediaWiki 1
MediaWiki talk 7
Template 57
Template talk 23
Category 7
Category talk 2
Wikipedia 1703
Wikipedia talk 192
 G.He 23:48, 23 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)

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]
Remember to remain civil, deeceevoice. There's nothing to indicate Church fibbed, or even had any motive to fib, about your screeching email. Justforasecond 21:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"What was on this page was all lies and fabrication, insofar as what I claimed she'd said...." -- Robchurch. deeceevoice 21:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At worst it was a misunderstanding. But maybe he completely understood: "The email I sent her might have been polite; her response might have been less than desirable. But of course, what I'd failed to consider was her take on things - email is not at all a suitable mechanism for interpersonal communications, in fact, nothing electronic is - and so the potential for the misunderstanding was there from the moment I clicked Send in the first place." Justforasecond 15:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Dragon695 08:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(for clarification CSD is Candidates for Speedy Deletion, TfD is Templates for Deletion, and T1 is the first criterion for speedy deletion of templates)
1. What is your take on WP:CSD T1?
2. Given their controversial nature and in an effort to nurture a more positive atomosphere, should userboxes which might be violating policy be placed in WP:TfD even if they might qualify for WP:CSD T1?
These questions violate WP:WOTTA. Would you care to bring them up to conformance? <innocent look> Kim Bruning 09:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes one must choose between WP:WOTTA and WP:GAL ;-). NoSeptember talk 09:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was a tough choice, indeed. I finally went with WOTTA, as that seemed to be the shinier of the two at the time. Kim Bruning 10:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get involved in the user self-identification template deletion issues. Rob Church (talk) 22:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I note you were careful not to use the word "userbox" :) – Gurch 17:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Robchurch_4&oldid=1145854394"