Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Robert McClenon 2

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.

Robert McClenon

[edit]

(talk page) Final (66/76/22); ended 10:15, 4 September 2017 (UTC) - Withdrawn by candidate SoWhy 10:15, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

[edit]

Robert McClenon (talk · contribs) – Robert McClenon is one of those editors that you were probably surprised that he did not already have a mop. Speaking of tenure, Robert has been with Wikipedia since July 2005, and has been consistently active every month since returning in April 2013 with more than 76,000 edits. I first encountered Robert when I was patrolling CSD, and I noticed how consistently accurate he is, with one of the more impressive CSD records that shows a firm grasp of policy.

His presence as an active volunteer can be found in almost everywhere: dispute resolution, the help desk, the teahouse, articles for creation and more. While Robert is not the strongest editor in content creation, his record as a copyeditor is more than solid. His wide knowledge and approachable manner has been helpful to both new and experienced editors, including myself. The kind of patience he has in working with thousands (literally) of new editors is quite astounding. In all of these areas where Robert is actively involved, there is no doubt in my mind that the tools will make him an even better contributor to this project. For these reasons, I am proud to present him for the consideration of this community. Alex ShihTalk 04:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accepted. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC) I am willing to withdraw at this point. I will be preparing a statement. I appreciate the well-meaning advice to take standard advice and come back in six months or one year after having become a different editor than I am. I don't plan to do that. I will say, in advance of my statement, that I am aware that some of my ideas are in an honorable minority in the community, and that I don't plan to change them much, at least not because other editors disagree. I thank those editors who supported me, and I thank those editors who are giving me well-meaning advice, but, to the extent that the advice is to become a younger and different editor, I don't think that I will. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: If I am selected as an administrator, I will focus largely on quality control, which (unfortunately) has to be done largely by the deletion of crud, that is, pages that have no place in Wikipedia. As an editor I have done this by New Page Patrol, by tagging articles for speedy deletion, proposed deletion, and deletion after discussion. As an administrator, I plan to help keep the backlog of speedy deletion nominations down, and occasionally by closing deletion discussions. However, I plan to be conservative with regard to speedy deletion, and will decline uncertain nominations. (I have tried to avoid making uncertain nominations, and I think my CSD record speaks for that.) Uncertain CSD nominations can be sent to AFD. I would like to continue working on quality control, that is, crud removal, as an administrator. I will do my best to keep my own moderate deletionist views from getting in the way of following the will of the community. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
B: Another administrative task that I will take is reviewing WP:ANI and WP:AN discussions and closing them, especially ones that have dragged on.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I think that my best recent contributions to Wikipedia have been in the areas of conflict resolution and of New Page Patrol.
B: I have done a good job of copy-editing.
C: I have done a good job of creating disambiguation pages when they have been needed.
D: In conflict resolution, I think that I have done a good job of staying neutral when possible but of being sure that Wikipedia policy and guidelines were followed. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Occasionally I have been subject to personal attacks. Usually those have been in already public places, rather than on my talk page, and I have preferred to let other editors respond. I have occasionally had to report conduct at WP:ANI. I don't think that I have ever lost my temper to the point where I returned the personal attacks. I certainly hope that I can keep my cool. If I become an administrator, I will remember not to use the block button when involved.
B: One stress has been having closes of Requests for Comments challenged, sometimes by someone who said that they wanted to insert a statement (and I think that they deliberately waited until it was closed). I have sometimes raised the issue at WP:AN if I wanted the close endorsed, or have told the challenging editor to go to WP:AN.
C: I have been involved in a few heated Articles for Deletion discussions. I have requested attention at WP:AN. I don't recall losing my cool.
D: I have sometimes been hassled by editors whose pages I either declined at Articles for Creation or tagged for speedy deletion. I have referred them to one or more of the Teahouse, deletion review, or WP:AN.
E: In summary, I have dealt with conflicts by referring them to the community rather than personalizing the dispute. I hope to continue to do so. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Additional question from Everymorning
4. Your first RFA, back in 2006, was unsuccessful. What have you learned since then to demonstrate that you are qualified for adminship now, especially given that the standards for it are significantly higher now than they were then?
A:I waited until several admins said that I was ready to be an admin. I have more experience in various areas, including New Page Patrol, which I see as a quality control function of keeping Wikipedia free of crud, and in keeping my cool when dealing with contentious editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Frank
5. Your answer to question 1 is detailed and specific. I am concerned that your actions do not match the intentions stated in that answer. In particular, you answered ...I plan to be conservative with regard to speedy deletion, and will decline uncertain nominations. (I have tried to avoid making uncertain nominations, and I think my CSD record speaks for that.) Uncertain CSD nominations can be sent to AFD., but I find the following CSD/PROD requests to be far from certain (sorry, admins only):
Golazin ardestani (A7, with the text her expertise in playing the piano, dulcimer, dammam (Persian percussion) and the flute and debut single, “Miri” has already received over 2,000,000 listens, and her latest single “Booseh” has been played more than 800,000 times in less than a month
Indecisas (PROD, your comment was: Incomprehensible after machine translation. No references. Not worth waiting two weeks to get rid of.).
Envoy Textiles Limited (A7, containing the following text: Introducing rope dyeing denim for the first time, now the largest denim fabric producing unit in Bangladesh, and achieved ISO 9001: 14001 quality certification)
These edits occurred within the last 24 hours, and represent only about 10% of the deleted edits, but still...they raise concerns. I do not in any way assert that the articles met criteria for creation, but I am concerned that the deletion rationales were...questionable...and that in so doing, we risk driving away potential contributors quickly and permanently.
My question is this: Can you reconcile your answer to Q1 with the deletion requests I outlined? Examples of articles you sent to AFD/PROD when they were previously nominated as CSD would be helpful here, but feel free to answer in any way you see fit.
A:First, in general, I will admit to having a prejudice (that is, a tendency to prejudge) stubs with no references, unless they make an ipso facto case for notability. I am willing to accept that as something that I should be aware of and work on. Second, I will specifically defend most nominations for PROD or CSD of anything that isn't in English. I don't think that we should wait two weeks to get rid of non-English pages, but I am aware that is policy, so I will try to help the non-English pages along. Third, I probably should have left the musician alone or taken her to AFD. Fourth, I still think that I have been conservative in making CSD nominations, and I will be even more conservative in deleting CSD nominations. Fifth, I didn't say that I am conservative about PROD. As an admin, I will be sure that all expired PRODs have really been there for a week. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from GeneralizationsAreBad
6. Do you have any interest in getting involved in arbitration enforcement? Why or why not?
A.Arbitration enforcement is an extremely useful administrative function, and it works better than WP:ANI for conduct issues that are within its scope. However, I would prefer not to be one of the admins working it because it is stressful and unpleasant. I could be persuaded to work it, but it would not be my first or second choice. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Additional questions from Callmemirela
7. If you were involved in a content dispute but found something actionable as an admin, what would you do? Callmemirela 🍁 talk 04:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A.This question seems to be about what I would do if I had a strong opinion in the content dispute but also saw a conduct issue by one of the parties. I would write up the dispute to the extent necessary and recuse from administrative action, and let another admin deal with any need for sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
8. If a long-standing user were to be involved in an dispute/edit war, what are your approaches to settle it as a neutral admin? Callmemirela 🍁 talk 04:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A.In general, I would prefer to handle content disputes and edit wars by short-term protection to encourage discussion rather than by blocks, and I would protect the page and see if I or someone else could mediate the content dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Linguist111
9. A series of articles are tagged with {{db-a7}}. The articles are all unreferenced, and each one contains one of the following statements and nothing else. Which ones would you delete, and which nominations would you decline (let's say all the statements are true)?
  • [Name] is a former contestant on Asia's Next Top Model, where she finished in 5th place. *Decline. Credible claim of significance.
  • [Name] is a rapper. *Delete. Not a CCS.
  • [Name] disappeared two weeks ago and was found alive yesterday. *Delete. As such, not a CCS.
  • [Name] disappeared four months ago, her body was found last Wednesday. *Decline. Probably a WP:BLP1CRIME, but can discuss at AFD.
  • [Name] died yesterday, would have turned 100 tomorrow. *Decline. Might be a CCS.
  • [Name] appeared on The World's Strictest Parents. *Decline. CCS.
A: See above. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Casliber
10. You mention conflict resolution above as an example of something you've accomplished here on Wikipedia. Can you please report some conflicts you think you helped resolve?
A:
Additional question from Linguist111
11. From your PROD log, which you started earlier this month, many of your PRODs contain reasons along the lines of "No references", "No indication of notability", "No text", "Not neutral", "Too little information", "No context" and "No encyclopaedic content". Do you look for references before PRODing articles or just base your reasoning on the content in the article? LinguistunEinsuno 17:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A:I do not do a Google search before PROD'ing an article. If an article has no text or no references, I think that it is up to the originator to provide the text or the references. Part of the nature of PROD is that anyone can remove it. I take a PROD, when I tag it, as a statement that the article, in its current state, is not encyclopedic. It can be encyclopedic, and the PROD removed, if the missing references or text are added. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:21, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Gerda
12. What would you do about this deletion request? (version when asking the question)
A: User:Gerda Arendt - There is something wrong with it as I see it. I don't see a reference to the previous deletion discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:21, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
True. Imagine there was. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:29, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the nominator saw this question and answer. The link is now there, and MfD started. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:05, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reminder: the answer so far was good for staying neutral. You could win my support if you looked a little deeper. (Warning: my support could attract more opposes, so perhaps better leave it as is.) My first article ever was deleted in minutes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from WereSpielChequers
13. Your answer to q2 doesn't give any examples of you adding referenced content, and I'm not clear from the rest of your responses whether you follow wp:Before or not. But like many here I regard the adding of referenced content as a skill that I expect all RFA candidates to have demonstrated. Can you give some examples where you have added referenced material to the pedia?
A:
Additional questions from John Cline
14. Do you believe a list class article, a category with objective inclusion criteria, and a navigation template, each having nearly identical content, are complementary pages where each have a rightful place in Wikipedia, or do you feel they would be excessively redundant where the existence of one type makes the others superfluous and unnecessary?
A:
15. Based on your answer to Q14, do you agree with the quasi deletion reflected by this edit, (why or why not)?
A:
Additional question from Power~enwiki
16. Rather than a theoretical question, I'll give you a practical one: how would you respond to this AfD. (you can just post a diff here)
A:
Additional question from Anoptimistix
2. Assume there are two users A and B (both are established users) A has been involved in disputes with B previously. B has 100 started articles to his credit, A takes all articles of B at Afd with an intention of wikihounding and clear case of gaming the system, As as an administrator who has to take a final call of delete or not what would you do ? Whether you would mind to check the contribution history of Afd nominators or not, to check whether they are involved in disputes with page creator or significant contributor of that article or not, and what would be your response in such cases ?
A:

Discussion

[edit]
RfAs for this user:

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.


Support
[edit]
  1. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:20, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Trustworthy, clueful, committed to the project in the difficult area of AfC and NPP. I have encountered Robert for some time at MfD, especially where he would come for assistance with tendentious resubmissions of unsuitable topics. As noted multiple times in passing, the ability to review AfC contributors' deleted contributions would be extremely useful for him. Robert displays fair leadership at AfC, and I think giving him adminship is overdue.
    Robert appears to me to be being slammed for knee-jerk CSD tagging and PRODding, and to a lesser extent of rough diplomacy. Fair criticism I suppose, and something to be learned from. However, I think that it is a result of the conditioning of excessive work at AfC, where the shovelling of so much crud can only be desensitising. I find it difficult to bear. I think Robert deserves a little more leeway. It is not as if I am seeing actual rudeness to someone undeserving, or tagging of topics due to personal bias. It would be great if all deletion nominators worked through WP:BEFORE, not doing so is a common failing.
    Work in DR is commendable. Again, too much work in a difficult area can be desensitising. I would recommend that Robert spend more time in an area less swamped with newcomers and problem editors, before trying RfA again. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support As nominator. Alex ShihTalk 23:24, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support: Experienced and responsible; excellent candidate. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 23:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Over a decade since the first RfA - wow. The candidate is active in areas where they would benefit from using the admin bit, and I think they can be trusted to use it well given their track record. Full support, and thanks for volunteering! -- Ajraddatz (talk) 23:45, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Long term experienced user has been editing since 2005 with over 76K edits last RFA was in 2006 with clean block log .Feel the project will only gain with the user having tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Absolutely no concerns after reviewing this users history and I have seen them around. Good luck! -- Dane talk 23:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Seen them around too, fine worker, I remember that excellent Washington DC article quite some time ago now.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:52, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support no concerns. One of our best users. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Since this is currently in the discretionary range, and I hope it doesn't go below it, I will expand on my thoughts should this go to a 'crat chat. My criteria for adminship are quite simple: have a clue and don't be a jerk. Robert clearly passes both. I actually was swayed a bit by SoWhy's post here, but then I looked at Robert's CSD log (which he just recently turned on). I probably have a reputation for being pretty strict on my inclusion criteria for articles, but I actually feel pretty strongly about not tagging an article for deletion the minute of creation, and I have through personal experience seen articles Robert has probably tagged too quickly or made a call I personally wouldn't be comfortable with. Despite my strong views on spam and the like, I actually have relatively conservative views on A7 and G11 deletion and am fairly quick to point that out to newcomers who come to NPP seeking to purge the "crud".
    At the same time, Robert has over 400 CSD nominations in August alone, and has reviewed over 650 new pages in that time frame. He is going to make mistakes. Hell, he's even given me an accidental G12 nomination in the past and to some degree lectured me when I tried to explain to him it was a redirect that someone else had copied and pasted content into. But you know what? He admitted he was wrong when it was pointed out to him. He's always willing to do this. He most emphatically passess my not a jerk standard, which is perhaps the most important one: people who are very active editors are going to make a ton of mistakes. That's just how life is. On NPP, you'll probably make more than you will elsewhere in the project. The question is how does he react when these mistakes are pointed out. I haven't seen evidence he would ignore people pointing mistakes out to him or do anything other than comply with the letter and spirit of ADMINACCT. I hope others take this into account, and I urge him not to withdraw at this time or at any point that it seems reasonable that he'll get to a 'crat chat. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I do agree with the last part, what really counts is not "not making mistakes" but learning from them. Unfortunately, we have to disagree whether the candidate has shown the ability to do the latter. Admitting you were wrong is a good first step but you also need to show that you won't make the same mistake again. There I see the problem. Think about it: He himself started a discussion on WP:VPP about how BITE applies to NPP just 10 days ago. He got feedback that following BITE is still important because oftentimes good-faith new editors are "caught in the net". And then he goes and adds another tag 2 minutes after creation to an article while it was still in creation. I wish I could share your assessment of his ability to learn but the contributions I have seen do not support this. I'd be happy to be proven wrong though. Regards SoWhy 14:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. I finally arrived at an RfA where I genuinely thought the candidate was already an admin. Good luck! -- Tavix (talk) 00:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support A stalwart of great experience and productivity. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support per nomination, no concerns and the first time in years I've been able to appropriately link to User:Dominic/RFA cliché no. 1. Thryduulf (talk) 00:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support I'm so happy to see an RFA candidate with Robert's depth of knowledge and his temperament to use that knowledge constructively on the project. For instance, I've taken note that even though he's one of our most experienced New Page Patrollers, if ever he encounters an ambiguous situation, he doesn't hesitate to bring it other reviewers for input (see Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers and archives for examples). That kind of thoughtful, consensus-seeking manner would be a great addition to the admin corps. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support I've seen this user around in AFC/NPP, and he's always done an excellent job. – Train2104 (t • c) 00:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support, level-headed, no-dramah editor with prodigious experience. GABgab 01:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support lots of great work at AFc/NPP. No reservations here. Legacypac (talk) 01:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Support, seems qualified and experienced. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC) withdraw support, not opposing, just not supporting. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support, very level headed from what I've seen. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support - Robert has consistently impressed me as thoughtful, considerate, and knowledgeable. I have no doubt that he would make a fine admin.- MrX 01:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support: I believe Robert will continue to benefit the project if given the tools, and I have no concerns that he would abuse them. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support: I too also figured he was already an admin given his competence. Very helpful editor, seem him around doing fantastic things. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 02:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Support: Robert's work at the DRN demonstrates that he is exactly the kind of editor who should be an admin. Cjhard (talk) 02:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC) Withdrawing support, based on McClenon's refusal to either continue participating in the process or withdraw the request for adminship. Cjhard (talk) 00:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support: I support this qualified candidate, he had done exemplary work at New Pages Patrol Anoptimistix "Message Me" 02:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Strong Support A core requirement for admins is to handle conflicts and mediate. Robert has that experience in bucketloads. Blackmane (talk) 02:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Strong support primarily because of the candidate's experience with dispute resolution. Model candidate. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  02:38, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Net positive. ceranthor 02:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC) Recusing. ceranthor 17:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. I'm surprised Robert isn't already an admin based on his contributions around the project, which makes this an easy support for me. ~ Rob13Talk 02:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Candidates years of experience on Wkipedia as well as other support reasons mentioned from other editors. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 04:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Weak Support – No major problems; easily experienced. J947(c) (m) 05:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed my !vote to weak due to opposers' concerns and the fact that he doesn't do reference checks before PRODing. J947(c) (m) 18:39, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support I run into Robert's work all over the place and have never found anything that I even mildly disagree with. He has my full support. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 05:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support For reasons already mentioned by others.Wanli33 (talk) 05:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support, clearly a huge help to the project and a net positive. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support I've seen the oppose comments but feel they're too harsh and don't credit the work don't by Robert over the past so many years. To be fair, I myself have interacted with Robert on the opposing sides, disagreeing with a few prods of his; (for example, I would have preferred that instead of prodding first and checking later, Rob does some review of sources before prodding articles like: Eisoptrophobia, Hathazari Degree College, Boomerang Beach, Brooks-British Range tundra, and others). Having said that, he's contributed here for so many years and has excellently contributed to this project. In my opinion, trustworthy to use the tools. Lourdes 06:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support - An administrator who works to improve the quality of the encyclopedia is an administrator I can get behind.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Learning doesn't stop when you get the mop - Robert displays the clue required to know when to use the bit, and when to ask for help. The oppose !votes don't raise anything which couldn't be quickly rectified -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 07:03, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support- Is experienced and is a good candidate for adminship.  FITINDIA  08:03, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support - I had some productive interactions with Robert. Will be a good admin. - DVdm (talk) 09:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support: Those opposes should be ignored entirely even when the consensus only applies to A1 and A3. Good luck! KGirl (Wanna chat?) 11:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Any particular reason why? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think KGirlTrucker81 is referring to SoWhy's criticisms of speedy A7s to be unfair and out-of-process due to the fact that restraint from immediacy is under the current aplication of policy deemed solely to apply to A1 and A3, with A7 not being merely accidentally overlooked for inclusion but within the criteria, but, rather, discussed and explicitly excluded from it. Thusly making, I imagine, the opposes based on such an interpretation founded on a false premise. Cheers! — fortunavelut luna 12:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And I would suggest that opposers who object to too-speedy A7 nominations (myself included) think that admins should not be blindly following CSD "rules" but should also be able to understand the nuances involved and demonstrate that they can apply the best way to approach possible A7s other than just slapping on a CSD template and hitting the author with a discouraging templated warning. Admin is way more than just applying the rules as written. Being an admin is very much not just a process of rigidly enforcing rules, but is instead being able to balance conflicting ideas for the betterment of the project. We already have too many admins who are blind enforcers. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "Damned if you do and damned if you don't". "Beat and can't hit". Don't follow the rules, and you cannot be an admin – follow the rules, and you cannot be an admin. What a crock this process has become.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  15:26, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support - As has been said, I figured the mop had already been bestowed. A strong candidate who won't break the project IMO.   Aloha27  talk  12:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support as one of our most active and consistent contributors to NPP, AfC, and the Teahouse – areas which in my view are sorely in need of more admin involvement. The opposes point out that his patrolling etc. is not perfect (whose is?), but what I've always admired about Robert is that, despite his considerable experience, he shows no hesitation in asking for a second opinion when he's not sure about something (some examples from just the last few weeks: [1][2][3]). I think this is a more important quality in an admin than never making mistakes. – Joe (talk) 13:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Easy Support. Worked with this editor on many an occasion. The mop's long overdue in this case!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  14:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support - Besides demonstrating knowledge and experience in a very wide variety of fields, this editor is extremely active in a several roles that he could carry out better in an administrative capacity. He seems to have a clear and generally harmless editing philosophy, and his personal views rarely conflict with the more important editing guidelines. Perhaps most importantly, his attitude is becoming of an administrator. Inatan (talk) 14:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Has a clue. Is an adult. Is not a jerk. strong supporter of the project across multiple area. No concerns about entrusting him with admin tools. David in DC (talk) 15:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support I greatly appreciate Robert's activity in the new pages feed. I'm surprised by the nitpicking over a small handful of CSD issues while ignoring the massive numbers of good CSD decisions. I have full faith that he can make wonderful contributions to Wikipedia as an admin. PureRED | talk to me | 15:50, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support I have observed Robert's tireless work in AfC and NPP and the time he takes to help out new editors (quite the opposite of the biting those opposing allege); especially due to the number of patrols he does there will be some errors; I see no evidence that this error rate is particularly high. It is also worth noting that his visible contributions are skewed by the fact that AfC drafts can be G13ed and Robert does a lot of work in the draftspace. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support We can only truly measure the ability of someone as an admin when they are an admin. The rest is fear, uncertainty and doubt. Let's give it a go. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 17:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support because Wikipedia needs more active administrators, and this user is a net positive. kennethaw88 • talk 20:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Meh, weak support. Even after we take away the seven years when Robert was inactive, he still has a Wikipedia tenure of five years. I struggle to see why anyone would think this isn't long enough. I do have some reservations about the consistency of his judgement regarding the quality of new content required to pass patrolling and speedy-deletion processes, but I think we're unduly harsh on him in this RfA. Deryck C. 20:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support I understand where the opposes are coming from, and get SoWhy's logic (took me a while!) but I really can't see errors in CSD tags as a reason to oppose an RfA. I prefer to focus on the stellar work that the editor has done at DRN and the obvious commitment to the project itself. The rest will take care of itself. --regentspark (comment) 21:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Reiterating support. I think the oppose !voters (and recent RfAs - if this doesn't scare away potential admins then I don't know what will) make too big a deal of CSD tagging. It is much easier to tag something then it is to delete and everyone grows into the amdin role. We also make too big a deal of the power that admins have here - nothing that anyone does on Wikipedia is not correctable. Robert McClenon is a well meaning editor who thanklessly (as this RfA clearly demonstrates) tires away in DR and little else should matter. --regentspark (comment) 18:11, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Level headed, has made great contributions to NPP and in WP space, especially DR. Sensitive to the abuse of WP for advocacy which is the problem that bedevils us the most. In my view folks are overplaying the speedy nominations; nominating is one thing, actually making the deletion call is another altogether. Jytdog (talk) 21:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support Probably just a moral support at this stage. I don't really have much to do with speedy deletions so don't feel qualified enough to make a call on that aspect. Enough editors who are familiar with this area have brought it up so I am happy to defer to their judgement in this area. However, I have seen Robert around and am having trouble imagining how giving him the tools is going to exacerbate any of the problems (real or imagined) we already face. AIRcorn (talk) 22:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Don't know the user, but more admins is always a good thing imho. FACE WITH TEARS OF JOY [u+1F602] 01:49, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support, Robert seems OK to me, and we need more admins. Dan Koehl (talk) 10:55, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support Robert is not an expert of CSD. Nobody who has not actually performed at least 10,000 speedy deletions is. However he has enough mastery of the basics of Wikipedia deletion – and is overall trustworthy – to be allowed to start practising it for real. jni (delete)...just not interested 18:33, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support - one of our best editors. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support - Great editor and very fair. His speed is incredible. PressAllocation(smalltalk) 19:40, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support - without doubt, a net positive for the project. With care not to discourage new editors, Robert should make an excellent administrator. Poltair (talk) 21:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Recently involved in a dispute on the DR/N, which Robert undertook, and handled rather well, I thought. Well worth a shot. scope_creep (talk) 12:00, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Scope creep: Could you please point it out to me/us/anyone interested? As the ones I saw I found his responses often...unhelpful. But I would love to be proven wrong. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This is it: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution_noticeboard/Archive 155#Talk:Dan_Wagner.23Non consensus based update to article The problem was regarding the inclusion of the statement: Dan Wagner was the founder of British eCommerce in the lede of the Dan Wagner article, which was proven false, mainly by a search for evidence I completed, and the work of several other excellent editors who kicked up a stink. Of course it was false, but the forms had to be observed. The DRN process was conducted quite well, and the correct decision was reached. The filing editor had the gall to try and subvert written history, which had been summarized in a timeline at E-commerce and of course the real facts were all over the shop, and the filing editor was subverting established fact. As regards the nominee, I think he would make an excellent admin. Why not. I don't know him that well, but why is there uproar around the fact hes been away for several years? So what. It is a strictly volunteer effort, and there is no definition in the word: Volunteer, which asserts the person must be attendant on a regular period, and it is certainly no basis for withholding the mop, as had been discussed many, many times in previous RFA discussions. scope_creep (talk) 15:34, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    okay, that's cool. I was a little dismayed at the tone of his posts there but if you were cool with that then point taken. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:21, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support - Awesome editor! Adityavagarwal (talk) 14:06, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support largely on grounds of temperament. He is a model of patience and helpfulness at Dispute Resolution, for which I nominated him for Editor of the Week a few months ago. He has also worked extensively at the Help Desk and the Teahouse. We can always use another administrator with conflict-resolution skills. --MelanieN (talk) 17:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't believe you would support somebody who wrote "I do not [emphasis mine] do a Google search before PROD'ing an article." Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:25, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support - David Gerard (talk) 19:47, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support What's the worst that can happen??? I would always support someone who actually wants this responsibility, after all, it's "not a big deal" - Jimmy Wales. The English Wikipedia has no official requirements to become a Wikipedia administrator. Anyone can request adminship ("RFA") from the community, regardless of their Wikipedia experience. SethWhales talk 19:56, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So, you think that giving a user tools that allow them to, among other things, physically stop other users from editing and perform the deletion of a page in a way irreversible by most editors (non-admins), is not a big deal? LinguistunEinsuno 20:29, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, "Not a big deal"...Administrators are no better or more important than other users. And if someone objects to being blocked or an article deleted, the user can always use other channels, such as request for article to be undeleted and appealing a block. SethWhales talk 20:47, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, no user is better of more important than other, but admin tools are very powerful. Non-admins can request unblocks and undeletions, but can't perform them themselves. If it's "no big deal", why don't we just give all users and IPs adminship? LinguistunEinsuno 21:00, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not, if the forms are observed, and a sufficient process is put in place to validate the editor, instead of this; trawling up the same arguments every RFA. If the person is responsible and passes the standard, i.e. reasoned and reasonable with sufficient time, in every corner. Certainly this process is no guarantee of success. scope_creep (talk) 21:47, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support His maturity and experience are such that I believe he would be an asset to the project as an administrator. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support The Opposes don't convince me. L3X1 (distænt write) 21:47, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to point that while I wholeheartedly disagree with the response to Q11, I don't hold it against Robert because many other editors and admins operate in the same manner. Do your (speaking in the generic, not directy to Robert) B4 before doing anything, whether CSD, PROD or AFD. If I find out that the subject is notable, I will decline every PROD and A7 I see to that effect. WP:DIY exists for a reason. If you don't want to add a source or a CCS to a clearly notable subject, then leave it to the next person. Again, I'm not holding this against Robert, because it is a common worldview I have seen here on Wikipedia. L3X1 (distænt write) 13:56, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support Robert is a fine fellow who has done much good work here. I'm sure he would be fine with the mop. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:52, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support Robert will do absolutely fine with the admin controls - and his work on AFC is appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garchy (talk • contribs) 01:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support Should be less of a mistake than giving me a mop. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:17, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support The cleanup task is an important issue and the lack of content creation from the candidate should not be an issue here. The candidate is experienced and both capable and willing to do the job, I say aye. Fbergo (talk) 18:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support I don't think quality of CSD tagging should be a bar to the mop. There is a very substantial difference between tagging something for consideration by an admin and considering, as an admin, whether to delete it. I think Robert has the self-awareness and maturity to be aware of this difference and to carry out deletion in accordance with the norms of the community, not his own opinion. And in many other ways he is a great candidate; his gentleness and patience on admin board over many years are an example and even many of those opposing speak well of his dispute resolution skills. I think the community is missing an opportunity here. GoldenRing (talk) 22:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The trouble is that tagging something for consideration by an admin also has community norms, and I don't exactly see Robert acting very much in accordance with them – hence the opposes. So I am concerned that if his definition of "crud" differs from the community's, which seems to be true, he might do likewise, and that is what lands me in the opposition. I agree that he appears to be a great candidate in many other areas, but it doesn't change the fact that I don't really trust him with the delete button based on his actions and statements. Double sharp (talk) 23:48, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @GoldenRing: I'm genuinely intrigued by your reasoning, so please allow me this question: How else if not by judging their ability to follow policies as a non-admin can the community assess how a candidate will follow them as an admin? More specific to this case, how can you be sure that Robert will handle deleting articles differently than tagging them, considering he already admitted (especially in his answer to Q11) that he does not think he should follow policy when it doesn't suit him? Regards SoWhy 07:13, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @SoWhy: This risks turning into an essay, but...
    IRL I sometimes have to hire people. My experience is that recruitment agents and HR personnel like to justify their existence by compiling a mile-long list of requirements that the candidate must meet and then filtering any CVs that come in to remove any that don't specifically address everything in the requirements. This is a first-class way of selecting people who have lied on their CVs in order to get an interview but a very rotten way of finding someone who will actually be good at the job. My particular field is industrial control systems. I don't want someone who has developed control systems for three facilities that are identical to the one I'm working on right now in every way, though this is what recruitment people usually think I want. What I want is someone who can demonstrate a basic grasp of mechanics (asking how to calculate power from torque and angular velocity seems to be a fairly reliable way of gauging this), can talk convincingly about how closed-loop feedback control works, has demonstrated some competence with software in some related domain and — by far most importantly — has demonstrated that they can learn something new, accept they don't know everything and looks for new and better ways of doing things.
    I think RfA has fallen into the same trap as my HR people. By looking for perfect candidates, we turn away some great candidates and hire some pretty mediocre people who happen to tick whatever set of boxes is in fashion this year. What I'm looking for in an RfA candidate is someone who is good at getting along with people, gentle with people except when absolutely necessary and willing to admit they don't know everything and learn. Someone who understands the culture of how Wikipedia works (or is supposed to work) and has demonstrated they can walk that walk. I think Robert has this in spades, hence my support.
    Are his CSD taggings out of step with policy? Yes. Does he understand that, and that he needs to work on it? Yes. Do I think his first action on gaining the bit will be to go on a deletion spree contrary to policy? No. I therefore don't see the (legitimate) CSD tagging problem identified below as a bar to adminship. Some of the opposes seem based on the assumption that, because Robert is something of a deletionist, his "real" motivation for wanting the mop is so he can delete piles of stuff he's been itching to get his hands on for years but no admin would delete for him. I think he has demonstrated, over many years, a degree of clue and trustworthiness that should make anyone opposed on those grounds ashamed of themselves. If the crats think this is simply to much for the !voting section of an RfA, please move it somewhere appropriate. GoldenRing (talk) 08:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the answer. Interesting analogy but I wonder whether it actually fits. After all, RfA is less like hiring someone for the first time and more like considering whether to promote someone who already worked at your company for quite some time. I can't imagine you wouldn't make that decision based their past performance, would you? As for the candidate in question, the answer to Q11 is imho more problematic and he has repeatedly stated on his talk page that he considers changing his approach akin to changing who he is and thus won't do it, so I have to disagree with you on the expectations. Regards SoWhy 09:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @SoWhy: Perhaps. It all seem a bit academic at this point, anyway. GoldenRing (talk) 10:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support Anybody browsing random articles can see how much needs to be deleted for WP to maintain quality and credibility. I wouldn't mind if Robert did nothing else for the rest of his life Bluehotel (talk)
Oppose
[edit]
  1. Oppose I suppose someone has to go first. I am concerned about the inaccuracies in deletion tagging highlighted by User:Frank above, but more than that I am concerned by the disconnect between your content creation and your stated goal of "deletion of crud". In your user page, you currently list 13 articles you've created throughout your tenure in Wikipedia. Of those 13, one has since been deleted from mainspace, one is a redirect, and one is a disambiguation page. Of all of the remaining 10 articles, I do not see a single one that is other than, stub, start, or unassessed. I do not see any indication on your user page that you have contributed to any good or featured content, nor do you or your nominator highlight any in this nomination. While I have no doubt that the praise others have lavished on you in other areas is accurate, I want any admin candidate who opens with an overt deletionist charter to have demonstrated the skills to drive content to at least the good article level, and in doing so worked through the effort required to achieve that milestone. Had you not stated that deletion of crud was the raison d'etre for this nomination, I would probably not oppose. I wish you the best; I just don't want you to have the delete button until you've gone through the pain of getting something to GA or FL status. Jclemens (talk) 05:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Weak content creation with not a single specific example provided in Q2. Checking out his work is difficult because AfC activity means that he gets the credit for the work of other editors. All I'm finding are weak stubs like Fidelity Union Life Insurance Company. And I'm not convinced that he's much good as a patroller. For example, he just prodded a foreign language article. Prod is the wrong process to be using for newly created pages. In this case, it should have been tagged for speedy deletion per WP:A2, as it's a copy of a page in the Tamil Wikipedia. Andrew D. (talk) 05:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Regretful oppose The candidate has been very active in the last three years although being a Wikipedian since 2005 is somewhat misleading because as soon as his first RFA failed, he stopped editing for seven years. I also encountered the candidate when patrolling CSD but my impression was, unfortunately, the opposite of Alex Shih's. Of the 15 taggings within the last few months I personally declined, 10 still exist today in one form or another. I know I was recently chided for somehow having too strict standards when it comes to speedy deletion, i.e. the right of admins to delete articles on sight without any discussion, so I will limit my examples to taggings that I think most people can agree were seriously problematic:
    The same pattern of behavior can be found in the CSD log the nominator linked to (and which only covers the last two weeks):
    And some examples from before he turned on the logging:
    New page patrolling is an area that requires some nerves and patience and anyone working there is to be commended for their dedication. Which is why I won't admonish anyone for making some mistakes. But NPP is also the area most new editors first encounter other editors and thus where the BITE-risks are highest. And many new editors, trying to create a new article based on what they have seen, building it step-by-step, will become disillusioned and leave when within minutes of their first edit someone slaps a tag on the page that basically looks like Wikipedia’s version of “game over”. And so no one will probably be surprised to learn that some of the creators of the pages I mentioned above have not edited since. That the articles even in their unfinished form did not meet the criterion used just adds to the problem. Thus while the candidate promises a conservative approach to speedy deletion, there is nothing in his current approach to suggest that he is capable of that.
    To summarize, the candidate’s willingness to "shoot first and ask questions later" is not what I expect from an admin who are supposed to be careful when handling their responsibilities. Yet, I oppose with some regret because Robert clearly means well and also does a lot of good. If he really manages to moderate his approach and learns to only tag pages for speedy deletion that are clearly completed and clearly meet the criteria for speedy deletion (which does not include any pages that can be handled by WP:ATD, such as articles about a CEO of a notable company or a member of multiple notable bands), I will support any future attempt if this request fails. Regards SoWhy 06:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: Striking parts of my comments based his comments on his talk page and especially the somebody else's problem attitude demonstrated in Q11. It seems clear that the candidate has no intention of changing his behavior despite seeing how the community reacts. That the candidate is unwilling to follow policy when it comes to PROD despite the policy clearly saying that one should "[b]e sure you have a valid reason for deletion" (which does not include things easily fixable) and "consider alternatives to deletion like improving the page, merging or redirecting", shows they are unsuited to be an admin. Policies after all are a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow. If the candidate is unwilling to do so, he disqualifies himself for this role. Regards SoWhy 07:06, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to disagree with your view, but is there a guideline which guides editors to wait for significantly reasonable time before tagging an article with A7? Lourdes 06:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lourdes: Yes, it's called Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers which explicitly includes this section:
    A newcomer may save a tentative first draft to see if they are even allowed to start an article, with plans to expand it if there is no backlash. If, within a few minutes, the article is plastered with cleanup tags, assessed as "stub" or even suggested for deletion, they may give up. It is better to wait a few days to see how a harmless article evolves than to rush to criticise.
    Regards SoWhy 06:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Also, Articles should not be tagged for speedy deletion as having no context (CSD A1) or no content (CSD A3) moments after creation, as not all users will have added full content in their first revision – Special:NewPages. LinguistunEinsuno 06:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. It is better to wait a few days... In my opinion, this is inapplicable and illogical for new page review; I would use common sense to disregard this in A7 tagging. Ten minutes is the general recommended time for only no content and no context; not for A7. So would hope you reconsider at least those statements above where you've disagreed with Robert's A7 tagging in quick time. Lourdes 06:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) @Lourdes: While there is no fixed wait time, all those examples I mentioned a) already failed A7 at the time of tagging and b) were still actively under construction, in most cases obviously so, so I don't see what there is to reconsider. Do you have any specific example you think was a correct tagging? If so, please elaborate. Regards SoWhy 06:39, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    For example, I would prefer that better description be given for a statement like "A7 + cleanup tags within 8 minutes of creation, also clearly still in construction" as this presumes that A7 falls under the 10-minute guidance criteria. If your view is that an A7 tag has been placed on an article that clearly mentioned a credible claim of significance when the tag was placed, then I have no issues with the same. Lourdes 06:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    My view is that both is problematic. Mistagging articles is a problem in general but it's especially a problem if you are doing it to an article that is clearly still in construction. Even if you don't agree with the "wait a few days" part of WP:BITE, I think you can agree that "wait until the creator is finished" sounds like a good guiding principle, no? Regards SoWhy 10:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it does; that's putting it the appropriate way and I would tend to agree with you on that. Thanks. Lourdes 10:36, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There is lots of guidance about this, for example, WP:NPP, "Do not be too hasty to nominate contributions by new editors for deletion if the content is marginally poor. ... Tagging anything other than attack pages, copyvios, vandalism or complete nonsense only a few minutes after creation may stop the creation of a good faith article and drive away a new contributor." Andrew D. (talk) 06:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    For those interested, there was a discussion here about this issue. Alex ShihTalk 06:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "Consensus has developed that in most cases articles should not be tagged for deletion under this criterion moments after creation as the creator may be actively working on the content; though there is no set time requirement, a ten-minute delay before tagging under this criterion is suggested as good practice." This is from the policy page of WP:CSD for no context and no content tagging. I would observe that if ten-minute is the suggested time for A1 and A3, and if A7 has been specifically excluded from the same after quite some arguments on the relevant pages, then A7 does not necessarily qualify under the suggested waiting period criteria. This is not to say that hasty tagging should be promoted; this is just to mention that considering A7 under the same criteria of A1 and A3 is illogical and in my opinion, incorrect. Lourdes 06:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think one needs to understand here is that A1 and A3 are basically criteria that apply to most articles created over many edits and thus waiting will oftentimes remove said eligibility. We don't consider A7 under the same criteria as A1 and A3 because we know that there is no reason to wait iff the article is already clearly completed and failing A7. If someone creates "My new company Blahcorp will someday be the greatest company in the world!", waiting 10-15 minutes won't make the subject more significant. But if they create "Blahcorp is a large company in ...", there might be more to come. Which is why we have WP:BITE: Not a strong rule that you have to wait X minutes before tagging but a guideline that tells you not to tag when the article might still be in creation. Regards SoWhy 12:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. (edit conflict × 5) Oppose. I was very uncomfortable with the candidate's answer to question 5; while it is encouraging that the candidate admits that he could have handled some of his recent CSD and PROD tagging better, I would expect a prospective admin to already have gained a good command of these matters. For the rest, I can do no better than say "per SoWhy". Double sharp (talk) 06:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose I was about to mention the hasty addition of speedy deletion tags on certain articles as well, by SoWhy has already mentioned it. Nevertheless, I still found a few more tags which are questionable, which aren't just A7. This use of A1 is totally false as it identifies the article's topic. Looking at the bottom of the history if this article shows that an A3 tag was added only 15 minutes after creation. This one is very similar but made worse by adding three criteria. AFAIK these were all made within the past 2 months. Goodness, please give these victims a break. Minima© (talk) 07:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose I checked out Robert's contributions a while back and came to the same conclusions as SoWhy. (Also adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Works of Alan Watts to those already listed above). I have also been concerned about the number of times (c. 250) he has posted to User talk:Jimbo Wales, which I tend to find is a time waste. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose strengthened by the answer to Q9, which seemed to give no indication of whether there were sources available for the subject. At the very least, it takes about 30 seconds to paste sources into the talk page and decline the speedy. If you don't look at the article's potential, you can't make an informed decision. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Is that policy? (e.g. doesn't appear to be indicated at Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Procedure_for_administrators.) I mean, I might favor asking for WP:BEFORE-style checks by deleting admins, but as it currently stands I thought A7 was strictly a matter of what's on-wiki. Seems a bit rough to hold against someone failure to know a policy the community hasn't set out as our expectation (unless I'm mistaken about procedure for deleting CSD-nominated articles, which I may be; I really am asking if this is a policy I'm unaware of). Innisfree987 (talk) 01:16, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, there's WP:SOFIXIT, but if you want an actual policy, there's the deletion policy - "If in doubt as to whether there is consensus to delete a page, administrators normally will not delete it." or the editing policy - "Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome." Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:22, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose We have admins who seem to delete speedy requests without further inspection and I'm sure Robert wouldn't do this. However, his judgement about what is an appropriate speedy candidate is seriously misaligned with the CSD criteria and general requirements. In other respects he does very good work and his contributions with advice and in discussions are often helpful – I hope he continues in these ways. Thincat (talk) 08:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose: When I see a familiar username in RFA, I vote strictly based on my previous interaction with the user. I can remember having two main history with Robert. I considered him (through his edits) strange but quite helpful in the first incident. However, in the second one, his assumption of bad faith isn't what I want to see in an admin. I will try to get diff for the first, but the second can be found in the history and edit summaries of Binta International School. If he agrees that he was wrong or someone can engage me in a discussion that his reviews and temperament were appropriate i will withdraw my oppose. For what its worth, the second was after the first incident. Darreg (talk) 08:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong oppose; When a candidate has only 11% of their edits to article space they need to do something extraordinary to convince me they're here for the right reasons, and I'd definitely not seeing that. Someone who explicitly states that their reason for wanting to be an admin is so that they can play judge-jury-and-executioner when it comes to quality control needs to have a demonstrable track record in understanding what Wikipedia's norms are, and there are far too many recent examples of serious competence issues when it comes to assessing whether material ought to be deleted, and absolutely zero evidence that he's ever done any non-trivial content work. I don't expect admins to have written featured articles, but I do expect them to at least have the basic experience of writing something and having it criticized by others so they understand the way editors feel when material on which they've worked in good faith is nominated for deletion or drastically changed. I know this is a harsh thing to say, but you've given me no reason at all to trust you and those above (in particular SoWhy) have given me plenty of reasons not to. ‑ Iridescent 09:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    My opposition is now absolute in light of the answer the candidate has just given to Q8, I would prefer to handle content disputes and edit wars by short-term protection to encourage discussion rather than by blocks. This is directly contrary to both established Wikipedia policy and to custom and practice, in which the only occasions full protection should be considered as a response to a content dispute are multi-party disputes in which so many people are involved that blocking is not a realistic option—remember, every time you protect a page you're preventing everyone from editing it, not just the people involved in the dispute. I definitely don't want yet another admin who thinks the admin bit makes them Judge Dredd and they can go round making up the rules as they go along. ‑ Iridescent 14:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, while you're correct about established practice, sometimes it is preferable to protect, such as yesterday when I locked Aberfan disaster for 24 hours. However, the alternative was blocking Schrocat and pigsonthewing, and to be honest an admin that pulls a block on Andy Mabbett had better be prepared for the guaranteed drama that will fall out the other end Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ritchie333 sure, and any reasonably active admin will occasionally invoke IAR and protect something which would not ordinarily be protected. The difference is that you performed the act as a response to exceptional circumstances and immediately explained why you'd done so; in this case we have a candidate who's expressly stating in his RFA that he intends to disregard both policy and consensus if he doesn't agree with them. ‑ Iridescent 07:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose, largely per Iridescent and SoWhy. The deletion of "crud" is indeed an (unfortunately) important part of what we do, but I don't want someone as an admin who sees it as their priority - in my view, the priority for everyone here should be creation, not destruction (that doesn't mean I'm an inclusionist, but that's perhaps a diversion for another place and another time). I'm not asking for lots of content creation, and I do very little myself these days - but I get far more pleasure from declining CSD requests than from accepting them (obvious vandalism/advertising excepted), and from unblocking rather than blocking, and things like that. I also see one of our biggest problems at the moment as being over-zealous new page patrol, with too many patrollers looking to see what's wrong with a new article rather than what's right with it (or might be right with a bit of assistance), and unfortunately I see Robert as being in the former category. The result is that too many new contributors get a slapdown when what they deserve is a helping hand. I also see a very low ratio of content to drama board edits, and that also makes me want to see something extraordinary in the admin stakes - I like Robert, I appreciate his enthusiasm and his efforts, but I'm not seeing that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:50, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've felt uneasy about my expressed reasons for my oppose since I wrote it, and I haven't quite been able to put my finger on it - as I say, I like Robert and I greatly appreciate the hard work he does here. But I think it's finally come to me, and it's all about working as an admin in areas in which one has a strong personal opinion - and I think an admin should not do that. An admin should work to apply the consensual will of the community, and not to further their own personal opinions. If I had a strong personal feeling about speedy deletion (other than simply wanting to carry out the community will), then I would recuse myself from speedy deletion work and only do admin work in areas in which I did not have strong personal opinions. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose, mostly per SoWhy and Iridescent. There's nothing wrong, in itself, with wanting to get rid of "crud", in fact I'm in favour of doing so. However, with so many CSD judgement issues highlighted above, and the discouragement to new editors inherent in that, I don't feel admin tools would be appropriate for the candidate at this time. -- Begoon 10:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose per SoWhy and Iridescent, who state it well - too many mistakes and while I also do not demand GA/FA I do expect very strong quality elsewhere and I don't see it. Aiken D 10:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose I can't see any obvious sign of creating content (which others have noted and explained in detail already), I personally think that an editor should understand how content is made before going into deletion/cleanup tasks. I also think that being able to delete articles forever without some discussion is used way to much, indeed, I think that deletion is used when articles could be improved, and this editor shows no sign of improving articles. Just getting rid of articles is a useful job, but it should not be an admins main focus. I am not overly concerned about the competence issues (track record is alright considering) but this editors fundamental editing ethos bothers me. A Guy into Books (talk) 13:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose - The concerns raised by SoWhy and Iridescent are enough to make me oppose this RfA. The masses of incorrect CSD tagging also worries me Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 13:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose - per Iri and SoWhy. I also find their rules-bound attitude at WP:DRN to be concerning. (see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 143#Talk:Battle of Hastings, where I found their behavior to be quite odd for supposedly mediating a content dispute. Their attitude there makes me seriously concerned that they do not understand content creation at all.) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:36, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This is possibly a better example of a clod-hoppingly literal count-the-heads interpretation of "dispute resolution" without taking into account the relative knowledge and experience of the various people commenting or the background to the dispute. ‑ Iridescent 13:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose - per Iri and SoWhy, but also postings like this when attempting dispute resolution (as far as I can tell, none of the parties had used the terms "censorship" or "vandalism", so why bring it up??). It is a worryingly haughty post. Wikipedia should be an egalitarian place, and a non-content contributor who likes to dictate to others, particularly current and would be content contributors, could be particularly corrosive to morale and a significant net negative. Unless Robert can come up with some amazing examples of even-temperedness and conflict resolution skills. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose, agree with serious concerns raised by Iridescent, SoWhy, and Casliber. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 14:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose - Per SoWhy and Iridescent, especially considering the candidate's very recently expressed attitude regarding BITE. I don't think that attitude is necessarily unreasonable in itself, but for a candidate who wants to work heavily in an area like CSD and in light of the other points raised, I find it concerning. Layzner (Talk) 14:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose: Needs more edits in mainspace and also opposing because of issues raised here by Iridescent and SoWhy. —MRD2014 Talk • Edits • Help! 14:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose, based on review. Kierzek (talk) 14:53, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose, Under no circumstances, per concerns raised by Iridescent, SoWhy, and Casliber. J3Mrs (talk) 15:03, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose, per Jclemens among others.--Catlemur (talk) 15:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose, largely per Iridescent and SoWhy. -- ferret (talk) 15:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose, as per the remarks by SoWhy and Iridescent: too few edits to the main space, check here although these are mostly to his Talk Pages. Zezen (talk) 15:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose also per SoWhy, Ritchie333, and Iridescent. I am not confident that the candidate will follow deletion policy or welcome new editors. FourViolas (talk) 15:50, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Please take several articles to GA, preferably high-importance articles in areas of dispute. ECarlisle (talk) 16:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Really?! BTW, this editor has only been registered 13 days. Aiken D 16:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I am in favour of RFA candidates having good content contributions like a GA or FA. But "Take several high importance articles in areas of dispute to GA" is a ludicrous standard. Especially from a one week old editor with 52 edits!AlasdairEdits (talk) 16:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Troll vote striken. -- Tavix (talk) 17:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose. I find Iridescent's, Ealdgyth's and Casliber's comments and diffs persuasive. Bishonen | talk 17:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  27. Regretful oppose. Per many of the above opposes (e.g. SoWhy, Iri). It's difficult to oppose when the candidate is a prodigious contributor. I'm troubled by Q1–Q3. There's no significant content contribution, and that is a requirement of mine for one who wants to judge content. I rely on others for judging CSD, but the quick tagging gives me pause. The AfD percentage is good, but the heavy delete (and Q1 comment) is troubling. No content and deletionist is a red flag. Scanning some AfDs gives me a strident flavor. Some AfD nominations seem to miss on WP:BEFORE. I'm also seeing continued engagement rather than make a comment and move on. An admin should be reserved rather than quick to pull the trigger. Glrx (talk) 17:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Glrx: "I'm also seeing continued engagement rather than make a comment and move on". Just out of interest, is this a bad thing? – Joe (talk) 18:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it can be a bad thing. Although one should be responsive to questions, continuing to debate is bad form. (I'm often in a world where the debate terminates after 1.5 rounds; it forces conciseness and clarity.) There's a point where the discussion goes nowhere or runs off the rails; it's often better to let an opponent have the last word; a response might trigger another response from the opposition; it takes two to tango. There's also understanding the audience; the comments are advice for the closer: they are not to win over the opposition; they are not to crush the opposition; they are not to show who is more knowledgeable. Glrx (talk) 23:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Regretful oppose. I've ummed and arrred about this one for a while. The CSD errors are a concern for me, specifically because this seems to be the main area robert intends to work in. THough I'll point out that the number of errors is actually very low compared to the vast number of CSD nominations that Robert performs. I had the same issue (not being selective enough with CSD) that tanked my last Rfa candidate poll, so I understand. That by itself wouldn't be enough for me to 'oppose', but the complete lack of content creation is an issue. For someone who will judge others' new submissions, it helps to have been there a few times yourself. I suggest at least 6 months of being a bit more careful with CSD, and focusing a bit on content creation. — CleverPhrase InsertHere 18:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose I don't see much content creation or extensive article talk engagement by this editor. Ultimately that's what it takes to really understand the fabric of the community. What I have seen instead is that he tends to lurk at dispute resolution and disciplinary discussions, and he tends to make pronouncements there without adequate evidence or context. It makes me uneasy to think that this conduct would be extended or amplified by Admin status. No rush here. Maybe in the future. SPECIFICO talk 18:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose - sorry. GiantSnowman 18:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose - as per Iridescent, Ealdgyth and Casliber. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose - If the candidate's pre-existing work in their stated area of interest (CSD) was strong, the lack of content creation wouldn't bother me in the least. I don't think great content creator automatically means great administrator. But, in this case, there are a lot of issues with his practical application of deletion policy. I think there is room within the existing policy for varying degrees of deletionism, however all the examples given above lead me to believe that he is going outside of that policy. Speaking personally, I'm not completely unsympathetic to his point of view - but that's not where consensus for policies lie here and now - and an administrator is there to follow policy, not unilaterally create policy. PGWG (talk) 19:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose - The user only seems involved in one area of administration, and there have been problems as pointed out by other editors. I don't care about the lack of content creation as there are many roles which can be filled by administrators; however, the judgment (or lack thereof) with CSD nominations will most likely not translate well to other administrative areas such as blocking and unsupervised deleting. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 20:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose There are too many concerns about an inclination to delete, and to delete too readily, for me to be able to support this request. Schwede66 21:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose with extreme regret. This is a longstanding editor who has done some great work on the project, especially in the behind the scenes areas. Some of the oppose rationals above aren't all that convincing. Mainspace contribution is weak but that's not a deal breaker for me in an otherwise solid candidate. Unfortunately SoWhy and some other editors whose opinions I hold in high regard have produced evidence that Robert may not have a solid grasp of deletion criteria and guidelines, and further may have a tendency to pull the trigger a bit too quickly. While I really appreciate their work at NPP and elsewhere, this is an issue that I can't give a pass on since it touches on one of the more important and common things that admins do. This is especially true given that he has stated this is an area where he hopes to work as an admin. A really good command of our policies and guidelines in this area is a nonnegotiable prerequisite for anyone seeking the tools and enough doubts have been raised on this point that I can't pull the support trigger. My suggestion is to come back in a year when they can demonstrate some improved mainspace stats and an improved grasp of policy and guidelines, especially as relates to deletion. Note I am currently on an extended wikibreak and comments directed to me may not receive a timely response. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose with regret per Ritchie and Iridescent. Katietalk 22:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose If Bishonen, Katie, Casliber, Iridescent and SoWhy are unanimously opposing this candidate, I don't see the need to drag this out any further. Samsara 00:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oh, this is hard, hard, hard. I started out intending to support. And I think that a significant part of the opposition is just the endemic malady of RfA when a candidate has been around long enough to have gotten some other people angry: I see a considerable number of oppose rationales that are making mountains out of molehills. But those CSD tags are bitey, and they are recent, and they are a pattern. I would disregard a few such tags, but there are too many of them for me to set aside. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:20, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Recent interaction with this user was disappointing enough to tip my hand to comment here. I believe this user is overzealous about trying to delete new content contributions which are made in good faith and in many cases are notable would the user do some cursory background work. Andrevan@ 00:24, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose I am seeing far too many compelling arguments with evidence from respected colleagues to support this request at this time. Irondome (talk) 00:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose per inadequate approach to the RfA process. There were some things in the nom statement, for instance, that bothered me; Robert's acceptance of the nom without asking for their correction makes me worry about his candor. Specifically referring to Robert's CSD log as "impressive", despite having only been started in August... it bothered me as implying the log was a fair representation of Robert's decade tenure here, which it clearly is not. The focus on aggressive deletion as a means of cleanup, as well, strikes me as out of step with how the community's attitude has evolved since the mid-2000s. I'm not saying as a matter of policy Robert is incorrect, more that the approach when coming to RfA comes off as tone deaf. We want our administrators to be people who actively adapt to the changing atmosphere on Wikipedia, and with few exceptions, the community has in recent years been unwilling to accept even technical acumen as a substitute for public facing ability. This is definitely contrary to the historical treatment of adminship as something mundane, as "the mop". But it is the way our community has evolved, and by the current standards I must oppose this candidacy. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:05, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Oppose I am concerned by the almost complete absence of content creation, and by nominations such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sky Raiders – yes these were one sentence stubs by an editor with serious CIR issues but a rationale of "not enough information to be encyclopedic" when a few minutes research would have shown that they are all film releases by a major Hollywood studio and thus notable, makes me wary to give them the delete button. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:18, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Oppose with great reluctance. I like Robert and have had many good interactions with him at the Teahouse. He is an asset to the encyclopedia and has the admirable trait of asking for advice from his fellow editors. But the evidence presented here shows that he is too eager to delete what he sees as "crud", to the degree that he does not stick closely enough to our policies and guidelines. I suggest that he change his approach, take to heart constructive criticism, and try again in six months to a year. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:20, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Oppose The AfD record is, IMHO, sufficient for an oppose. Collect (talk) 11:05, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Oppose per above. His CSD mistakes are too numerous and far too recent to show that Robert consistently exercises proper judgment, and his opinion on WP:BITE doesn't strike me as a positive either. The fact that only 11.1% of his live edits are to article space also makes me suspicious. Given these and the opposes of many longstanding users I like and respect, I can't support right now, sorry. 65HCA7 11:14, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose I do not trust this candidate's judgment. pablo 11:29, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Oppose I do not want to see someone as admin who declares "Any emails that are sent to me by Wikipedians do not have a reasonable expection of privacy, and may be archived or ridiculed". No need for that, and not as a joke either. --Chris Howard (talk) 11:46, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, "Any comments posted to my talk page that are excessively long will be archived or ridiculed" is also disturbing - it suggests arrogance, and does not help establish the humility and respect for others that I think admins should have - and I don't see any indication that that user page section is meant as a joke. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Those quotes are a little concerning. From the same diff, however, I find something rather different which is not as problematical, but speaks to a point you made earlier about admins choosing where they spend their time: "I had originally intended to contribute a few articles on subjects of which I have knowledge. However, it seems that much of my time is being spent in responding to disputes and problematical editors." Now, there's nothing wrong with that, and wikipedia needs people who respond to disputes and problematical editors. But it's a choice, not something imposed on you. I have nothing but admiration for the amount of effort Robert has put into DR (sometimes I find his tone a little officious, but everyone has their own style), but if he wanted to write content, tag images, categorise stuff, etc. - or something else - then he could have just chosen to do that instead, surely. In the end we mostly do what we enjoy, or choose, in a volunteer environment. -- Begoon 12:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Oppose as per SoWhy, Iri, Boing etc etc - I'm looking for editors who spend most of their time on mainspace or Wikispace and helping as best they can .... Not someone who seemingly spends all day licking Jimbos arse (sorry but that talkpage is your second most edited under your own!) on Jimbos talkpage, " Robert has been with Wikipedia since July 2005," - That may well be true however he was only active around 2014 so technically for him having an account in 2005 means nothing (Same goes for me - Registered in 2010 but started around 2013-2014), The CSD tagging and BITEY issues is obviously another issue which should be fixed, All in all whilst I greatly appreciate the little bit of help they've given I can't support someone who spends their life on Jimbo's talkpage and essentially doesn't do much here. –Davey2010Talk 12:28, 1 September 2017 (UTC)(Amended 13:58, 1 September 2017 (UTC))[reply]
    Before someone quotes me above and rambles on about how it's a personal attack - RFA is about honesty and although I'm perhaps being too blunt I'm still being honest and commenting as how I personally see it, Ofcourse I don't expect people to agree with it but that's just the way I see it, Thanks. –Davey2010Talk 12:33, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's very harsh, Davey. "essentially doesn't do much here" is very unfair. It may not be what you'd like him to do, but you should probably think about how you'd feel if someone commented about you like you just did here, and reconsider your remarks here in general. -- Begoon 12:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It was below the belt, sure, but the first time I became aware of Robert was when he talked at length on Jimbo's talk page about the Great Civility War between Jimbo and Eric Corbett. I can't quite put my finger on what the specific problem is with people who spend a lot of time at WP:JIMBOTALK but essentially I find it a completely unproductive place to resolve anything at all and is a complete time sink. It's possible that Robert was actually posting there to change the atmosphere into something more positive, but I'm sceptical. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ritchie, I respect you, but no. We can't be telling people at RFA who have contributed so much that they are "licking Jimbos arse" or "essentially doesn't do much here". If you think we can, then sorry, we'll have to differ. -- Begoon 13:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you've misunderstood - I agree that those two comments are out of line and should not have been said; but there is a problem generally (ie: not specifically Robert) with people who post too much Jimbo's talk page. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:10, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That's cool. RfA is, after all, a broken and horrible place. "Let's not break it further" was my main concern with Davey's intemperate comments. Sorry if I misinterpreted your response as somehow excusing those comments or downplaying their inappropriateness. Encouragingly, I was 'thanked' a couple of times for what I said, so all hope for the RfA environment may not yet be lost. -- Begoon 13:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Can I just point out that of Robert's 63504 edits, only 246 have been to User talk:Jimbo Wales (0.0039%). By way of comparison, four times that proportion of Davey2010's edits have been spent fiddling with edit counters and photos of cars and young women on his user page. I'm sure we're all "unproductive" from time to time. It seems grossly unfair to characterise Robert's contribution to the project based on 246 edits he's made to WP:JIMBOTALK, and not the 1,707 he's made to Wikipedia:Teahouse, the 2,520 new pages he's patrolled, or the 3,258 WP:AFC submissions he's reviewed. – Joe (talk) 13:31, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologise for the comment which I've since amended, Inregards to Joe Roes comment that is a fair point and do agree with you on that - Probably not wise to make such a comment when I spend a good chunk of my life on my own userpage!, Anyway It should never have been said, FWIW I've only had 4 hours sleep which although isn't justification it does play a big part unfortunately but regardless the comment should never have ever been said and so I again sincerely and unreservedly apologise. –Davey2010Talk 13:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC) (Updated: 14:14, 1 September 2017 (UTC))[reply]
    Do you still think Robert "doesn't do much here" or do you intend to strike that too? -- Begoon 14:50, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck the entire sentence as yet again wholly incorrect, Remind me never to comment when tired!. –Davey2010Talk 15:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Oppose, mostly per Iridescent but, tbh, I've never thought Robert to be anything other than an admin wannabe. Well-intentioned, I'm sure, but I'm not a fan of that type of person, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 13:04, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Oppose. This RFA was untranscluded and then re-transcluded. I think the candidate would have been wise to revert the re-transcluding. Let's get this over with; it's not productive to leave it running. - Dank (push to talk) 13:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Oppose, per Iridescent and Ritchie333. While this editor is pretty good at deleting "Crud", he seems to overzealous that may turn away some editors. Also, this editor has not done enough content creation. --Frmorrison (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Oppose. Too many errors in the subject area that the candidate says that he wants to work in. The AfD stats are poor for a candidate so singularly focused on deletion. Ejgreen77 (talk) 14:49, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  53. per Boing! and Iridescent --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 15:27, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Oppose Per other editors, speedy deletion concerns, content creation. Stikkyy t/c 15:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Oppose These thoughts strike me as going in the wrong direction: [4] --Gereon K. (talk) 15:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Oppose. I respect Robert as an editor, but I can't support this nomination. He comes across as too deletionist, and I know he has recognised this in his nomination. Out of the first page of AfD vote there are a total of 14 keep votes, as opposed to over 300 delete votes. I'm not too picky on content creation (I couldn't care less that he doesn't have a GA+), but glancing over the 13 articles he has listed on his user page, many are stubs/quite short. This is quite a regretful oppose, but alas I land here. Cheers, Anarchyte (work | talk) 16:33, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Oppose No personal problems with this user. He seems a decent enough fellow, but the aggressive stance towards article deletion and showed towards his answers to some questions above, shows that he probably doesn't have the correct attitude and temperament towards working as an admin in this area. --Jayron32 17:32, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Oppose Candidate fails my criteria. The admins that told you to run clearly need to re-think their understanding of this community and you were foolish to listen to them. You're a great editor and honestly I think you accomplish more for this encyclopedia with your current work than swinging a mop. NPP still needs your leadership and help. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:27, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Oppose - Content creation abilities are underwhelming. Just 11% of edits to the mainspace, only 13 articles created, 1 of which has been deleted, another is a disambiguation page, and a couple others are filled with tags like [citation needed], bare URLs, and completely unsourced paragraphs. Sorry, Robert. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 20:24, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Oppose The CSD findings by SoWhy makes me unsure if the candidate can be trusted with the admin mop. I suggest that they also hone their content creation skills. --Lenticel (talk) 01:05, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Oppose, I'm sorry - I have great respect for everyone who has the courage to put themselves out here to have their contributions scrutinised in what I personally consider to be the most unwelcoming environment on Wikipedia. I also adamantly believe that users who apply for adminship should be granted the tools if they show they can be trusted with them in the area they say they wish to work in and will not harm Wikipedia if given them. I'm going to say what I've wanted to say for a long time: I don't buy the whole "lack of content creation" argument. While I think it's important to understand how an article should be written and laid out (in an encyclopedic tone, neutral, with sources, not promotional etc.), the number of articles someone has created does not influence my decision when voting in an RfA, as long as candidates show understanding of what's expected for an acceptable article, and I think you do and so I'm not worried about your content creation (also mine is much lower than yours). You say you want to work in the deletion area, but your CSD history provided by SoWhy, showing a lot of hasty and incorrect A7 tagging, is worrisome. I understand it's been disputed whether the "wait 10 minutes" rule applies to A7, but I agree with the argument given by Andrew Davidson (Tagging anything other than attack pages, copyvios, vandalism or complete nonsense only a few minutes after creation may stop the creation of a good faith article and drive away a new contributor). But what I'm most concerned about is your PRODing. WP:PRODNOM references WP:DEL-REASON, which states valid reasons for deletion. A lack of references in an article is not an automatic justification for deleting it (unless it is a fully unsourced BLP), and if an article contains absolutely no text, no context, is promotional etc., it should be speedy-tagged, not PRODed. What seals my oppose is your answer to my PROD question - that you don't bother looking for sources, and argue purely that it is "up to the originator to provide the text or the references" (an argument to the person instead of the merits of the article itself). This all appears to be a blatant misunderstanding of the deletion policy, and with deletion being the primary area you're interested in, I'm not comfortable with giving the tools to you at this time. I hope that you won't be discouraged if this RfA does not succeed and that you will learn from your mistakes as we all must, and that you will continue to contribute to the encyclopedia constructively and helpfully. Best regards, LinguistunEinsuno 06:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Oppose due to low content creation, a too subjective "mission" to clean up "crud", too many errors in tagging non-crud as such, and disappearing for 7 years after not passing RfA the first time. This has all the hallmarks of wanting to play cop, rather than being fully integrated into the community sense of what admins are for, what we need them to do, how, and why. I also like the candidate as a wikiperson, despite a few previous topical disputes with him; I just don't think it's a good personality-and-goals match. Not everyone is destined for adminship, and that especially includes "I'm gonna clean up Wikipedia, dammit" thinkers. You'll note I'm not an admin and haven't asked to be one in many years. I am also that sort of editor, and recognize this viewpoint is a conflict of interest with that we need and expect from an admin. People on a mission – one that's worthwhile – are generally of better use at Wikipedia unfettered by the restraints of adminship, anyway (and happier). It just sometimes takes them a while to realize it. Most of the de-sysoppings of which I'm aware were also undertaken against people exhibiting similar traits.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:51, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Oppose: as of this morning an astounding 11.1% article space edits versus 42.7% user talk space edits, warning tags, pronouncements, whatever. This says 'beware' to me in suitability for handing over the keys to the kingdom of adminship. However I wish to echo Oppose # 16 in entirety (Cas Liber invoking SoWhy and Iridescent). I highlignt this snip of a concern from that oppose: ... particularly corrosive to morale and a significant net negative. Unless Robert can come up with some amazing examples of even-temperedness and conflict resolution skills... No matter what else is going on, I always side on the issue of temperament of a candidate as displayed in interactions and typed content. Lacking 'even-temperment' and 'conflict resolution skills' is a never for me. One must have these entering the door and cannot be hopefully gained later while wielding the tools. Sorry. Fylbecatulous talk 13:32, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Oppose. Rather than restating any of the many sound reasons provided above, I'll also note a problematic statement in the answer to Q5, where the candidate states that, in handling PRODs, he will check only one of the four criteria is directed to review. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Oppose In addition to comments made by others above (Ealdgyth, Iridescent, Ritchie333, SoWhy) and comments like [5] it is clear that there is a disconnect between building an encyclopedia and policing content. Assessment of articles for their potential seems to be lacking, as does a willingness to admit when one has erred in their judgment. When multiple eyes on a file indicate that notability was evident, but McClendon as AfC reviewer continued to maintain that the file was not moved to mainspace because it was not evident that notability existed as there was no claim of significance stated, it became evident that there is an inability/unwillingness to assess anything not implicitly stated. Adherence to rules, rather than a desire to improve the content, or even attempt to improve sourcing throws up red flags to my eye. SusunW (talk) 15:53, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Oppose. Not wanting to pile on, I'd held off, but this page continued to be listed and continued to draw comment and I, too, was drawn. The candidate invests a lot of time and energy in behind the scenes wikicontroversy and has been far more interested in tagging pages for deletion and arguing about his tags than in actually generating good encyclopedic content. His crusade against "crud" notwithstanding, he's generated a lot of behind the scenes crud. We really don't need that. – Athaenara ✉ 16:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Oppose for 2 reasons: very limited content creation experience, and attitude/tone on talkpages. Per comments and examples by Boing, Ealdgyth, Fylbecatulous, Iridescent, Ritchie333, SoWhy, SusunW, and others. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:58, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Oppose Per SoWhy, Iridescent, and others. Sunomi64 (talk) 23:01, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Oppose per SoWhy and Iridescent. Robert has over 20,000 deleted edits, which is more than a quarter of his total edits, and with his CS7 habits and hasty judgements, I don't think he should become admin, at least for now. I also agree with Rosiestep above about his attitude/tone on talkpages. — Zawl 06:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Oppose have interacted several times and not been impressed by contributions to talkpage discussions which I have found largely unhelpful and unnecessary since they were rarely content oriented. Also I have experienced his "Third Opinion" work several times as being too eager to declare an issue settled by being the third opinion, not not eager enough to understand the issues before opining. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:30, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Oppose Looking over contributions I don't see evidence that this user has the knowledge, temperament, judgement, or attitude appropriate for an admin. A couple of recent tags as examples: Morris Park, Philadelphia was tagged for deletion yesterday, even though per WP:GEOLAND, legally recognised neighborhoods are inherently notable, and this neighborhood and park does have reliable sources. A new foreign language article, பீண்டி பஜார், was prodded a few days ago, though foreign language articles should either be tagged for speedy deletion or tagged for translation per WP:A2. Not much in themselves, but given the concerns raised by others, and the links to Robert McClenon's attitudes toward new users and to governance and protection on Wikipedia, I feel the candidate would be more problematic than useful as an admin as he doesn't like the consensus approach on Wikipedia - unfortunately a user who doesn't believe in consensus is not good material for an admin. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Oppose - Too little content creation. (That is almost a cliche by now, but I have seen a lot of superficiality in the candidate's work, which I put down to his inexperience in content creation.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Oppose - Points raised above re CSD are enough for me to think handing out the delete button is the wrong idea. Agathoclea (talk) 18:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Oppose - I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting to be an admin for the sake of preferring "cop over mop"; or a candidate being involved in "drama" or "wikicontroversies" or whatever we call it these days. But if that's the goal, then it requires (as far as I'm concerned) a particularly high bar, and I just don't think this particular candidate has the judgment to pull it off. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 20:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Regretful oppose, per Ealdgyth, Iri, Ritchie333, et. al. My own interactions with this editor have, overall been more positive then negative, and I think he has a lot of good intentions, but I share the concerns that this editor is too quick to advocate for deletion of content and does not fully grasp the nuances of guidelines; he often takes a rigid approach at AfC as well, which I think tends to discourage article creators, and that concerns me. Montanabw(talk) 21:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Oppose - Mostly per SoWhy's !vote. I'm sorry but CFDing and article less than one minute after creation is a straight red flag. I think the editor has honest intentions but their trigger happy habits when it comes to nominating article for deletion is a red flag. On a side note I don't think that a lack of content creation is a problem, most active admins unfortunately usually have to shift the majority of their editing on other activities anyway. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
  1. I cannot jump on this train just yet. I've seen good work, but I've also seen some less positive things in dispute resolution. Drmies (talk) 02:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'm not going to !vote yea or nay in this RfA, because I only do so when I feel strongly about a candidate. I feel that Robert has improved greatly in the past few years in his ability to dispassionately assess any given situation, both interpersonal situations and policy/guideline-related situations. That said, the number of Opposes and their rationales are concerning, so I don't feel it appropriate to support at this time. Softlavender (talk) 10:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral, leaning oppose. A couple observations, good, bad, and in-between:
    • I am concerned by the dissonance between “ready and willing to help new editors” mentioned in the nomination statement and the repeated stated administrative objective in question 1 of “removal of crud.” Just because you think it is crud does not necessarily mean that the new user who has worked hard on that new article thinks it is. Regardless of whether or not that new article sucks and/or is notable, if people do want to create a more welcoming environment then a better public image is needed. The subsequent follow-ups on deletion in question 5 and in the oppose comments do not convince me that this candidate will continue being “new-editor friendly” after a few weeks with the ability to delete articles.
    • I note and appreciate the candidate’s long-term track record at areas frequented by new editors (Help Desk, Teahouse, AFC, etc.) but non-admins can mostly work these areas just fine. I am not convinced that having admin tools will allow this person to be a net positive given the issues already raised.
    • From a behavioral/dispute standpoint I think the candidate would be fine at DR and closing ANI/AN discussions (which in some cases could be closed by a non-admin but in some cases really should be closed by an admin).
    • Refreshingly, I am not concerned about this candidate’s potential use of the block button.
    • Not a positive or a negative, but a nit-picky comment: Regarding question 4, the candidate mentioned that several admins stated readiness, but a cursory look at the candidate’s talk page suggests that this RFA started after a brief back and forth between only one admin – the nominator. I admit there may be other conversations I am not seeing. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:53, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral - recused myself. ( and repaired the indenting above) ~ Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)
  5. Wow, looks like I'm not the first one here who wanted to say recuse. I'm basically commenting here to confirm desire to participate in this RFA, but after seeing the support and oppose sections, I think I'm more helpful sitting this one out. Steel1943 (talk) 01:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral Robert does a tremendous amount of good for the project, but I am concerned about the bad A7 tags, given that CSD is something he has expressed interest in. If this fails, please do reapply in the near future. -FASTILY 08:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral This editor has a long history of positive contributions, but the sloppiness in CSD tagging is a little worrying. It's understandable, as our CSD rules are always changing, and I'm sure that with a little mentoring they would be a huge net positive as an administrator, but I would've expected a little more care be taken at least in the run-up to the RfA. If Robert spent the next six months or so working on CSD tagging and showing a better understanding the current policies and requirements, I would have no hesitation in voting to support his candidacy. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 14:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral I can understand why this is so split. I have thought about it for a while and I am still unable to decide how to vote. At this point, I doubt I will be able to decide. Equineducklings (talk) 14:28, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Moved from support. ceranthor 17:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral on the merits. There is quite a bit of positive editing in the candidate's history - but, as Iridescent and others capably note above, quite a bit of cause for concern as well. I understand that this feels like momentum is sliding toward oppose, but I would have liked to have seen the candidate continue to answer questions. With the support that exists, I'm betting that good answers may have addressed some of the concerns on the oppose side. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:29, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Neutral leaning Oppose per SoWhy. A valued editor, but not quite ready for the mop yet due to CSD concerns. --Joshualouie711talk 21:43, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Neutral - per SoWhy and Iridescent. SophisticatedSwampert let's talk about that 00:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Neutral: I appreciate a candidate that isn't afraid to delete jetsam and I would be a bit more forgiving on the CSD taggings. But those who can moderate content creators (especially in deletion) should have created or improved articles themselves, and I'm not seeing significant contributions. Esquivalience (talk) 03:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Neutral. Out of respect for Floq's statement, I'm not going to post this as an oppose, and I don't want to kick anyone when they're down. I understand that this is not the result that Robert was hoping for, and I know that he's a good editor trying his best to help Wikipedia. That said, I have a comment to put on record w/r/t an experience I had with Robert that I would like here so that it is preserved in the event of a future RfA. Robert handled a dispute resolution I was involved in, the last post of which is here. Robert showed an incredible amount of patience with the complaining editor, who was later banned for obvious personal attacks and NOTHERE behavior. Actually, if you ask me, he showed far too much patience and allowed someone with a clear agenda to waste a great deal of time. Interestingly, this cuts against the common criticisms I've seen on this page of biting newbies and hasty deletions. So there's a few possibilities I see. One is that Robert has bad judgment generally, which I think can be dismissed out of hand. He puts thought into what he does, and I've seen plenty of evidence in the support votes of Robert's good judgment. Far more likely is that, before trying again at RfA (which I hope he does), Robert should try to calibrate that judgment to reflect the overall community norms and views. That might require thinking about things (deletion, approach to newbies) in a slightly different way than he does now. But that should be highly do-able, and I really hope that's what comes out of this RfA, so that when Robert does become an admin, he does us all proud. agtx 06:07, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Neutral - As I haven't seen much from this user other than some assistance in the DRN as well as requesting create protection on repeatedly created articles, I cannot have a say in this. However, I will lean Oppose seeing the comments regarding performance in other aspects of Wikipedia, but again, I haven't seen it myself. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 06:20, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Neutral, Concerned about Q8. Sysops should be neutral in content disputes. Nakon 08:39, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Neutral, leaning oppose. I philosophically disagree with some points the opposition is making, such as not tagging soon after page creation, and I don't feel like creating content is the only way to demonstrate knowledge of content policies. However, there's enough substance behind the opposition's reasoning that I can't ignore it, and when you add in the misfiring on A7 tagging, I'm on the oppose end of neutral. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 17:00, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Neutral--I feel somewhat like Ks0stm.Many of the comments regarding CSDs et al are from whose sole encounter with the process prob. happens at RFAs and/or when there's a policy change in these areas .And there are disagreements with those who thinks the concept of tagging within a short span of time is wholly invalid.But that being said, the evidences of SoWhy are quite good and some of his recent comments regarding BITE etc. don't resonate with me.Also, some of his comments at DRN (mentioned by Cas etc.)do seem over-imposing but I'm sure that they are scarce since I failed to see those issues in my experience with RMC as a co-volunteer and held him in high regard. Also, I'm not much bothered about the lack of content creation.I hope to see you back in about six months.Winged Blades Godric 11:48, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Neutral - I've always found Robert to be civil and I don't see a massive issue with him in terms of the community aspect of administration. He can be terse at times but sometimes firmness in needed. AfD stats look good with 85% matching consensus. CSDs seem fine, I'm not too bothered about the hasty tagging, I used to do it but have got a bit better. Content creation would be good, you don't need to be autopatrolled, have a featured article, after all, the role is administrative. However, SoWhy's evidence somewhat changes the picture, as do the answers to the questions. You've not really expanded on what you've said and answered in a bullet-point fashion which suggests a lack of interest in actually promoting, for want of a better word, yourself successfully. After looking at supercount, I am leaning oppose due to the lack of mainspace edits. DrStrauss talk 15:06, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Neutral. Very hard to come to a decision here...It is clear that in almost every way other than deletion, Robert would do well as an administrator. Part of me is inclined to overlook the issues brought up by SoWhy and others, but some of the speedy deletion and PROD taggings are too strange to let go. Maybe with an improved deletion track record I (and the community) would feel comfortable granting the tools. Malinaccier (talk) 17:40, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Neutral I am mostly concerned about the lack of content creation and how that affects deletion decisions. I firmly believe that you have to create content to understand how it is done, and therefore to really understand Wikipedia. I hesitate to endorse someone for the mop who hasn't even got a GA to their name, and doesn't point o any content creation in the standard question. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Neutral - I'm slightly leaning toward support, but cannot make the leap fully. Robert is an around net positive from what I can tell, but some of the answers to the questions posed give me pause. Looking at the CSD log, the "false positive" rate is low enough (under 5%), but the diffs in the oppose section are a tad concerning especially given that Robert wants to focus on that area for mopping. I know some have commented about "content creation" and while that's a very important part of Wikipedia, donning the mop is a different beast which requires level-headedness, self-awareness (of areas that one's own biases or experiences may tint judgement), and ability to see multiple sides of disputes. Robert seems to hit most of these criteria well, but I'm concerned about their orientation toward article deletion as portrayed in the question responses enough to put me into a "neutral" vote. I'd need some manner of assurance that Robert would defer to others or seek second opinions when dealing with those more borderline cases. I don't see that self-awareness (yet). EvergreenFir (talk) 02:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
[edit]
  • I do note that this RfA seems to be very polarised. The support is holding firm and people are giving very positive comments there. The oppose, meanwhile, is also entrenched with strong views. Nobody is making the jump between one camp and another. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:36, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yet. I think there's a kind of critical mass that gets met (not, so far, here)- people always note the 'pile ons' but don't you think the 'pile-off''s are sometimes underestimated. <-----more in the way of a socio-prosopographical point than an axtual analysis of the current conditions btw. — fortunavelut luna 17:50, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When I submitted my first oppose ~12 hours ago, it was 28/0/1. It is now 45/29/3. That is a net 17 supports and 29 opposes; I suggest Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi's analysis is quite possibly correct and that a tipping point is approaching. I certainly did not expect to see things shift so quickly after posting my initial oppose. Jclemens (talk) 18:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't want to comment in the support section, but I'll note that SoWhy's A7 critiques are not predicated on their speed: they're predicated on being incorrect and early. Criticisms of SoWhy's oppose that focus solely on the speed, even assuming a 10 minute threshold does not apply to A7, do not address the central point, which is that the A7 tags were incorrect in the first place. Jclemens (talk) 18:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on what I've seen Robert will be a much better Admin than SoWhy who has demonstrated total inability to read consensus around G13 recently - claiming that 70% plus support for a change is insufficent in face of his objections. SoWhy continues to try to overturn consensus on the issue and stop deletion of garbage. I'm regularly disappointed in SoWhy's judgement and this oppose reinforces that that perception. Current Admins should not he trying to keep out new Admins from their exclusive club based on flimsy excuses. When a current Admin sets a higher standard than they themselves could possibly meet, we have a problem. Legacypac (talk) 22:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not going to be a tailend voter. So I will just observe. —usernamekiran(talk) 09:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question- Is there any evidence of newbie-biting, except by hasty SD nominations (which are a different problem IMO)? For instance edit summaries, failure to answer to inquiries, Wikispeak-filled posts directed to new editors, etc. I see some opposes revolve around WP:BITE, citing the candidate's user page ("removing cruft", etc.) as the mark of a BITE mentality. On the other hand some supports are praising patience with newbies, in dispute resolution etc. TigraanClick here to contact me 13:55, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Tigraan: Huh? Are you saying the hasty speedy taggings are not evidence of biting or do you require other kinds of biting as well? Regards SoWhy 14:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SoWhy: Hasty SD noms are biting, sure, but the real argument I see is "makes errors that are too big/too numerous at SD tagging". In this argument the biting is IMO a red herring (any incorrect tagging is de facto a biting, and the more you tag incorrectly the more you bite). It is worth mentioning only to say incorrect SD tagging is a problem (which I think none would dispute).
Looking at e.g. the first point of neutral #3 I see an indication that the candidate's stated goal to "remove crud" is detrimental to the creation of a collaborative and newbie-welcoming environment (that quote is mentioned multiple times against the candidate, but that is where it is the most explicit). I would have liked to see if this translates into actual newbie-biting.
For instance, tagging A7 an article with a credible claim of significance, or an ineligible article is incorrect tagging; this results in biting, but that is a side-effect. OTOH, tagging WP:BLPPROD an unsourced article that says "X was a Time 100 nominee for her work on Foo" might be technically correct, but surely it is better to check the claim, source it if true and remove it if false, before proceeding. The former is a breach of CSD guidelines and consequently of WP:BITE, the latter is a breach of WP:BITE only (technically allowed, but it invokes a cryptic process that the article creator might not understand). I would have liked to see evidence of the latter if it exists before !voting (though now it seems irrelevant). TigraanClick here to contact me 15:05, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tigraan, if you want to better understand Robert's "attitude" towards WP:BITE, perhaps this discussion might help. Not everything he says there is without merit, in fact he makes some excellent points. But the "elephant in the room" is the quantity of potentially good new editors who will just never come back after they have their work tagged in this hasty way. They won't be aware of these philosophical concerns, just upset by what they likely see as a rude rejection of their effort. To me, that's just too much collateral damage. -- Begoon 23:20, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many !votes are "per Casliber" but as of this writing, Casliber has no extant entry on this page. I don't know if the editor self-reverted, or it got clobbered accidentally in an edit conflict, and I'm going to bed now, so won't dig it out of history myself.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[6]. Still there. Just use Control+F. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:47, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's the old "gap between first and last name" which has amused me before, with Cas. One needs to use "Cas Liber" in the ctrl-F in some browsers. -- Begoon 07:57, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I did, of course. I'd forgotten Casliber's displayed username is Cas Liber. Derp. PS: It's Cmd-F not Ctrl-F on a Mac. Heh. Well, I guess this at least proves I'm making up my own mind not just deciding if I agree with what others already said. LOL. Re: "in some browsers" – is there one which treats "Foobar" and "Foo Bar" as the same string? I've never encountered such behavior in any app of any kind.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:59, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not. I've never seen that either, now you point it out. I was assuming Softlavender must be using a browser where Ctrl-f for "Casliber" had worked, in terms of finding his original !vote, since she seemed to imply that she was able to find it that way, but I shouldn't have used such a silly, seemingly authoritative explanation when I was basically just guessing -- Begoon 08:08, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone's contributions to a page can be found via the History tab via selecting "Edits by user": [7]. I gave both the diff and the suggestion of Control+F so you could find the current location if you so chose. Even if you search under Casliber the second result is directly under his !vote. Softlavender (talk) 12:38, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oops - I just read my reply above and realised you could have taken "silly, seemingly authoritative explanation" as referring to you, and that's embarrassingly poor wording on my part. It was aimed firmly at my own faulty "in some browsers" deduction. -- Begoon 13:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, I read it like you meant it. :) Softlavender (talk) 13:19, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I look for my own posts on long pages by looking for "liber" to cover both variations. When I made my username I wasn't thinking I'd be editing for very long at all....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:20, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand and respect the opposes. I get that lack of content work is held against him. However, Robert has clearly worked on a de facto basis as an administrator, in the sense of focusing on dispute resolution to the detriment of content work. It's a shame, as it means that editors who have worked hard in non-content areas are not given a fair break. I hope that Robert is not discouraged and continues his good work. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:25, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be totally inappropriate for something this closely balanced, particularly against the wishes of the candidate. Not only is it possible that this could still pass, the candidate may well still want to keep it open to see what criticisms people have of him so he can decide if there's something about his approach he should change in future. IAR early closures are for certain cases, not just because you think a particular outcome is likely. ‑ Iridescent 21:33, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In order for it to pass, assuming there were no more opposes, I calculate there would need to be at least 200 people supporting. It would be the biggest turnaround of any RFA ever, probably. I think a bureaucrat ought to close it - this is exactly what WP:SNOW is for, and I think it's well within a bureaucrat's remit to see this hasn't got a chance in hell of passing. Aiken D 21:42, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It probably would be the biggest rally in an RFA for this to pass. But no it would not require an additional 200 supports. We had a pass a few months ago with 100 more supports than this and 13 more opposes. However for many of us RFA is a two stage process and to my mind there are at least two open issues which may still be resolved in this RFA. ϢereSpielChequers 22:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree no snow and no close without the candidate's say-so; it's not as if it would demonstrate any finely-honed assessment of WP:CONSENSUS. — fortunavelut luna 06:44, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Robert_McClenon_2&oldid=1144418131"