Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Robert McClenon

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]

final (36/23/12) ending 02:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Robert McClenon (talk · contribs) – I have been editing Wikipedia since June 2005. I have made some major article edits, such as the rewrite of Capitol Hill, Washington, DC. Many of my edits have been copy-edits. Many of my edits have had to do with disputes and trying to minimize the impact of disputes. If I am given administrative status, I will use my administrative powers primarily to deal with vandals and to enforce ArbCom decisions. Robert McClenon 01:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Support

  1. Not already one? NSLE (T+C) at 02:08 UTC (2006-03-20)
  2. Strong support. I've had it in my mind for the last few weeks that I should contact him and offer to nominate him. He's a good editor, always tries to be fair, and is familiar with Wikipedia policy. Also, I know for a fact that he helps other Wikipedians behind the scenes, even though there are no diffs to provide as evidence. AnnH ♫ 02:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Just curious, but is this "help behind the scenes" provided on IRC or through email? Otherwise, how would he be able to help without leaving diffs? —Doug Bell talk•contrib 10:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    E-mail. And believe me, it's more than enough to compensate for a low count in article space. AnnH ♫ 12:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Why not?; user seems exceedingly fair, and capable: it` s about time. Zmmz 02:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support: He knows the Wikipedia rules. He seems thoughtful and mature. - Richardcavell 02:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. support: Thoughtful, conscientious contributor who is unlikely to abuse admin powers. No big deal. Ombudsman 02:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support yes good user, will make a excellent admin --Jaranda wat's sup 02:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Despite relatively few article edits, you seem like a good editor, and I cannot find any reason other than that to oppose your nomination. Therefore, you have my support. Weatherman90 03:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support per reasons above --Khoikhoi 04:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support ditto; patsw 05:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Good editor with an extensive knowledge of wikipedia. --ManiF 06:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. Article edits are not the be-all-end-all; some of us use the preview button obsessively, and focus our efforts on keeping the place running, and that's a valid calling. Robert does a lot of very useful dispute resolution work. Essjay Talk • Contact 07:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support as per ann Leidiot 10:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. Aye, go on. I have to say I'd rather see more article edits, but I'm confident you'll maje a good admin and one more concentrating on the dispute side is very welcome, you'll help balance someone not so keen on dispute resolution, like me. Hiding talk 10:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support, just needs more article edits. --Terence Ong 12:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Good contributor. haz (user talk) 14:07, 20 March 2006
  16. Support. Str1977 (smile back) 14:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support A good user. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. 100% Absolute Support I've been thinking he's admin material for a long time. Oskar 18:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support -- we actually do need an admin to keep up with ArbCom rulings and contribute to their enforcement. Jkelly 20:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Enough with this "not enough article edits" nonsense. There are plenty of admins who have made the majority of their edits in some other space (Arbitrator Fred Bauder is a good example of this - 48.1% of his edits are in the Wikipedia (project) space, compared to 21.9% in the article space). --TML1988 21:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support though weakly per Splash; nevertheless seems like would be good admin per other factors.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 23:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support He seems like a fair, active contributer who doesn't mind getting involved in disputes to sort things out. --Kash 01:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. "Editcountitis can be fatal." --Jay(Reply) 02:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. support.--Zereshk 03:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Ordinarily I would be inclined to oppose an editor with so few article space edits. However, what I have seen of this editor is enough to reassure me that he is even tempered and has the best interests of the encyclopedia in mind. –Joke 16:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support --Latinus 23:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong Support, He is neutral. user:Acuman should not be qualified to vote since he is only voting against this member due to the Rfc. 69.196.139.250 23:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Note - anons can't vote. Have you forgoteen to log in?Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 23:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support as per AnnH and Joke. SouthernComfort 02:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support, editcountitis is fatal, and I'd prefer 350 meaningful edits to 3500 meaningless ones. Good editor, and more to the point, unlikely to abuse his powers. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 06:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support While the main article space edit count is relatively low, I'm glad someone is willing to invest so much energy in arbitration matters, which can be exhausting business. OhNoitsJamieTalk 21:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. support Gol 02:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Meets my standards, and seems like admin material! - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 08:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. Seems to have a good head on his shoulders. -Will Beback 09:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support - I've always found him to be brusque and succinct, but never beyond-the-pale rude. Plenty of Wikipedians have done no mainspace editing other than 2000 clicks of the revert button on god mode, posted some fluff with smiley faces on other's user pages, and a few hundred AfD votes, and yet they sail through RfA. Bizarre, no? Proto||type 11:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. support, i dont follow hard and fast standards i take it case by case, i believe this user would make an excellent admin based on his work, dont let this rfa get you down you are appricated!Benon 00:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Another "not already one"? Septentrionalis 00:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Kawaii Support --Cool CatTalk|@ 15:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose (assuming acceptance of self nomination) Not enough article space edits to meet my minimum standards. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 02:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll bite: acceptance of a self-nom is implicit in the self-nomination. Hiding talk 10:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but I've seen other editors get criticized for opposing a self-nom before it had been self-accepted, so I figured I'd cover my bases.  :-) —Doug Bell talk•contrib 11:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose only 250 article edits.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually 350. :-D Moe ε 02:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Doesn't meet my standards. Only 350 article edits. Moe ε 02:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Doesn't meet my minimum standards. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 04:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose The concerning thing is that the percentage of his article namespace edits are have declined over the recent months. GizzaChat © 06:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Looks like a team player... but the mainspace edit count is too low.[1] Personally, I think that should have the highest count. Nephron 06:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose Per above --Masssiveego 08:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Agree with above, too new for me.--Looper5920 08:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Uhm... June 2005 is too new? NSLE (T+C) at 10:50 UTC (2006-03-20)
    Excuse me, let me rephrase. Not enough work within the project for me to give a Support vote at this time.--Looper5920 06:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I am uncomfortable with the notion of adminning someone who says eagerly that he will act as ArbComs' Enforcer. This is particularly true given the fact that this is coupled with dealing with vandals: but with so few article edits, this is clearly something he does not do. Clearly, all admins are charged with enforcing the Committee's decisions, but few of them actually walk around looking for opportunities to club people over the head with the rulings. I was interested to see that he has, in Q3, "dealt with several previous disputes by filing Requests for Arbitration" — going to ArbCom is a statement that the dispute has not been dealt with, and this should not be a first reaction to a dispute. Also in Q3, admins are empowered to decide who is a troll and a bully but it is left primarily to ArbCom to decide on the cases where this is not clear-cut. In short, the reasons for wanting admin buttons give me an uneasy feeling particularly when coupled with the comparatively small amount of work on the encyclopedia itself. -Splashtalk 15:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose Sorry you have not yet met my minimum standards. mmeinhart 16:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose per Splash. I personally respect this editor's judgment, but I share Splash concern over editor's stated desire for the mop. Enforcement of ArbCom rulings needs to be done, of course; but editors who are eager to do it give me pause. Adminship is not a billy-club. Xoloz 17:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose Not only does Robert McClenon make wild and absurd accusations like claiming that I and Melissadolbeer are one and the same, but the fact that he has such a small proportion of his edits actually to articles, and that he has so few edits to articles in general, make me think this request is quite inappropriate. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 18:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose per Splash. AucamanTalk 01:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose for low article edits.--Jusjih 03:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose. While Robert is a very polite and amenable editor, I also can't help thinking he wants to wield a stick rather than a mop. And I have found his editing rather partisan - too ready to back up or take things on trust from editors on his 'side' - eg. fellow Catholics in the disputes at Pius XII; and I was worried by his deleting of the POV notice I put up there - papering over a dispute is not solving it. Bengalski 20:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose. Relatively very few article edits, mostly concerned with getting involved in conflicts. Jayjg (talk) 22:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose per all of the above (edit count wise)-Mask 03:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose. Robert has made only 349 edits to the encyclopedia in eight months, [2] yet in the same time has made 1,180 edits to project and project talk pages, many or most of them comments on other people's conflicts, particularly in Requests for Comment and Requests for Arbitration. He often doesn't fully inform himself before commenting, in my view, and I'd worry that this would lead to him frequently commenting on, or undoing, other admins' actions without knowing the background. I'd like to see more experience editing articles and much less interest in disputes before a promotion. Sorry Robert. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose, needs more time in the mainspace, WP is an encyclopedia first. Deizio 12:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose, lack of edits. Stifle 15:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose. Rude. Beyond rude. Everyking 22:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose per Slim. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 02:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose Low article space contributions, and per other concerns raised about ArbCom enforcement role. --Cactus.man ✍ 14:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral The low mainspace count concerns me. joturner 04:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral I agree, there are too few mainspace edits. JIP | Talk 07:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral' Very little mainspace edits Leidiot. voted twice. Sorry about it.
  3. Neutral Per above. Not convinced by the answers. Dispute resolution doesn't need admin powers. --kingboyk 15:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral: per answers to questions. Prodego talk 02:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral, leaning towards support. Low articlespace edits.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 15:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Gah RM has what it takes, and the only reason to oppose seems to be article counts. But that count is sooo low. Robert, go sort 500 stubs to keep the counters happy, and then come back. --Doc ask? 09:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral. per Doc. pschemp | talk 15:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Rob Church 19:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral, perhaps later. - Mailer Diablo 20:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral per Doc. Mackensen (talk) 01:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Neutral lots of work in the rfc/arbcom/etc areas, but would like to see more Main space work — xaosflux Talk 04:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Neutral, perhaps at a later date. Hall Monitor 21:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 93% for major edits and 81% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 140 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 02:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Robert McClenon's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A. I think that the most important sysop chores are dealing with vandalism and dealing with violation of ArbCom rulings. I do not think that sysops should block users except for vandalism or similarly obvious bad conduct. Sysops should act quickly to enforce ArbCom rulings. Robert McClenon 02:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also willing to act as a mentor. Robert McClenon 02:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I have not made as many edits in article space as I had originally hoped to make. The ones that I have made have been constructive. I have been a very good copy-editor. I am also proud of my role as a "voice of reason" in Wikipedia space, in which I have tried to recognize the views of different schools of thought, such as "product first" and "process first". I am pleased with keeping my cool under stress. Robert McClenon 02:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A. I have seen a great deal of stress in Wikipedia. It is an inherently stressful activity to try to develop an encyclopedia based on consensus. I have always tried to back off from being personally stressed, and instead to look at every dispute objectively. I think that I have done a good job of avoiding personal attacks even on difficult editors, and I know that I have done a good job of avoiding edit wars. I have dealt with several previous disputes by filing Requests for Arbitration. I think that other editors, whether admin or otherwise, should let the ArbCom, rather than individual admins, decide who is a troll or a flamer or a bully. If I am an admin, I will enforce ArbCom rulings based on my best judgment. Robert McClenon 02:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Robert_McClenon&oldid=1148691513"