Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BU Rob13

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

BU Rob13

Final (155/30/6); ended 03:10, 9 July 2016 (UTC) — xaosflux ^Talk 03:10, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Nomination

BU Rob13 (talk · contribs) – I'm very happy to nominate BU Rob13 for adminship. I first crossed paths with Rob at TfD, where he's been a standout among the non-admins active in closing discussions. It's very largely thanks to his efforts that the backlog there has shrivelled to near-nothingness. To put that in perspective: there are currently 0 TfDs over 7 days old. Back in September when Rob was just starting to get involved, there were 43 discussions with the oldest over two months old. Rob was then an experienced TfD participant already, but after his first handful of TfD closes, he went out of his way to ask me for a peer review to get feedback on his work. Looking back, that's when I thought "OK, this guy is going to be good admin material eventually." Since then, he's done hundreds of relistings and closings at TfD: I counted over 200 and only got back to April. Even in complex discussions, he gives clear, concise, and thoughtful closing summaries, e.g. here.

Rob is also an active closer of RfCs and more recently CfDs (see co-nom). If someone questions a close he's made, he's consistently civil, collaborative, and willing to offer clarifications on his closing comments (e.g. here) or help broker a better compromise solution (e.g. here). His overall record makes him already more experienced than many admins at closing discussions.

In addition, he's a productive content editor, with three GAs and 39 DYKs to his name, and 101 new articles started - most of them BLPs, all of them solidly sourced. He runs a bot, User:BU RoBOT, which does a lot of wikiproject tagging and template maintenance, and he's a template editor who's taken an interest in issues related to accessibility.

So that's the wiki-resume part, but if you really want to know why you should support him, here it is: Rob has Clue. He's mature, thoughtful, and practical; he seeks out and responds well to feedback; he's versatile and makes quick work of moving up the learning curve in a new area. We have a lot of backlogs and not enough admins, so let's give a low-drama, high-productivity, proven backlog-clearer a mop. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:23, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Co-nomination

BU Rob13 (talk · contribs) – I am so pleased to co-nominate BU Rob13 for adminship. Currently, I am one of the few admins that is primarily engaged in closing discussions at categories for discussion (CfD). Responding to a CfD backlog in recent months, Rob has been active as a non-admin closer there. As with TfDs, Rob has been a major factor in reducing the CfD backlog to a more manageable state. When I began to read through Rob's closes, I was immediately impressed, and have never been disappointed in reading any of his closes. What a fast learner he has been! He has demonstrated a natural ability to discern consensus (or lack thereof) in discussions which are often complex and far from clear-cut. On more than one occasion, Rob expressed insights and solutions to implement the underlying consensus that had not occurred to me. Considering that I have been closing CfDs for a number of years now, I regard this as quite marvelous and I believe that he would be a fantastic addition to our presently small corp of admins who can help manage CfD. In short, he already has all the skills of an effective CfD closer, he just lacks the complete set of tools that would allow him to fully carry out the role. (One specific reason I would like to see Rob become an admin: in order to effectively process closed CfDs, an editor needs to be able to edit WP:CFDW, and that page is typically protected to allow only admins to edit it.)

The overall impression of Rob's character that I have received in the time I have known him is one of calm thoughtfulness and kindness towards other users. Has has not agreed to accept this nomination because he is power hungry or wants the praise of others—he sincerely wants to assist with the project to the extent that he is able and get some work done!

Perhaps most remarkably, I have observed in Rob a characteristic that is perhaps the rarest of all the rare attributes of Wikipedia users: he can change his mind, and admit that he has done so (eg, [1]). This demonstrates a level of maturity and a willingness to consider new information and reassess his assumptions and understandings; it is essentially the "secret sauce" of how to be a truly great Wikipedian and admin.

I therefore give my highest recommendation and endorsement to you in co-nominating BU Rob13 for adminship. – Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you both for the nominations. I accept. ~ Rob^Talk 00:58, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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: I intend to continue my work at WP:TfD and WP:CfD. In both areas, it would be useful to be able to directly delete the templates/categories after orphaning or emptying instead of tagging them as G6, and this would be my primary use of the tools. In the future, if backlogs develop, I may get involved in helping at WP:MfD or WP:RfD. I'm familiar with MfD already. I don't know too much about RfD right now, but my approach there would be similar to CfD; ask the regulars what I should read before jumping in and then seek feedback from them after a couple dozen closes. I'd also like to mention what I don't plan to get involved with. I have no interest in regularly helping out at WP:ANI, WP:AIV, WP:UAA, WP:AFD, or WP:AN3. I also don't plan to become involved with speedy deletion. These are all areas where I feel we have enough administrators at the moment.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: On the administrative side of things, I tend to go wherever more volunteers are needed. I'm an active closer at both TfD and CfD. Non-administrators are able to close as delete at both, as editors must orphan the template or empty the category before deletion, and this step doesn't require the mop. See this RfC for TfD and the CfD closing instructions for more details. Most recently, I cleared a backlog of over 200 discussions at CfD over a period of two weeks. I'm certainly proud of my backlog-clearing efforts in these areas, but my greatest achievements on the project are my three GA credits (Corbin Sharun, Calvin McCarty, Garry Williams (gridiron football)) in addition to my four GA nominations currently going through the process (Marcus Adams (Canadian football), Kojo Aidoo, Tony Akins (Canadian football), Ted Alford). My content creation efforts are all in the topic area of Canadian football.

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: One of my early conflicts was over the article Carnism, which I nominated for deletion. When I nominated it for deletion, it was a POV-filled mess which had been previously deleted at two deletion discussions. Within two days, the article was entirely rewritten with a greatly expanded scope. Quoting my own nomination withdrawal, "This article has been expanded from "carnism as a word to describe vegan outrage towards most people" to a more complete and neutral debate regarding the ethics of eating meat. I still think it has some neutrality issues, but the expanded article and definition of carnism meets GNG." I proceeded to place a POV tag on the article and work with several editors on the article's talk page to ensure its neutrality. You can find our efforts at Talk:Carnism/Archive 1 and (to a lesser extent) the later archives. While some editors weren't happy that I placed the POV tag, we all worked together productively and everyone went home satisfied.

I've been in more recent disagreements relating to how drafts should be treated when they have little chance of benefiting the project and, oddly enough, train route templates. My general conflict resolution strategy is to step back, try to see the other editor's perspective, and then work to bridge the gap between mine and theirs. Sometimes, I pull the other editor onto my side. Other times, I find myself rethinking things.

---

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.

Question from Newyorkbrad:

4. The cynicism (and nasty edit summary) of the one opposer so far are unfortunate, but I'd like you to have an opportunity to address his concern without being accused of "badgering." Please feel free to do so here.

A. This is not the first time an editor has expressed these concerns. It's difficult to remember exactly how I got into different areas of the encyclopedia when I was first starting out, but I did write a very comprehensive explanation of many of the ways I got involved at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/BU_RoBOT_2 when questioned about this same subject. I'll have to defer to past-me on the minor details. Too much has happened in the past 12 months to remember how I first got involved with AWB, etc. Looking through my own oldest edits, I do struggle to see how they could be considered the edits of an experienced editor. My first edit at TfD was more-or-less an WP:ILIKEIT argument which demonstrated no understanding of the purpose of infoboxes, which are certainly not there to list every accomplishment a person has ever made. I think I came to that TfD discussion after seeing a notice on Amy Poehler's article, but don't quote me on that. It could have been Tina Fey or another female comedian. My first attempts to help out at WP:TFD/H, which I discovered from the aforementioned TfD discussion, included nearly 20 minutes between extremely simple edits that I could now complete with AWB in seconds or without AWB in no more than a minute. When I first tried my hand at new page patrolling, I incorrectly applied CSD tags and was called disruptive due to my lack of understanding of WP:BITE. I don't believe I took off with a running start, by any means. Heck, I even nearly left entirely out of frustration because I didn't understand the CSD criteria early on.

Still, I did acquire knowledge fairly rapidly. I'll quote myself from the previously-linked BRFA on this subject: "There's an open secret that most editors don't appear to know about; editing Wikipedia is extraordinarily easy. It takes around 30 minutes of reading the most basic policies and a willingness to read the more obscure policies and essays as they are linked to you when you make mistakes." That more-or-less describes my current editing strategy. It's how I got into CfD. Three weeks passed between the time I first read WP:CAT/WP:OVERCAT and the CfD backlog being almost entirely cleared. With a few exceptions, it isn't difficult to become an "expert" in almost any area of Wikipedia given three hours of reading time and a willingness to ask questions.

At the end of the day, it's impossible to prove that I'm not a long-banned editor here to carry out a dastardly and almost bizarrely long-term plan to temporarily delete a couple articles or something before being swiftly desysopped, blocked, and reverted. The closest I can come is attaching my real-life identity to my account, which is something I've done privately with several trusted editors who I've had email correspondence with. Both of my nominators have corresponded with me through my university email, which is easily attached to my real-life identity given the knowledge that I'm a graduate student in economics. Outside of that, all I can point to is my many contributions that have added value to the encyclopedia. Apologies for an unusually wordy answer, but this is an unusually difficult question to answer given that an assertion of sockpuppetry can never be affirmatively disproven.

Question from Altamel:

5. As you might recall from a recent ANI discussion, I remain very concerned about applying extended confirm protection to articles. If I remember correctly, you explained that combating persistent sockmasters was a massive timesink, and I fully sympathize with your argument that 30/500 is an attractive solution. However, I'm still worried that 30/500 will drive off potential new contributors, since editing extended confirmed articles requires a much longer tenure than with semi-protection. From the glut of outdated (but vandalism-free) pages I've come across while editing, my gut feeling is that Wikipedia continues to attract recent changes patrollers and "maintenance-oriented" users, but attracts content editors at a much slower rate. This heightens the damage that would result from driving away new content editors. Now, as an admin, it is highly likely that future community consensus will allow you to impose 30/500 protection at your discretion, so what are your standards for deciding when a situation is so serious as to merit extended confirm protecting an article?

A. I consider it appropriate to use 30/500 protection on articles that have been the target of persistent sockpuppetry using "sleeper" accounts if the disruptive edits are unlikely to be caught by editors unfamiliar with a long-term pattern of abuse. When autoconfirmed "sleeper" accounts are curated by a sockmaster to attack semi-protected articles, semi-protection is no longer effective. Our only remaining options are to combat the vandalism as it pops up in recent changes, apply full protection, or apply 30/500 protection. Out of those options, 30/500 is obviously preferable to full protection. If the vandalism isn't sneaky, then we can rely on recent change patrollers to revert it. Sneaky vandalism from sleeper accounts is problematic, though. Take Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Никита-Родин-2002, for example, which was the subject of that ANI discussion. Nikita's modus operandi is to change the certifications/charts of the songs and albums of certain bands, usually to make Green Day or The Who appear more accomplished than they actually are. In recent changes, those edits look like this or this or this. Our typical vandalism detection tools will never identify those edits as vandalism and our recent change patrollers will appropriately assume good faith if not familiar with the long-term abuse. We need a more effective tool for keeping the encyclopedia accurate in these extremely rare situations, and that tool is 30/500. I can't think of any other situation in which I would support the use of 30/500 outside of ArbCom approval.

Additional questions from Esquivalience

6. Have you edited under any accounts or IPs before? If so, for how long?

A: I've never made any substantive edits under another account or an IP prior to this account. It's possible that I fixed a typo here or there years prior to making this account, and I may have even registered an account to do so. I didn't remember any past username when registering and was unable to recover any username when I attempted to double-check if I had an account associated with previous email addresses. I have no previous familiarity with the MediaWiki software.

7. In your own words, explain consensus and outline the differences between consensus-based decision making versus voting-based decision making.

A: Consensus is the rough agreement produced through a discussion focusing on which solution to a dispute most improves the encyclopedia. The key difference between consensus and voting-based decision making is that consensus is not blind to the rationales of why editors are supporting a particular solution whereas a vote relies only on the number of editors supporting each solution. When determining consensus, strength of arguments is crucial. If Editor A explains that he supports Solution A because of specific relevant policies and guidelines, his arguments are stronger than an Editor B who provides no rationale at all or provides a rationale that clearly contradicts policies or guidelines. Editor A would also have a stronger argument if he convinced many editors that the policies and guidelines he cited were relevant and supportive of his position whereas Editor B failed to convince anyone that his argument was based in policy. A consensus results when one position has stronger arguments based on both the policies or guidelines and how well the arguments persuaded other editors.

Additional question from Ritchie333

8. When you requested opinions at the candidate poll, a concern was raised over events documented at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women/Archive 7#Women in fiction, where a categorisation bot you had a hand in appeared to be running at an over-broad scope. Can you briefly summarise the incident described there, what the problem was, and how we can be assured that no disruption is likely to take place in the future?

A: Automated WikiProject tagging can be a great method of increasing the number of tagged pages for a project without occupying content creators with maintenance tasks, but it comes with its fair share of downsides. The biggest downside is that many category trees on the project are horrendously broken. As an example, if WP:WikiProject Philosophy tagged everything in the category tree of Category:Philosophy, they'd be unpleasantly surprised to find that they'd tagged the full contents of Category:Women thriller writers along with it. The solution to this has been User:Yobot#WikiProject_tagging, which sets forth a series of best practices for automated tagging. In particular, anyone requesting project tagging from a bot operator is required to show consensus for the tagging on the project's talk page including a full list of all categories to be tagged (including all sub-categories, if you want those tagged). Project participants are expected to check each listed category to ensure the pages should be tagged. All of these steps were followed in this particular bot run, but they still fell short.

At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women/Archive 7#Women in fiction, you can see the discussion that lasted on the project's talk page for over two weeks which received no significant opposition. It became evident after the run was completed that the categories provided by members of the project contained articles which shouldn't have been tagged. I've since added a step to the best practices mentioned above where I spot check each category listed to ensure nothing pops out as obviously incorrect. This doesn't guarantee that a tagging run will never go awry, however. Project participants know the scope of their projects far better than a random bot operator. I've provided a technical method to automatically tag articles when the project shows consensus to do so, but it's up to individual WikiProjects to decide what they wish to have tagged. Technically speaking, the bot did exactly what it was meant to; a project fed in a list of categories to tag and the bot tagged them. My new operating procedures will catch any blatantly incorrect tagging, but it's no substitute for project participants reviewing the categories that they're requesting automated tagging for.

Additional question from FabledGold

9. First attempt at a RFA. What will be your legacy to Wikipedia?

A: That's hard to say. I certainly hope it's as a net positive editor who helped maintain and expand the largest free repository of knowledge in the world, but beyond that, I'm not really going for legacy. Most of the work I do isn't glamorous. It's necessary back-end work essential to the day-to-day operation of the encyclopedia, but few people pay attention to the sort of things I work on unless something goes horribly wrong. Maybe the legacy I should be shooting for is to be forgotten, since that would indicate everything went smoothly.

I think this is a stupid question that tells you nothing about whether or not the candidate is suitable to be an administrator. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:16, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

FabledGold (talk · contribs · count) is a  Confirmed sock puppet of Winterysteppe (talk · contribs · count).--Bbb23 (talk) 19:35, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Optional questions from Pharaoh of the Wizards

10. A user nominates a Template Corruption in India used in over 50 articles for deletion and the nominator is the only user to comment ,a Non Admin closes as delete and marks it for Speedy deletion. But an admin declines to delete it stating Speedy Declined seems to be heavily linked to, consensus is weak .If you are closer ,which closure will you endorse and why ?

A: I would close that as "no consensus". I'm generally in favor of soft deleting templates when the TfD goes unopposed and I cannot anticipate any opposition based on precedent at TfD. For example, see the several public domain templates which I closed as soft delete at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 June 23; templates which are unused and templates which are wholly redundant are routinely deleted at TfD, so soft deletion of templates which are both unused and redundant is appropriate. On the other hand, I think more clear consensus than "no opposition" is necessary when dealing with templates where reasonable opposition could be expected. This is true even if I wouldn't personally agree with that reasonable opposition. The opening line of the nomination you provided already takes soft deletion off the table for me. "You might wonder at this nomination, because it seems at first to be an entirely reasonable topic" shows that even the nominator agrees that reasonable opposition could be expressed.

11. Would you as a Non Admin have closed it ?

A: Yes, I would. If a non-admin shows competence, I'm in favor of them closing any discussion so long as they have the technical tools to implement the next step after closure. Adminship is a set of technical tools, not a leadership position.

Optional question from Wehwalt

12. Would you address the question of this diff raised in Neutral #1? What are your thoughts on the matter, as it regards political correctness?

A: It depends how you define political correctness. If we define political correctness along the lines of "avoiding offensive speech or actions to the point where the speech or actions aren't effective", then I'm against political correctness. If we instead define political correctness as "avoiding offensive speech or actions where the objectionable aspect doesn't help achieve the purpose of the speech or actions", then I'm strongly for political correctness. In this case, I don't think we need an allegory to suicide to convey the idea that we should give second chances to see if blocked users are really a net positive. The previous sentence more-or-less proves my point: "Give second chances to see if blocked users are really a net positive" is essentially a thirteen-word summary of WP:ROPE that no-one would find objectionable. The spirit of WP:GRATUITOUS would seem to apply here; use the least objectionable language that gets your point across effectively.

Additional question from Northamerica1000

13. In your answer to question #1 you stated not being interested in regularly contributing to AfD in an administrative capacity or in performing speedy deletions. If these areas were to become signficantly backlogged, would you reconsider this stance?

A: Probably, but it depends. WP:UAA and WP:ANI are two places I'd be unlikely to help out with regardless of backlogs, at least in the near future. UAA is an area I know little to nothing about, and my typical process of reading, a bit of trial and error, and then asking for feedback would absolutely not be applicable to the block button. I'd need a mentor or something to get into that area. ANI is too dramatic for my tastes. I could see myself helping out with backlogs at WP:AN3 or WP:AIV, which are both fairly simple. Backlogs cause active damage to the encyclopedia at those areas, so I couldn't really look at backlogs there and do nothing.

As for WP:AfD and WP:CSD, I'd be willing to help out on backlogs there as a last resort, but I doubt it will ever come up. CSD is almost never backlogged in the criteria that "count" (WP:G10, WP:G11, etc). I'm not too concerned if an WP:A7 tag sits there for a couple days. The only consistently backlogged criteria is WP:G6, and that's my fault from TfD and CfD. As for AfD, I might help as a last resort, but I would sooner push for experienced non-admins to be able to close discussions as delete. It's a solution that has worked in every process where it's been tried, it helps break down the wall between admins and non-admins, and it's one way to deal with the overall shortage of administrators.

Additional question from Ottawahitech

14. Do you agree with your nominator (User:Good Olfactory) that it is unnecessary to inform creators of categories when their creation is nominated for deletion?

A: It depends. I believe it's necessary to inform the creator of the category when feasible. If it's a one-category nomination, then notification is practically mandatory. If it's a 500-category nomination, then I can't justify the work of going through 500 categories and individually notifying each creator, not to mention the pseudo-canvassing this would cause. As for notifying WikiProjects, which has been more controversial at CfD lately, I do not consider WikiProject notifications necessary. It's up to WikiProjects to tag their categories. Nominators cannot be required to be familiar with all of the hundreds of active projects if they don't tag their content. Once WikiProjects tag their content, it's a very quick process to set up WP:AALERTS, which will ensure the project is never caught off-guard by an XfD of their tagged content. Given how simple it is for the WikiProject to receive automated alerts of XfDs related to their tagged content, I place the onus on them, not the nominator, to handle notifications.

Having said that, it would be unhelpful to just tell WikiProjects that they should go tag thousands of categories manually. I'm more than happy to help projects do such tagging with my bot, as I recently offered the stub sorting project.

Additional question from Carrite

15. Above you were asked by User:Esquivalience "Have you edited under any accounts or IPs before? If so, for how long?" and you answered "I've never made any substantive edits under another account or an IP prior to this account. It's possible that I fixed a typo here or there years prior to making this account, and I may have even registered an account to do so.... I have no previous familiarity with the MediaWiki software." Yet when we examine your VERY FIRST EDIT to Wikipedia, we find that you opined on a Templates for Discussion page HERE and that you managed to rack up well over 500 edits in your first week of editing at WP, never having edited WP before and having "no previous familiarity with the MediaWiki software." My question for you is this: do you wish to amend your answer number 6 above? And a follow-up: if you do not choose to change your answer, how do you explain a first edit to such an arcane area of Wikipedia and such obvious familiarity with MediaWiki software during your first week of editing???

A: My answer to question 4 explains my best recollection of how I came across that TfD. I saw a deletion notice in an article and disagreed with it enough to register an account and participate in the discussion. As for my high activity, I'll quote my explanation from the BRFA where I was questioned on my past activity: "I'm a college student on his first true vacation in the last three years. I'm used to being busy, and I've been bored not having much to do over the summer. I acquired my knowledge by reading policies and guidelines and making copious amounts of mistakes, as you'll be able to see in my talk page archive and in the history (from before I created an archive)." Most of my edits in the first week were vandalism revision, which is the area I felt most capable of starting out in. Counter-vandalism is edit-heavy work where the edits add up quickly. I forget the name of the tool I used for counter-vandalism, but I remember it being a list of all IP recent changes where the IPs popped up on a map. As for whether I lied in question 6, I did not; I've never substantively edited as an IP or using other accounts, with the exception of my bot.

Additional question from 73.114.22.158

16. I am a long-term unregistered editor here - don't rely on my contribution link, as this is my first day with this IP. Anyway, I would like to know what you would do in the following situation:

Editor A blanks a random page and replaces the content with "Wikipedia is awful". Editor A does this three more times. ClueBot NG reverts all four edits and warns the user four times. However, Editor A continues with this vandalizing spree. Editor B, who is an administrator, blocks editor A. However, editor A then appeals the block inappropriately, and, when denied, creates an account called "The awful Wiki". Editor B is not aware of the account creation. You are the first person to see the new account. What would you do?

A: Assuming that there's iron-clad proof that "The awful Wiki" is Editor A, I would indefinitely block the sock. If the proof is fairly clear but not 100% convincing, I would monitor the new account to see if it vandalizes anything while also reporting it to WP:SPI requesting CheckUser evidence. If the proof wasn't clear enough to assert sockpuppetry at SPI, I'd probably still monitor the account because the username is concerning. As a side note, I'm sure you've heard this before if you've been around for a while, but I strongly encourage you to register an account. There are many benefits to doing so.

Additional questions from QEDK

17. Do you think carrying out an administrative action in a dispute is essentially taking a position on the issue or merely just "administrative" when carried out unilaterally?

A: Unilateral admin action should be non-controversial, so there should be no issue to take a position on when acting unilaterally to protect a page, block a sock, delete a page, etc. If there's an issue to be discussed, it should be discussed before administrative action is taken. When past admin actions were straightforward and non-controversial, I would consider them purely administrative. For instance, blocking a sock does not make one involved with respect to that sockmaster; in fact, it's desirable to have admins familiar with the long-term abuse cases evaluate the evidence. On the other hand, other types of blocks that require discretion would almost always make one involved with respect to that user, yes.

18. In my limited interactions with you, you've often been stubborn, other times, more accommodating. Which quality would you be looking for in an administrator and why?

A: Neither. If I care about an issue enough to be either stubborn or accommodating, I'm involved and shouldn't go anywhere near any admin tools in that area.

Let me substantiate the question. It's not about you, it's about which quality you'd find desirable in an administrator (and not necessarily involved). Stubbornness, taken in the context of someone with a fixed stance. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 20:00, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I just noticed this follow-up. Defining stubbornness as someone with a fixed stance, I would not want a stubborn administrator. Everyone, including administrators, are entitled to their opinions, but they also need to listen to the opinions of other editors. The encyclopedia is improved most by discussing issues rather than throwing down a bold vote and logging off. I'm not the perfect editor, by any means. Not even close. I get it wrong sometimes, and when I do, I try to do everything I can to make it right. A diff was provided by one of my co-nominators that I believe shows this quality, but I can offer up a good number of recent examples, some of which have been alluded to by other editors below. Here's two of the most recent. At the same time, if an accommodating editor is one who either doesn't hold opinions or shies away from defending their opinions, I wouldn't want an accommodating administrator either. If I instead defined accommodating as being open to listening to other editors and incorporating different perspectives into the discussion, I'd absolutely want that quality in an administrator.

Unfortunately, I'm still falling in the "It depends" kind of non-answer camp. If I was forced to choose between stubbornness and the first definition of accommodating, I'd still take accommodating, since a stubborn administrator has a high potential to damage the encyclopedia when they inevitably make a mistake and refuse to acknowledge or correct it. Ignoring the definitions/words entirely, my idea of an ideal administrator is someone who brings a half-full mind to the table. An admin needs to bring ideas or they're useless, but they also need to keep some space open for the ideas of other editors. Hopefully that gets at the heart of what you were asking. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:31, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Additional question from NewYorkActuary

19. In your response to Question 7, you noted that "when determining consensus, strength of arguments is crucial". In a discussion of one of your recent RfC closures (here), you stated "My role as closer is not to evaluate my subjective opinion on quality of arguments". Do you see a contradiction between these two statementts and, if so, how do you resolve it?

A: Not at all. If an argument is reasonably based in policy, the closer shouldn't unilaterally decide that this argument is unconvincing. It's up to discussion participants to do that. If the opposing side can easily refute the argument by demonstrating that the policy is usually not applied in the way it is being applied in the argument, etc., that speaks to strength of arguments. The only arguments a closer should be discarding outright are those that blatantly contradict policy or fail to provide a relevant rationale. Which subjective application of policy makes the most sense is up to discussion participants to fully debate, not for King Closer III to decree. When both sides have good-faith and somewhat reasonable arguments, it's not for me to discard one side because I personally don't find it terribly convincing. That's the point I was making on my talk page.

Additional question from Ottawahitech

20. You say you intend to work at WP:TfD and WP:CfD, but few in this discussion have asked or commented on those areas. Can you please tell us what you see as major wp:Category challenges at Wikipedia and why you believe that Category creators should be treated differently than other content creators

A: The largest problem categories face on the project is the issue of broken category trees. I discussed this a bit in my answer to question 8. Reading back, I don't really have anything to add. It's important to the maintenance of the project that we clean up existing category trees so articles in sub-sub-sub-sub-categories belong in the original parent, especially as we move toward machine readability. Overcategorization is also an issue; it's unhelpful to click on a category and find that it's the only page there. This is often done in the name of a larger overall categorization scheme, but when half the categories look like this, it's time to reevaluate that scheme. As for the second part of your question, I don't think many category content creators exist, if any do. Editors tend to create a category while creating actual content. It would be very pedantic indeed to specialize mostly in creating and populating categories. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Additional question from Bbb23

21. Last month you participated in a discussion at WP:AN as to whether to unblock TheREALCableGuy (talk · contribs · count). You took a strong policy position that a CU should not be run unless there is current evidence of sock puppetry: "I cannot possibly state how strongly I disagree with the idea that past sockpuppet abuse/disruption serves as a license to check an account permanently." Mike V, who ran a check, concisely stated, "the global and local policies permit a check to be run in order to check for sockpuppet abuse and limit disruption to the project." One obvious hurdle that a sock has to overcome when requesting an unblock is that they have not socked recently. It is almost pro forma for a CheckUser to run a check to verify that at a minimum there's no evidence in the last three months that the person has done so. Many editors explained this to you but you insisted that it was a policy violation, or at least the policy was ambiguous on the issue. Earlier in June, you posted a wish to be come an SPI trainee ([2]). I don't believe that in your initial statement in this RfA that you said that one of the areas you wanted to work in was SPI, but I must confess I am troubled by the thought of your becoming a clerk. It's not so much the misunderstanding of policy and practice. It's the stubbornness with which it was expressed at AN. You state you're a quick study when it comes to Wikipedia. It seems that is accompanied, at least occasionally, by a self-righteousness about your interpretations of how Wikipedia is governed. I'd appreciate it if you would allay my concerns and address these issues.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:23, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

A: First, I'd like to be very clear that I'm not saying that the check was an abuse of the tool. It was done in good faith. I should have led with that when I spoke against the check. When I realized that wasn't conveyed clearly, I explicitly stated it at ANI, but I apologize to the CheckUser if they felt like I was targeting them with my disapproval.

Our protection policy makes it clear that protection is only used as a measure to stop ongoing disruption. It's not a tool to prevent potential future disruption. Our blocking policy is similar. We don't block users as punishment, but rather to prevent active damage to the project. On the other hand, many editors interpret our CheckUser policy to allow a check on users with a past history of disruption even when no disruption is currently evident. CheckUser is one of our most intrusive tools on the project. It has to constantly be balanced against privacy concerns, even those of users who are disruptive. This is explicitly spelled out in the policy. I doubt that it was ever intended to be used with a lower bar than a block, but it was applied that way in this situation. I can recall SPIs I've filed where multiple clerks opposed the use of CheckUser despite the user admitting to using multiple accounts to prevent other editors from connecting their past contributions with their current contributions. Their rationales seemed to boil down to the lack of obvious disruption from the accounts and this was with ironclad proof that multiple accounts were currently in use to avoid the scrutiny of connecting contributions between accounts. I don't think all of those attitudes toward administrative tools and even CheckUser itself are consistent. If we truly believe socking from the editor so likely that a preventative CheckUser is necessary, then they should just remain blocked or banned. If we don't believe socking is highly likely, then I don't think the CU is called for.

My offer to clerk was mostly to deal with a large backlog that was contributing to active damage on the encyclopedia. I'm likely to participate at SPI with regard to a couple masters who I'd consider myself an expert on, such as Nikita. Beyond that, it depends how severe the backlog is and how real life stuff is going. It is not a primary priority of mine, which is why I didn't list it as one of the main things I plan to do with the tools. The main reason I'd like access to the tools relates to closes, and anything else is secondary.

I thought about this during the first act of Shuffle Along (highly recommended), and I'll withdraw my possible interest in clerking SPI if this RFA succeeds. One of the reasons I've been successful navigating new areas is that I focus on one at a time. Taking on multiple new things at once and rushing through them is a recipe for doing them all at a mediocre level at best. I'd rather do one new thing well than two new things poorly. I often have a gut reaction to clear backlogs I see, but this is a situation where I need to quash that. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:36, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I think I misread the original question as I was answering it while under some time pressure. The above response is an explanation of why I hold the opinion I do about what the CU policy should be. Based on past experiences on another website where privacy wasn't honored at all, I have views on CU that are probably a minority view. I originally thought this view was the actual policy given the requirement for current disruption in most applications of administrative tools, but I recognized at the ANI that this is not the case, which is why I softened my statement to saying the policy could use some clarification. It very well could mean exactly what Bbb23 thinks it does (it almost certainly does, actually), but it's a bit counterintuitive given other policies. Personally, I think it's worth spelling out one way or the other. After realizing I probably held a minority view, I elected not to push the issue beyond the ANI thread in any form. Apologies for missing the meaning of your question. It wasn't my intention to dodge your request for a comment on my perceived stubbornness. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Additional question from Andrew D.

22. Your content work has mostly been about Canadian football. I also read somewhere in this that you are or were a grad student majoring in maths so perhaps you come to Wikipedia to get a break from that subject. Anyway, what do you think of the maths articles on Wikipedia? Andrew D. (talk) 11:16, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

A: I think I said math-heavy at one point. The PhD program I'm entering this year is in economics, but my interests are a bit eclectic. My research in undergrad was on the economics of education, specifically relating to racial achievement gaps in the United States. I tend not to look at or edit articles related to economics. You're correct that I consider Wikipedia to be a pleasant break from the subject. The racial achievement gaps article is exceptionally outdated and misleading, however, and I might work on it in the future. The kindergarten through fifth grade section is especially galling. It essentially ignores all pieces of research that suggest a racial achievement gap may not be present when students enter the educational system, a conclusion found in several high-profile papers since 2001.

Optional question from DoRD

23. In your opinion, was the use of CheckUser justified with respect to question 9? Why or why not?

A: Absolutely. The account made roughly ten swift edits upon first registering and then came back a little over four days later with Twinkle enabled. That makes it very clear he was attempting to gain autoconfirmed status, which is a strong indication that the editor has had a previous account. His edits to project space are an illegitimate use of alternative accounts as per WP:ILLEGIT, so the check was more than justified.

Additional question from Sir_Joseph

24.What is your opinion on No Legal Threats and how would you react/action/block when a threat or perceived threat is made?

A: (This question was changed after I answered it. Please see here for the original question.) No, absolutely not. They're commenting on the possibility that Wikipedia could be subject to a lawsuit from another person, not threatening to file one. As per WP:NLT, "A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat." We'd pretty much have to block every participant of an WP:FFD if we blocked editors for discussing how certain content may create legal issues for the Foundation.

To answer the broader altered question, NLT is very clear that obvious legal threats cannot be tolerated on the project, and I agree with that. Legal threats have a profound chilling effect on discussion. For blatant legal threats, an indefinite block until the threat is revoked is appropriate. For comments that could be construed as legal threats but which aren't obviously so, I would invite the user to clarify that their comment was not a legal threat rather than immediately blocking. In both cases, I would invite the user to withdraw the (potential) threat on their talk page, explain why, and invite them to discuss the issue that led to their (potential) legal threat. I'd also evaluate the substance of their complaint to see if something needs to be improved as per WP:DOLT, especially for any alleged BLP violations. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:55, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

• Links for BU Rob13: BU Rob13 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for BU Rob13 can be found here.

---

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

Support

1. Support Will be a net positive. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 01:02, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
2. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:04, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
3. Support. It's raining admins! I had a look around BU Rob's contribs recently and found a level-headed, knowledgeable Wikipedian. - Dank (push to talk) 01:05, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
4. Support Incredible work at CFD and TFD. I remember that the backlogs there used to be huge, but since Rob has started working there they've gone down considerably. He's also got some good content to his name, which is a big plus. Him becoming an admin would be help for admins who regularly clean out G6s, as they wouldn't have to delete the pages after he closes TFD debates, he would be able to delete them himself. Omni Flames (talk) 01:07, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
5. Strong Support. I stumbled across one of Rob's early contributions, Bryan Burnham, and noticed an excellent creation that was just a little short of the size requirements of DYK. I added a couple sentences to it and nominated it for DYK; and since the editor was really only a newbie, didn't think anything of it. Next thing I know, he's cranking out DYK credits like it's nothing, he's already got ~40 of them! Outside of content creation, I've seen him all over the place, and every time I see him in discussions, I see nothing but intelligent, level-headed contributions. Rob is here for the right reasons and it'd be a great service for Wikipedia to vet him with the mop. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:15, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
6. Support – Great to see a candidate who has vast experience in some of the lesser-known and lesser-worked-in parts of the WP universe. United States Man (talk) 01:20, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
7. (edit conflict × 2) Support per Omni Flames's point about admins who clean out G6, as well not being too proud to retract the AfD on Carnism (see Q3). Also, Rob was a great example of how to participate in discussions in the Village Pump discussion that preceded the present April Fool's RfC. Chickadee46 (talk|contribs) (WP:MCW) 01:21, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

   Clarification: I moved my !vote to neutral and back again. Although I still have a few reservations, nobody's perfect and Rob will probably be a net positive. Chickadee46 (talk|contribs) (WP:MCW) 19:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

8. Support. I have looked through BU Rob's work and I'm very impressed. We need more administrators willing to work on backlogs and the more mundane side of adminship. Rob has clearly built up good faith with the community, doesn't get into disputes, and has earned his right to "the tools". It'll be a travesty if he's nitpicked into failure by the process because this is the sort of person we need. KaisaL (talk) 01:22, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
9. Support For sure, I have been looking forward to this RfA. I find the assumption of bad faith by Stemoc to be repugnant and in no way compelling. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 01:34, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
10. Support, per my interactions with him at BRFA and elsewhere. A great contributor and obviously a net positive. Enterprisey (talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 01:38, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
11. (edit conflict) Support - A no-brainer. Backlog-clearing is truly unglamorous, yeoman's work, but it's important work that has to get done, nonetheless. Rob has a solid track-record of thoughtful, civil contributions to discussions. I'm very heartened to see the diff cited above - there's no shame in changing your mind. In addition, they've been singularly helpful in dealing with the notorious LTA Никита-Родин-2002: They started an ANI thread that authorized 30/500 protection, and have contributed a large percentage of the reports to the SPI. Good luck, GAB^gab 01:39, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
12. Support Easy choice for admin. Will use the tools well! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 01:59, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
13. Support – TfD and CfD could definitely gain from a dedicated Admin, and I've never seen Rob have a bad interaction with anyone. Plus, he's done good work around the project. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:02, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
14. Support -FASTILY 02:16, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

    Fastily, could I persuade you to expand this commentary a little? I note that you frequent templates for discussion and are a bot operator and are probably in an excellent position to offer valuable insights about the motivations and past behavior of this nominee — whether they really deserve the tools or not based on their past history, whether their massive edit total in a very short period of time is problematic or not... I hate to single you out, but you have a lot to offer us here, since you can speak from direct experience and a one word support provides the rest of us so little. Carrite (talk) 14:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

    Certainly :)

    Support Rob is an active and productive participant at TfD and CfD, both areas in need of additional admin help. The fact that Rob is a bot op and familiar with software development is a huge plus, which is great, given that some admin backlogs do require technical competency. I also don't find the large number of edits in a short period of time troubling, as Rob's track record hasn't given me any reason to suspect foul play. -FASTILY 02:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

15. Absolutely - Seen you around, absolutely would trust with the tools. SQL^{Query me!} 02:22, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
16. Support From looking at his contributions and his experience, I strongly would trust him with the tools. MrWooHoo (T • C) 02:24, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
17. Very strong support I participated in the long and frustrating dispute at carnism, and found that Rob was always a fair-minded voice of sanity and policy (including when disagreeing with me): [3] [4] [5]. I quickly came to admire his temperament and clue. Since then, I've seen his work around WP and always found the same thoughtful, well-informed, and patient contributions. He would be a wonderful admin. FourViolas (talk) 03:28, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
18. Support, based on review. Kierzek (talk) 03:29, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
19. Support. Net positive. He knows what he's doing. Anarchyte (work | talk) 03:37, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
20. Support, clearly a levelheaded editor who is an unambiguous net positive. The only concern I might have is his quickness to go to arbcom over the nikita socks, but this is relatively minor. Happy to support.Tazerdadog (talk) 04:05, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
21. Support - Barring evidence to the contrary, I am willing to trust that Rob has nothing but the best of intentions and will do well as an administrator. Kurtis ^(talk) 04:32, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

    Support Meets my personal checklist, answer to #4 is quite acceptable. A burst of enthusiasm is to be expected, and while the learning curve here is steep, it can be negotiated in different ways.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:49, 2 July 2016 (UTC) Striking vote, as the basis for it was a bit mistaken, to fault myself. Will continue to monitor discussion.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

22. Support -- I can't say whether or not my own bad behavior has sponsored, in whatever capacity, the sourness and suspicion that is currently in the Oppose section and that is almost certainly to come to this RfA. Whatever the case, this candidate is qualified and willing. Even if he has had past accounts, I'm hesitant to say that a more than stellar track record in this name does not compensate. BU Rob13, I wish you well. Don't let the suspicion get to you. --ceradon 06:55, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
23. Support per Special:Diff/726784329. SSTflyer 07:37, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
24. Support. By my investigation, Rob is an editor with obvious clue, the right temperament, and a proven track record in both content creation and nontrivial maintenance work. His answers to the RfA questions are spot on. (I was particularly pleased with his helpful links, for example, his links in question 2 which cite non-admins' authority to close CfD and TfD discussions: it's a small detail many editors, myself included, would have overlooked.) The suggestion that his history is too good to be true is akin to Russell's teapot: all steam and no substance. If his history is unusual, it is only because his intelligence and assiduousness are unusual. Rebbing 07:40, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
25. Support: having looked through some of Rob's previous contributions at XfD and on talk pages, he seems to be very clueful. I am especially pleased with his willingness to judge consensus on the basis of the arguments given rather than simply looking at numerical weight – something which, though it is policy, is not always followed. As for the single oppose rationale that Rob was suspiciously competent as a beginner: well, if it turns out that he has spent a year of his life and 46k productive edits solely to become a rogue admin, then he can be blocked and dysysopped, but I judge the likelyhood of that actually being the case as vanishingly small. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:02, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
26. Support, obvious. Graham87 08:30, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
27. Support – Having looked through his edit history, Rob is definitely suitable for adminship. I do not foresee him misusing the tools. Z105space (talk) 08:42, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
28. Support, precious, and with clue, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
29. Support Of course! A suitable candidate for adminship. Good luck Bu Rob13! — Hamid Hassani (talk) 09:15, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
30. Support Absolutely. Mop wisely. :-) Katie^talk 09:16, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
31. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 09:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
32. Support as nom, of course. Let's add to what I said above that this is the second time he's responded gracefully to unwarranted suspicions of bad faith, which is a very good skill to have as a newly initiated cabal member I mean, a new admin ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:27, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
33. Support I have run across Rob at least once when he advised me during a silly argument I had immersed myself in with two respected and quite experienced administrators. His two statement advise was perhaps more insightful than the miles of conversations made previously. I respect him for that interaction and much more. He is a mature editor with a great amount of good quality work done for this encyclopaedia. Hell, if this is how banned editors are, then we should be getting more (pun intended of course). We need to introspect and consider the time Rob has spent here, the effort taken on writing and improving multiple articles, the investment he has done in resolving multiple issues...and all the while being a student. I applaud this kind of voluntary work and am sure my fellow editors too do so. Go and just do the work Rob (you know what I'm talking about). And enjoy your time here. Lourdes 10:53, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
34. Support. Seems to know what he's doing. Edit count and how fast he accumulated them shouldn't be an indication of whether or not he's likely to misuse the tools. I didn't uncover anything in his history (and neither has anyone else) to suggest he will. ERK ^talk 11:00, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
35. Support. As someone on the talk page said, "Sometimes, something that is too good to be true, really is true". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:06, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

    :D :D Lourdes 11:16, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

36. Support, great work overall, will be particularly useful at TfD, CfD. Nsk92 (talk) 11:51, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
37. Support Frankly, when TfD gets so backlogged that non-admins are cleared to close discussions as delete, anyone wanting to use a mop and bucket in that area should be welcomed with open arms. No other concerns, good and thorough answer to Q8 which clearly illustrates that he knows his stuff. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:53, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
38. Support per my comments at the Optional RfA candidate poll[6] - In short perfect candidate. –Davey2010^Talk 12:34, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
39. Support Not only is this user qualified to be an admin, but also I see no reason to oppose. (Frankly, I found the oppose arguments to be unfounded. Just because someone knows his/her way around Wikipedia doesn't mean that he or she is using a sock puppet account.) Joshualouie711 (talk) 13:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
40. Support, do not see any issues, and we definitely need more manpower at CfD and TfD--Ymblanter (talk) 13:24, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
41. Good egg, seems like he's here for the right reasons, has experience in the areas he wants to work. I've been impressed in my interactions with him. Only word of advice, would be to watch out for burnout as he seems a likely candidate – sometimes the best thing you can do is to take a break and come back refreshed. Jenks24 (talk) 13:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
42. Support. Only decision, as a non-admin closer, by the candidate that I've had concerns about where resolved by the candidate very rapidly (and with more calm than would have been expected, since I was talking about having the close overturned). Pays attention, has the kind of experience needed, and doesn't ruffle easily (or ruffle others) from what I can tell.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:36, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
43. Support – I have encountered this user here and there and he always seems to behave well. Suggest he modify the way his signature is rendered because otherwise, when you use the search box at WP:ANI, you get many unrelated hits for 'Rob'. Consider changing your visible signature to 'Rob13'. EdJohnston (talk) 15:29, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
44. Support. It would be very hard to oppose a candidate nominated by someone as thorough as Opabinia and her co-nominator, but I had to be sure and do my own research. All I came across were some oppose below that seems to be determined to maintain RfA as a horrible and broken process. An ideal, mature, highly qualified model candidate, we need more like BU Rob13 - if we can get RfA finally cleaned up.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:39, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
45. Support. Will make a good admin, I hope. Qweedsa (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
46. Encountered Rob around TfD. Has created decent content. Rob seems very eager to work in backlogs, and this project needs more participants willing to handle these administrative tasks. Seems to be a fast learner as well, picking up TPROT requests recently and handling them well. He's undoubtedly been a big net positive in his year-or-so tenure. Support — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 16:09, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
47. Support haven't managed to take as thorough a review of this editor as I would normally, but a quick flick through suggests they are a net positive to the project, and a good candidate for adminship. Go for it -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 16:19, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
48. For the sake of conciseness, I'll say "per all of the above." Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium, now featuring BB-8 (talk) 16:58, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
49. Support as he has done some excellent work for Wikipedia as a non-admin and I believe these will be further accelerated through adminship. The first Oppose is a complete violation of AGF which needs looking into. --PatientZero ^talk 17:06, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
50. Support They seem polite and friendly and you really can never have too many level-headed, fast-learning admins willing to clear unglamourous backlogs. Students make a full time occupation of learning things quickly and very well by reading them. I have also found Wikipedia to be quite easy to learn, though I tend to be cautious anyway. After seeing the mess and heartbreak that a new user acting with good faith and no competence can cause, I wish we could stop automatically suspecting new competent account. We want new users to read a few policies before editing, if possible. Happy Squirrel (talk) 17:54, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
51. Strong support from the first time I interacted with Rob after a TfD closure I wondered how he wasn't already an admin. I have no reservations. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 18:03, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
52. Support - CAPTAIN RAJU ^(✉) 18:22, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
53. Makes mistakes, but everybody makes mistakes. The important thing in the context of Wikipedia is a willingness to admit mistakes, coupled with an understanding of which fields one's not competent to act in, and I can't see any obvious issues here. @Stemoc, what does it matter even if he turns out not to be a new user? I can think of at most five examples in the entire history of Wikipedia of people getting a sock through RFA, and not a single one of those socks actually caused any problems; if some hypothetical Bad User wanted sysop access that badly, there are considerably easier ways to get hold of an admin account than working for a year at creating a false identity. ‑ Iridescent 18:33, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

    Robdurbar (context) was at least briefly problematic, thought that was a long time ago. Wifione (context) was much worse and much more recent. —Cryptic 00:27, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

54. Support: Will be a great help with closing TfDs because then he can delete those templates. —MRD2014 T C 18:50, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
55. Support Very helpful. Will be a net positive. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 19:53, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
56. Support, assuming good faith; the candidate is well recommended and does seem to have plenty of clue. Editors oppose RFAs for too few edits, and then turn around and say another candidate has too many. Sheesh. Miniapolis 20:07, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
57. Support So what if hes been here just over a year, and has 46k edits in that time span? User seems mature and probably wouldn't abuse the tools, given the amount of effort they've put into the wikipedia. Guthix no more (talk) 20:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
58. Support From what I've seen of him, he's plenty competent, and he seems eager to help in areas that have been short on admins lately. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 21:03, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
59. Support likely to be net positive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
60. Support. Clean record, good contributions, likely to be more of an asset to the project as an administrator. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:42, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
61. Support you have my full support Rob! Came across your work at TfD and you are a tireless contributor to the project who is well deserving of admin tools. st170e^talk 00:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
62. Support - On review, I'm convinced Rob will make a fine admin.- MrX 00:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

    Support - no reason not to. I'm unconvinced by the lack of experience argument, since I think 9 months is more than sufficient. The other reasons are more concerning, but not sufficiently so for me to switch from support. Banedon (talk) 02:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC) Moving to neutral. Banedon (talk) 09:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

63. Support but keep up very good content creation Atlantic306 (talk) 03:31, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

    I'm unfortunately on a forced content creation vacation because my undergraduate institution has yanked my library database access, but I plan to jump right back in when Penn sets up my library account. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:43, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

64. Support I'm also impressed with the candidate's content creation and level-headed-ness. This, having a clue, strong nominations, and the the backlog clearing makes the candidate easy for me to support. - tucoxn\^talk 04:33, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
65. We've interacted a lot through bot approvals. Rob is careful and sensible, and from his record I can't imagine him having anything but the best of intentions here, and we've seen the quality of work he can produce. There's some concern in the oppose section about account age, but really, we've had plenty of greener admins who have done just fine. — Earwig ^talk 07:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
66. Support - A year is long enough to learn the ropes. I don't see a temperment that I think would lend itself to wielding the admin status like a badge to sway arguments either. James086^Talk 07:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
67. Support We need more admins, see no reason to think he'd abuse the position. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:24, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

    Support I was going to !vote oppose as per Semtoc's point below, which was a phenomonally perceptive one; but BU_Rob's answer to Q4 is comprehensive enough to distill any doubts as to this candidate. _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

68. Support Oripaypaykim (talk) 11:31, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
69. Support First bumped in to BU Rob at TfD and impressed by his workrate. The favourable impression has been continually enhanced by encountering his contributions elsewhere, particularly at CfD and closing an RfC I'd raised. Given that he's used the AWB and TE tools so effectively we can only look forward to what BU Rob will achieve with the mop. Wholehearted enthusiastic support, for (;;) (talk) 11:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
70. Support (edit conflict)- Good candidate, should be trusted with the tools. Class455fan1 (talk) 11:56, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
71. Support Clear net positive and on a sidenote good to see a editor who started to edit in 2015 became an admin is the 8th admin since 2012 and within the 30 admins who started to edit since 2010 per this.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
72. Support I've no issues trusting BU Rob, I've seen them around the place and haven't had a problem with anything they've done. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:56, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
73. Support. I find this user's answers compelling and their reasoning carefully considered in general. They clearly have a level head on their shoulders and have a definite use for the administrative toolkit in the areas outlined in Q1. /wiae /tlk 14:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
74. Support based on the candidate's general cluefulness and our AIV/SPI related interactions. Widr (talk) 14:37, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
75. Refreshing to see a good candidate who hasn't been here for years already. —Kusma (t·c) 15:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

    Yeah, I do like a newbie who can jump right into Templates for Discussion on Day 1, as well. There aren't enough of those... Carrite (talk) 17:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

76. Suppoer. I'm satisfied with the amount of experience, and see nothing problematic from this user at Talk:Catherine Zeta-Jones. Steve Smith (talk) 18:19, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

    Yup what happened at Talk:Catherine_Zeta-Jones#Infobox was that Rob had disagreed with the editor who is citing this as his reason for opposing. And he had done so perfectly politely, even when others there had not. I'd say that unless opposer #3 can point to what exactly merits "they don't appreciate other editor's opinions during content disputes... It's their way or nothing. Not good." we chalk this up as an editor with a grudge from a previous exchange, and one in which he fared rather badly, it seems to me. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:51, 3 July 2016 (UTC) moved to neutral, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

    That was my first impression. I requested clarification but did not get it, so my impression remains. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 18:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

    Support Net positive - Yellow Dingo (talk) 21:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC) Moved to oppose. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 01:03, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

    Support. Great nominations, impressive answers to questions, and no deal-breakers in the oppose section. Someone I've seen around, and I am very comfortable supporting. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 3 July 2016 (UTC) Moved to oppose. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:03, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

77. Support: Rob has shown that he can make good decisions and has done an excellent job of answering questions. We need administrators who are willing to do the work.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  22:10, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
78. Support. Bright, industrious, quick and, importantly, good demeanor. Helpful with backlogs. Contributions with automated tools and bots are important if generally done well. They add to other contributions when present, not subtract from them. If the other contributions are evident, they can fill out a candidate's qualifications. I see that here. Any doubt raised by the opposes has been adequately answered on the talk page, especially by Cyberpower678. Kudpung's review and comment along with those of others such as HighinBC and Shawn in Montreal put the doubts to rest. Donner60 (talk) 22:15, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
79. Support. He is experienced and willing to work in some underserved areas that desperately need help. He seems calm and courteous and has avoided drama. I am particularly persuaded by the strong nominations from two people who have worked closely with him and are in a far better position than anyone else to know about any problems of editing style or temperament. --MelanieN (talk) 22:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
80. Support I've seen nothing but good things from Rob. He has a need for the tools and wants to work in areas that need more admin attention. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:25, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
81. Support No complaints. Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 00:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
82. Support - Based on my experiences with Rob and what I've seen poking around prior to weighing in here, I think he generally shows pretty good judgment. It seems meaningful that if I were asked to estimate how long his account had been around, I would've said at least 12 months :) Seriously though, it takes effort and understanding to blend in with the "experienced" crowd, so as long as there aren't outstanding concerns of abusing multiple accounts (and it looks like that business has been cleared up sufficiently), then supporting makes sense. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
83. Support, as the co-nominator. My comments are above. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
84. Support Good answers to the questions (I'm particularly impressed with the level-headed answer to question 4) and solid contributions. Should be a fine admin. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 07:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
85. Support Reasoned and capable, wants to work in areas that really need extra manpower, and based on my limited observations, certainly a good team player. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
86. Support Some newbies stumble and fall coming out the gate because they haven't quite grasped a sense of WP community, the latter of which is far more difficult to comprehend than authoring articles or figuring out code; some get up, brush themselves off and try a different approach, learning as they go; others leave in frustration never to return, while a few some keep repeating their unsocial behavior and eventually get mopped away. My take on this candidate is that he has the necessary skills to do the work and while he may need a bit more polish in a few minor aspects of communication, (who doesn't?), he's a fast learner, keeps improving, and by all measures appears to be amicable. I believe he'll be a trustworthy mopper. ^{Atsme📞📧} 12:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
87. Support: Capable. Will be a net positive. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
88. Support Based on my interactions with Rob, I have no doubts he will make for an excellent admin. —Ruud 13:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
89. Support The oppose arguments are either WP:NOTQUITEYET or accusing him of being a sockpuppet of a banned user. Another WP:GNOME with adminship can only be a good thing, and looking at the amount of backlogs he's helped to clear I can't see a reason to decline this candidate. KieranTribe —Preceding undated comment added 15:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
90. Support Qualified candidate. Mandatory minimums serve little purpose when such a large body of work is present. Mkdw^talk 15:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
91. Support per nominators. I am impressed by BU Rob13's answers, and I think that the answers to Q1 and Q2 clearly indicate the need for the admin tools. From reading through his talk archives, BU Rob13 appears level-headed and always willing to explain himself. I don't think that BU Rob13 would abuse the tools and I believe that he would be an excellent administrator. « D. Trebbien (talk) 15:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
92. Support - will be a net positive. Keilana (talk) 16:42, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
93. Support ^{Babymissfortune} 16:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
94. Support- I foresee no issues with his selection. Clearly a net positive for the project IMO.   Aloha27  talk  18:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
95. Support Qualified candidate with sufficient experience. The opposes, as of now, appear to be largely speculative with little or no support, so I have no concerns in my support. --I am One of Many (talk) 23:54, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
96. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 00:52, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
97. Support Very quick learner, approachable and open minded. Also fully dedicated to whatever task he takes up. Lizard (talk) 01:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
98. Support I see no issues. Definite net positive. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
99. To balance out more nitpicking that does the community no favours. --Closedmouth (talk) 03:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

    Support - Even if adminship is given after "only" 9 months, it can be taken away just as fast as it is given. Guthix no more (talk) 03:26, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

    Striking duplicate !vote. Feel free to comment as much as you want but you can only !vote once. --Majora (talk) 03:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

100. Support. Great to see a willing and qualified relative newcomer. I see in some opposes that Rob sometimes acts like he is relatively new, but that is to be expected with someone who is relatively new. It does not, however, impact ability or trustworthiness, and temperament is excellent. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
101. Support - e.g. based on the examples of Rob's editing highlighted by the Oppose !votes. DexDor ^(talk) 06:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
102. Support Not convinced by the "only 9 months of experience" that the opposing camp frequently repeats. If you can judge someone's maturity and decision-making skills with less edits and shorter time frame 8-10 years ago, surely you would be able to make a more informed and better decision with slightly more time and slightly more edits now? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
103. Support. Happy to do so. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
104. Support. Candidate's work at TfD and CfD would be greatly helped by adminship. Keep up the good work. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 09:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
105. Support. The idea that WP:UAA and speedy deletion already receive enough admin attention is laughable when both are permanently backlogged but otherwise, all good. WaggersTALK 12:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

     Indeed. Even non-admins can help : CLICK HERE and anything you think isn't a CSD A7, revert it and see if you can take it to DYK. It's a game for all the family! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

106. Support Another editor I said "wait, they aren't an admin?" Definitely worthy of the tools. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
107. . . . rather weakly. Having read all and looked through things, I am willing to take the flyer and hope it works out, although some of the eloquent opposes do speak for the sensible proposition that there is no teacher like (more) experience, and others to doubt in trust as a fragile thing. The organic nature of the Wikipedia environment is a long school, but sometimes someone may be a prodigy. Here's asking and hoping that you really do fulfill the promise. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:08, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
108. A nice mix of contributing content and need for the tools. Clean block log, seems sensible and civil. Just over a year's tenure, and that includes a one month break and a couple of other months with little activity. I think I understand how some of the opposers interpret that as 9 months tenure; I don't. Nor am I concerned at a large number of semiautomated edits, as the candidate has done some useful unautomated content creation. ϢereSpielChequers 13:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
109. Support I see a clear demonstrated need for the tools and a head level enough to use them wisely. Account age is not an issue. clpo13_(talk) 15:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
110. Support per Kudpung. Jianhui67 ^T★C 15:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
111. Support I see no reason to oppose. There are lots of experienced editors who aren't as fluent in relevant WP Policy than this editor. -Drdisque (talk) 16:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
112. Support Both because I believe the editor is a net positive and because of the thoughtful answers on questions 7 and 12. Mizike (talk) 17:33, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
113. Support - not least to counter some of the highly unreasonable opposes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
114. Support. I don't see any problems. AfD stats look good. Bearian (talk) 20:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
115. Support, because he seems to me to be a good candidate, capable and a net positive.Moriori (talk) 21:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
116. Support, I have seen him around countless times and have never had any issues with the way he presents himself. He has a good understanding of how guidelines should be implemented and how to solve problems when they arise. I believe he will add tremendous value to wikipedia given adminship, as he already does. Chase (talk) 22:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
117. Support - In the face of the overwhelmingly positive case made by the nominators and the supporters, I find the opposing rationales to be nothing short of frightening. Swarm ♠ 22:53, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
118. Support Clear net positive to the project, and WP:100 says otherwise. Oppose !votes don't convince me — maturity, quality, and excellence is what's valued here, not mere time. The only thing time can guarantee is eventual and inevitable death. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 02:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
119. Support. Looks to me like thirteen is our lucky number this time. The oppose section isn't resonating with me at all; your "résumé" is credible to me. wbm1058 (talk) 03:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
120. Support because Wikipedia needs more active administrators and this user is clearly a net positive. kennethaw88 • talk 05:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
121. Support- net positive. Reyk _YO! 06:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
122. Support Well qualified, thoughtful and productive editor in multiple namespaces and who will become more productive as an admin. Anything over 5 months of tenure is more than enough to understand Wikipedia's fundamental goals and processes. Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
123. Support Sure!! --Pratyya ^(Hello!) 13:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
124. Support. Convinced by nom. Deryck C. 16:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
125. Support. Keep up the good work. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 16:23, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
126. Support – Mature, balanced and courteous, while firm when necessary. In policy debates, Rob effortlessly cuts to the essentials, a plus against overzealous wikilawyers. — JFG ^talk 16:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
127. Support ~ having spent a bit of time on it, i cannot find a reason not to: Candidate appears to meet my criteria, none of the opposes are completely convincing. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 17:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
128. Support. Most of the opposes are either unconvincing or too controversial. Also, we need more admins working in deletion areas, so I don't see why he can't be one too. Minima© (talk) 18:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
129. Support - I have nothing but praise for Rob's work on the encyclopedia. I first saw him at the GAN page and read an article that he nominated. I was very impressed by the efforts he had put into developing it. Going through his contributions, I do not see any red flags that would make me second guess his abilities. As far as the concerns with the RfC closure goes, Newyorkbrad has done a great job explaining Rob's rationale and in my understanding he acted fairly enough. This might be one of the few rare cases with the perfect application of the fifth fundamental principle of Wikipedia. Yash! 18:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
130. Support. I've run across Rob quite a few times, and he strikes me as someone who tries to do the right thing. Sure he makes mistakes, but this is a Request for Adminship, not Sainthood. Reasonably clueful, won't delete the main page, seems likely to be a net positive. The mop is no big deal, and Rob seems qualified to me. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
131. Support. He's demonstrated great commitment to working thankless but necessary jobs, such as TfD, and I think that kind of person is suited to adminship. --Gimubrc (talk) 19:24, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
132. Support Great work in all areas. No reason to oppose. — Music1201 ^talk 20:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
133. Support - Everything looks good, and the answers to the questions are satisfactory. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
134. Support - I am impressed by Rob's commitment to building this encyclopedia and I believe he is qualified for the position of being an administrator. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:36, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
135. Support A net positive, and quite a content contributor, as well. Not to mention the fact that many of his contributions have come in areas that are generally under-represented, too. Obviously, his excellent TfD work speaks for itself, as per Opabinia regalis' nomination. Ejgreen77 (talk) 02:32, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
136. Support As a "pedantic" user that focuses mostly in the category space, I remember last year WP:CFD was crippled with nominations that would be left hanging for months so that editors were unsure how to proceed. Lately Rob and other editors have done a good job of keeping the category nominations current. He has ruled against some of my nominations but I still appreciate his involvement with resolving category discussions and that will be facilitated with admin rights. To the points about editing 9 months to some of the opposes, he occasionally lacks background but has been a quick learner so I'm confident he will pick it up. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:47, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
137. Support Editor appears to have the experience necessary to improve the encyclopedia in his areas of interest. Most importantly, everything I've seen from this editor indicates that he always keeps his cool and remains civil and cognizant of relevant policy. What more could we want in an admin? Ajpolino (talk) 03:18, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
138. Suport Completely trustworthy and civilized. Has created many quality pages and done much admin-like tasks. Don't see any issues with giving this one the mop! FiendYT ★ 06:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
139. Support Like the answers to the questions. Not overly concerned about the short editing tenure when there are enough edits to get a good feel for the candidate. AIRcorn (talk) 10:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
140. Support. Decent answers to the questions and I'm not freaked out by the fact that his account is only a year old. I think giving him the tools is very likely to be a net positive for the project. Pichpich (talk) 17:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
141. Support. Has done good work, seems to understand policy, answers to questions were good.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  19:16, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
142. Support Does good work and can use the tools. I think the candidate can be trusted. The objections below have not convinced me that making the candidate an admin won't be a clear net positive. Gap9551 (talk) 20:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
143. Support TFD/CFD/tech experience is a plus. Otherwise looks OK. INeverCry 21:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
144. Support Good record, could use the admin tools, would improve the site. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 00:33, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
145. Support - A courteous and helpful editor. Based on their answer to Q5, I am going to trust Rob to be careful when applying extended confirm protection. Altamel (talk) 02:12, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
146. Support. I have considered the various oppose rationales. (a) Too many automated edits? There has been a lot of good non-automated work too, which has demonstrated the candidate's knowledge and ability. (b) Not here long enough? A year is more than enough to figure out how this place works. (c) The Catherine Zeta-Jones incident? His engagement in the infobox discussion looks fine to me. He engaged with other editors; there's no evidence of "not appreciating other opinions". (d) discussion about deletion nominations: His comments seem to have been misconstrued, as mentioned below. In any event, that was during his first week here. (e) a returning editor? I accept the explanation about how he came to be here. (f) the involved close? he identified himself as involved and invited people to overturn if necessary. Did anyone? (g) empty list AFD: storm in a teacup. (h) Question 21 answer: the candidate has further explained, and I think the explanation is sound.

     These oppose rationales, taken either individually or as a whole, have not convinced me I should oppose too. I see a level head, plenty of good work and reasonable judgment displayed by the candidate. So he gets my nod. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

147. Support per Athomeinkobe. Fences&Windows 05:55, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
148. Support per Athomeinkobe. I really really wish I had gotten here sooner, because they seem to have captured my sentiments precisely. None of the oppose rationales I'm seeing are persuasive - and they are balanced against a good amount of clueful editing and considered opinions. No objections, good luck. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
149. Support I do appreciate a few of the concerns of the oppose voters, but I don't see enough to warrant an oppose vote against the support reasons. I am also OK with his answer to my question about legal threats. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:25, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
150. Support I think the candidate can be trusted. The objections below have not convinced me that making the candidate an admin won't be a clear net positive. Pincrete (talk) 20:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
151. Support We require excellence, not perfection. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
152. Support VikÞor | Talk 00:22, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
153. Support, without hesitation. bd2412 T 02:21, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
154. Was going to close this, but am instead adding my support. Nine months is enough time to learn the important things especially if one is active, which he has been. Wizardman 02:23, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
155. Support Based on a modest review of contributions. --joe decker^talk 02:48, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. 46k edits in just over a year..I'm sorry but I do not believe that a new user can collect that much in that short a time. Your first few edits seems like the edits of someone who knows how to use wikipedia, so if this is your 2nd account, please mention your first account. There was a time when editors who were on the wiki for less than 6 months could become admins but I think that time has passed...Its hard to support a "new user" who knows the wiki like the back of their hand without accepting the fact that they could very well be 'banned' socks.. (has happened before)..your account is too good to be true..sorry--Stemoc 01:43, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

   Discussion moved to talk page.—^cyberpower_Chat:Offline 05:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

2. I don't think Rob is ready quiet yet. While he makes good edits and his DYK track record is impressive, he has only been a member here for a year, with a four-month period of low activity in there too, making his high edit count kind of suspicious. He has made 46,000 edits in eight months of active editing, and half of them are automated. I don't think that eight months (or even a year) is long enough to be able to familiarise oneself with all the policies quite yet, so I think that if Rob were to keep this up for another year or two, I would not hesitate to support. YITYNR ^{My work • What's wrong?} 15:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

   Discussion moved to talk page.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 13:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

3. Oppose -- This editor is still wet behind the ears and needs some more experience. I also feel as if they don't appreciate other editor's opinions during content disputes, such as on Catherine Zeta-Jones. It's their way or nothing. Not good. Cassianto^Talk 18:40, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

   Discussion moved to talk page.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 13:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

4. Oppose - Only nine (9) active months at Wikipedia and these frequently marked by an astronomical edit count typical of automation. Sorry, insufficient tenure for a lifetime appointment as an administrator. Way, way, way, way too much danger that accounts showing such a track record are alternate accounts of another editor. Carrite (talk) 14:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
5. Oppose Barely 9 months of active editing and " Whenever I go to any article, I read the infobox first for the key details. A good portion of the time, that gives me the information I wanted." which suggests he has little respect for the opinion of others and what he wants takes precedence. If he can't respect the view of the article writer and when to butt out on something like that he's hardly going to make a good, neutral admin is he? Absolutely not. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

   Discussion moved to talk page.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 14:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

6. Oppose - 9 months is not enough.--Catlemur (talk) 17:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

   What isn't nine months enough for? KSFT^C 22:14, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

   It's not long enough to really judge somebody's behaviour. You could go nine months on here without a single conflict if you only edit and do certain things. That's why relative newbies are more likely to be given tools than experienced writers here because they've not been involved in many disputes.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

   Dr. Blofeld: I agree. I didn't even have a user talk page until almost seven months after I joined. YITYNR ^{My work • What's wrong?} 11:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

7. Oppose - I have a deep respect for the opinions of some supporters so I've tried to find what they are seeing in this candidate that I'm missing but have been unsuccessful. In less than nine months of active editing they have jumped into deletion nominations without having sufficient experience; they've inflamed rather than diffused the situation at Zeta-Jones (already linked by Cassianto) added to which they then placed an oppose on the FAC, an area they have no knowledge or understanding of; and I share Montanabw’s concern about the interaction with Flyer22 Reborn. These, plus other minor quibbles I have about this candidate, lead me to strongly oppose on the grounds of the candidate's poor judgement; I expect admins to be able to diffuse situations. I don't feel they have the ability to do so and may be too quick to block editors. SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

   The tone of Rob's comment in particular: When I follow the posted policies more to the letter, you tell me that I'm being disruptive. Maybe there's a balance in there somewhere, but I certainly can't find it, and I somewhat doubt it exists because it seems the subjective views of different administrators and editors will always have wide disparities between them. For a newbie at the time that seems a very arrogant thing to say, and indicates that he sees a major difference between administrators and editors.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

   Dr. Blofeld, you are very, very obviously misreading that comment. (The word "different" modifies both "administrators" and "editors"; he wasn't drawing a distinction between "administrators" and "editors"—not that it would have been the end of the world, in the context of a subjective comment by a newer editor, if he had. Actually, the observation that different people interpret and apply the CSD differently is quite obviously correct.) But there is something ironic about the fact that a couple of people are opposing because the account seemed too experienced at inception, while a couple of others are opposing for early mistakes borne of inexperience. This too shall pass... but sometimes I wonder if there are people who want us never to select another administrator ever again. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

   OK then, Rob is Mr Peter Perfect and will make a shining example of a great admin. By the looks of it he doesn't stand a chance of failing, so why the heckling over the opposes? Let's hope he uses his admin tools wisely with CFDs and TFDs and doesn't go about blocking people in infobox disputes.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

   I agree that more admins are needed but (and it's a huge but) they need to be of the correct calibre and should be able to demonstrate sound judgement; to me, this candidate simply has too many red flags in way too short a period of time. SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:11, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

8. Oppose - While the candidate appears to be dedicated and talented, I don't think they have been around long enough. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 12:25, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
9. Oppose - Things like the closure of Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion#RfC: PROD in user space as a NAC based on a request at ANRFC, and yet disclosing being an involved editor (contrary to ANRFC's rules for closure) looks like a case of "personal want" overriding policy, and it's not the only incident of this type to come up here. I'm also not entirely sure what I think about Rob's first edits being a keep vote in a TfD and template replacements per a TfD, because that implies following those discussions prior to registering an account. I'm also finding it difficult to ferret out sizable edits from the mass of minors. Yes, admin reqs have drifted, but not so far as to be insurmountable if the spirit of them is met, and I'm just not seeing that on several fronts. MSJapan (talk) 15:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

   Thank you for your comment. I fully respect your opinion. It's a valid concern, so I'd like to explain why I made that close in the interest of transparency. As noted at WP:RFC, "If the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable. ... Editors are expected to be able to evaluate and agree upon the results of most RfCs without outside assistance." The instructions at WP:ANRFC also state "Many discussions result in a reasonably clear consensus, so if the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion." I believe both sets of instructions support my closure given the WP:SNOW level of consensus in that discussion. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

10. Oppose - Sorry, but I have to agree that more time in Editorship would someday make a better Administrator. But there is no Autobot Administrator position, and IMHO I don't think that autobotting gives you any experience at all either in editing or administering. --Vicedomino (talk) 18:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
11. Oppose per Carrite....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:54, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
12. Oppose  I had to get out the editor interaction analyzer to remember where I'd encountered this editor.  It was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Roman Catholic dioceses in Somalia.  I had to explain to him how to read "WP:NPASR".  This is the skill set of an AfD newbie.  We see in the comment from Laurel Lodged that the nomination disrupted ongoing work.  To try to be fair, I sincerely found his reply about STEM skills to be pleasantly humorous, but in his follow up he confused "empty sets" with "empty lists".  Moving on, like MSJapan, I noticed the RfC closing that started with "I'm involved...but,..."  Starting out a closing by implying that you are disregarding WP:INVOLVED, appears to be a sign of inexperience.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

    Discussion moved to talk page.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 14:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

13. Oppose mainly per MSJapan and Unscintillating. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 01:08, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

    Oppose I really could not care less about the length of time BU Rob13 has been on Wikipedia. It is about their conduct and whether or not I would trust them to uphold the standards of administrators. Their recent closure of a RfC in which they admit to being involved is a major concern for me. And their explanation has not calmed my feelings. Once involved, you should not close a tread. Period. SNOW or not. Let someone else do it. Seeing as that was only in May, I must oppose. Sorry. So pretty much per MSJapan. --Majora (talk) 01:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

    I'm not looking to "badger" anyone, and we can take any discussion to the talkpage, but I'm seeing a couple of opposes on that ground pile up and I think it is necessary for someone to vouch for the bona fides of the explanation Rob gave in response to MSJapan just above. This is information I wouldn't be aware of myself if it weren't for a discussion I saw on AN a week or two ago, and another discussion on a user talkpage, so it may not be common knowledge. Usually when editors disagree on how to word something on an article or another page, they work it out among themselves. When the disagreement is a little bit sharper or complicated, a formal RfC can be set up to get additional input. Most RfCs resolve themselves, in the sense that a compromise is reached or it becomes apparent what the consensus is; there is often not a need for an uninvolved administrator to formally "close" the RfC and post the result, although any participant in the RfC can request that. And there is a section transcluded at the top of AN (ANRFC) in which editors can request that admins with time and interest stop by and close RfCs that are pending closure or overdue. In recent months, there has been disagreement as to whether every RfC needs to be formally closed. There are a couple of editors who have been adding RfCs to the AN list, in which they had no prior involvement, and even where some people would say that there is no need for a formal closure. And once the RfC is listed on that list, then it does need to get closed, in order to clear the RfC template and to remove it from the backlog. The problem is that since dozens of RfCs that don't really need formal closures are getting added to the ANRFC list, there's a build-up of what many admins perceive as an artificial backlog of make-work. It's at the point that some of the admins in this area have walked away from ANRFC altogether; it's a serious problem. There is ongoing discussion of how to resolve this problem, but no resolution yet. As a result, editors perceive that where an RfC has been held and there is no dispute about the resolution, then one of the participants should close it out so that it doesn't sit unresolved for weeks and aggravate the backlog unnecessarily. This was such a situation. The !vote in the RfC that Rob "closed" was originally 3 to 11, one of the 3 being Rob. Rob withdrew his !vote, seeing that it was against consensus, and five weeks later closed the RfC, contrary to his own !vote and for the express purpose of removing it from the AN backlog. He reminded everyone that he had participated in the original discussion, and said that if anyone had a problem with the closure, they should say so. No one said so; no one said anything. Rob's closing the RfC in this fashion was exactly what some admins on AN have opined needs to happen more often. It was a ministerial action that no one could have disagreed with and no one did disagree with. Rob was not seeking to gain, and did not gain, any advantage in a content or a policy dispute by his action. This is not a situation where an administrator, or would-be administrator, was trying to wear too many hats or game the system, and it should not shed any doubt on his suitability for adminship. I would respectfully ask those who have opposed on this ground to reconsider their views. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:55, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

    Unlike a lot of other people, I don't consider this badgering by any means. RfA is supposed to be a discussion after all. For me, the involved closure of the RfC raises further concerns with granting the administrative toolset. "Allowed" or not, being involved as a regular editor and being involved as an admin is a completely different ballgame. Admin involvement contains further issues such as blocking, protection, and "authoritative" closures. Closing something that is clear enough that nobody would object is one thing. Performing admin actions is different. I'm just not comfortable with supporting them when they made an INVOLVED decision so recently. Regardless if that decision is what other admins want. --Majora (talk) 03:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

    @Majora: But that doesn't follow; there's no reason to believe that Rob would violate the involvement policy as an admin (if you have a question about how Rob's action in May extrapolates to how he would use the block or protect or delete button, I think the answer is obviously "not at all," but my suggestion is to ask him the question). Or to come at it from another direction, what is the purpose of the WP:INVOLVED policy? It is to avoid both the actuality and the appearance of favoritism or manipulation when an administrator is able to steer an outcome to the outcome he or she wanted. Here, Rob "closed" a moribund discussion to reflect the opposite outcome from what he wanted. This isn't a self-interested action in any sense, and I am going to repeat, there are administrators who have expressly asked that participants in RfCs with self-evident results close their own RfCs when the result is clear. If that is a misjudgment, which IMHO it isn't, then it is not one that the candidate should be faulted for. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

    @Newyorkbrad: I still have misgivings about someone closing a RfC that they participated in. However, after thinking about it for a couple of days, your argument is persuasive. While I have an issue with it, the other members of the administrative staff have asked for this to happen and I can understand the reasoning behind it. My apprehension over this matter is no longer a reason for me to outright oppose BU Rob13. For that reason I withdrawal my oppose !vote as I have no other reason to oppose. Thank you for your thoughts Newyorkbrad. --Majora (talk) 20:57, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

14. Oppose. Nine months is simply too little experience for an editor, much less an adminstrator, to have a full or even moderately full grasp of the increasingly complex, increasingly large, increasingly byzantine, multi-layered system that Wikipedia has become. And accumulating 46,000 edits in nine months means 130 edits per day -- edits which are largely mindless automated edits (which, additionally, look like filler for editcountitis). One cannot learn the ins and out of Wikipedia by making 100+ mindless automated edits per day. Knowledge, understanding, and a feel for Wikipedia comes from being down in the trenches, doing long, slow, attention-intensive work, on a day-to-day basis -- and even that kind of work still requires at least two years of experience in my opinion before adminship should be broached. Nine months of tenure may have been adequate for adminship 10 years ago, but it is not enough today -- Wikipedia is a vastly, vastly different place. All of my interactions with Rob have to my knowledge been positive, but I must decline, and I recommend that if he truly wants to be an admin he give up automated and semi-automated edits entirely and give up 100+ edits per day, and spend long, slow, concentrated time where the rubber meets the road. That's what we need in an admin. I've seen too many fairly recently created admins with insufficient "trenches" experience making too many poor judgments and rookie mistakes. I will cite NeilN as an example of an editor who knew Wikipedia inside and out years and years before he was nominated for adminship -- please take him as a role model. Best of luck. Softlavender (talk) 06:25, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
15. Oppose per Carrite and Softlavender; too many bot edits in such a short space gives me no comfort. This FAC oppose, shows inexperience in one of our main processes and a questionable judgement. – SchroCat (talk) 08:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Not now, chaps Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

In what way? His explanation, for an explicitly temporary FA-promotion objection, looks quite adequate to me: "I think it's very clear what my concerns are (ongoing dispute with past history of edit wars and behavioral blocks), how they can be resolved (waiting until the discussion is closed, which should be very soon), and how they relate to the FA criteria (stability)." And then he self-hatted it anyway, after being badgered by "someone". Hardly a bull in a china shop. Whether to count infobox-related editwarring as a stability issue at a particular article is a judgement call, not an FAC rule, and given that "someone" is still bickering about it, in relation to this same article, all this time later, in multiple places, I think his judgement was correct in this case.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC) I'll pass Mcandlish: life is too short to bother. (I note, for example, that you haven't tried raising the point with others who have mentioned the FAC comment as being a concern). Carry on, just keep pushing and we'll see you in ANI at some point. SchroCat (talk) 21:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC) RfA is not a place to try to pick ad hominem fights with other respondents. I asked you an RfA relevant question, because you are the central party in the dispute you highlight as alleged evidence why the candidate is unsuitable, obviously. It's difficult to see why this is not a "the candidate dared to disagree with me once" revenge vote, absent some clearer rationale; we're still waiting for one. Asking everyone who mentions it after you did why they also mentioned it would be precisely the WP:BLUDGEON behavior that is wisely not permitted any longer at RfA. If an oppose reason is questionable, highlighting this in a single place is sufficient, since the closing 'Crats are smart people.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC) Bye bye. - SchroCat (talk) 11:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

16. Oppose. Needs more quality and less quantity. Editor needs to spend more time editing and working with others to craft quality content. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 09:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

    Hi Doc, long time no see : ) - As I think you know, I greatly respect your opinion, perspective, and discernment. And while, due to recent interactions with Rob at CfD, I had intended to support, your comments have me concerned. (There are several editors I respect in the oppose section, which is starting to give me pause.) Would you please help me understand your perspective? My general criteria is here - what am I "missing the boat" on with him? - jc37 22:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

17. Oppose, regretfully. I don't have a problem with that close referenced above, by the way, and I found his answer to my question perfectly acceptable, and I don't base my oppose on it. But I think Softlavender summed it up well, and I would join Sagaciousphil. This is a fine candidate, but not yet. I think taking care not to jump into a situation unless you understand what is going on is Admin 101, and is good practice for anyone. In the Zeta-Jones example, I don't think he grasped either FAC or the infobox controversy. The second should have sent him running for cover. A lot of times the best thing an admin can do is stay completely out of things, not even edit. I don't see this candidate at that level of awareness yet, nor would I expect him to know all that after nine months. I think there would still be too much on-the-job training. In the interests of TLDR, I omit my usual rant about what ham handed admins have done to drive off content contributors, and why I am reluctant to take such chances with candidates..--Wehwalt (talk) 10:23, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
18. Weak oppose My gut says that this is a bad idea. I don't have a problem with 9 months per se, but I think the involved close and a few other issues raised (including civility frustrating others because he was jumping into situations without seeming to fully understand them) make me believe the candidate needs a bit more time--both to gain polish and to see if we are getting a pig in a poke (I'm slightly worried this is a sock). Wehwalt did a better job of explaining my thoughts on the "not yet" part. Hobit (talk) 02:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

    Just noting that I agree with this user on the CU issue. CU historically hasn't been used to show someone isn't socking on en. Not that the check was wrong per se, I'm not clear enough on the rules. Rather than it was unusual and not something I'm fond of seeing continue. Hobit (talk) 14:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

    @Hobit: I'm not sure what you mean by "historically", i.e., how far back you're going and even how you would necessarily be aware of what CheckUsers have done, but in my relatively short history, I've done it, and I know other CheckUsers have done it, and regardless of your preference, the practice will no doubt continue at the discretion of the CheckUser.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

    I'll pick this up on your talk page (though with a warning I'm leaving on vacation tomorrow...). But the basic theme is that I've seen checkuser requests turned down in similar situations quite a bit. Even when the user himself is the one asking for the CU. I watched that discussion unfold and was surprised there was a CU run. Not saying it's out of policy, but I am saying I think it was unusual/unexpected. Hobit (talk) 16:35, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

19. Oppose The large percent of automated edits (in a single year) combined with the observed poor decisions within the previous two months (the RfC closure) is problematic, but this is someone who shows promise: The editor is eager to edit, which the project always will need, but that zeal needs to be tempered with wise judgment and demonstrated policy knowledge. Those qualities are bubbling up, but they are not yet distilled enough for my taste. I look forward to supporting this editor's adminship six or 12 months in future should there be no additional blemishes (and presuming this RfA is unsuccessful). Fdssdf (talk) 16:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
20. Oppose. Rob's answer to my question (Q21) did not allay my concerns. He essentially repeats everything he said before, meaning he hasn't changed his mind, despite the clear implication from my question that, as another CheckUser, I disagree with his policy interpretation. I like Rob personally, but I'm afraid I also agree with many of the other opposes that he's not yet ready to make the kind of deliberative judgments required of an administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
21. Oppose. Per Cassianto, Carrite, Dr. Blofeld and Bbb23. I have seen this editor before and I think that his actions indicate a series of careful, longterm, moves as if in a lengthy preparation for a good RfA. To me this indicates a search for power. This, coupled with attitude problems described by SagaciousPhil, Bbb23 and others, has led me to oppose. Dr. K. 01:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
22. At a modern RFA, I would expect at least a year of experience, so we know how the candidate will react in contentious situations. The FAC incident doesn't reassure me either. --Rschen7754 02:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

    I normally have a great deal of respect for your opinion, Rschen7754, but don't you think this is at least a little hypocritical, considering you went for (and passed) RfA with less than a year of experience? Jenks24 (talk) 08:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

    To be fair, Rschen7754's RfA was over ten years ago, when the expectations were far different than they are today. A great number of admins, myself included, would not make it if our passing RfAs were run today. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:08, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

23. Oppose - Approximately 10 months of active editing on Wikipedia is a little on the light side for adminship IMO, and the above answers and related issues over questions 19 (RfCs) & 21 (CheckUser) concern me. Guy1890 (talk) 04:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
24. Oppose. If the candidate is really interested in adminship, I'd suggest they come back in about six months after a bit more community scrutiny. I can't entrust the mop to someone whose character hasn't yet been adequately revealed through action. BusterD (talk) 13:18, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
25. Oppose. I'm troubled by the CU incident. BethNaught (talk) 10:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
26. Oppose WP:NOTQUITEYET. 9 or 10 months of experience just isn't enough in my book to qualify as an administrator yet. - SanAnMan (talk) 15:28, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
27. Oppose Per Softlavender, MSJapan, and Hobit. Kiwifist (talk) 22:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
28. Oppose. I have been seeing the concerns about experience and maturity, and had been planning to give the candidate a pass. However, I just saw a very ill-considered comment directed at me at the current RfB, so I am moving from support to oppose. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:06, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
29. Oppose - This will likely pass, and length of time and automated editing concerns don't concern me in this case - his work at CfD appears exemplary - but I find I agree with User:Tryptofish on 2 counts, one, that that comment (setting aside using the term "vote") didn't seem to presume the good faith xaosflux seemed to give Tryptofish's perspective, but also the concerns about "tone", and examples of interaction with others, noted above. This falls to "is responsible" and "is civil/agf/eq" in my criteria. Perhaps with more experience? Time will tell, I suppose.- jc37 00:46, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
30. Oppose - I agree with Stemoc and others on this one. The User is too much of a newbie for an adminship. He doesn't have enough time or experience dealing with other editors to have authority over them. If he has used another account in the past, let's see it. He should have at least a couple of years experience before adminship is considered. I don't think that's an unreasonable requirement to put on aspiring admins. Britcom 01:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Neutral

#Neutral I think highly of the content edits, but I am concerned by the oppose. So many edits in the first 20 days is atypical, and it is a fair concern. I'd rather the concern had not been met with so much argument as to the propriety of the question, which has actually led me to post as a neutral rather than just awaiting developments. We have had admins who had histories they did not disclose, this is part of the vetting process whereby we try to prevent that. Kurtis's point that we can always pull the plug is well taken, but that sort of route sometimes involves collateral damage. Awaiting answer to #4, though I would rather it had omitted the commentary.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:35, 2 July 2016 (UTC) Moving to support.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:49, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

1. Neutral - After a quick review of our interactions, I often disagree with this user in discussions. I don't oppose on that basis, as a diversity of opinions is beneficial to the encyclopedia. However, I found one opinion particularly disagreeable "In response to all the editors stating no-one exists who this would offend: My uncle hung himself. Tell me with a straight face that I should be expected to make references to giving people rope to hang themselves when I talk about second chances. The offensive content here serves no purpose. And it is offensive." Firstly, taking such a personal position isn't usually a good idea. Strong personal beliefs are expected, but they should be set aside so things can be looked at objectively. Secondly, unruly censorship to avoid offense is a terrible thing, especially in essays. As a another user in the same discussion said "... Let's all be frank: that this is a political correctness debate. ...".—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 17:18, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

   Happened almost a year ago. The user has matured quite a bit since then. Lourdes 17:29, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

   Are we supposed to be relieved that this user was immature a year ago but is more mature now? Carrite (talk) 14:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

   Carrite, you know the answer yourself. In the same manner that I can unabashedly say that I adore your contributions and effort to improve Wikipedia (you know that already), I can say that not everyone, including Rob (and least of all editors like me), understands Wikipedia and its culture as good as experienced editors like you or Wehwalt or Brian do. New editors through their various experiences try to learn how to interact with other editors. If you trawl my contributions (even just a month ago), I've managed to make a fool of myself and quite easily. It was a lesson for me which hopefully improved me. I am confident that Rob too has had these experiences and has become a better communicator than he was during those days. Rest, I will leave to your judgement, because whatever you do decide, I'm very confident that would be a right judgement. Lourdes 16:57, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

   Being a mature Wikipedain is very different than being a mature person. Maturing as a person can indeed take more than a year, for some more than a lifetime. Maturing as a Wikipedian in a year is very doable for an intelligent and already mature person. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 18:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

2. Neutral for now per the interaction between Rob and User:Flyer22 Reborn here. I took my time thinking this one over because of the relative newness of this editor and some of the legitimate concerns raised by the !oppose votes from users I respect. I can see both sides, as I've seen some users dive in pretty fast and establish competence after nothing but previous wikignoming as an IP, and yet other new users seem oddly precocious. I guess my own view is that I don't see Rob engaging in the drama-mongering typical of the usual returned user so I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I'm not at all bothered by the "hanging" remark above; frankly, he made a very good point that should have been well-taken and in the world of tone-deaf wikipedians, an ability to have a bit more sensitivity and thoughtfulness is a plus. At the end of the day, I hope that Rob will be aggressive enough in looking at SPI cases should he come across one, given that he is a bit sensitized to the issue. Sock-hunting is a game of whack-a-mole sometimes, but it is needed and there there is an art to it—the science doesn't always have the perfect formula. Montanabw^(talk) 23:56, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

   Neutral, leaning support(moved from support). (moved back to support) After seeing the close as an involved editor, YITYNR's comment about not having a talk page after 7 months, and similar difficulties, I'll have to move to neutral for now. Chickadee46 (talk|contribs) (WP:MCW) 15:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

   Why would YITYNR's lack of a talk page after 7 months have any bearing whatsoever on Rob's suitability for adminship? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

   @Caeciliusinhorto: Because it shows that an editor might not have been in any conflicts for the first seven months, and so nine months might not be long enough to judge whether someone's temperament and behavior are suitable for adminship. Chickadee46 (talk|contribs) (WP:MCW) 18:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

   @Chickadee46: YITYNR had only made 37 edits in the first seven months he was registered. Rob is approaching 48k edits. The comparison isn't even meaningful. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

   @Caeciliusinhorto: Well, yes, although many of Rob's edits are automated. On its own, that probably wouldn't have made me move my !vote to neutral. The only reason I moved to neutral was a variety of small problems (several slightly uncivil comments, etc.), and after some more research it appears that move may have been a mistake. Chickadee46 (talk|contribs) (WP:MCW) 19:25, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

3. I do not have enough time to thoroughly research this candidate, but I've somehow had the impression that BU Rob13 tends to be incivil. I've no time to research or back that up, though, so I land solidly in the neutral section. @BU Rob13: It looks like you'll get the tools, so good luck! Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
4. Neutral moved from support. After all my years here I still don't understand the ins and outs of CU. But Question 21 has finally planted seeds of uncertainty in my mind. If you're relatively new to something like Checkuser, you would think that you'd listen a bit more to the opinions of editors that have a great deal more experience than you. Of all the questions, it is 21, its response and the response of the experienced editor who'd raised it, at Oppose 20, that does now leave me unsure. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
5. Only neutral per Montana, essentially, but I'd also like to target the frequent oppose reason of "not enough experience." Look, a year is 12 months or 365 days or 8760 hours. People can get a handle on our policies and norms within that time—not everyone, certainly, but a auto-oppose because "hasn't met my precise time requirement of exactly x days" is ludicrous. Evaluate each case on its own merits. Not every account created in the last year is a returning sock. Note: some people have done that above. Others have not. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
6. Neutral - I'm concerned by the various issues raised by SagaciousPhil, Bbb23, Godsy, and others. The issues aren't enough to make me oppose, but are enough to make me neutral. Banedon (talk) 09:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

General comments

• @Wehwalt: I can't make up my mind on this RfA and apparently neither can you since you moved from neutral to support to oppose. Your oppose rationale interests me, though. On one hand you say that a good admin will be leery of getting into the fray and yet, isn't that what admins should be doing? Do you support institutional cowardice in the face of a dispute between content contributors? I get that politically our long-time editors like to stay above the law that admins are supposed to be enforcing. I hate ham-handed interventionism, too, as there was once an admin I saw go off the rails. Just the same don't we as an aggregate want admins to have the courage to act rather than sit back? Do we want to wait for a content dispute like Gamergate to turn into NPA problems and then have ARBCOM ban everyone? While BU Rob 13 doesn't have much longevity here I think they're relatively clueful. I hate to punish precocious editors but I would hate to cast another support vote I'll end up regretting when the mop and bucket goes to the admin's head. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I'd like to briefly give my take on this because I'm not sure that it's obvious from any of my answers thus far. I have no idea how this answer will be taken, but hopefully it will give you a better idea of what you'd get from me as an admin, however that influences your decision. My view on content disputes is that "Rob the Admin" should be very neutral. For example, I'm not a fan of civility blocks in the midst of content disputes (except in the most extreme cases) because it provides incentive for editors to purposefully frustrate the other side to the point where they say something regrettable and are removed from the conversation. Being loose with civility blocks causes incivility, in my opinion, and it unduly influences content disputes by silencing one side. On the other hand, "Rob the Editor" will voice his opinion in content disputes. That's how consensus works. It's the only way I know how to improve the encyclopedia. I'll listen to other opinions and consider them, but sometimes there will be disputes where other editors will disagree with me no matter what. I'm not prepared to roll over and withdraw from the discussion at the first sign that I don't hold a universally accepted opinion. If consensus is against my opinion, I'll happily drop the stick, but I don't consider civilly offering my opinion to be a bad thing, regardless of topic area. When editors abandon certain discussions because one or both sides have historically been unable to remain civil, we allow the inmates to run the asylum, as Wikipedia cofounder Larry Sanger put it. If you don't think it's possible to separate those roles, which all admins are required to do anyway as per WP:INVOLVED, I strongly encourage you to vote oppose. I value voicing my opinion in discussions where the outcome affects the quality of the encyclopedia much higher than being able to press delete instead of tagging as G6. It's not even a close contest. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

To respond to Chris, I'm cool with admins entering situations, with skill, judgment, and foreknowledge of the situation, even those involving content contributors. Here, it helps if the admin is a content contributor himself, which is why I tend to view content work as a pre-requisite for admin. I suppose if I wanted to make content contributors above the law, I'd support only non-content contributors for admin, then say that those admins have no moral right to judge content contributors. As I support about 70 percent, I think, of admin candidates I vote on, this is plainly not the case.

Anyway, I did not see that clue I'm looking for displayed in the intervention cited in my oppose. Wikipedia is a coalescence of individuals from a broad range. A lot of the rage quits I've seen have stemmed from an admin jumping into a situation in an ill-advised way and inflaming the situation, which sometimes you can do simply because you are an admin. Thus, I say at times it is best to let mild conflict work itself out rather than play hall monitor. I fear this candidate, while a fine editor, hasn't yet shown the tact I'm looking for. I'm aware of the concerns Rob is a returning editor and I don't greatly care if he is. We're a website that needs all the collective brainpower it can get, and I'm more interested in now than then.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Just a brief addition: Re Gamergate, as I gather, the Arbitration Committee does not consider it a content dispute. I express no opinion on the matter, personally, as I have not given the matter the study it deserves, and until and unless I do, I have nothing to say about the matter (standard disclaimer).--Wehwalt (talk) 04:06, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

---

• Question 16, from 73.114.22.158 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), is inherently incorrect -- Cluebot NG is specifically configured not to revert the same user on the same page more than once a day (unless the page is on the "angry" list). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:23, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

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.