Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Robchurch 3

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

Robchurch[edit]

Final count (65/33/10) ended 23:54 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Robchurch (talk · contribs) - I'm renominating Rob to reaffirm his adminship after his voluntary desysopping, because I think he's such an asset to Wikipedia it would be a tragedy not to have him able to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Rob is a very courteous, helpful individual, and has shown to me the ability for exceptionally sharp judgement and discretion; we've known each other for some time now, and he's recently been helping me out with mediation-related things down at the Mediation Cabal. He has done a lot of vandal fighting, article editing, conflict resolution, etc. and I am absolutely confident in his value as an admin, as I was in my previous nomination of him. I think that his contribs probably speak for themselves; he is always ready to admit fault and apologise for failure, is remarkably honest, and more importantly possesses intellect - which is, I feel, one of the best assets an admin can have. I would like to ask the community to be so kind as to grant him administrator rights again. NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 23:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I accept Nick's nomination. Previously, I had felt that it was probably not a good idea for someone like me to be around, and voluntarily desysopped. However, a number of users pointed out that my apology and acknowledgement of my wrongdoing made me exactly the sort of candidate people wanted. Very well then. In addition, I couldn't necessarily stop editing. Upon returning, of course, I was set to go back to my old "duties", aside from editing - WP:RM and the like...only to remember I'd lost my sysop rights. I'd like them back, if people wish to trust me with them once more. Rob Church Talk 00:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. The nominator NicholasTurnbull gets first vote (added by AnnH (talk) at 14:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC) to prevent incorrect tally)[reply]
  2. I can't believe he wasn't already an admin. Oh, wait, he was.--Bishonen | talk 00:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Ditto Bish. -Mysekurity(have you seen this?) 00:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Everything Nicholas says is true, easy call. Rx StrangeLove 00:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. (after 3 edit conflicts) I'm sure he'll make great use of administrator privs and the fact that he acknowledges and is sorry for any mistakes he made in the past makes me confident that he'll try his best to be a good administrator. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Well heck, if he wants it back... --Maru (talk) Contribs 00:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong Support --Jaranda wat's sup 00:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support- Astrotrain 00:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    NSLE (T+C+CVU) 00:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. He sees his lapse in judgment for what it was and has otherwise been a fine admin. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support isn't it - FrancisTyers 01:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support as per nom. Good egg! Hamster Sandwich 01:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support After edit conflict. Jobe6 02:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support as per nom.-gadfium 02:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. -- DS1953 talk 03:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support, yeah. FreplySpang (talk) 04:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Unequivocal Support (Did I spell that right?) --rogerd 05:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support gladly. The heartfelt nature of his apology for the Deeceevoice incident makes me sure he won't ever be doing that again. Raven4x4x 06:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Good turnaround.--MONGO 06:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Fully support. Ral315 (talk) 07:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Extremely strong support. Blackcap (talk) 07:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support invaluably experienced, thoughtful editor. --Fire Star 07:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Very Strong supportIt promise to be a very good admin. -- Bonaparte talk 08:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support, and yes, Rogerd, you spelled that right. — JIP | Talk 08:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support, Rob is an excellent editor. His quick reversal of his position in the Deeceevoice affair and then his apology demonstrates that amply. Not every admin would do that. Dan100 (Talk) 08:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support The apology, voluntary desysoping --pgk(talk) 09:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Weak support. While his actions were despicable, he made amends; and I'm generally in favour of second (and third and...) chances. NaI6ToSuTaRiO6N6 * 10:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support of course. Purpose made sockpuppet for RfA voting 12:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  29. I have complete faith in Rob. --King of All the Franks 13:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Lets make it 31, then Sceptre (Talk) 13:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I trust people who acknowledge wrong without using the passive voice. AnnH (talk) 14:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC) Changed to neutral at 21:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support, we need sysops like him. --Terence Ong Talk 14:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. We all make mistakes. Rob seemed very sincere in his apology, especially since he voluntary de-admining himself. He's already shown himself to be a good admin and I think we should give him his mop back. Carbonite | Talk 14:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. FireFox 14:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support yet again. Rob made a mistake, just as we all can do, and made a very heartfelt apology. He has shown himself to be a very committed and capable admin, and also, perhaps more importantly, a very honest person. Rje 15:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. I went over all the evidence supplied below, and haven't found any example of incivility. His voluntary desysoping was uncalled for. Owen× ☎ 16:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC) Changed to Oppose. Owen× ☎ 19:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Peter McConaughey 17:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC) Robchurch was not at fault. The system that gives him that much unchecked power is the thing that needs to be changed. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, the best we can hope for under the current Wikipedia hierarchical structure is for someone with as strong of an ethical backbone as Robchurch to demote himself when the inevitable happens.[reply]
    Note to bureaucrat: The above account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of banned user Zephram Stark. See WP:AN/I#User:Peter_McConaughey_blocked_as_sockpuppet_of_banned_User:Zephram_Stark for evidence. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support He's even got CVS access now: I think he's trustworthy. [[Sam Korn]] 18:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support A pleasant user and I see no real reason why not to. -- Natalinasmpf 20:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support After looking into his analysis and apology in the Deeceevoice affair. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. - Haukur 21:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support good editor. He's apologized, so let bygones be bygones and move on, ESPECIALLY since admin is supposed to not be a big deal.Gator (talk)
  39. Support. I take civility issues quite seriously, but I don't see that there is one here. I also see no evidence that he inappropriately used his sysop access. In short, I don't see a good reason for him to have given up his sysop access in the first place, so I see no reason not to grant it again. Friday (talk) 21:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. So what if he made a mistake, he apologized, his desysopping was voluntary, and I see no evidence that he will use admin rights abusively. Triona 21:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support as punishment and retribution. Rob did something utterly vile and damaging to Wikipedia. The proper punishment for it is being made to do something utterly vile and useful to Wikipedia. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. The user displays a deeper and more useful understanding of adminship than most, and his scruples around his voluntary desysopping and standing again for RFA do him credit. If I were a bureaucrat I would probably have restored his adminship on the spot, since no move was made to remove these privileges in the first place. Demi T/C 21:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. KHM03 22:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. I think his voluntary desysopping shows a certain maturity. I am deeply worried about his incident with Deeceevoice, but I feel that if others support him and he's willing to take up the mop and bucket again, he should be free to. — The Hooded Man ♃♂ 23:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  45. support - my thoughts exactly, HoodedMan. Grutness...wha? 00:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Andre (talk) 00:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support I always have only one question in mind with RfAs: do I believe the candidate is reasonably likely to use the powers for good? On that account I have no doubts here. RfAs are not for punishing any previous sins. --Doc ask? 01:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Ab-so-lute-ly. Rob is an asset to the site. -- Essjay . Talk 01:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  49. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-29 02:23
  50. Support. We all make mistakes, Rob certainly will behave in the future. Peace. feydey 04:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. The Deeceevoice incident was quite ugly, yes. He's recanted and apologized. I think it's behind us all. His apology, in fact, was quite humble. Because of all that, he meets my one standard, and so, earns a support. —BorgHunter (talk) 05:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Supporting on the basis of the actions and words contained in this. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 05:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support--Duk 05:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. Has an essential quality in administrators: willingness to recognise a mistake and to rectify it. Absolutely nothing to suggest he will misuse admin powers. David | Talk 15:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Flcelloguy (A note?) 19:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. Absolutely. Antandrus (talk) 19:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. A responsible person who doesn't make excuses. One incident should not give a person a bad name forever. But please, Rob, don't make the grave mistake of ignoring your opponents. After my RFA failed, my opponents comments have helped me improve more than anything else. Even if you win, you should take all the oppositions to heart and learn from them. Good luck :). -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 01:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support I like to see bold actions. I think he's learned from his previous problems, but I like his boldness in dealing with some fair use image issues. kmccoy (talk) 03:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support, I see a bunch of names I respect on the oppose side, but what can I say, I likee likee Rob, and think he does a lot of good work. That's enough for me. Babajobu 01:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. Alphax τたうεいぷしろんχかい 05:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support. Good admin, and I'm less than impressed with the objections, many of which seem to be putting process over common sense and reason. Ambi 15:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. EMPHATIC UNQUALIFIED SUPPORT. We need more who will stand up to editors who behave like this[1] -Justforasecond 21:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)support -Justforasecond 22:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't place your opinions above those of others; symbolically and actually, it's very rude. In addition, we do not need people to behave like I did. Rob Church Talk 15:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. He doesn't seem to indulge in pov-warring. --Kefalonia 15:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support - experienced. Better the devil you know: best to already know someone's faults, then supporting the relative newbies. Good grasp of image deletion policy. There is too much red tape involved in deleting images which are unavailable to us, and if Rob is willing to cut through it, it will make wikipedia a better place. The JPS 20:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support - I've had problems with him in the past, but I think he'll be an ok admin. AGAIN. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 00:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose - I just had a look at the incident with Deeceevoice. I know that you sincerely apologised for it, but it just seems too recent. - Hahnchen 04:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose This is the first time that I have EVER OPPOSED an RfA on Wikipedia since being here a year. I really hate to play the devil's advocate, but he has shown the need to delete his vitriol and misdeeds. Such actions [2] show down right racism. I am really upset about the conflict with Deeceevoice. Before you say anything, whatever civility policies admins. have to adhere to should be made applicable here. I do not think this person is suitable to be an administrator, and I will seriously consider leaving the project if he wins, and due to several factors that have caused me to want to leave a long time ago anyway. Wikipedia has no shortage of admins, so we don't need incivil ones. Please see that people who want to give others "a taste of their own medicine" need help, not power. I hate to say that, but this is true. For the first time in my life I have opposed someone on an RFA, THIS IS NOT something I do on a regular basis like others had done. I take my opposition seriously, I am convinced this user should not be an adm., but perhaps should have been temporarily blocked for his actions. But I guess that's "Wikipedia justice." If you haven't noticed, al lot of people (especially my people) have been discontent with this site in general, and some have no longer editted. By the way things look, I will be soon to follow them. Again, I am sorry RC, but I am going to oppose.εいぷしろんγκυκλοπαίδεια* 08:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    This is very surprising to me, especially being somewhat apathetic on matter such as found here, however, I have given this considerable thought, and I do believe that RobChurch is a good and responsible person for his apology and his recognition of his actions, however, I still will retain my oppose vote as I have found the misconduct a little too early for him to be considered an adm. I hope this doesn't upset anyone, but I have decided that this would probably be best, as if he were made an admin. so soon, it would create a very precarious situation on Wikipedia for some editors. εいぷしろんγκυκλοπαίδεια* 05:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose While we can all be uncivil from time to time I am bothered by his removal of—rather tham striking—his comments. Given its recent status I cannot support his nomnation at this time. -JCarriker 08:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, they're still visible in the page histories. Dan100 (Talk) 08:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Mild oppose. I must admit that I'm conflicted on this. I wasn't impressed with RobChurch's actions regarding Deeceevoice, but I was very impressed when he apologized and then asked for his sysop priviledges to be taken away. The problem, though, is all of this happened only a few weeks ago. The fact that he's back asking to be an admin again so soon is, well, unsettling. If he had waited 6 months or so and shown through his actions that he was truly beyond this, I'd support him. Until then, I'm afraid I must oppose.--Alabamaboy 15:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    At the risk of being a flip-flopper, I've been very impressed by the way Rob has handled this RfA and other affairs in recent days. No longer "mildly opposing" and would support in a new RfA in a month or two.--Alabamaboy 23:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I won't comment on the other oppose voters who say it's too soon. I respect their views. But I'd like to point out to you, Alabamaboy, that he didn't "ask to be an admin again". This suggests that he didn't know about the nomination until it was a fait accompli. You may, of course, be opposing simply because you think it is too soon. And of course, he had the choice of accepting or declining. Nevertheless, it looks as if the idea didn't come from him. AnnH (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    All I meant is that it feels too soon after the recent events for this RfA to come up, regardless of whether he asked to be an admin again or someone nominated him. I realize he didn't nominate himself and didn't mean to imply that. If you'd like, I'll reword my statement to this effect. My point is that this RfA is too soon. Hope you respect that. Best, --Alabamaboy 16:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, of course. I just wanted to be sure that you weren't opposing because of a misunderstanding. Thanks for clarifying. AnnH (talk) 18:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Weak oppose, for pretty much the same reasons that Alabamaboy says. I was very impressed by RobChurch's apology, but this request for re-adminship comes much too soon after that conflict, and the actions before his apology weigh deeply in my mind. I'd probably support in the near future, but this comes too near in the future for me to support. --Deathphoenix 15:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose I like and respect Rob, and appreciate his apology. Too soon, however, for this re-sysop to occur. Come back in three months. Xoloz 15:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose. I second the above; it's scant weeks ago. Radiant_>|< 18:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you feel his crimes warranted being desyspoed at all? If not, it shouldn't matter whether he reapplies after a year or after a day. There's no issue of inexperience here; if he's worthy of being an admin, he should be made one as soon as possible, for the benefit of all of us. Owen× ☎ 19:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • People who voluntarily ask to be deopped should be aware of the fact that reopping requires a community vote that they may or may not pass. Recent controversy may well indicate that it will not pass - it happened to Ta Bu as well. This, presumably, is why few people ever ask for a deopping. Radiant_>|< 23:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • TBSDY's failed RFA was due to a matter entirely unconnected with his de-sysopping, so that point for one is not applicable. As to the others: shouldn't this be more to do with whether making Rob an admin would be good for Wikipedia? I fail to see on what grounds you (and several above) are opposing. I am curious. [[Sam Korn]] 23:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • My point is that this affair was barely two weeks ago. Ta Bu's second RFA also failed because of some controversy (a practical joke he played) around the same time. Radiant_>|< 00:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I find your question odd Owen. Obviously, Rob felt he deserved desysopping. He wrote an essay explaining his reasons, and I think its quite logical and natural to accept Rob's judgment on that matter. To ask whether "he deserved desysopping" is to suggest Rob used bad judgment there. Maybe you should oppose if you feel Rob showed bad judgment in making the original request. I, Radiant, and I assume most everybody else take Rob's judgment as final on that matter. Xoloz 00:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Rob was overly strict with himself, which he was allowed to be. His self-imposed punishment is far more severe than I thought he deserved, and likely more severe than ArbCom would have imposed on him, had it ever gone that far. Yes, I think he acted hastily out of a sense of guilt, and suffered the consequence. True, he wasn't expecting to be re-opped so soon; in fact, he wasn't expecting to be re-opped at all, and has no one to blame but himself if this RfA fails. Robchurch doesn't have a right of any sort to be re-opped, but I think we deserve to have an admin like him share our workload. I fully trust his judgment on all admin matters, and see no point in extending his break from admin duties any longer. Owen× ☎ 00:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure... I wasn't questioning your support of Rob (although I do disagree at this time) -- Your reasons seem sound. I just thought your question to Radiant above missed the point. We aren't here to evaluate whether Rob desysopping was sound, since that was Rob's call to make. Xoloz 00:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry, Robchurch's behavior has never thrilled me, and Lord knows we don't need another temperamental admin. Strong Oppose. Mike H. That's hot 01:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC) Abstaining from the vote. Mike H. That's hot 21:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Weak oppose. I respect Rob's actions and contrition. I would support in a few months, but it's too soon. Guettarda 04:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose for reasons that have nothing to do with his desysopping. Rob has recently undone or questioned two blocks I had an interest in, one of which was of ApeandPig, who was Enviroknot, a highly abusive user banned by the arbcom. Rob said he unblocked him after having a chat with him on IRC. It's irresponsible to undo blocks when we have no knowledge of the history of the situation, not to mention discourteous to the blocking admin. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh look, the patron saint of edit warriors goes after Robchurch for reversing one of her incidences of newbie biting, what ARE we to think?
    Quibble: One could argue that Linuxbeak has done the same thing in the past, going over the Arbcom and unilaterally allowing Marmot and others back without any kind of community consensus, yet you voted for his Beurocratship. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Jeffrey, I don't know anything about the Marmot situation. I know only that Enviroknot is a menace who should not be allowed to edit while banned (and who's likely to be banned forever given that he keeps returning with transparent sock puppets) and that unblocking him was irresponsible. In general, I admit to being very tired of admins who undo other admins' blocks, because they almost never inform themselves first, and I intend to vote against anyone I think is likely to do this. Rob is the first beneficiary of my new policy. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Linuxbeak was not unilateral, he had discussed this with myself before discussing it with the 200 users of #wikipedia. Also, MARMOT had no arbcom restrictions imposed, he was just community banned. JA ended up being community banned too. Rob's unblocking didn't seem to be backed up by others though, making it seem unilateral from here. Redwolf24 (talk) 17:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    #wikipedia is off wiki, and thus most members of the community thus do not know about it and and had no input into any of those actions. Discussions that effect the community should be made in the community, not in clique-ish chat rooms. IRC and the mailing list are not Wikipedia. I see no differences between Rob's actions and Alex's here. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Ouch! Slim, do you believe that Rob unblocking these two accounts caused more harm to Wikipedia than his work as an admin helps? Dan100 (Talk) 14:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    In the case of ApeandPig/Enviroknot, the unblocking would have done a lot of harm and was in violation of an arbcom ruling, and yet Rob's response to being told it was Enviroknot was that we should only reblock if he's actually doing harm (suggesting that Rob thinks he has the right to overturn arbcom bans, and that he regards extreme anti-Islam edits and calling Muslim editors "Islamists" and "liars," as ApeandPig was doing, isn't harmful); and once it was explained to Rob that ApeandPig was indeed causing problems, Rob's response was simply: "(Sigh) Do what you like." [3] I find that irresponsible and discourteous, as well as a waste of time for the original blocking admin, who had to reblock, and for the other admins who had to take time to explain the situation to Rob, and a bit of a slap in the face for the Muslim editors who were being attacked. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose per SlimVirgin. Rob seems likely to assume poor judgment, bad faith, etc. on the part of other administrators, specifically with regard to accounts that have been validly blocked. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 18:05, Dec. 29, 2005
  11. Oppose. Although the user asked for his powers to be removed, which was noble, we can't make this a forgive-and-forget in barely two weeks. -- SoothingR 21:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose: You'd block someone [4] for antagonistic behavior [5] without trying to discuss the matter with the user or in the very least warn them? Sorry. I don't think this is how it should be done. Please read over Wikipedia:Blocking policy and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. --Durin 02:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to point out very simply that, following that, Slim and I discussed; I agreed that User:Jim62sch should not be blocked, but a warning was appropriate. This is an example of admins talking and taking sensible suggestions amongst themselves. Rob Church Talk 03:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Strong Oppose. I initially supported Rob but sadly, after he started removing fair use images without going through the proper process, I've seen that maybe he hasn't learnt much at all from the past situation. Hedley 03:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed two images from your user space which were copyrighted. There is a tendency amongst users on Wikipedia to take "fair use" as a license to do whatever they like with copyrighted images. A "fair use" image is one which is included in an article, under the fair use provision of US law. The proper process is, simply put, to delete those images. Rob Church Talk 03:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    It was maybe not the actions in deleting the images, but the "I will do this, I will do that" attitude of doing it. I'm sorry, but it's the first time an editor has ever annoyed me on Wikipedia, and it's made me consider my own participation with the project. Along with that, Durin's above reasons seriously concern me - The haste at which you act, even though the haste can cause destruction. Hedley 04:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose, without prejudice to a renomination after sufficient time has passed. I concur that it is too soon after voluntary desysopping to step back up to the plate. Nandesuka 05:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose per recent incidents with various users.  Grue  09:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose. The voluntary desysopping showed maturity, the events leading up to it did not. Perhaps in 3-6 months. BlankVerse 12:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose per SlimVirgin and others supporting SV's position. Monicasdude 22:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Rude; prone to explosions of temper. — Dan | talk 07:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose, as per above. – ugen64 23:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Mild oppose, though I could see myself voting support in a few months; I'm bothered by the combo of the DCV affair, though, as well as SlimVirgin's comments above. --Dvyost 01:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose, I'm very very conflicted on this because I admire the move that was made to atone for bad behavior. However, I just don't think enough time has passed to shown that instance was an anomaly, I would support in a few months as others have said. --Wgfinley 03:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose He's a good developer and acts in good faith, but with all the things said here, on IRC and in various project and user space i've seen lately, I cannot trust him or anyone like him with adminship. karmafist 03:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Weak Oppose per SlimVirgin —Locke Cole • t • c 08:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Reluctant oppose - it is still just too soon. He will be an asset as an admin again, in time. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose after seeing his views on policy and process as recently expressed here. Owen× ☎ 19:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose. Too soon, concerned about whole DCV mess and concerns raised by SV. Jayjg (talk) 21:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose changed from support, per OwenX. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 00:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose. Even if DCV was acting arragantly or showed reverese-racism, then why would he stand there and attack him/her and get smug and arrogant so much? I try to compress, minimize, and relate to policy my statements to people I see that seem to have highly questionable good faith or judgement. Why snap at someone so harshly that it will only reinforce her/his views? Is that what admins do? DVC may not have even been unreasonable, or may have been jokink for all I know, I dont care, and it doesn't matter.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 04:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose. Incidences have prove too much for me to do anything other. Ian13ID:540053 16:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose. After a lot of deep thought, this is my inclination at this time. --HappyCamper 21:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose due to something he said on IRC. DS 23:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Be careful. You might get banned for posting that. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 15:04, Jan. 3, 2006
  32. Oppose - too recent. Proto t c 09:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose - His comments regarding the Kelly Martin fiasco are deeply troubling. Mackensen(talk) 22:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose Yuber(talk) 00:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral. Let's see if He accepts the nomination, since the promotion is up to Him -- Eddie 04:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    This vote makes zero sense; he's accepted the nomination, and what do you mean "the promotion is up to him"? NSLE (T+C+CVU) 04:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    You talking about Him? I suppose you could say promotion is up to Him, but He doesn't often comment at RFA... Dmcdevit.t 05:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that's 'cause He's on holiday. Blackcap (talk) 07:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral. If this were a brand new RFA and he had not previously been an admin, the incident with Deeceevoice would have me opposing. But, in fact, he seems to be a good admin, and did not abuse admin privileges in that incident. He seems to understand that he did a lot of damage by driving away an excellent contributor with ill-considered remarks; given that incident, I cannot support at this time, but will not oppose, since I think this was more gross negligence than ill will; I hope he learned from this, but I really can't tell yet. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    he did a lot of damage by driving away an excellent contributor - who? Deeceevoice continues to edit. Dan100 (Talk) 14:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's accurate to attribute DCV's (potential) departure solely to Robchurch. Although he may have contributed, I suspect DCV's actions would be pretty much the same with or without Robchurch's intervention. — Matt Crypto 21:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral — I think I'll sit on the fence on this one. Both sides make a good case and plus, Adminship is, well, you know how it goes. --Celestianpower hablame 22:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral Celestian and Jmabel hit it on the nose. He definately means well, but i'm not comfortable with some of the things i've heard here. karmafist 02:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC) See above.[reply]
  5. Neutral as per most of the above neutral votes. Dlyons493 Talk 13:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral leaning toward oppose. Clearly, Robchurch is a good editor and my personal interactions with him as an admin, though few, have been fine. However, various things concern me: a tendency to act on IRC discussions rather than on-Wiki research (IRC is not Wiki. IRC is not Wiki. Say it again.) A tendency to be pretty brutal on IRC which, whilst not Wiki is still linked to it and where newbies sometimes find themselves. Then, he self de-sysopped and promptly decided he didn't mean it: either he did or he didn't. It is also clear that the recent happenings would doom any first-time RfA, and I'm struggling to work out how to factor that into a second-time RfA. -Splashtalk 23:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral -- he's a good editor and made a brilliant admin imo, it just feels too soon after de-sysop-ing himself. -- Francs2000 04:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral — for me, his apology demonstrated guts and integrity. Still, the Deeceevoice RfAr thing was very disturbing, and I haven't bumped into him in any other context. — Matt Crypto 21:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral. I am reluctantly changing to neutral because of the concerns raised by SlimVirgin, in particular the response "(Sigh) Do what you like."[6] I remain deeply impressed by Rob's apology to Deeceevoice, and would like to see him resysopped once I am sure that he will act responsibly when there are disagreements over blocks. AnnH (talk) 21:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral. Exactly what Ann said (except for the changing bit). Mark1 02:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Question: Rob, I am not being flippant, and this is a serious question: would you vote for someone who has made the actions you have (apology included)? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've thought quite a bit about this one, and my answer is still very much, "I really don't know." I think I might, because admins who can be accountable for their actions, who are willing to say, "fine, I fucked up, and I'll do better", and who accept that they are not above the law are what we need. Rob Church Talk 23:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Advise: I urge RC to withdraw his nomination; it's too soon & I fear that the highly commendable apology will lose from its impact otherwise. El_C 12:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A. Well, previously, I'd been covering aspects such as WP:CP and WP:RM, the latter I found quite important, as it let people just get on with editing. Handling copyright issues was also quite satisfying, as those were another threat against our goal.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Goodness, tons. My answer from last time still stands I think; it is impossible to narrow it down. Federal Firearms License I still fondly remember as having rescued. Project Honey Pot, though short, is a new one I created from a redlink recently.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A. Hmm. I went into great detail on this last time, so I'll summarise here, I think. Conflict on anything collaborative is inevitable. You can shout and bawl, or you can grit your teeth and bear it. I think the recent Deeceevoice issue taught me something about conflict - if you can get up afterwards, and still walk - then do so.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Robchurch_3&oldid=1089265648"