User:RobinHood70/RfA 2

This is an archive of past UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page, except for maintenance such as updating links.

Request for Adminship: RobinHood70

Our Request for Adminship (RfA) process is based on Wikipedia's policy. An editor, when nominated, accepts and answers questions, which can be asked by any registered editor. Votes and comments can also be left by any registered editor. Daveh makes the call, based upon the community's consensus, after about a week.

RobinHood70 (talk⁺ • contribs • edit count • logs • email)

With the release of ESO in April, 2014 is bound to be a year of huge changes for the UESP. In my honest opinion, the very first change we need to make is to promote RobinHood70 to Administrator, a promotion that is long overdue. He has proven countless times that he intends to stay on the wiki through good and bad, and he is highly respected by the entire community. He is also friendly, knowledgeable about anything from the CK to templates, and usually goes out of his way to answer even the most complex (or simple, take your pick) questions. Add to that, he is the only currently active editor with a bot, as well as server access (meaning he’s had administrator rights the entire time, but has refrained from using them due to respect for the hierarchy), meaning it is almost comical not to promote him to administrator. I’m 120 percent certain he will prove overly helpful as Administrator, not only when the Wiki hits its hardest challenge yet this April, but also in the years to come. I encourage everybody to support this nomination – and I also encourage you to e-mail me with any questions regarding my actions during his withdrawn RfA a few years back, as nobody knows the backstory better than I. Here’s hoping for a peaceful and successful nomination. --Krusty (talk) 18:24, 20 January 2014 (GMT)

Questions

Q1: What do you hope to accomplish as an administrator?

As an administrator, I don't doubt that my tendencies will remain as they have as a patroller—in other words, doing whatever maintenance things need doing: deleting/undeleting pages, moving FAs and FIs to the main page, protecting pages, etc. Especially with ESO coming out, I think we're going to need a lot of all-around, whatever-needs-doing activity from all our admins.

Of course, templates and bot-work will no doubt remain a significant portion of my focus, especially after the deluge of ESO has died down, and my goals on that front haven't changed much since my last RfA. Template space should be reviewed regularly for templates that may need protection, whether because they're heavily used (which is usually easy to spot) or because they're sensitive in some other way (which may not be).

Q2: How will you tackle the gigantic challenge that is ESO?

I think the simplest answer I can give to this is "just being there". Any time a new game comes out, there's a ton of work to be done all over the wiki. I don't plan on getting ESO myself, but I think that those of us without it will need to focus on doing all the non-ESO-specific work that needs to be done so that all the editors who have it can focus on contributing ESO content as much as possible.

Q3: How do you interpret the balance between enforcing policies and being innovative when policies prove to be problematic?

As anybody who's looked at the Administrator Noticeboard or Community Portal knows, I discuss...probably a bit too much. :) That applies doubly when it comes to policy making and policy changing. Policies need to be enforced consistently, but when a policy becomes problematic, it's time to have a discussion about whether the policy still serves a useful purpose and the best way to make it work if it doesn't.

Q4: What action will you take if you see another administrator perform an action that you completely disagree with? Do you believe it is ever necessary or permissible to revert the actions of another administrator?

As with the above answer, I believe discussion is the key. Generally speaking, I think that discussion should take place in private at first, in order to discuss any reasons for the action that both admins may not have thought of or been aware of. If the two both have good reasons for their viewpoints and can't resolve the issue, then, and only then, should the broader community be involved, whether that's all admins, all staff, or a public forum.

It goes without saying that there are times when reverting another admin will happen—if nothing else, mistakes happen. That said, if there's no reason to believe it was a mistake, wheel wars should be avoided at all costs. It makes for a hostile environment, especially with the visibility of most administrative actions, which is never good for anyone. I think Wikipedia's got the right general policy here: revert once if there's good reason to do so; otherwise, take it to a discussion.

Votes

• Support: As nominator. --Krusty (talk) 18:24, 20 January 2014 (GMT)
• Support: Honestly, I don't even need to see the answered to the provided questions to make a decision. RH has always been courteous, helpful and knowledgeable when it comes to the various rules and regulations of the wiki, and I have no doubts that he would continue to do so as Administrator. As Krusty mentioned, he already has all the rights of an administrator, so I see no issue with making it an official title. Jeancey (talk) 18:28, 20 January 2014 (GMT)
• Support: (edit conflict) Definitely. Hands down. Truth be told, I thought he was an admin this whole time. >.> He handles delicate situations with tact, is very respectful toward other users, and is dedicated to the wiki. --Nocte|Chat|Look 18:29, 20 January 2014 (GMT)
• Support: I honestly thought RH was already an administrator. In addition to what's already been said, RH is capable of, and will certainly be able to help anyone with almost any of their needs, problems, etc. — Unsigned comment by WoahBro (talk • contribs) at 18:31 on 20 January 2014
• Support: The last time this nomination rolled around, I was still relatively new to the wiki. I was unaware of things that had gone on beforehand, and I got caught up in the arguments. I allowed myself to be influenced by what I heard about him rather than what I had seen for myself, and I withdrew my support. That is something I have deeply regretted doing ever since. In all the time I've known him, I have never known Robin to be anything less than exemplary in all aspects of his service to the wiki. He has my unreserved (and unchanging) support. Consider this my apology for ever doubting you, Robin. ThuumofReason (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2014 (GMT)
• Support —Legoless (talk) 19:10, 20 January 2014 (GMT)
• Support: Nothing to say that hasn't already been said. He contributed generously to the wiki, he answers every question posed to him and participates in every discussion, and he is always courteous. --AN|L (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2014 (GMT)
• Support: He had my vote last time, and he'll have it again. -damon  ^xoxo 20:07, 20 January 2014 (GMT)
• Support: RH always is ready to discuss things, if there are differences. And an additional admin one can count on will be useful in the hectic times that are to come with ESO. --Alfwyn (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2014 (GMT)
• Support: As before, my vote comes without reviewing the answers to the interrogatories. If there's a call above for a religious war, any use of the word "indubitably", or anything else I find intensely disagreeable, then my vote will change. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 22:21, 20 January 2014 (GMT)
• Support: He works a lot around the wiki and I've always pretty much considered him to be an admin anyway, with all the work he puts in and things he does around the wiki. Vely^►t►e 22:45, 20 January 2014 (GMT)
• Support: I supported the first nomination, and I support this one as well. This has been a long time coming. • JA^T 22:59, 20 January 2014 (GMT)
• Support: Nothing to add really. He is a very helpful, courteous editor who is dedicated to the wiki. I think he is a perfect choice to become an administrator. Forfeit (talk) 23:30, 20 January 2014 (GMT)
• Support: I don't have much to add that others haven't said or that I haven't said before myself. RH, you've got a long history of being very knowledgeable, very helpful, very level-headed, and an all-around great leader in our little community. I am delighted to throw my support vote on this well-deserved pile :). ⇠eshe^talk 23:47, 20 January 2014 (GMT)
• Support: No question about it. --Xyzzy ^Talk 05:06, 21 January 2014 (GMT)
• Support: I will support this nomination, nothing to expand upon on the above comments, but I can see changes from RH's last RfA. -- Kiz ^{(email - talk)} 07:19, 21 January 2014 (GMT)
• Support: RobinHood70 has no doubt built up a reputation throughout the years. If I recall correctly, already a patroller, he was on the verge of inactivity around the time I joined, returning around the time of Skyrim's release. When his first RfA surfaced, there was a great amount of tension and miscommunication, which formed a climax at the nomination. It was a huge mess, and I couldn't make sense of all of it at the time, so I refrained from getting involved. I didn't really pay attention to his actions since his return, so my view at the time, was formed only by the opinions of other editors. Apart from the madness, there were a few points raised that drew my attention. There were mentions of bad decisions made, attributed to bad judgement and lack to enforce high standards. Indeed, I noticed this myself at nominations such as Featured Articles and Patroller nominations. He was quick to support anything, while the administrators pointed out the flaws, mostly leading to clean-up/opposition/disqualification of the nomination. Apart from that, I also quickly noticed how courteous he was. Since the RfA, we all worked on communication, and I believe that RobinHood70 has since been professional, carefully discussing his plans with the community before carrying out anything. He has proven capable of administrative actions, and proper communication. He has been a one of a kind Patroller, a go-to senior editor for advice. I have not noticed bad judgement that I recall recently, so I suppose that would be my advice to you: don't be quick to support by only seeing the good. I myself am great at pointing out flaws, and it seems that is respected and fruitful, leading to better quality. In turn, I think I can learn from you when it comes to communication ~ Dwarfmp (talk) 14:12, 21 January 2014 (GMT)

• Comment: Thank you for the detailed reply. As one of the comments on my last RfA quite correctly said, nominations need to focus on a person's strengths and weaknesses, not just be popularity contests. Since you've brought a couple of those weaknesses up, there are a couple that I'd like to address, just to provide some clarification and insight. I know a couple of these issues were brought up in the last nomination, both by myself and by others, and they're very legitimate points.

The numerous Patroller nominations were the result of a somewhat misguided focus on getting all the patrolling done, or at least keeping it under control. In retrospect, I think we needed to extend the "just make sure it's not vandalism" policy a little longer, and I needed to take a step back and realize that it wasn't the end of the world if a few bad edits slipped through. That's what really led to the "patroller panic", and as the senior-most patroller at the time, I felt like it was largely my duty to make sure that the patrolling got handled. I've since realized that there will always be edits that slip through, and most if not all will be caught eventually. I've also learned to let go of that sense of anything being specifically my duty, since the whole point of a wiki is communication and collaboration.

It's rare that I vote on FAs and FIs because I have little sense of the "elegance" of what goes into a good article. I'm content that all the information be there and that it be found with relative ease. I know I've voted on a couple when I've found them particularly impressive in some fashion, but I generally avoid it precisely because of my lack of awareness in this area. I seem to remember there was confusion about one of the older ones, but I think at this point, it's long past. Suffice it to say that my policy of generally not voting on them will continue because I haven't developed any sudden talent in this area. :)

I think the larger point here, however, is about changing my mind. To a point, that can be a good thing, but clearly, there's also a point where that's a bad thing. That is one of my clear and unquestionable weak points, and a good chunk of that is due to the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. My thought process, while certainly still coherent, can get clouded in some very bizarre ways at times, especially when I've been concentrating for any significant length of time. Often, I'm not entirely aware of the extent to which it's happening. Nowhere is that more obvious than in the numerous bot screw-ups, but as has been pointed out above, I'm the one with the bot, so we have to take the bad with the good unless Jak develops his bot more, or another bot programmer surfaces. Bringing this back to the point of nominations, however, it shows fairly clearly there as well. I often used to voted based on what I was aware of, or could be readily discovered with a little searching. Others, often admins but certainly not always, would then bring up points that I hadn't managed to think of, that I realized were very important, and so I would be forced into a position of changing my vote. The last RfA really brought it home for me that that was something that needed to be dealt with somehow or another. Since there's really no treatment for CFS, I obviously had to come up with some kind of coping technique. So now, unless I'm absolutely certain that a nomination (or whatever else) is uncontestable, I make a point of waiting a day or two so that those who are better able to examine the issues can do so, and I can get a complete picture before giving my opinion.

In the end, I think it comes down to the fact that everyone here, whether a day-one editor or Daveh himself, has strengths and weaknesses, and it's part of being a community that we all figure out how to leverage the strengths, and rely on each other to help deal with the weaknesses. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 19:52, 21 January 2014 (GMT)

Done -- Seeing as there as overwhelming support for Robin Hood I'd like to congratulate him on being the sites newest admin! -- Daveh ^(talk) 14:05, 27 January 2014 (GMT)