Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Robertsky

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

Robertsky

[edit]

Final (196/0/0); closed as successful by -- Amanda (she/her) 05:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

[edit]

Robertsky (talk · contribs) – Colleagues, it is my pleasure to present Robertsky for your consideration. This is a candidate to get excited about. Robertsky excels in project work such as closing requested moves, executing requested move technical requests, and reviewing Articles for Creation drafts. His stats in these areas are quite impressive: 1,314 edits to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests, around 4,800 edit summaries mentioning "requested move", and at least 569 AFC reviews. In addition to this, he also has content creation experience, with two good articles achieved, City Developments Limited and Goo Hara. Additionally, he possesses leadership skills, demonstrated through activities such as being on the core organizing team for Wikimania Singapore 2023 and organizing the recent Articles for Creation backlog drive. Finally, I met Robertsky in person at two different conferences, and I was very impressed with his personality and his empathy. When it was my birthday at one of these conferences, he surprised me with a birthday cake. I think Robertsky has all the qualities of a great administrator, both objectively and subjectively, and I would be honored and pleased if you would join me in supporting his candidacy. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:55, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination statement

I've known Robertsky for a couple of years now, mainly through our shared involvement in Articles for Creation. In that time, I've known him to be a helpful editor and a frequent participant in discussions. As Novem also stated, Robertsky has a considerable amount of experience with requested moves and technical move requests, an area where the admin tools will definitely come in handy. Robertsky has also demonstrated his competency in a number of other areas, including administrator intervention against vandalism and usernames for administrator attention, with more than a hundred reports to each page. He has also demonstrated an excellent grasp of content policies through his content creation (two good articles, plus dozens of others created), along with reviewing well over a thousand drafts at AfC. I hope that you will join Novem and I in supporting Robertsky. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 01:29, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I accept this nomination. Thanks to both nominators for their kind words and support. Both have been great colleagues and friends on the project and are among the many I enjoy working with. I have two alt accounts, RobertskySemi and The Sky Bot, with the latter unused on this project (it was utilised on Wikimania wiki). I have never edited for pay, and while I have a conflict of interest with HackerspaceSG, my edits on it were mainly MOS-related, adding a navbar template, and updating geo coords. – robertsky (talk) 01:49, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

[edit]

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

1. Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?
A: I see it as the next logical step in my work on Wikipedia here. I would like to utilise the admin tools further in the areas that I am currently active in: dealing with admin-locked page moves that arise from processing requested move discussions or technical move requests; blockers for AfC acceptances; dealing with revdels relating to copyright issues as I patrol new articles or reviewing older ones which may have copyrighted content introduced in the early days of Wikipedia; and vandalism on a day to day basis.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Bringing Goo Hara up to GA status is a journey that I will always remember as the article was one of the very first articles that got me hooked on contributing to Wikipedia. The near complete rewrite of Johor–Singapore Causeway was also poignant as the previous version was largely lifted from Singapore National Library's write up on the causeway. Creating Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019 and developing the bulk of it was an interesting one. While there is always the inherent knowledge that the content we create here will be utilised by the masses, it is refreshing to have the article being brought up directly in my conversations with others.
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: Invariably, there will always be conflicts with each other when editing. At the start of my editing career, I was certainly stressed when entering into what I felt was my first ever major conflict (mainly dealing with how filmography tables should look like on Singaporean artiste BLPs). Me and another editor were having different point of views on what the table should contain. While there were other editors jumping into the conversation, it was limited and there were times I wanted to lash out out of exasperation. However, I decided to take a step back and return back to the topic when my nerves were more calm. The issue was resolved with an RfC in the end. Over time, I find myself in conflict with other editors, be it for content or for other types of discussions. However, I find myself having mellowed with each conflict. I don't take the conflicts personally, and step away for a time if needed. My current approach to understand from where the other party is coming from, especially if I am playing the role of a discussion closer, reclarify and work out to see if a resolution can be reached or further discussion with other editors would be required.

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.

Optional questions from SchroCat

4. Could you show what experience do you have in resolving disputes between editors?
A: Just to be clear, Dispute Resolution Noticeboard is the stomping grounds of Robert McClenon, a different Robert.😎 Most of my experience resolving disputes between editors are through Requested Moves discussions, and some participation in AN/ANI.
On AN/ANI, I have tried assisting editors in resolving their disputes a few times that I recall. Once, I elaborated that the burden for providing verifiable information falls on the editor even if the content was translated from another language project and was originally unsourced. In another dispute about COI and PAID editing, I elaborated that what the editor did, copying entire texts, was not fair use as claimed, and also that we are individual editors working independently of each other when they claimed there's a “Wikipedia team”. But being AN/ANI, I understand that the final closure of the dispute would be up to an admin more often than not. Hopefully though, the points I raised helped the editors involved and also steered the discussions towards an acceptable resolution.
On the RM front, most of the discussions that I had closed were accepted (assuming silence is consent) by all parties involved. There were however some which involved further discussions post closure. One was asking for further clarification on my procedural close statement on the Biomass article, which I revised thereafter, as I decided to treat the discussion as a content dispute being resolved instead. Another was after determining a 'no consensus' on a requested move discussion on Izium mass graves based on policies. The close was reverted and a concern was raised at my talk page. I am happy to listen to the feedback of other editors, so in this case I decided to let my close be reverted and be closed by someone else, who ended up closing it the same way. – robertsky (talk) 07:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
5. What did you learn from those experiences?
A: I learned that sometimes a close and the discretion of a closer requires finesse, and that it is important to keep WP:NOTBURO in mind. While there are guidelines and a procedure for how to close discussions, it is important to be empathic to the participants involved. In the requested move discussion on Izium mass graves, I recognised that my close could have been premature in some eyes. In spite of the active participation, which in most other RM discussions would be a signal for closure after 7 days of discussion, it was a discussion that would benefit from a longer discourse due to the emotions that were driving the discussion. Flexibility can also be offered in other ways. While RM discussions are about article titles, it can also become a discussion about content, as seen in the Biomass article.
While it is easy to make use of existing policies and guidelines to help to resolve disputes, how they are being used and when they are being used are important as well. It is important to communicate clearly with editors, especially new editors like in the ANI examples above. – robertsky (talk) 07:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from ZKang123

6. Besides edit conflicts, what other challenges have you faced in your editing career?
A: Content wise, it is the accessibility of sources. While there is The Wikipedia Library, there are still resources that we do not have access to. Being a Singaporean, I am fortunate to have further access to other resources for free with the National Library Board (NLB) libraries here, which complements TWL's access. Nonetheless, when I wrote Mak Ho Wai at the time of his passing, the sources that I could find on him were limited as his early life and career were not in Singapore but in Taiwan and Hong Kong. Although sources on his career in Singapore were available to me through the NLB, this limited the completeness of his biography.
Combating vandalism can be a challenge as well. Sometimes the vandalism done is quite deliberate, sophisticated, and not easy to spot. I encountered someone who tried to add in false information on Tan Kah Kee, but was backed with a source: a book published in 1970. I pondered whether to put up a request at the Resource Exchange, but ultimately I found the book in the archives of the NLB. After a trip down to the central library to retrieve the book and a verification later, the false information was removed. – robertsky (talk) 20:24, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from JPxG

7. At any time along the course of this RfA, have you wanted to respond to any comments or discussions, or address the deal with something in greater detail, and if so, what is your spiel on said deal? Feel free to answer this at any time, or leave it blank, or whatever.
A:

Optional question from Goldsztajn

8. You have my support, I'm asking this question out of interest with regards to your views on administrator anonymity. Specifically, do you feel that administrators who have a declared public profile might find some circumstances harder to deal with, if not by necessity have to recuse themselves from certain adjudications where an anonymous administrator would not?
A: I think even as an active editor with a public profile, there are already considerations, i.e. harassment, legal threats, societal pressure, etc, and it takes a certain amount of thick skin or zen to be out in the public. To my knowledge, there have been two attack/impersonation accounts of me made already in the course of my anti-vandalism work (the most recent one). Going public for me was a resolution to myself that I should not be an ass with other people on this project since my real-life reputation is also now tied here. Also hopefully, it is a clear indication to others that I am serious about this project and I will give utmost consideration to their words for as long as they are civil.
While I have not yet faced a situation that has escalated to levels that threaten my real life, I think one should forgive such administrators (and editors) if they decide to pass on getting involved in certain disputes if their public profile may threaten their personal safety in real life or for similar reasons. While their insights are much appreciated, their well-being is also a priority. There’s no lack of admins and editors who are similarly competent. – robertsky (talk) 14:56, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Brat Forelli

9. What is your opinion on abortion as it relates to the intersection of gun control, race relations, your own personal religious beliefs, and true ownership of the Senkaku Islands?
A:


Discussion

[edit]

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

Support
[edit]
  1. as nom — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 01:51, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Ive been scouting Robertsky out for over a year now. You snooze you lose! Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 01:58, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per noms. I've crossed paths with Robertsky several times and it's clear they'd make a quality admin. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:01, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Why not? Seems qualified and helpful from my interactions with them. Schminnte [talk to me] 02:02, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Have crossed paths several times through AfC and pages with SPI issues. I like that they are also active on other projects outside of en.Wikipedia. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:03, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support as nom :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:04, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - This makes a lot of sense, and I give the candidate my full support. I've seen them around for a while, cheerfully doing helpful things to improve the encyclopedia. And although I don't think we have ever had an actual conversation on-wiki or off, I feel confident giving my support although it's still very early in the process before the optional questions have been asked. Thank you for volunteering and good luck! Netherzone (talk) 02:15, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:22, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support I haven't worked with them directly but I've run across them a few times and they always seem to know what they're doing. Excited to see more of their work in the future! Dr vulpes (Talk) 02:42, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support: Strongly support editors like this stepping up to the plate. Keep doing what you have. Best of luck! ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:45, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - I have long considered Robertsky to be a potential administrator and have been impressed with what they've done so far. ~ Prodraxis (Merry Christmas!) 02:59, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. Looks like a good candidate. BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:03, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support: One of the easiest supports I've cast. I have no doubt of their ability as an editor and I trust them to use the tools properly and with appropriate discretion. Hey man im josh (talk) 03:12, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  14. (edit conflict) Support I've never interacted with the candidate but I trust them with the tools. Responses are mature and civil, which are two essential traits of a good admin. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 03:14, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  15. not jerk has clue jp×g🗯️ 03:15, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Seems very experienced and active. Wikipedia really needs active admins these days. Mox Eden (talk) 03:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. No problems here. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:19, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  18. I've had positive interactions with this candidate. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 03:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - No concerns at all, excellent credentials, seems like a great guy to have a beer with. Brat Forelli🦊 03:25, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support will be nice to have another RM admin. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:32, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Frostly (talk) 03:32, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support very humble and experienced user. – DreamRimmer (talk) 03:34, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  23. In Favor. Sure, why not? No problems found. Good luck with the mop Robertsky! 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 03:38, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Okay, time to review this robertsky person. A.k.a. Robert Sim. Looking at the edits: technical move, technical move, answer question in the Teahouse, page swap, oh hey, he's the guy who helped me by moving Arabis glabra to Turritis glabra. That's not strictly Plantipedia, but I'm an honorable plant obsessed proto-Supervillain so quid pro quo and no cabal to be seen here. ;) 🌿MtBotany (talk) 03:46, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Leijurv (talk) 03:47, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support will be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 03:48, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Not a jerk; NOBIGDEAL. HouseBlastertalk 04:06, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  28. I am not familiar with the editor but their contributions are great, and their AfD participation is great. I trust that they will protect content and content creators. I also trust ingenuity as nominator and I have learned to trust Novem Linguae. Lightburst (talk) 04:35, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support — I have not personally run into the editor, but they seem like a diligent, competent editor who would make a good administrator. ChrisWx 🎄 (Happy holidays!) 04:38, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support an excellent and very responsive editor. Lightoil (talk) 04:43, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Robertsky: Wow! You finally answered my question. Maliner (talk) 04:47, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Glad to support Volten001 ☎ 05:01, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  33. I've interacted with this user plenty through AfC. Exceptional judgement and listens to feedback. Curbon7 (talk) 05:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  34. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:09, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Stephen 05:49, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Seen him around in RM. Appears to have a level head. Glad to offer support. The Night Watch (talk) 06:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support - Very exciting, and I believe I have observed some of their great work before.--NØ 06:38, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support emphatically! --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support no need to repeat what others have said above, robertsky is net positive. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:24, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Experienced, competent, will make good use of the tools. Maproom (talk) 08:27, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support I don't have any objections here, and the AfC backlog drive seemed not only successful but well-organized as such a thing could be. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:33, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  42. 42. 42. Andre🚐 09:35, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support – Meets my criteria. I've also seen the candidate around a few times and they've made a good impression. :) Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 10:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support: not a jerk, has a clue, & per nominators — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 10:58, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support per nominators :) Sam Walton (talk) 11:07, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support net positive, and I admit I assumed already was an admin! -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:19, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  47. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:42, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support - from personal observation as to preliminary work and actual participation in the Wikimania 2023 - the capacity to cope with technical and people issues - is a very strong candidate for the mop JarrahTree 12:37, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support, I've only had good interactions with the user in RM, and I am actually surprised to learn that they aren't already an admin. — mw (talk) (contribs) 12:51, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Perfect candidate, can be trusted with tools. Toadette (Merry Christmas, and a happy new year) 13:24, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support per nom. — 🎄🎆 Paper9oll 🎆🎄 (🔔 • 📝) 13:47, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  52. I’ve had positive interactions with Robert at requested moves and it’s been all positive. So, why not? Best, Reading Beans (talk) 15:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support - Should prove to be a great admin ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 15:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support - No concerns. Scorpions1325 (talk) 15:36, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support, I've seen the candidate around and also have no concerns. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:53, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support - I see no issue. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 16:04, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. 141Pr {contribs} 16:11, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support We clearly need admins who never sleep. [1] Banks Irk (talk) 17:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support. ULPS (talk • contribs) 17:12, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support – No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 17:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support - I had the fortune of meeting Robertsky in person at Wikimania 2023 alongside @Novem Linguae, I was impressed with their leadership skills in organizing the conference and have followed their work in AFC ever since, which I've also been impressed by.Sohom (talk) 17:48, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support- Another quality, net-positive candidate for the mop. Good Luck!   Aloha27  talk  17:53, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support Hameltion (talk | contribs) 17:56, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  65. --Ferien (talk) 19:07, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:32, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 20:37, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support: able to write content, experienced in admin areas, gone above and beyond in work for the community at Wikimania and the November 2023 AfC backlog drive. No temperament issues that I can see. — Bilorv (talk) 20:45, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support! ~ Tails Wx 22:52, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support I am a simple man, and the guy gave me a Christmas message and a brownie. Automatic support! Joking aside, an experienced editor whose leadership came in handy during the recent backlog drive. I assumed they were already an admin, tbh. Acebulf (talk | contribs) 22:54, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support Why not? -Fastily 23:29, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support, strong quals and satisfactory answers to Q1-3. ZsinjTalk 00:19, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support Net positive. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 00:42, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  74. All seems kosher from where I'm standing. --Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 00:51, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  75. X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 01:03, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support! :D Chlod (say hi!) 02:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support Seems like an experienced editor who would help the project. Nemov (talk) 02:43, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Based on contributions: seems like a good addition. Bruxton (talk) 03:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support Seems a great candidate and we need more admins. Bduke (talk) 03:42, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support seems like a solid candidate. TipsyElephant (talk) 04:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Oppose – experienced, great track record, and I am satisfied with their answers. It would be a net positive to have them join the team. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 04:31, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support per editors I respect above and the editor's strong on/off wiki track record. Ed [talk] [OMT] 04:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support Strong evidence of being a net positive. No concerns. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support - qualified candidate. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 06:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support Legoktm (talk) 06:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Oppose because I don't like it. No, of course, support. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (she/they 🎄 🏳️‍⚧️) 07:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Left a comment on my first article, influenced me in many. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 07:53, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 08:26, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Robertsky has my Supportsky  Spintendo  11:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support --Vacant0 (talk) 11:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support, nothing objectionable with respect to this candidate. BD2412 T 13:38, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support. I've frequently seen Robertsky in the RM space, and I've been consistently impressed with his work ethic and thoughtfulness. He'd be a great addition to the admin corps. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support Net positive Josey Wales Parley 14:42, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support Looks great in every respect. And I trust the deeper reviewing by Novem Linguae. North8000 (talk) 15:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support – impressive work ethic, consistently responsive, great technical knowledge, and well-versed in policy; one of the mainstays of the SG Wikimedia community. Fully confident in their ability to use the tools (and use them well). ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 16:35, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support - Wholeheartedly. I have worked on and off with this editor for a few years now, and have always found them thoughtful, respectful and knowledgeable. When I used to work on NPP, and would notice that one of the articles was a piece which had been moved from AfC by this reviewer, I never found any issues. The fact that they were nominated by 2 editors who I have great respect for did not hurt at all. They will be a very positive addition to the admin corps.Onel5969 TT me 16:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support 💯%, valued colleague at RM. Polyamorph (talk) 16:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support Looks okay to me. Deb (talk) 16:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support --JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 17:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support —MdsShakil (talk) 18:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support Not much personal experience, but the people vouching for them are credible, and their role in the Wikimania 2023 organizing team speaks well to their capabilities, since, as an attendee, that event went so well for the first in-person Wikimania in two years, one of the largest Wikimanias we've ever had (and largest if you add the virtual participants) and one held in the middle of a large global city.

    Glad to start the next hundred supports! Daniel Case (talk) 18:38, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  102. Support Not super familiar with their work but once again other users I trust support them and I don't see any concerns. SportingFlyer T·C 19:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support a great candidate. microbiologyMarcus (petri dish·growths) 20:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support: Looks good to me, and I trust the supporters above. Bsoyka (talk) 22:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support - Qualified candidate.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 23:18, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support, doesn't seem likely to abuse the tools. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:24, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support - Per nom. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Per noms. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:50, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support - No reason at all to oppose. Glad to see it's still at 100%. Bringingthewood (talk) 00:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support – he's doing a fine job with page moves. Adumbrativus (talk) 01:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support - good enough Seddon talk 02:44, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support - I don't see anything concerning, seems more than qualified. - Aoidh (talk) 03:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support. No objections. – bradv 03:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support looks good, no issues Sheep (talk • he/him) 04:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support – no concerns, I trust they'll do a good job with the mop. –FlyingAce✈hello 04:58, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  117. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:55, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support - good editor. – dudhhr talkcontribssheher 08:14, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support - seems to have a clue. - SchroCat (talk) 08:40, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  120. I confess I was not familiar with this editor's work, but I have found nothing of concern, and I trust the nominators. Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support, precious --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:24, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support He has done a lot of work for cleaning up SG-related pages and vetting through drafts.--ZKang123 (talk) 13:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support Great work at WP:RM and WP:RM/TR ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 13:40, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support Impressive contributions: RM, AFC, AIV, UAA... Can't find any reason to believe that Robertsky won't be a net positive. Timothytyy (talk) 13:50, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support You act here in a collegial manner. I considered you an admin anyway. You have never overstated your role, but display a calm demeanour under pressure, thus defusing any pressure. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:58, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support - Meets my criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThadeusOfNazereth (talk • contribs)
  127. Support thank you for volunteering and was a pleasure to bring Goo Hara to GA status! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support - Atsme 💬 📧 16:50, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Support - I've seen Robertsky around and they seem to have a clue, good experience and not a jerk, all the usual stuff.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support jengod (talk) 18:14, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Support Don't see any red flags. Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Support Nothing visibly disqualifying, and the answer to Q3 alleviates any possible concerns of accountability. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:23, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support. Have been bumping into them for years, diligent work, never seen them engaged in anything remotely controversial. — kashmīrī TALK 18:27, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support I remember various helpful and friendly edits by Robertsky so I guess that he probably will be a friendly and helpful administrator. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Support Aoba47 (talk) 18:44, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Rcsprinter123 (collogue) 19:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Hiding T 20:24, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support – Add this to my growing list of "I thought they were already an admin." I've only seen good edits from robertsky, and the disclosure of the WP:COI with hackerspaceSG and their inconsequential edits to the article shows the exact type of transparency expected of our mop-wielders. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 20:55, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Support – No red flags here, Easy support. –Davey2010Talk 21:05, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Support - I have had positive encounters with Robertsky in Articles for Creation. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:06, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Support. Good candidate! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 21:58, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Support --94rain Talk 22:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Support Have good positive encounters and active in admin-related activities. Just a random Wikipedian(talk) 00:04, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Support. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  145. No reason not to. BilledMammal (talk) 04:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Support Should make good use of the tools. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:34, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Support, good news for WP:RM. Dekimasuよ! 05:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Support Flipchip73 (talk) 10:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Support - A useful addition to the admin corps. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:12, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Support: An experienced, articulate candidate. Seems perfect for adminship. — Diannaa (talk) 14:56, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Support Couldn't find any issues. Obvious net positive. Good luck. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 17:05, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Support; haven't interacted directly, but I do see them quite a bit. no issues here. Darling ☔ (talk · contribs) 17:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Support - Friendly and superb editor on the website. Best of luck to you! SlySabre (talk) 18:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Support Kablammo (talk) 21:46, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Support --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:57, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Support. A well qualified candidate. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:13, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Support Partofthemachine (talk) 02:49, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  159. Support - Qualified from what I've seen and RM Definity needs the help. Schierbecker (talk) 04:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Support LGTM --DannyS712 (talk) 06:21, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  161. Support - Imcdc Contact 06:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  162. Support - no serious concerns have been brought up. MaterialsPsych (talk) 07:29, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  163. Support Quite surprising to me that here is an editor who's been around as long as i have, as prolific as he is, and i have no recollection of our paths ever crossing; *shrug* meaningless, but interesting to me. Nevertheless, as all in the Oppose section below show, no reason not to give him the mop. Happy days, ~ LindsayHello 10:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  164. Support. Pyxis Solitary (yak yak). Ol' homo. 11:39, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Seems remarkably sane, considering that he's offered to stand for admin. Maproom (talk) 12:21, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Maproom: Just wanted to let you know that you already voted in support of this RfA (vote #40 at the time of this message). Felida97 (talk) 13:35, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  165. Support Good candidate 👍 — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 14:13, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  166. Support—Kurtis (talk) 14:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  167. Support Absolutely! Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:45, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  168. Support Joyous! Noise! 18:05, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  169. Support, this is sincerely for me of the "I thought they were already" ones. But if not, time to fix that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:38, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  170. Support. File this under "pleased to meet you". It doesn't happen often, but here is a well-qualified RfA candidate whom I never heard of until this RfA. But everything checks out for me and I'm happy to support. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  171. Support  samee  converse  22:53, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  172. Support bit late to this but oh well. blueskiesdry… (cloudy contribs…) 00:48, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  173. Support saw your name popup a lot in the recent changes list. Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:20, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  174. Support. Have met Robertsky in person, as well as observing the on-wiki work for many years. Risker (talk) 04:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  175. Supportas per nom and what I've seen over at Teahouse and the like. Honestly, thought you already were an admin! GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 06:14, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  176. Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  177. Support Has done great work on- and off-wiki, a pleasure to work with. --Canley (talk) 09:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  178. Support They have done some excellent work for Wikipedia. Strongly support them becoming an admin. Tomatarto 09:23 1st January 2024 (UTC)
  179. Support positive overall impression and nothing I've read or seen since this RFA has begun has changed that. Skynxnex (talk) 16:29, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  180. Support per nominators and good answers to questions. DanCherek (talk) 20:26, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  181. Support. RM has a need for more interested administrators, and Robertsky has demonstrated competence and staying power. Thank you for volunteering! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  182. Support - pile-on per nominators, editing history, and answers to questions. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:00, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  183. Support per nominators. The person who loves reading (talk) 03:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  184. Support if no good reason to oppose has been found at this late juncture, I think this is a safe place to end up. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:28, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  185. Support -- Shuddetalk 12:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  186. Support Modussiccandi (talk) 15:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  187. Support No big deal. Garion96 (talk) 18:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  188. Support with no concerns. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  189. Support the answers are good enough for me.`~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 20:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  190. Support answers look good, and Robertsky seems like a good influence on the project  Frzzl  talk; contribs  20:41, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  191. Support no concerns. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  192. Support, excellent candidate. Glad I spotted this RFA just in time to get a vote in. -- asilvering (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  193. Support Seems like a suitable candidate. Alextejthompson (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 22:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  194. Support. After seven days, nobody has made the slightest case against. That by itself says something about the candidate. BusterD (talk) 23:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  195. Support No concerns. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  196. SilverLocust 💬 00:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
Neutral
[edit]
General comments
[edit]
Let's keep it this way. :D -Ca talk to me!


The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Robertsky&oldid=1193792822"