Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Babajobu

< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Anonymous editor (talk | contribs) at 20:43, 28 October 2005. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Babajobu

Requests_for_adminship/Babajobu|action=edit}} Vote here (5/3/4) ending 12:22 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Babajobu (talk · contribs) – Babajobu has been an active and useful Wikipedian for nine months now, and has made more edits than I can count without Kate's assistance, even if I take my shoes and socks off. He has spent the intervening time making (probably) thousands of minor edits (punctuation, wikifying, NPOV, etc.), each of which improved Wikipedia in its own minor edity kinda of way. Also, vandal-fighting. Yeah, he does that too, especially new page patrol. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I'm delighted and honored by Fuddle's nomination! I happily accept! Babajobu 12:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Oppose as nominator. No, wait, that's not right. Support ... ah, that's better. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support.  Grue  13:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support because there's no more coffe left. CambridgeBayWeather 16:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. That's hot. Mike H (Talking is hot) 16:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support decent guy. Martin 18:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Strong Oppose - During my rfa, he tried to negatively influence people to gather opposition against me and when certain voters supported me he made comments trying to discourage them [1]. The sad thing about this was that I had never even met him then, so it was very shocking for me to see an editor I had never had any dispute with before go to such lengths to gather opposition. He also takes sides with a certain group of editors, many of which push an extreme POV on Islam-related articles. Sorry, but I think giving him admin powers at this time will do more bad than good. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 18:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have any diffs of "extreme POV"? in the diff you point to he actually seperates himself from the "Bigots". Martin 18:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you misinterpreted his message. He says that a few are bigots, while most of them have a case against me. Regardless, in any case I think trying to directly influence others to change their decisions about supporting a person is not a suitable quality of an admin. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 19:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    There was a pretty raucous debate going on in AE's RfA, and I participated in it, as I think was my right. It's also AE's right to participate in this one, and to argue against my adminship as he is doing. As for my association with that "certain group of editors," I would only point out that I have spent relatively little time on Islam-related articles, and most of that little time has been spent doing what I usually do: copyediting. I've created a couple stubs related to Muslim thinkers whom I admire, for example Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na'im, but other than that I haven't added much content. I do dislike honorific expressions such as PBUH being placed in Wikipedia articles, but other than removing those I have not subtracted much Islam-related content, either. Babajobu 20:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, participating in the voting and discussion was your right, but it was not a fair idea to go around trying to change other peoples' votes especially with the raucous that was going on. I had never even met you on wiki before, but bringing this type of attitude to my rfa did not make a good first impression. Regards a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. A close call. Obviously a good editor, and certainly knows Strunk & White backwards and forwards. A cursory examination of his work, however, reveals evidence of a certain lack of tact. I’m talking specifically about edit summaries that read “your hateful behavior”: [2] and brisk dismissals of competing viewpoints as “preposterous”: [3] and “ridiculous”: [4] Not quite the level of poise I would associate with an admin. I had to do a lot of thinking on this one, but it’s a no. BrandonYusufToropov 19:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The "hateful behavior" was a reference to what I described as his "anti-donkeyism" and "onager-partisanship" in an article relating to donkeys. It was, as I think was clear, a joke. The other diffs, though, do point out a brusqueness that was not suitable for an admin. Babajobu 20:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose - in light of his conduct regarding Anonymous editors RfA. --Irishpunktom\talk 20:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral, advertised RFA on IRC. Might have supported otherwise. silsor 16:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh! :-) But I did it humorously and self-mockingly, Silsor!! Oh well, I brought that on myself. :-( Babajobu 16:39, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral, not sure about this one, from a few things I've seen. So I'm just being neutral. Private Butcher 19:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Not sure yet. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 20:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral —per above comments. Oran e (t) (c) (@) 20:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Please spell out the month in the ending time. User:Nichalp/sg 14:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
May I do that, or must the nominator or an admin do it? Babajobu 14:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Will do! I've had the bad habit of not using edit summaries when a given article is not being frequently edited, but I realize that this must change. And it will. Babajobu 14:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kate's tool is down. I'm sure those of you with editcountitis are suffering from pains in your abdomen and your hands are shaking so badly you can't type. Vote anyways! I'm not going to tell you how many edits this nominee has. You'll just have to suffer :-) --Durin 14:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. We're all a bit thrown by Kate's edit counter going down. Would it be untoward for me to just tell people roughly what my edit stats are, and then they would confirm this once we all have access to a new counter (presumably before the RFA expires)? Babajobu 15:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone who really cares about edit counts can visit your contributions page and count them. Who knows? They might accidentally look at the content of your contributions as well. Demi T/C 16:11, 28 October 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?
A. I enjoy doing janitorial work! Until now, when I've reverted vandalism, either that which appeared on RC or on my watchlist, I have clumsily tried to indicate in the edit summary which version I was reverting to. And of course I've gone through the non-admin procedures for rollback. I would dearly love to have access to the admin rollback function to simplify and facilitate this whole process! Babajobu 12:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Another point here: as mentioned by my kind nominator, I enjoy doing New Pages patrol. I've been a regular user of the speedy delete template (as well as experimenting with the xd2 template) and feel that I've come to know when speedy delete is appropriate and when it is not. As an admin, I could delete the more obvious of these speedies myself (e.g., new pages that comment about the sexual orientation of one the author's acquaintances, and so forth). Babajobu 16:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Many of the edits of which I'm most proud are those in which I've increased the readability and coherence of articles that already had excellent content. Christopher Hitchens and Ayyavazhi mythology are both examples of these sorts of articles, though they certainly both remain works in progress. The Ayyavazhi article was a particular challenge because it was written by a Tamil-speaker with limited facility in English: he added wonderful information, but its grammar was very confusing. I'm proud to have worked with him to clarify his points, thereby improving the quality of the article. I worked hard to add high-quality content to the Arts & Letters Daily article, laboriously collecting information from a slew of piecemeal magazine and newspaper articles until I had assembled and organized a reasonable body of information about the site and its history. I then contacted the founder of the portal and asked if he saw any omissions or inaccuracies, and he said he had been observing the develoment of the article and that it was very accurate, and that it was the most readable account he had seen of the history of the portal. So I'm happy with that, too.Babajobu
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A. I absolutely love Wikipedia. I believe in the worthiness of its mission, and in its potential to fulfill that mission. I've never felt stressed out working in Wikipedia, though I do get very enthused about working on it, and my high energy level may occasionally come across to others as my being "stressed". A couple conflicts: I feel strongly that Wikipedia would do well to observe Chicago Manual of Style guidelines for the spelling out of numbers. Wikipedia does not, at present, suggest these guidelines. As a result we have many counting numbers under ten that are not spelled out. I worked hard to spell out many of these numbers, and in the process upset an editor (Gene Nygaard) who felt I was too liberal in my spelling out of whole numbers with associated units (i.e., "four miles" vs "4 miles"). After hashing out the issues in the Village Pump, I do hope we parted with no feelings bruised.
Also, during my time in Wikipedia I have explored many different aspects of the community. Some months ago I participated in several AfD votes, and in one in particular I think I may have alienated Jayjg. I have since learned that I should restrain my enthusiasm when I participate in AfD, as others may perceive it as something like an attempt to bully. I think the few AfDs in which I have participated in the past couple months have demonstrated that I learned my lesson.
Finally, I have learned that my sense of humor is not always appreciated (for example, I referred to another editor as being "virulently anti-donkey" when he modified an addition I'd made to Parading on donkey). I may intend such comments as good-natured silliness, but others may perceive them as just dumb or offensive. My wikiquette has benefited from this realization.

Thanks so much for reading all this! Babajobu 12:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Babajobu&oldid=26736486"