Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bobak

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[edit] Bobak

Closed (62/0/1); at 23:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Bobak (talk · contribs) - Ladies and Gentlemen, meet Bobak. Bobak has loads of experience in articlespace - see the list of the articles he created here. He has had a lot of community interaction, evidenced by a large number of edits to the various talk namespaces. Finally, he has a couple of hundred edits to the projectspace. Based on an examination of his edits, I am satisfied that Bobak is sufficiently knowledgeable in policy and will exercise discretion when using the administrator tools. Finally, Bobak is well educated and mature, and will make a splendid addition to our sysop corps. Thank you. -- Y not? 01:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you so much for the kind words, Y. I accept. --Bobak 20:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I joined Wikipedia on July 8, 2005 (coincidently my birthday...). Like many newbies I found the sheer size and scope of the project intimidating...but at the same time it pulled me in. Over the past year I've started to feel very comfortable with working within the project. Last November I floated an Editor Review to see what I needed to work on. From that review I learned more about what I should do to be a better editor and worked on things like using more edit summaries and, more importantly, uploading qualified images onto the Commons instead of just English Wikipedia (I also stared to see if I could add those photos to photo-less articles on the other language Wikipedias). I feel that I've logically come to a point where I would have a good reason to use admin tools: Like most users, I want to keep track of the articles I’ve created/significantly added to/etc. Currently, my watchlist has over 900 pages and images. I now tend to spend more and more of my time on Wikipedia each day patrolling this "beat" and making fixes wherever I can. I think having the admin tool kit would make me a more effective custodian. I strongly believe that people keep learning throughout their lives, and I readily admit that I do not know everything, but I plan to learn and play it safe where I don't know. So please consider me as a candidate for administrator. [note: due to my work schedule I may take several hours to respond, I also do not have an internet connection at home] [one more note: I have no interest, and will do my best to avoid WikiLawyering. Afterall, I may be a lawyer in real life, but I am not your lawyer and this is not to be construed as legal (or WikiLegal™) advice.] --Bobak 20:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: One of my favorite hobbies early on was patrolling the newly created articles (when anons could create them) and practicing my speedy-deletion stamps –-so I would enjoy taking a look through candidates for speedy deletion. I’ve recently started doing a bit of RC patrol and I can see myself getting more involved in patrolling the almost incomprehensibly gargantuan flow of edits coming into Wikipedia at any given moment. Although I have never participated, Wikipedia:Requested moves also sounds like something I would enjoy working on (particularly image names, because I made that mistake myself early on). I also only recently became aware of Special:Unwatchedpages, which sounds like something I can also help with since I find enjoyment in patrolling a lot of pages. I admit I hesitate to wade into copyright debates. This is because I am a lawyer in real life and many issues tend to fall into the cracks of "it could be argued..."
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Tough question. While I don't usually dive into creating a FA, I do enjoy starting and expanding articles on topics I find interesting (either long term or "I read it in today's paper" short term). I've developed a strong respect for citation, so I try to keep my additions consistently cited to major sources. For examples, I'd draw your attention to the latter portion of my created articles list. I am also equally proud of the hundreds of photos I've added from my own collection (279 at last count) as well as from historic-PD sources on the internet. I guess you can summarize my contributions as "volume, but with quality". If people would like more information or specific examples, I will be happy to provide them.
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: I've been in a few edit conflicts, but none of them have caused me too much stress. This is for two reasons (1) I've spend the past 6 years moderating/administrating a rather (how to put this lightly...) raucous video game forum and the incivility there had just about deadened me to most internet banter; and (2) I think the processes available on Wikipedia help slow down hostility and allow time for reflection. Going back to those edit conflicts I have been in: I have been able to remedy them using good ol' fashion talking-it-through and occasionally via process (although those instances have tended to be much larger conflicts than me vs. someone else). As a result, respectively I have been convinced that my position is wrong and accepted the times where larger Wikipedia processes have determined that the position I was a part of wasn't what we were going to move forward with as a project. From the occasional vandalism to my userpage, I assume I've rubbed some people the wrong way --but they've all been anons or sockpuppets. If there are any specifics people would like me to address here, I am happy to do so.
Optional question from falsedef
4. A lone editor has taken it upon himself to continually delete large portions of uncited information on highly trafficked article, without discussion. Other editors are continually reverting the deletions. The lone editor has excessively exceeded more than 3 reverts in 24 hours. What actions are appropriate in response to the excessive deletions and reverts? Please note down any Wikipedia policies that guide your decision.
A: As an attorney, I have to fight myself to not cryptically reply "it depends" and leave it at that with a sly smile and raised eyebrow. But seriously, this does depend on a variety of factors (so I'll use some basic IRAC): The issue stated above falls best under the rule WP:3RR, which states "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." Now, based on the general description above, the lone editor ("LE") has gone significantly over the 3RR; however, the next questions would be whether the subject matter fell into the narrow exceptions for the rule. Its possible that the material could be WP:copyvio and/or, depending on the subject matter, fall into WP:LIBEL or WP:LIVING issues --if things get that complicated, it would require delving into WP:DR. Assuming LE is acting purely within a classic 3RR problem outside of exceptions, my own personal approach would be (if the most recent edit was LE's) to revert along with a warning both in the edit summary and on LE's talk page --making a clear reminder of WP:EQ. If LE's most recent edit had already been reverted, I would still put a notice on LE's talk page. I might need to make similar notes on the other RVing editors talk pages if they had also gone too far. I would also create a new section in the subject article's talk page to discuss the dispute (if there already wasn't one) and work through WP:DR; the page may also require WP:PROT from the outset, but this depends on the particular level of the dispute (there's the other 500lb gorilla in the room, but I'm assuming I'm not a party to any content dispute). There remains a question as to whether the material, though uncited, wasn't particularly controversial (or clearly WP:ADVERT, WP:POV etc), couldn't LE instead use the {{fact}} tag --this whole dispute could also bring in a long discussion on WP:V, but I'm focusing this answer on the LE since the actual subject matter isn't clearly stated in the question. If LE remains uncooperative, then he'll need to get thrown in the blocking cooler for up to 24 hours. In the meantime, the article should be watched to be sure that LE doesn't return as another account. Even if LE fell into an exception of 3RR, I would write a note on his talk page reminding him to follow proper WP:EQ and WP:DR so that LE would understand how to better operate within Wikipedia --of course, it's certainly possible that the editors reverting LE could've also been on the problem-end of some of these rules, but... it depends... (the sad thing is, with a question like this, I could probably keep ping-ponging things for about 3 hours in test conditions... I'm starting to get flashbacks) --Bobak 14:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Bobak before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

  • This was the state of the oppose column before I removed all of it except Xtreme racer. See the section on the talk page. Picaroon (Talk) 01:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Support

  1. Nom support -- Y not? 20:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support: User seems to have plenty of experience and edit summary usage is also excellent. It's nice to see someone very experience in Images, should be able to help out nicely. I see nothing wrong, should make a fine administrator.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 20:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support - Good answers to questions; good edits; no reason to oppose.↔NMajdan•talk 20:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support, looks like a well-rounded and knowledgeable contributor. --Spike Wilbury 20:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support Good person to be an admin. Captain panda 21:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support, certainly no reason to oppose. -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 22:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  7. Edit conflict Support for attitude towards admin tasks, experience and contributions too. I never did see the diffs that I requested in the editor review for evidence, did I? (aeropagitica) 22:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
    Here's an example of a dispute from Capella University that I mentioned in the Editor Review (it's a talk page which shows the conversation in its entirety) --it's not diffs but it shows how a dispute on the article turned into a discussion and agreement. For examples of my best articles, here are some [1], [2], [3], [4], [5].--Bobak 23:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support The dedication shown through article creation and maintenance is impressive. the_undertow talk 23:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support - I was considering nominating Bobak myself. I have had several positive experiences with this user since being here. VegaDark (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support Great answers to questions. Lemonflash(t)/(c) 23:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support That's one of the funnier nomination statements I've seen in a while. It shows the candidate's forthrightness and willingness to learn. YechielMan 23:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  12. I see no particular reason to not support. DS 00:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support. Good contributor, level-headed, some experience with process. Even deals with sockpuppets well.... -- MarcoTolo 01:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support After doing some reviewing of this users contributions I am changing from oppose to support as I believe that any edit wars this user's has been involved in he has handled properly and he would be a great addition as an administrator unlike I stated before as I admit I probably didn't do enough research, I am sorry for this but I give my full support to this user now. Xtreme racer 02:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support Alright... sounds good. Jmlk17 02:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support for good contributions, procedural skills and pleasant attitude. --Fire Star 火星 03:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support If he handles all the assorted-instigators on wikipedia as calmly as he handled that wave of 10 sockpuppets on his own RFA I think he'll be a great admin. --JayHenry 05:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support. Someone else who went to the U of M? Hells yeah! Looks good to me. (This guy's actually an alum, whereas I'm just an !alum.) Grandmasterka 07:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support. I have no doubt Bobak will be a great admin. It's always been a pleasure to edit articles with him. Good luck. Grandmaster 08:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support--MONGO 08:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support per nom. No problems. - Zeibura S. Kathau (Info | Talk) 12:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support per nom. Welcome to the attorney sysop cabal! Right this way to be fitted for your cape . . . · jersyko talk 12:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support. Very delighted to see this nomination, good luck. Atabek 14:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support I see no reason to oppose, this is a very good admin candidate, nicely spread out edits and generally good work, keep it up. Regards — The Sunshine Man 14:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support: Much as it pains me to support someone who created a Wikipedia article on this infernal dirge, his record and answers look solid, and no reason to think he won't make a great admin. Plus, the RfA had the side benefit of exposing a sockpuppet farm, and he handled the trolling well enough. MastCell Talk 16:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support. Adminship is no big deal, and I see no problems with this candidate. Walton Need some help? 17:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support good record, no problems, good experience. Sure, why not? —Anas talk? 20:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
    -- Y not? 00:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support Like your answer to question 3. Will be a good admin--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 20:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  29. Fellow jurist support, of course. All looks very good. Sandstein 21:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support I see no reason to object, I checked your edit history and everything seems Aok. Karrmann 22:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support and a tip of the hat for creating Mills District, Minneapolis. (Which reminds me: I still need to work on that history section.) --Elkman (Elkspeak) 23:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support This user has been a valuable and I'm sure would continue as an admin. Gutworth 02:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support in agreement with the above. Acalamari 02:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support per MastCell, great work. Ganfon 03:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support Great optional statement, no problems. – Riana ⁂ 04:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support. Good editor. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 05:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support no problems cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 07:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support. He'll make a good admin. Good luck. --Mardavich 08:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  39. support,Wikipedia will be benefited from his adminship. --Pejman47 09:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  40. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 12:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support as a user who has shown a great deal of aplomb in handling conflict. I find his creation of this article deeply troubling, however. ;) JavaTenor 16:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
    (glances at user page) No credit for this? ;-) --Bobak 17:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support Dedicated and neutral, high potential for the adminship--behmod talk 20:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  43. Bobak appears to be a good, trustworthy fellow whose letters alone make him well overqualified to click a few buttons :) gaillimhConas tá tú? 06:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  44. Fight On! Bobak is a solid contributor and would be an asset as an admin. — Scientizzle 08:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  45. Support No, major problems. Perhaps bit of bias that should be better restrained, but seems unlikely to abuse admin powers. falsedef 18:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  46. Support per the ever-capable nominator and inasmuch as it seems quite plain that the net effect on the project of Bobak's being sysopped should be positive (and lawyers, IMHO, make, to be sure, the best admins). Joe 22:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  47. Support - good candidate. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  48. Default support. —AldeBaer 12:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  49. Support. Wonderful candidate. I'm really impressed by his hard work on uploading images. PeaceNT 04:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  50. Strong support. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  51. Support Joe I 05:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  52. Support Dfrg.msc 08:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  53. Terence 14:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  54. Support Should make a good admin. Davewild 21:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  55. Support, great candidate. Very thorough answers to all of the questions. We need more of these! *Cremepuff222* 00:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  56. Support Good luck as an admin. —METS501 (talk) 01:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  57. Support - Looks good. No problems here. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 02:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  58. Rettetast 20:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  59. Support I would've preferred some more participation in the project space, but I'm convinced that you're experienced enough and will do a good job as an admin.--Húsönd 03:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  60. Support. The candidate has a good understanding of policy, is well-rounded (contributions to multiple namespaces), and seems good-natured. Good luck, Black Falcon (Talk) 04:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  61. Strong support. This candidate made a favorable impression on me as far back as 2003 (??) with articles on SNK/Neo Geo titles at another site. Bobak continues to fight the good fight on Wikipedia! Secondly, we need more admins - there are only 0.27 admins per 1000 administrators. --Edwin Herdman 05:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  62. Support Nice answers to the questions. I like his edit count as well. --Random Say it here! 19:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Neutral yes seems to be a good editor but there is one thing lacking which is talking to other ediotors only 685 of those about 1000 ibn total needs to talk more that why i must oppose sorryOo7565 21:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC) i look back i want to change my vote to neutral per my comment how can i change my voteOo7565 21:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Opinion moved from oppose to neutral as per Oo7565's request. (aeropagitica) 21:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Considering the total number of edits, I think the number in the "User talk" namespace for this editor is fine. -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 22:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Stricken comment by user who's spammed all RFAs with pointless comments.--Húsönd 23:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  1. The concerns given in the opposition are troubling, but without concrete evidence of wrongdoing, which I can't find, I won't oppose for them. Rewording due to massive sockpuppetry... You do seem to have a few problems with editing neutrally, but not nearly enough for me to oppose for. I may consider changing to support later on. -Amarkov moo! 03:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
    All I can say is please look at edit histories and see where we may have come into conflict. I have a lot of involvement with college football articles, and some do create passion in users. Oddly enough, I have yet to hear anything regarding my Minnesota (also an alma mater) edits... I welcome criticism! --Bobak 00:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
    What? I've never seen you before, so I couldn't have come into conflict. And you don't have to respond to everything... -Amarkov moo! 00:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
    Whoops! I can see how that was confusing... that was meant to be address to you and your voiced concern, not about you. --Bobak 01:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
    I've struck out the rest of my comment. I'm still not entirely sure about this, though (or maybe I just have the common failing of finding it hard to admit I am wrong), so I'm staying in neutral. Lack of my support is hardly going to sink this, so it's not a big deal, right? -Amarkov moo! 04:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.