Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bobet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Bobet

final (68/0/0) ending 21:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Bobet (talk • contribs) – I am proud to nominate User:Bobet for adminship. I first met him in November while working on a list of films I had created at WP:MEA. After a small false start, I'm really glad to seen him grow into a true wikipedian worthy of the mop and bucket (and flamethrower). He has over 6,000 edits, evenly spreadout through the namespace, fighting vandalism [1], warning vandals [2], not biting the newbies [3] adding infoboxes [4], voting for RfA's [5], adding images [6], making insightful, reasoned and polite comments [7] and active in categories for deletion [8]. And that's just in the last three days. I'm not the only one to notice his contributions, [9] [10], just the first. He also showed restraint in waiting a few weeks before actually going ahead with the nomination to get three solid months of contributions, even though he has edited since around November. He is a solid contributor, well versed in wikipedia policies and would make a great admin. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 20:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I'll accept, thanks. - Bobet 21:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Support super supportive nominator support! --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 21:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Support. Great candidate, wanted to nominated him myself. Let's make him an admin before the end of the month. Kusma (討論) 21:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
3. Support Naconkantari e|t||c|m 21:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
4. Support. Solid, responsible editor. Agnte 22:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
5. Support Moe ε 22:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
6. Support a wonderful editor, perfect candidate Robdurbar 22:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
7. Support excellent Wikipedia activity. KI 22:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
8. Support: Because admin should be no big deal right? ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 22:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
9. support "I've seen good work", as the saying goes. Grutness...wha? 23:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
10. Support --Latinus 23:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
11. Support --very good.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 23:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
12. Support see him around Dlyons493 Talk 00:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
13. Support --Ugur Basak 00:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
14. Support Why the hell not? --Aaron 03:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
15. --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
16. Support Will be a good admin. Edit counts are impressive. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 04:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
17. Support very good Wikipedian, excellent potential for adminship. gidonb 04:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
18. A bit new, but unlikely to abuse tools. NSLE _(T+C) at 05:12 UTC (2006-02-22)
19. Support. So far do good. pschemp | talk 05:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
20. Support - looks like a great well rounded user. Tawker 07:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
21. Support, excellent record. Essexmutant 11:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
22. Support, yes, definitely. Proto||type 11:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
23. Support seems to have the right attitude necessary to be a good admin Cynical 12:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
24. Support. Should do well as an admin. PJM 12:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
25. Support. --Interiot 14:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
26. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 17:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
27. Support, trustworthy editor. Xoloz 18:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
28. Support. Would make a nice administrator. — TheKMan^talk 19:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
29. Support, in my experience a valuable contributor. Steve block talk 20:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
30. Support He seems to deserve it ILovePlankton 20:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
31. Support impressive contributions all around, should make a good admin. --W.marsh 21:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
32. Support. Punkmorten 22:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
33. Support. Nice mix of contributions. | Klaw ¡digame! 23:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
34. Support. I have a good feeling, so it must be a support vote. - Darwinek 00:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
35. Support Well rounded contributor. EdwinHJ | Talk 00:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
36. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
37. Support. Looked edit history over and concluded that he is unlikely to abuse extra tools and is ready for adminship.--Dakota ~ ° 00:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
38. Support Seems like he will make a good admin †Jakken† 02:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
39. Support, looks good. --Terence Ong 03:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
40. Support --AySz88^-^ 05:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
41. Support. Looks good. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 06:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
42. Support. I was originally on the fence (partly because you're still fairly new, and partly because I hadn't seen you around) until I saw Interiot's hour-by-hour breakdown of when you edit. You have a flat spot eight hours long. Bravo. Either you're sleeping, or working, or something. But that's *healthy*! I wish most of us could do that. Enjoy the mop! ... aa:talk 08:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
43. Support DaGizza^{Chat ©} 10:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
44. Support, Well deserved. Great activity with good diversity. Be good with the mop.--Looper5920 10:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
45. Support —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-23 11:50Z
46. Support Comprehensive nom makes this support easy. Fine candidate. Marskell 11:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
47. Support great contribs.. nice. drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 14:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
48. Support. Mahvelous. Deskana (talk) 21:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
49. Support another great user. Raven4x4x 00:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
50. Support - Looks like he will do the mop, bucket and flamethrower proud. ;) Prsgoddess187 00:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
51. Support Humble and hardworking. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 07:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
52. Support Per above -- Banez 10:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
53. Support: --Bhadani 14:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
54. Support--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 20:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
55. Support good vandal fighter. ComputerJoe 22:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
56. Support A very worthy candidate! —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-02-25 05:34Z
57. Support. Mushroom (Talk) 14:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
58. Support and thanks for your tireless editing. haz _(user talk)^e 16:34, 25 February 2006
59. All this, and sorts stubs too. Strong support. Alai 20:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
60. Support --Saluyot 02:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
61. support user will do great work with a golden plunger!Benon 07:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
62. Support, although userpage could have more userboxes. --Dragon695 07:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
63. Support. Soon every Finn on the English Wikipedia will be an admin. Muhahaha! JIP | Talk 08:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
64. Support good editor. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 16:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
65. Support, very good editor. Have run across him on vandalism reverts many times. haz _(user talk)^e 20:54, 26 February 2006
66. Support. Looks good. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
67. Support - seems to be a good well-rounded candidate abakharev 00:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
68. Support: little early, perhaps, but appears to be ready. Jonathunder 14:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
69. Definite support. +sj + 19:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

• Edit summary usage: 99% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 21:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• See Bobet's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer 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. I'd most likely be active in closing afds, deleting WP:PRODded pages that reached that stage and looked hopeless, speedying pages in CAT:CSD (it seems to develop a backlog at certain times every day). I'd also keep an eye on WP:AIV and keep reverting vandals when applicable. I'd most likely start slow to get a good feel on things and wouldn't be jumping into places that I'm not that well-versed in.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. I'm not particularly pleased with anything, just generally pleased. There's a list of pages I started (I haven't kept track of articles that I just expanded a lot) at User:Bobet/made if someone feels that would be helpful. Beyond that I've mostly added infoboxes and generally tried to improve articles from the list of notable films mentioned by Reflex Reaction and wikified and hopefully improved things that had ended up on Special:Deadendpages (or in some cases, listed them in afd or WP:CP). If I had to name one article, I liked how Shin Sang-ok turned out in one edit.

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. No, I haven't, my interests seem to center around less-traveled areas here. I know some people might view that as a negative since there's no way to show how I'd handle situations like that, but no conflicts have been forthcoming and I haven't been inclined to actively seek them out either. All I can say is that if conflicts arose, I'd deal with them to the best of my abilities, and most likely wouldn't get stressed over them, but you'd have to take my word for it.

Optional additional questions from MarkSweep

4. Consider the following situation (hypothetical, but realistic). A user contacts you with a complaint about an article that was deleted after a controversial debate on AfD, with strong opinions for and against deletion, accusations of impropriety involving sockpuppets etc. Assume further that you're conflicted: on the one hand, the AfD was clearly controversial and had apparent irregularities; on the other hand, you believe that the article in question should have been deleted. What would you do in this situation?

A. Questions like this are harder to answer than specific cases since there are obviously many variables that should be considered that could change how I'd approach the thing. In a general case, I'd try to explain the reasons for the deletion to the user in question. In case the article was deleted because of its content and not its subject, I'd tell him to be bold and rewrite it since a good article about the same thing could probably get kept. In other cases or if the person wasn't satisfied with my answer, I'd probably take it to deletion review. I don't think my personal opinion on whether it should be deleted or not has that much to do with it, only whether I believed the afd result was valid or not, which I'd elaborate on at deletion review if it got to that.

5. You're patrolling recent changes and you notice that an anonymous editor removed a sizeable chunk of text from an article about a minor celebrity, without leaving any edit summary. You're conflicted: on the one hand, the information that was removed was unflattering, and it was not backed up by any sources; on the other hand, it's hard to discern the motives of the anon, since they didn't leave any summary and may be engaged in a whitewashing effort. What would you do in this situation?

A. Having seen things like that before, the first thing I'd do is check the editor's contibutions and see if he's just removing things at random (assuming I knew nothing about the validity of the text). In case it was a single event or otherwise indicated acting in good faith, I'd most likely either watchlist the page and wait and see if someone who knows more about the subject was inclined to agree or disagree with the changes, or I'd just use google and see if I could easily find out whether the removed text was valid or not and find an attributable source if possible.

6. You're patrolling new pages and you notice that a user recently created a new stub with no text except for an external link to some web site with more information. You speedy delete this article under the A.3 provision of WP:CSD. Fifteen minutes later the exact same stub has been recreated, and its creator has left a rude message on your talk page, accusing you of all kinds of nasty things. What would you do in this situation?

A. I'd redelete it and explain to the creator that articles only containing external links aren't valid content. If the subject wasn't completely hopeless, I'd tell him to try and build a valid stub instead. In case he just kept recreating an external link article on a topic that was never going to stick, I'd put the {{deletedpage}} on it and protect. And if the rude message in question was nasty enough, I'd add a {{npa}} to his talk page since some people don't appreciate rude personal attacks.

7. You're patrolling new pages (again) and you notice that someone created a new article about a current minor celebrity (again). The article is clearly not a stub: it's is long, detailed, wikified to a reasonable extent, properly formatted. There is no sign that it is a copyvio. The article also asserts that the person is notable. The article is distinctly unflattering, but still descriptive, so it does not qualify as an attack page. The article is completely new, not a recreation of anything that was previously deleted, or a fork of an existing article. You conclude that none of the Criteria for Speedy Deletion apply. (a) Under what conditions, if any, would you speedy delete the article? (b) Another admin speedy deletes the article. What do you do?

A. a) Given that the question already shows that the article doesn't match the most obvious criteria, the only case I could think of where it would get speedily deleted would be that it was provenly nonsense, such as a couple of articles that have been verbatim copies of existing articles about another person and only changed the names and such.

b) I'd look at the deletion summary since I could've missed something or been wrong in my judgement that was indicated by the question. If the deletion summary wasn't useful, I'd ask the deleter. And if I didn't get a response or I believed it was clearly deleted out of process (and felt the article had any chance at afd, I do believe in WP:SNOW in some cases), I'd undelete and list it at afd.

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 talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.