Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Babajobu


 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it. 

Babajobu
 Final (10/11/11) ended 12:22 4 November 2005 (UTC)

– 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)


 * 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)

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)
 * 2) Support.  Grue  13:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support because there's no more coffe left. CambridgeBayWeather 16:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) That's hot. Mike H (Talking is hot) 16:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Support decent guy. Martin  18:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Need more RC patrol. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2005-10-29 19:58
 * 7) Support. (This page also has a talk page.) --Kefalonia 15:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Considering all the hard work it takes to work on articles related to the Middle East and other contentious topics. Babajobu puts in alot of work, and remains neutral even though he often has strong opinions about any given subject. He is not unidimensional editor like some people, but instead works on all area's of wikipedia functioning. In many ways Babajou is the sort of Admin I would like to become. Someone who can openly have an a opinion, yet be counted on to be fair and balanenced. Unlike some people, Babujobu, is not secretive about where he stands, nor does he turn tail and then complain about things. Instead he seeks a concensus based upon evidence. I strongly urge RfA voter's to consider babajobu's total record, and to vote based on the merits, and not out of some sense of political considerations. Klonimus 20:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Support -- Karl Meier 19:43, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Support - without a doubt. Rob Church Talk 21:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

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 tried to discourage them and to change their vote to oppose  behind my back. 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)
 * I just want to discuss some things that affected AE's RFA and that are affecting this one, too. All Wikipedia editors have POVs of one sort or another: this is inevitable, and I hardly think we should strive for a body of administrators who haven't POVs on anything. But it seems to me that the duty of the administrator is to be aware of his/her POV, and to stay well vigilant to the possibility that his/her judgment may be clouded when it comes to articles bearing directly on the matters they care deeply about. An example: I'm a vegetarian; I think other people should be vegetarian; I think it's the ethical thing to do. I have several vegetarian and animal-rights related articles on my watchlist, and I revert vandalism and take stock of the changes to those articles. But important as it is to me that Wikipedia have good articles on those topics, as an admin it is precisely those articles in which I would be most cautious about employing my admin powers. Other admins exercise this same sort of self-awareness and circumspection all the time. I've cited Jayjg as someone who does an excellent job of managing his own POV within the context of his administrative responsibilities. Mustafaa, who is gobsmackingly good and to whom I've written little talk page notes cooing about the wonderful value of his contributions to Wikipedia, is another. There are many more. To the extent that I have POVs on some issues, I think I am capable of protecting Wikipedia from the damage that would be caused by an admin who used his powers to bully people in pursuit of his POV. My concern was that AE did not seem to show this same capacity for self-censorship. I felt that he denied that POV was at all an issue, and disregarded as religious bigots those who were concerned. Perhaps I was wrong. And perhaps I will lose my RfA for participating in AEs RfA as vigorously as I did. Fair enough. But please vote against me not as a tit-for-tat comeuppance for voting against AE, but because you think my POV has genuinely damaged the articles I've worked on. Thank you. Babajobu 21:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 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 behind my back 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)
 * 1) 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”: and brisk dismissals of competing viewpoints as “preposterous”:  and “ridiculous”:  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)
 * 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)
 * 1) Oppose - in light of his conduct regarding Anonymous editors RfA. --Irishpunktom\talk 20:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Weak Oppose. I share the concerns of AE and Brandon.--Sean Black | Talk 20:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Weak oppose While I'm sure you will concentrate on edit summaries now that it has been pointed out, I think it's a habit that needs to be in place before the nomination. Marskell 22:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose User has a history of abrasive conduct (especially with regard to grammar, eg the Village Pump discussion on spelling numbers of below one hundred.) I could support one day, if the user shows more flexibility and a greater spirit of compromise in future. Xoloz 04:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, my passion for the consistent spelling out of counting numbers under one hundred did not serve me well in those interactions in the Village Pump. I've now learned that the world is full of people with a multiplicity of views on how numbers should be rendered in an encyclopedia, and that my zeal for the Chicago guidelines represents a personal POV that I must manage more responsibly. Babajobu 14:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, F.a.y. تبادله خيال /c 05:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, I am not incredibly impressed with the editor's behavior, regardless of the AE incident. Good as an editor, but I do not believe I would ever vote Support for him. --Sn0wflake 17:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3)  Strong Oppose. Sandpaper edit summaries, somewhat POV edits, tends to take jokes too far. - Kookykman (talk • contribs)
 * What's a sandpaper edit summary? Babajobu 20:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Means rough. Note:I changed my vote after a conversation with Babajobu on my talk page. - Kookykman (talk • contribs)
 * 1) Oppose for reasons above, but would still like to learn more about sandpaper edit summaries. Silensor 06:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I queried Kookykman on this point on his talkpage: he said that he found some of my early edit summaries to be less than civil to other editors. So this is what he meant by "sandpaper". Babajobu 20:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose for reasons above. CDThieme 18:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 *  Strong Oppose This user pretended to be an admin and a beuracrat requesting that I give them awards. I gave one after I worked out they were not an admin 2 mins later removed it. They put back the award and I removed it again. This user has caused me so much trouble on freenode irc and plenty of users if they knew he AND THE OTHER USERNAME, AbuJihad HE USES WHEN HE USES HE IS UP TO TROUBLE (I have proof that this username is linked to his proper name and that this is his wiki username) was running would vote against them. The day he becomes a admin is a international die of mourning for wikipedia being a good place. I hope he does not become an admin ever unless he sinifanctly changes his ways for a long time (5 years+)and apologies for a lot of stuff to everyone. This is the only user I have ever opposed a RFA before but this user is the oppostite of an admin. A IRC quote AbuJihad: Adam, I'm going to spank you. -- &#9786; A dam1213&#9786; Talk+ 07:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Adam, everyone in IRC knows that AbuJihad is one of my IRC noms de guerre, it's not a sockpuppet, and I've never used that handle in Wikipedia itself. Sorry about claiming to be a bureaucrat (and also claiming to have access to a hidden Cabal namespace and to be Jimbo's svengali), that was a joke, I didn't intend it to be genuinely upsetting for you. Good luck, thanks for voting. Babajobu 09:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * This user seems to be making a little proggress in apolgiseing -- &#9786; A dam1213&#9786; Talk+ 10:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * He apologised above. Rob Church Talk 21:47, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose - claiming to have a position isn't a joke, it's fraud - honesty is very important when trying to build an open community Tedernst 18:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It certainly has never been my intent to defraud the Wikipedia community. It simply never occured to me that accusing another editor of being an anti-donkey bigot would be perceived as my disingenuous staking out of a real position. Honesty is certainly of fundamental importance to an open source community, but humor can be a nice lubricant, too. Unfortunately this RfA has demonstrated, among other things, that I have a singular wit--singular in both its nature and its audience. I promise more earnestness, less joking. Babajobu 20:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral
 * Neutral, advertised RFA on IRC. Might have supported otherwise. silsor 16:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * It's worth mentioning that the advertising was more a joke between fuddlemark, karynn, and myself than an attempt to advertise the RFA. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 15:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I see. Withdrawn. silsor 15:57, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) Neutral, not sure about this one, from a few things I've seen. So I'm just being neutral. Privat  e   Butcher  19:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Not sure yet. --Merovingian (t) (c) ( e ) 20:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral &mdash;per above comments.  Or an   e    (t)   (c)   (@)  20:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral: Whenever I see Babajobu on IRC, I feel like i'm looking at Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Half the time he's a funny, nice guy, the other half of the time he's rambling on about some disturbing far right-wing thing or apparently trying to create some kind of WP cabal. Looking at some of edits and the comments on this rfa, I get the same feeling. The decorum here worried me, As did the POV here, and the edit summary here, among the other negative comments on the page are the Mr. Hyde portion of him. This edit and almost everything before late June seems to be the Dr. Jekyll portion of him. Baba reminds me alot of Cool Cat, and I voted neutral during his last RfA, and I'm going to vote neutral here too. Karmafist 04:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, other than my commitment to animal rights and the rights of sexual minorities, I actually am rather right-wing. Surely right wingers, too, are entitled to the occasional political ramble on IRC. The Qaradawi info was from a fatwa he issued that specifically addressed martyrdom operations in which children were killed, so though it was unpleasant info I don't think I can really be held responsible for it. But I take your other points. Clearly I've not always demonstrated the politesse that Wikipedia needs from its admins. Babajobu 14:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with being right wing when it comes to being an admin, it's just being able to put that partisanship aside when it comes down to it, because as an admin, regardless of your political affiliations, your first obligation is to Wikipedia when you're on here. I think you'll get there eventually, but not just yet. Karmafist 00:06, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral per above. &hearts;&hearts;purpl  e  feltangel  &hearts;  &hearts;  07:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral seems earnest in responses to oppose votes. Tedernst 20:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Wow, thanks for reconsidering your vote Tedernst, it's much appreciated! Babajobu 21:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral - I've had little contact with Babajobu and I think he is a good editor. However, I have some concerns about him not being serious consistently as per some oppose votes. -- Svest 22:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;
 * 2) Neutral A good faith and productive editor, with a good sense of humor, but I'm not confident that he takes the project seriously enough that he won't think it's funny to use his admin powers for other purposes. --Ryan Delaney talk 22:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral Like Ryan said, a good faith and productive editor, with a good sense of humour (which apparently most people don't get). But while I don't believe he would abuse admin powers, I don't think he's "ready" (lacking a better word) to be an admin right now. I feel he needs to be a bit more serious and clear when dealing with WP issues. I'd probably be glad to support him on any future nomination, though. ☢ Ҡieff⌇↯ 10:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) 'Neutral' this user has expalind their actions that it was not their intendiont and tried to fix everything. -- &#9786; A dam1213&#9786; Talk+ 12:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) weak chaotic neutral -- everything about him "rings" admin-worthy, and I appreciate his apparent integrity. Also, I do not think his AE-RfA related comments outrageous; they were, after all, in the open, and not trollish. I wish all 'anti-Islamic' editors could show that level of countenance! I still share some concerns of the opposers and would be more at ease with Babajobu being a non-admin. Baad 15:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Comments
 * This page also has a talk page.
 * Please spell out the month in the ending time. =Nichalp «Talk»=  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)
 * Anyone can do it. I just did. --Durin 14:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Regardless of the outcome of this RFA, please improve your use of edit summaries. Overall use is just 55%. --Durin 14:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * How dare they! :-) --Durin 16:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I think you have it backwards. People spend more time edit counting without the tool and less time actually looking at edits. Marskell 22:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * In terms of AE's RfA, it isn't a matter of vigor at all, but that comment to Jay was was clearly in bad form (and it was, what? yesterday?), to quote AE, "especially with the raucous that was going on." Other than that, I thought your analysis in that debate was oftentimes highly lacking (in sensitivity too, possibly, though consistently civil), but was fully prepared to support your nomination nonetheless until I saw for the 1st time the diff AE brought forth. I am also pleased you realize, in your response to BYT, that incivility (or brusqueness, if you will – charges you directed toward AE) is a double-edge sword, and that everyone slips (well, except for me – never!). Finally, I offer some words of caution to others in invoking WP:DICK, namely the high risk of reflectivity. Boo, I suck! El_C 04:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I just didn't now that it was in bad form to bring discussion of an RfA to another voter's talkpage. Duly noted. Babajobu 14:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * That's not what I meant. It isn't in bad form per se., but in that context, I felt it was. El_C 17:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Editcountitis
 * Total 2782


 * User        : 62
 * User talk   : 202
 * Wikipedia   : 271
 * Wiki talk   : 81
 * Image       : 0
 * Article talk : 393
 * Articles and the rest : 1773


 * Oct2005 : 374
 * Sep2005 : 636
 * Aug2005 : 493
 * Jul2005 : 930
 * Jun2005 : 156
 * May2005 : 27
 * Apr2005 : 6
 * Mar2005 : 13
 * Feb2005 : 138
 * Jan2005 : 9


 * -) Tintin 15:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Tintin! :-) Babajobu 15:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)


 * 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) {[subst:rfab}}