Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Babajobu 2


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

Babajobu
final (70/1/2) ending 15:19 Friday, January 6, 2006 (UTC)

is one of the most courteous and reasonable editors. He joined Wikipedia almost a year ago (exactly in January 28, 2005). He is also known for his mediating efforts between other users. He decided to have a wikibreak recently but because of his addiction he decided to come back with more positive energies. He simply deserves a new interesting experience in order to help at many issues and conflicts. He is very active in talk pages (articles and user ones) and I have no doubt about his merits as well as his capacities as an admin. I remember I had voted neutral at his former nomination 2 months ago but this time I am officially nominating him for the reasons stated above. Babajobu has around 4300 edits in 1637 different articles!!! -- Szvest 07:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: With much gratitude, I happily accept! Babajobu 15:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Suppa! - As nominator! -- Szvest 15:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up&#153;
 * 2) Support  Fir  e  Fox  16:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong Support I thought he wasn't coming back until a few weeks from now, I would have nominated! karmafist 16:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Strong support - brill user! 16:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Support I was very impressed by Babajobu's offer to "supervise" LE's punctuation at the Arbcom hearing. I do hope, though, that he doesn't get into many grammatical arguments anymore! :) Xoloz 16:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Okatepe, babun! &mdash; J I P  | Talk 16:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Support --Terence Ong Talk 17:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Support, of course. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Support, extremely reasonable editor. &laquo; Lord ViD &raquo; 17:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Support -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 17:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Support no question about it, solid editor. - FrancisTyers 17:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) --Jaranda wat's sup 17:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Support, this will do fine. BD2412  T 17:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. Phaedriel  18:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Support. &mdash;Kirill Lokshin 18:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Suppport - does he do good work? Yes. Will this help the wiki? Yes. Rob Church Talk 18:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) King of All the Franks 18:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) Actually, being a stickler for grammar is one more reason to support for me. ;) &mdash; Nightstallion (?) 18:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) Suppport: I really like editors who care about picky little details like punctuation and such. Though I disagreed with him on a few points about how to write numbers, I am impressed that he listened to others and learned from the exchange. Jonathunder 18:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) Support will not abuse admin privileges.Gator (talk) 19:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 21) SupportFad (ix)
 * 22) Support. Calm, detail-oriented.  Give him a mop. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 23) Support Very good at talk page discussion, keeping neutral. Demi T/C 22:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 24) Support. - Mailer Diablo 22:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 25) Support Passed my quiz on IRC quiz, and has managed to settle a fight with another user. Both show remarkable ability to handle conflict--Tznkai 22:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 26) Support A model of civility. Arm 23:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 27) Good guy, and it's always fun to get into a discussion with him :).--Sean|Bla ck 00:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 28) (edit confl) In all seriousness, not already one? NSLE  ( T + C + CVU ) 00:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 29) Support--MONGO 00:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 30) Support. When Babajobu edits a page on my watchlist, I don't even need to check it because I know it'll be well-written, relevant, NPOV, and sourced if necessary. Add to that that he's always civil and interacts well, and it's clear he'll make a great admin. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support --Terence Ong Talk 04:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC) I voted twice sorry.
 * 1) Support.  Grue   08:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support -- MicahMN | μ 08:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Definite support -- cheerful, civil, good work.  +sj + 09:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Deepak|वार्ता 12:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Now I can support. El_C 12:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Great user with a good sense of humour. --Kefalonia 13:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Support   Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk   14:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Support: --Bhadani 16:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. Hurray, another bandwagon! Palmiro | Talk 17:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 10)  ε  γκυκλοπ  αίδεια  *  21:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Support - definitely a character I had already thought was an admin. Interacts well with the community. jnothman talk 07:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support Yuber(talk) 07:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Support Good bloke. Always keeps a cool head.  Ban e  s  08:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Support Yay! I found a sturdy rail on the bandwagon!  Tom e rtalk  09:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) [[Image:LoveMexico.png|24px]] Sure, I'll support. -- ( drini's page &#x260E;  ) 16:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Support. Anyone doing Louis Epstein punctuation patrol deserves a reward for their service to the community. David | Talk 16:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Support. Kind and courteous. Will make a great admin. -- Jbamb 17:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Support Long overdue. -JCarriker 18:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Support, give him the mop already. Tito xd (?!? - help us) 21:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Support. Good contributor, very helpful.  Will make good use of admin tools. Jayjg (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Support - Sango  123   (talk)  00:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Support Good contributions, nice guy. :-) bogdan 00:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) --Doc ask? 00:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) Support Change to support, see below.  --Wgfinley 01:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 25) Support Nice to have the opportunity to give a vote of support to an editor who faced a difficult afd with class. Smmurphy(Talk) 06:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 26) Cool. JuntungWu 14:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 27) Strong Support What can be said, other than this editor demonstrates integrity under fire.--CltFn 19:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 28) Support. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  19:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 29) Support. Consistently writes helpful edit summaries. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 30) Suppport Good editor. I know him from the Louis Epstein case arbcom. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 31) Support. -- M P er el ( talk 08:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 32) Support, actually edits articles. Alphax &tau;&epsilon;&chi; 06:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 33) Support, as per nominator. Appears to be a trustworthy individual who will make good use of the toolset.  Hall Monitor 18:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 34) Support. As admin, Baba will be useful to the en.wikipedia community. Kingturtle 20:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 35) Support - Sounds like he could help us all out. --Cyde Weys votetalk 06:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 36) Support. the wub "?!"  20:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 37) ε  γκυκλοπ  αίδεια  *  21:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 38) Support - Admired his patient work on Islamofascism_%28term%29--FRS 22:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 39) Support --Kin Khan 03:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 40) Support. I was impressed by his offer to clean up after Louis Epstein; clearly shows his commitment to the encyclopedia. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose
 * Oppose It is heartening to see this user and the others who got in a row at the end of October to bury the hatchet and try to work together.  However, it's been a mere two months since that happened and I wasn't aware of the incident until this round of nominations.  I went back and read these comments back and forth at each other and  it's all quite unappealing.  Two months is not a long enough time, nowhere near in my mind, to demonstrate similar behavior won't surface again.  Again, I applaud the effort by all concerned to bury the hatchet and move forward but I believe that some more time for reflection and proof of an even temperament are in order before being elevated to admin. I regretfully oppose.  --Wgfinley 02:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments, Wgfinley. It's a legit issue to raise. I guess I would just mention that during and after the RfA debates of that time, when AE and I found ourselves interacting in the article space I was pleased to see that we were civil and workmanlike and focused on improving the encyclopedia rather than rehashing the old battle. So I think that's a sign that we really do have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart; though of course that doesn't excuse a catfight in the Wikipedia namespace, either. And p.s., as per Fayssal's comments, I've never had a 3RR violation; nor even come close, so far as I can recall! :-). Babajobu 12:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the vote Wgfinley. And also thanks for your words about the move for reconciliation between two wikipedians. I am not sure about any existing guideline or policy explaining when or how to nominate wikipedians for adminship. Anyway, I am glad someone opposed so I can express myself (as truster and trustee), to say that only a few of Wikipedians (including admins) take care of what's going on on Islam-related articles. I nominated both (monitored if you want) users for adminship to make a balance and not to abuse their positions. I had a lot of talks in private with both users (refering to the nomination above) to make sure that both nominators become aware of the policies (though I am sure both of them went maybe once to a 3RR stuff) . I got their words. If not, the RfArb is there to judge if someone is abusing their power. I trust Babajobu as much as I trust Anonymous editor. Please, blame me if once you'd ever encounter any default. Cheers -- Wiki me up&#153;
 * I've had a chance to talk to Babajobu over the past few days and get to know him, I'm changing my position to support and am hopeful he will continue to demonstrate the attitude he's adopted since the dustup. --Wgfinley 01:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, thank you, Wgfinley!! It's much appreciated, and I'll make sure you don't regret it! Babajobu 01:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Oppose - I found Babajou to be overly combative in the SIIEG MfD; he seems to think it important to "cleanse" Wikipedia of pro-Muslim bias remove a pro-Muslim bias from Wikipedia. This makes me very uncomfortable with this editor, and I feel obligated to oppose.  Guettarda 06:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Guettarda, fair enough. I'd just say that I don't want to "cleanse" anything, per se, though I do think that some articles on religion tend to get weighed down by a celebratory POV to the given religion. SIIEG focused on Islam-related articles, but I've removed praises and honorifics from articles on Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, and Ayyavazhi as well. I don't see myself as "overcoming" the pious contributors of content, but rather taking their very informed contributions and providing a dispassionate tone suitable for Wikipedia. Ultimately it's a collaborative process rather than an adversarial one, though disagreements do happen, obviously. Babajobu 06:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right, "cleanse" has connotations that I did not intend to convey. Of course, I have seen a lot more shockingly anti-Muslim rhetoric in Wikipedia than I have seen pro-Muslim positions.  I felt sickened by what I read on the SIIEG page, and while I do not hold you personally responsible for that content, I found you defended it too strongly and combatively for me to feel confident that you are ready for admin tools.  Guettarda 06:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay. Thanks for the strike-out of "cleanse". I didn't suspect you intended the uglier connotations, but I appreciate the gesture anyway. Babajobu 07:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutral
 * Neutral Babajobu and I have clearly had a big conflict before. I would like him and I to both leave the argument behind and start new. So how about it Baba? -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 17:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, AE, I appreciate the sentiment and I echo it! And I'll also say that I think our interactions in the past two months have been pretty good! Babajobu 17:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks Baba. I will support now. Thanks for your vote too. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 17:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * This looks ... ehm ... icky. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it does look icky...AE and I were both involved in an unfortunate clash of editors on Islam-related articles...I think the thing was trying to establish that this is in the past and that we're all friends again. But yeah, this series of "let's be friends again" edits all happened very quickly in the space of about five minutes...and I think maybe it wasn't the best way to go about it. Babajobu 17:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Any BurnStar for meeeh?! I appreciate your actions guys. There was no need for any RfC, RfArb or any thing of those kinds. Enjoy! You both deserve it. -- Szvest 17:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;
 * 1) Neutral I don't know if I support or oppose. I can't support because I'm not too familiar with his edits with the exception of his Islam-related edits. I can't oppose because he might be a good admin. He has lots of patience. --JuanMuslim 1m 02:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral - owing to previous incidents.. I'm not sure long enough has passed since then. Wont oppose. --Irishpunktom\talk 00:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments


 * Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 100 major and and 100 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and Talk namespaces.


 * Whoo-hoo! Babajobu 04:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Added a new question to clarify (though I support already!) Xoloz 16:51, 30 December 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? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
 * A. Well, I already do a good bit of vandalism patrol and new pages patrol. The admin rollback button would be a wonderful help, making vandalism reversion a much less laborious process. Someone pointed me to the monobook fix that provides a rollback button, but it's a jerry-fix that doesn't always work. I also acted on some move-to-wiktionary templates, and I would like to start doing more of this as I think we have too many such templates hanging around long term. Admin privileges aren't necessary for this, of course. Basically, I believe in the goals and vision of Wikipedia, and would like to use admin privileges in whatever way will further those goals and realize that vision! Babajobu 16:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. Well, I'm a bit of a wikifactotum, I do lots of different stuff. I do a lot of copyediting: correcting grammar, spelling, punctuation, formatting, and so on. I feel that I've taken many articles with good content and made them much more readable. For example, I worked on some of the articles relating to Ayyavazhi mythology, which were contributed by a very knowledgeable Wikipedian from Madras who speaks English as a second language. There's still plenty of work to do there, but I think I made his wonderful contributions accessible to a much wider readership. Silly as it is, I suppose I'm proud of my "Louis Epstein Punctuation Patrol": I promised the arbitration committee that once a day I would clean up after a very good but eccentric Wikipedian so that the arbcom would not be required to ban the user. Arbcom agreed, and Louis Epstein is still with us. I say I'm proud of this because I think it demonstrates that I really care about the success of Wikipedia, and am willing to "take one for the team" when it serves Wikipedia's interests. Babajobu 16:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * 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 enjoy Wikipedia a great deal, and in almost all cases I find it much more pleasurable than stressful. However, I have contributed in some contentious areas (animal rights and religion-related articles, in particular), and disagreement over content naturally arises. I think WP:AGF goes very, very far in helping Wikipedians settle disputes and interact with each other in a productive way. Except for the rare Willy-on-Wheels type character, we're all here because we're attracted to the idea of a universally available encyclopedia and we want to make that enyclopedia better. Even if another Wikipedian has a radically different worldview or we think they're just plain out-to-lunch, they're still here trying to contribute in their own way. Remembering that point helps a lot. Still, I recently got frustrated over the deletion of the SIIEG project, which I thought served a legit purpose though it was certainly saddled with some destructive members. I took a pretty brief "semi-wikivacation", which basically meant a vacation from my watchlist. I explored new areas of Wikipedia, found some new interests, and soon came back refreshed and ready to go! Still, I'll say this: I don't think it's appropriate for admins to use their admin fuctions in contentious areas in which they have an ongoing involvement, and thus I would not use admin functions in either Islam-related articles or animal-rights-related articles. Babajobu 16:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * 4. How have you addressed the sense-of-humor problems that were raised in your last RfA? And what about your use of edit summaries?
 * A. I've banished the sense of humor! Well, not exactly, but I've made sure not to use it in any way that could be viewed as inappropriate or as a personal attack (for example, when in the past I referred to the "hateful anti-donkey bigotry" of an editor with whom I was collaborating on an article about donkeys). I realized that such "jokes" were counterproductive, and there's honestly been no more of that stuff. Also, I think, my use of edit summaries has been near 100% for the past couple months, so hopefully I'm in-the-clear in that area. Thanks for reading, and if you have any more concerns or questions, please do ask! Babajobu 16:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * 4a. Some editors may also wonder if you are still a vocal grammar fanatic. Please address.
 * A. Good and important question! I still do quite a bit of editing for grammar, but I've softened the missionary zeal I often brought to that task in my earlier days in Wikipedia. I think you may have in mind the Village Pump dustup over whether to spell out numbers under one hundred. I think my more recent handling of this issue is evidence of my willingness to compromise: though in my non-wiki life I almost always spell out numbers under one hundred, in Wikipedia I leave numerals between 11 and 100 alone. I only "correct" counting numbers under ten that are rendered as numerals. This was, in fact, precisely the position taken by those with whom I disagreed at the Village Pump! But since consensus developed around their position rather than mine, that's the standard I've adopted in my own edits. So I think this is solid evidence that my grammar/style fanaticism has matured into a desire only to make corrections that are consistent with those grammar and style guidelines that have been accepted by the Wikipedia community. Babajobu 17:10, 30 December 2005 (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.