Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Barek

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Barek[edit]

Final (65/0/2); Closed by X! on 01:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Nomination[edit]

Barek (talk · contribs) – Barek is one of those users who should have been an admin a while ago. We've run across each other in anti-vandal and anti-spam efforts, especially in handling a very long-term sockpuppet. While Barek is great at anti-vandal efforts, I regard him and User:Hu12 as the pillars of the enwiki's anti-spam program. He's active on WP:ANI, WP:RFPP, WP:AIV, and especially WP:RSPAM.

Part of my motivation for supporting Barek's adminship is that he is a consistently patient editor and vandal patroller. The other part is that giving Barek the mop would free up editors who are processing his reports for blocking and blacklisting. And while it's an amusing Catch 22, the fact that Barek has been very active on Wiki for over two years and hasn't sought adminship is a sign that he isn't seeking a trophy. tedder (talk) 21:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I had turned down an earlier draft RFA nomination for me; but after having more time to consider it, I have decided to accept the nomination this time. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: Initially, most of my administrative work would be in the areas of WP:WPSPAM, WP:RFPP and WP:AIV as those are areas with which I'm most familiar; although over time I would also begin increasing my involvement at WP:AN3 to assist with review of reports. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My primary behavior on Wikipedia is as a WikiGnome, as well as several maintenance areas of Wikipedia such as WP:ANI, WP:AIV, and WP:WPSPAM. My primary article work is in the area of making incremental small improvements to a large number of articles. I do have a handful of mainspace work - but that hasn't been my primary focus. For those who want to look at articles where I've started, expanded and/or collaborated on articles, some of these are Marquette Harbor Light, Vista class cruise ship, Lewis lamp, MS Westerdam, Ferryboat Santa Rosa and Monjeau Lookout. I've also worked on a handful of templates and uploaded several images (both here and on commons) that are in use on multiple Wikipedia articles. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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 have been in editing disputes periodically - I would be surprised if someone with my number of edits hadn't been in at least one. The first time it happened, I found it stressful as real-world stress was building up at the same time - I dealt with it by backing away from Wikipedia for a while. Since then, I haven't felt very stressed by disputes. The disputes are on the content and not something I take personally. If someone tries to make it personal, I generally either ignore it and try to refocus the discussion back on topic, or in extreme cases take it to WP:NPA if it escalates to that level. I archive my talk page discussions, so it's pretty easy to review my past interactions with other editors. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question from  fetchcomms☛

4. User:Green gardens creates a page, Green gardens, immediately after creating an account. The page is deleted and recreated once, both times the content is a how-to about eco-friendly gardening techniques, and both contain links to a questionable site called "Green Gardening", although not blatant spam. However, the user also has these links on his/her userpage and talk page, but not actually "advertising" them. Would you think that this user is trying to advertise the site, or just doesn't understand what Wikipedia is not, and why?
A: If there are no signs of an obvious COI on their user page or in their edit summaries, I would assume a new user who needs some guidance. A short note to their talk page explaining the problem more personally than a standard delete notice could resolve the issue, depedning on how the user responds to the note. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. When, if ever, should a new user account who vandalizes once, or has not been warned (sufficiently, or no warnings at all), be blocked immediately?
A: Immediate blocks should be rare. The exceptions would be related to obvious disruptive sockpuppetry (using WP:DUCK test), or for cases of clear legal threats. Certainly a user should NOT be blocked for routine vandalism if they have been insufficiently warned. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional question from Dlohcierekim
6. Hello, Barek. Thank you for choosing to run the gantlet. What have you learned from your experience with Monjeau lookout?
A: When I first found that article, the only substantial edits had been by a user whose only other edits were to add external links for a nearby lodging into multiple articles - and indeed this article only contained a description of a hiking trail followed by promotional wording for that lodging.[1] I could have removed the promotional wording, but that would have only left a hiking trail guide entry that didn't explain notability. So instead, my reaction was to tag it as db-g11; which in hind-site I agree with the removal by the reviewing admin. In response, I then applied a prod tag.
But while digging deeper after discussing the prod with the admin, I learned two things: the hiking trail description was a copyvio taken from the lodging's website (which itself appears to have statistical content copied from a third website), and I was able to locate a mention that the lookout itself may be a historic structure. I was later able to locate a reliable source to confirm that it was indeed on both state and national listings of historic structures - which then established notability. With that, I proceeded to rewrite the article into a viable stub.
While I did initially propose the article for deletion, I had nothing against the subject. The content was the issue, and it's the content which I ultimately ended up improving. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional question from Sole Soul
7. I'm curious, you are active in fighting vandalism, but you do not have the rollback right nor use any of the automated tools, why?
A: On rollback, I've thought about requesting it several times - but something would always come up and I would forget until the next time it comes up that it would have come in handy.
For the other automated tools, if I did my vandalism patrols via recent changes I likely would have started using the other automation tools by now. But I find most of my vandalism issues via my watched pages list which has developed over time from issues I see being discussed at ANI, RFPP, COIN, WT:WPSPAM, or from discussions on the many user talk pages I have on my watchlist (stalk list?).
I've occasionally considered using one of the automation tools, and I still might one day. But, while I admit even on my user page that edit count by itself is a meaningless statistic for comparison; it eventually became a personal challenge and an issue of personal pride that I could get my edit count as high as I have with only standard MediaWiki tools. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional question from Doc Quintana
8. What is your take on IAR?
A: I can't recall ever using IAR myself (I may have, I just don't remember it if I did), but I can understand the logic and need for having it. I view IAR as a tool to prompt disccussion of a proposed edit which on the surface would violate some rule - to see if consensus exists that ignoring the rule is a net benefit in a particular case. If a rule gets in the way, and consensus exists that the rule prevents improvement of the encyclopedia, then it's appropriate to use IAR to make that improvement. But, IAR is not a free pass to ignore objections from others. Unfortunately, when I see it being invoked on articles, it's most frequently done as part of an edit war or to try to use it as justification for not responding to specific objections from others - neither of which is appropriate. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional question from Blanchardb
9. Regarding your interaction with 80.25.234.55 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) a couple of days ago, there is no question that the edits you reverted were indeed inappropriate, but why did you wait as long as you did before you started issuing user warnings?
A: By my usual warning methods, I would normally have issued a warning on April 9th when I reverted an addition of the link. It was the IPs second addition of the link within two weeks and each time to a different article, indicating a high likelihood of it being a static IP as well as showing continued interest in spreading the linkspam to additional articles; and my revert had been within ten minutes of the addition indicating current/on-going behavior. For clarification on "my usual warning methods", I'll frequently skip issuing a warning to an IP if the edit is stale unless there's evidence of it being a static IP. But in this case, there was evidence of it being static and it wasn't stale.
My best guess is that I was distracted by something else and did not notice the earlier link addition at the time as I didn't revert the IPs earlier addition until April 12th - being a stale edit would be my normal reason for not adding a warning at this point; although shortly before that revert, the IP had also added the link to a third article where it had been reverted by a different editor (that third article had also been on my watch list).
When the IP began adding the link to multiple articles on the 15th appears to be when I began issuing warnings to them. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional question from Gigs
10. Should unreliable sources be blacklisted?
A: If the only reason is not being reliable, then no - in that case, XLinkBot is a better tool. The primary criteria for blacklisting should be due to documented ongoing abuse and behavior of those abusing the links. If there's documented abuse, then reliability of the links can be an additional element taken into consideration - but it's not a reason by itself for blacklisting. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Barek before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Beat-the-nom-support Plenty of experience, no questionable actions. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support I don't see any problems, and WikiGnomes make excellent admins IMO. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 01:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Content contributions might be light, but the user is certainly worthy of the admin tools. ~NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ message • changes) 04:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Should be no problems with this one. BigDom 06:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support With over a year of non-stop edits (editing every month for a year), never being blocked and with reassuring answers. I vote for Support. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 06:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support You look like you need a mop. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 07:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I have observed WT:WikiProject Spam and other similar pages where Barek has been an excellent contributor for an extended period. Barek has consistently shown calmness and good judgment, and will perform useful work as an admin. Johnuniq (talk) 07:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. Why not? -FASTILY (TALK) 08:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Deleted contribs look OK, block log is squeeky clean and I think that the candidates involvement in talk:Whitefish_Mountain_Resort shows clue and ability to communicate in building an article. ϢereSpielChequers 09:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Solely needed to get things going at the spam blacklist talk page. MER-C 09:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - Looks good. I didn't look extremely in depth, but I liked the random sample I saw. We always need more vandalism patrollers. Shadowjams (talk) 09:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Good answer to Q3, I'm pleased you found a sufficient way to control a dispute. Minimac (talk) 10:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support What a nice way to start the day - with two new RfAs, both of which I have no hesitation in supporting -- Boing! said Zebedee 11:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. A very experienced user, no concerns. Nsk92 (talk) 12:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Experienced and trustworthy. He would clearly make good use of the mop. Rje (talk) 12:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Aiken ♫ 13:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. support. readily meets my standards. Intelligent, articulate, open to discussion/feedback. Obvious net positive. Dlohcierekim 13:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    For example-- "I supported giving them more guidance" = low likelihood of abusing the tools.] Dlohcierekim 13:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. support sure --Herby talk thyme 14:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support, in my review of their talk page and a sampling of their edits to different namespaces did not see anything that would lead me to believe they would misuse the tools. Appears to have a very good knowledge of policies and guidelines. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 14:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support - everything seems in order here. Appears unlikely to abuse the tools and looks like a productive member of Wiki-society. Cocytus [»talk«] 15:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support - solid contributer, good communications. No reason to oppose. Best of luck ! -- Flyguy649 talk 17:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Sure. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Strong support -- very knowledgeable about some of the more technical aspects of ferreting out complex spam schemes. Judicious and temperate in his dealings with spammers -- good at sorting out those acting in truly bad faith vs. those a bit off-track in their understanding of our rules. Furthermore, we need more spam-savvy admins to deal with backlogs in blacklist additions and removals. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support and I like the way he answers the questions.  fetchcomms☛ 20:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Good answers to questions, can't find any problems (looking randomly). - Dank (push to talk) 20:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Spam is a big problem in Wikipedia and we need more admins in that area. Sole Soul (talk) 21:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  27. No problems in my dealings with Barek. Has a clue.  7  00:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. Anyone willing to deal with spam cleanup is much valued and has my full support. -- Ϫ 06:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support be happier with some more concerted article building but a fair chance will be net positive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. Good involvement in WP:AN3, WP:ANI, WP:RPP, WP:AIV, WP:HELPDESK, WP:COIN & WP:ELN. Vipin Hari || talk 12:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support no concerns. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 15:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support - why not? Airplaneman ✈ 19:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Looks good. RayTalk 21:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support - no problems. Décembër21st2012Freâk Talk at 00:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. Hardworking & trustworthy -- Marek.69 talk 00:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Super strong support An excellent nominee if there ever was one. Barek's edits oftentimes pop up on my watchlist because our areas of work overlap (spam, external links) and I have never found a need to question his judgement. I have no doubt that giving him the tools will be a benefit for the encyclopedia. ThemFromSpace 01:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. Not particularly familiar with this candidate but everything presented in this RfA, combined with the run of supports above, looks top notch.--Mkativerata (talk) 01:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support - A trustworthy editor with no issues. He would really benefit from the use of admin tools in the areas he works in. Forentitalk 02:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support - Candidate is a valuable and courteous contributor. I'm sure he'll make good use of admin tools. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 03:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  41. I see no reason not to support, and critically, any prospective admin willing to hel pout at RPP has to be a good thing! GedUK  09:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support as everything looks fine by me -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 13:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Seems like a great user who will use the tools wisely. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 14:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Very good answer on 8. No other reasons I see to oppose. Good luck! Doc Quintana (talk) 16:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support I see no reason to oppose, and no mild concerns to justify a neutral. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support - Per above; I should learn to vote in RfAs before all of my support/oppose reasons have already been specified multiple times ;) Ajraddatz (Talk) 17:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  47. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 21:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support - fully meets my standards: in particular - huge edit count, great Userboxen/user page, anti-vandalism work, and Barnstars. Bearian (talk) 23:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Strong support- a Wikipedian for almost 4 years with > 25,000 edits. Broad range of experience. A spam-fighting specialist --> now that's an area where we need more experts like Barek.--Hokeman (talk) 02:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support - I've seen Barek's work, and have confidence in his judgment. EdJohnston (talk) 13:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Good answers, good recent edit history. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Could obviously use the tools well and I sincerely believe he will do a good job. ceranthor 01:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. Good contributions. No issues. Axl ¤ [Talk] 07:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  54.  Support Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Barek. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 08:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support - no concerns regarding Barek's ability to wield the mop and their anti-spam work is impressive. Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 14:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support Could use a few more sysops with an interest in spam and ELs. Gigs (talk) 16:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support - I'm not familiar with the editor (if they are a WikiGnome that's no surprise), but their contributions look excellent and the answers to questions above impressed me. -- Atama頭 20:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Barek has less content work than the average editor, but he does have experience with it, so that doesn't really concern me. However, I am pleased to see his dedication to an important part of our project, spam response, which goes above and beyond what most editors do. I think using the tools there and at WP:AIV and WP:RFPP would suit him just fine. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support per nom.--White Shadows you're breaking up 00:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. No concerns here. Good luck with the mop! Laurinavicius (talk) 21:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support When you get the mop, don't forget to mop my kitchen first. There is dust behind the refrigerator Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support Can be trusted not to abuse the bit. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Strong Support: An ideal candidate. - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support, no evidence user would abuse the tools. The fact that he's willing to work in the hard business of keeping spam at bay is a massive bonus, too. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  65. Support, thoughtful contributor. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral I generally don't support without significant work on article building, but see no reason to oppose at this time.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral per mediocre content work. No reason to oppose, just no support from me. Jclemens (talk) 04:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Barek&oldid=1138135161"