Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bob the Wikipedian

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

Bob the Wikipedian

(71/3/5); ended 02:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC) —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

Bob the Wikipedian (talk · contribs) – Self-proclaimed Tree of Life WikiDragon with a background in programming and biology. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: In addition to responding to the requests and complaints from users needing administrative intervention, I am able to troubleshoot the codes in the templates. An example of a code I fixed recently is at {{italictitle}}, although I was unable to make the edit myself since I did not have the privileges. This will allow me to more rapidly correct such problems.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: From a standpoint of extra-Wikipedia (that's the outside world, and it really does exist), I promote Wikipedia regularly and have been working on a filter which uses AdBlock Plus that would allow users of the filter to prevent catalogued images of nudity from displaying on the screen; this filter is entirely independent from Wikipedia and would not actually modify the contents of any page at all. It is the only way I know to protect the eyes of our children without violating WP:NOTCENSORED. From a standpoint of within Wikipedia, my single best contribution has been my fivefold expansion of the article on the newly discovered Psychedelic Frogfish Histiophryne psychedelica (Pietsch, Arnold, and Hall 2009), including seven photos. It was featured subsequently as a WP:DYK article.

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 can't lie...there was a debate in May of 2008 about Marsupial lion and Marsupial Lion about which many editors (including me) felt very strongly. Consensus was not reached, but a bit of compromise was made. Since then I have had little if any major problems.

Questions from ArcAngel

4. What are/is the most important policy(s) regarding administrative functions?

A: This afternoon as I walked the campus on my way to lunch, I passed a group of students holding a sign that stated "People should not fear their governments. Governments should fear their people." Having experience administrating several forums, I am well-aware of the point they were trying to convey. No one likes an admin who is bossy, rude, or snobbish. The most important policy regarding administrative functions is to remember you are administrating, not dictating or controlling. Administrative functions should be transparent and be directed toward improving the overall situation for the non-administrators.

Postscript: The above answer shook up several voters, mainly because it presents what appears to be a complete misunderstanding of what it means to administrate. I would like to clarify that my comment was directed toward administrating in general, be it on Wikipedia or anywhere. I do not see Wikipedia administrating as any form of government, only the opportunity to be endowed with certain privileges which can either be used properly or abused. Abuse of these tools could include and is not limited to excessive blocking, excessive deletion, and malicious coding. Proper use of these tools is for the betterment of Wikipedia, be it through maintenance (which may include coding, deletion, or editing protected pages) or resolution of disputes (which may include blocking or protecting pages). As Sheldon Harnick wrote in the song "If I Were A Rich Man", "...it wouldn't make one bit of difference whether I am right or I am wrong/when you're rich, they think you really know." This powerful statement, sad, but true, should not be taken lightly. As an administrator, opinions and advice given to regular users is often treated with much more respect. This is a sort of added bonus privilege endowed upon administrators, but it can be used properly or abused just as easily as any of the deliberately endowed tools. I find such abuse of this privilege entirely unethical, and I can promise you I would not even think of using this to my advantage. I do not intend to enter an argument saying, "I'm an admin, and here's what I think." My opinion is no more important than that of any vandal or troll.

5. When should cool down blocks be used and why?

A: I strongly oppose blocking someone simply because they cannot control their anger for the following simple reasons:

1. It makes the user angrier
2. It decreases the likelihood the user will return to make positive contributions
3. If the user does return, it increases the vengeance they will have when they do
4. Word by mouth is powerful, and this may give Wikipedia a very poor review

5b Followup question by Pcap. Can you clarify what you mean by "cannot control their anger"? Specifically, would you block (or unblock if already blocked by another admin) a user that says/does (and if blocked requests an unblock):

1. "Fuck off!"
2. "You fool!"
3. "Get lost and get an education!"
4. "No more pandering to WP:RANDYs!"
5. "What a drama queen!"
6. Restores any of the above messages reverted by another user.

Answering this shan't be necessary. Your answer to Q9 makes your position perfectly clear.

I would like to clarify something...I never said I approve of the language. In fact, I strongly disapprove. I would be morally obligated to turn down any request to be unblocked for 1. Line 6 depends entirely on the situation. Any editor who wishes to represent themselves by posting any of 1-5 loses my support; I will not fight to prevent a block on someone who has no respect for others.

"Cannot control their anger" to me does not mean name-calling and such, although these are results of it. Uncontrolled anger means making irrational arguments and refusing to admit wrongfulness or make a reasonable compromise. I suppose my initial response to Daniel's question last night could be classified as uncontrollable anger-- I sure felt angry, and it was difficult to defend my point simply because I was wrong. I've admitted my fault now, so the "uncontrolled anger" has come under control. (Going to bed and reviewing the situation in the morning was a wonderful cooldown method-- I'd highly recommend it.) We've all had moments when we've been angry and irrational, and few of us have had the courage to admit our failures. If cooldown blocks were not against Wikipedia policy, we'd all have been blocked several times by now, I think.

6. What is your interpretation of WP:IAR and when are you willing to use it?

A: WP:IAR is a very wisely written policy, but should be taken with a grain of salt. It is perhaps the most important policy, yet it is the most misunderstood and, as a result, too often abused. The policy (for anyone who doesn't feel like looking it up) states, "if any policy prevents you from improving Wikipedia, ignore it." The word "improving" has been interpreted in many ways, and at times I find myself wondering what "improves" the Wikipedia and what just adds to its bulkiness. However, I've never needed to follow WP:IAR to date, although I have contributed a small share to the policies. I've always considered the policy when I'm in doubt as to whether to break a policy, only to decide that whatever I was considering was not really an "improvement" to the Wikipedia. I'm sure the day will arise, though, when I find it necessary, because it has yet to be proven that any set of policies is without error.

Questions from Abce2

7 What do you know about editor conflicts and how to handle them?

A: Editing conflicts? Ah, just hit the "back" button, copy what you typed, and paste it below whatever conflicted with your edit. Just kidding....

I know enough to know that if a counselor was not prescribed by the clients, the counselor's advice will be ignored. I am willing to help resolve conflicts if all parties are willing to accept my help. In many cases, one party is correct and the other is misinformed or confused; these instances only involve clear communication. In other instances, many parties may have valid arguments and the solution is not so obvious. Sometimes a compromise will work, sometimes a poll will help, and sometimes simply walking away from the situation for a week and returning is helpful for all of us. Many situations may never be resolved, and it is best to avoid dwelling on such situations, as spending forever arguing over something with no correct answer wastes time that could be spent doing something else.

8 What would you do in a heated discussion you've somehow been drawn into?

A: I appreciate your effort to track down that "gut feeling" as you put it. Hopefully it wasn't the joke I made-- as I glanced over your userpage you seemed tolerant of humor. :)

Should I be drawn into a heated discussion (and I assume you simply mean one I'm interested in putting in my two cents), I first assess its importance. If it's not worth it, leave it alone. One of the biggest mistakes you can make in a heated discussion is not reading everything. Often simply by reading everything (or questioning an editor's rationale), a problem can be resolved. However, it's important to remember that the other user may perceive you the same way you might perceive them, and that, worst of all, you could be wrong. In some cases, no one is wrong and it takes a little more than admitting you're wrong...it requires seeing things the way others see them and forgetting about your own biased opinion. If you can succeed at that, you can often come up with a compromise. For example, Template talk:Italic title#RFC: Should this be used? (in which I played an important part) documents a debate that could have changed Wikipedia entirely, but could also have presented a poor appearance as a scholarly source. A compromise was made which involved creating a project-specific policy without altering or violating global policy. I hope that answers your question better.

Additional optional questions from Tznkai

9. A hypothetical: A post on ANI catches your attention. An IP editor (IP 555.555.555.1) claims that he is part of Sarah Palin's family, and that redlinked user:neutral editor is a democratic staffer vandalizing the article. A check of the history shows these two were edit warring over whether or not to include the line "Sarah Palin quit from the position of governor, giving her a world wide reputation as a quitter"(several cites to blogs and op eds) in the lede of the article. 555.555.555.1 has been reverting with the edit summary "rv:trolling vandal libeler" and user:neutral editor has not used edit summaries at all. In addition, three other users have commented on the ANI thread like so:

• Alaskan's can't write, ignore him.--User:A
  • Block 555.555.555.1, WP:COI. --User:B
    • Block both of the fuckers. --User:C

No one else has responded to the thread in 48 hours. What do you do?

A: That's a messy one.

I would check the edit history closer to see if the 3-revert rule has been violated. As you have described the situation, this is a series of reverts, so if the three-revert rule has been violated that itself gives me reason to warn both users that if they wish to revert further, they ought to discuss the change on the discussion page before the change is made. If either User:IP 555.555.555.1 or User:neutral editor reverts again against a consensual agreement between the two (and any others who may become involved), that is grounds for a block, although I do not believe it would be appropriate for the admin assigning the final warning to be the same one who assigns the block. If the final warning has already been issued by another user, then I'd feel more comfortable blocking. The reason I do not believe in blocking a person whom only I have warned is because a block is not to be taken lightly, issued whenever an admin gets upset.

User:IP 555.555.555.1 should also receive an appropriate warning regarding conflict of interest, as he has stated himself that Mrs. Palin is a relative.

User:neutral editor would also receive an appropriate warning to use more reliable sources, as blogs and opinion editorials are not reliable enough to source. I'd let the edit summaries go for now so as not to attack the apparent newcomer. After all, my first two years of editing did not contain more than a small handful of edit summaries. Edit summaries are not as important as the other issues faced here, and it's important not to put too much emphasis on small errors until the larger errors are corrected. There is no evidence at the moment that he actually is a democratic staffer. In fact, there is not even evidence he is democratic. Many republicans would be tempted to make the same edit.

As for User:A's comment, I'd be quite tempted warn him not to speak about demographic groups in that manner. A quick check of his recent participation on talk pages should be enough to deem whether this was likely a one-time incident or whether he does this often, and if it's the latter, I'd warn him.

User:B has done nothing wrong here, and I have no reason at the moment to believe him to be a sock/meat puppet.

Although User:C's comment is uncalled-for, I do not believe it warrants a warning. Wikipedia is not censored, so as far as I'm aware, there's nothing that can be done to punish someone for vulgar language.

I appreciate this question. It's been a great setup for what might actually happen in real life.

Additional optional questions from ThaddeusB

10. What do you view as the greatest threat to Wikipedia's long-term future and why? What, if anything, can be done to address this issue?

A: That's an interesting question I haven't given much thought to. If you don't mind, I'd like to ponder that one for a few hours or possibly a day and come back to it. Due to the nature of the question, I don't think this should pose much of a problem for you. I'm assuming you're referring to the entire wikipedia.org domain and no other WikiMedia sites). My immediate "greatest threat" I've thought about recently only applies to the WP:TOL, but I'm sure if I give it some thought I can come up with a decent answer that applies to the Wikipedia in a broader sense.

Feel free to follow up at your convenience, but preferably before the RfA closes. ;) --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Follow up: I've given this some thought. The problem I spoke of earlier which would affect only WP:TOL is due to the level of non-unity in the world of biota databases. It's a very specific concern, but it all comes down to "which database will we all use someday?"

On a much broader sense, numerous threats of an information war on the U.S. have been made within the past several years (if you would like me to present sources, I'd be happy to-- I've written on the topic before). This is a very real threat, and one such example might be mass vandalism or elimination of the entire servers through any of a slew of destructive means. I can only hope and pray that our world doesn't come to this.

11. According to Q1, it appears your only planned use of the tools is to edit fully protected template pages. Is that a correct assessment of your plans?

A: Thanks for requesting clarification; no one is worse off voting than a misinformed voter. The way I see it, an administrator is a sort of tool that is required for end-users to be able to use the website adequately. There have been numerous occasions in my editing history where administrator assistance was required to do simple things. These range from fixing code on a protected template (as mentioned above) to deleting temporary userpages or pages with accidentally freakish titles to performing a consensual page move over an existing page. In the specific case of the code editing, I had to wait a few days to receive administrator assistance to simply copy a section of text to replace the existing template. Moments like these are the ones when I realize that there may not be enough (motivated) administrators to carry out all the needed functions for end-users without the privileges. I plan to address any concerns brought to my attention, as I already do (being a member of WP:HAU already directs a handful clueless users to my talk page). As far as the noticeboard goes, I will participate where I feel I can be helpful, although if I do not instinctively know how to handle a situation, I will try to observe how it is handled by other administrators rather than getting involved and messing things up.

11a. Follow up Q: As I'm sure you are aware you will gain access to deletion tools if you approved. Your experience and desire in these area seems rather limited, but that could possibly change at some point. If your desires change in the future, what steps will you take before diving into closing AfDs and accessing speedy deletion candidates?

A: Before diving into closing AfDs, I would definitely need to spend a great deal more time participating in those discussions. I am aware that certain speedy deletion candidates are mislabeled with the speedy deletion template, so until I gain this experience I will avoid deleting articles when I am not 100% sure that they serve no further purpose. On the other hand, a user subpage where the owner has requested speedy deletion is usually a safe bet, although it's a good idea to check the edit history and make sure someone didn't move a page to their userspace from another namespace.

Additional optional questions from Daniel

12. How do you reconcile your statement here (made today), which states that you "don't feel anyone with only 2 years or less experience is really qualified" for adminship, when you yourself have only been editing actively for less than a year and a half (since May 2008)? (05:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC))

A: A very reasonable question; I'll give you the most honest answer I can come up with. My honesty has hurt me in the past, so I should not be surprised if what I say in this section costs me my entire reputation and half my votes, especially since nearly everything I have said thus far has already been used against me. I half-expected this question to turn up sooner or later. You are correct, and I intend to justify my activity during that period of time as well as why I do consider that "inactive" time to have been active in a different sense.

For those who care to read my justification for inactivity during Fall 06-Winter 07, please follow this link. Those who don't wish to read the justification, all that is really important is I had insufficient Internet access until March of 2008.

I do not consider myself to have edited for "less than one and a half years". The reality is that I began over three years ago, and even though my editing was sparse over that period of time, my skills improved at an acceptable rate in relation to the duration of time elapsed since registration, as the goals and policies of Wikipedia have had over three years to sink in for me to become quite familiar with them, whereas users who have used the Wikipedia for less than two years are often unaware of most goals and policies.

I have (in my opinion) as much experience as any other editor who has spent three solid years here, and have explored more areas of the WikiMedia sites than anyone I know (aside from some extremely dedicated editors and admins around here)

Also-- check the editing history of several others...have they had a solid activity for the duration of their editing career? I'm sure I'm not the only one who has had such circumstances as these.

I hope I have answered your question adequately.

I've turned the issue over in my head a few times and have decided my reasoning was irrational. I hereby am retracting what I have said, and will be giving Pr3st0n another review.

Additional optional questions from The ed17

13. Question poached from Lankiveil There has been quite a bit of discussion lately about the practice of putting speedy deletion tags on newly created articles that are just minutes old. How long do you think that users on new page patrol ought to wait before putting an A7 tag on a (technically eligible) newly created article?

A: While I'm not aware of any "set time period" required before tagging, I believe common sense should be used. I believe it may have happened to me once, although I don't remember exactly when or which article. Ever since then, I've used {{underconstruction}} to notify potential page-scrappers that the article isn't ready to be reviewed yet for deletion. When no such template has been applied, I'd say a rough three days or so is adequate time, although it's a good idea to check the edit summaries to make sure the editor didn't leave a note such as "I'm taking a break and coming back later." However, in cases such as the hypothetical John Doe is an idiot and so is his mother, it's obvious that this page does not belong in the main namespace; I'd say it's okay to tag this one immediately if a quick review shows no value. An appropriate notice should ALWAYS be issued on a user's talk page, whether the article is tagged for vandalism reasons or because it seems trivial. Same goes for files-- it always bugs me when someone tags an image I've uploaded for deletion without telling me. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for Bob the Wikipedian: Bob the Wikipedian (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Bob the Wikipedian can be found here.

---

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

Discussion

• Editing stats posted at the talk page. Regards, Javért ^☆ 02:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. My first beat the nom support, I think! Anyway, candidate meets User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards in that he has never been blocked, but has received rollback and multiple barnstars. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
2. The brevity of his statement may be off-putting, but he is nonetheless a dedicated Wikipedian who will probably do good things with adminship. As I see it, the tools are simply that; tools. They are not a badge that only some Wikipedians are worthy of (or at least, they shouldn't be). Master&Expert (Talk) 03:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
3. A dedicated editor, with over three years under the belt. Having never been blocked is a big-time plus. @harej 03:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

   Also, I may be looking into this too much, but his filtering software just might demonstrate that Bob has sophisticated dispute resolution skills. Think about it. Rather than go on a pointless crusade to censor Wikipedia, he implemented an external solution that allowed Wikipedia to be censored only to those who specifically choose to, while Wikipedia itself is actually uncensored. @harej 03:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

4. Sure. Reasonable editor, and though he's not very prominent, I doubt he'll misuse the tools. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
5. Gut feeling gone. Will do well in conflicts.Abce2|This isnot a test 05:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
6. Strong support Good answers. Seems competent. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
7. Support. Seems good enough to me, very competent and unlikely to misuse the tools. AtheWeatherman 08:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
8. Tentative support; the "extended wikibreak" notice and the userbox that says you're close to WikiDeath turn me off, but your current activity level seems fine to me, and your many areas of competence turn me back on again. Can you say a little more about how you "promote" Wikipedia? - Dank (push to talk) 09:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

   Sure. Wikipedia is an excellent source, and I consider it the most informed secondary source there is. While political and current topics are often rather sketchy and unreliable, most other topics are well-researched and well-maintained. I've been quite impressed with the edits and research I've seen in the past three years from my colleagues in the Tree of Life WikiProject. Because I trust (most of) Wikipedia, I often promote it by word of mouth by saying, "Let me go check Wikipedia," or, "I bet you could wiki it and learn a lot more than you would anywhere else." My friends are well-aware that I am a Wikipedian and contribute regularly, and I have even earned the nickname "Mr. Wikipedia" from some of them.

   And as far as WikiDeath goes, I suppose we all retire eventually. I currently don't have any plans to WikiDie. Rather, I expect my contributions to increase more than ever once I'm done with college. If it weren't for the homework, I'd be doing a lot more on here; for instance, I'd like to finish the plant images project I began last spring. As for the extended WikiBreak, I'm not sure how much longer that will last, to tell you the truth. I expect I'll spend a couple more months on it at least, and once it's done, you can expect my activity to skyrocket again to what it was before. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

   Minor nitpick: Wikipedia is a tertiary source, not secondary. -kotra (talk) 18:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

9. Looks ok to me. Good answers. Pmlineditor^Talk 10:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
10. Going with instinct. Until someone proves otherwise, this is a fine candidate. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  11:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
11. Need more sysops. Stifle (talk) 11:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
12. Support interacts positively with other people, handles setbacks without drama, improves with time. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
13. Support--Giants27(c|s) 12:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
14. Seems sane. ceranthor 13:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
15. Support - Yep! AdjustShift (talk) 14:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
16. Weak support. Maybe could use more projectspace edits, but sound altogether. Malinaccier (talk) 14:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
17. Answer 7 made me laugh. Bsimmons666 (talk) 14:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
18. Support It looks like he'll make a fine admin. hmwith☮ 14:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
19. Support Nothing to concern me. Good luck. America69 (talk) 14:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
20. Not a problem! :) iMatthew ^talk at 14:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
21. Support I see no problems here. Royalbroil 15:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
22. Support. I do not see a likelihood of problems from this editor should the bit be twiddled. I do recommend moving cautiously at first, however, in areas where a lack of experience may exist. Ask a lot of questions in those cases. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
23. Support Can't imagine him creating any sort of trouble as an admin. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 16:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
24. Weak support due to the poor and unimpressive self-introduction (looks lazy for the RFA preparation), but generally like the answers and contributions.--Caspian blue 17:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
25. Support everything looks good to me here... Irbisgreif (talk) 17:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
26. Support Seems trustworthy. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
27. See him around and believe he'll do well as a sysop.  GARDEN  18:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
28. Nother support from yours truly.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
29. Support I don't usually show up if an RfA is above 90%, but I'm coming to support because I'm impressed with your edits, especially your work with wiki markup. I know I can come to you if I have trouble getting something in wiki code to display properly. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 19:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
30. Support Everything seems fine to me. LittleMountain5 21:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
31. Support - Manning (talk) 23:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
32. Support Excellent and very well grounded answers to the questions, especially #9 - shows your head is definitely in the right place. Granted, I'd probably support any gnomish biologist running, but still... ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 23:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
33. Support I don't see any issues with this candidate that would make me think they would break anything. ArcAngel (talk) 03:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
34. Support: seems ok!.. South Bay (talk) 03:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
35. Support - I decided to support after reading the questions and my opinion was only solidified after reading all of the above comments. Good luck, Bob :). Airplaneman ^talk 04:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
36. Suport Excellent candidate. warrior4321 05:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
37. Strong Support Per being helpfull and tech savvy, per Editor A Nobody and per having a cool sounding name. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
38. Strong Support does not seem to be a wanker or a bullyboy and therefore meetings my minimum standards for Admin role. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
39. Support. Good contributions. Sensible. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
40. Support, sensible user with excellent contributions. Ironholds (talk) 11:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
41. Support I've had a good encounter with this user in the past. He has a Clean block log and is a civil and useful contributor with varied contributions that indicate to me the sort of breadth of knowledge of this place that an admin should have. ϢereSpielChequers 12:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
42. Support. Good content and talk contributions, intelligent, knowledgeable, affable ... good is good enough. Esowteric+Talk 17:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
43. Support. Technical competence demonstrated, and shows calm rationality in his answers. --4wajzkd02 (talk)
44. Support Looks great! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
45. NW (Talk) 22:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
46. Support  JUJUTACULAR | (TALK)  00:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
47. Support I am not aware of any problems here. --candle•wicke 02:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
48. Support, looks good. Wizardman 03:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
49. Support. Well-reasoned answers to the questions. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
50.  Support Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Bob the Wikipedian. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 06:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
51. Support Everything I was able to detect indicates a clueful, helpful person that would do well with a couple extra abilities. Best of luck. — Ched :  ?  14:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
52. (edit conflict) Support - I have no problem with Q4, as it pretty much summarises every admin-related policy.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 14:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
53. Support Good experiences with you at TOL, I'm glad to use my first ever vote for an admin up on you! Smartse (talk) 15:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
54. Support No problems here, answers to the questions show a thorough understanding of policy, a level head, and considerable clue. GlassCobra 16:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
55. Support My !vote is based primary on the user's response to my hypothetical question. For my complete views on it, see WT:RFA BobtW gave an answer that is pretty by the book, and thus lends itself to an easy support. It showed a level head and concrete thinking, however, BobtW did not address the BLP issue at all, which was a critical aspect of all of this. (To BobtW's credit, he pointed out the RS issue) Administrators must keep the end goal (the production of good content) in mind when dealing with poor conduct. Recent months have shown fairly conclusively that BLP errors are ticking time bombs. I still vote to support because I believe BobtW will take my advice on this manner and accept it as a learning moment and has demonstrated traits that suggests that he is dedicated to keeping things in proper perspective.--Tznkai (talk) 18:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
56. Support, good clueful user with no problems granting them adminship. I'm not bothered by kotra's oppose. In fact I don't quite agree with it; Bob's definition merely seems like a different one, rather than a wrong one. JamieS93 23:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
57. Support--^Writer _Listener 20:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
58. Support. Looks good from what I've seen. Useight (talk) 21:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
59. Support: Very constructive. - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
60. Support Constructive, civil, engages in discussions and is willing to accept mistakes and to learn. Shyamal (talk) 02:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
61. Support User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
62. Support. I like the candidate's answers, and I'm seeing a lot of good work on the project. No concerns here. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
63. Support moved from opposed, in view of further explanations given. DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
64. Support - meets my standards: in particular - lots of edits, great Userboxen, very interesting user pages and links, and Barnstars. Bearian (talk) 15:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
65. Support A great addition to the admin ranks; good to have you aboard. Jusdafax 19:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
66. Support. No reason to believe that the candidate will misuse the tools. — ξ^xplicit 20:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
67. Support - Rowdy the Ant talk to Rowdy 21:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
68. Support significantly large chance of being a useful admin, hence worth a trial with the mop :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
69. Weak Support Looks okay, but as this adminship request hopefully is also about feedback I found this to be arrogant less than optimal, and demonstrative of a lack of understanding about discussion as opposed to voting. This resonates with some comments in oppose regarding communication concerns. Nevertheless Bob is likely to use the admin tools well, but I suggest a slight removal of the chip on the shoulder as this request will cleraly pass. Admins are simply users with additional technical access. Nothing more, nothing less. Fuzzy warm feelings are not what this is about. M♠ssing Ace 21:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

    Never said that was why I was running, only that it was an unexpected but welcome product of the RfA, which relieved me of the nervousness (that is, until I started getting opposes). As far as communication goes, I agree...communication is not my strength (as I have proven quite well through my answers on this page)-- nevertheless, I do strive to be understood always. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

    I'm sure you will do fine - I've refactored one word as it was uncalled for on my part - I apologize. Thank you for your timely response and best wishes with the extra tools. M♠ssing Ace 22:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

70. Support - Good editor, answers to questions especially Q5 and Q9 impress. All-round contribs are fine and no glaring errors, will be good as a sysop! -- Casmith_789 (talk) 23:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
71. Support I particularly like his honest answer to Q11 - an admin should be chosen if we trust him or her to use the additional tools responsibly, and not to use them when he/she is unsure or conflicted. I have confidence that Bob will live up to that standard. All the best. Abecedare (talk) 23:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose (moving from neutral) - A4, its "postscript", and the discussion between me and Bob in the Neutral section lead me to conclude that the candidate views adminship as a managerial role that accords greater respect. This is not how the access level is described in WP:ADMIN or how I have seen admins treated in practice. Admins' views are often treated with less respect simply because they come from admins, and a sure way to fall on your face is to expect the opposite to occur and bring that expectation into adminship. As the candidate views the role now, I see it as likely they would display some of the poor traits critics of Wikipedia associate with the user group. -kotra (talk) 19:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

   Oppose The answer and justification to Q5 is not acceptable to me. "I strongly oppose blocking someone simply because they cannot control their anger " is a clear refusal to enforce WP:NPA, and ignores the problem that continuing expressions of anger have on the encyclopedia. Certainly we don't do it as a cool-down block, but we do & should do it for ongoing problems. In my view, people who cannot control their anger belong elsewhere. One of the justifications given is "Word by mouth is powerful, and this may give Wikipedia a very poor review" . As I see it, permitting uncontrolled expressions of anger is what is more likely to give Wikipedia a poor reputation. DGG ( talk ) 13:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

   moving to support in consideration of the further explanation DGG ( talk ) 03:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

   I can see it in both lights, and they are both justifiable opinions. Either way, there will be mad people trying to stir something up no matter what, and blocking the mad guys will anger them while leaving them not blocked will anger the recipient of the mad person's anger. Both will then give Wikipedia bad reviews, so this problem is really unavoidable. Airplaneman ^talk 20:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

2. Oppose per my question; if this is simply a misread on my part, I will happily change to neutral or support, but that's something that can be re-evaluated when the candidate answers the question. Daniel (talk) 06:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

   Oh, and further, in the hypothetical question, saying that calling a family member of the subject of an article (who is editing that article to try and deal with perceived violations of the living persons policy) a "fucker" is allowable and not actionable even by a warning does not sit very well at all with me. That's the exact kind of unprofessional comment that would cause a major stir and have real-world ramifications, in addition to being a fairly clear-cut (in my opinion) violation of the no personal attacks and incivility policies, and to suggest that it's not actionable is demonstrating poor judgement.

   By no means did I say it was acceptable. I merely said there is no Wikipedia policy clearly against cursing and therefore I cannot use represent Wikipedia through a warning or block-- in fact, doing so would violate WP:NOTCENSORED. Had I written the policies of Wikipedia, the site would be censored at a level you probably would find rather annoying-- I have extremely high standards. I don't even say "suck" as a derogatory term. Call me old-fashioned, I suppose. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

   I am of the opinion that both WP:NOTCENSORED applies only to articles, and also that calling someone a "fucker" is such a serious and significant lapse in decorum as to merit a block per WP:NPA, conflicting policies withstanding. Put it this way: If I blocked someone for calling someone a "fucker", would you allow an unblock appeal and perform the block reversal? Daniel (talk) 09:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

   As I discourage cursing, it would go against my morals to conduct such a reversal and I would leave the situation open for someone else to reverse it. Similarly, I would not help defend an appeal to keep any pornographic image. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

3. Oppose Q5 is a strong oppose reason. Plus Q1 is a cop-opt answer. Once an admin all areas are open. I don't like that RfA is at the point where that matters, but that's where it is. Q4 is awesome, and I think Bob shouldn't back off from that sentiment. Q12 though is interesting with a slight negative. I don't agree, but if you're going to be intellectually honest why make this statement within the same time-frame. That's off the map. Shadowjams (talk) 10:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

   (Moved to neutral. 08:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)) Oppose per DGG. We already have enough admins that unblock their friends after they make personal attacks. This already creates an uneven environment. I strongly doubt the applicant will unblock just about any editor who makes a personal attack, but his answer to Q5 makes me think he'll do so when convenient. Furthermore, he states in Q9 that WP:NOTCENSORED allows one editor to call another a fucker. Bob clearly confuses the scope of the content and conduct policies. Pcap ping 18:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

   I'm confused by your reasoning...I never said anything about being willing to unblock anyone. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

   "In addition to responding to the requests and complaints from users needing administrative intervention ..." Pcap ping 20:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

   I was referring to intervening in situations like users needing an administrator to delete a page, edit a page, move over a redirect, as well as responding to issues such as conflict resolution. Nowhere in that phrase did I mention any intention to unblock someone. An unblock is controversial and should be discussed by multiple adminstrators prior to the action. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

   Thanks for taking the time to reply here and above, but I find the poor communication skills an additional concern. Despite this, it looks like your RfA will pass, so don't worry about it. Pcap ping 22:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

   I'll respect your opinion-- thanks for at least taking the time to review my latest responses. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

#Neutral Answer to Q7 gave me a bad gut feeling. I'll check over it again to find out what's doing that.Abce2|This isnot a test 04:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

1. Neutral Editor doesn't appear to have many XfD discussions over the past year. His experience with the File namespace is limited to 4 edits to 2 files. One file being uploaded in last June at a resolution above the norm. Apparent lack of experience in these is why I am neutral for now.--Rockfang (talk) 08:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

   I would like to justify this. My uploading activity is primarily within the Commons. I generally do not upload copyrighted files. Check my gallery to see a list of images I've uploaded. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

   I've struck part of my comment.--Rockfang (talk) 04:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

2. Neutral Would like to see more policy-based edits, though everything else seems good. Sort of a weak support/neutral kind of thing. ƒ(Δ)² 09:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

   Neutral, leaning towards oppose - unsettled by A4: administrators do not administrate. We do not manage, have executive charge of, bring into use or operation, or supervise. The name is a misnomer, and understandably misleading, but I am wary of people going into the role with that particular perception of it. Will research more later. -kotra (talk) 22:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

   I am curious as to how you would define an administrator, then. I see administrators as users given privileges that other users do not have, and these privileges should be used to better the situation of others, be it through settling disputes or carrying out maintenance. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

   Settling disputes is something all users (other than ArbCom) equally have the right to do; it's not a particular role of administrators. Administrators really are just janitors... they have to be trusted with potentially dangerous tools like toxic solvents and the keys to all the rooms, but in the end they are just maintenance personnel with an unglamorous job. The way you worded it, combined with the analogy to government you used, and now your mention of solving disputes, gives me the impression you see administratorship as an authority or managerial role; a superuser who can come into disputes and tell people to behave or go separate ways, and people will listen to them because of their administrator role. This is very much not the case. -kotra (talk) 18:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

   Now I see where you're coming from. Thanks for explaining. Perhaps my analogy wasn't the best. Yes, administrating means managing more complex situations using tools with more powerful consequences, but as you have stated, it is not a governing role. I agree with that. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

   My problem is I do not see administrators' roles including "managing", either. Administrators merely have the technical ability to perform certain actions, actions agreed upon by the community. There are many administrators who see their roles as you do, but I would prefer we have no more of those. Now I see your "postscript" on A4, and it looks reasonable until you say that administrators' opinions are treated with much more respect. This completely false, and in fact, the opposite is often true. I'm sorry to "punish" you for your helpful explanations, but I feel your view of adminship does not match with good admins, so I am moving to oppose. -kotra (talk) 19:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

3. Neutral per Kotra. Razorflame 04:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
4. Neutral - I share DGG's concerns in his opposition vote above, but I don't feel strongly enough to oppose. Bob's contributions and other answers seem well-put (though I'm also a bit uneasy about the admin/government analogy). -- Atama頭 17:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
5. Neutral. Moving here from oppose. He isn't as bad as the first impression he made on me (and DGG), but I find no compelling reason to support, in particular because of the muddled communication. Pcap ping 08:06, 24 September 2009 (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.