Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dabomb87: Difference between revisions

Dabomb87

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (81/0/0); Scheduled to end 18:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) – Dabomb87 is an extraordinarily helpful editor who has proven willing to do some of the drudge work that many other editors avoid. He has a solid understanding of WP policy and how it relates to article content. In his work as a featured list director, he has demonstrated an ability to judge consensus as well as the even more important–and challenging–ability to be helpful and polite if his decisions are questioned [1]. His WP:FAC reviews are invaluable and always based in policy and a true wish to help improve the article. These two roles–reviewer and director–are some of the hardest to do successfully on this project, because one often contributes to crushing another editor's dream that an article/list is perfect. Dabomb handles these situations extremely well; his focus is always on constructive actions that can be taken rather than demeaning the existing content/effort. Furthermore, Dabomb recognizes when he doesn't have the knowledge or skills to make a decision and reaches out for futher opinions [2]. This self-awareness is critical in an environment where admins may not be fully exposed to every area where the tools can be used. In short, I have full confidence in Dabomb87's judgement, and I believe he will be an excellent administrator. Karanacs (talk) 17:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dabomb87 is one of a rare group of quietly knowledgeable and helpful editors who is everywhere all the time doing anything he can to help out, whether on a large or trivial scale, and with careful and thorough consiousness and civility. It is unfortunate that he was tangled into the whole date-delinking issue, but that was well over a year ago and his exemplary work has continued and increased since then. I have no doubt he will be a real asset to the admin corp, and co-nom this RFA with pleasure. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, and am grateful to Karanacs and SandyGeorgia for their support and trust. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:f

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

A: I would start out with the areas with which I am most familiar. For the past two years, I have been active at the Featured lists and Featured articles processes. A lot of what I there do can be described as "dirty work": keeping FAC/FAR and FLC/FLRC running smoothly by taking care of the mundane meta-issues so that other content editors and reviewers can do what they do best. In the past I have encountered numerous "housekeeping" situations where the tools would have been useful; these are usually uncontroversial tasks such as deleting unused pages, moving pages over redirects, and editing protected pages to make minor formatting fixes. More recently, I have had to deal with sockpuppetry at FLC.

In addition, I am an active member of Wikipedia:WikiProject National Basketball Association, and have many athlete BLPs on my watchlist. Even in the offseason, I regularly deal with editors who insert unsourced speculation, BLP violations, or plain vandalism into these articles. To this end, the tools could be useful to ensure that these articles remain high-quality. In particular, the ability to protect would come in handy when it is necessary to prevent further disruption. Obviously, I would never use the tools in situations where I am or have been involved.

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

A: I'm proud of any edit that aids our effort to collect the sum of human knowledge into one reference work. My rather small list of articles to which I've made substantial contributions is at User:Dabomb87/Contributions. As far as "audited" content goes, I have written or co-written four list articles that have achieved FL status. With regard to normal articles, I am particularly proud of my work on Tim Donaghy. I was by no means the primary contributor to that article, but I made quite a few additions and copy-edits to bring it up to GA status and keep it up to date. I have also created or expanded five articles that have been featured at DYK.

However, even more than my admittedly meager content creation and addition work, I am proud of my reviews at FAC, FLC, peer review, and (on a significantly lower level) GA in the past two years. You can my complete list of reviews here. I like to think I've played a tiny role in polishing our best work on Wikipedia.

On the meta side of things, I've been one of the Featured list delegates/directors for a year now, which (hopefully) indicates that I am trusted and experienced enough to be a fair judge of consensus as it relates to policies, guidelines and the FL criteria. In addition to my work at the featured content processes, I have engaged in varied activities such as vandal patrol (although not recently), helping out at Category:Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests, and, to a limited extent, new-page patrol.

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: From about October 2008 to June 2009, I was involved in the infamous date-linking drama, considered to be (with good reason) one of the lamest disputes ever. Even though the matter was eventually resolved through an ArbCom case in the first half of 2009, my behavior in the months leading up to the case (October–December 2008) was less than stellar, which is probably an understatement. The links and diffs at Wikipedia:ARBDATE#Dabomb87 illustrate my actions well enough. My primary offenses were extensive edit-warring and engaging in cabalism to push through a certain style, which were, without a doubt, the worst way to approach dispute resolution. I dealt with that conflict in the worst way possible, and fully acknowledge it was unbecoming of any experienced editor, let alone an administrator.

Since that nightmare, I have become more diplomatic in my approach to conflict, and am far more level-headed and open to compromise than before. I learned a lot from the dates saga, and think that my experience and missteps there have helped me to avoid subsequent edit wars and long, protracted disputes. One area where I have substantially improved is responding to stressful situations. In a recent situation, a user believed that I had improperly closed his FLC nomination, suggesting that I had a "double-standard", and stating that I did not "deserve to be a director for anything here". I feel that my response there was calm and civil, and my subsequent handling of the case (I requested review of my action by the FL community, which was unanimously endorsed) helped to defuse any possible conflict.

Additional optional question from BigDom

4. Wikipedia claims that its goal is to collate all human knowledge into one encyclopaedia. However, through guidelines such as WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE, its editors have decided that the majority of human knowledge is not "notable" enough for inclusion. What is your view on this apparent hypocrisy?

A: I don't think the notability standards and the ultimate goal of Wikipedia conflict quite as much one might think. Instead, I think our notability guidelines (and related policies and guidelines such as WP:NOT) qualify the stated goal. If by "knowledge" you mean all things, ideas, events, facts that exist or have happened, then no, this encylopedia is not completely compatible with that aim. However, I think Wikipedia's goal is to contain any information that is likely to help the reader and is worth mention. Our policies and guidelines define what is "worth mention".

Additional optional question from Kraftlos

5. You have a block on your record from last year that appears to have involved ArbCom. Could you elaborate on what happened there and if you made mistakes how you have corrected them?

A: Sure. At the time, the Arbitration Committee had issued an injunction against "mass date (de)linking to prevent further edit-warring", which had led to the case's (which I mentioned in question 3) opening in the first place. In March 2009, I made single edit which included removing some date links from an article. As I explained here and in the subsequent thread, I never intended to make another similar edit and therefore believed my edit did not fall afoul of the injunction. The blocking administrator disagreed with my interpretation, and blocked me. Later on, another (neutral) administrator unblocked me in light of my unblock request and as I did not intend to cause "further disruption". In hindsight, I accept that my edit probably violated the spirit, if not the lettter, of the injunction and it would have been better to request clarification of the injunction before actually making the edit. In general, it is always good practice to seek clarification/consensus on talk before making possibly substantial or controversial changes, and I think I've done a better job of this since then.

General comments

• Links for Dabomb87: Dabomb87 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Dabomb87 can be found here.

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Discussion

• Wow, 63 supports in 6 hours? Might be a record. —Soap— 23:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Support Been waiting for this one. Good luck! Courcelles 18:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support as nominator. Karanacs (talk) 18:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support I feel truly lucky to have spent so many months working with Dabomb87 (mainly at FLC), he's the most dedicated Wikipedian I've ever had the pleasure of knowing, bar none. Good luck. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jujutacular ^talk 18:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. Of course —SpacemanSpiff 18:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. (too many people supporting this candidate × 3) The Thing // Talk // Contribs 18:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. iridescent 18:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. This user should definitely become an administrator. Ruslik_Zero 18:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
9. Took you long enough to submit this. Happy to support. NW (Talk) 18:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
10. Looks fine to me. Tommy! [message] 18:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
11. Have been waiting for this. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^♯♭ 18:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support. Bit of a no-brainer decision. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support no-brainer —Chris!_c/t 18:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support - I admire people that can admit they have made mistakes in the past, and learn from them. If the mop will help you in your work, I'm happy to support you. Jusdafax 18:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
15. I've made a big deal about X!'s edit counter in the last few days, and look forward to reviewing my neutral !votes tomorrow. That said, I don't need the counter for this one, as I'm very familiar with Dabomb's contributions. His record generally speaks for itself, but what I will add is that he has that rare balance of being forthright about his opinions, while at the same time being one of the most level-headed editors on the site. --WFC-- 18:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
16. Malleus Fatuorum 19:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
17. Yesyesyes. Extraordinary user and brilliant work in both writing, reviewing, and directing the reviewing of our best content. —fetch·comms 19:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
18. So that I don't have to correct all the TFAs anymore. Ucucha 19:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support. MarmadukePercy (talk) 19:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
20. (Edit conflict) Support. I've run across Dabomb on several occasions in the WP:FLC process and in every instance I've interacted with him, he has come through as professional and dedicated to his work on Wikipedia. That he can admit that the whole date-linking business was a silly mistake is impressive, and I'm glad that he's learned from his past. I'm incredibly happy to support such an outstanding editor and I wish him luck as an administrator. Nomader ^(Talk) 19:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support -- Эlcobbola _talk 19:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support without reservation.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
23. Can have no qualms about supporting such a well-qualified editor. Like the carefully considered answer to my question. BigDom 19:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support. I don't see any reasons not to. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 19:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
25. You mean he isn't already? --Dweller (talk) 19:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support Definitely. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support 'nuff said. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
28. ••Pepper•• 19:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
29. Absolutely I thought you already had the mop. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 19:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
30. Hell yes! I could never work out why the f*ck you weren't one already, but I'm glad we now have a chance to put that right and, having seen you on several pages I stalk and on my very occasional excursion to FLC, I support without hesitation. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support Definitely. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support Well, duh! No concerns whatsoever that he'd abuse the tools. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
33. Arguably one of the best candidates we've ever had. Dabomb is civil, professional, intelligent, helpful, and diligent at his work, not to mention that he's very humble and works behind the scenes. ceranthor 20:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support - I've only seen good work from you. Airplaneman ✈ 20:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support, solid long time contributor with a need for the buttons. Anything to help with the basketball BLPs come playoff time... :) Kuru (talk) 20:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
36. Among the most productive contributors to Wikipedia. Shame we had to wait so long for this nomination, but better late than never, I guess. This IP is used by Juliancolton because I'm effectively retired. If you want proof, email my main account, but please don't indent this. I will consider any such action in violation of WP:POINT. 69.121.245.182 (talk) 20:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Julian, please explain why your considering yourself "effectively retired" gives you the right to break the rules. IPs don't get to vote in RfA. If you still wish to participate in RfA, please use your account or create a new one. Keepscases (talk) 22:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Meh, so he's breaking the letter of the law, but the spirit is to keep totally unregistered editors from !voting. I don't have a problem with it. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

37. Support. Mike Christie (talk) 20:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
38. Request Dabomb87 can be a bit abrasive. I support as long as he/she promises to him/herself to be less abrasive and not be a bomb. He/she is not abrasive enough for me to oppose. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
39. Connormah 20:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support The nominators put it better than I can. Nev1 (talk) 21:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support. While not knowing this user well, I've encountered them recently in the FL area. Seems a reasonable editor with a long term commitment to the project. I've seen no issues, and it would seem, no one else ↓↓ has either. Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
42. Secret ^account 21:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support No doubt about it. Dabomb87 is very helpful. Theleftorium ^(talk) 21:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
44. Mkativerata (talk) 21:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
45. Strong support. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support Assumed you were one. Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support Definitely dedicated and adds to the project. No concerns here.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support Without hesitation.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
49. Strong support (ecx3)DAMN YOU SANDYGEORGIA... Dabomb was on my radar from last year! Unfortunately, when I was reviewing him last year I realized that the incident he discussed above would have precluded him from passing RfA (I think bomb and I had a short convo about it back then.) I've been planning on re-reviewing bomb ever since then. But I have nothing but respect from my personal interactions with him and his dedication (at least at the time) to the FLC process.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    With help of DaBomb, I found the RfA that I actually wrote for him last year. Here is part of my original nom, When reviewing his talk page, I can't help but be impressed with his edits to newbies who know almost nothing about WP and with his responses to respected veterans such as SandyGeorgia and Rlevse. In every case, the person he communicates with shows a degree of respect for Dabomb and he treats them with the class and dignity we hope for from an admin. Unfortunately, last week Dabomb learned of the evils that are Huggle, I'm hoping to break that addiction before it is even started by introducing him to the corruption that is Adminship ;-) Ok, in all seriousness, Dabomb is exactly the type of candidate whom I think we need more of in adminship. While his main area of interests are FAC/FLC/GAN/PR/MOS (areas whose primary concern is the improvement of wp), he does have contributions to AFD/ANI/AIV/ArbCOM. He doesn't necessarily want to become an admin, but I completely trust that if he uses the tools even once, it will be for the betterment of Wikipedia. I cannot see Dabomb ever abusing the tools and fully trust him to seek out guidance when necessary.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

50. Support Thoughtful and hardworking candidate ;) Aiken ♫ 21:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support   — Jeff G.  ツ 22:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support. Very helpful, great work ethic, has Wikipedia's best interests in mind. The endorsements from highly-respected editors really helps too. -- œ^™ 22:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support good candidate. Johnbod (talk) 22:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support Of course. --John (talk) 22:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support This one's a no-brainer. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support Good choice and good luck...Modernist (talk) 23:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
58. Of course - strong candidate, no concerns that I can see. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
59. Yes, please. Helpful and experienced editor who no doubt will make a good admin. Jafeluv (talk) 23:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support Broad and deep level of experience; cerebral answers; well-qualified for the mop--Hokeman (talk) 23:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support Very strong candidate. I've no doubt he'll use the mop well. Shimeru 23:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support - I've been waiting for this to go live. Will make a great admin. Dana boomer (talk) 23:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support - No objections from me. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 23:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support - I dealt with this user at FLC, and he was very helpful and knowledgeable.--GrapedApe (talk) 23:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
65. Without a doubt. Skomorokh 00:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
66. Strong support - extremely trustworthy candidate who will put the mop to good use. ~NSD (✉ • ✐) 00:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
67. A not incompetent not nitwit. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
68. Strong Support: Worked with this user on my FAC, good user, very knowledgable, give that man a mop. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
69. Support Why did this RFA take so long to happen?--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 00:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
70. Support Looks good, best of luck. Tyrol5 [Talk] 00:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
71. Strong support YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 00:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support -- No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 01:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
74. Support -- Although I can actually empathise with Dabomb's action that led to his brief block, he displays maturity in acknowledging that he would act differently now. He makes a substantial contribution to many areas of the 'pedia and I have no doubt that the tools would broaden his contributions further. A trustworthy candidate. --RexxS (talk) 01:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
75. Support--MONGO 02:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
76. Support Mature and acts with reason. Greg L (talk) 02:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
77. sans aucun doute --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
78. Support. Tiderolls 03:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
79. Answer to Question 2 starts with an incredibly cheesy half-sentence, but support nonetheless. Esteffect (talk) 03:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
80. Support You've got some good people on your side, and while I don't think I've ever seen you around, I trust many of these users. upstateNYer 03:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
81. Support excellent reviews at FAC and, well, everywhere. Hope you continue them. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral