Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bobblewik

Bobblewik

final (20/12/1) ending 13:53 31 May 2005 (UTC)

You’ve all seen Bobblewik’s work, whether you know it or not. Bobblewik is the one who does that most mindbendingly tedious of work making sure that articles have all their units of measurement consistent - janitorial work of the highest order if ever I heard of it. Since a lot of this is minor editing, Bobblewik has amassed a staggering 21,000 edits in the last year or so. Bobblewik has always maintained polite, well-reasoned discourse when dealing with other Wikipedians. Some won’t support Bobblewik, I know - he has never helped get an article up to FA, or wrangled for an article’s survival at vfd. To be honest, I don't know that he (she?)'s added much to the length of any articles. But a project like Wikipedia needs strong behind-the-scenes workers as well, and Bobblewik is definitely in this category. The sort of mop and bucket work Bobblewik does can only be enhanced by handing over the keys to the janitor’s cupboard. Grutness...wha? 13:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I am delighted to accept the nomination. I am not a bot, just flesh, blood and keyboard. The focus of my attention in the past has been on units of measurement and related discussions. That is understandably what most people notice. I do occasionally contribute in other areas. Having edited so many articles, I am sure that my name has been associated in some way with articles seen by many people. I am flattered that some people believe that my effect on Wikipedia has been a net addition of value. If I am granted the privilege of adminship, I will use it well. Bobblewik  (talk) 17:18, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Of course! - after all, I nominated him! Grutness...wha? 14:01, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
2. Support - Duk 16:39, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
3. Support, of course. What took you so long? Susvolans (pigs can fly) 16:44, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
4. Support Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:32, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
5. Support Carnildo 18:34, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
6. Support No Bot could do his job, probably wouldn't want to either. David D. 19:28, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
7. Support. Gnomes like this are a treasure. --Theo (Talk) 21:12, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
8. Support -- till he came and &nbsp'd; some of my articles, I had no idea there was a MoS. May he keep up the good work behind the scenes.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 16:48, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
9. Support, definitely. I have entertained the notion of nominating him/her myself several times in the past. – ugen64 22:47, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
10. SUPPORT. i have reviewed the opposition votes, and bobblewik's work. i see no reason to oppose this nomination. Kingturtle 02:38, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
11. Support. I have agonised about this. Bobblewick is courteous and thoughtful and extremely assiduous. However, I think his/her rather strict and pedantic changes to SI units can be very annoying and disruptive, for example m² where hectare would be more appropriate and km³ where billion m³ is more comprehensible. Some professions and industries habitually use units that are not not metric and others use metric units that are not SI. However, a move to standardisation of units is helpful to an encyclopedia. Being human rather than a bot (!), I hope Bobblewick will restrict to (1) making SI units only an alternative rather than replacing the previous units and (2) not intrude on the "flow" of a well-written narrative. In my experience Bobblewick has not reverted when his/her changes have been removed. Thincat 09:11, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
12. Support. --MarSch 12:42, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
13. Support. Some disagreement we have over hectares are hardly a reason to oppose. A very pleasant person to work with, remarkably courteous, always willing to explain and discuss the reasoning behind changes. Rl 15:09, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
14. Support. I have found Bobblewik to be a courteous and intelligent editor, and open to discussion on any edit they make. While I am not sure that the admin powers will be used very much, this has never been a requirement for adminship. —Morven 15:11, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
15. Weak support, with much the same reservations as Thincat above. I don't agree with Bobblewik's across-the-board standardisations (hectares, yards and so on can be the most appropriate units to use occasionally), but nevertheless I feel that the sheer amount of donkey-work he's put in is admirable. If he were to be just a little less rigid on the matter of units, and accept that in some cases clarity is more important than total consistency, my support would be whole-hearted. Loganberry 01:25, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
16. Cool. JuntungWu 13:36, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
17. Support. --Sn0wflake 03:40, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
18. →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 20:17, 2005 May 28 (UTC)
19. Conditional Support. Bobblewik, my hat off to you to making a huge dent in the 'pedia! However, I will only support you if you are a little more cautious in your edits (see Klonimus' oppose vote). However, in the spirit of the Wiki, I will assume good faith and give you my support! Linuxbeak | Desk 02:51, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
20. Andre (talk) 19:34, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose due to use of misleading edit summaries and overuse of minor edit checkbox. All of his edit summaries are "units" or, more recently "units, possibly using google convertor" and marked minor, even for non-minor, non-unit changes. JYolkowski // talk 22:57, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Bobblewik consistently adds, and re-adds (and re-adds!) conversions to articles in a way that prioritizes the conversions over quality of writing or commonsense. Even when his conversions are deleted, even when they make little sense (like adding hundreds of thousands of meters to a number of acres), and when he's asked to stop, he keeps reverting. The Manual of Style is not policy, and it specifically states that these conversions are not mandated. It further states that the usage of the country the article relates to should prevail, so he should not be making these changes at all in some articles. Both of these points have been made to Bobblewik, but he just ignores them. I'll add more to the comments section later. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:30, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
   • Also, I've never seen Bobblewik do anything where admin powers would have helped, like fighting vandalism, trying to help with disputes, or any janitorial tasks where admin powers are needed. I've never seen him at VfD or RC patrol. Can he give some examples of where he has done anything like this? And can he say roughly how many edits he has made that have not been conversions? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:31, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
     • I don't think that's an entirely good metric. In my opinion, a better way to judge his use of adminship would be his answer to the 'how will you use admin powers' question below. To cite myself as an example: I currently do very little vandal fighting, but if I were given admin powers, I would quickly become very involved in WP:AN, WP:VIP, RC patrol, and the like. →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 21:18, 2005 May 25 (UTC)
       • Fair enough, Ingoolemo, but Bobblewik says below that he has done some of these chores, so I'm hoping he can give us a few examples. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:31, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
         • Here are a few from the last couple of weeks. I like the one about birds evolving from doughnuts! [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Grutness...wha? 05:15, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
           • Thanks, James. These are five examples of reverting vandalism in three weeks. I find it interesting that you're supplying this answer, and not Bobblewik himself, even though he's been editing. It's coming across (to me) as another example of a failure to engage and take objections seriously. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:10, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
             • He has commented a bit on his talk page, specifically that he is resisting getting into the arguments. Personally I do not see this as a weakness. I interpret it as a person who is listening and thinking about the problems rather than rushing into a problem. I agree that excessive silence on a given topic may be construed as not taking objections seriously but in my limited experience I do not think this is the reason in this case. I have seen Bobblewick listen and respond to complaints and always in a non confrontational way. I remain in support of Bobblewick being an admin. David D. 15:56, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
   • Could you give some examples of changes you don't like? Susvolans (pigs can fly) 07:41, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
   • I note that the MoS does not, as you seem to imply, prohibit unit conversion in any article. It just specifies that in articles wholly about a non-Metric nation (such as US-specific articles) the non-Metric measurement may be specified first and primarily. It is entirely appropriate, IMO, to add Metric conversions in those articles so long as they are specified secondarily (generally in parentheses). Likewise, it is entirely appropriate to add conversions into US customary measurements in articles which primarily use Metric. Such conversions only aid understanding. —Morven 15:28, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
     • The MoS does not prohibit unit conversion, Morven, but nor does it mandate it. The MoS is just a guideline, not policy. The point about Bobblewik is that he doesn't discuss his changes on talk (or I have never seen such a discussion), and even when he knows there are objections and his edits have been deleted, he keeps on returning to reinsert them, while making no other contribution to the articles. It's the lack of collaborative effort that's the problem here; as well as the lack of any other type of editing experience. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:00, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
       • Hmm. Generally one does not need to discuss such changes in talk before making them - they remove no information. Personally, when I make similar changes to articles, I don't ask permission first - it's not the Wikipedia way. I'm not sure whether he discusses on articles' talk pages, since I've never tried, but I've found him quite reasonable on his own talk page.

         I have noticed that if you revert his changes without explanation, he will re-add them without explanation. I am not sure if this should be considered unreasonable, however; it's quite unreasonable to revert someone's changes without explanation as well. I've found that presenting a substansive reason for disliking a change will result in fruitful dialog. I do find that oft, the objection is simply that a US user dislikes Metric or, not needing a conversion themselves, thinks it breaks up the flow of the article, even though to one not versed in Imperial or US customary units such a lack of conversion hinders understanding.

         I do agree that his Wikipedia editing experience is not broad, however. Personally, I think that is insufficient cause to oppose, but I respect that others might see it differently.—Morven 16:35, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

         • He doesn't discuss before or after making the changes, and my experience of trying to approach him on his talk page was not a positive one. He asked me to stop posting to him there, and post to a general page instead, where he at first ignored my query, and then after I had to ask him for a third or fourth time to respond, he did offer a response, but continued making the same edits anyway, with no regard for the flow and quality of the writing. At Wilhelm Reich, he changed a "200-acre estate" to "estateof [sic] 200 acres (800,000 m²)" [6], and has reinserted meters five times, though it's absurd to measure an estate in hundreds of thousands of meters. Another editor on the MoS talk page suggested he use hectares instead of meters, but Bobblewik ignored him, and reinserted meters again anyway, so talking seems to make no difference. Morven, if we continue this, we should probably start posting in the comments section. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:50, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
3. Reluctantly oppose. Like SlimVirgin, I've never seen him except with his metrification labors. A good contributor, certainly, one who I've called upon before, but I'm hesitant to give powers to someone with so little breadth of experience. PedanticallySpeaking 19:19, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
4. Oppose. Bobblewik changes units for fields which he knows little about. He changed billion m³ to km³ in several petroleum related articles with complete disregard for industry and common use standards. Billion m³ albeit confusing is in common use for the measurement of natural gas volumes. I appreciate his help standardizing units, but he is anothr case of a user modifyin articles in fields which they have little experience. Not helpful...--Csnewton 21:23, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
5. Oppose Bobblewik changes units for fields which he knows little about. In Town Gas he changed the normal units for expressing the caloric value of a gas (Btu/scf (Btu per standard cubic foot) to MJ/m3 which is not the industry or common use standard. As well some the conversions got garbled resulting in the some of the information in the article now being incorrect. I appreactie the spellchecking and cleanups, but not the metrification campaign. Certain encyclopedia subjects use units that are metric but not SI, or conventional, or even a mixture (I.e canning/autoclaving, 121*C at 15psi pressure). that needs to be resepected, and not clobbered. Klonimus 03:32, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
   • I note that you have had five days either to change the article yourself or to raise the matter in discussion. You have done neither, but have grumbled here instead. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 07:41, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
6. Oppose. Looks like a valuable contributor, but ingoring repeated requests to use conventional units does not seem like admin material to me. Add the metric units if needed, but don't replace them. Beyond that a total lack of balance in editing and no edits that would require adminship would lead me to say just keep contributing and don't worry about adminship unless you want to go out for more balance in editing and be responsive to requests. - Taxman 15:24, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
7. Weak oppose. His unit conversions are valuable, but he is often insensitive or stubborn in cases where it is not clear what the proper usage is. He is uncompromising in his beliefs that whatever he believes to be the most technically correct SI unit should always be used. He seems to be more interested in what is "correct" than in what is most helpful to the reader. In discussing these matters, he is civil, gives cogent rationales for what he does, and is obviously well-informed. Nevertheless, I feel that in these matter he is pushing a point of view. It is not an unreasonable point of view, but he pushes it. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:59, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
8. Oppose, Bobblewiki seems dedicated to units, but I don't actually see much participation in other aspects of the Wiki which I think is necessary for an Admin--nixie 14:15, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
9. Oppose. I have found him completely unwillingly to consider opposing opinions with respect to the use of hectares and unwilling to attempt to build consensus. He has very little experience in areas outside of his quest to insert his favorite metric units - irregardless of way units are used in practice. Rmhermen 18:18, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
10. Oppose. As pointed out above, Bobblewick's contributions are a nuisance as often as not, as he does not appear to consider, or care about, context. Fawcett5 15:35, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
11. Oppose. Seems like an excellent user, but I can't overlook the concerns of so many other editors that this user does not play well with others. Willing to support in the future. Gamaliel 23:05, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
12. Unfortunately oppose. Bobblewik obviously does some important work, but as far as I can tell it's very limited in scope. Normally that wouldn't be very important to me, but that such a large percentage of his work has been fiddling with measurement numbers (and has apparently managed to provoke some controversy in the process), however useful that is, pushes me into the oppose camp. Everyking 09:51, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Abstain for now. Bobblewik's work here indicates he is worthy of being an admin but he should be given a month or two to address some of the concerns by the users who oppose him. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:47, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• Does this user use a bot at all? I was kinda thinking it was a bot. If not, I'm impressed. Everyking 14:06, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
  • According to his acceptance comment above, he does not. →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 21:18, 2005 May 25 (UTC)
  • Geez...I was certain it was a bot! Neutrality^talk 22:00, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• All users who do janitorial work by necessity edit articles on subjects they know little about. Thus, there WILL be errors made. I believe it is not a good reason to oppose adminship that someone makes occasional mistakes in editing; what matters is how they deal with it. I have found Bobblewik to be entirely reasonable when I have disagreed with some of his edits - in fact, often much more reasonable than I have been. Yes, he is strongly in favor of the SI / metric system and that articles should always express measurements in a standard way; this is not a bad thing, IMO. An encyclopedia is for a general reader, not the specialist. —Morven 15:23, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Comments after vote by Bobblewik I am grateful for being nominated. It is a disappointment not to be accepted but it has not changed my inclination to make edits. I appreciate the trouble that people went to review my contributions and summarise their opinion on here. I note that the vote was on my worthiness as an admin, not my worthiness as an editor. But I welcome feedback however it is targetted. It is particularly welcome when polite.

Many of the negative points have already been expressed to me and therefore came as no surprise. I defended myself when the points were originally made but chose not to defend myself in the period before the vote. Here is a selection of defence to criticism that I believe is welcome but unjustified.

I have been told on a number of ocassions that metric units are unusual or inappropriate in some Wikipedia articles. For people in regions that are not exposed to metric units, that is an understandable impression. But it is a mistake to believe that metric units are not appropriate elsewhere.

• a comment was made that my contributions are a nuisance as often as not. The precise meaning of those words is that 50% of my contributions are a nuisance. There is no editor here whose contributions are 100% welcome, but 50%? Surely not. I know that it is only an expression, but it is an exaggeration that implies an extremely low rate of welcome edits. I don't believe that any fair assessment would be in the same order of magnitude.
• I have been criticised for adding a metric value to an estate measured in acres. The critic simply removed metric units. The rationale originally given for the removal was that metric units are not usual and/or were inappropriate. In a minority of the world, metric units may indeed be unusual or inappropriate. But usual and appropriate in the US are not the measures that should be applied to Wikipedia. I still believe that adding metric units to that article was the right thing to do. The article now contains metric units as added by a subsequent editor. They are indeed not my preferred version of metric units. But the original criticism based on the desire to remove metric units from an article is an altogether more radical position than criticising the form of them.
• I have been criticised for adding metric units to an article about gas. The rationale given was the metric units are not relevant to gas. Evidence for this sweeping statement included the suggestion that my own gas bill uses therms. I don't even know what a therm is. It is certainly not on my gas bill which is in cubic metres and kilowatt hours.
• Clearly expressed criticisms here have been noted by others that have, until now, not seen my defence. I accept that meta-assessment is the only mechanism we have. If you find a particular criticism interesting, please look back at what was said by the parties involved. The raw data is often contained in my talk page and in the history of the articles in question.

I hope that I made the right decision to stay silent on this page and make a response after the vote. Given that decision, I feel entitled to stating now that there are alternatve interpretations of some of the critical points. The points that I have picked on should in no way be taken as an indication of hostility. Even as I debate these issues, I benefit from improving my ability to explain my thoughts and actions. As I review myself and try to assess the merits in the points made by others, I hope that others will review themselves and try to assess the merit in the points that I have made.

One of the things that surprised me was how much support there was. Even some of the people that do not agree with me on particular points have voted in support. Some of the people that have voted against have said positive things. This process has given me an opportunity to see a lot of praise. My pro-metric stance does not please everybody now, nor will it in the future but I am convinced that it makes Wikipedia a better resource. I will try to please more people and try to get more consensus. I will try to move towards the group-think where I can find means that are acceptable to me. I enjoy robust debate and I have read all that has been said. Thank you everybody.

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 read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A. I already address vandalism and bogus pages as an ordinary user. As an admin, I will be more effective at that. I think I have kept clear of the disputes of others so far, but as an admin, I would like to try to help in such matters occasionally.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. I am particularly pleased with having made a huge contribution to the way that units are used in Wikipedia. This is by:

• Direct edits of detail
• Contributions to discussion with others about details, conventions, templates, style, judgement calls
• Repeated demonstration of my belief that an international public resource like Wikipedia is capable of consistent good use of units.
• Doing rather than telling others to do. This not only gets the work done, but it is also intended to lead others by example.
• Contributing Wikipedia articles in many different domains and having shifted the culture towards one that pays attention to the format and presentation of units of measure.
• Paying attention to the many discussions that I have had with other editors, sometimes choosing to change my opinion, my editing behaviour or both.

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 will deal with it in the future?

A. I have been criticised in the past. They have related to:

• The terms Great Britain and United Kingdom.
• The only two articles I created 1996 Summer Olympics medal productivity and 2000 Summer Olympics medal productivity were almost immediately listed for deletion. That was somewhat disappointing but I have thrived in other areas. The listing was later withdrawn (if that is the correct term). I don't think I have created any other articles.
• The unit hectare.
• I was the subject of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bobblewik Mintguy was one of the users that I remember being particularly expressive in the form and content of his criticism but he has not done criticised me recently (I think he no longer edits here). A lot of the discussion is available on my talk page, in the Manual of Style talk pages, or in article talk pages. You can also use the search facility 'User talk' option and search for my name to see discussion on user talk pages.

As far as the third topic is concerned, some compromise suggestions have been offered.

I am fortunate in that so far I have not felt too much stress. I hope that I respond as well as anyone when criticism is constructive and attempt to maintain diplomacy when it is not. I still dislike being reverted. I agree with the suggestion that reverts feel like a slap in the face. But I take heart from my belief that as long as more than 50% of a user's edits are useful, then that user is probably doing more good than damage to Wikipedia. I hope that I am well above the 50% mark and will continue to be so. Bobblewik  (talk) 17:18, 24 May 2005 (UTC)