Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bduke

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by HouseBlaster (talk | contribs) at 02:14, 15 January 2023 (Replaced obsolete font tags and reduced Lint errors). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Bduke

[edit]

Final (93/0/0); Scheduled to end 05:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC). Nomination successful. --Deskana (banana) 06:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bduke (talk · contribs) - Bduke is a quantum/computational chemist from Melbourne, Australia who has been with us since November 2005. Due to his professional background, Bduke is most active as an editor in chemistry topics in addition to scouting and Australia article topics. Bduke maintains a list of his article contributions on his talk page, but for convenience, the following is a list of substantial articles that he has contributed:Semi-empirical_quantum_chemistry_method, Unrestricted Hartree-Fock, Modern valence bond theory, Ab initio quantum chemistry methods, Roy_McWeeny, George G. Hall, S._Francis_Boys, H. Christopher Longuet-Higgins, A. David Buckingham, David Rivett, Faraday Discussions, Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics, Scout and Guide Graduate Association, Scouting in the Northern Territory, University Sporting Blue, Athenaeum, Melbourne, Tahbilk and Template:Infobox_Australian_Winery. All of the articles were written in accordance with policies such as NPOV, RS, V and OR and a referenced appropriately. Bduke also helps to maintain prominent articles such as Computational chemistry, List of important publications in chemistry and List of scientific journals in chemistry. Examples of thorough understanding and application of Wikipedia policies in articlespace can be seen as follows: Reverting vandalism ([1] [2]), NPOV, the pillar of encyclopedic integrity ([3]) and rewriting articles to clean up POV and some more. He is aware of verifiablity not truth as an inclusion criteria and also removes advertising, spam and copyright violations.

When content issues need discussion and refining Bduke always debates rationally and explains himself in a calm way in a detailed and concise manner: Talk:Computational_chemistry/archive_1#Mills.27_Spreadsheet, Talk:The Scout Association#Merge_Sun_Run, Talk:The_Scout_Association#West_Yorkshire_Scouts_merge, Talk:List of_scientific journals_in_chemistry, Talk:List_of_scientific_journals#Criteria_for_inclusion, Talk:List_of _scientific journals#Inclusion_criteria, Talk:Entropy/Archive6#Intro_sentence, Talk:Analytical chemistry#Working Definition_of_Analytical_Chemistry. These are the skills required to explain administrative actions in difficult situations. He takes his time to give detailed reasoning to people and also attempts to guide well intentioned newbies who make incorrect or off-colour edits so that they can become productive contributors. He has also successfully mediated a scouting dispute.

On the more organisational side of things, Bduke is one the main organisers of WP:WINE and maintains the housekeeping for WP:AUS AfDs - Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Australia and Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/AfD - more than 200 edits to both pages. Bduke is well versed in the runnings of AfD and thoroughly and rationally discusses the merits of the articles with respect to WP policies: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Moe_High_School, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Holland_Hall, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Robert Baden-Powell's_sexual_orientation, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University Hall (Bristol) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Queen's University Chess Club (second nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shahid Hussain Bokhari (2), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathmandu University High School (second nomination) - all of these show his reasoning ability and his attention to addressing concerns of the commenting users. His detailed understanding of the notablity issues at large can be seen here, here and here. This shows that Bduke to have the skills necessary to weigh the merits of the arguments in a non-clear cut case and factor them into account when closing AfDs. He is also a calm and civil debater, which would hold him in good stead when facing questioning about non-trivial AfD closures.

As for the housekeeping matters, email, edit summaries, userpage etc are all in order.

Fellow Wikipedians, please consider supporting Bduke for access to sysop functions. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept and am humbled by Blnguyen's amazingly detailed nomination. Bduke 05:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: There are a lot of admin chores and I want to start from what I know and move into other areas slowly. I have a large watchlist and revert vandalism frequently. It would help to protect or semi-protect pages and, if required, to be able to impose short blocks to deter vandals. Other situations I have come across where the admin tools would be useful are doing moves rather than putting the move to the requested moves page which generally has a backlog, and replacing copyvio pages with the new copyvio-free temporary page. I have managed without the tools for nearly two years, but I now feel that my experience allows me to move into other areas where I would need the tools to help wikipedia. I would try to shorten the backlog on the requested moves page and the copyvio page replacement. I would also move to assist other backlogs. I follow AfD, MfD, CfD, UCfD and TfC daily and see there are backlogs in closing these debates. I would move next into these areas. Slowly and carefully I would move into other areas of admin activity as I gain further experience.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I am happy about my contributions to computational chemistry which is my area of expertise as a retired academic. This article was already rated, under the old arrangements, as a good article when I joined WP, but I think the consensus of several of us was that it badly needed work. It has just been delisted as a good article but it is still much better than it was when I joined WP. I hope we can bring it back to being a good article and then up to featured article status in the future. However, it still needs some work, particularly in areas of computational chemistry that are not my expertise. As part of my contributions to this article, I have created or expanded linked articles on specific areas of computational chemistry, specific methods and specific computational programs. All of this is an ongoing project and I recognise that several other excellent editors are part of it. I enjoy working with them.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I have had a number of conflicts over the last 18 months or so, but none of them got really serious. Perhaps the most interesting was with User:Rcq who awarded me the Image:Uncertain_Elephant.gif award because I helped to delete a load of original research on the certainty principle put forward by D. A. Arbatsky. In the end Arbatsky, as User:Hryuni, created out and out war on WP with a serious of sockpuppets to prove his point. As a non-administrator I had a minor role in that, as all the socks were banned and he eventually gave up. I think I kept my cool, but perhaps argued with Rcq for too long. I think I have perhaps done that with other contentious editors. I sometimes try too hard to convince people who clearly can not be convinced, but I think it is a minor fault, better then stopping to assume good faith too early. WP always has conflicts. It is difficult to know whether you put people right off in arguments you think are reasonable. I do not think I have done so, but this RfA may tell me otherwise.

General comments

[edit]

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Bduke before commenting.

Discussion

[edit]

Support

  1. Strong support per nom. YellowAssessmentMonkey (bananabucket) - 05:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support I honestly love the answer to the questions, especially number one. Seems to have all the issues covered, and I look forward to working with you. Jmlk17 05:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Yes. Sarah 06:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Technically speaking, I beat all of you :P [4] Giggy Talk 06:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support per thorough and persuasive nom from the resident Yellow Monkey. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Trust nominator -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. per YellowAssessmentMonkey... --DarkFalls talk 06:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Hell yes. Daniel→♦ 06:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Based on my experience. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 07:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Good editor. Politics rule 07:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strong support one of our very best. ~ Riana ⁂ 08:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Strong support for exemplary contributor. I've been waiting for this nom for a long time; he should have been an admin a year ago.--cj | talk 08:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Strong support for exemplary contributor.--P.wormer 09:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support It is time to give this user the mop. An excellent editor as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 09:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Strong support Bduke is a key member of our Scouting WikiProject and serves as our in-house mediator. He is calm, rational, intelligent, and thinks through issues well. He is very good at handling touchy issues.Rlevse 10:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - the candidate should be excellent. His articles are extraordinarily nerdy. - Richard Cavell 10:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Great candidate.--Cronholm144 10:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support per Daniel. - Darwinek 10:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. An examination of Bduke's interaction with other editors shows skill and patience and no sign of nastiness or abusive speech. His contributions are on point and without error that I can find. He should make a good admin. JodyB yak, yak, yak 11:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this candidate! - 12:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support excellent editor. Melsaran 12:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support per above. Has excellent edit history, consistency, and great answers to questions. We need more academics helping WP. Bearian 14:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support evidence indicates this is a great wikipedian. Ryan4314 14:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. I like what I have seen. SilkTork 14:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support persuaded by the answers to the questions and the user's contributions.--Sandahl 15:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support, though some guy said here, "In that case i suppose i might have to pee Cambridge off a bit more or just annoy you until such a time as you become [an administrator] or you die of old age." Whatever that means. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 15:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support - agree with yellow monkey's assessment. Sarvagnya 16:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. I'll eat whatever the monkey kills -- Y not? 17:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yellow Monkey doesn't kill humans.....Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support- But of course! Neranei T/C 17:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support--MONGO 18:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Per extensive nomination --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 20:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Trust his judgement, familiar with his contributions. Picaroon (t) 20:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Strong Support precisely the sort of admin we need. I'd also like to note that Blnguyen's opening statement is worthy of "Featured Nomination" status. --JayHenry 21:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support the nomination convinced me. -Lemonflash(chat) 21:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. No reason not to. Shalom Hello 21:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. Plenty of experience in a variety of places. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 22:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support evidence for candidate is incontrovertible, and supported by a nominator vastly experienced with RFA. VanTucky (talk) 02:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Able to admit his faults, even when what he did wasn't too bad. Feel safe with him and the mop. --Lucid 02:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 03:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support - No doubt. Lara♥Love 03:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support - No concerns at all! --Hirohisat Talk 05:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Get on it. :) Dfrg.msc 08:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. per nom. —Moondyne 10:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support - good luck. The Rambling Man 10:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. –sebi 11:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Kusma (talk) 14:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Can't find any reason not to!--Kkrouni/Ккроунл/ΚκρΩυνι 00:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Strong contributor, puts in a lot of effort maintaining wikiproject activities, and has a level-headed approach at AFD. Recurring dreams 02:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support, for the glory of chemistry. Carlosguitar 02:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Strong Support until someone can point out a flaw :-) --Bennyboyz3000 02:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support One of those non-admins you see around all the time, making a rational and positive contribution to the project. Definite support for his great help and involvement in the Australian WP community. --Canley 04:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support, excellent nom for excellent user. @pple 13:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support seems fine. Acalamari 18:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support, everything looks good. umdrums 19:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support seems well prepared for it. Carlossuarez46 23:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support -- a worthy candidate. - Longhair\talk 00:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support for his considerable experience and knowledge as well as excellent and thoughtful contributions across many areas of the project.--Melburnian 01:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support. Looks well qualified. WjBscribe 03:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support good editor. RS2007 08:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support Trusted user. Also, I think we need more admins from Australia. -- Jreferee (Talk) 09:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support Trusted user and Australian double tick! --Chris  G  09:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Strong support - I think Bduke has that hard-to-find, measured characteristic which goes very well with the autonomy that the buttons bring. --HappyCamper 16:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. support this very good editor to receive adminship yuckfoo 17:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support - another strong candidate with a huge wealth of experience. Very major article contributions will be useful to enquiring newbies while there is precisely 2,000 Wikipedia-space edits as I write this message - a fine amount. :-) Lradrama 18:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support: I like the number of Wikipedia edits. •Malinaccier• T/C 19:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support- excellent editor. --Boricuaeddie 19:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support. A great editor, definitely trustworthy. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 05:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 07:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Yup Deiz talk 13:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support. I trust this user with the tools. -- DS1953 talk 18:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support, I saw the words "science" and "academic" together and well, coupled with his editing history, he is a shoo-in. Croat Canuck Say hello or just talk 22:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support --Aminz 01:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support If 72 Wikipedia editors could find no concerns about this user, then I know I can't either. -WarthogDemon 01:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support need more specialist admins. Looks fabulous. -- Samir 04:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support—excellent contributions; nothing of concern turns up. --Paul Erik 05:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support per nominator, I trust that Bduke will make a terrific admin. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support dusting off the old chestnut "thought he was an admin already" Gnangarra 06:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support ElinorD (talk) 08:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support I reviewed the contributions and I think he will make an excellent administratior. King Lopez Contribs 09:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support, although by now the consensus should be obvious. :-) Bduke has great patience and skill for dealing with difficult people, which I think is a great asset as for an administrator to have. --Itub 09:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support, I thought it probably wouldn't be necessary, but I read through Bduke's contributions to the talk page at List of scientific journals anyway. Well-reasoned points, respectful discussion, and tenacious -all good qualities in an admin. I'm sure he has other good qualities as well, but I've seen enough to be convinced he would make an excellent administrator. R. Baley 18:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Strong Support I freely admit that my mere basic knowledge when it comes to areas related to chemistry, (not to mention computational and quantum chemistry,) would not allow me to comment on a great deal of Bduke's contributions, but I cannot argue that his background not only facilitates civility, but patience as well. While I'd personally prefer to see more activity on WP:AIV, WP:UAA, and WP:RFCN with regards to handling vandalism duties, the few reports I did find in the past 18 months were all valid, and reported in keeping with policy. I'm sure from the response to the questions that Bduke would not dive into an area he is unfamiliar with prior to learning the necessary details about said area, so I'm not concerned. In addition, many editors and administrators I trust highly have voiced their support. It is therefore my opinion that Bduke's vast knowledge of scientific projects, WP:AFD, and knowledge of requirements and policies for technical areas, would greatly benefit by his promotion to administrator. (And, if I may be so bold as to anticipate the outcome... Congratulations!) Ariel♥Gold 22:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support. Zaxem 00:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support I'm certainly sold.-- danntm T C 00:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Pile-on support (or should that be superposition support?) Pascal.Tesson 02:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support ' nuff said - good 'pedia builder.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support. Strong contributions to the encyclopedia. I think this is the only time I've ever had that 'already an admin' thought. Espresso Addict 04:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Strong SupportWill not abuse adminship. Dureo 07:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support. Excellent candidate▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 09:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support as per Blnguyen Harlowraman 16:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support Well reasoned, thoughtful discussion at the links Blnguyen showed. Deserves WP:100. :-). --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support No oppose yet (the candidate must be good), so I´ll support. ♠TomasBat 22:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support Few reservations. ~ Infrangible 01:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose

Neutral

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Bduke&oldid=1133692972"