Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BorgHunter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] BorgHunter

Final (23/6/0) ended 05:15 20 December 2005 (UTC)

BorgHunter (talk · contribs) – I've been here roughly nine months now, accumulating just about right at 1000 edits. Not much, I know, and breaking down the edits may cause even more distress for those who love edit counts: About 75 of my Project namespace edits were me editing categories so the pages were listed in proper alphabetical order (brainless edits, but the Category pages looked a lot nicer), and I also cleaned up a bunch of double redirects a while ago, adding a bundle of edits to my total as well. To my credit, though, I've worked on a number of mini-projects involving content over my nine months (only the past three of which have I truly been active), including those aforementioned brainless-edit ones, various baseball-related pages (no redlinks on Tampa Bay Devil Rays roster!), and various other maintenance-related tasks. Primarily, the reason I'm asking for the proverbial "mop and bucket" is so I can get the rollback button, which will save me time and clicks. Other tools in the toolbox will undoubtedly serve me well in addition (deleting pages is useful to clear out the SD queue), but the rollback would be such a time-saver. —BorgHunter (talk) 05:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Self-nom. —BorgHunter (talk) 05:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Insert assimilation joke here. By the way, I support BorgHunter because everything I've seen from him has been good, and I'm particularly impressed with his desire to fix bad page moves. BD2412 T 05:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support. Extra admin tools would be useful to him, and unlikely to be abused.--Shanel 05:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. Opposition is futile, prepare to be supported. (Hey, someone had to say it. ;)) ナイトスタリオン ✉ 08:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Extreme Species 8472 Oppose Oops I mean Support KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 08:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC) :-D
    Support, see no reason to oppose. —Simetrical (talk) 08:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC) Dur, accidentally voted twice. —Simetrical (talk) 21:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support edits look good. --MONGO 10:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. support I've seen good work, and - as the formerly green and now yellow Mr. Abramson says, bad move fixing is a much-overlooked task that we could do with more helpers on. Grutness...wha? 12:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
    Yellow? No, This is yellow. I've gone gold. :-) BD2412 T 14:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
    As long as you don't go plaid, we'll be okay. --Interiot 15:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support. Becoming an admin will also assist in resolving collateral blocks to poor BorgHunter by his anonip schoolmate vandals. --Syrthiss 15:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  8. Support, unlikely to abuse administrator tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support looks good to me.Gator (talk) 16:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  10. Support per Golden BDA. I normally wouldn't support a self-nom "right at 1000 edits" - I'll be honest, Star Trek tips the balance. ;) Good Trekkers understand consensus and harmony. Xoloz 19:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  11. Resistance is futile. You will be administratorised. Your knowledge will be added to Wikipedia. Support as a fellow Star Trek nerd (although I can never remember the difference between a Trekkie and a Trekker) and because I have seen him deal with vandals before. — JIP | Talk 21:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support. He is a very good editor. Carioca 22:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support. HGB 03:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  14. King of All the Franks 03:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  15. Support How can I vote against a fellow baseball fan? He does good work. Give him a mop --rogerd 17:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  16. Support Izehar (talk) 19:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  17. Support, if no one can come up with any objections other than newness and edit count. —Simetrical (talk) 02:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  18. --Jaranda wat's sup 23:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support - He has engaged in rather difficult dealings with disruptive editors, and he was remarkably calm, patient, and mature. While I agree he nominated himself earlier than usual tradition, I believe he will use his power with responsibility and we are not taking much risk here. (And as for my similiar user name: we haven't contacted before at all, and I only discovered him a couple of weeks ago) --BorgQueen 15:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC) And, no, I am not supporting him because he is my drone. :-) Resistance is futile. --BorgQueen 15:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  20. Support. THere is no reason to think he would misuse the tools. -- DS1953 20:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  21. Strong Support He seems ready for the position. The admin tools would be useful for him. --Activision45 22:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  22. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 05:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  23. Support. BorgHunter has impressed me with his mature way of dealing with antagonistic users. Fredrik | tc 10:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Votes made past deadline

  1. Support. Maybe a bit new a but active. --Kefalonia 12:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose - talked me out of it (too few actual edits). Proto t c 15:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - too new. Try again later. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 18:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    Can you please clarify? You voted support for Gator1 above, and he's been here for three months whereas I've been here nine. —BorgHunter (talk) 19:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    1,000 edits only. I voted support on Gator1 because of his attitude in helping out newbies, especially under fire. If you check, I've mostly voted oppose on these votes. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 04:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
    Fair enough. I was expecting votes based on my edit count—I would hope that you'd look at the quality of my edits rather than my quantity, but your vote is, of course, your vote. I would also like to note that I do help out newbies—I've welcomed a fair number, and I'm currently working really hard on the HRC controversy (see question #3 below) to try to get SpinyNorman to be less combative and more consensus-building. —BorgHunter (talk) 05:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oppose freestylefrappe 22:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    May I ask why? —BorgHunter (talk) 03:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Oppose, user shows little indication of familiarity with process. Would be happy to support once he has more experience. Radiant_>|< 12:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
    Can you be more specific? I'd like to think I'm fairly to greatly familiar with Wikipedia policy and procedure; if there's somewhere where I need improvement, I'd like to hear about it. —BorgHunter (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, you may have read up on policy, which is always good, but judging by your contribs log you haven't actually participated in any of the major WikiProcesses, except for some AFD voting. I would like to see some activity in e.g. *FD, FAC, guideline pages, RFC or ANI before a user becomes an admin. It is important to be able to distinguish between the literal (and mutable) text of policy pages, and the reality of how processes are administered. Radiant_>|< 15:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    Your objections are noted. I'll try to get more involved in those kinds of things. (Note that I also frequently vote right here in the RfAs.) —BorgHunter (talk) 16:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Oppose sorry, but almost all of your edits are minor. i'd like to see some more editing/writing experience before i can support. i'm not hung up on edit-countitis, but there just isn't much there at all. even the articles you created seem to be mostly one sentence stubs. Derex
    To be fair, that's exactly why I want to be an admin. I do a lot of rollbacking and such. And, further, editing/writing experience has next to nothing to do with adminship. —BorgHunter (talk) 22:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
    Certainly it does. There's lots more to adminship than rollback. Derex 05:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. Oppose only 2 and half months of activity - not enough experience.  Grue  12:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

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 check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A. Recently, and thanks to Lupin's anti-vandal tool, I've been doing RC patrol and reverting vandalism, tests, and the like more than I used to. I expect that with a rollback button, my efficiency in that area would be improved. I also anticipate helping out with articles tagged for speedy deletion, closing *fDs, and perhaps getting to some niggling problems.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I definitely helped out a great deal with Model M Keyboard. Other than that, I'm not an "edit one article" kind of person; I'm more on the janitor side of things: Cleaning up double redirects, category listings, RC patrol, NP patrol, wikifying, and that sort of thing. Becoming a sysop won't affect my performance there, either. Oh...I also have been working on some baseball articles. Specifically, I have become enamored with the concept of infoboxes on baseball players, and have been working off-and-on to get those puppies up. I expect I'll get even more involved in that once the new season starts.
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 how will you deal with it in the future?
A. I've managed to avoid trouble for the most part, but two incidents come to my mind. The first was a proposed merge of drug development to pharmacology. Most of the discussion there is on Talk:Pharmacology. Ultimately, I think I handled that well, though I wasn't 100% satisfied with my tone in a couple responses to a disagreeing user. (We have since made amends.) In the end, I withdrew the merge I proposed, having seen the points provided by a lot of knowledgable people on the subject.
The second involved Hillary Rodham Clinton. A lot of discussion ended up occurring on my talk page, though bits and pieces are also on Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton. I can't think of anything I did wrong there...I tried to enforce the NPOV policy as civilly as I could with the person making the ghostwriter allegations in question. It seems to have turned out fairly well; there's a new section on the page because of the discussion, and it seems as NPOV as it can get. And I don't think anyone ended up with their feelings hurt or even their hackles raised.
Well, I spoke too soon. Looks like the debate continues, and the band plays on. User talk:SpinyNorman and User talk:Marcusscotus1 have more discussion, and the prime debate continues on Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton. I still believe I'm handling this situation well. —BorgHunter (talk) 03:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.