Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Huntster

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[edit] Huntster

Final (92/0/0); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 21:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Huntster (talk · contribs) - A self-described "low key" kind of guy, Huntster has been editing since August 2004 and has made well over 10,000 edits. He isn't the kind who's going to dive head first into solving our BLP problems, but he is a trustworthy editor, vandalfighter, and general helper-outer. The admin tools would only assist him—blocking the occasional vandal, deleting the occasional nonsense page, protecting the occasional junk-target, whatever.

The true definition of no big deal in adminship is to give the tools to anyone who hasn't given us reason to mistrust them. Huntster is that kind of guy. Let's give him the tools and improve the encyclopedia just that little bit more. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Co-nomination by Rudget: I was observing candidates I'd been watchlisting for a while last week, and I decided to ask Huntster whether I could in fact co-nominate when I saw that Dihydrogen Monoxide offered and it was accepted. I am delightled to co-nominate Huntster for administratorship after not only giving his contributions a refreshed look over but also evaluating the particular merits he has: patience, diligence, cool headed etc. I was also happy to see that now he has contributed to at least two good articles—Good article Evanescence and Good article Wicca and substantially expanded many more including Amy Lee, Charmed and Uluru. He is, first and foremost, an editor. Now this may be the turn-off point for some of you, but at least look at his other contributions. He has contributed significantly to various namespaces, portal work for example, and even those more neglected like templates (some various examples here and here). After reviewing this candidate's respective talk page there is a sense of community interaction, openness and a very special element which I look for in all the nominees I put forward: trust. Another example of this trust is demonstrated in the array of awards he has received off various editors from en.wiki. This thread in particular impressed me somewhat and his ability to relate well with other users, communicate and serve with dedication should serve him well as an administrator. Although Huntster is less focused on administrative areas as other candidates, his personal experience and lengthy tenure as an editor will, I believe, ensure that Huntster is not only a good nominee but an excellent one. I put him forward to you, with Dihydrogen Monoxide, as a person not only worthy of your support but future outlook for what is to come on Wikipedia. Rudget (Help?) 13:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, with sincere thanks to DHMO and Rudget. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 01:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: As DHMO mentioned above, I am a low-key editor, and I prefer this method of work. I have some 400 pages on my watchlist, about 250 of which are article-space, and I do what I can to maintain their integrity. I have a strong interest in being able to work with protected pages, especially in the template-space. I believe I can best contribute in the areas of speedy deletions and XfDs. I am more reactive than proactive, and I enjoy answering other's questions and handling special requests; to that end, I have been watching #wikipedia-en-help in IRC and those requests from the {{Helpme}} template and doing what I can. At the end of the day, however, I am an editor, and working with those articles in fields I know something about is what I enjoy the most. Basically, I don't see my on-site activities differing too much from what they are now. With the mop and bucket, however, I would be able to do more to accommodate and assist other editors than what I am capable of currently doing.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I do not consider myself a writer, as much as I am a copy editor. I likely won't be writing any FAs any time soon. I don't think I can point at any particular thing as being a "best contribution", as I prefer collaboration to truly bold editing. When I do go there, I typically take the work others have done and clean it up. I do not write elegant prose, and what I do write tends to be more technically oriented, but it will be well sourced and as well-rounded as I can make it with the sources available. I'm currently in the process of renovating articles related to Bigelow Aerospace (a company I am fascinated by) and I am beginning to do the same with buildings in the Nashville, Tennessee area. I have all sorts of projects planned or in-progress, and I take a slow-and-steady approach toward them. The one thing I can say I am particularly passionate about is fixing templates: to me, there's little more rewarding than finding and overcoming that technical problem, or adding useful functionality where once there was none.
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: This is my primary hobby...I spend most of my unobligated time either on Wikipedia or with my friends. As such, I tend to avoid situations that will cause distress either to myself or to others. If a dispute starts that I cannot find some way to mediate (and I do try to always be that middle party that can see both sides of a story), I'll find someone who is better equipped to handle the situation, so there isn't much that causes me much in the way of stress (besides persistent vandals, of course). There's enough drama in real life...no reason to see it out here, when this should be a fun experience for all involved. Disputes may happen occasionally, but in my experience, if both parties are fully willing to talk to each other, everything can be (and usually is) worked out.

Optional questions from RyRy5

4. If you see two or three different IPs repeatedly vandalizing the same article, what steps will you take to ensure that it stops?
A: There are always so many parameters that must be taken into account in situations like these, that a straightforward answer rarely becomes so straightforward when put into practice. Certainly, the first step must be to provide adequate warning to those users. With any luck, they will realise someone is actually watching and will cease. Should that not work, then dependent on the history of those IPs, a block of limited duration is appropriate. If they are persistent in attacking that particular article even after the blocks expire, or if they switch to another set of IPs, then semi-protection, and possible further action against the offending IPs, is appropriate (after all, full protection really should not be an option except in those worst-case scenarios).
5. You find an admin account that hasn't been active for many months starting to vandalize. What would you do?
A: Honestly, I don't know how often such an event occurs, but my first concern is going to be that the account was hijacked. As above, however, a simple warning is the first step, followed by a block of a certain duration if this behaviour continues. The situation changes if the damage being wrought is truly severe, in which case an immediate block is likely warranted. As has been said many a time before, admins are still editors like anyone else. Just because additional tools have been bestowed with community approval, this does not mean inappropriate behaviour is any more tolerable.
Optional question from Filll
6. Please answer two of the eight AGF Challenge 2 exercises found here. Directions are here. Post a link to your answers here so that people can peruse them.
COMMENT: We've been down this road before and the AGF Challenge questions were not well received, I would suggest caution in answering these questions... and would not be opposed if the candidate refused to do so.Balloonman (talk) 16:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC) NOTE: These questions are being discussed on the WT:RFA page
Comment: I will eventually answer them on my own time, but I'd prefer to take my time and get feedback from more knowledgeable folk. If anyone specifically prefers for me to answer these sooner, I will, but I'd prefer to hold off at this time. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 03:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from InDeBiz1

7. Do you believe that it is possible for a user that has been blocked for reasons other than 3RR - making an allowance for the fact that it is possible for two or more editors to experience moments of extreme stubbornness, believing that their edit(s) is/are correct - to ever be completely trusted again? Or, do you believe in the line of thinking, "Once blocked, always watched?" If you believe that it is possible for complete trust to be regained, what is a "reasonable threshold" of time - whether it be specifically time or a number of successful edits - for that trust to be regained? What about a user that has previously been banned but perhaps was able to convince administrators to reinstate their account?
A: As with most things, there is no black and white response to this. Many factors come into play, such as severity of the offense and whether it is felt that the editor in question has come to understand that what they did was wrong. As always, AGF comes into play, and that alone should dictate that he or she should be allowed to contribute again unless mitigating factors apply (sockpuppetry or single-purpose account, for example). What decides trust is their actions after the block is lifted...do they try to appeal with a reasonable request; do the come back and try to do right; do they come back and continue on their crusade; do they come back at all? Yes, there have been innumerable instances of folks claiming to be reformed and who will edit properly for a little while, just to duck back under the radar to continue previous activities. Such situations do strain AGF, but those people will be dealt with eventually. Their behaviour should not tarnish the activities of others who may have simply acted without understanding site policies...we were all new, were all young, once. If good behaviour appears evident, then leave them be. How many of us have encountered those who acted rash at first, and later went on to become valuable editors? I know I have.

[edit] General comments

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

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Support
  1. Support — He has a life. Maxim(talk) 20:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  2. Support Primarily, the requirement for the handing over of the sysop bit is trust. This editor has mine. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC) I do believe this is my first beat the noms support!
  3. Support Good edit history, clean block log, good noms. MBisanz talk 21:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  4. Good contributions, fine knowledge of policy, and trustworthy nominators: should be good admin. Liking Evanescence is a bonus too. Acalamari 21:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  5. Support solid, reliable worker. My feeling is he is the kind who can make a cool and effective administrator. Vishnava talk 21:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  6. Support. No problems here. (Good article work is a plus, BTW) Malinaccier (talk) 21:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  7. Support - I sincerely trust the nominators and therefore trust this user's ability unless any significant evidence is given to the contrary. Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 21:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  8. dorftrottel (talk) 21:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  9. Support per above. Looks to be an excellent addition to the admins. Teh Rote (talk) 21:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  10. Support. No reason not to. Good luck! weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  11. Über support. An editor I can definitely identify with, given answers to RfA questions. Fantastic contributions, and excellent in resolving potential conflicts before they arise. haz (talk) 22:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  12. Support No blocks,very good article contribs, and I completely trust the noms. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 22:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  13. EDITOR Say it with me now... someone who ACTUALLY knows what the stated purpose of this project is for. Not having 50 million contribs in the administration is something we see rarely nowadays. For I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 22:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  14. Support. If he's been around this long and hasn't gotten into any trouble, he will have no problem wielding the tools correctly. - Revolving Bugbear 22:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  15. seresin ( ¡? ) 22:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  16. Support. The nomination rationales from Rudget and Dihydrogen Monoxide essentially epitomise my thoughts on this candidate, but to briefly summarise: I find Huntster trustworthy and competent, and feel that the project would benefit from his having access to the tools. Good luck, Anthøny 22:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  17. Super clean support - too much bleach :P ...--Cometstyles 23:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  18. Support Looks good, and noms from users I trust. GlassCobra 23:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  19. Support Antonio Lopez (talk) 23:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  20. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 23:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  21. Support: Outstanding contributions, and I see no major reason to oppose this adminship. seicer | talk | contribs 23:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  22. Strong Support -- An article builder who also looks with awe at the marvels coming out of Robert Bigelow's company? He gets my vote! --SharkfaceT/C 00:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  23. Support Looks like he'll make a fine admin. --CapitalR (talk) 00:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  24. Support—no worries. —paranomiahappy harry's high club 01:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  25. Support Looks good to me, even though his edits are not on the radar. OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  26. Support - I like the answers to the questions, humble and honest. Solid article contributor, gnomish and elfish combined. There is nothing here that makes me think there will be a misuse of the tools - can only be a net positive. You have my support. Wisdom89 (T / C) 01:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  27. Support. Response to comments are thoughtful, no evidence to suggest any abuse of power, is active enough. Fraudy talk 01:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  28. Sure – sgeureka t•c 02:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  29. Support as everything looked reasonable as far as I can tell. Happy Memorial Day! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  30. Support - looks good.   jj137 (talk) 03:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  31. Support Number 31, beating the noms. This must be a record LegoKontribsTalkM 04:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  32. Support No, sorry, you've broken even. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 06:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  33. Support user has a cool head and has impressive contributions, would be a good admin.--Lenticel (talk) 08:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  34. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  35. Support May as well save my breath, its already been said :-).-- Prom3th3an (talk) 09:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  36. Support - Highly capable and experienced user. High interaction with other users. Brilliant article work. Honest & thoughtful answers to the questions. Lradrama 09:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  37. Sí, claro. Rudget (Help?) 10:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  38. Support good user, no reason to oppose. SpencerT♦C 11:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  39. Support absolutely. - eo (talk) 11:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  40. Support per answers and user edits.  Frank  |  talk  12:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  41. Support - No problems here.  Asenine  12:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  42. Support Make way on the band wagon for my vote! Ecoleetage (talk) 12:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  43. Per nomination, Q2 and Q4. Daniel (talk) 12:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  44. Support. A long, unblemished history of many incremental, useful contributions. Couldn't think of a reason to oppose you if I tried! You even provided some of the best and most concise question answers I've seen. ~ mazca talk 12:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  45. Support The candidate has been extremely consistent in his contributions over the last 2 years. Seems to be well versed in policies, and the cool temper, in my mind, indicates that wrong administrative actions will be highly unlikely. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 13:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  46. Are-you-sure-he's-not-already support: I've seen him/her around now and then and (s)he would most certainly not misuse the tools, which is my only adminship criterion per WP:AAAD...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 13:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  47. Support Sure. J.delanoygabsadds 13:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  48. Strong support Good edits, brilliant user. No reason not to = )...--Cameron (T|C) 15:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  49. Support - I usually don't bother with pile-ons, but this candidate has a great editing history, great answers to question. I think he will likely make a very solid admin. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  50. Support per above. Bearian (talk) 19:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  51. Without question. —  scetoaux (T|C) 19:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  52. Support deserves the tools, and will use them effectively. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  53. Support. I do whatever Rudget and Water tell me to do, because I'm a meat/sock puppet of both of them simultaneously. I heart Rudget. I heart Water. </sarcasm>. Seriously, you're a great candidate, well deserving of the mop/bucket combo. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  54. Support. Can't really say anything else. Jack?! 00:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  55. Support. Good history, see no issues. Jayjg (talk) 00:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  56. Support, per noms. --Kakofonous (talk) 01:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  57. Support. Worked with him on an article before. Gimmetrow 04:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  58. Suppport, though it's probably moot by now. I haven't run across this user too many times, but what little I can remember has left a good impression. Obviously experienced, dedicated, and generally in good standing with a wide cross section of the community. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  59. Suppport Steady editing over a long period. No block or disruptive edits history. I dont feel the Huntster really needs the tools but I dare to believe that he wont misuse the tools. To quote Shiva1979 "No problems here."  :) -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 08:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  60. Suppport very decent amount of main space edits. I hope tendencies will remain and with sysop status. M.K. (talk) 15:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  61. Support reliable user. Speed CG Talk 15:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  62. Support, as I can see only good coming to the project from Hutster having admin tools. J Milburn (talk) 15:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  63. Support - looks like a great candidate. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  64. Support, good candidate, with the kind of mainspace contributions behind them that are needed in admins. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  65. Support Excellent candidate with strong mainspace edits and great answers to the questions. Razorflame 16:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
    Support: No reason not to, therefore I should...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 19:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
    There is actually one reason not to....you already supported Huntster previously in this RfA :) Kingturtle (talk) 20:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
    lol, aww, Dendodge is just showin' the love ;) — Huntster (t • @ • c) 03:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
    Dendodge, you must remember to sign out of your legit account and then sign in to your sock before you !vote again.... ;) Thingg⊕⊗ 16:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  66. Support, per history, answers to questions, general demeanor, and already having the support of other users I trust. Broooooooce (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  67. Support. Solid contributions; no concerns. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 20:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  68. Support per the answer to Q1. Background work is always needed. Kevin (talk) 04:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  69. Excellent candidate. :) east.718 at 06:03, May 29, 2008
  70. Support. He's a copyeditor. His actions are trustworthy. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  71. Support, trustworthy. Neıl 龱 16:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  72. Support Well, I can't really say anything that hasn't been said multiple timesbefore, so I'll just say good luck with teh tools. Thingg⊕⊗ 16:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  73. Don't see any reason to post an oppose vote. NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  02:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  74. Am pleased with the candidate's answer to my question, as well as others. Commentary to date, in addition to a review of recent contributions, leads me to believe this candidate will make solid use of the sysop tools. Support --InDeBiz1 Review me! / Talk to me! 07:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  75. Why the hell not? Support - BG7even 12:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  76. Support A wonderful trustworthy candidate with excellent contributions. Past interactions with this candidate show that he's not only helpful but is also open to discuss hard-to-grasp policies clearly and simply to newbies and is even open to discuss the repetitive genre debates (Talk:Evanescence anyone? :)) if it means it will improve the article is some shape or form. AngelOfSadness talk 12:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  77. Support Seems to know enough and be trustworthy. So support.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  78. Support for many reasons. He is a good helper on IRC and his handling of this. It looks like he had a disagreement with an IP and fixed it. Both sides were happy with the result.  Mm40 (talk | guestbook | contribs)  20:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  79. Support I can't believe I almost missed his RFA. Keep up the good work Hunster Alexfusco5 03:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  80. Support A good, trustworthy editor; won't abuse the extra tools. — Wenli (reply here) 03:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  81. Totally!-- Barkjon  17:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  82. Support experienced editor, trustworthy Cenarium (talk) 18:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  83. Support Looks like a good candidate. Hobartimus (talk) 19:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  84. Support - Of course. I see no reason why Hunster would not be a fine admin. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 09:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  85. Support a fine and helpful candidate we can trust to use the tools wisely. Doczilla STOMP! 10:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  86. Support. Solid candidate with excellent prospects. — Athaenara ✉ 12:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  87. Support. Nothing in recent contributions to indicate that the user would make a bad administrator. Celarnor Talk to me 01:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  88. Support - I've interacted with Huntster in various corners of Tennessee. In my experience, the user is "a good egg" -- capable, helpful, and inclined to be a voice of reason when the going gets tough. --Orlady (talk) 02:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
    Support Antonio Lopez (talk) 04:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC) Already voiced support (#19). Singularity 05:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  89. Support Ashton1983 (talk) 16:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  90. Support -- Avi (talk) 17:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  91. That's hot support! I've worked with Huntster in a number of different avenues over the years and I've always been impressed with him. As Tyra would say, he's fierce! Mike H. Fierce! 18:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  92. Support. Looks to be a great article contributor with a clean history who understands policies and communicates well. MrPrada (talk) 21:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
[edit] Neutral
#Neutral pending answer to my question above. Initial leaning toward support, however. --InDeBiz1 Review me! / Talk to me! 11:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Strike, after answer to my question above and further research into candidate's contributions. Moved to Support. --InDeBiz1 Review me! / Talk to me! 07:23, 30 May 2008 (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.