Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Borisblue

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.


Borisblue[edit]

Final (48/2/1) Ended 13:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Borisblue (talk · contribs) – Borisblue has been with the project since January 2005. He is an intelligent, respectable Wikipedian, who has been respectful towards others. He has contributed across the board–in both maintenance areas and article contribution (including FA)–and has a firm grasp of policy, indicated by both his edit summaries and participation in discussions.

To date, Borisblue has 2430 edits, which is traditionally viewed as "too few" in RfA land. However, going against tradition, I believe that the quality, not quantity, of his edits should take precedence.

Borisblue has both the experience and will needed to serve the community as an administrator; as the old adage goes, he's ready for a mop. Jay(Reply) 21:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Borisblue 06:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer 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:If this nom succeeds, I plan to try helping out in some of the backlogs, to see if I can contribute in some way that I didn't before. IFD interests me, in particular. The "admin chore" I've been most involved with so far is RC patrol. I believe I could contribute more efficiently if I had the admin buttons- while I've always been able to find an admin on RC patrol when I needed one- it would be nice to be able to take action against blatant vandals myself. And yes, I do have a low count of WP:AIAV edits; this is simply because I find it more efficient to look up active admins on RecentChanges, and then drop a note in their talk page.
I believe, at this stage of the English WP's growth vandal patrol is as important as ever- not just to protect the credibility of the articles, but also to maintain Wikipedia's openess and access to new editors. I am troubled by the increasing clamor to strip anon IPs of editing powers on account of vandalism. Anons have lost their power to create articles already, and they have been calls to ban them from editing entirely. While I understand the reasonings behind these moves, I feel that WP still needs new contributors to fill in the gaps in our content- allowing IPs to edit wikipedia introduces new editors to the project- editors who might come with expertise on some small African country, a body of literature etc.- there are plenty of fields that WP is currently deficient in. Effectively dealing with vandalism will reduce the need to restrict IP powers, thereby ensuring that more people will experiment, and eventually get involved with the project as contributors- something which I believe and hope will continue to broaden Wikipedia's scope.
To be honest, though I see myself primarily as a content contributor. Given the choice between doing maintenance work and writing an article entry I will pick the latter. Thus, I won't do admin chores/gnoming regularly, but I will pitch in and do my part when I don't have an article project in mind. I don't think that this should have bearing on my trustworthiness with the tools, but I still want to make that clear.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I have successfully nominated two articles to featured status (Gauss, Newton) and have one currently on FAC(Euler). I date my work on Carl Friedrich Gauss as the start of my involvement in Wikipedia. This is when I first realized that the Wikipedia: namespace existed, got my first taste of WP-style consensus decisionmaking, and even had to deal with a LaRouche-POV pusher. For "sentimental value", that was my favorite contribution. Leonhard Euler is probably my best work however. I had to bring it up to FA status from a worse starting point than the other two, I had to meet the current FA standards where referencing etc are tougher, and there were less editors involved in the article that could help.
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 had an ugly argument with Fenice in Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Anschluss and Talk:Anschluss. It's a very silly issue- it was whether or not the anschluss could be described as an annexation. She was a bit stubborn about it, and it irked me. The argument got out of control, and I feel I was very clearly in the wrong- consensus was clearly going against Fenice already, and I provoked her for no reason by continuing to argue- thus escalating the bad blood. I eventually saw sense and apologized, and she accepted my apology here (trivia: this conflict eventually led to the adoption of the WP:Kindness Campaign mascot.
That was more than a year ago, and I've since made more of an effort to avoid unecessary conflict, and to be nicer to other editors. I haven't met anyone who is hopelessly belligerent yet, but so far I find that just being civil, listening to the concerns of the other editor, and quoting appropriate policy will eliminate most conflicts. There was a tension point more recently when Karmafist put me on a "Users to watch" list on his user page, but thankfully I did not react as rashly as before, and the issue defused here.

Optional question from  Netsnipe  ►  12:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4. I've noticed that in your vandal fighting you haven't really come across any substantial abusers in the form of persistent sock-puppeteers or long term abuse cases and you haven't shown any participation on the Administrators' noticeboards either. Can you provide any examples where you've been challenged or have thoroughly investigated an abuse case? Do you think you are ready or experienced enough to deal with the darker side of Wikipedia should you be pushed to the breaking point one day?
A: You're right, I've almost entirely been working on anon test "vandalism"- and my article specialty- math, tends not to attract a lot of abuse. I did encounter a persistent vandal (or rather a group of them) before, and I deferred to an admin how to handle it [1]. If this nom succeeds, and I were to encounter serious abuse a week later, I would probably defer to a more experienced admin again. At the moment I don't primarily see myself as the kind of admin that always goes after persistent abuse though, since thus far I have neither the experience nor the desire to do so. I'd much prefer "gnoming" admin chores, like dealing with image backlog, test vandalism etc. I do believe that this is an issue that no admin can ignore when it comes up however, so I will act to counter persistent abuse when I find it- but conservatively and in deference to more senior admins, at least until I gain some experience.
That said, in all my time in WP I don't think I've ever been in a situation where quoting policy and being courteous and respectful did not solve a dispute. This might be because I've been lucky so far, but I believe that this is a more potent way to prevent conflict than a lot of people realize. It helps to be a bit civil to even the most unreasonable of POV pushers. Thus, though I have been in disputes, I've never really had a reason to report anyone or anything to WP:AN.


Comments

  • See Borisblue's edit count on the talk page
  • User's edit stats
  • See Borisblue's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
  • Michael has brought up my low recent edit count- I was in a research program all summer, and thus didn't have an opportunity to contribute to wikipedia much. My editing pattern in general tends to be in bursts of fervent activity, and I tend to take wikibreaks for real-world projects (heck, I invented the wikibreak template)- and I anticipate that I will continue to edit in this manner for the next few years, given that WP's intense appeal and addictiveness will ruin my real-world productivity otherwise. If this is a concern for you, please take that into account. Borisblue 07:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support. Impressive FA work, good answers to questions. Haukur 09:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per nom and Haukur. This is a good editor who has been around for quite some time and knows what he's doing. I'm happy to support. Singopo 12:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong Support. In the past it used to be much easier to be an admin because "it isn't a big deal" and we'd give it to those who could use it to benefit Wikipedia, as you clearly can. It's terribly frustrating to have to ask someone to take care of a vandal you should be able to do yourself. Not only are you inconvienanced, but so is at least one admin. And this focus on edit counts really kills me. Have you done anything *wrong*? You clearly showed remorse for the one incident that has been brought to light. Some of the objections to you (except for # of edit counts) could be said about me. There are areas where even I'd not be considered for admin such as "Not enough recent experience" or even "I don't spend most of my time fighting vandals, but writing articles". For those with editcountitis, the edit count list back in March put current administrator and bureaucrat Redux at 2,431 (main namespace) edits. That number is now 2,628. Now I'm comparing apples and oranges, but looking at edit counts alone is about as ludicrious as saying Redux shouldn't even be an administrator because he doesn't write enough articles, has "only" 6,197 total, and is not even a top 500 user. -- RM 12:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    One needs only to read Redux's initial (main namespace) edits, which included photo uploads and serious edits, look to the absolute breadth of his contributions, and you'd conclude he stands a chance of making early admin even today. But edit counts are a quick and dirty way to diagnose where to look for weaknesses. That said, although I grumble a little about the argument, I agree with your conclusion. Looking at edit counts alone is nonsense; one must look to the contributions. Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 05:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support, no reason to believe he'd abuse or misuse the tools. - Bobet 12:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Has a Featured Article. :) Dlohcierekim 13:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Absolutely. When I was promoted, five weeks ago, I had fewer edits over a longer time, no FA, and nominated myself, so I see no problems here. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 13:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. — FireFox (talk) 15:22, 05 September 2006
  8. Support –Terence Ong (T | C) 15:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support, 1FA. - Mailer Diablo 15:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support --Jay(Reply) 16:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Blackjack48 16:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support He has a featured article and unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Some P. Erson 19:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. Like the man said, quality not quantity, and also invoking the "no big deal" clause. Guy 19:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support per above. —Khoikhoi 23:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Merovingian - Talk 00:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support The way I see it, it is really easy to rack up an edit count by hitting delete. It takes time and thought to enter a completed quality article, citing references, avoiding copyvio’s etc. That’s why I believe edit count quantity is nowhere nearly as important as quality of edit. The opposition has nothing to sway my input on this. JungleCat talk/contrib 04:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support— Serious contributions like Gauss and Euler — dedication to the articles success is evident. AfD actions solidly supported — I may not agree with your determinations, but you told me the basis for your position & didn’t just give me more “per nom”. Overall you have the breadth of experience that makes me comfortable supporting you toward knighthood with the power of blocking & unblocking editors, deleting & undeleting pages, performing complex moves, page protection and enforcing arbitration rulings. Use these powers for good, not evil! Williamborg (Bill) 05:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Enthusiastic support I love his answer to the first question. BaseballBaby 07:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Everything looks fine to me.--MONGO 09:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. Definitely agree quality over quantity, and this editor appears to be committed to building an encyclopedia. Espresso Addict 12:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support, based almost entirely on the following quote: "I plan to try helping out in some of the backlogs" alphaChimp(talk) 15:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Good editor who is dedicated to quality articles.-- danntm T C 19:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. - Mailer Diablo 19:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    One per customer - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Opps! My apologies. Thanks for spotting that. - Mailer Diablo 09:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support _Doctor Bruno__Talk_/E Mail 02:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support, excellent contributions. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. - CrazyRussian talk/email supports on 04:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support - Good contributions. Also like his remark about giving priority to writing articles over admin tools. I feel he will not misuse his tools. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 13:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Excellent, trustworthy, thoughtful editor. Xoloz 16:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. Looks solid to me. Themindset 16:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. A very valued and trusted editor on Wikipedia. --Nishkid64 20:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Normally, I probably wouldn't support given the relatively small edit count compared to time being a Wikipedian. However, when looking at his contributions, all of them seem to have been manual edits and quite good, at that. I really like how he carries himself when interacting with other users on their talk pages (even from his first user talk edit) and I'm assuming he's very trustworthy (in the limited interaction I've had with TCU students, all have been great :) ). hoopydinkConas tá tú? 22:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Quality over quantity. I liked the very common sense answers to the questions. Trustworty and could use the tools - pretty much what an admin should be. Agent 86 23:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support --Mike 15:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support -- per nom and answers to question 2 --T-rex 15:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support -- Tawker 04:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support, quality not quantity! -- Lego@lost EVIL, EVIL! | 21:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support, liked the answers to the questions, agree with quality over quantity, and meets my standards anyway. BryanG(talk) 04:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. Trustable user and good answers, while the edit count aint magnificent i believe quality is better then quantity. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support There are obviously enough quality edits - which is what edit-count criteria are supposed to establish, TewfikTalk 03:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. Good editor, good edits, good answers. -- DS1953 talk 05:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support good edits--Jiang 12:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support' =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support - Good editor. -- Szvest 14:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support RN 19:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support, gladly. Sango123 21:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support quality. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 02:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Edit conflict support. quality over quantity, as said above. --heah 02:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support per well known cliché. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose per low recent edit count (less than 500 edits since April) - edit count also a bit low overall. Michael 06:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Since when does it matter how recent the edit count is? Administrator tools are the same for fighting vandalism as they were years ago, and it isn't much of a learning curve to figure out deletion policy. I learned speed-deletion policy in one day. This user has done a lot of good, has he done anything *bad*? -- RM 12:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I don't see a tremendous overall devotion to the project due to the edit count as I mentioned above. Michael 18:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Low edit count overall suggests user doesn't have the required experience to be an admin just yet. - Mgm|(talk) 11:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral, low edit count seeing as they've been here since Jan 2006, and I disagree with users method of reporting vandals on admins talk pages instead of WP:AIV. Tempted to support, also tempted to oppose, so inbetween it'll have to be.--Andeh 14:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, Borisblue has been here since January 2005, not 2006. VegaDark 08:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, even more of a reason to oppose then, thank you for pointing that out.--Andeh 14:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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/Borisblue&oldid=1143863750"