Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bornhj 2


 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it. 

Bornhj
Final (13/11/10) Withdrawn by candidate 10:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

– In the interests of full disclosure, I was nominated for adminship in June of this year. I declined the nom on the basis that I didn't think I was experienced enough at the time to become an admin. However, in the last two months I believe I've developed a greater understanding of process and the community. I've decided to self-nom because I'd like to be able to write a little about my self. Along with my growing understanding of the project, I've also found myself having a genuine need for the extra buttons in the last couple of months. By some standards I don't have a lot of edits (around 2700; 1000 to mainspace, 250 to WP:). A lot of these edits have been vandal fighting, something I've been doing almost since I joined the project (on my birthday, in mid-August last year... damn, I just realised this RfA ends around my birthday. unintentional! ). This stemmed from a determination to make the project clean and presentable - I was, and still am, insulted when my teachers say that I "shouldn't use Wikipedia at all because anyone can say whatever they want there", which is the typical outside viewpoint that I don't think we'll ever shake. We can, however, ensure that this isn't the case. Wikipedia is a team effort - there's people who really don't care about the inner workings and just want to write some good content, and then there's people who don't want to write but want to see Wikipedia keep afloat and help those people who do want to write. The site wouldn't exist without both, and I'm definitely part of the second group. I believe that having the extra buttons would allow me to continue this work further, enabling everyone to get on with it and build this encyclopedia. --jam es (talk) 14:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thanks for the kind words, Bornhj. I accept.--jam es (talk) 14:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC) I'm withdrawing cause there's no chance of consensus here, I'll come back in a couple of months after I rack up some WP: edits and write some more good stuff. Thanks for the kind words, all. :) --jam  es (talk) 10:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

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:
 * Questions for the candidate
 * 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: Having being involved in vandal fighting almost from the start, I'd obviously be helping out a lot with WP:AIV (which I've noticed has been getting heavy backlogs over the last few days) - it's always annoying for a non-admin vandal fighter to have to either wait 15 - 30 minutes for a vandal to be forcibly stopped. I've also closed a few "keep" AfDs (admittedly a couple of the first ones I closed were ones I shouldn't have, but I'm more across that guideline now) so I'd continue to help out closing debates there (and probably other xfDs after I get settled in). CAT:CSD can get backlogged a lot too, and I've tagged quite a few articles as speedies, so I'd try squash that backlog whenever I got the chance. CAT:ORFU is also fairly backed up and is a pretty low-difficulty page to work on. Another interesting page I got linked to recently was User:Dragons flight/Category tracker/Summary, which has some interesting backlogs I'd try my hand at after I got comfortable. Finally, I've also had experience with the transwiki log which is sorely backlogged and quite a few articles listed there need deletion.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A: I'll be straight with you: I'm not a very good writer. Although I do well at English at school, my prose leaves a lot to be desired. For those 1FA guys: sorry, no FAs here :). That having been said, I'm personally proud of my contributions to keeping the project free of vandalism (heh, how many times have you head that in an RfA now?). I've been picking up a lot more reverts lately that I used to, and as Wikipedia continues to grow along with the population of elephants in Africa, this is going to become more of a concern. Coupled with the departure of some of our best editors lately, and the increased syndication of our content, and I believe that my general work keeping the place clean makes us look better to the public as well as enabling people who just want to sit down and write to do so without distraction.


 * 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 haven't been in any real major conflicts, mainly due to the sort of editing I do around here - I've stayed away from controversial topics except to revert clear vandalism. One issue came up in the last month, on Talk:Habbo Hotel, where there was a lively discussion about what constituted original research, how verifiable certain events were, and whether certain events were notable. This was made much more difficult to handle due to a steady stream of trolls who, rather then engage in debate with the rest of us, preferred to post random flames and insults. In the end, I came to a compromise with one of the only people who was actually willing to debate the point fairly, and I think I've come out of the whole thing more versed in our dispute resolution policies. I found that the best way to keep from getting stressed was to just walk away every now and then - rather than biting your nails waiting for something to happen, it was nice to get away from the whole page and write something (!) or clean up some vandalism with your very own copy of VandalProof!.


 * 4. Bonus Question from User:Dlohcierekim. As always, such questions are optional and serve to help learn more about a nom's readiness for the mop. Hi, User:Bornhj, and thank you for submitting your RfA. AlwAys good to see a fellow VandProofer. Can you say why you reverted This Edit and why you did not warn the editor who added it? Cheers. :) Dlohcierekim 17:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * A: Agh! Looks like I forgot to warn. Probably hit the wrong button in VP, but it would have probably been welcome and spam1 - I reverted it as non-notable linkspam. Excuse me while I go get a sticky note to remind me :) --jam es (talk) 10:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * 5. Another bonus question from User:dlohcierekim. (As always, all additional questions are completely optional.) There may be a follow-up. You are RCPatrolling. You see an article has been edited by an anon. The page history indicates the previous entry was by TawkerBot reverting a page blank by the same anon. The current version of the article has a note at te top of the page from the anon saying the article needs to be removed as a “cut and paste job from another site.” What do you do? Thanks,
 * A: Google is the king of looking for copyvios. I'd pick a random phrase from the article, stick it into Google, and look for any matches. If it matched, I'd check the history of the page for a more detailed check. If every revision of the article (minus the blanking obviously) was a clear copyvio, from a commercial source, and the page was less than 48 hours old, it would fall under CSD A8 (blatant copyright infringement) and I'd delete it, leaving a note on the article creator's talkpage (nothanks-sd I think it is). If all the revisions were copyvios, but it didn't meet the CSD A8 criteria, it needs to be blanked with copyvio and listed on WP:CV. If not all the revisions were copyvios, then a simple revert to the last non-copyvio version should suffice (I'm not sure as to whether I should do a delete and then selective undelete to get rid of the copyvios). --jam es (talk) 10:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * 1. Userpage says he is offline. His contribs suggest he may not be back till tomorrow. (online 8-14 yesterday) I do not expect him to answer my questions for a while. :) Dlohcierekim 01:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * My editing hours are usually around 7-13 UTC on weekdays (damn school), varying depending on the amount of homework and assignments on each day. :) --jam es (talk) 10:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Username	Bornhj Total edits	2757 Distinct pages edited	1661 Average edits/page	1.660 First edit	16:41, 15 August 2005 (main)	1174 Talk	122 User	450 User talk	706 Image	26 MediaWiki talk	5 Template	7 Template talk	2 Category	1 Wikipedia	246 Wikipedia talk	17 Portal	1
 * See Bornhj's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
 * See Bornhj's edit history with Interiot's Tool2.




 * Support
 * 1) First support. A good-natured editor. The only thing I see that Bornhj needs to improve on is not marking reverts as minor. --Gray Porpoise 14:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Rama's arrow  15:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) VandalProof cabal told me to support support :P Computerjoe 's talk 15:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) I'm convinced although I'm worried about you talking to yourself in the acceptance statement. Tariq, leave him alone man; he's just having some fun. --  tariq abjotu  (joturner) 16:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. User's contributions are of high quality. RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 17:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. G .H  e  18:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. Good experienced editor. Zaxem 23:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. Meets my criteria, no apparent reason not to. BryanG(talk) 03:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Good editor, experienced. Please consider the thoughts of the oppose & neutral voters - they have valid points.  Baseball,Baby!   balls  •  strikes  11:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) SUPPORT based on demonstrated abilities as seen in answer to my "Right delete the wro ng way by an anon" question despite not having !FA.   :) Dlohcierekim 13:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support.  Although I would have liked to see more article edits and more encyclopaedia-building experience, I think Bornhj 2 is a good example of an editor who doesn't fit the pattern but could really use the tools and benefit the project.  It seems clear to me he won't abuse the tools, and it's also clear he knows what he'd do with them and understands the value an admin brings to the project.  Seems familiar with policy and also very civil.  Mike Christie 01:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support per Rama's Arrow and Gray Porpoise. Bakaman Bakatalk 03:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. DarthVad e r 00:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. Not enough article building/communication, as evidenced by less than 100 article talk edits. Not enough process knowledge as evidenced by less than 250 WP edits. I will absolutely support on re-app once these key areas are more fully developped. Themindset 16:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) 'Oppose per Themindset AdamBiswanger1 17:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Weak Oppose I feel this RfA is a bit premature, as more communication and policy experience is necessary in my opinion. I would revisit the possibility of supporting with more experience in these areas.  I'd also like to see some article writing (perhaps on the simple Wikipedia, which would be great for both the candidate's English prose development as well as for the Wiki-world that wants to learn English).  hoopydink Conas tá tú? 17:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Weak Oppose Per above --Masssiveego 18:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose as fails my personal standards in terms of edits. Please keep plugging along, would happily support with some more time in. Ifnord 19:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose I think it's too soon for this user to seek adminship. I'd like to see more WP and article talk page edits. Michael 20:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Sorry, I'm one of those 1FA guys. -- Миборов ский 01:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose per Themindset. Editor requires more experience. Xoloz 17:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose. Lack of Wikipedia namespace edits indicates low familiarity with policy. Stifle (talk) 23:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose. Per User:Stifle.  Q u i z Q u i c k   19:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose per themindset, especially considering claims to poor writing skills--Musaabdulrashid 06:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Neutral
 * 1) Neutral - less than 300 Wikipedia namespace edits, which fails my criteria. However, everything else looks great. Kalani  [talk] 18:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral per Kalathalan. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  22:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral, I am on the fence here. Wikipedia space edits are low which doesn't indicate much experience in AFDs. Good work on the vandal fighting.-- Kungfu Adam ( talk ) 01:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral. - Mailer Diablo 05:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral. -- Steel 23:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Weak neutral. Low involvement in project space worries me a bit, everything else looks fine. May change to support. — freak([ talk]) 02:37, Aug. 11, 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Extremely strong neutral to counteract the Freak supra. Less than 300 Wikipedia namespace edits, which fails my criteria. However, everything else looks great. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Reluctant neutral per above. Wikipediarules2221 03:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Neutral, sorry. I'm a little off-put for the same reasons as the people above, but unfortunately don't have any contact with you to counteract those concerns. Not going to oppose, since you don't deserve it, but I'm not quite confident enough to support. RandyWang ( chat me up/fix me up ) 13:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Neutral: The edits are a little weak outside the main space. --Slgr @ ndson (page - messages - contribs) 20:06, 11 August 2006 (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.