Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Briangotts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Briangotts

Final (30/1/1) ending 20:56 13 August 2005 (UTC) Briangotts (talk • contribs) - Briangotts has been an active editor of Wikipedia since early February this year and has almost 3000 edits. He is a serious contributor who has added a lot of interesting articles on Judaism, East European history and even Scandinavian history. He is courteous and has integrity. I think he is a natural admin. --Wiglaf 20:56, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accepti --Briangotts (talk) 23:38, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. --Wiglaf 20:57, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  2.  BRIAN0918  22:58, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support Most edits are very minor and many times doesn't use edit summeries. That said there's nothing particularily wrong and he does enforce and revert unreferenced edits which is good, plus Brian voted Support. --Ryan Norton T | @ | C 00:50, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support. Good work, non-controversial. Jayjg (talk) 06:34, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  5. Merovingian (t) (c) 20:50, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support. Martin (Bluemoose) 21:09, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support. HKT talk 23:44, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  8. Support. No question. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:05, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 00:15, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  10. Support. Do we really even need to vote? This one seems so obvious... Tomer TALK 00:58, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support -- llywrch 01:00, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support--- An excellent editor who has contributed and created many interesting Jewish historical articles. Guy Montag 01:08, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  13. Sure. He's done excellent work, and has a good even temperment. Shouldn't have trouble as an admin if he wants. Isomorphic 01:56, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  14. Support. Intelligent and polite, will make an excellent admin. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 04:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  15. Support, a helpful editor. IZAK 07:58, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  16. Support. Would make a good admin. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 10:21, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  17. Support. Focused on good content, polite, sensible. JFW | T@lk 13:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  18. Michael Snow 16:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support. FeloniousMonk 22:27, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  20. Certainly. El_C 03:25, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  21. Support. Yes. Func( t, c ) 03:36, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  22. Support; good choice. Antandrus (talk) 04:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  23. Support. Fire Star 04:36, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  24. Support. --Untifler 09:13, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  25. Support. Low-key, industrious, and a good person to have around. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:27, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  26. Support. Bratschetalk 5 pillars 19:24, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  27. Support.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 00:06, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  28. Support. ral315 01:07, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  29. Support. Solid work, sufficient experience. Redux 16:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  30. Support. Very active and courteous editor. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:34, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 04:18, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Never heard of you... I don't feel comfortable voting for someone I've never heard of before... Redwolf24 21:19, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
What kind of comment is that? No one asks you to vote, you do so voluntarily.--Wiglaf 21:33, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
There are some RfA candidates I don't know that I support - I just browse through the talk and contributions list and see whether he is fit or not. — Stevey7788 (talk) 23:23, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
If you like, you are welcome to view my user page which has links to the various articles I have either started or substantially edited. --Briangotts (talk) 23:47, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments

  • In answer to Tomer's question: Yes, even with the most wonderful of candidates, consensus needs to be determined. This is a community-wide decision, after all. Bratschetalk 5 pillars 19:24, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • In answer to Bratsche's answer to Tomer's question: Do you honestly think I was asking seriously? Seriously? Tomer TALK 06:17, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
      • To clarify, read SlimVirgin's comment in her vote, 2 above mine. S/he said "No question.", so I had to come up with a question. Her comment required it. I couldn't just ignore it.  :-p Tomer TALK 06:19, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

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 read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. Deletion per Vfds and speedy nominations, reverting vandalism and, where necessary, blocking habitual vandals, as well as helping mediate disputes when necessary. I would also, of course, continue to expand articles and draft new ones.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I gratly expanded the article Khazars during my time on Wikipedia, and started many other pages related to Khazar history and culture. Wikipedia is now one of the most complete and (in my opinion) accurate web references available on Khazar studies.
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. In one instance I had a conflict with User:VMORO over the classification of the Bulgars as a Turkic people. I felt that he took an unnecessarily belligerent tone with me. Nevertheless, I did what I could to reach a compromise which seems to have worked in the months since (at least, I've heard nothing from him to suggest he was unhappy about the resolution). I think that in an environment like Wikipedia, with thousands of different perspectives, the only way the project can function is with these types of compromises, that allow access to all views.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_adminship_Briangotts_91e3.html"