Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bkell

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] Bkell

Final (34/0/0); Ended 11:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Bkell (talk · contribs) - I am happy to nominate Brian Kell (User:Bkell) for adminship. Brian is a multilingual editor skilled in mathematics and numerous computer technologies. He has been here longer than most of us (November 2003) and has amassed over 12,000 edits. He has contributed much to the visual aspects of Wikipedia both with his own images (here and at Commons) and also performing the thankless job of eliminiating copyright violations [1]. He has worked with templates and has experience at WP:AFD, WP:TFD and WP:MFD. Despite hanging out in tough areas, he always remains cool. Brian is an exemplary Wikipedian and would make an excellent admin. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination. —Bkell (talk) 07:17, 19 November 2007 (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: I don't expect that my administrator status will change too much the type of work that I do on Wikipedia. This means that I will probably continue to make minor edits to articles, investigate image copyright problems, and so forth. As an administrator I will be able to do some similar things which are currently off-limits to me, such as cleaning out Category:Candidates for speedy deletion and fixing small problems on the Main Page (such as the current claim in "On this day" that the battle between HMAS Sydney and HSK Kormoran occurred in 1942).
Administrator status will also make me more visible to other Wikipedia editors, so I will probably be asked more frequently to answer questions and help to settle disputes. This is fine with me; see my talk page (including the archives) for examples of how I've handled situations like this in the past. I think that I have developed a reasonable grasp of Wikipedia policies in my four years here. Of course, I realize that I will always have more to learn, and I will always be open to recall as an administrator.
I do not feel that I can make any firm commitments about tasks I will take on as an administrator. From time to time the real world is incredibly busy for me (such as the last three and a half weeks), and Wikipedia gets a pretty low priority. It seems to me that administrator status should be given to anyone the community trusts not to mess things up, rather than only to people who make "campaign promises" to perform specific tasks; Wikipedia:Administrators seems to agree with me here. If I am made an administrator, then at least I will be available to help out where I can. Surely it is better to have an administrator that does comparatively little "administrative" work rather than not having that administrator at all, isn't it?
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I've never written a featured article, and I've never uploaded a featured image. On the other hand, I have tagged thousands of images which seem to have problems meeting the image use policy. I have participated in several IFD and PUI debates and a few policy discussions (mostly about the non-free content policy, I think). I have answered other editors' questions about the image policy and Wikipedia in general. I have uploaded some images of my own. The majority of my Wikipedia contributions have been small maintenance tasks: spelling and grammar fixes, image policy verifications, and so on.
For some reason I'm particularly proud of the fact that I managed to track down a fusible plug so I could take a free photo to replace the non-free version that had been in the article, after another user had disputed my assertion that the non-free photo was replaceable.
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: I try not to involve myself in controversial issues, so I am not often in conflicts with other users. Nevertheless, my work with images has sparked a few disagreements. Here are a few cases for your perusal.
  • TFD: BadJPEG (December 2005): See also User talk:Bkell and User talk:David Levy. I had misapplied the recently created {{badJPEG}} tag to several images, which prompted this discussion about its usefulness. In the end David Levy and I worked out our differences and came to an agreement that the tag should be reworded.
  • Image:Joan Riudavets.jpg (July 2006): An image's source was given as "Google images". I tried to remain calm and offered help to the uploader, despite some angry comments directed toward me (see also my talk page).
  • User talk:GJRFMorelligu (August 2006): I probably went overboard with this. I happened to run across a few images that this user had uploaded with very poor source and licensing information, so I went through his whole contributions list. In retrospect I should have done something less overwhelming than flooding his talk page with hundreds of image problem messages.
  • Image talk:Gulf.png (September 2006): What got me into this mess was my conversion of the Gulf Oil logo from JPEG to PNG to prove a point after Rfc1394 told me JPEG was better. I then felt responsible for the associated fair-use claim, since I was now listed as the uploader of the image. I was (and still am) very much of the opinion that the Gulf Oil logo does not need to be in the Betelgeuse incident article. I think I handled this situation wrongly, in that I invited people to the discussion who I thought would agree with me. I should have made the discussion known on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content or some other neutral place. Someday I may bring up this issue for discussion again in a more open way.
  • Image:Zhang Liao.jpg (July 2007): Not much of a conflict, but a short discussion with another user with regards to a high-resolution non-free image.
  • There is also the case of "An incompetitive user" (July 2007), in which Vlatkoto asked me to warn Mr. Neutron about some of his image edits. This is probably the nearest instance I've had to someone asking me to intervene in a dispute as a third party. My response was posted to Mr. Neutron's talk page.

Optional question from Jack?!

4. Looking at your contributions, you have been very inactive lately, why is this, and shall we expect to see more mass breaks from Wikipedia if you're a sysop? Do you feel you need admin tools if you're unable to access Wikipedia much?
A: I am a graduate student in mathematics, and for the past three and a half weeks or so real life has been a little overwhelming. Wikipedia takes a lower priority than studying and teaching and grading, so I didn't feel that I had time to sit down and compose thoughtful answers to the questions above. I intentionally refrained from doing my standard minor edits until I had answered these questions, to avoid giving the impression that I was ignoring this RFA; instead I guess I gave the impression that I abandoned Wikipedia for a while. I have still been checking for messages on my talk page, and if anything had come up I would have been able to respond. I think this recent period was the longest period of inactivity in my history here (you can verify this for yourself), but I do go through times when I make hundreds of edits a day, and other times when I don't do very much. This I think reflects my real-world life as a graduate student—sometimes things are very busy, and sometimes I have plenty of free time. Don't expect this to change if I become an administrator. However, like I said, usually during my times of relative inactivity I still check my talk page. I can probably do better about putting up "This user is busy in real life" boxes at the top of my talk page when appropriate; this would help to let other editors know what's going on.
I don't feel that I "need" admin tools at all. If I am not made an administrator, no big deal, life goes on. From my point of view, having admin tools would let me help in doing admin tasks when I can; otherwise I have to let someone else do them. —Bkell (talk) 15:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


Optional question from Malinaccier

5. Upon becoming an admin, how much time would you spend on specifically admin-related activities compared to just editing the encyclopedia? Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 00:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
A: I don't know. Maybe five or ten percent of what I would do would be admin-related activities. This is really hard for me to estimate, because currently I don't even consider admin things when I'm looking for something to do on Wikipedia. I will probably do things in bursts—on one day I may do a whole bunch of backlogged administrative tasks, and then maybe I won't do anything but fix commas for a week. This is how my editing usually goes.
Five percent sounds like a low figure, but I'd be interested to see what the statistics are for other administrators. How much of their time is spent administrating, and how much is spent editing articles or participating in XFD or policy discussions?
Anyway, as I think I've indicated above, I don't want to make any "campaign promises", because I don't feel that I can make firm commitments. Maybe I'll spend only five percent of my time doing admin stuff if I become an administrator, but if I do not become an administrator then I will definitely spend zero percent of my time doing admin stuff. The important thing, as I see it, is that if I am given administrator status then I will be available to help when needed. —Bkell (talk) 02:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

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

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Support
  1. As nominator. —Wknight94 (talk) 09:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  2. Strong Support - Why isn't he an administrator already? ~ | twsx | talkcont | 09:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  3. I trust this user and, the nominator. —Qst 10:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  4. A very good user whenever I've seen his name, good answers to questions. Daniel 11:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support -I have reviewed this user's contributions and find no problems. I am impressed by his thorough analysis of his own weakness in the Questions above. Introspection is a fine tool when applied honestly. I think he has done this and will continue to analyze every admin decision he is called to make. JodyB talk 13:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support No major concerns here. A great editor. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support per his good answer to my question. My question was asked because I wondered if this was your first major inactivity, and I was worried that your activity would drop completely, in which case I would see no reason for you to have admin tools. I didn't check your contributions fully, as I'm in a bit of a rush, but you answered my question perfectly. His reply also shows he communicates very well, which is a real bonus. Jack?! 15:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support - good answers to questions. Rudget.talk 17:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support - A very good user with excellent contributions. Would be an asset to the Admin community. Harland1 (talk) 18:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support, no reason not to. Stifle (talk) 22:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support WP would be a better place if this user had the tools. I would suggest, however, that the user put a busy message on their talkpage. GlassCobra 22:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  12. per above. NHRHS2010 talk 04:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support A graduate study in math? Dude... Jmlk17 06:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support — xDanielx T/C\R 08:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support - Bkell is extremely knowledgeable, level-headed, and helpful. He would make a great admin. — Benplowman (talk) 09:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support - PookeyMaster (talk) 10:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  17. Strong Support I have worked with this user for almost two years (off and on), and have never been disappointed. I don't think you will be either. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  16:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support--evrik (talk) 18:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  19. Per above Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support *MindstormsKid* 21:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support - Good answers to questions, seems clear on where he can best contribute, no red flags :-) - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  23. Definite Support Overall one of the most skilled editors I have seen on wikipedia. --businessman332211 (talk) 15:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support - looks well qualified. WjBscribe 23:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support. No trust issues that I recall, or expect to discover, and very nice answers to the questions. - BanyanTree 01:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  26. I'm Mailer Diablo (talk) and I approve this message! - 19:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  27. Strong Support: Obviously. Good luck!! - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support. Samsara (talk • contribs) 05:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support per edit count divided by blocks over time on WP. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support More than qualified. --Sharkface217 06:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
    Support Seems both qualified and committed as seen through his contributions and answers to the questions. AlwaysCT (talk) 10:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
    I'm not comfortable validating this one, since account was created 3 minutes before participating here, which is also its only edit. Redux (talk) 11:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support As per Track.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support Epbr123 (talk) 20:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support - Good candidate.--Jerry 21:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support Support Support Support Support Makuro (talk) 07:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
[edit] Neutral
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.