Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BradBeattie 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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


[edit] BradBeattie

Final (61/1/0); Ended 04:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

BradBeattie (talk · contribs) – It is my pleasure to nominate Brad Beattie for adminship. Brad has been editing since April 2005, and has been active for about four months. He started and helped get 0.999... to FA status, does a lot of work sifting through non-notable webcomics, and sorts the expert requests. He has also contributed many beautiful photos. Most impressive, in my mind, is his creation of WikiGuard for Mac OS X, which he uses to fight vandals. His first RfA was back in October, and I think he has addressed all concerns expressed there. He has 6000+ edits, about half of them to main space. In sum, I find him civil, helpful, knowledgeable of Wiki policy, and certainly ready for adminship. --Fang Aili talk 22:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
With a tip of my hat to Fang Aili, I accept. --Brad Beattie (talk) 22:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
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 do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: As Fang pointed out, one of my primary efforts has been in vandal fighting. While administrative access isn't necessary for the task, it certainly makes it a little easier. As a non-admin, the only time I look at WP:AIV is when I have a consistent vandal to report. However, I suspect that with the mop I'd be watching that page far more often for reports by other users.
I've also been contributing the the deletion processes, primarily in WP:AFD with occasional visits to new page patrolling and (admittedly much less regularly) to the other WP:XFDs. I've noticed that CAT:SPEEDY and CAT:PROD seem need help fairly often, which I'd be willing to offer.
Ultimately it's a matter of working in the best interests of Wikipedia and its community. I've certainly made a mistake here and there, but I've made efforts to learn from them. If there's anything I can do to improve what we have here, I'd like to do it. I'm sure most Wikipedians feel the same way. :)
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: While I didn't actively participate in the article past a certain point, I helped birth 0.999.... The article had discussions on its separation from recurring decimal, frequent arguments over the mathematical validity of the subject, and how best to present the subject to the intended audience. I was pleasantly surprised when I was informed that the article reached FA status, although that focus has seemed to bring many more arguments over the subject matter.
I've also been trying to find articles that lack photos, going to said location and taking a couple shots. It's relatively easy to do and adds to the visual quality of articles. If, for example, you had a desire to know what Kemari looks like, you can.
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: Dealing with vandalism, there is the occasional anonymous user that reacts maliciously to even something as light as {{test}}. I wouldn't say that it causes me stress as nothing is truly destroyed in their acts. If anything, it just takes 5 minutes or so to reach civility, for the user to stop contributing, or for the user to be blocked. Obviously civil contributions are the best outcome of the three, which is why it's important to warn appropriately.
Another source of conflict I've run into is in AFD discussions. As per my webcomic cleanup records, I've nominated a fair number of comics for deletion. There are a few cases where I was in the wrong and in those cases I've gladly stepped back and learned something. However, these discussions occasionally lead to people being uncivil and forgetting to assume good faith, which are two of the most important things.
I wouldn't say I've ever really been stressed out by my efforts here. We're all working to a common goal and while we might disagree on the finer points of what that entails, I think that stepping back and looking at the larger picture puts things into perspective. It's all good.
General comments

Discussion

Support

  1. Support as nominator. --Fang Aili talk 22:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 22:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Deespite this, I'm willing to support for now, though this one of those RfA's i'm gonna have to really look at.--Wizardman 22:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support --Majorly 22:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support, assuming that you don't start flaming the first person who opposes. That rarely happens with anyone who actually gets !votes before being delisted, so I'm not worried. :) -Amarkov blahedits 23:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support Great contribs, great answers to the questions, simply is admin. material. Ganfon 23:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support Bumped into Brad a couple of times, always a good experience, and judging by his contributions, particuarly with vandal-whacking, I see no reason why he shouldn't get the tools. The Rambling Man 23:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support - participation in XfD debates is always good; quantity of minor edits shows that the user is aiming for benefit of the encyclopedia, not his own editcount and ego. Always civil and well-mannered, and has excellent answers to the questions above. Finally, participation in the Admin-Coaching program shows a clear acceptance to learn as an editor and as an administrator. Although I'd like to see some participation in Peer Review or Editor Review, excellent progress has been made on the encyclopedia and the user is finally ready - in my opinion - for the janitor's trolley. Regards, Anthonycfc [T • C] 23:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support Everything looks good. Tennis DyNamiTe (sign here) 23:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support I think that Brad has answered all of the issues that I raised at his last RfA regarding knowledge of policies and guidelines and warning vandals when countering their efforts. Happy to support. (aeropagitica) 23:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support - good answers to questions, good candidate overall. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 23:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support. Cbrown1023 00:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support. bibliomaniac15 00:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support-Good answers, good user. --TeckWizTalkContribs@ 00:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support per having username Brad excellent contributions and answers, and demonstrated ability to learn from comments in the prior RfA and meaningfully address all the concerns raised. Newyorkbrad 00:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support I've seen BradBeattie around quite often editing in a variety of fields on Wikipedia as well as being a vandal patroller. I am quite sure that he will not abuse the tools.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 00:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support Already thought you were an Admin. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 01:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  19. Candidate has my support. SD31415 (SIGN HERE) 03:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support everything seems in order. James086Talk | Contribs 03:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  21. Strong Support. --Extranet (Talk | Contribs) 04:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support Joe I 05:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  23. - crz crztalk 05:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support as per above Bwithh 09:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  25. Interupting my wikibreak Support Glen 11:26, January 14, 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support Terence Ong 12:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  27. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 13:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support. Rettetast
  29. Support no reason not to. ← ANAS Talk? 20:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support.--HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 20:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support :) Yuser31415 20:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  32. With a tip of my deerstalker hat, I support this user. Nishkid64 00:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support a good candidate, for wading though those obscure web comics. --Steve (Slf67) talk 01:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support WOW Cuzz, this is a good track record. Imageboy1 04:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  35. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  36. Yup JorcogaYell! 12:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  37. Looks reasonable enough. >Radiant< 14:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support, since he made an OS X Wiki tool (finally!) and helped write one of my favorite articles (0.999...). Plus he isn't too bad. -- Chris is me (u/c/t) 16:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support good all-around user.-- danntm T C 16:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support Humble user with nothing but the best intentions in mind. -- HarrisX 17:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  41. No-cliche-Here Support --tennisman sign here! 21:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support Has helped many fight vandalism better with wikiguard. He also is a very friendly editor. No question that he would make a good admin. --Sir James Paul, La gloria è a dio 01:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  43. Support per nom − Twas Now 04:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  44. Special Support for a user who helped save an FA from the jaws of the deletion log. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 07:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  45. Support. Good work. Will be a good admin. Antandrus (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  46. Support. Looks like a strong candidate and I always feel warmly towards those who remove vandalism from my UserPage. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 17:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  47. Support.--MariusM 20:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  48. Bradsupport 1 ~ trialsanderrors 01:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  49. Support. SynergeticMaggot 22:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  50. Impressive article work, very reasonable. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  51. Support. Seems like a great candidate based on his contributions and responses above. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  52. Support. I just like the cut of his jib. --Kind Regards - Heligoland 02:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  53. Support. I have only good things to say about this editor. Dekimasu 08:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  54. Support. Sarah 09:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  55. I particularily enjoyed reading 0.999..., and as far as I can tell from 20mins of research through your talk page/contribs, I see no reason not to give you the mop. Good luck! Daniel.Bryant 13:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  56. Support No problems here. A good editor. --Siva1979Talk to me 01:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  57. Support Looks like a decent editor to me. IronDuke 03:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  58. Support per nom. --A. B. (talk) 03:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  59. Support. PeaceNT (Talk | contribs) 16:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  60. Support. —bbatsell ¿? 19:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  61. Support Great answers to questions, and seems to have improved.--CJ King 23:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. OpposeCylonhunter 14:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
    User's 16th edit. Take with pinch of salt, especially without a reason, imo. – Chacor 14:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

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.