Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Brainhell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Brainhell

Bureaucrat removal at 04:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC) by Cecropia with (3/18/3). Original end time 20:01 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Brainhell (talk · contribs) – Brainhell is a Wiki user Brainhell 19:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept my self-nomination

Support

  1. Moral Support - let's not pile on any more, huh? Proto||type 12:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support Supporting a lost cause. Anyway, brave to be self-nominating himself/herself. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. 'Support: because administrator privileges should be No Big Deal, right? Swatjester 17:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Very few substantive edits, almost none to WP namespace, no edit summaries, evidence of complete unfamiliarity with process. —bbatsell ¿? 20:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. More experience is required before taking on admin duries. No Guru 20:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per above. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 20:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose: very premature. Jonathunder 21:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per above.Edit summaries are important. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose - 148 edits is too few to establish any kind of positive pattern, and it's certainly not enough to alleviate concerns from very recent uncivil behavior which warranted a block. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose per ESkog; couldn't have said it any better. Phædriel ♥ tell me - 22:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose - 149 edits in two months is not good enough; not enough edit summaries. joturner 23:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. Not enough experience and recent block. I suggest you withdraw and consider reapplying sometime in the future after gaining more experience and having a cleaner record. Happy editing! --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 23:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. You need more experience. Also a greater variety of edits would be nice. Marcus 23:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC) 15:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose due to lack of experience. Bahn Mi 00:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose needs more experience --Ugur Basak 00:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose 150+edits doesn't demonstrate much experience with editing Wikipedia, and a 1% edit summary usage-? AndyZ 01:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose, not enough experience; answers to questions seems to indicate that s/he wants to do tasks that s/he could already help out with, but does not. Where (talk) 02:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  15. OpposeOh my. Pschemp | Talk 05:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose Few too many edits. Abscissa 09:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose. Please withdraw, unless you wish for constructive criticism.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose. Too difficult to make a good read on someone after only 150 or so edits. Try again after a few thousand. PJM 18:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


Neutral

  1. WP:SNOW - please withdraw, either canddate or a bureaucrat. NSLE (T+C) 01:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. It is admirable that you want to be an adminstrator. I invite you to reapply in a few months, when you have more experience, and look forward to supporting your candidacy. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral. Otherwise OK, but time on Wikipedia and number of edits are too low. JIP | Talk 17:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral I can't in good faith vote to support, but you get an A for courage. I'll support on your next (reasonably timed) RfA. I don't believe in judging by edit count, but I do believe a fair picture of the candidate is important, and that takes a few more edits than you've got. Don't stop being bold :) Adrian Lamo ·· 21:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 1% for major edits and 0% for minor edits. Based on the last 99 major and 8 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces. Mathbot 20:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • See Brainhell's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.


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.

I can do all of the backlog and administrative tasks, with particular interest in "Articles to be expanded," "NPOV disputes," "Move to Wiktionary," and "Wikipedia:Copyright problems."

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A.

I am proud:

-of my expansion of the Strategic Conquest page, and adding screen shots to it, because I love the game.

-of the Julie Tilsner page, because it's been called 'excellent' and because I accomplished it despite some administrative opposition that was in my opinion misplaced.

- of adding a photo of my own spinal tap to the Lumbar puncture page, because a spinal tap hurts, and at least something good came out of it.

-of my various spelling corrections and copy edits, because copyediting used to be my job

-of my creation of articles from the Most Wanted list, because I believe that helps users.

- and of my comments in talk:B-26smoking.jpg, because I think they contributed to the picture having a better caption.

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.

Just recently I was blocked by an administrator who had deleted my new article and did not approve of the way I defended it and questioned his motivations.

Not yet wise to Wikipedia culture, I dealt with it by stating my opinion that his apparent motivations were twisted. I used no curse words or insults, and made no threats, though the administrators involved portrayed my commentary as nasty and threatening. Feel free to read it. I was neither.

The dispute was a learning experience for me. I had assumed that the normal social rules applied, and defended my article vigorously, but civilly. However, I didn't know that Wikipedia has a much stricter set of rules for interpersonal discussion than the ones used in the real world.

In browsing through the pages devoted to Wikipedia culture and expectations, I have gained a sense of what is meant by "attack." In Wiki-land an "attack" is commentary of any kind about someone else as a person, or their motives, during a disagreement. The way Wikipedia solves the "flame" problem so common on the internet is by having a rule that no one is supposed to comment about anyone else's motives or person during a dispute -- at all. Now I know: Commentary within the Wikipedia system should never be directed at a person or their motivation. I can abide by that expectation.

In the future I would deal with the dispute by discussing what action should be taken, rather than commenting on the administrator's apparent motives.

If I were an administrator, I would be conscious of the fact that new users may not be aware of the Wikipedia definition of "attack," and would attempt to gently educate them if they commented on someone else.

Pursuant to the There Is No Cabal principle, it's important not to taunt new users into rule violations for the purpose of disciplining them.

I have two reasons for wanting to become an administrator: (1) To contribute efforts which promote to Wikipedia content (2) to provide supportive, rather than negative, administering to new users and users not yet familiar with Wikipedia rules and culture.

The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.