Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Brendenhull2

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] Brendenhull

Final (1/13/2) ended 10:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC) I withdraw. — Brendenhull 10:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC) Brendenhull (talk · contribs) – I joined Wikipedia on February 18, 2006, and have since tacked up 2,530 edits. I am now a member of the Military history WikiProject, and am working hard to improve those. I am also a strong vandal fighter, barely able to keep up with my vandalism reverts. I will use the admin powers to fight vandals in a larger way. — Brendenhull 02:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I accept. — Brendenhull 02:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I withdraw. — Brendenhull 10:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support Appears to be well-intentioned.--Anglius 03:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose per my criteria about project edits. NSLE (T+C) at 02:34 UTC (2006-05-27)
    I also had to fix this - it was a malformed RFA, written over his old one (which ended 7th May, far too soon) with a noinclude. NSLE (T+C) at 02:41 UTC (2006-05-27)
    Changed to strong oppose - unilateral moves (see his move log in questions section below) w/out discussion, and some made absolutely no sense (which others and I have reverted). Cannot have unilaterally, against-consensus admins. NSLE (T+C) at 04:07 UTC (2006-05-27)
  2. Strong oppose. Malformed RfA, only 1/6 edits in mainspace, almost as many (1/8ish) in userspace. Almost all of his projectspace edits appear to be in the sandbox (probably 9/10 easily, maybe more if you count other sandbox type spaces), and I see no WP:AIV edits, and blocking vandals is basically his only reason for wanting adminship. Also unilaterally moved Joseph Stalin to Josef Stalin rather than using WP:RM, then made tons of redirects, so when he was reverted there were tons of double redirects. --Rory096 03:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
    I'd like to point out that I myself have a high userspace edit count, but people who work on articles in user subpages tend to have that show. So it's not always reliable. However, in this case, it would seem that most, if not all, his userspace edits are sandbox-like edits. NSLE (T+C) at 03:37 UTC (2006-05-27)
    [1] and [2], for reference. --Rory096 03:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per Rory096, especially the Sandbox part. G.He 03:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per malformed RFA. Naconkantari 03:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per Rory. Don't like practical joke on talk (for admins), nor refusal to use email (useful sometimes to go off-wiki). Would like to see more use of edit summaries and participation in AfD. Vandalfighting and RfA contribs both positive, though RadioKirk makes good point (neutral 1). --Chaser (T) 03:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose (changed from neutral). You cannot be a janitor without the ability to get the memos. Period. (Per answer to User:FloNight's question below.) RadioKirk talk to me 04:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose Sorry, must oppose this time. Lack of understanding of admin role on Wikipedia is highlighted by refusal to activate Wikipedia email. Email is essential for discussing banned users, complex vandals and such. FloNight talk 04:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. — May. 27, '06 [05:01] <freak|talk>
  9. Oppose Refusal to activate Wikipedia email bothers me. Also answers for the questions are not at all satisfactory. Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 05:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose - questions worry me, "vandals better watch out" - we do not "war" with vandals, we only use the tools if utterly necessary, it just raises some concerns. Maybe later but not now -- Tawker 05:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  11. Fairly strong oppose I rarely oppose at RfA, believing that support is apporpriate for every user about whom it can safely be said that he/she is likelier to use the tools for good (even if rarely) than for bad. Here, even as I am confident that the user would not be volitionally disruptive with the admin tools, I have serious questions about the user's sometimes acollaborative disposition (unilateralism in action is, to be sure, an unattractive quality in a prospective admin; admins generally serve only to carry out the wishes of the community, interpreting various discussions in order to ascertain where the consensus lies and ought generally to be ministerial) and in any case about his fitness to use the mop, etc.--either an ignorance of policy or a good-faith belief that one is acting for the betterment of the encyclopedia, notwithstanding that others disagree might well lead to his acting inappropriately/incorrectly. Finally, I am very concerned about the page moves; setting aside that many were made without any talk page discussion, some surely contravene policy (e.g., the pagemove "correction" of "theatre" to "theater"; the MoS cautions against such BE/AE moves). Joe 06:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose - per apparent lack of understand over MoS spelling conventions. This is a personal bugbear of mine and i would really hope an admin would know better than to Americanize articles that have little to do with the USA and everything to do with other english speaking countries, e.g. Middle Eastern theatre of World War I. Come back after more experience and i may support. Rockpocket -talk- 07:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose. I must oppose because he refuses to activate his email, seems confrontational, and answered the questions poorly. --Danaman5 07:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

#Neutral and this was another tough one. I like the user's edits and experience overall, but the "damn the vandals, full speed ahead" attitude worries me. Part of the purpose of holding the mop is knowing when not to use it—when, instead, a seeming mess is actually a culture needing the right ingredient to grow rather than fester (okay, is this hokey enough yet? [grin]). When this user helps a few more "vandals" who mean well, I'll be happy to move into the support column. RadioKirk talk to me 02:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
At the risk of a pile-on, see oppose. RadioKirk talk to me 04:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
As a side note to that, I'm surprised you're not concerned by a malformed RFA. Just noting that most users would be concerned about that (showing that candidate may be inexperienced), nor are you concerned by the closeness of this RFA to his last (20 days). We need more people assuming good faith like you. NSLE (T+C) at 02:53 UTC (2006-05-27)
LOL, thanks. Seriously, though, given my experience, I still had a little fun properly formatting the one nom I've made to date (and I'm not exactly slow, if I may say so [grin]), so I tend to not hold that in such high regard. :) RadioKirk talk to me 03:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  1. Neutral as per concerns raised in oppose and neutral votes. --Terence Ong 02:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral I don't really see a point in opposing. Minor mistakes in creating an RfA don't bother me all that much--it can be a little confusing--but this is a bit more than just minor mistakes. On a self-nom I'd like to see some really clear evidence that the user is involved in the community or has made very significant contributions before I could support. Editcount looks good, and he seems to be on the right track--but I'd prefer if he wait at least one to two months before requesting adminship again, and preferably if someone else nominates him. Then I may even be able to support. I'd also like to suggest that he withdraw the nomination, as this is going to turn into a bloodbath before long. AmiDaniel (talk) 03:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
    Another note: Answers to questions demonstrate a relative lack of understanding of what SysOps actually do, and the fact that he refuses to enable his e-mail makes me a bit uncomfortable if he's going to have blocking ability. AmiDaniel (talk) 03:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Username Brendenhull
Total edits 2757
Distinct pages edited 985
Average edits/page 2.799
First edit 18:53, February 18, 2006

(main) 510
Talk 56
User 347
User talk 856
Image 5
Image talk 1
Template 48
Template talk 8
Help 1
Wikipedia 914
Wikipedia talk 11

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 would like helping with all the sysop chores (mainly just blocks and protects.) I will use those two extra powers to fight every vandal I see. Those vandals better watch out! — Brendenhull 02:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: My favorite contributions are (again) those were I reverted vandalism. I have only been using VandalProof for about a month, and I have reverted so much I can barely keep up with it. — Brendenhull 02:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
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 have been in a conflict in the past, when I was new to Wikipedia. I was debating the number of U.S. soldiers killed at Okinawa. I dealt with that by realizing that I had to enter an edit summary. — Brendenhull 02:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Question from FloNight
You do not have your Wikipedia email activated. Why? Could you activate it now? FloNight talk 03:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not have e-mail activated because I do not want to receive e-mail. E-mail annoys me, and you can always post a message on my talk page. — Brendenhull 03:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Not if you blocked them. --Rory096 03:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Questions from Rory096. All questions are optional.
  1. Why did you revert [3]? It seems rather benign (actually it was the anon fixing his own vandalism, then you reverted to the vandalized version, but that's not relevant, because even without knowing that I'm not sure why it would be viewed as vandalism).
    A:
  2. Why did you move Freedom Tower, Miami, without commenting on the talk page of that article about a move, despite there being no consensus (even consensus against it) on the talk page to move that article?
    A:
    Can you go through [4] and explain every move you have done there? --Rory096 03:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
    A: OK, strike that, I was told it's unfair to make you do that, and I should ask questions for the ones I'm concerned about.
  3. Why did you move Template:Bad username block to Template:BadUsernameBlocked (both now deleted)? Are you aware that we don't normally use CamelCase in titles (unless it's the name of the subject) anymore?
    A:
  4. Why did you move Middle Eastern theatre of World War I to Middle Eastern theater of World War I and Template:ASUE organisation to Template:ASUE organization with the reason "spelling?" Are you familiar with the MoS that instructs editors not to change UK/US spelling?
    A:
  5. Why did you move Joseph Stalin to Josef Stalin, Confederate States of America to Confederate States and NATO to North Atlantic Treaty Organisation without discussion on the talk or WP:RM? Are you familiar with Naming conventions (use common names) and the custom to get consensus before moving popular pages?
    A:
  6. Why did you move World War II casualties, Military history of the United States, Music genre and Indian Ocean raid to World War II Casualties, Military History of the United States, Music Genre and Indian Ocean Raid, respectively? Are you familiar with the capitalization naming conventions?
    A:
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 talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.