Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Brianreading

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.

Contents

[edit] Brianreading

Final (1/8/1); Closed by AGK (contact) at 22:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Brianreading (talk · contribs) - As an editor on Wikipedia for several years now, I feel I may have the skills and understanding necessary to be a successful admin. Since last year, I have become a far more frequent contributor to Wikipedia, and have been a daily visitor for quite some time now. I realize a lengthy introduction of myself is not really an adequate indicator for adminship, so I'll let my fellow Wikipedians ask the questions now. Brianreading (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2008 (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 intend to participate in whatever admin work is most needed. Protecting the integrity of Wikipedia is my overall goal. Specifically, as a U.S. Wikipedian, I would be able to fill in gaps when most other American admins would be asleep. My typical editing hours are between 10PM and 4AM CST.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I'm particularly fond of my contributions to University of Houston related articles and my contributions to the Windows Mobile article. I feel that my contributions were influential in these articles becoming Good articles.
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've been in a few conflicts in my time at Wikipedia. I've dealt with such conflicts by using the talk-page to cite Wikipedia guidelines and my reasoning followed by seeking input from other users who have contributed to the content in question and from third-party Wikipedians. I've also worked with admins to enact adequate levels of page protection when necessary.

Optional questions from User:Dlohcierekim that he lifted form User:Benon who got them from Tawker, JoshuaZ, Rob Church, NSLE. They are 100% optional but may help myself or other voters decide. Some of these are not specifically related to your areas of interest. If I have already voted please feel free to ignore these questions though other editors might find them to be of use. You can also remove the questions you don't want to touch if you like.

4. You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?
A-
5. An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?
A-
6. If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?
A-
7. Under what circumstances would you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?
A-
8. Suppose you are closing an AfD where it would be keep if one counted certain votes that you suspect are sockpuppets/meatpuppets and would be delete otherwise. The RCU returns inconclusive, what do you do? Is your answer any different if the two possibilities are between no consensus and delete?
A-
9. Do you believe there is a minimum number of people who need to express their opinions in order to reasonably close an AfD? If so, what is that number? What about RfDs and CfDs?
A-
10. At times, administrators have experienced, or have been close to burnout due to a mixture of stress and conflict inherent in a collaborative web site of this nature. Do you feel able to justify yourself under pressure, and to not permit stress to become overwhelming and cause undesirable or confused behaviour?
A-
11. Why do you want to be an administrator?
A —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlohcierekim (talk • contribs) 21:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

RfAs for this user:

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

    [edit] Discussion

    [edit] Support
    1. This is for some moral support. You're on the right track. Come back in 3-6 months after getting an admin coach, and continuing editing. Malinaccier (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
    [edit] Oppose
    1. Although you have good experience with consensus and community decision etcetera. you lack the vital Wikipedia experience I'd expect in an administrator candidate, and the answers to the questions are a little insufficient. You are on the right track, but I'd suggest you try again in a few months time. Regards, Rudget. 19:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
    2. Oppose Would you like to expand a little more on the questions? Like in question 1., could you state what exactly is "whatever admin work is most needed" that you will be working on? SpencerT♦C 19:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
    3. Oppose - Per above, sorry insufficient experience. You look like a great article builder/contributor, but there are bureaucratic areas of Wikipedia that you need to participate in before you have my support. I'd give it another 3 months and come back, my vote should be under the support heading. Cheers. Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
    4. Oppose - answer to Q1 is too vague and generic; I'm not sure I follow your time-zone logic, either. TreasuryTag talkcontribs 19:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
    5. Oppose - Contributions show a distinct lack of communication and consensus building (Less than 1/5 of this user's edits are in talkspace). Admins have to be able to take and respond well to flak and I don't think a couple hundred talkspace edits is enough to develop this, and with no single talk page with more than 20 posts I worry that this user would rather post and run. Adam McCormick (talk) 19:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
      While I don't disagree with your basic point (inexperience with discussion and controversy being a problem), it's not unreasonable for a user to have a lower proportion of talk-space contributions if they edit in less controversial areas and don't make problematic edits. I'm also not sure why you'd be looking for more than 20 edits to the same talk page? Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
    6. Oppose Good user and contributor, however this RFA is premature. I would probably support an RFA 5-6 months later Alexfusco5 20:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
    7. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 21:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
      I'm happy to see you have returned to full-time participation at RfA. I've missed your humorous comments ;-) EJF (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
    8. Oppose. A friendly editor, but weak answers and lack of experience concern me. --TBC!?! 21:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
    [edit] Neutral
    1. Unlike Kurt, I don't believe this candidate exhibits power hunger. That said, I would like some more experience in the Wikipedia-space. Despite this, you aren't very far away from fulfilling my criteria for support. By the way, you do not need 20% of your edits to be in the talkspace, most people would not expect that. I hope you act on the concerns and come back in a few months with some more experience. Sincerely, EJF (talk) 21:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
    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.