Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BradBeattie

BradBeattie

Voice your opinion (0/5/2) Ending 19:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

BradBeattie (talk · contribs) – I'd like to nominate myself for adminship. I've been working fairly diligently at improving the quality of Wikipedia for some time now. My recent efforts have been focusing on reverting vandalism, and I gather the adminship would assist me in those efforts. BradBeattie 19:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

As a matter of protocol, I accept my own nomination.

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: My main efforts would be in vandalism reverting, as they have been for some time.

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

A: Some time ago, I started the article 0.999. It's grown from a stub to a well-formed article that I'm pleased with. My efforts to pare down the fan-cruft on Thief (computer game series) were well recieved by those watching the page at the time.

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 honestly can't quite recall any such incidents of conflict. Regarding stress, I tend to try to pace myself. An hour one day, an hour the next. Moderation in all things, right?

General comments

• See BradBeattie's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.

BradBeattie's editcount stats summary as of 21:15, October 18 2006, using Interiot's tool. (aeropagitica) 21:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Discussion (for expressing views without numbering)

Support

Oppose

1. Oppose. Posted before questions are answered and very weak self-nomination statement. Please read through some of the other examples here to see what is expected in a nomination. --StuffOfInterest 19:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose Less than 1500 edits in two and a half years and originally malformed. Michael 19:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose 1500 edits is too few for 2 and a half years. If you were to make a very large amount of contributions to the project, I will possibly support if you RFA again. Hello32020 19:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose, weak answers, not as active as one would like in an administrator, and little encyclopedic contribution. T REX_speak 20:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose. I have an internal policy to not oppose good faith requests for adminship even when they obviously won't prosper. However, in this case, I'd like to offer some advice, having just done a quick glance at your last 50 edits. You're using automated software to vandalhunt, and that's fine. But you're not following through. You need to warn the majority of the people you reverted. Not all of them per se - there are many reasons to not warn - but you don't appear to be warning any of them at all. So when they "reoffend", the next editor to review them will have no idea they are a known vandal. So vital minutes can be lost whilst someone else applies the needed warnings and requests a block. The inability to see the bigger picture is to be expected when you first get your hands on an automated editing tool of any type. But not just before you ask the community to give you buttons you need to prove you know how to use. Sorry. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Don't be discouraged by this RfA. I recomend that you withdraw and submit again after some more experience. Also be sure to provide more descriptive answers next time around, as that would improve your chances of getting support from users who had not had contaact with you in the past - Mike | Talk 20:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral You are on the way to being an admin but I don't think that you are there yet. Redvers makes a key point above - you have to talk to editors to remind them of their responsibilities. An admin has to be preprared to talk about each and every action they or someone that they are interacting with has performed. Not informing vandals that they have had their efforts reverted is harming their efforts to be good contributors and other editors/admins efforts to stop persistent vandalism. Other than that, I see that you participate in XfD discussions, which is good, but difs such as [1], [2], [3], [4] and [5] don't refer to policies and guidelines such as WP:BIO, WP:NOT and WP:SOFTWARE. It is always good to use policies and guidelines to justify your actions because our decisions then are not arbitary; it also helps to demonstrate that an editor has a firm grasp of the principles of Wikipedia. Keep editing and keep improving and you will be on your way to admin status in another few months' time. (aeropagitica) 21:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)