Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anthony.bradbury 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by HumanThing (talk | contribs) at 02:32, 26 March 2007 (→‎[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anthony.bradbury 2|Anthony.bradbury]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Anthony.bradbury

Voice your opinion (67/0/0); Scheduled to end 23:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Anthony.bradbury (talk · contribs) - Members of the Jury, I present to you Anthony.bradbury for your consideration. A GP by profession, and a member of wikipedia since April 2006. In his time here, he has gained nearly 6,000 edits with around 1,800 of these in mainspace. Since his last Rfa he has gained far more experience in wikipedia space which was the primary concern for the opposing parties. Anthony does great work with tagging articles for speedy deletion and always informs the editor in question that their article has been tagged, something which often helps newbies understand why their article has disappeared, giving him the mop would be a great benefit in helping out with the backlogs at CAT:CSD. Anthony does great work at Afd where he always gives a very reasoned responce to his comment, showing a very strong understanding of deletion policy and also relevent inclusion criteria, he would do great work in closing these with his eye for consensus. He has also been involved with the Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User program, helping a number of users begin their wiki lives, this actually shows a wider tendency of Anthony trying to help and welcome newcomers as much as possible. All in all, I think Anthony would be a great asset to the administration, and with his firm grasp of policy and guidlines, he would always follow procedures correctly. I ask that you help me give him the mop, bucket and any other tools which would help him further his wikipedia career. Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 16:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the honour of this nomination with due gratitude and humility.--Anthony.bradbury 23:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional statement from candidate -During my previous RfA it became obvious to me, and to the community, that in spite of the confidence of my nominator of the time, I was deficient in understanding some important aspects of WP:NAMESPACE. I have worked hard since then, with contributions in most aspects of WP:POLICY, and believe that this deficiency no longer exists. I have contributed extensively to WP:AfD, and significantly to WP:RfA, WP:AIV, and to the various WP:PUMP pages. I was able to get adopted (in concert with other users) as policy the long-term semi-protection of particularly vulnerable articles such as Auschwitz concentration camp. I will concede that my experience in image manipulation is minimal; as there are many admins, many of whom are experts in this area, I would expect not significantly to undertake admin duties in this field until I acquire expertise therein, which I intend to do as soon as is possible.--Anthony.bradbury 23:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: My major area of interest, apart from article writing which I intend to continue with, and which requires neither mop nor bucket, is in anti-vandal activity. I would therefore expect to spend a great deal of time in WP:CSD, and at least enough time in WP:AIV, which would immediately go on my watchlist. I also anticipate closing WP:AfD discussions; while I am aware that non-admin editors can close these in certain circumstances, I have chosen not to do so. I am aware of the ability of admins to block editors, and would do so where I thought it appropriate; I would always regard it as a last resort, to be used only if an editor could not be brought into the community. The ability of an admin to delete or to protect an article should go without saying; I mention them only in order to make it clear that I am prepared to do this as and when it appears appropriate. I will also hold myself available, as far as is possible, to respond to personal requests , either on talk-page or by e-mail, for admin assistance.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I have to admit that I have written no articles which are likely to achieve FA or even GA status; I tend to write short articles of only one or two pages, which tend not to be considered for this status. I am, however, pleased with the long series of articles which I contributed on the Ironclad Battleships of the Victorian Era. This was, I feel, a major gap in the naval area of Wikipedia which I was able to at least make a significant contribution to. I am also pleased with my contributions to Auschwitz concentration camp and to the talk page associated with the article (where I felt I had made significant points against Holocaust denial), although I must stipulate that the article existed before my involvement in it.
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: As a new page patroller, I have received a large number of offensive edits from editors whose vandalism pages I have tagged, and my own userpage has been vandalised fifty times to date. This has really not caused me any stress - I have accepted it as part of the penalty of telling editors who add obscene or mindless edits that this is not what wikipedia is about. I have to date avoided any edit wars, and seriously hope and intend to go on doing so.
Optional question from WJBscribe (talk · contribs)
4. Your use of edit summaries for minor edits seems very low. Is there a reason for this? If you propose to use edit summaries more consistently in future, would you be willing to change your preferences to remind you when you leave a blank edit summary?
A:I admit the fault. I have developed what I fully accept is the bad habit of often not leaving summaries with correction of typos and punctuation errors, particularly in comments which I have myself added. My bad. I have now enabled forced edit summaries in my preferences, which will eradicate this habit at a stroke.
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. Strong support as nom - need I say more? Best of luck Anthony Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 23:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support of course! I supported last time, no reason not to now :) Majorly (o rly?) 23:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support good user. Captain panda In vino veritas 23:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support some more! Melchoir 23:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - I've seen you just about everywhere and yes, I'd trust you with the tools. Everything checks out - Alison☺ 23:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. It doesn't matter why I'm supporting! Rama's arrow 23:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - The big guy upstairs made me do it! Honest :-p Matthew 23:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - the previous RfA concern was lack of project space experience, which has been fixed. Addhoc 23:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Weak Support I would have liked to see some more article writing, but he has demonstrated a need for some extra buttons, so good luck Anthony! gaillimhConas tá tú? 00:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I like what I see. El_C 00:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Strong support I would have nominated Anthony myself, but have been traveling a lot recently and haven't had the time. I have been closely following Anthony's Wikipedia career since I did an informal editor review of him at the start of the year. He is a reliable and dedicated contributor and vandal fighter who has a strong grasp of policy and the right temperament to step up to a greater contribution. He will make an excellent administrator. Gwernol 00:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Strong support Always struck me as a responsible editor. I was peripherally involved when he first proposed (on the pump if I remember correctly) the tweak to the semi-protection policy and I thought he did a good job of stating his case patiently. Concerns of previous RfA seem to have been resolved. Pascal.Tesson 00:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Per nom. --Xnuala (talk) 00:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support without reservations, fully qualified candidate with an excellent record. Newyorkbrad 00:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Sypport Very good editor. Per all above. The Evil Clown Please review me! 01:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Yes, please. I opposed the last time, but Anthony has since improved exponentially, with varied participation in XfDs and WP:ADOPT. A civil, reliable, dedicated editor, who responds well to criticism, gets along nicely with everyone, has a good grasp of policy, and would do very well with the bit. (Consider this an informal, mini-conomination statement, because I was thinking about asking you sometime again!) Good stuff. – Riana ঋ 01:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Hmm, I thought you succeeded in your last RFA. --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 01:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Khoikhoi 02:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support - I believe you'll be a good admin--$UIT 03:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. WjBscribe 03:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Strong Support A dedicated, level-headed user who would make a great Administrator. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 03:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Of.course :) Anthony was a legitimate case of a "Not one already? Wow" candidate, for me; I was totally shocked by this nomination due to this. Daniel Bryant 03:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support due to significant improvement since previous nom. I think Anthony will be an excellent admin. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support semper fictilis 04:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support - Denny 06:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Will make a fine admin, though I saw this edit and thought potential admin advocating removal of notices, was definately an oppose, then saw you corrected it ;). Good luck Khukri 08:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 08:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support a good candidate --Steve (Stephen) talk 09:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Trying to think of some GP-related pun to accompany this support !vote, but can't. Candidate's adminship will be good for the health of Wikipedia in any case. Bubba hotep 10:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    *sigh* ... ;) – Riana ঋ 10:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support - virtually everything of relevance checks out, I trust the nominator, looks like another fine addition to the Brit Cabal. Just so long as you really do slay those backlogs when our American comrades are slumbering :) Moreschi Request a recording? 10:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support sure. - Anas talk? 12:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support - Another one who is already a semi-admin, once he gets the lock, keys, deletion tools and all, well, he'll do even better than he does now! . --sunstar nettalk 12:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. I have seen nothing but good work from Anthony since he joined a year ago. Shimgray | talk | 12:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support For the sheer volume of output on a wide range of topics since becoming an editor, for the tireless new page patrolling and for the support given to new users among other ways via the adoption programme. I think this level of commitment to the ideals of Wikipedia means the case for adminship is very strong. Davidelit 13:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Excellent candidate; another cliche moment. Xoloz 15:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support okay. -Lapinmies 15:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Dedicated user, makes a great candidate. Hello32020 16:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Was happy to support before, am happy to support again. Agent 86 18:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support, there's no reason not to! --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 19:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Looks good. --Mschel 19:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. Outstanding editor. A Train take the 19:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. Excellent response to my concerns last time around and, as far as I can tell, a flawless record since then. He will do great work, so I'm pleased to support. Rockpocket 21:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Cliched Support. Need I say more? bibliomaniac15 21:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. Definitely mopworthy. Grutness...wha? 21:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Now that the edit summary thing is out of the way, I fully support this stellar nomination. Gutworth 22:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support excellent, and now experienced.-- danntm T C 22:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support' Anthony is a great user who will be a great administrator. Cbrown1023 talk 23:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support John254 00:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support! —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-25 00:55Z
  51. Support per nom. I was sure I had already. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. I don't always agree with him, but he will never abuse the tools. A very good candidate. --Guinnog 01:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support I've seen Anthony around - he's definitely admin material. YechielMan 02:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support per above. gidonb 03:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support - (Dr) Richard Cavell 05:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. Great contributor, much improvement since last RfA. utcursch | talk 06:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Former opposer's support! MaxSem 09:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support - Overall very good candidate. Would have preferred to see a full 6 months since last RfA, but I believe those concerns have been well adressed now. Give the guy his mop and let him get to work already! Wikidenizen 11:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support - no problemo. The Rambling Man 17:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. 2 IFC-high Support [1] Will definitely make an outstanding admin.--Húsönd 18:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support Should be an admin by now. --Meno25 18:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support —dgiestc 19:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. 64 Support. Anthony has definitely demonstrated his knowledge of policy, and has shown great work as an editor. He's definitely improved since his last RfA, so I think he's ready for the tools. Nishkid64 20:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support Good user. There's no reason I can see why he should not be an admin. IMHO he should have been an admin already.--Hirak 99 22:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support Seems reliable. Also his total edits and mainspace edits are high enough. --James, La gloria è a dio 23:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Strong Support Definitely. I was neutral last time but I'm going strong this time. Great user. James086Talk | Email 00:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support Support, but urge not to delete too many articles. Obscure ones are important!HumanThing 02:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. V gubhtug ur nyernql jnf na nqzva! --Slowking Man 00:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose I was going to support until I saw this edit. It is extremely improper to tell people about an RfA simply to get their !vote, and to go as far as to ask another user to do it is even more unacceptable. I am changing to no !vote, as that is the wisest thing to do. Acalamari 00:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not trying to change your vote, but I think the dynamic is somewhat different in this case. AFAIK Gwernol and Anthony are close, Gwernol has offered to nominate Anthony on previous occasions, and is currently busy with RL stuff, so I think it's reasonable to ask Ryan to drop Gwernol a note. – Riana ঋ 00:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This wasn't canvassing, Anthony simple asked that I told Gwernol about his Rfa, as he was originally going to offer nomination, and there has been email corespondance about who is going to nominate, it was simply a courteous thing to do Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 00:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Might I also add, that you have had a link to your own Rfa on your userpage which seams far more like canvassing to me Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 00:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In a recent RfA, a potential nominator expressed dissatisfaction at the nominee for not accepting their nomination or keeping them "in the loop". With that in mind, is seems both polite and prudent of Anthony to ask that another potential nominator be updated. Asking his actual nominator, rather than doing it himself, appears to me to be an effort to avoid the appearance of canvassing. Seems you can't win at RfA these days no matter what you do. Rockpocket 00:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems pretty unfair to hold this against Anthony and it's not assuming good faith. That request was communication with a friend, not canvassing. There's no evidence whatsoever that there was active campaigning, even on a small scale and Antony even notes that he does not want this notification to be part of a canvassing programme. Pascal.Tesson 17:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral An excellent candidate, if not for the edit summary usage (an issue already brought up in his previous RfA). I'll change to support if I see a substantial improvement in the next few days, especially for minor edits.--Húsönd 03:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, edit summary is a bit below average (if there was an average...), but a way around it is the "force edit summary" option in the user preferences. That could keep everyone satisfied? Just my thoughts, Spawn Man 07:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would be an effective solution if Anthony enables that preference.--Húsönd 15:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Enabled --Anthony.bradbury 17:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to support. :-) --Húsönd 18:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Anthony.bradbury_2&oldid=117901096"