Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anthony.bradbury

Add links
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.

Anthony.bradbury

[edit]

Final (36/21/14) Ended Thu, 30 Nov 2006 02:49:59 (UTC)

Anthony.bradbury (talk · contribs) – I welcomed Anthony in April after he wrote Zone of immunity, and I was immediately impressed by his respect for Wikipedia and for other editors. Since then, that respect has manifested as a dedication to the project, as he's logged more than 3000 edits, mostly to articles and user talk pages. Anthony is most notably the author of many articles on Victorian ironclad batleships such as HMS Hero (1885). Messages to and from Anthony reflect a civil and productive-minded tone.

I think two things are important about Anthony with respect to adminship. He is enthusiastic about dealing with new editors, whether that means Newpages Patrolling and vandalism control on the one hand, or welcoming them on the other. And while he uses the template messages well, he frequently follows up with his own specific comments, making himself a more effective communicator. Second, while he is confident about carrying out the processes he understands well, such as WP:CSD, he is cautious and seeks out advice when approaching new tasks. I have no doubt that Anthony can be trusted to use the admin tools carefully and wisely. Melchoir 03:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept the nomination and thank my nominator for his confidence in me.

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.
Gradually, since becoming a part of the Wikipedia Community, I have become increasingly focussed on maintaining the purity of our encyclopedia, which is the desired end-result of the vast majority of editors but is threatened by a small minority of vandals, and to a lesser extent by inexperienced users who commit what might be seen as acts of vandalism accidentally. I would anticipate warning the vandals, or blocking them if they have reached their tolerance limit, and helping the serious but inexperienced users. I expect, therefore, if given the tools, to spend a lot of time working in CAT:CSD. I note that, as of this moment, the speedy-delete backlog is 61 articles. I will also be keeping a close watch on WP:AFD, and would be prepared to close discussions there, although in the event of it being difficult to assess consensus I might well, while gaining experience, seek the advice of a longer-serving admin. I would also like to spend some time in reducing the other backlogs, some of which are extremely long. An important page to watch is CAT:RFU, which currently stands at ten requests. While most blocks are intentional, some are accidental, and it is important to unblock innocent editors as soon as possible If my nomination succeeds I will also place WP:AIV on my watch-list and closely monitor it. While these would be my main areas of activity, I would be prepared to undertake any other admin activity requested, which I felt competent to do.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
There is no single article which qualifies here, but I have produced a long series of articles about British ironclad battleships of the Victorian era; starting from the article on HMS Warrior, which already existed, I worked through the complete series, except for two or three pre-existing articles, to the end of the Admirals. When I started, it seemed to me to be a significant part of Britain's naval history which wikipedia should be covering, but at the time was not.
One contribution which I felt very deeply about, but which deals with an emotional and subjective issue, and furthermore was on a talk-page, is a small collection comments which I have posted on the discussion page of the article on Auschwitz concentration camp. The posts were made to counter certain assertions made by holocaust-deniers, and relate to an issue about which I feel strongly. But, as I say, it is an emotional issue.
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?
I have not been directly involved in any conflicts. There have been two occasions where I have put a {{speedy}} tag on an article, the article being perfectly seriously written but in my view qualifying for tagging and the original editor has removed the tag and sent quite long comments to my talk page. On both occasions an AfD tag was placed (once by me, once by another editor) and I then took no further part in the discussion; specifically because I felt that a talk-page argument or an edit war would be wholly counter-productive. Obviously, vandals have objected to their articles being {{speedy}} tagged, and have vandalised my talk page (36 times to date), but these are not, in my view, true conflicts in the sense meant by this question.

Question from Newyorkbrad

4. Will you agree to address the issue raised below concerning your edit summary usage by adjusting your Preferences so as to automatically prompt for a summary when you inadvertently fail to provide one?
Certainly. I accept the point, and recognise that when working on newpage patrol, particularly at busy times of the day, I have sometimes had a tendency to go straight to "save" so as to get back to the newpages. But it is accidental, and occasional, and I always rebuke myself at the time!--Anthony.bradbury 11:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Preference reset as promised.--Anthony.bradbury 22:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
General comments

Discussion

Support

  1. Looks good. El_C 23:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support John254 00:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Looks like a good user. 1ne 00:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding Melchoir's presumed support (he's the nominator). 1ne 00:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe you should tell him on his talk page so he can add his own name? semper fi — Moe 01:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, if the nominator does not add his own support then so be it. – Chacor 01:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sorry, I've been away! Thanksgiving, family and so forth. You can count this slot as my support vote. Melchoir 08:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support I see no issues. Canadian-Bacon t c 00:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC) Switched to Oppose Canadian-Bacon t c 20:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC) Vote switched back to Support per demonstrated civility. Canadian-Bacon 03:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Solid contributor - no hesitation. Rama's arrow 01:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support despite Wikipedia namespace gaffe. Anyone who has been vandalized 38 times is probably doing something right. Edit counts are OK. Lack of namespace count just means he ws contributing elsewhere. Seemed to remain calm and civil despite possible troll back in October. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC) Switch to oppose Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 16:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. I have found Tony to be a very helpful and affable fellow in all of my encounters with him. I enthusiastically support his RFA mainly because his attitude and demeanor are so positive---he wants only to improve Wikipedia, and I haven't any doubt of that. ---Charles 02:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. He does the right thing by Wikipedia everytime. Good luck! Downunda 03:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support an excellent, dedicated contributor. I disagree with the suggestion that one must have experience in every area of the project to be qualified for adminship. Newyorkbrad 03:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support I come across this editor all the time on new page patrol; their usage of the admin tools would only enhance the project. (aeropagitica) 05:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - Qualified contributor, and is an excellent Wikipedian - met him on RC patrol, reverting vandalism. –- kungming·2 (Talk) 07:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support, and to those opposing him on the grounds that he has not participated enough in the Wikipedia namespace: Don't forget that we are above all an encyclopaedia, not a political experiment. What does it matter if he doesn't know all the intricacies of the system? He's good at what he does, and having admin tools would make him more efficient. That's it. We're not here to judge whether he's going to be a major player in the Wikipedia namespace, we're here to judge whether he can be trusted to use these tools. And I believe he can. yandman 10:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support: Once again, a good editor is in danger of being rejected because he actually creates and edits articles. A small number of edits in the Wikipedia namespace doesn't equal inexperience with AfD, AIV etc. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 11:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support good, sensible user. Good luck! --Majorly (Talk) 13:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support A good editor how seems to focus on the encyclopedia proper.-- danntm T C 14:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - less experienced than some, but a good thoughtful editor. He will make good use of the admin tools on rc patrol and cleanup. Tom Harrison Talk 15:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Helpful, courteous, and seems to be a wonderful candidate for adminship. Gphototalk 16:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support — I see nothing that worries me, He seems knowledgeable and respectable, never ran in to him but I've seen him around and he seems to be a fine contributor . thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Sensible-seeming fellow, who I'm confident will help out where he can and tread cautiously where he lacks experience. And lord knows we need the manpower. --RobthTalk 18:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support - edit summaries are easy to fix and when people create articles saying "FatBoy last night stole his Mum's credit card to pay for porn and his girlfriend is a slut who likes cock more than she does food" - sorry for the crudeness, but I have seen all of that and worse on NP patrol - then there is zero point in wasting your time giving out these deletion templates. Looks like a good editor who is willing to learn more. Moreschi 19:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. It's time we got over namespace-itis. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 20:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. After considering the nomination, looking at the record, and balancing the concerns below, I'm confident this nominee will make a good admin. Agent 86 20:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support - Anthony is a very measured user so I don't think he will start making any adventurous use of the tools in areas where he is not familiar. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Unlikely to abuse admin tools.--Mike 23:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support - FireSpike Editor Review! 23:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support, looks good. Just needs more edits in the Wikipedia namespace, when he becomes an admin. --Terence Ong (C | R) 03:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support: overall seems a good Wikipedian. Has made vast anti-vandalism edits, as well as numerous cleanup duties such as article tagging. In my opinion Tony (Anthony) seems to deserve sysop functions to benefit him in his fight against vandalism. Cheers, User:Anthony_cfc
  28. Support For commitment to the ideals of Wikipedia as a shared knowledge resource, willingness to assist others (including adopting, new page patrolling and battling vandalism) sometimes in the face of offensive personal attacks, range and depth of contributions, including significant expansion of the Victorian battleships section. Good luck! Davidelit 10:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support No compelling reasons to oppose. Catchpole 11:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Seeams good and comments in "Oppose" makes no a seriously sense.MustTC 13:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support, a very promising editor, with a strong knowledge in his field of expertise. To those that object to his nomination on the grounds of wikispace, please keep in mind that our first duty is to right an encyclopedia, and that the rest is sencondary.--Aldux 14:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. support --Dario vet 13:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support This user is very capable of using the tools, great vandal-fighter. Hello32020 15:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Inexperience is secondary to desire to improve Wikipedia. Yankee Rajput 21:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support A good communicator, regular contributor who has shown a good mix of involvement. LittleOldMe 15:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support No compelling reasons to oppose. Lots of nitpicking oppose votes don't cancel the positives. --Calton | Talk 01:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Although his editcount is steady enough as it now stands, I don't think he's ready just yet. Weak Oppose per edit summary performance (79% major/40% minor) and for taking RFA risks less than two weeks too soon. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 00:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    RfA risks? not sure I understand that. ST47Talk 00:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, remember that edit summaries aren't the biggest thing in the world... 1ne 00:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry: I am more than willing to answer questions, but what are RfA risks?--Anthony.bradbury 00:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    By "RFA risks", I was stating that I will, at most times, support admin candidates who have been on Wikipedia for exactly eight months or more. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 00:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    My first article was, I concede, submitted on April 2, which falls short of your parameter by just over a week.--Anthony.bradbury 00:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Individual !voters' time-on-site guidelines vary from 3 months to a year or more. I've heard of 3 months, 6 months, 9 months, but 8 months is a new one for me and I don't think we can fault the candidate either for being unfamiliar with one user's guideline or not waiting another week in deference to it. See my question above for a possible way the candidate could address the edit summary concern. Newyorkbrad 03:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Falls short of my criteria in Wikipedia namespace, only 107 edits my indicate a lack of experience in communication with the community in key aspects like AFD and other participation in other Wikipedia namespace areas. Edit summary usage is generally low, as stated above. His logs show that he hasn't uploaded any Images yet, and I find it hard to trust someone in an area where he may work with adminship tools, when he has no prior experience of it himself. Literally only 1 edit to the Image namespace, 0 to the template and 0 to the category namespace. I can't trust someone with absolutely no experience in the half of namespaces here (as indicated by his stats on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Anthony.bradbury). Edit count isn't important enough for it to matter here, but it's generally a little low for my standards. semper fi — Moe 01:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have something over 3,000 edits. I know not where your figure of 107 comes from, unless that is the number of complete, original articles, where it may be correct. If so, it does not include a very large number of additions to pre-existing articles, not to talk pages, nor does it include tagging of other editors' articles. I accept your comments about images, where I have a weakness, though not, I submit, in recognition of wiki policy breaches - an area which, as a non-admin, i have had no opportunity to demonstrate competence.--Anthony.bradbury 01:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    107 comes from here, specifically the first box and next to the word Wikipedia. That is your edit count for the Wikipedia namespace. I feel you should just get some experience editing Categories, Templates and Images before becoming an admin. I didn't say you breached any policies, but you may lack enough knowledge to make a correct decision given your weakness in editing there. semper fi — Moe 01:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think your viewpoint is very reasonable, but personally I can trust Anthony despite his lack on participation in those areas. When I wrote the nomination I didn't have this issue in mind, but as I mentioned, I'm confident that if he is called upon to make an admin decision in an area he isn't familiar with, he'll do whatever research and ask for whatever guidance is necessary -- and then some! Melchoir 09:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Because my neutral somehow got through w/out me seeing this reply from Anthony, I'm afraid I have to change to weak oppose. If you don't even know about the Wikipedia namespace... yikes. – Chacor 01:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I am aware of WP:NAMESPACE. I merely did not so stipulate.--Anthony.bradbury 01:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I was referring to your reply to Moe, where you say that "I know not where your figure of 107 comes from, unless that is the number of complete, original articles, where it may be correct." when he's clearly referred to the Wikipedia namespace. – Chacor 02:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. It's very late here (after 2 a.m.) and I misread it. Inexcusable, possibly.--Anthony.bradbury 02:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand. You might want to learn how to format comments in an RFA though, Dr. Tony [I just read your userpage and went o_O] :P – Chacor 02:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not, perhaps, if you say so, know how correctly to format comments on an RFA. I know only that, if allowed, I will do my utmost to preserve our encyclopedia in the form that we would like to see it. --Anthony.bradbury 02:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Chacor, I'm not sure how you intended this last, but it comes off as very petty sniping at the candidate. Many contributors (myself included) can't do fancy wiki-markup to save their lives, and I haven't seen it stopping anyone from doing good useful work. --RobthTalk 18:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Weak oppose. As much as we desperately need additional hands at C:CSD, you don't appear to take a thorough enough approach to deletion in general - or, more specifically, explaining it to newbies. For instance, in just the last few days you nominated the articles Dave Cunning and Kelly clark attorney with {{prod}}, but did not place the {{PRODWarning}} tag on the creators' talk pages. Similarly, Andra Cross and Mordechai Yosef Leiner were marked for speedy deletion, and neither creator was told about it. To be fair, you took the time to tell the creator of Harry Monroe Kemp that you'd prodded their article, but one out of all those really isn't enough. Each of these users was new to Wikipedia - most hadn't received any messages from other users, let alone been welcomed - so it's important that, when nominating the articles they create for deletion, you take the time to first welcome them to Wikipedia and then explain what is being done to their article. This avoids inadvertently biting the newbies, and can go a long way to reducing both the subsequent anger at seeing one's article removed, and the future creation of inappropriate articles. If you don't do this as a normal users on new page patrol, I can't be comfortable that you will do it as an administrator. Sorry. Daveydweeb (chat/review!) 03:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Both the Dave Cunning and Kelly Clark pages were, in my opinion, vanity pages, and both were competently written, which indicated to me (perhaps incorrectly), that their creators were familiar with Wikipedia.--Anthony.bradbury 11:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm kicking myself for not taking down the names of the creators of those pages, since they've now been deleted (damnit). Nevertheless, the fact that those were created at all indicates a certain level of unfamiliarity with Wikipedia -- as you said, they're vanity pages, like so many other speedy candidates -- which, if nothing else, indicates that those users did not understand at least one major guideline. Being able to write an article competently is not a skill unique to Wikipedia, so you need to consider that as well. In the future, it would be preferable if, when nominating any article for deletion, you inform the creator of both the action and your reason for doing so: at its most basic level, it's a simple courtesy, but when dealing with users who patently don't understand principles like WP:COI, it both offers them a chance to learn from it, and prevents the development of anger towards Wikipedia and Wikipedians in general. Daveydweeb (chat/review!) 00:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose- Not enough wikispace edits or CSD/Prod knowledge for me.  Jorcogα  05:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Anthony is a well-intended and constructive user, but if he is to adjudicate process it would help if he had some more experience with it first. (Radiant) 10:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose. Insufficient project-space participation suggests lack of familiarity with wiki-process. - crz crztalk 21:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose - Not enough experience in wikispace. And as a deletionist, I'm a believer in the process, which means if we delete something we HAVE to notify the author that it's up for deletion. I've mucked it up myself, but then again, I'm not running for admin, and with the reservations of others about experience, Wikispace edits, and WPtalk edits all motivate me to reluctantly but firmly oppose. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 00:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose lack of edit summary, lack of notification to authors of articles tagged for speedy deletion and other points raised in oppose section show a tendency to cut corners and absent-mindedly omit policies and guidelines he feels are not right or too time-consuming. Those should be addressed before joining adminship from a behavior and mindset point of view, not through a change in editing interface forcing an edit summary to be entered. Lostkiwi 05:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Weak oppose - falls just short of all my criteria, but just a little. Would most likly support in a month, although would suggest waiting two. --T-rex 18:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I know that I should really not join in too much here, but could you possibly stipulate what your criteria are?--Anthony.bradbury 18:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Criteria may have been the wrong word. In short I usally look for 9 months participation with wikipedia as well as experience within the image namespace. This is more of a postpone support till latter then a true oppose --T-rex 17:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose for reasons given here. Bubba ditto 20:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose per all of the above. Dionyseus 21:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose per lack of project participation and concern over answers to some oppose votes. Shell babelfish 13:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. switch to Oppose Needs more experience in admin related areas. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 16:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose yikes the wikispace isn't making me pleased...however if you work on in the next couple of months I will be glad to Support you.__Seadog ♪ 18:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose Crz read my mind -- insufficent wiki-process experience at this time. Xoloz 18:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, Xoloz, Crz committed an act of plagiarism. - crz crztalk 12:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I sure thought insufficient project-space participation suggests lack of familiarity with wiki-process sounded quite similar to a long-standing Xolozian formulation. Such plagiarism is, I think it quite plain, grounds for immediate recall. I tremble to think what might have befallen us had we made Crz a bureaucrat... :) Joe 06:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. dislike the interrogating of people on the oppose side. ... aa:talk 20:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose per above, primarily due to lack of experience in the WP namespace. I would probably support once the applicant gains more experience in the WP namespace. --Richard 01:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose per Radiant, Xoloz, etc. We don't need unexperienced admins who learn their craft by blocking the more experienced editors, as have been done recently. Better be safe than sorry. --Ghirla -трёп- 08:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose reluctantly per Daveydweeb's comments about handling newbies' new pages. My own example was 3 weeks ago on Honjaram when Anthony was prodding a village stub from India within 12 minutes of the article being started. His reply to me was straightforward and courteous though. Mereda 16:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Switch to Oppose per lack of project experience, and apparent WP:BITEing even though it may be inadvertant. Sorry. Canadian-Bacon t c 20:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Weak Oppose. I feel that the candidate is an outstanding editor. However, some more experience in admin-related areas would go a long way toward giving the community confidence in him having the tools. Particularly, the candidate should address accusations of WP:BITE and (as he's already done) try to use those edit summaries. Will gladly support in a few more months and with some more edits in the Wikipedia namespace. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 22:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral. Sorry, but 7 Wikipedia talk edits is too low for my taste. You need more policy discussion. -Amarkov blahedits 03:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral - edit summary usage doesn't really bother me, and while I don't normally like to see candidates responding to every opposer, your responses have been quite fair so far. However, for someone who wishes to work with CAT:CSD, your rate of warning people has been rather low. I'm honestly leaning towards support at this point, as I've always seen you doing great work otherwise, so if you could clear this up, I'd be grateful. riana_dzasta 04:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I do warn many people, often with a free text comment as well as a standard template. I sometimes do not warn users who submit edits which are obviously totally frivolous or inane, on the basis that it appears that they are not intending to take wikipedia seriously. I believe that I always warn account-holders, and I certainly would plan on warning serious newcomers. If there is a record of my not doing so, that is a failing on my part; but not an intentional one.--Anthony.bradbury 10:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood, and thanks for responding. Sadly I still feel unable to support, and I believe that, should this RfA not succeed, you will make a much stronger candidate given a few more months' experience under your belt. I would be happy to support at a later date. All the best, riana_dzasta 11:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral The concerns with experience and warning users about proposed deletions worry me but otherwise a good editor therefore: neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James086 (talk • contribs)
  4. Neutral. You would have had my strong support had you had a higher wikipedia space count, but I feel that it is too important to be overlooked. Even in an otherwise strong editor. ViridaeTalk 09:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral The low number of Wikipedia talk edits is a major concern for me. However your contributions to the other areas of this project is noted. Thus, I feel that you do not deserve an oppose opinion because of this. --Siva1979Talk to me 20:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral per inexperience in the project-space. Nishkid64 02:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral, recommend familiarisation with project-space pages, perhaps come back in a month or two. - Mailer Diablo 19:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral per all of above. Wikipedia space contributions are too low. I think someone else said somewhere, great article contributors are needed, but adminship won't usually help them. If someone can contribute to articles, but doesn't know ins and outs of policy, I'm not sure how this user can work well in their capacity as an admin. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 00:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral per Nishkid64. Sharkface217 04:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral Although I am very confident with you having the tools, I would recommend you earn a little more experience. All the best. ← ANAS Talk 14:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Neutral: Like others have said, I think a bit more experience in the WP namespace would be good. One other little teeny thing is that you might try to be a little calmer during vandal attacks than you were here (no offense taken, mind you, just a suggestion). Heimstern Läufer 22:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Future Support Looks all good except the experience. ~ trialsanderrors 05:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Neutral. Article-space contributions look good, but Wikipedia-space edits are seriously low for 3500+ edits. Unless you are some sort of Wikipedia-space prodigy, merely observing the backlogs that will need to be tended to on becoming an admin is certainly not enough preparation! I have no other concerns, so I'd certainly expect to support in the future. -- Renesis (talk) 06:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Neutral. Has excellent potential, but a bit too soon after this exchange [1] for me. Will support Dr. B in future with a little more experience in avoiding incivility. Rockpocket 07:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Neutral. Axl 01:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Anthony.bradbury&oldid=1252039759"