Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bradjamesbrown

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Bradjamesbrown

[edit]

(112/0/1); ended 22:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC) —Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

[edit]

Bradjamesbrown (talk · contribs) – Bradjamesbrown is an excellent Wikipedian and a strong candidate for the mop. He is an active content creator with talk page archives littered with notices from DYK and ITN updates (see his userpage to peruse them). He is also a regular in reviewing the ITN suggestions (about 80 posts each in March and April), where he is civil and helpful. He is active and effective at counter-vandalism (he has several Userpage Shields and anti-vandalism barnstars in his talk archives, but scroll through this page to really see what I mean). He has had rollback, without issue, since last December. He is also a regular new page patroller and reviews many WP:AFC article submissions.

He contributes at AFD (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, etc.). He has even started doing some appropriate non-admin closures. He's reviewed a dozen good article nominations, including seven during the last GAN drive, and does good reviews that demonstrate his knowledge of guidelines and policy and his good sense. He has never been intentionally blocked (just by accident, which he took in stride). He responds appropriately to constructive feedback and has gotten plenty of positive feedback from appreciative editors. Please join me in supporting Bradjamesbrown for adminship.--Chaser (talk) 06:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Co-Nomination

[edit]

I echo Chaser's sentiment above, that Brad is an excellent Wikipedian and this RfA really should be a something of a "no-brainer". He is amongst the top ten most prolific editors to WP:AIV (not including the helperbots!) and an excellent vandal fighter. However, he shows clue in many areas other than vandal fighting. He has autoreviewer and rollback rights. He has written a Featured List, List of Olympic medalists in softball, and has no fewer than fourteen DYK credits and 5 ITN credits and does a great service reviewing DYK hooks and offering useful commentary at WP:ITN/C, where I first came across him. He has the common sense to seek advice where he feels he lacks experience, such as at Talk:BOAC Flight 712/GA2 as well as offering it, such as at WP:AFC and WP:AFC/R where he is highly active. All in all, I find Brad to be a calm, sensible and well rounded editor and a far better candidate for the mop than I. I hope the community agrees. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: When I left on my recent vacation, I never expected to see this nomination, but I consider it an honour accept Chaser and HJ Mitchell's nomination. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 22:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

[edit]

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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: Primarily AIV as a great deal of my experience is in reverting vandalism, but I also would like to be another hand in updating the ITN template, taking care of reports at WP:ERRORS, where my experience with DYK would be helpful. I have also been sporadically active at WP:CFD, where another person with the ability to close discussions would occasionally be helpful.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I think I've made 1,500 or so edits to AIV (The link HJ placed in his co-nom is timing out for me), so I've put a lot of time into anti-vandalism work here, which I think is very important. However, I'd have to say List of Olympic medalists in softball is my best work, if only because it is the only article I've managed to get through an intensive review process.
1605 AIV reports, making you its 11th most prolific editor (excluding bots) as of my timestamp, just for the record :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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: People who know me in real life know I pretty much don't do stress; and most of my conflicts relating to Wikipedia have been fairly minor, occasionally users whom I reverted in error, or where a vandal tries to get my goat. If I'm wrong, I'll discuss the situation and apologise. I tend to be the type that has no problems "agreeing to disagree" when presented with another view, and willing to change my mind when presented with evidence that I have been in error.
Additional optional question from Tedder
4. 1600 AIV reports is impressive. What is your feeling on vandalism on Wikipedia, and how do you think forums like AIV do handling it? Roughly what percentage of your reports get "accepted" versus "rejected"?
A: I'll take your last question first- I believe only one of my reports has not been acted on, and that was because the handling admin believed a prior level 4im warning was too harsh; a decision that, on review, I concurred with. Most vandalism, to my mind, doesn't matter much, if at all. Page blanking, profanities, the insertion of the names of genitalia into articles, etc. are easily reverted and dealt with. More subtle, and more dangerous to Wikipedia's reputation, are such things as the insertion of unsourced, negative information into articles dealing with living people (which is not limited to just biographies) or the insertion of deliberate factual errors that readers unfamiliar with the subject might take as the truth.
AIV, in general, does an good job of handling persistent vandals- it gets backlogged like any Wikipedia process can from time to time. Also, it has a fairly limited scope- the message at the top says it well, "This page is intended to get administrator attention for obvious and persistent vandals and spammers only." As such, more complicated cases of disruptive editing are left to WP:ANEW, WP:ANI, WP:SPI, and others, that makes AIV a pretty efficient operation. I think that, as such, the great majority of cases would be handled the same way (with allowances for differing block lengths) by whatever admin had handled the report, and is a strength of the noticeboard. (Note that I fully believe in WP:NOTBURO; a report that would be entirely valid at, say, WP:UAA should just be handled, not templated and the reporter told to take it over there, though the reporter should be informed for the future. I'm saying that anything that would require discussion doesn't belong at AIV, not that valid reports should be discarded because they are on the wrong noticeboard.) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 23:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a followup question to this one, do you feel that administrators, in general, are too swift or too reluctant to block? NW (Talk) 00:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is a follow-up question to a question about vandalism, I'm focusing on blocking vandals in this answer. For almost all cases I feel that administrators use their discretion in blocking well- many vandals, even seeming vandalism-only accounts, will stop their disruption after a level three or four warning. Hence why some AIV reports are responded to by the admin giving a final warning, or even telling the reporter that the reported user has not been sufficiently warned. However, every rule has exceptions- I have reported and seen blocked users without them receiving a single warning when the disruption is sufficiently egregious, such as posting "I'm going to kill you" on a user talk page. While four warnings and a fifth act of vandalism after the last one is a good indication that a particular user isn't getting the message, some circumstances fully justify blocking much sooner. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 17:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional question from Mono
5. What's your take on IAR?
A: I consider IAR to be quite liberating. While explicit invocations of it are rare- I believe I've only done it once- it allows the cutting of the Gordian knot in a long discussion. IAR, also, is implicitly invoked much more often, in that it gives freedom to use common sense and good faith instead of semantics and wikilawyering. Whenever using IAR, whether explicitly or implicitly, I feel it is important to remember the whole statement of IAR- it isn't a carte blanche- is that whatever is done must be to improve or maintain Wikipedia, and one must be ready to explain how the action taken does so. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 17:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

[edit]

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

Discussion

[edit]
Support
[edit]
  1. Ucucha 22:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. (edit conflict) Been waiting for this. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support —Soap— 22:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oh, go and transclude it while I'm not looking why don't you? Ah well, I'll just have to belatedly support as co-nom. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Here goes somthing. Buggie111 (talk) 22:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Excellent candidate. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 22:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Seen him around. Does good work. Elockid (Talk) 22:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. Always feel confident that things have been licked into shape when I notice a recent visit to an article by this editor. RashersTierney (talk) 22:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support One of those RFAs where one can just give drive-by support on the name alone rather than actually reading any of the noms or the questions. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Seems qualified.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. A decent, familiar name that I see often. Acalamari 22:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Duh. Tim Song (talk) 22:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose too many good candidates this month. Need more RFA drama. No but seriously WP:WTHN --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 23:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strong support—Excellent content and AIV work! Aaroncrick TALK 23:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Finally. Connormah (talk | contribs) 23:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. I thought he was already an admin. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 23:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Rather than repeat what is written in the nomination as my reasons to support, I'll just leave it at per nom and above :)--White Shadows you're breaking up 23:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Strong support Good editor, very sensible. Excellent interactions. Aiken ♫ 23:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - Already thought he was one [seriously]. Shadowjams (talk) 23:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support: Another easy one - I've seen Bradjamesbrown around the place a lot, doing all sorts of good stuff, and have no hesitation -- Boing! said Zebedee 23:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Strong Support - great editor. I've seen only good things from him. Definitely ready for the tools! Airplaneman ✈ 00:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Definitely a no-brainer. --LP talk 00:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support The way he's been editing, I would've thought he was an admin already. Definitely deserves it. Brambleclawx 00:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Easy call.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 00:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support - the status of the noms and many of the support !voters is almost enough in itself to make this an easy call but a quick review of the candidate's edits and interactions convince me beyond a shadow of a doubt that Bradjamesbrown will make a great admin --Jubilee♫clipman 00:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Why not? -FASTILY (TALK) 00:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support! - Very useful, clue-ful, and civil editor who has been a great help to me. He will make a terrific admin! PrincessofLlyr royal court 01:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Definitely. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support A Wikipedian for almost 4 years (albeit highly active for the past 6 months), the candidate is a familiar name. His main focus and mission from the very first edit has been vandal fighting — and he does a superb job at it.--Hokeman (talk) 01:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Like Tide rolls, I look forward to working with you as a sysop. Tommy2010 02:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  31. I have used the phrase "thought he already was one" before, but I really thought this RfA was a joke. Not only did I think he was one, I thought he was doing a pretty good job. I won't be so quick with that comment in the future.--~TPW 02:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I checked the successful RfAs when I got back from a six-month wikibreak: I'll swear half of them I thought already were admins... TFOWRpropaganda 02:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Seem him around, but never noticed anything that suggests he'd be a bad sysop. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support per "assumed already was an admin". No concerns. TFOWRpropaganda 02:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support - Great vandal fighter, thought you were one already. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support, piling on. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support as co-nominator. Sorry for the delay.--Chaser (talk) 03:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support - I've had this on my watchlist for a few weeks now. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 03:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. I've seen this user helping with recent changes and was impressed by their ITN and DYK work when I checked their contributions. Thanks for all your hard work, Bjb Tiderolls 03:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Doesn't seem to be any issues at face value. Doc Quintana (talk) 04:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support - at least the third good candidate this month. Good luck!--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 04:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support - I always catch him reverting vandalism which is good, i find all of his work helpful to the project. Dwayne was here! ♫ 04:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support - Absolutely~! --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 04:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  43. i feel good about arguably the hardest working editor in admin business to the extent that i am bewildered that we have to go through these foolish things. However i don't mind voting for him as i got the feelin' that this funky drummer will be well pleased with his admin actions. delirious & lost ☯ I'll Go CrazyIf I Don't Go Crazy Tonight 05:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Already an admin-by-proxy, cutting out the middleman will be a good thing. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support I was about to nominate him myself! First I knew him as a rollbacker, then he worked in the article creation department. He knows all policies well, so Bradjamesbrown has all the right necessities. I'm very excited about the outcome of this nomination. Minimac (talk) 06:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support I can find no reasons to oppose. Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 07:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Wholehearted support– He has already proven he will be a capable admin. Finally. {{Sonia|talk|simple}} 08:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support logged actions, deleted content and block log all look good. (Twice blocked by accident!) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Strong Support Always need more admins at WP:AIV Acather96 (talk) 10:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  50. I noted his name several times when reverting vandalism, and it was always good work that this user did. They're gonna make a good admin. --The Evil IP address (talk) 11:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Strong Support - Exudes sensibility. ceranthor 12:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support - haven't we got a good batch of nominations right now! Clearly will be an asset. Dougweller (talk) 12:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Have witnessed his careful and diligent work at AIV, AFC, DYK, and ITN. His interactions while collaborating with other editors has always been calm, helpful, and courteous. The access to a few extra buttons in the areas he works will help the project further. Calmer Waters 13:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support - one of my regular RC Patrol companions, and he does a bloody good job - not just with the vandalism, but everywhere else he works in too. Orphan Wiki 14:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support OK, he has 80% automated edits - but that means about 11000+ non-automated edits! That is more than a lot of admin candidates have in total (and is more than the editor who uses it as the reason for being neutral!) I've seen Bradjamesbrown about, and seen no problems -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Strong support User has both created 68 articles and been extremely active in vandalism patrol, indicating a very well rounded editor. I have no boubts that he would use the administrative tools well. My only concern is that the month counts show prolonged inactivity prior to recently. I do not feel it is a major concern that 80% of edits are automated, as this still leaves thousands that are non-automated, and it is obvious, when seeing that this user has written 68 articles, that he is involved in content creation. Immunize (talk) 17:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support Gives this Editor his mop there be Vandals about, Good work ! Mlpearc pull my chain Trib's 18:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support I first interacted with him only recently, but have been impressed with his contributions. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Don't have anything to add, except "good work", and congratulations. - Dank (push to talk) 18:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support Always wondered why they were not an admin already. Regards SoWhy 18:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support this clueful editor -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 20:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Really? This is surprising, I feel like I saw an RfA of his succeed just a few months ago. Maybe I'm just confusing him with somebody else... either way, his contributions to this site have been entirely positive and he'll do very well with the tools. Master&Expert (Talk) 21:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support as this should be a net-positive. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Strong support Almost 1,000 edits to AIV. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support Good knowledgeable editor...Modernist (talk) 22:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Yep Looks good.r--moɳo 22:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  67. No reason not to. Hi878 (talk) 23:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support Definitely, Brad's been dedicated and clueful, as well as a great contributor everywhere I see him--DYK, AfC, etc. —fetch·comms 23:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support Another very useful editor, will be good with the mop.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Brad Cabal Support. Fully qualified candidate, no issues or concerns. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Of course —SpacemanSpiff 02:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Per Elockid. --candle•wicke 04:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support. Pretty clear. tedder (talk) 06:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support. good chance of net positive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support. Why not? Pcap ping 10:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support. I recognize this candidate from ITN and good participation throughout Wikipedia. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support - appears to meet my standards; good vandal-fighter. 20:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
  78. Support. Jonathunder (talk) 22:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support – No worries with me; nice AFD and anti-vandalism work. I trust him with the mop. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 05:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support - remember crossing with the candidate quite a lot (perhaps at AIV) and memories are positive. Materialscientist (talk) 05:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Come across BJB several times I'm sure, though can't quite remember where, and don't remember any issues. Seems to have a good handle on it all, and answers to the questions are excellent. GedUK  07:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support J.delanoygabsadds 17:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support Looks good. GlassCobra 17:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support No concerns. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 17:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support. I've seen you around a lot, and only seen good things. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support - Another excellent candidate. —DoRD (talk) 23:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support: stereotypical "thought he already was one" support. Gonzonoir (talk) 11:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support certainly works with the best interests of Wikipedia in mind and will wield the mop fairly. No concerns. Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 13:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support - Always around, always helpful, and alas, I thought he was already an admin, like 90% of the rest in here. - Fumitol (talk) 13:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Jujutacular T · C 19:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Alright, but you'll need to stop beating me to reverts ;) Ajraddatz (Talk) 20:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support. I see lots of reasons to support and no reasons to oppose.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support - I see no reason to believe they will be anything other than a net positive. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 23:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support - Delighted to join the throng. A lot of reasons to support, even aside from his fantastic work in anti-vandalism, which I can vouch for first-hand. My best wishes for your coming adminship! Jusdafax 00:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  96.  Support Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Bradjamesbrown. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 03:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support It's about time! Royalbroil 03:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support Yes, easy decision.  Chzz  ►  06:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support Aw, wanted to be the 100th. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 06:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  100. 100th support, no concerns here. Mjroots (talk) 07:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Strong Support easiest decision I've ever made wiooiw (talk) 10:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support. Great candidate. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support Thank you for wiring €50 to my bank account. I will return half if the RFA fails. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 17:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support. Another hard worker who will use the mop wisely. Drmies (talk) 19:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support; Bradjamesbrown is one of the most obviously suitable admin candidates I've ever come across, demonstrating great knowledge of content and great dedication to the project through anti-vandalism work. I would have put this support up much earlier if I'd been around - he will undoubtedly make an even greater contribution with the admin toolset. ~ mazca talk 21:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support – Happy to pile on here. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 21:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support. BJB will make a great administrator. AGK 22:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support - seems mop-worthy to me, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support – Everything looks good. Please don't stop in the mainspace, though. –MuZemike 19:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support Even ClueBot loves him. Puffy (talk) 23:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support Definitely can be trusted with the mop. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support Wandering Courier (talk) 20:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
Neutral
[edit]

#Waiting for response on IAR question--moɳo 06:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Neutral - far too many Huggle edits out of a relatively low edit count. Too short a time as a regular editor. Too little article building. But shows promise. --Kudpung (talk) 14:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please forgive me for badgering, but according to this, he has ~11,000 non-automated edits. What constitutes "enough" article building is of course a matter of opinion and I think some are too quick to badger opposers/neutrals and in doing so underestimate the value of content work, but he has written a featured list and 20 ITN/DYKs. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I ask: Why does a candidate have to be an author ? I'm sure there are many editors out there ready for the mop who haven't written a single article. Why is this a prerequisite to adminship ? Just because you have the ability to write, means your ok to have a mop. I think not ! You don't have to know how to write to make decisions and guide the community ! Mlpearc pull my chain Trib's 18:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I'm a big believer in content work- although I don't believe in blanket opposing those who don't have X many edits in the mainspace or criteria like "must have at least one GA", an editor who doesn't have any significant content work will have to work harder to impress me at RfA, but in this case, the candidate does have content work. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It just seems that a lot of people turn their nose at someone who doesn't have articles, Yes I agree the experience is no doubt an asset but I don't believe it a requirement. Mlpearc pull my chain Trib's 19:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not confuse neutral comments with support or oppose. I've provided a rationale for my neutral comment, which is more than many offer with their fly-past voting, and neutral is neutral - why do so many people consider it as an oppose? At the end of the RfA the closing 'crat will decide, and it won't (hopefully) be on a vote count.--Kudpung (talk) 00:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the reason you got replies to your neutral vote was because people wanted to point out that your reasoning was mistaken, 11,000 manual edits is very significant article contributions. Nothing else I don't think, don't take it to heart. Had your reasoning been correct, the above conversation would not have happened.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:25, 19 May 2010 (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/Bradjamesbrown&oldid=1138431409"