Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Brendanconway


 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Brendanconway
final 30/0/0) ending 19:03 12th December 2005 (UTC)

– I have been a Wikipedian since February 2005. I enjoy contributing to the project, both as an author of articles, especially on Irish and medical topics. I see fighting Vandalism as a key mission for Wikipedia. I also enjoy welcoming new Wikipedians. I very much believe in Jimbo Wales' maxim: "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge.That's what we're doing" File Éireann 19:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
 * I accept the self nom.--File Éireann 19:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Yep, looks good enough. Support. [[Image:Flag_of_Europe_and_Austria.svg|20px]] ナイトスタリオン ✉ 19:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Good edits, see nothing to oppose from this candidate. -Lunar Jesters 19:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Nary a crack in the shell nor a foul smell from this egg.  BD2412  T 21:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Nice edits. Good luck. --NormanEinstein 21:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Good edits, cleanups, and attitude! xaosflux T/C 00:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Support I have seen this user around --Aranda 56 01:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Support His edits are adding to the place. Very good candidate. -Refusetobesilenced 02:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Support as per BD. Good egg. Hamster Sandwich 03:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Support looks fine.--MONGO 06:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Advanced Life Support. Solid editor. JFW | T@lk  07:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Support no reason not to. Izehar (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Merovingian 16:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. &mdash;Kirill Lokshin 17:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Support yup.Gator (talk) 18:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Sure.  Oran   e    (t)   (c)   (e-mail)  21:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Support, Irish medic? fights vandalism? Writes for the Community Portal? Gets my vote! &asymp; jossi fresco &asymp; t &bull; @ 02:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) Support good editor --rogerd 03:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you all for your votes, I've just got in from the hospital (1.30 am), so I haven't had time to thank all of you in person yet, but I'm really honoured.--File Éireann 01:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. Kill the vandals--kill 'em all! (joking) Matt Yeager 07:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong SAR support! Blackcap (talk) 08:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Even stronger SAR support. (sorry, couldn't resist that). Palmiro | Talk 12:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support, should make a wonderful administrator. Hall Monitor 19:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - Time to hand him the mop. Sango  123   (talk)  23:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Support - hope we don't lose an editor in creating an admin.  Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  21:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. the wub "?!"  11:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Support - gets my vote, has been very unbiased and helpful BBwoman1 16:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Martin 00:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Support, absolutely. Have been noticing his good work for a while now. Antandrus  (talk) 20:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. El_C 04:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Everyking 13:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Support, HGB 01:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC).

Oppose Neutral
 * Oppose. We don't need more admins. The AfD backlog is manageable; the quality of the articles due for deletion/merging is often not mission-critical (otherwise they'd have been speedied) and it doesn't hurt if articles due for keeping still have the AfD notice for an extra day or two. Nonsense articles are a problem, but most of the problematic articles are tagged for delete on sight, and are quickly handled by existing admins. Vandalism is not that serious; most vandalism that lasts longer than a few hours would not have been caught by anyone even if the rollback feature was available to every Wikipedian. I see no reason to support the addition of admins. It's nice, but not critical. 202.58.85.8 07:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC) Vote struck -- only registered users may vote at RfA. Xoloz 07:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * There is plenty to administer on Wikipedia that is not included in your opposition vote. What makes you think your anonymous vote will be considered? JFW | T@lk  07:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments

Questions for the candidate

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
 * A. Vandalism is one of the main problems on Wikipedia. I frequently add delete tags to nonsense articles, sometimes they are removed again before anyone gets around to removing them. I'm naturally a very tidy person at home, a mop and bucket would make me feel much better. I think the time I devote to fighting vandalism on wikipedia would be more efficient if I could remove nonsense pages on sight. I would spend a good deal of time cleaning and scrubbing at the articles for speedy deletion. I would be sparing with use of the blocking facility but would use it when necessary.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. I have become very involved in Article Improvement Drive. I help to move on the old articles and make sure the new article is updated every Sunday (in collaboration with User:Litefantastic). I produced the new template that makes WP:AID more visible on the Community portal (template:aid-summary), and I am responsible for giving information on the new article at Community Portal each week . I have also contributed large numbers of articles about the west of Ireland (most not mentioned yet on my userpage). Recently, I have started to contribute articles on emergency medicine.
 * 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 have had minor conflicts only. In my line of work (emergency medicine), we are trained in conflict resolution. I always notice quickly if a dispute is escalating and quickly move to a sensible resolution, never imposing my views at the expense of others. I have, however, kept an eye on many of the disputes at Wikipedia, and feel many of them could be resolved more easily if both sides could be persuaded to step back from the heat of the situation. Wikipedia is at it's best when it evolves by consensus rather than by edit wars. I would only use sanctions such as blocking if all other attempts at resolution failed.


 * The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.