Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Brianhe

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Brianhe

A large number of editors expressed their support for the work done by Brianhe at COIN, and it is true that he has done a lot to improve the process and work on finding editors working in violation of the stance taken by the WMF and the community in general.

However, many editors expressed varying degrees of concern of over how Brianhe has been taking these actions. By far the largest number of concerns in this discussion referred to a lack of understanding various applicable policies and guidelines, and acting unilaterally and without regard to opinions and concerns expressed by other experienced editors. Adhering to those policies and guidelines is extremely important as an administrator (including knowing when it is appropriate to invoke WP:IAR). Many editors expressed concerns that the candidate was unable to understand this.

While not specifically mentioned by anyone opposing, many of the comments in that section addressed concerns about the actions of the candidate not being in line with the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. With the large number of editors who changed from supporting to opposing this candidate, and after thoroughly reviewing the comments left by members of the community in this discussion, I must close this discussion as no consensus.

Final (136/66/8); ended 01:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC) ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Nomination

Brianhe (talk · contribs) – Brianhe has been an editor for a little more than a decade and has become a diligent investigator at the COI Noticeboard. His activity at COIN has risen during 2015-16 as he has increasingly investigated undisclosed paid editors and has worked to uncover their sockfarms. He frequently files sockpuppet investigations where he has shown himself to be quite clueful and a good investigator. I believe that he could use the admin toolset so that he may evaluate deleted contributions as he investigates at both COIN and SPI. Concerned about Wikipedia's integrity, he has authored the userspace essay, What's wrong with undisclosed paid editing.

Trusted by the community, he has been a pending changes reviewer for five years and a rollbacker for two years with no abuse of these advanced permissions. He has also managed to exceed more than 56K edits while keeping a clean block log. I find it refreshing to see that when first asked about adminship, he openly disclosed issues that he felt could possibly be hindrances. That kind of honesty is something that I value in our admins and I don't see his concerns as being roadblocks especially since he learned from these experiences and moved on. I recently asked a question at WT:RFA concerning the value of CSD and PROD logs for candidates and Brian was one of those that I had in mind. Although he has not maintained CSD or PROD logs historically, I invite independent research and reporting from other admins (who can see his deleted contributions) for the sake of the larger community. Although once active in cow tipping, he has put those days behind him as he now chooses to sneak up on unsuspecting black hat SEOs.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Co-nomination

I came across Brianhe last year at COIN where he has been extremely active (> 1000 edits) in uncovering new cases (e.g. 1, 2, 3) commenting on others and cleaning up the promotional mess left behind. I first suggested that Brianhe apply for adminship in May 2015 as I was impressed by his level-headed nature working in an administrative area where it is easy to get emotional, and because I know from experience how useful the tools are for investigations. He is very cautious about outing editors and where it's necessary to provide links demonstrating a COI, he will share them off-wiki. As Berean Hunter has said, he is open about having made a few mistakes in his time here but he has evidently learned from them and they were minor transgressions to begin with. I am certain that Brianhe would make good use of the tools and seek advice if he is unsure when to use them rather than making rash decisions. All in all, why not? SmartSE (talk) 16:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: The nomination is accepted with appreciation for the trust expressed by the community in considering me for adminship, especially that of the nominators, Berean Hunter and SmartSE. Brianhe (talk) 22:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: As mentioned in the nomination, I have a strong interest in all areas impacting Wikipedia integrity, especially the Conflict of interest noticeboard (COIN), where I plan to continue working. I composed a brief analysis of the COIN board workload for a one-month period when I was overwhelmingly the lead contributor, results here. The admin toolkit could help in many instances, especially when looking at deleted contributions that can help connect the dots in sockpuppet and conflict-of-interest investigations.

I have been less active at boards like ANI, but may be interested in the future in dipping my toe in the water, as part of my ethos of making WP a better environment for good-faith contributors.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I think this is split between my content contributions, especially article creations, and my work towards community building. In the articles I've created, this list of everything I have created, starting in 2004, should stand for itself, but I'll call out two items that illustrate my best work. Great Western Iron and Steel Company is a DYK that I spent some near-academic level effort researching, and am particularly happy with the result. A. W. Piper is currently a Good Article nominee which was the product of intense collaboration with another editor, who deserves much of the credit for the article.

In community building, I've deliberately ramped up my involvement in topics that affect the long-term health of the Wikipedia community. On the one hand, on-wiki, I have been a member of WikiProject Motorcycling since 2006, helping to build a strong community of interest there, and more recently have been participating vigorously in the integrity-related discussion boards including the open proxy board, the spam board, sockpuppet investigations, and most strongly the conflict-of-interest noticeboard. On the other hand off-wiki I've transitioned from a frequent meetup attendee in my local area to a founding board member (recently re-elected) of a new Wikimedians User Group, with the goal of eventually attaining affiliate status. As described in my user essay, I think that maintaining the integrity of WP is a key aspect of attracting and retaining editors, and making WP a thriving long-term project. My mantra, lifted from Clay Shirky's book Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations, is "Wikipedia is a process, not a product" and I strongly believe that observing Wikipedia's pillars in a healthy, inviting, sustainable volunteer environment will eventually overcome other shortcomings in content, tools, et cetera, and that solutions justified by a short-term "better content" at the expense of the community are almost always wrong.

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: First, I realize a candidate for adminship should have a good way of dealing with interpersonal conflict and stress as this is part and parcel of the job. And yes, I have been involved in many stressful situations over the course of 10+ years here. I think that I can best illustrate with these events.

In 2014, I initiated an ANI complaint against another editor, who has since retired. In retrospect, the complaint was either premature, poorly framed, or just plain unnecessary. Of course, the onset of the emotion of righteous indignation isn't well coordinated with thoughtful action on WP and my reaction was no exception and although the incident passed with no boomerang on me (though the word was used), I did end up with egg on my face and with a promise to be more careful in the future. The right course in the case where (my) emotions are running high is usually to cool off, and if necessary bring up the issue as dispassionately as possible with others and back away, and work on other things at least for a while.

About a year ago, in editing the article No-go area, a dispute arose around exactly what areas of the world that term applied to, while it was being discussed in the news by various people. I found myself in a dispute with another editor which I tried to resolve through the various WP:Dispute resolution means, including my initiation of an RFC. Eventually the page was protected following a report that I initiated at 3RRN.

The most recent event, just this month, involved a heated dispute between several editors on terminology and content in one of the motorcycling articles, a topic area in which I am a long-term contributor and have a great passion for. I tried to calm the situation through proposed compromise in terminology, which was unfortunately unsuccessful, and I eventually decided to walk away and wait for things to run their course in various venues (including a currently-running MoS debate).

The trick with a volunteer effort like Wikipedia is that participation is necessarily driven by enthusiasm and it requires a fine degree of self-awareness to realize when that enthusiasm has crossed the line into non-constructive territory. This is an ongoing learning process but I think considering the conflict-prone areas I'm involved in, I'm doing pretty well with it. It also helps to understand other editors through the same lens; what can initially appear as adversarial behavior can also be understood as misdirected enthusiasm for a particular aspect of editing. For example, approaching people at COIN with courtesy and the initial expectation that they need education rather than a slap-down seems to have good results surprisingly often – an example of a recent "handshake" after my retraction on a mistaken case here. In the long run, I've decided that when my buttons are pushed, my best effort is expended in improving WP as a system and its reaction to problem editing, rather than seeking victory in confrontation with individual editors.

I tried another tack described at User:Brianhe/Las Vegas EDM experiment where I reached out to an editor who was getting into trouble at COIN, to see if they could become a productive Wikipedian through mentoring. Unfortunately the experiment seems to have fizzled as the editor drifted away before the draft we were co-producing was finished, but I think there is still merit in a tempered approach of bringing as many contributors onboard as we can, while handling really bad actors strictly.

Additional question from Go Phightins!

4. When reviewing a case at COIN, what matters most to you? What matters least?

A: The short answer is, not all conflict is created equal and obviously no one can pursue each case equally. So I look for cases that indicate the largest potential harm to the community of Wikipedians or to Wikipedia's reputation, and follow them most vigorously. In my opinion there are a few classes of abusers that are most serious and intentional, including the undisclosed paid editors frequently using us to "manage" their search results, and those who use WP as a platform for free publicity, whether celebrities, startup companies, book authors or the like. As far as intentionality, as I noted above, some editors are unaware of the rules and just need to be reminded and watched for future problems. The out-and-out worst case is a serial, methodical, institutionalized abuser like Orangemoody. What matters least is a non-COI of course, like a Canadian writing about Canada, but after that an incidental or accidental COI, or an enthusiastic student writing about their high school; lots of these cases never make it to COIN.

I previously broke down the same analysis in chart form; see editor taxonomy with the "matters most" Black Hat case highlighted in red. Brianhe (talk) 00:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Additional questions from Buster7

5. If you had to give the Readers Digest version of your What's wrong with undisclosed paid editing discussion, what would it be?

A: I'd take this quote right out of the middle of the essay: "One of the most salient features of Wikimedia projects is that content is overwhelmingly donated on a volunteer basis. The volunteers understand they are releasing the sweat of their brow to the public sphere in return for certain intangible benefits like the satisfaction of being regarded as a good writer, understanding a complex social system, or simply improving the human condition. When this goodwill is leveraged by actors in their midst who are being compensated under the table, it undermines the implicit arrangement that makes WMF projects possible." If and when volunteers perceive their efforts to be in support of a multibillion dollar enterprise (online advertising), they will simply walk away. We can quibble over degrees of "support" and when that line is crossed, but bottom line is we're here to build an encyclopedia, not to be unwittingly coerced into providing search results that are relevant to unknown actors.

6. Will getting the tools restrict your involvement with the COI and paid editing "conversation" or will they enhance it? Buster Seven Talk 08:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

A. It seems that the admin toolset would enhance my ability to contribute or else I would be less likely to have pursued a candidacy. I'm not aware of something in my current repertoire that would be restricted by policy, convention or personal preference once in possession of the admin bit.

I think it's important for admins to be clear about when they are speaking for themselves versus when they are speaking with the mantle of authority, maybe this is what you're getting at with the question. For instance, "would you please retract X" or "I prefer it if you don't do Y" means something different to many editors when it's coming from an admin, so the distinction should be especially clear in the context of a consequence-laden conversation such as can happen at COIN. As for the paid-editing conversation I think all voices should have a chance to be heard, which means not excluding even those with advanced privileges, provided that the caveat just described is followed.

This might be a good opportunity to say that I realize there are many points of view on paid editing, and I don't think that my POV is for everyone; but I have tried to explain my position and follow it consistently, and participate enthusiastically in the debate when it seems productive (see User:Doc James/Paid editing). I was very careful to title my user essay "undisclosed paid editing" in keeping with current policy and/or Terms of Service. - Brianhe (talk) 10:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Additional question from Happy Squirrel

7 Could you please expand on your opinion of BOGOF? In particular, how it relates to new page patrol and wp:bite.

A You've touched on what is an essential tension between the need for new contributors – continual renewal of the editor base – and the possibility that some new editors may not be here to do good work. It's up to each individual who responds to keep this in mind and act accordingly, and I don't have prescriptive guidance for every situation.

Getting concrete here. Look at a random article concerning Indian media, where others have expressed concern about the state of article integrity. You can choose one from Category:Hindi-language_films or use List of programs broadcast by Sony Entertainment Television (India) to follow me. How many of the anon or low-contrib-count editors in the article history are innocent newbies who one should avoid biting? How many are corporate shills? It's very hard to tell at a glance. One must assume good faith and approach each individual assuming they are innocent.

However, policy development and an individual editor's decision whether or not to participate in BOGOF can be properly informed by the rational inference that many of them are not here to do good. Some have expressed this as "AGF is not a suicide pact". This might be going a bit far for me; I haven't fully decided what to do about BOGOF in all its forms, which was recently expressed here. I have decided that when I come across a situation where it is plain to me that an article is (exclusively or nearly so) paid work, I will not improve it, even if I don't take action to have it removed. I have given curt but polite responses to editors who ask me to do so. - Brianhe (talk) 10:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Additional question from SilkTork

8. This question is to do with your involvement in COIN, which is a controversial area, so I'm looking for your rationale for working in that area, and bearing in mind some concerns that you focus on contributors rather than content, my question is: What for you is the dividing line between COI and "participation is necessarily driven by enthusiasm", and where do you feel lays the greater harm for Wikipedia: paid editors, editors who who have a relationship with the subject, or editors who have an enthusiasm for the subject; where do you feel the greater harm may come from: the contributor or the contribution?

A: This reads like a two-part question, or maybe more, so I'll answer it in two parts.

First part: Why does anyone work here on anything? The best answers are nebulous and intensely personal. We're contributing towards an amazing and incredibly valuable cultural artifact. Creating the conditions that sustain and enable it is part of what COIN is about and what attracts me. I've laid out fairly systematically and persuasively, to some, why I think COI is corrosive and antithetical to the project. Maybe it's because I'm from the Pacific Northwest where we like to think about natural resources differently than other places – if you haven't read Timothy Egan's The Good Rain, I highly recommend it – and the potential for a tragedy of the commons is particularly poignant to me. COI investigations aren't all I do here, which my article creations and other things point towards. But it does come with some satisfaction for a job well done, it takes somewhat of an unusual skill set, and I get rewarded by my peers for doing well, so why not.

Second part: narrowing your question to just "what's the dividing line between COI and enthusiasm?" I'll answer this by citing our own COI guideline: "an editor's primary role is to further the interests of the encyclopaedia. When an external role or relationship could reasonably be said to undermine that primary role, the editor has a conflict of interest". It's not a bright line and includes the danger-word "reasonably", which in legal settings is usually arbited by juries considering how they'd act in a certain situation. Applying this takes judgment and care which is why we have a noticeboard in the first place and not a bot imposing rules. You are asking the wrong question about COI editors and their content; rather you should ask about the impact their editing has on the community of GF editors. My sense gathered through my interpretation of many, many online comments and written pieces, some of which are quoted in my user essay, and some lessons from the study of evolutionary behavioral theory, like this, is that GF editors feel most impacted by a combination of hidden agendas and remuneration for some in reward for the efforts of others. You can't break this down neatly into contributor vs contribution. – Brianhe (talk) 12:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Additional question from SilkTork

9. What lessons can be learned from the TimidGuy case: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy ban appeal?

A: Reviewing the case, it looks like the meat is in 8.1.7 through 8.1.13, the listing of principles involved here, breach of which we can infer were the locus of the conduct issues enumerated in 8.2.6.2 through 8.2.6.3. The most salient for this discussion is 8.1.7, "When investigating possible cases of COI editing, editors must comply fully with the outing policy", a requirement that I'm well aware of as it is listed at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Avoid outing and printed again in red boldface at the top of the page when one opens a new WP:COIN thread via the "create discussion" button mechanism, which I've done plenty of times.

In less legalistic terms, being an investigator with or without admin privileges, or an admin who isn't an investigator for that matter, doesn't give one a pass on community norms. Especially pertinent to investigators, this includes the WP:OUTING section of the harassment policy. It's interesting that even in the Orangemoody case, there's very little information on who those actors are/were in real life, including that IPs are routinely protected in ongoing SPIs which makes it hard sometimes to follow new actors and much detective work is done on basis of behavior. But this is comprehensible to me in that we've decided that OUTING trumps other considerations even in this case and I hope others are as committed to abiding by that decision as I am.

Maybe a lesson here is to promulgate the behavioral standards for COI volunteers in some systematic way, with emphasis on WP:OUTING. I've thought about how to carefully onboard people in this area, as one of the acknowledged subject matter experts, and this would be a good addition to a future curriculum; so thanks for suggesting it. – Brianhe (talk) 12:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Additional question from Ritchie333

10. A brand new user with the account name Abbie McCarthy (talk · contribs) creates a new article as their first edit. It reads, in its entirety, "Abbie McCarthy is a well-known radio presenter who works for the BBC." What do you do?

A: I wonder if you saw something like this in articles I edited. One was an editor purporting to be a senator in a certain state house in the United States; the other was purporting to be an executive-level person in a U.S. regulatory agency. They both turned out to be who they claimed to be, but this had to be confirmed by OTRS; if it had not been, their accounts would certainly have been blocked. As for your hypothetical, after first ascertaining that there is actually a McCarthy working for the BBC (it might be a childish prank), one step would would be to try to ascertain whether the editor had usurped the real-world person's identity, by inviting them to contact us via OTRS perhaps. The other step would be to evaluate the article's content. In this case it would be liable to WP:BLPPROD since unsourced. There might be other ways to get it speedily deleted, but this doesn't seem necessary in this case as there is no negative BLP issue. The last would be to handle the COI, if they were who they appear to be. There are templates for the last, including {{uw-autobiography}}, but in this case I wouldn't use them for a couple of reasons. First, templates are rather circumstance-unaware and a personally tailored message might be more helpful. Second, I would suspect that the writer might be testing Wikipedia for its integrity, perhaps as part of a broadcast or taped episode, and would handle this with extreme care for the consequences to WP's reputation. By which I mean flaming a reporter on a live broadcast would not reflect well on all of us.

I probably would not decide to expand the article as radio presenters are not a super interest of mine. However I did come across a one-sentence article lately, Professor Peller that I decided to help expand rather than work towards some other resolution on. It's not all about deleting stubs. Part of the rationale for this is I feel that there's plenty of coverage on western media people as a whole and not enough on African subjects as a whole, as with American Indian subjects, and I am personally choosing to expand the latter and not the former. This is a personal decision about my own volunteer work, and not something I would want enshrined in policy. – Brianhe (talk) 11:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Additional question from Ritchie333

11. As you are a keen advocate of eliminating conflicts of interest on Wikipedia, can you explain why Weiss/Manfredi, an article you created in 2006, was tagged as an advertisement and possible conflict of interest in 2012? Also, can you explain why, when the article was nominated for speedy deletion in 2015, you reverted this, and what possible policy-related issues that might cause?

A: I assume the person who added the COI tag immediately after expansion by a Brooklyn IP was concerned that they might be connected with the company. But you'd have to ask them because they left no explanation on the talkpage, as is best practice. Well there is a talkpage comment on Talk:Weiss/Manfredi describing my reasoning for dePRODding, namely, that I thought the written work about the firm might demonstrate notability and I'd be willing to discuss that at an AfD with the nominator and others. I'm really not sure about that particular source because it is a monograph with some firm personnel as authors, so an AfD seemed a suitable place to discuss if they were serious about pressing it. Also, since I was unsure, I expanded the article immediately after with someconfirmed the article had online sources about notable awards the firm had earned. This all seems proper so I'm not sure what the policy issues are that you invoke. Perhaps you think I have stated that one should never work on improving an article once it has been "poisoned" by a COI editor, which I have never stated. My BOGOF philosophy is a bit more nuanced and frankly I don't think I could generate a flow chart for it that works in every case. – Brianhe (talk) 11:05, 30 January 2016 (UTC), re-edited 13:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Followup: It has been pointed out in one of the oppose !votes that this may have been a mistake on my part vis-a-vis the correct WP:SPEEDY procedure. It's a difference from WP:PROD in that the article creator (me) is not supposed to remove speedy deletion tags from articles they created, but they may remove PROD tags. I acknowledge that this was in all likelihood an incorrect action on my part. – Brianhe (talk) 11:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Additional question from Andrew D.

12. A few weeks ago, I noticed a large page being created which listed endorsements for a candidate in the current US presidential primaries. There seem to be a bunch of these and my impression is that they are contrary to WP:SOAP. I felt it would be a waste of time to tag or touch such pages as they are likely to be dominated by partisans with a COI. What are your views on such pages, please? Andrew D. (talk) 11:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

A: My view about pages concerning politics is to stay away from them :) Honestly, I do stay away from charged political issues usually. I had come across a memorable editor who was really into contributing in this area who's since retired but let's call him "Neutrality Warrior" and I was unimpressed by his contributions, which were only 27% in article space. When I sort of made an exception for No-go area to make what I thought were flat comments on how it was being reported by international news sources, it turned weird quickly. So, less jokingly, I stated before that every editor is here because of enthusiasm and I think this is an area where it is especially prone to cross over into COI. But we can't have an encyclopedia devoid of coverage of these topics either. My answer is a non-answer, that you and I have made personal decisions to stay away because it is unproductive for us to get involved in content there. As an admin I guess it would be up to me whether I felt impartial enough to get involved in admin-y decisions on particular issues/articles, and this would have to be decided on a case-by-case basis. I haven't looked at those pages so I can't make statements about them specifically. Maybe in this instance it's good for us to leverage the international nature of WP's admin corps and ask those outside of the US political process to help us make good judgments. – Brianhe (talk) 11:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Follow up I felt like the above was a bit weak so I went in and looked at one of the articles in the category Andrew listed. The first article I looked at was List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign endorsements, 2016. Actually I don't see any big problems here. The criteria for listing seem reasonable and sharply defined; the statements are brief and appear to be 100% cited. My attitude towards some of this kind of content is practical – surely most readers know by now that Wikipedia is crowdsourced and we can't guarantee 100% impartiality from moment-to-moment on every article. Anyway, if I did see a problem I'd bring it up on the talkpage rather than jumping in with guns-a-blazing. – Brianhe (talk) 12:59, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• That was the page I saw myself. I started looking at it and immediately found problems with the sourcing. The first entry is about her husband and the source doesn't say that he endorses her. What it actually says is that he'll be taking a back seat in the campaign which is quite different. The second entry has a source which is a prediction from the Clinton camp that someone would endorse them in a week - obviously a weak source as a week is a long time in politics. The page was spun off from a more general compilation which has a banner tag warning that the sourcing doesn't support the content. When the page was split, this tagging was not preserved. Andrew D. (talk) 14:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Additional question from Hobit

13. Could you please address the deletion discussion referenced by Cunard? Are you claiming that a COI article at AfD should be deleted even if it has been fixed to the point that there are no COI problems with the article? If not, could you explain the basis for your !vote to delete here? Hobit (talk) 16:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• I would also appreciate your response to Cunard's comment. BMK (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

A: If Cunard felt manipulated by my comment, I apologize and wish him well with his purpose of improving the encyclopedia. At the same time it was a heartfelt, dramatic statement meant to underline my strong opinion on the seriousness of the problem and I do not apologize for making my thoughts known or trying to persuade others to my side of the issue. Obviously from the timeline, it was not necessary to follow through on the potential of a personal blackout; but rather I took a hard look at the situation and formulated my personal philosophy (comments made 14 September; essay started 15 September). Actively articulating and persuading others to my point of view seemed and still seems more productive than shutting down for reasons that apparently are still not well understood by others.

My !vote in this particular debate was in response to an extraordinary situation where an avowed media manipulator was manipulating Wikipedia to promote his book about media manipulation. That effort in itself undermines any attempt to maintain integrity in all of our articles and demands an extreme response – in this case WP:TNT as suggested by other veteran project members who I respect. The specific guideline suggested by the nominator for this was "borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason" for deletion as the currently enumerated reasons and I'm onboard with socializing this pattern.

I'll say it again: our volunteer efforts should direct the growth of Wikipedia. We have plenty of projects clamoring for participation. Outside commercial interests shouldn't be directing us. That's the important part of the anti-BOGO manifesto, to me. It's not about punishment or censure, it's about freedom to delve into topics of greater than immediate commercial interest. The consequence is that some partly-finished articles initiated by commercial interests and left in a poor state could remain steaming turds (content not contributor) until someone who does not subscribe to anti-BOGO decides to polish the turd. That is a fair tradeoff to maintain our independence as editors, at least in the current policy framework. Brianhe (talk) 22:54, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Additional question from Gerda

14. What do you think of {{user talk before you block}}? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

A: The advice in the template/essay looks sound and could be summarized as an appeal to avoid placing blocks when possible, and to separate one's personal feelings as much as possible from the blocking action if it comes to that. Blocks should always be in the furtherance of community standards, not the admin's personal requirements. I especially like the two points below

1) "If the user is a content editor, think once more if the loss of content during the block time is worth it." Content creation is incredibly important here, with good content and good community being two sides of a coin. I once had to make the difficult decision to report a question about the behavior of Wikipedia's most prolific content creator, but decided that opening a discussion, if the behavior ended up being okayed by consensus, was fair and honest; in addition to which, such a mature editor was well suited to survive in the light. But the issue of offending the editor and losing his contributions, even momentarily, certainly was part of my thought process before making the comment.

2) "Look if you blocked the same editor before. If yes, find someone else to do it." This firmly separates the admin from what could be perceived to be a personal vendetta against an editor, either by the community at large or by the editor in question individually. If there's a good reason to do a second block, it should be possible for one of the many active admins to see this and follow through.

Disclosure: I received an intangible award from Gerda, and we once shared a DYK credit. - Brianhe (talk) 22:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Questions from Newyorkbrad

15. This question is inspired by your extensive work on and interest in COI-related issues. Suppose that I am speaking with someone who knows that I edit here. The person is a friend but not a very close or intimate friend and we have no financial ties. My friend asks me why there is no article about him on Wikipedia, and whether there could be one. He is a well-known person who easily satisfies our notability standards. I tell him so and he asks if I would write the article. I discuss with him the pros and cons of being the subject of a BLP and he still wants to be one. There are lots of reliable sources on his work and a high-quality article can readily be written about him. On the other hand, he's not overwhelmingly well-known, and if I don't write the article, it probably won't get written, at least not for a long while. May I write the article? Do I have a conflict of interest if I do?

A: I'll answer this by careful comparison to guidelines at WP:COI. Let's start with the question do you have a conflict?

• Actual COI - probably not with the information you have provided - you haven't mentioned any common financial, political or other interests that would definitely influence your responsibilities as an editor. However, you haven't spelled out any specifics about his biography that lead to his being notable and whether these specifics are related to your personal knowledge of him. It would be pretty easy to cross this line, even without thinking you had.
• Potential COI - possible if you have common interests in the future - financial, political or otherwise. As a hypothetical, your land value is tied to the neighbor's reputation. If he committed a heinous crime, your reaction to having this included in Wikipedia would be tainted by the COI. It's a future hypothetical therefore a potential COI.
• Apparent COI - a reasonable person would probably conclude that an unspecified friendship could affect one's partialiaty and therefore your situation presents an apparent COI. I would counsel you not to write about your neighbor on this basis. There's a further problem in that the person sought you out for writing about him, so you really are unaware of all factors in your relationship that brought this up, putting you at increased risk of both actual (though unknown) COI and apparent COI. In other words, there's a record of your judgment and motives as a Wikipedian that could mitigate a reasonable person's perception of your intentional or unintentional commission of errors, but no record of this other person's judgment and motives.

On to the question, could you go ahead and write the article after evaluating the above concerns? Technically, yes. A COI editor is not prohibited from writing anything neutral at all (with the usual legal prohibitions, specifically WP:BLP, WP:NLT, copyvio caveats and the like). These problems are addressed through management of your actual, potential or apparent COI. There are several avenues to manage it. First of all you would want to declare your known connection to the individual to erase any concerns of undeclared paid advocacy, which is a TOS violation. You didn't mention whether you work for your neighbor so this could be a real issue. Declaration can be done in a variety of ways including by using edit summaries, using an appropriate noticeboard, on a draft article page, your own user talkpage, or on an article talkpage using {{connected contributor}}. A potential way forward is to separate yourself a bit from article creation and seek counsel of others that could reveal actual COI and/or mitigate apparent COI. I'm thinking about simply mentioning the person and their notability at a project talkpage; this seems relatively harmless and if they really are notable, someone is likely to pick up on the absence of coverage and run with it themselves. You could also start a draft article and invite others to comment and contribute. If you were determined to go forward with an article (against advice), the Articles for Creation process provides yet another chance for others to mitigate COI, and provides further evidence for your good faith that could mitigate apparent COI. Note that this is really close to what we tell people at WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY which could be modeled as a "best practice" for your question.

None of this is an endorsement of investigation of you as a real-world person in this hypothetical. You would still be protected by WP:OUTING policy until and unless you volunteered information about yourself. This presents a dilemma for the third parties evaluating the COI if you choose not to volunteer such information. Which is the source of another problem because your justified refusal to answer such questions could also be met by justified inference of concealed conflict so we cause bad feelings all around. It's also a problem for anyone who comes across this information accidentally in the course of investigating the third party's claims to notability, and now must abide by WP:OUTING which puts them in a position of risk as well.

In summary, this might be a good illustration of WP:BEANS: please don't write about your neighbor on Wikipedia when he asks you to, even though it may not violate any specific policy. There are so many ways to do it wrong, and have it reflect poorly on both of you, maybe with real-life consequences. Brianhe (talk) 23:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC) one-word insertion 12:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Where does the question frame this imaginary guy as someone's neighbour? You seem to have run off on imaginary tangents about something which was never asked. Land value? Huh?Begoon ^talk 12:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

It was stated as a hypothetical, using the word "hypothetical". I was trying to illustrate a situation where a future problem could occur, within the question posed by Newyorkbrad, because he didn't give a clear potential COI. A hypothetical within a hypothetical, if you will. Land value was just a random choice of shared interest. Hope that helps it to parse! – Brianhe (talk) 12:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Not really. I'm looking for attention to detail, and I don't see it here. You base much of your very long response on "neighbour", yet it was never said. On the strength of this you'd like me to trust you, with your avowed "COI" slant and mission, to be careful and impartial? Sorry, can't do. Begoon ^talk 13:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

16. If you become an administrator, in what circumstances would you block—as opposed to counsel, or report to a noticeboard—an editor who you believe has a conflict of interest? (I see your response to question 14, but this one is a bit more specific.)

A: I would follow blocking policy. First, conflict of interest editing is not blockable per se. Behaviors that are associated with it are often blockable under Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Disruption; I'd say the great majority of blocks imposed on COI editors are made under this authority. Such behaviors include unwillingness or inability to abide by consensus based editing, for instance repeatedly adding content that has been deemed by consensus to be COI/PROMO based, unwillingness to allow others to edit content they consider "theirs", or re-creating articles that have been deleted by consensus for COI/PROMO content: often done with slight changes in title in an attempt to avoid detection. Another frequent outcome I've seen stemming from COIN cases is blocking for sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry–frequently done by a sequence of throwaway accounts whose purpose is indistinguishable per WP:MEAT–to introduce PROMO content. Per policy enunciated by Arbcom in 2005, "when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets". Given advice rendered here, I would definitely ease into these sorts of blocks, let's say for 30 days after assumption of admin tools, refraining from making blocks to editors named in new COIN cases.

Another class of behavior is listed under Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Protection and includes things for which failure to block, like protection of children, could be almost be construed as a breach of conduct by a good admin. This would have to be evaluated on a case by case basis where I thought the need for an immediate block was necessary for one of the listed preventative rationales, and orthogonal to my evaluation of their conflict of interest. Brianhe (talk) 08:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Additional question from Caballero1967

17. While you show commendable loyalty, you also come across as an aggressive editor and investigator, mind you, not in the belligerent sense, but in the all-out, vigorous, and assertive way. Such is necessary to uphold the principles (which I share) of keeping WP free of pernicious COI. It shows because you have a relatively WP-long history of cases and while you have very vividly indicated to learn much from these experiences, you still keep a forceful style. You perform an essential task well while walking a fine line, which I am not sure I could walk it myself, so I hope you will continue to walk it for me, aggressively. With that as a context, could you explain how your comments last month here were could have been deemed as “out of order”? (see below for the change) I have carefully read the circumstances surrounding them (as well as all of your ANI interventions I could find), so I may not need contextualization, but I can’t yet figure out the way you took the admonishment saw them. Could the mediator have censored your comments have been uncivil because considering you told the user that they lacked a WP “long term perspective” and in doing so you passed subjective judgment and implied that you, on the other hand, did? And if so, what is the problem with them? The user appeared not to have been far from your mark, but they were also raising a fair complaint: "That sort of attitude turns wikipedia into a bitter and unpleasant place" (written just prior). At the heart of this question is a philosophical issue, a familiar area for you, I think, but also a practical one. If we must deal with online individuals, what are the parameters for judging them without leaving the door too open for the Huns to enter undisturbed?

A (partial): Caballero1967, you may have misinterpreted something in my reply. "Out of order" was written by me, to indicate my comment was inserted out of chronological order. I'll wait at least 4 hours before replying to this fully, in case you want to adjust your question. – Brianhe.public (talk) 04:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• Interesting (euphemism for "strange")! Thanks for clarifying. Though it now takes a slight twist, the question remains. Thanks for considering. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 04:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• The edited version does not read as well as the first, but it is preferable than deleting the setting that prompted the question in the first place. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 05:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

A (full): Q17 contains four question marks, but I think bottom line you are asking if I thought I was being civil and if the other editor had cause to take umbrage in my statement that he lacked "long term perspective". This was one of those times when "less is more" applied; that is, I wanted to say just enough to get the other person to stop and think about what he was doing without lengthy quotes from the civility policy page or the presentation of a legal case full of diffs, drama and debate. I can see how a new editor who doesn't understand our ways would be upset at being called in front of a noticeboard, but unfortunately the situation with this particular editor was pretty serious by 9 January when I made my comment at ANI, and ended up on 29 January in a 5-way IBAN through another action that I was not involved in. The ill will that contributed to the "bitter and unpleasant place" comment was already well established when I joined this conversation and, unfortunately, continued well after. I'm not sure even in hindsight what I could have said that he'd have been ready to listen to. On the upside, two of the people involved in that 9 January discussion actually !voted for me here, so I guess I didn't do so badly then. – Brianhe (talk) 09:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Follow up: For me, the most telling upshot of your dealings with this user is found here, when the person in question approaches you with kind words (prior to the cited incident). It appears as an example of your ability to win back disaffected editors. But I chose the case above (besides erring in interpreting “out of order” as a warning) because the user’s complaint illustrates what others have said here about your style, which I think it has to do more with the vagaries involved in such judgments. I try to gauge a common apprehension among observers and make it a question for the candidate to tackle it head on. To avoid misconstructions, allow me to rewrite it, then, and ask it in the singular: how do you plan to follow the (sort of) advice of one of your supporters: “The key is to be neutral and respectful until it's proven, and not treat people like dirtbags while they're still suspects”? Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 13:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

A: There are a number of policies, guidelines and essays that provide good guidance on how to be respectful to a fellow editor in the face of potential conflict, as well as life experience that formulates one's approach. Writings that would be germane are WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Steering away from prescriptions, I like the approach of initiating a conversation and asking the other editor to bring their point of view. This is facilitated by templates and on-the-spot interactions. I've mentioned before it can be difficult because having one's behavior go under review on a public forum is uncomfortable for many. People are on the defensive right off the bat and this has to be taken into consideration; however one should appear direct and honest and not trying to bait or trick the other party into an unwitting admission of wrongdoing. Use of the public forums is a necessarily formalism as it takes the interaction from a two-way discussion to a multiway discussion between the community at large and a person who may not be abiding by community norms. The noticeboards uniquely serve to put the questioner's own communications on public display which may help to moderate interactions all around. I'm open and responsive to feedback on my own style, especially since so much is publicly visible at COIN and now here. If I hear from my peers that my direct style needs adjustment, I'll give that an honest evaluation. Brianhe (talk) 02:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Additional question from Pine

18. I'm generally supportive of your candidacy and you've thoroughly convinced me of your good faith and diligence. Because COI is a sensitive area of work and it's important that investigations go right, and there are so many things that can go wrong, I think that the 30 day trial period is a good idea. I'd also like to ask if you're open to recall. If so, I think this would convince me that we collectively should assume good faith and trust you with administrator tools, with the knowledge that you're open to recall if something goes seriously wrong. Thanks for standing for RfA. I'd appreciate it if you'd ping me when you reply. Regards, --Pine^✉ 07:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

A: @Pine: That sounds like a good way to gain community confidence. I have reviewed several of the recall models and prefer User:TParis/Recall which incorporates a review board enabled to recommend a new RfA (option 1 or 2) or de-sysop (option 3). For my review board, I will list my two nominators plus at least five other established editors of my choice. The review board will not include family members, individuals with known business relationships, or anyone on the board of Cascadia Wikimedians nor its appointees.

Slight amendment, User:Kudpung/AOR is similar and I'll need to compare the two, but will choose one of these. – Brianhe (talk) 09:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

---

Editors may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Discussion

• Links for Brianhe: Brianhe (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Brianhe can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

Support

1. Support I see no reason why this user shouldn't be an admin. The user has been here long enough so i think he is familiar with the policies etc. Class455fan1 (talk) 22:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

   Support per no biggie. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 23:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC) I cannot support someone in COI because I'm positive everyone (whether paid or not) has a COI here. I do agree it's a huge issue made bigger because it has become an excuse to harass editors. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 06:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

2. Support: I've crossed paths with Brian many times both online and in person. I think he'd make an excellent administrator. - Jmabel | Talk 23:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
3. Support: He's been doing a good job at WP:COIN. Let's let him use the mop. John Nagle (talk) 00:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
4. The Strongest of Possible Supports An incredible asset to the project and is personally responsible for stopping untold amounts of black hatted paid editors and spam. I am somewhat surprised they don't already have the bit, they definitely can be trusted with it; it would definitely improve the project. Winner 42 Talk to me! 00:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
5. Support. Excellent candidate. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
6. Support - clean block log, decent input at AfD, active in patrolling articles. I've interacted with him on several occasions. Don't always agree, but always understand his viewpoint, and he is always respectful and civil. Understands the concepts, policies and underlying guidelines. I like the eclecticness (is that even a word? But you get what I mean) of his article creation record. I don't currently participate in the COIN area, but the folks that do give him good marks there. I especially appreciated his response to Question #3, regarding conflicts, as I feel this is a very important issue for potential admins. While I basically agree with his feelings towards paid editing (especially his position on undisclosed paid editors - which I also find reprehensible), I don't entirely agree with his way of dealing with it. But I respect his position, and his consistency within that position. I definitely feel they would be an asset in the admin department. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
7. Support Worked with him many times at WP:COIN, and he effectively runs that board. His hard work there in dealing with COI, especially undisclosed paid editing and corporate sockfarms, has been invaluable. He also seems to be a good content creator too. An overwhelming yes from me. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:58, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
8. Support Have looked at his work at COIN and can see consistency of purpose and adherence to policy. Is requesting the tools for a pretty narrow area of work, but appears trustworthy and clueful enough to use the tools appropriately wherever he feels drawn to contribute. If successful here, I would counsel against getting too active on drama boards too soon. A great candidate. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
9. Support. I first became aware of Brian through his work on the Orangemoody investigations and clean up and I was most impressed with his engagement and thoroughness. This is a user who should have had the Admin toolset a long time ago. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:30, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
10. Support Long term User has been editing since 2004 with 57K edits and created 639 articles well versed in policy and great work in COIN and COI editing.Project will gain with the user having tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
11. Support Absolutely. I have also worked with Brian on the ongoing Orangemoody clean-up effort. We definitely need more admins to help with COI issues, and Brian is an excellent candidate who has been doing just that. Altamel (talk) 02:21, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

    Reiterating my support in the event that this goes to CratChat (does every RfA do that nowadays??): in my opinion, the opposition's concerns about overreach are outweighed by the urgency of protecting the encyclopedia against the effects of paid editing, and reading through the WP:COIN archives it is clear Brian has been methodically cleaning up that front. Yes, I agree with the opposers that Brian should exercise more restraint in dealing with paid editors, but I trust that Brian has read through all this feedback and will take it to heart. On balance, I would be willing to grant admin rights to this candidate. Altamel (talk) 07:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

12. Support DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
13. Support Sounds good, I mean he has everything that is required to become a Wikipedia Administrator. Lets give him a go --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 03:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
14. Support - Per Kudpung. Mlpearc (open channel) 03:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
15. Support: He has earned the tools through his exemplary work.—azuki (talk · contribs · email) 03:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
16. Support I also followed Orangemoody with keen interest. This User would benefit from having extra admin tools in future investigations, and the whole encyclopedia will be strengthened by seasoned COI hands (as I sense we are moving into new territory). Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 03:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
17. Support. A skill-set very much needed. This is one editor that would be very beneficial to have among the admin corps. I'm confident he would make use of the tools wisely and diligently. -- œ^™ 04:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
18. Support - Brian's work on Black Hat SEOs alone is enough for me to want him to have the bit (although there are many other fantastic things he's done for this project). Dealing with paid advocates has been an incredible hassle on this encyclopedia over the past few years, and having Brian be able to use the tools to help remove this cancer from the site will be wonderful. (Love and completely agree with your answer to Q5, by the way.) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
19. Support - Net positive after reviewing pretty much everything about this editor. CatcherStorm ^talk 05:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
20. Support His answers to the questions show nuance and maturity. His UPE essay shows thoughtful analysis and a passion and should be read by all Wikipedians. Administrative rights will enable him to continue his important work here with increased effectiveness. Peter Chastain ^[¡habla!] 05:40, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
21. Support We could always do with more sensible and well-informed admins policing COI issues Nick-D (talk) 05:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
22. Support Friendly and open editor with experience who wants to work in some of the most high-stress areas of Wikipedia. I am particularly impressed by how they remain calm and positive despite often working on the ugly side of Wikipedia. I see no problem increasing their effectiveness. Happy Squirrel (talk) 05:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC) I had some concerns about the issues raised in the opposes, but the candidate has satisfied me that their views are more nuanced. I remain in the support section, but would encourage the candidate to be careful in closing AfDs. Happy Squirrel (talk) 15:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
23. Cheerful Support Having been embroiled in dealing with political paid operatives in the past and having seen how innocent WP volunteers can become unwitting and unsuspecting (and unpaid) agents for those same operatives, I am glad to support Brian and his efforts. Buster Seven Talk 08:26, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
24. SQL^{Query me!} 11:58, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

    Moved to oppose Support To be honest, Cunard makes some excellent points in the oppose area, which shows how as a community we are still split on how to deal with conflict of interest. On those points, I'm torn between wanting to discourage purely promotional articles and wanting to be generous about rewritten articles, as we clearly are here to build an encyclopedia, not to build a perfect society. I think the candidate might do well to take note and moderate on those points, so their actions reflect the consensus (or lack of) of the community: once you have the tools, a good admin doesn't act based solely on his opinion, he determines what the community would agree upon, and acts in that fashion. Still, we have a fully qualified candidate who is not likely to abuse the tools, so on that point I support. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

25. Support however I echo what Dennis said above and also recommend that Brain ensure their actions reflect policy and consensus. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
26. Support - whether MurderByDeadcopy has faith in me as an editor or not (re oppose #2), I am still willing to lend my support to a Wikipedian who has overall done some sterling work for the project. Orphan Wiki 13:18, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
27. Support per my co-nom. SmartSE (talk) 13:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

    Support I'm a little concerned by the candidate's gung-ho attitude to COI, much of which I disagree with as I see problems in the content not in who creates it. And he appears to have a moral mission in mind which gives me cause to reflect on what happened to Will Beback who also had a moral mission to clean up Wikipedia and saw danger lurking in places the rest of us don't see. I am concerned that given the tools, and the sense of empowerment that comes with community support to go forth and multiply, he might lever even more strongly against imagined dangers from paid contributors, and go a little too far. However, that I disagree with his focus on contributors rather than content is a difference of opinion and doesn't inhibit me from looking at his strengths and abilities as an admin. He strikes me as a rationale, intelligent, and articulate individual who has given impressive answers to the questions, and clearly has the interests of Wikipedia at heart. I would hope that as a neutral admin he will not discourage any editor, volunteer or otherwise, from improving the encyclopedia purely because of his personal feelings on Bogof or other non-policy issues. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

    I feel there is much to like about Brianhe because he is intelligent and literate, but when placing my support I was a little uncertain due to his attitude to COIN, and was concerned by the interchange with Cunard, an editor I respect. On balance I felt that I shouldn't oppose what appears to be a valid candidate because he has a different approach to COIN than me. However, as time has gone on, the amount of editors, a good number of whom I respect, who have voiced their concerns regarding Brianhe's attitude and approach to COIN, has grown. Notwithstanding the increasing voiced concerns regarding his attitude in attempting to restrict legitimate article creation, he advises NYB of all people not to write an article on his neighbour, and he does so like a moralistic preacher with dire warnings of the consequences, spreading paranoia and uncertainty through the community. People write about their home town and their local school, including the people in it, all the time - that consists of a huge proportion of Wikipedia activity. Is it sometimes problematic? Yes. Is the open nature of Wikipedia problematic? Yes. But we work through the problems, because the benefits of having a wiki are profound, and are behind the very success of Wikipedia. The lack of clue shown in his answer concerns me, and that he continues to stand firm to his beliefs also concerns me. It seems he's not quite taking on board what people are saying here, and that concerns me as I like admins to be reflective of the community. Being an admin is not about doing what you believe is right, but about doing what the community wants you to do. I am withdrawing my support, but also pondering is I should move over to oppose. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

    As as aside, Brad nowhere portrays the putative article subject as a "neighbour", rather a "friend", which seems to make all the odd blather about "land values" very strange, and also makes me wonder about attention to detail. Begoon ^talk 12:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

    SilkTork, you said, "as I like admins to be reflective of the community. Being an admin is not about doing what you believe is right, but about doing what the community wants you to do." I agree with you to a degree and feel that it needs some qualification - see WP:POV_railroad. I suppose "community" depends on (1) what one considers to be the "community", and (2) whether or not the community is acting responsibly, the latter of which isn't always the case. I can easily exhaust this discussion with examples, but won't because I think I understand the context in which you meant it, and am not versed enough in Brianhe's history to consider it applying to him as a negative. Atsme^📞📧 21:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

28. Support as nominator. I find the first oppose to be a non-sequitur. Brian actually !voted in line with the outcome of that deletion discussion which was to delete (the current article was created after these events). If stepping away and ceasing editing as a protest is a sign of bad temperament then all of Wikipedia must possess that same temperament because we did the same to protest SOPA and shut the wiki down for a day. We recommend that people step away and take breaks all the time so that isn't a bad temper. If he actually had a bad temperament there would be real proof of that. Moreover, he didn't cease editing so trying to hold him accountable for what he suggested he might do when his deliberations led to a different outcome is faulty logic.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:07, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
29. Support. Fine and very long record as content creator and on COI board. Temperament is exceptional. Coretheapple (talk) 14:38, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

    Support - a thoughtful and fully qualified candidate. No concerns. --Laser brain (talk) 14:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC) _{moving to oppose}

30. Support Serving as an admin takes a strong commitment. Thanks for stepping forward! TeriEmbrey (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
31. Support Clearly a diligent and intellegent editor -- perfect to be an admin. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 16:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
32. Support Qualified editor, trustworthy noms. I don't see the freely-disclosed issues as a reason to oppose or even sit on the fence, and the mop will help with the COI/SEO problems which have formed a watershed for the encyclopedia. Miniapolis 16:32, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
33. Support. An experienced editor who most definitely deserves to become an admin. Ches (talk) 16:56, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
34. Support — I've been working closely on motorcycling articles with Brian for about 7 years now, and he has always been a moderating influence in the tempests that arise around the subject. Motorcyclists are headstrong individualists who don't like to be told anything. A rider who lets the guy ahead of him choose his corner entry speed for him, or lets a traffic light tell him when its safe to stop or to go, may not live long. So it becomes an attitude. We first met in at a Wikipedia meet up a 5 years ago, and have ridden together, and traveled to photograph Wikipedia subjects in the area. Brian has stayed out of my editing disputes unless he was already involved in the topic, and when he has weighed in, he has judiciously limited his involvement to saying is piece and moving on, without letting friendship either keep him from saying what he thinks, or advocate on my behalf. The respect he has earned from so many diverse editors is evidence of that. Brian is also a strong content creator, and we need Admins who are also doing the daily work of building the encyclopedia. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
35. Support as appears suitable band thoroughly experienced, and as a WP:NETPOSITIVE to the project. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 17:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
36. Support - does good work and has a good temperament. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:35, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
37. Support No concerns. Highly qualified. clpo13_(talk) 18:40, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
38. Support Like the answers to SilkTork's questions, and that put me over the fence. Katie^talk 18:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
39. Support -- sounds good to me! Eman235/talk 20:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
40. Support. About time. Bishonen | talk 21:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC).
41. Support Great candidate, No issues!, Good luck :) –Davey2010^Talk 22:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

    Support -- I like the thought-out answers to the questions, and work in the area of COI certainly needs careful thinking. The opposes and neutrals seem to me not to address the question of whether Brianhe would make a good sysop. I don't know him, but from what I'm seeing here, I'm happy to support. We don't get many candidates as thoughtful as this. --Stfg (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC) moving to neutral. --Stfg (talk) 17:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

    Moved to oppose Support - Pretty much along the lines of what Dennis Brown wrote above. I think perhaps Brianhe may have gone a bit far in the Cunard incident, but I'm willing to take a chance in order to get another admin who is sensitive to the problems of COI- and paid editing. BMK (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

    Moved to oppose Support no concerns. --I am One of Many (talk) 00:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

42. Support See no issues, we need more admins. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
43. Support His work at COIN has been exemplary and I trust him with the tools. That last part is all that really matters though - trust. Jbh^Talk 02:09, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
44. Support - echoing the sentiments of Dennis Brown, Callanecc and BMK. I was once the target (not by Brianhe) of an unwarranted COINoscopy and controversial outing with an investigation (more like doxxing to which WP should pay close attention, [1]) that went off-wiki and probed into my personal FB pages and private domain registrations. I was further accused of a COI regarding a BLP I created about a medical doctor. (My accuser eventually apologized). I'm bringing this case up now because Brianhe defended the "outing" (which admittedly was a bit complicated) and in doing so gave me a friendly warning about falsely accusing someone of outing. My concern is that he didn't notice that I never should have been at COIN in the first place. I prefer admins who listen to both sides equally, pay attention to details and act appropriately to supporting evidence rather than simply trusting unsupported statements. I will AGF with Brianhe's nomination because I trust that he will act responsibly as an admin - after all, his warning to me at COIN was a friendly one. I will also add that I think Brianhe will be a good admin based on another interaction I had with him last year in which he demonstrated excellent judgement regarding a very controversial article. Atsme^📞📧 02:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

    I find this comment very, very enlightening. Because, I've discovered that there are a number of those within COI who are strongly advocating OUTING any editor whom they deem may be a paid editor. No exceptions. This is the beginnings of what I have determined to be a huge, sanctioned by Wikipedia, witch hunt. And everyone here knows the accuracy of witch hunts. "Just, how many witches did Salem burn at the stake correctly?" --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 18:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

    I am concerned by this. Atsme, would you please provide us with a link to Brianhe's comments. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

    First question posed, cited PAGs - I believe his efforts were made in GF based on the evidence provided against me which was not only poorly presented, it never should have happened because it was opposition research with some history behind it - history Brianhe could not have known about. My RL info should have been redacted by OS 4 years ago as I explained more than once in my pleadings of the case. Perhaps more attention should have been paid to my protests but the nature of WP is volunteerism, and with that comes time constraints. Therefore, my protests and attempts to get my personal info removed was ignored or perhaps overlooked, and what stuck was the fact that I posted it in the first place. It is not my intention to make this about me and I do want to emphasize that I don't believe Brianhe did anything out of the ordinary relative to how that case was presented at COIN. I have faith that as an admin, he will go the extra mile before passing judgment. He has demonstrated that ability and I noted it.

    Wikipedia:Harassment#Posting_of_personal_information states: However, if individuals have identified themselves without redacting or having it oversighted, such information can be used for discussions of conflict of interest (COI) in appropriate forums. If redacted or oversighted personally identifying material is important to the COI discussion, then it should be emailed privately to an administrator or arbitrator – but not repeated on Wikipedia: it will be sufficient to say that the editor in question has a COI and the information has been emailed to the appropriate administrative authority. Issues involving private personal information (of anyone) could also be referred by email to a member of the functionaries team. That part was totally ignored, I was outed, I took it to ArbCom, they rejected it because I failed to seek other venues of DR, and well, it was a total mess all the way around. I'm not convinced that it was Brianhe's responsibility to do anything more than he did since he was not the OP, the latter of whom later extended an apology to me which I accepted. After the outing, I basically said what the hell - I've nothing to hide so I'll let it all hang out and added more information about my activities on my UP so there would be no further attempts to use opposition research against me at COIN. Atsme^📞📧 19:57, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

    Thanks for providing those links. I agree with you that Brianhe was not responsible, and based on the available information made a reasonable assumption regarding the circumstances while remaining polite and collegiate. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC) The word you meant to use in this context is "collegial," not "collegiate." Collegial means friendly, professionally cooperative, etc.; collegiate relates to academic colleges or universities. Sorry to mention it here, but it's the fifth or sixth time I've seen the word misused in the three currently pending RfAs, and I've seen it repeatedly misused at RfA talk, and I finally had to say something. Sorry for interrupting your regularly scheduled programming. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

    In British English collegiate does signify sharing ideas and responsibilities with the people you work with, in a friendly way. I hadn't realised this use would be problematic for American readers. Thanks for bringing it up. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

45. Support ^{Babymissfortune} 02:58, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
46. Support -FASTILY 07:07, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
47. Support Dedicated editor doing great work in a difficult part of the encyclopedia. AIRcorn (talk) 08:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
48. Support. Kurtis ^(talk) 10:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
49. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 10:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
50. Weak support although I do hesitate somewhat given the concerns raised by Cunard and others. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 14:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
51. Support - Good candidate with a command of COI-related issues. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:58, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
52. Support —BorgHunter (talk) 16:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
53. Support Happy to see this editor given the tools to continue the work he does. Highly articulate, open and passionate about his agenda, but seems to have the self-awareness not to overstep lines in pursuit of it: Noyster (talk), 17:18, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
54. Support The opposes do not swing it for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronhjones (talk • contribs) 17:51, January 31, 2016‎ (UTC)
55. Support The arguments in the support section swing me this way. The user is very experienced and wants to work in COIN, an area that not too many are willing to be involved in. The user would be a net positive to the encyclopedia, and their answers are very eloquent and detailed. Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 19:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
56. Support Net positive. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:57, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

    Support. I don't share quite the same "kill with fire" approach to paid/COI editing as some (I'm far more interested in getting good content above all else), but Brianhe has a lot of expertise in this area and has my trust, and admin tools will help him to help us more. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC) I'm actually more than a little disturbed by some of the comments and diffs I've seen since my !vote, so I'll need to re-evaluate. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

57. Stephen 22:51, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
58. Support, per continuous good collaboration, and answers to my question --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:07, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
59. Weak support (changed from so-so support). The candidate is a net positive. BTW, I thought he was an admin already... epicgenius (talk) 23:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

    Reaffirming support, but it's weaker now, since I realized some problems in Brianhe's interactions with COI editors. If he works on that issue, everything will be fine. But he is, again, still a net positive. epicgenius (talk) 18:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

60. Support No concerns here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
61. Support should be net positive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

    Moved to opposeSupport To be so prominent at COIN, and yet remain relatively drama-free suggests to me that this user has the right temperament to manage the tools. Harrias ^talk 10:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

62. Support Good level headed editor doing important work. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
63. Support. Generally good contributions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
64. Support Does excellent work at COIN, which is a rather stormy place to tread. Handling issues there while staying neutral shows me an excellent sense of understanding and the patience needed to be an admin. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
65. Support No reason to oppose. Net positive. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 15:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
66. Support per User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards. While I see some concerns, as noted by opposing users, they are not a big deal to me. Bearian (talk) 15:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
67. Support per need for the tools, and I do not see any indication that this editor, impassioned though he be, would delete an article against consensus. A valid concern might be he would unilaterally delete something he felt was "advertising" (G11). I would ask caution and self-awareness of the candidate, but overall trust his judgement. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
68. Support per nom, and my general sense that any solid contributor who asks for the tools should be given them, as long as there are no glaring issues. Having looked into this editor's COI work a bit, I don't see any such issues. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 17:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
69. Support. I am particularly mindful of and sympathetic to Cunard's oppose, and have strong feelings in general against the deletion of quality content. However, that principle is not an absolute in Wikipedia policy (CSD G5), and it is clear that there is a continuing reassessment within the community of the question of how to address severe abuse of the encyclopedia for promotion. The candidate's views are not mine, but neither are they much of an outlier, and I have confidence based on previous observations of the editor that we'll see the tools, if granted, used with care and with the broad goal of building and protecting the encyclopedia. I also note and echo 78.26's comment regarding G11. --joe decker^talk 17:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

    Support - I am thoroughly unconvinced by the concerns brought up in the oppose section. Would definitely be a net positive to the project.  Wisdom89 ^♦talk 18:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC) I can no longer offer my support of this candidate in light of many of the opposers below. I don't like the attitude that I'm seeing and I get a true sense of battlefield mentality. The disdain for paid editors is also quite palpable.  Wisdom89 ^♦talk 17:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

70. Support -- I have some reservations that the COI hunting on WP is getting to be too much of the focus on the administration side compared to many other places that need more attention to improve the encyclopedia. Also wincing a bit on the confusion between PROD and CSD, but this confusion to me points to the need for the system to automatically revert CSD removals by article creators. So balancing two small concerns against the wide body of evidence that the editor would otherwise be an excellent admin, it's no big deal, and we need more admins, I support. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 19:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

    The opposition made me take a good close look at the essay, and I think it has two controversial/confrontational lines that sound like a manifesto: "I would have liked to call this essay "Wikipedia's Struggle to Save Its Soul"." and "The greatest threat to Wikipedia is currently Type 6 Black Hat editors, which will be explained below. They have the time, motivation, resources and numbers to pose a serious and sustained threat to Wikipedia's integrity, and ultimately the fate of the project." -- besides these two lines, I found it really well reasoned and giving appropriate weight to other side. After considering for a moment switching my vote, I feel even more comfortable leaving it here. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 19:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

71. Support, good work, let us give him tools to do more good work. —Kusma (t·c) 20:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

    Just confirming that I have seen the opposition. I can understand both sides of the argument, but I do not think a difference in opinion about the approach to paid editing should mean a lack of trust in the candidate. —Kusma (t·c) 09:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

72. Support I am supporting because of this user's in-person Wikipedia presentation skills. I have personally met this user and have communicated with them since about 2010. They are kind, thoughtful, and expert in discussing various aspects of Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects to all kinds of people in public meetings. This is a sensible person with even character and a light touch that resolves problems in the way with the least resistance. There have been times when I have been ignorant and done things incorrectly, and this user has kindly corrected me and shown me how to do better. I appreciate anyone who stops me and takes the time to show me a better way. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
73. Support Candidate actually enlightened me on the value of going after undisclosed paid editors, which to now was sort of a "meh" issue to me (I generally lean toward libertarian solutions to our problems here, and don't see a great deal of difference between an undisclosed paid editor and an undisclosed activist editor, and I wish we were as concerned about political activists sticking non-NPOV comment in our articles, or abusing edit protection to prevent edits for ideological reasons as we are about cashy money influencing our content. For all we know, the activists are getting walking-around money too; one of the two major US political parties raised US$1 billion two years ago for "action".). Candidate, however, convinced me he's sincere about making wikipedia better and defending it from a real threat to our value as an encyclopedia. Fair enough. loupgarous (talk) 03:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

    Weak support per Dennis Brown. sst✈^(conjugate) 08:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)_{moving to oppose}

74. Support Even when we were not in agreement over certain content, he had a nice balance of common sense VS wiki-rules, remained polite and distanced himself from the more petty aspects of wiki-drama. The only negative thing I can say about interactions involving this potential admin, is that perhaps he is a little too nice and that his expectations regarding civility might be in conflict with current standards. But hey, if he can drag the average comment up a notch or two, in regards to politeness, then all the better. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
75. Support Sure let's give it a try. Jianhui67 ^T★C 15:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
76. Support - For some reason, when I saw this RfA I could have sworn that I had, in the past, formed a negative opinion of Brianhe's judgment, but couldn't quite remember why or when. I don't have negative opinions of many experienced editors, so it felt worth looking into given the request for admin tools. So I did some digging.... and found nothing at all. Nothing, that is, other than positive contributions to the project. Enough to justify [a slightly guilt-tinged] support. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
77. Support - More than adequate tenure and contributions. The only issue for me is whether this candidate holds mainstream views regarding Conflict of Interest or whether he might go rogue pushing an extremist anti-COI agenda with a series of more or less problematic blocks. I've carefully read his responses to questions above and find them even-handed and thoughtful. While I doubt that someone who has made over 1,000 edits to the Conflict of Interest noticeboard is apt to be particularly liberal in their interpretation of the rules, I'm ultimately not fearful that this candidate will go off the rails in the other direction. Carrite (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
78. Support Nightwalker-87 (talk) 18:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
79. Support I trust this editor to act professionally. Mamyles (talk) 20:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
80. Support: An editor who has done good work in a difficult area and who could help the encyclopedia more with administrative tools. I'm impressed with what he has written and glad to see such clear thinking. I hope that he will be cautious as an administrator and will continue to recognize that reasonable people can disagree on how conflict of interest issues are seen. Being certain that one is right can be a danger, especially in a position of power.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  21:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
81. Support Unlikely to abuse the tools or position.--MONGO 00:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
82. Support I have met the editor through the Seattle area meetup once or twice, he is a solid guy. I have inspected his contribs and they look good. On the philosophical debate brought up: I do tend to side a bit with Cunard, but I do not think it has any bearing on suitability for adminship. Antrocent (♫♬) 02:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
83. Support He does a good work and would use the tools wisely. RadiX∞ 03:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
84. Support. He is doing good work and seems very trustworthy. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
85. Support based on edit history and outstanding contributions in COI- and related areas. Considering an editing career of 11+ years, I don't see an occasional dispute or difference in opinion as dealbreakers against an adminship. I trust, that Brianhe will differentiate between his personal views on the one hand and current consensus on the other hand, and will base his decisions as admin on the latter. With his expertise in COI- and paid editing issues, Brianhe will be a huge asset to address problems in these areas. GermanJoe (talk) 09:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
86. Support. Strong track-record to hunting down systemic abuse of the project by paid outsiders, the #1 threat to WP's future. I'm not terribly concerned about a handful of lapses of temper or judgment. It will iron out. I do take the opposers' concerns seriously, and read through that all in detail. I hope the candidate does as well, and learns from it, whether successful in this particular RfA or not. I agree that the WP:HIGHMAINT move was tacky, and that forgetting one cannot remove speedy deletion tags from one's own articles was pretty silly. I also trust that it won't happen again. As for the WP:BOGOF matter, that's really a matter of wikiphilosophy, and (at this stage in WP's evolution) a more important one than, say, inclusionism vs. deletionism (largely settled by WP:N), or immediatism vs. eventualism (entirely settled by WP's becoming one of the most-used websites in the world). It's an issue that will continue to be debated, and I'm not going to vote against someone capable and dedicated just because their exact view on a pretty new idea about how to handle a growing WP problem doesn't 100% match mine (either of our views could change on it just over the next few months). I also don't buy the "he guessed wrong that time at WP:SSI" complaint. The reason it's "suspected sockpuppet investigations" not "sockpuppet blocking" is because we're not omniscient, it is based on suspicion (WP:DUCK moderating initial assumptions of good faith), and it does require investigation. A necessary consequence of this in an imperfect world is that some socking suspicions will turn out to be false alarms. The key is to be neutral and respectful until it's proven, and not treat people like dirtbags while they're still suspects. I don't see any evidence that Brianhe has failed in this regard. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 09:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

    Support per Dennis Brown, Carrite and Atsme. While I might not approve of all the candidate's actions exemplified in shown diffs, he has shown substantial level of self-reflection and honesty to earn my trust. While I understand Carrite's oppose, and agree that the Brianhe's threat to leave was WP:DIVA-ish, I have an impression that it was a one-off lapse of temper. Perfection is not required. No such user (talk) 12:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC) (moved to Neutral)

    I didn't oppose, I supported, with some misgivings. Carrite (talk) 04:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

    Sorry, I meant Cunard. But I'm moving to neutral. No such user (talk) 12:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

87. Support I was on the fence but the answers to the COI questions convinced me that this user's understanding of the COI policy is sound and that there is very little risk that they will misuse the tools. I understand the opposition which is what put me on the fence in the first place, but I see granting the tools in this case as a net positive. Chuy1530 (talk) 18:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

    Support. No given oppose has swayed me, nor have I been able to find any reason why Brianhe shouldn't be given the tools. Kharkiv07 (T) 19:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

88. Strong Support Great work on COI matters; generally good judgement and a very good temperment. Everybody is human and has lapses; his are few and well-handled afterwards (which is what is the most important). So happy to have more admins sensitive to, and focused on, violations of WP:PROMO. Jytdog (talk) 20:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
89. Support per Carrite. et ruat caelum... BethNaught (talk) 22:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
90. Support. A proven leader, and very experienced. It's about time after 10 long years. --Mr. Guye (talk) 23:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
91. Support – Brianhe would be a net benefit as an admin. The community's attitude to COI editing is not simple or free of tension. I'm pleased to see that Brianhe has come through his labors at COIN with some balanced ideas on how to deal with the problem. EdJohnston (talk) 23:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
92. Support I have concerns about the Question 13 issue originally brought up by Cunard. I think the fact that an article was started/developed by a COI editor should play no role when considering an article for deletion, provided the most recent version has no issues. The edit history is literally a thing in the past and in my view irrelevant in AfDs (WP:DEL-REASON doesn't mention it). If nothing else, provided the article is notable, it could be recreated right away with the same content and then there suddenly wouldn't be reason to delete it. That said, I think the candidate does important work and I think they would benefit from having access to the tools. Gap9551 (talk) 01:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
93. support Generally very reliable, with good judgment. I think the candidate's actions with regard to promotionalism & COI is pretty much aligned with the current consensus; there will always be disagreements about just where the dividing line runs. I think it appropriate for an admin to have a strong opinion, provided they judge according to the consensus, and I have no real doubts about that. No active admin can avoid making mistakes unless they deal with the utterly routine and leave the difficult work to others--what's important is a willingness to reconsider, and I see that, including in this discussion. DGG ( talk ) 06:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
94. Support: Agree with DGG. Will make a solid admin. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
95. Support: I am satisfied with the answers and impressed with the record. Differently from other more carefully planned WP careers, this candidacy is susceptible to the sway of personal beliefs regarding ethics, more specifically, about COI. Because of its long record in COI investigations, taking an !vote here has been more time and energy consuming than expected. The bottom line is that Brianhe is a rare breed of editor who offers WP an outstanding service in diverse areas; a first-rate article writer and a thorough knowledge of policies and protocols. An in-depth review of the candidate’s judgment history reveals that despite of what some see as unwarranted zeal for COI, we have a fair decision-maker as a candidate with knowledge and experience that few can match. In the records I encountered many times in which the tools would have facilitated the work, avoided delays, and made the interactions with editors smoother. In fact, the tools on this candidate would not only allow the user to accomplish more, but it would alleviate the burden on admins who have been performing the work in its behalf. RfAs should not become personality or popularity contests, or referendums on policies. The question we have to answer is, can we trust this editor with the tools? We should. After reading many diffs, the user strikes me as being the type of person that has nothing to hide, honest and reliable. Granting Brianhe the tools is not a statement about COI’s philosophy, but about the need WP in managing itself and trusting individual judgment. WP vulnerabilities worry me, sure, and this candidate’s work and fervor is reassuring, but even when I can't yet claim a clear position on the topic since I am still digesting the material, I have seen the user is trustworthy. I searched for impartiality (which is not the same as manners or ideology about COI), and I found the candidate to be fair. Take for example, how Brianhe consistently admits when its knowledge is limited: “My non-exhaustive investigation of the archives shows…” Or look at this user’s commitment to personal ethic: “There are some constraints on what I can do without violating Wikipedia privacy policies…” I can offer many more diffs, but honestly, this is an individual task that should take into account the user’s role as investigator. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 15:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
96. Support per DGG (See, WP:PAID), and the opposes are too hung up on differences of opinion, and that an oppose does not like Brianhe's opinions is rather bad reasoning (as is the objection that he said something is the 'most' or the 'worst', Wikipedian's say things like that about things all the time) - wanting all 10,000 or 1000 or even 10 Wikipedian's to think as you do, about Wikipedia, is not only unrealistic it is bad for Wikipedia, and in particular bad as an adminship requirement. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC) . . . and per Bilorv. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC) Having read again, the over-the-top opposses about "battlefeid mentality", the opposer's accuse themselves - by their own measure, they themselves are guilty of a battlefield mentality by getting all-in-vapors mode about a sentence in an essay (their problem, of course, is that the can point to no incivility and no grudge against any individual, so no battle). They further demonstrate they over-read it and assume bad faith about it by reading it in the worst possible light, with practically no actions to back them up - and then they wind-up and accuse this ten-year-accomplished-veteran of being a dread threat to the Pedia - whatever Brianhe's alleged thoughtcrime for speaking those words, it's not as much a threat to the Pedia as the evident tunnel-vision rancor of much of the opposes. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
97. Support I see some opponents, but the enemy of the good is the perfect. The COIN area needs to be better managed while protecting the existing advantages. That cannot be done without the experience and perspective of being an admin. Travelmite (talk) 16:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
98. Support: has been here for ages; lots of positive content contributions; never been blocked etc. While I may disagree slightly with their stance on COI editing, I assume that Brianhe will act according to what they say—"I would follow blocking policy." (Q16)—with admin tools in response to COI editors. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 16:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
99. Support. Good contribs and no blocks. Ilya Drakonov (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC).
100. Support There are good comments above that show Brianhe has a good grasp of PAG and a good way of dealing with people. That is sometimes more important as sometimes people online forget that there is a real person on the other end. Civility is required, and an admin who is civil and has a good way of dealing with people is a benefit to the community. AlbinoFerret 18:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
101. Support I believe that Brian is a good-faith and diligent contributor. I do wonder if his interest in preventing COI editing might sometimes make it difficult to remain neutral, but on the other hand his passion and energy are helpful, and I've known him to reach out to ask for advice when he's unsure of something. The 30 day trial period and the openness to recall provide for a bit of a "soft launch" as well as a way for the community to ask him to put away the tools if it turns out that he's overzealous. Given the safety valves available here, and my faith in his good intentions and diligence for the good of the encyclopedia, I support. --Pine^✉ 19:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
102. Support Opposers are talking about this candidate's stance on paid editing. While I would not agree with their view, I don't believe it would affect their ability to use administrator tools effectively, and as such I tend to lean support for all candidates who could do this, even with some small concerns, because more admin promotion is important. AGF! Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (note) 19:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
103. Support - I've reviewed the essay and the opposition comments, and ultimately I think Brianhe will be a net positive. People have different views on paid editing, but I haven't seen any evidence that Brian would be likely to abuse the tools.--Mojo Hand (talk) 21:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
104. Support I think that a few poor phrases or even a few zealous actions have been over-emphasized when they are not representative of Brianhe's whole body of work and usual demeanor. He has done quality work, much of it in a controversial area, over a long period of time. It seems that his position on paid editing follows the current community consensus; only in a few instances has he seemed to test the boundary. I am concerned about administrators being civil and approaching questions or controversies with a neutral point of view. I think the candidate will do that, especially given the emphasis on these points here and his usual demeanor. I view him as trustworthy and believe he is well beyond a net positive. Rather than write more, I further point to the persuasive analyses and opinions of User:DGG, User:Alanscottwalker, User:Happysquirrel and Caballero/Historiador, among others with similar views. Donner60 (talk) 23:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
105. Support - Overall, I think the editor will be a net positive as an admin, and I largely agree with DGG's rationale for his support !vote. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
106. Support - Clearly has the integrity of the project at heart, has skills, and would make a good admin IMMHO. Moriori (talk) 01:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
107. Support I don't find the oppose arguments relating to paid editing to be convincing. Conifer (talk) 01:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
108. Support Im throwing my hat in the pool for the guy. Upon a 15 minute rewview, I find his edits in good order and thus deservers my vote. Winterysteppe (talk) 01:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
109. Support, though with some concerns. I've read through some of the candidate's writings about COI issues, especially his long essay and his answers above, including to my two questions (15-16). I perceive Brianhe as a dedicated, intelligent, serious, well-meaning, long-time Wikipedian who has given a tremendous amount of thought to how we can best preserve the encyclopedia's integrity. He has strong views and strongly expresses them, occasionally with a stridency I don't care for. In some ways I find his approach to COI too complicated and in others too simplistic ... but then again, he's thinking through some of the most difficult issues the project faces, which we as a community have not yet fully conceptualized and resolved. Here's the thing: None of us want overtly promotional or paid editing to take over the project, but as reflected in Brianhe's taxonomy of COI, most "COI" cases are far short of that. Given the prominence of Wikipedia, people are going to want to be included (even as others ironically fight just as hard to be excluded). We all need to remember that it can be devastating for a BLP subject, a company, or an institution to be prominently accused of editing Wikipedia with a COI—whether the accusation is false, borderline (as in my "article for a friend" question 15), or even true. Most promotional or self-interested editing is undertaken without venal intent ("our equally sized competitor has an article so we should have an article too, and it's not going to get there unless I take the initiative of getting it written") and is entirely understandable. Our rule-set for new editors confronted with COI warnings is bewildering, and contains counterintuitive contradictions (example: "I'm a librarian and I want to add information about the notable manuscripts in our library ... let's see, I'm supposed to prominently disclose I'm connected to the library ... I can do that by call my account XYZPublicLibrary, that's pretty clear who I am ... wait, what? A 'username block'? Does this place want to work with librarians or doesn't it?") and unrealistic recommendations ("you shouldn't edit your own article, you need suggest the obvious factual correction to your article on the talkpage, and hope that someone will notice it maybe in the next nine weeks"). And we need to focus more on negative COIs, which can be far more problematic than ordinary ones (see here, or recall the Qworty fiasco). I've probably crossed the line here into starting my own essay about COI issues (not a bad idea, actually) rather than critiquing the candidate, so I'll stop here. Bottom line: Brianhe's dedication and familiarity with key wiki issues are strong positives but they should be leavened by careful consideration of what has been said up and down this page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:21, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
110. Support - He has experience, which is what we need most in the world of admins. -The Great iShuffle (talk) 04:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
111. Support A good candidate, and there are plenty of voices to support paid editing and other COI activity, so there is no problem having someone on the other side. There may be some excessive zeal, but that is the case on both sides, and I see no objections other than a difference of approach regarding the use of Wikipedia to promote people and products. Johnuniq (talk) 06:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
112. Support - Brianhe has been editing Wikipedia since 2004 and clearly in a constructive way. He has showed clue, level-headedness, good temperament and understanding of policies. In my understanding, he clearly is a net positive for this project and getting the mop will only benefit the site. I see absolutely no reason to believe that he will possibly abuse the tools. For over 11 years, he has helped to build the encyclopedia and has proved to be good at what he does. He will be fine with the extra tools and will use them judiciously. Yash! 06:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
113. Support Admin tools will help his vital COI work. There are so many COI editors, perhaps there should be more warnings at registration, perhaps at registration having to sign a commitment to reveal COI on a talk page of the article being edited. Atlantic306 (talk) 10:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
114. Support - This is clearly someone who is passionate about one of the most important aspects of Wikipedia, and arguably the one that's most threatened - its neutrality, especially the scourge of paid editing and the BOGOF phenomenon. While passionate people can occasionally rub others up the wrong way - and it seems he has fallen into that trap once or twice - we really need that kind of enthusiasm in the administrator community. WaggersTALK 11:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
115. Support We should not be discouraging bold administration of COI and paid editing. Gricehead (talk) 13:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
116. Support on balance. Deb (talk) 14:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
117. I probably should express my view fairly concisely, but I far prefer the level of detail in Newyorkbrad's vote - which sums up my view. That said, I would add (more firmly) that if it becomes apparent that the candidate has failed to seriously take the words on this page into account, he can expect a prompt petition for his tools to be removed. Other than perhaps considering steps he may wish to take to rectify past issues/problems as soon as possible, I suggest the candidate ensures he take the time to put more thought before acting (or saving the page with certain edits/posts) in future. I perceive potential and scope for improvement; it's up to him to realise it when he performs routine admin activities regularly, and in the way he more carefully handles less routine actions and discussions. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
118. Support. Likely net positive. Pichpich (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
119. Support. Happybluemo (talk) 17:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
120. Support. Through (brief) interactions, seems like an ideal candidate and stays level-headed - have worked constructively on some early, stub articles as well. Appable (talk) 18:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
121. Support - Per Newyorkbrad, whose reasoning stands tall. Opposers aren't making a reasonable case, in my view. Candidate shows poise in the face of days of pressure, which, combined with years of service, focus on COI violators and a clean block log, convinces me to support this Rfa. The Wiki will be a better place, should Brianhe be given the tools, as I see it. Jusdafax 18:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

     Hear, hear - I second JDF's comment above and I wish to associate myself with them. I reiterate my support for this candidate. I am no COI purist, but this is a dedicated member of the community, not some renegade, rogue or nut who is likely to break the wiki he clearly loves. If anyone had any concerns about the candidate pushing the COI enforcement envelope beyond current consensus, then the constructive criticism has been substantially more than a wake-up call. It is one thing to advocate for stricter policy and guidelines, and it is quite another to attempt to enforce a stricter version of policy and guidelines which the community has not adopted. I am convinced this candidate understands the difference and would be a great deal more than a "net positive" as an administrator. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

     My thanks, DL. Being in the discretionary range, these last !votes are crucial. I suggest that anyone still on the fence consider your thoughts, as well as NYB's. These are comments that carry weight. Jusdafax 18:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

122. Support. I don't believe that an editor always needs to be "right" or end up on the "right side" of debates. Even if they have strong opinions that I do not necessarily agree with, that would not prevent them from being a suitable candidate for adminship. What I would be concerned with is an editor's tendency to be so convinced that they are "right" that they would ignore the normal checks and balances (the process) under the banner of "IAR" and unilaterally take actions that may be inappropriate. I have carefully looked through all of the comments and while I think that many of the supports raise some valid points about his having some strong opinions, I don't see any signs that Brianhe would be apt to unilaterally delete articles or block editors with whom he has a conflict or with whom he feels are not here to improve the project, except in cases of disruption. In fact, I feel like his comments and answers in this discussion have reassured me that he sees the value in the process and that he would make a rational administrator that just happens to spend time in areas that tend to have more drama than others. Neil916 (Talk) 18:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
123. Support My standpoint also opposed any kind of paid money editing. SA 13 Bro (talk) 18:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
124. Support. I was going to sit this one, but after reading the comments below, and following the links, and seeing how a veteran editor who has done so much for the project and has his heart in the right place (free of blocks, mind you), has been demonized (by that I mean, taken as if he would be a threat to WP), I think my !vote should count for something. Rosario (talk) 19:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
125. Support, per Kudpung; having read through the opposes, I don't find myself agreeing with the arguments. Seems like Briahnhe will be an excellent admin. APerson (talk!) 19:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
126. Support. DGG's comments farther down the page are persuasive. MPS1992 (talk) 19:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
127. Support. I had originally !voted "oppose" on the basis of what I saw as a careless disregard for deletion policy. But reading further into this candidate's history suggests that is not a general problem, and everyone gets to have a bad day - even at AfD. Meanwhile the candidate is being serially-opposed on the basis that he holds a controversial position on COI. He is being held to the standard of not only needing a perfect history of behaviour, but also of holding perfect opinions. That is an impossible and useless standard if we want to actually have new administrators. As it happens I mostly do not agree with Brianhe's approach to COI, but I don't see any meaningful evidence that his opinions on that topic would lead to misuse of administrator powers. Many current administrators close AfDs as (say) "delete" when they would have !voted "keep" (or vice versa) - it is entirely possible and entirely common for an administrator to hold opinion "X", but yet implement a consensus to do "not X". It is a serious stretch to assume bad faith about someone who has devoted years of effort to improving the encyclopedia, in the absence of any evidence. Thparkth (talk) 20:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

     Very much thanks, well said - he has basically perfect behavior - no blocks - no AN/I drama brought up, here -- while amassing 100s of articles over more then a decade in the editing lines - trustworthy, stable, within policy and consensus, that's the real evidence, here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

128. Support. The opposes have identified some minor concerns, but on balance I think Wikipedia is more likely to benefit by the candidate being an admin than to be harmed. DexDor ^(talk) 20:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
129. Support—Brianhe's extensive essays and answers to questions concerning Wikipedia COI, and his extensive work in this field are valuable contributions to preserving and increasing the reputation and value of Wikipedia as a knowledge resource. I applaud the transparency the candidate as brought to this RfA. — Neonorange (talk) 21:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
130. Support I reviewed a lot of contribs and talk page actiity over the passt year. I don't see an indication that the tool set may be misused. I don't agree with all Brianhe's opinions (I am occasionally a ..GOF) but that's not what RfA is about. I understand the concerns of those in the oppose section but I don't share them. I judge that Brianhe will help improve our encyclopedia as a sysop, not harm it. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 21:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
131. Support per DDG, Jusdafax, and Kudpung. Lizard (talk) 21:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
132. Support I believe that Wikipedia is big enough to accommodate a wide variety of views. We could, of course, try to build a community where everyone thinks in exactly the same way but uniformity is not conducive to growth and evolution. Brianhe holds views on paid editing that I partly agree with and partly disagree with and I'd rather have an admin whose views are different from my own than have one who holds exactly the same views. We are not so toothless that we can't rein in a passionate admin if he/she chooses to run amok. SilkTork calls Brianhe 'intelligent and literate' and, by all appearances, that does appear to be the case. Can't really ask for more than that. --regentspark (comment) 22:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
133. Support. I'm granting you a mulligan for that bio of someone who "was responsible for following senior executives' orders" (there was a lot of talk about that subject recently). Impressed that you have NY Brad's support, and your two nominators' support. Though everyone has focused on your COI-related editing, you have an extensive edit history unrelated to that with no major issues I've seen, and I won't hold your preference for motors over pedals against you ;). The oppose section has become a bit disproportionately overblown in my estimation. Trust you will take the valid criticism there onboard, though. I don't think this will be an easy call for the 'crats, but gives them another opportunity for implementation of our lowered discretionary bar. Good luck. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
134. Support for his strong work rooting out those who tirelessly manipulate the wiki as a promotional tool. - CompliantDrone (talk) 23:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
135. Support basically per Newyorkbrad. HiDrNick! 23:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I rewrote Twitter Power (diff), and The Next Internet Millionaire (diff), which had been listed by Brianhe at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 87#The Next Internet Millionaire. After the two rewrites, Brianhe wrote in September 2015 at User talk:Cunard/Archive 10#AfDs:

   I'm about --><--- this close to suspending my editing in protest unless this BOGOF behavior can be curbed (great name for it by the way Widefox). Tired of having sleazy PR / SEO hacks make hay from my volunteer work. Hey, come to think of it, maybe a blackout day is a good idea. However, apologies to DGG, I'm not going to fight the AfDs one at a time, it just isn't worth the angst to me. Maybe I'll go away for a couple of months and see what has happened in the meantime.

   BOGOF refers to buy one, get one free. One editor who subscribes to this philosophy explained the term's meaning, "Rewriting bad paid content with good volunteer content results in hiring a BOGOF editor."

   After I rewrote Joel Comm (diff), Brianhe wrote on my talk page, "Rewriting the spammers' biographies for them hours after they are nominated for deletion is counterproductive. I don't want to have anything to do with the nomination or the rewrite, if this is what happens."

   An editor at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Next Internet Millionaire (2nd nomination) suggested using WP:IAR to delete an article I had rewritten. I replied, "I don't think WP:IAR is a good reason to delete my hard work on a notable topic." In reaction to my comment, Brianhe wrote, "Wow, this really turns the situation on its head. An editor attaching his good reputation to a tainted topic and asking that it be retained on that basis? Wow. I'm jumping in now with my !vote."

   I disagree that promotionalism renders a subject a "tainted topic". I rewrite articles on topics I consider notable. Threatening to "suspen[d] my editing in protest unless this BOGOF behavior can be curbed" in my response to my rewrites reflects a temperament I do not want to see in an admin.

   In response to Q5, Brianhe said "bottom line is we're here to build an encyclopedia". Deleting formerly promotional but now rewritten articles on notable topics because they have been "tainted" does not build the encyclopedia.

   Cunard (talk) 06:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

   Berean Hunter called this "oppose" a "non-sequitur". I disagree. I opposed because Brianhe's message to me was that if I didn't stop rewriting formerly promotional articles, I would be responsible for driving him away from Wikipedia. I would be responsible for the loss of his contributions to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard and to Wikipedia. That he did not eventually leave does not matter. That he attempted to manipulate me to conform to his viewpoint (stop rewriting articles) does.

   Cunard (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

2. Strong Oppose Too much what I would call questionable behavior towards editors. Plus supported by editors to whom I have limited faith in. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 06:59, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

   Adding that I have an heavy misgivings about some of what I can only describe as a witch hunt against certain editors. Focus should be directed on making neutral edits. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 17:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

3. Oppose Pretty much per Cunard and my sense he doesn't get why his actions were neither policy-based nor good for the encyclopedia. Deleting editors work because they are editing topics you don't think they should is really problematic and goes against the idea that we are all volunteers. If their work is poor, we try to help. If they are writing on non-notable topics, we try to explain our notability criteria. But if you just think because an article was started by a COI editor their shouldn't be an article at all, that's a bad sign. I was hoping for a "I was angry and wrong" or "As an admin, I'd recognize that my IAR !vote shouldn't hold much weight and I'd not close a discussion based on by BOGOF views". But I didn't hear any of that. Hobit (talk) 01:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

   I'll just note I've left some more detailed reasoning on the talk page. I'd also like to note that there is a real chance he'll be a solid addition to the admin corp. His situation reminds me of kww's, which has been a roller coaster of an admin (though a net positive for certain). Hobit (talk) 23:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

4. Oppose The conversation cited above by Cunard shows that the candidate doesn't understand what is neutral editing of an encyclopedia. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:51, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
5. Weak Oppose Per Cunard, Dennis Brown and SilkTork. Although I believe that the editor has the best interests of the projects at heart, I think that for someone interested in this particular area (COIN) level-headedness and discretion are essential. Specifically this as a response to an well established editor clearly acting in good faith does not reflect well on an editor who (by their own admission c.f. Question 6) will have a voice which carries much more weight whether or not an action or comment is labeled as 'offical' or not.. Or, to put it in the canadates own terms, I think they have a lot of good faith enthusiasm for the project (which is why this oppose is weak), but perhaps in some cirucmstances too much (which in a perfect world wouldn't be a bad thing... but then in a perfect world AGF would never have had to be codified). Crazynas ^t 07:33, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
6. STrong oppose That user made very questionable edits. I'm so tired (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

   @Tonton Bernardo: If you don't mind me asking, could you please give examples, or are you agreeing with the above? Either way, thanks in advance. epicgenius (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

7. Oppose - my concern is impartiality. His close and longstanding support of a problematic editor initially gave me the impression of sockpuppetry. My concern is that he'd find it difficult to refrain from intervening in future disputes involving his buddies. Brianhe's contribution here is a concern, spotting socks where none existed. --Pete (talk) 22:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

   I hope that readers note this comment I made to one of the investigated parties when evaluating my participation in the matter. I pointed out to the new editor that support and trust are earned. Not everybody here is a saint, but we all have the potential to make valuable contributions, do you agree Pete? – Brianhe (talk) 23:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

   Noted. My concerns are not with content, but behaviour. --Pete (talk) 23:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

1. Oppose. I'm sorry to oppose. I hate to. But I am concerned that this user has a slender grasp of deletion policy (as demonstrated in this discussion where he indicated that he does not see any policy issue with removing a speedy G11 tag from an article he created himself) and has demonstrated some rather emotionally-led participation in AfDs. I do not think it would be appropriate to give Brianhe the ability to delete articles at this time. (And I hate this process, and believe appointments should be made after private discussions by an elected committee.) Thparkth (talk) 11:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

   I want to expand on my concern relating to the speedy G11 issue. I am not opposing because Brianhe removed the G11 tag from an article he created. Although strictly against the wording of policy, I think this was a reasonable IAR situation. My concern is that he did this without realizing it was a policy concern (despite the template he removed clearly stating "you may not remove this if you are the article creator"), and then when specifically asked about the policy issues around that action, still didn't think there were any.

   If you are the subject of an RfA, and someone specifically asks you about the policy concerns around an action you have taken, but you are puzzled because you didn't realize there were any such concerns, wouldn't you at least take the time to find and read the relevant policies and understand what the question was getting at before answering? I am open to changing to "support" if the discussion here ends up addressing my concerns, but don't we expect to see a candidate's best understanding of policy, and best judgement ability being displayed when answering an RfA question? What if that was his best?

   Thparkth (talk) 23:21, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

1. Strong Oppose Seems to think his battle against COI on Wikipedia is something that should be bigged up as much as possible in Wikipedia articles he edits, even when barely relevant or BLP non-compliant. At least that's how he's come across in my interactions with him. A lot of this revolves around the COI on Wikipedia navbox he created and posted into a whole load of articles as a mark of shame. Sony Pictures Entertainment hack[2], had only one sentence relating to Wikipedia in the entire lengthy article but this still somehow warranted it having the navbox. David Coburn got the same navbox in his article from Brianhe despite being a BLP with once again only one sentence mentioning Wikipedia.[3] Brianhe also added a mark of shame navbox to the notorious article on Grant Shapps. When reverted, he re-reverted citing WP:BRD,[4] showing a misunderstanding of what BRD actually is. The adding of the navbox to that article was also inappropriate for reasons I explained on the talk page at the time. Is the sort of COI zealot who doesn't care if he destroys half-decent Wikipedia articles in the process, as long as he wins his scorched earth battle against the COI editors. Cunard's oppose only serves as further evidence of this. Bosstopher2 (talk) 10:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose. This fellow has a one-track mind, and he is rude, to boot. Since when is it OK to refer to another editor to whom you have not been properly introduced as "bub"? User_talk:Brianhe#Uncivil We need admins who are gentle and welcoming. We need admins who make it their business to counsel others, not be rude to them. I shudder to think of this gentleman being able to poke around in other folks' accounts even more than he already can. Wikipedia is too much a part of many people's lives to subject them to the rudeness that this editor has manifested. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 01:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

   For context, !voters should be aware of this entirely justified COIN thread that Brian instigated surrounding BeenAroundAWhile's edits. SmartSE (talk) 12:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

3. Oppose The examples provided by Cunard and Montanabw show that the candidate does not understand how to edit neutrally, as Vejvančický has pointed out. zzz (talk) 06:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
4. Oppose - While Brianhe is a good editor and does good things at COIN, I have concerns about objectivity and neutrality as raised by Cunard and Montanabw. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 21:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
5. Oppose. I've been watching this RfA almost since the beginning, wondering if my gut instinct would be proved wrong; no such luck. "Paid editing" is an issue that has been blown out of all proportion by a handful of editors who seem to be on a crusade to eliminate it and woe betide anyone who gets in their way, be they misguided newbie or an experienced editor acting in good faith. There is a lot of drama surrounding the subject at the moment, and based on the nomination and the diffs presented immediately above, an admin Brianhe is only likely to inflame things further. Given some of the diffs above, for example, where he seems adamant that the work of paid editors should be deleted, even after it has been rewritten by another editor (and then attacking that editor!), so I have grave concerns about how he would act in a similar situation if he actually had the technical ability to delete articles. I feel that the campaign of Brianhe is a part is damaging to Wikipedia, and that it goes against our values of commenting on content and not on the contributor; further, I feel it misses the point—promotional articles and edits can be deleted or reverted without the need for an investigation into the editor's background, and decent, policy compliant articles and edits should be kept, again with no need to investigate he editor's background, which in my experience often strays dangerously close the realms of "outing". Those found at noticeboards expending hot air over paid editing are rarely, in my experience, those found at the coalface where these sorts of decisions are made routinely without the drama. Tl;dr: overly aggressive, crusade mentality, too eager to get involved in drama and investigations rather the business of writing and maintaining an encyclopaedia, or per Cunard, Bosstopher, and to some extent Hobit. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
6. Oppose Sorry, but I can't support this. Brian is dedicated and has a lot of energy, and should be thanked for that. But I share the concerns above about the high degree of specialization in COI matters, and desire to use admin tools to further that work. His 35k (!) userspace essay on the topic says that "The greatest threat to Wikipedia is currently Type 6 Black Hat editors" - that's already a little too Defender of the Wiki for my taste, but skimming to the end, the recommended way of dealing with them is apparently "daylighting these actors ruthlessly". Daylighting? Ruthlessly? Furthermore, I am not at all comfortable with this "BOGOF" business and the resulting approach to either article content or the contributions of other volunteers. One thing I don't care about is removing a speedy tag in 2015 from an article created in 2006 (really, that's nitpicking). But I just don't get the sense that the block and delete buttons will be used with sufficient caution in his intended area of specialization. Since this is very likely to pass, I hope the effect will be that Brian takes some of these concerns on board in admin decisions, going well forward from that proposed 30 day "easing-in" period. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

   I've voted on the Support side, because on balance I see more benefits than harm from giving the tools, but I hope that Brian does take @Opabinia regalis:'s concerns (and other's) to heart after receiving the tools and recognizes that as an admin he should recognize the community's divided opinion on the harm of COI editing. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 19:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

7. Oppose. I'm conflicted about this, because there is a lot to admire in the candidate, a very intelligent, courteous, and well-meaning editor. As much as I agree that paid editing is a serious threat to Wikipedia, I also think that we have serious problems when anyone approaches administratorship as fulfilling a higher mission. I agree with HJ Mitchell and Opabinia regalis just above me. Please think of it this way: first, do no harm. As Opabinia just said, please take things slowly at first, and please don't overreach. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

   I just now came across Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 93#Sépage, from just a few months ago, and I'm not happy about it. It reinforces my opposition. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

8. Oppose - (moved from support) The longer this goes on, the less comfortable I feel with this candidate. The essay User:Brianhe/What's wrong with undisclosed paid editing pointed out by Opabinia regalis is the icing on the cake. HJMitchell is also very persuasive in his arguments. Brian is starting to look like a COI warrior, and that is just going too far over the line. I already thought his stance on COI and paid editing was too harsh, but I don't require someone agree with me on every point to support them. In this case, I can already see the future drama that will result once the tools are granted. I fear it will cause a battleground mentality and that it will cost us good editors that might have a COI but simply need a little education, not to be slammed with the ban stick. We must cooperate with people, even those with COI or who get paid, or you push them underground as socks. It seems he has an agenda that isn't about building an encyclopedia as much as purging it of certain kinds of people, and I am extremely uncomfortable with that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
9. Oppose per Bosstopher, BeenAroundAWhile and Dennis Brown above, with whom I concur. Adding the tools into the mix is a recipe for drama that will end in tears. As Opabinia regalis says, giving the tools to someone who expresses a desire for "daylighting these actors ruthlessly" suggests that any sense of caution will be thrown to the wind. Keri (talk) 10:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
10. Oppose. For me, the "anti-BOGOF" activism is a dealbreaker. Part of being a volunteer project is that we all have the right to choose what we work on. Part of being a wiki is that we get ideas for what to work on from what others do. Part of WP:NPOV (and WP:V) is that article topics are notable or not notable independent of who starts the article (or even whether they make a hash of it: see the first edit at Kristni saga, for example). The distinction between the notability of the topic and the merits of the existing article is important at AfD, and even when articles are the work of banned editors, it's explicitly stated in policy that any editor in good standing can take responsibility for the article, including asking for it to be undeleted. The candidate's stance of seeking to curtail editors' freedom to fix articles because they were (or may have been) created by someone with a conflict of interest runs counter to these principles and leaves me less than confident that they would use the tools in accordance with policy. I note that the exchange Cunard reports on happened last September, and that the essay was written shortly after that. Changes of heart can happen in four months, but the essay remains extremist and indicative of an attitude that I consider harmful in an administrator. (... I also have another doubt that may be peculiar to me, but I'll state it here in the interests of full disclosure. An important part of adminship is being able to communicate. Often admins find that someone needs to have a policy or guideline explained; or for whatever reason, it devolves on the admin to say something, rather than just making an alphabet soup of wiki-abbrev. links. I find it hard at times to parse what the candidate is saying. There's a tendency to use business jargon (?) For example, I looked carefully at the answer to q. 9 and I'm still not sure whether the last paragraph means "We have excellent standards at COI and we need to make sure all who participate at COI live up to them" or "We need to institute excellent standards at COI and I've been thinking already about how to make sure new participants in the area are trained in good practices". It made me unsure what the candidate had learned from the case the question asked about. But no one else seems to have this problem, so maybe it's just me.) Yngvadottir (talk) 12:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
11. Oppose as per HJMitchell. Eric Corbett 12:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
12. Strong Oppose. Too much drama, too much ideology. The main goal in administration is damping, not inflating conflits. Pldx1 (talk) 13:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
13. Strong Oppose (switched from support). As I've been following this more I've been feeling increasingly uneasy about Brianhe's uncompromising battlefield approach to anything that hints of COI or paid editing, treating anyone any everything involved as if it all needs to be mercilessly exterminated. I wasn't sure how to word my thoughts properly, but then HJ Mitchell, Opabinia regalis, Dennis Brown and Yngvadottir came along and described it better than I can. So on exactly those same grounds, I now think it would be a mistake to hand over admin tools. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC) (Strengthened my oppose after having realized that Brianhe is advocating the outing further considered Brianhe's excessively aggressive attitude to the investigation of COI editors, which to me is beyond the pale. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC))

    Oh dear, and tabloid hit pieces like Charles Sipkins? No thank you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

    This claim that I am "advocating the outing" of anyone couldn't be further from the truth. See my replies to question #9 and #15. With all my participation on noticeboards I don't recall a credible claim of my having done so. I'm sure if it had happened, it would have showed up here by now. Maybe this helps: Daylighting -- bringing light onto a subject, or uncovering something, like a stream ≠ outing. Brianhe (talk) 09:39, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

    "Daylighting these actors ruthlessly is absolutely necessary, Contact media and elected representatives; ask for investigations" sure sounds like you're advocating a lot more than merely bringing light to a subject, but if you say you don't actually wish to out them (which seems contradictory to your statement) then I will adjust my comment accordingly. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

    Thanks for that. If you want to see more about my views in a free back-and-forth with people of various opinions, please read User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 196#definitely not going to let Wikipedia become a PR platform. I'm serious about defending the system from outside corruption, but OUTING is a corruption from the inside that I also oppose. There's an imbalance now, perceived by many, that urgently needs to be addressed, and all our good intentions of providing a platform for awesome projects, awesome content, and awesome diverse and new editors, could be rendered moot if we don't address it. The status quo, as the OP at talk:Jimbo suggested, will result in the system becoming a lame PR platform. I didn't intend for this RfA to become a referendum on what I just said, but if it does, and causes some ripples of thought, that's OK too. – Brianhe (talk) 10:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

    Comments like "The status quo [...] will result in the system becoming a lame PR platform" are, IMO, dangerously hyperbolic and lack a sense of perspective - and I don't want to see that in an admin. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

14. Oppose, mainly per HJM. There appears to be an unhealthy focus, with an attitude that is too binary, on "COI", but just as the candidate personally sees it. To Yngvadottir - no, it's not just you - in fact your reasoned argument reinforced the unease I was already experiencing, so thanks. I'm very uncomfortable about the candidate's almost crusade-like attitude to this single area, and so, I'm sorry, I must oppose. Let's not have ideological warriors as admins, eh? It won't help anything, and has huge potential to do the opposite.Begoon ^talk 15:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
15. Strong Oppose as per HJM, and in addition, I prefer the admins to be General Practitioners, not specialists. If they do want to be a specialist, let it be for something really useful that is needed for administrative tasks, such as AFD or AIV, but COI as being the worst thing to hit Wiki? I don't see it. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
16. Oppose. I was opposed to this nomination from the get-go, but I was going to sit it out and let others decide, partly because Brian does some very good work, particularly at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Orangemoody, and partly because of my respect for the co-nominators. However, Brian's unsuitability as an administrator was strengthened by some of the comments in this section, including items that exacerbated my pre-existing belief that Brian's passion against paid editors interfered with his judgment. I hope Brian continues to do good work. More important, I hope he gains more insight into his behavior in this area. His answers and comments thus far don't indicate that, for the most part, he has as he continues to defend his stance. Bottom line: I can't trust Brian with the tools.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
17. Oppose I had not read What's wrong with undisclosed paid editing before supporting, but after reading it and considering the issues raised by HJMitchell, Opabinia regalia, Dennis Brown, and others, I cannot support. --I am One of Many (talk) 17:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
18. Oppose - Moved from support. In light of all evidence presented, I feel compelled to change my stance.  Wisdom89 ^♦talk 17:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
19. Absolutely not. I consider the end-justifies-the-means mentality exhibited here—Daylighting these actors ruthlessly is absolutely necessary, Contact media and elected representatives; ask for investigations, We should learn from the masters of reputation management [and] exclude suspected but unproven bad actors, Bigger issues are at stake of social justice, control of information, democracy, autonomy free of coercion and thought manipulation. Lives are at stake.—to be at best a battlefield mentality which is fundamentally incompatible with a project which prides itself on anonymity, and at worst well over the line into stalking and harassment, coupled with a "my way or the highway" arrogance in believing that anyone not sharing his views is a threat of some kind and automatically fair game. I'm sorry to be harsh—and I recognise that being in the oppose section puts me in some 'interesting' company—but you aren't someone I would trust with the ability either to delete pages nor to block users. ‑ Iridescent 19:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
20. Oppose - issues pointed up above are concerning. I wasn't sure though, and clicked around articles the candidate has created, all looked good until I stumbled upon this little BLP. Opinions may vary, but for me personally it feels too much like a borderline notability hit piece, and I do not want see people who create them at positions of power here.--Staberinde (talk) 19:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
21. Oppose - It comes to mind how relentlessly they've pushed their personal investigation (OR) and views into Snowden's article. Such "strong-mindness" doesn't change in my book of reality.--TMCk (talk) 21:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
22. Oppose. Following up having read the link in Staberinde's point just above, Brianhe's work on the BLP article Charles Sipkins concerns me. If you're a strong advocate against paid editing, it would be wise not to create and write wiki articles on alleged paid editors (COI works both ways); as mentioned by another editor tagging it in November diff, this "seems to be written in spite". It doesn't meet, in my opinion, either WP:BLP or general good scholarship - whether one likes Charles Sipkins or not. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
23. Oppose per the serious trust issues raised by Bbb23 and others.  Philg88 ^♦talk 22:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
24. Oppose. Per many of the concerns above, especially HJ Mitchell, Opabinia regalis, Yngvadottir & Iridescent. I feel the editor's single-minded focus on conflict of interest has overwhelmed his judgement. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
25. Oppose- Staberinde's link puts me here. I first thought I would support as Brianhe is clearly a passionate, motivated and well-intentioned editor. However, the Charles Sipkins article reveals that Brianhe's passion does get the better of them. That article reads as an attack or revenge piece against COI writing and I would label it as a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Not only creating the article, but then returning several months later without seeing any problem, reflects very poor judgement. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 23:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
26. Oppose. Stated approach is cavalier and unsubtle. More nuanced and case by case judgement would be preferable, though I realise that is needed in only a minority of cases admins deal with. So not ruling the candidacy out in the long term. Ceoil (talk) 23:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
27. Oppose per User:HJ Mitchell and others. --John (talk) 23:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
28. Oppose: There is just too much passion, too much aggression, too much over-the-top harsh obsessive stalking diligence even as an editor; we certainly do not need to hand Brianhe any further power. I am beyond concerned at the language I see written on this page to reflect this editor: 'attack', 'revenge', 'scorched earth battle', 'rude', 'warrior', 'slammed with the ban stick', 'drama that will end in tears', 'mercilessly exterminated'...I agree with the comments of Opabinia regalis, Tryptofish, HJ Mitchell, Dennis Brown and once again, Ritchie333 (in the neutral section). I cannot participate in elevating to an officer rank someone who wants to put us at war; even with COI. Fylbecatulous talk 23:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
29. Oppose I have grave concerns how Brianhe would handle himself in situations of conflict. I believe that an admin Brianhe may inflame situations like this.--5 albert square (talk) 00:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
30. Oppose A dedicated editor with the good of the project at heart but I am convinced by the arguments presented by inter alia HJ Mitchell, Opabinia regalis, Dennis Brown and Yngvadottir to land here. -- KTC (talk) 00:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

    This is the one and only actual direct reply I'll make to an oppose. In my view, any editor about whom the first 11 words you wrote can legitimately be written (and who has never had the tools and lost them for cause) should almost de facto be granted the tools. It seems, in many of the opposes above, that there's an assumption that this fine editor would misuse the tools, primarily because he's so passionately against paid editing. I find that type of single-issue oppose against a good editor who's given no evidence he would actually misuse the tools quite disheartening. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 00:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

    Being dedicated and having the good of the project at heart are necessary, but not sufficient, for an administrator. The role requires tact and judgement, and many great editors would make lousy admins. What I and other opposers see in Brianhe is someone who is just too confrontational, but who wants to admin in an area where patiently explaining things to confused newbies (even if those confused newbies are writing about themselves or being paid to write articles) who genuinely don't understand. We see someone who is loudly outspoken to the point of being divisive, yet wants to work in an area where consensus is unclear and won't be clarified until the heat is taken out of it. We see someone who wants to be entrusted to decide when something should be deleted, but whose opinion on what should be deleted (as expressed at AfD) goes far beyond policy or consensus. Admins should be peacekeepers and firefighters, and we just don't see those qualities in Brianhe. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:21, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

    The things I just wrote in the "general comments" section below will stand as my reply to this. Suffice to say I think we have very different standards for what a dedicated editor with the good of the project in mind should have to do to be "worthy" of being granted the administrative tools. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 06:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

31. Oppose In light of the situations describe above, this candidate doesn't seem to have an appropriate conflict resolution approach, something I consider mandatory for adminship. While I am sympathetic to his notions against paid editing, heavy-handedness and personal attacks against editors you disagree with is absolutely not the right approach. Artichoker^[talk] 00:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
32. Oppose Based primarily on the BOGOF belief. →StaniStani 01:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
33. Oppose Haven't looked deeply into the contributions, but the candidate is far too harsh on paid editing, and thus not someone I want dealing with COI contributors in an administrative fashion. Paid editors should, like all other editors, be treated with good faith and non-bitey behavior, which I'm not convinced he will do. Also, seems to condone outing: "daylighting these actors ruthlessly". --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 01:19, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
34. Oppose While the editor appears to have his heart in the right place, the tone of that essay linked above suggests someone who should remain an editor. Watching out for COI editors is very important, but it should be part of maintaining an encyclopedia, not in the context of fighting a societal battle.CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
35. Oppose I thought long and hard before doing this. I have concerns about their ability to be neutral when using their tools. Choosing to be neutral is easy, but knowing what neutral is much harder. HighInBC 04:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
36. Oppose - As I said in my original "support" !vote, I was willing to take a chance, but less so now in the face of the opposition from editors whose judgment I respect. BMK (talk) 05:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
37. Oppose I find the comments by Cunard, HJ Mitchell, Dennis Brown, Yngvadottir, Bbb23 and Fylbecatulous to be especially persuasive but there are several others that influenced me as well. I find the article Charles Sipkins written by the nominee quite troubling, and commend Staberinde for bringing it to our attention. We can effectively oppose undisclosed paid editing without writing articles that can be perceived as hit pieces, and without destroying the village in order to save it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
38. Oppose - per BOGOF as stated by HJMitchell, Opabinia regalia, Dennis Brown. Hlevy2 (talk) 05:39, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
39. Oppose - Jumping on the bandwagon I'm afraid and for similar reasons to the most recent controversial RfA - too much of a circus likely to surround this candidate once tools start being used. To substantially repeat what I said in Hawkeye, the litany of oppose comments reveal what is, to my mind, a significant and unhealthy set of genuine concerns around this candidate. An admin. who is so dedicated to a single, controversial cause is not the same as an editor committed to a single, controversial cause. Adding tools adds power. To put it this way, when they inevitably slip up and make a questionable decision it is going to be taken to AN/I. I can be confident that the subsequent discussion will be focused on the candidate’s COI stance and the stuff highlighted above. AN/I discussions are rarely productive and I get the feeling that there would be a lot of reactions and pile-on no matter what the credibility of their actions. I just don't see the candidate limiting themselves to intervention in uncontroversial matters, or uncontroversial interventions in controversial matters and therefore controversy beckons down the line. Leaky Caldron 08:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
40. Oppose - I went with neutral as at the time there were 0 opposes and I gave the candidate the benefit of my doubt because of the problems of text communication, but Charles Sipkins is a deal-breaker, I can't support an admin whose content work I feel strongly uncomfortable enough about to want to send to AfD. Sorry. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
41. Oppose, I wanted to support this, I really did. But the candidate's history of overzealous crusade-like actions on COI make me doubt that they've got the temperament to hold onto the tools. I don't want someone who seemingly sees COI phantoms in every shadow and under every bed given the tools to block. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC).
42. Oppose, I've been watching this for a while, but I found the arguments made by HJ Mitchell and Dennis Brown convincing. The passion against paid editing could well, although being with good intentions, end up detracting from the goal of creating an encyclopedia. Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me!} 13:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
43. Oppose any candidate who promises to be "ruthless" an an area that draws mixed feelings. I am personally against paid editing, and COI editing - but I fear such passion combined with power would lead to bad decisions. And, yes, "daylighting" and contacting media for investigations would be outing, and against a core principle of Wikipedia. Scr★pIron^IV 14:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
44. Moving from "weak support". We are building an encyclopedia; the most important thing is the product, not the process. 99% of readers don't care about how an article started its life. sst✈^(conjugate) 14:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
45. Oppose for a variety of reasons, but Iridescent summed it up best. I will not knowingly support a candidate who will sacrifice the encyclopedia and its content for a crusade against paid editing - and against paid editors. And as I re-read Leaky Cauldron's comment here in the edit window, I'm even more convinced. A single editor, passionate about a topic or issue, is one thing. Give them tools, and it's a recipe for shenanigans. Thanks, no thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
46. Strong oppose - I can't really say the reason here, other than hypocrisy. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
47. Oppose. I waited on this one to consider both sides carefully. Based on HJ Mitchell, Dennis Brown and other expressed concerns of editors I respect, I must oppose. Kierzek (talk) 15:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
48. Oppose per the many and valid concerns stated by other opposition. Specific concerns about temperament and battleground mentality. --Laser brain (talk) 17:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
49. Oppose Too many skeletons in the closet here, regretful oppose. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
50. Oppose mostly per HJ Mitchell and Dennis Brown. Intothatdarkness 18:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
51. Oppose I'd really like to give the candidate a shot as I respect his long contribution history. But I have the impression that he's not meticulous and so there would be a significant risk of collateral damage and injustice in the current Wild West environment of Wikipedia. Andrew D. (talk) 19:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

    "He's not meticulous"? Really? He's now been criticized for being both too meticulous in how he deals with COI & paid editing AND as not meticulous at all. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 19:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

    Perhaps we have a different understanding of the word. The OED has "Originally: overcareful about minute details, overscrupulous. Subsequently usually in more positive sense: careful, punctilious, scrupulous, precise." I use it in the latter sense and so worry that the candidate would not take adequate care. For example, I recall how Rangoon11 was run off the project for getting carried away in support of BP. I know several other editors who like to write articles about businessmen or commercial establishments. I, myself, started James Smith & Sons recently. There wasn't any money in it; it's just an interesting place. I don't want to empower an inquisitor who will second-guess such work unless they are shown to be quite cautious and careful. Andrew D. (talk) 19:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

    Rangoon was blocked for repeatedly using sockpuppets on multiple topics. I do not think Brianhe was involved in this or about James Smith & Sons. I was: in 2010, I conditionally unblocked Rangoon (the block was for 3RR involving University College London, , and my unblock was questioned and went to ANI, but was upheld. Rangoon chased himself off WP by starting a new sock during the final sockpuppet investigation itself. DGG ( talk ) 21:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

52. Oppose as per HJMitchell...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
53. Oppose. The candidate is clearly well-intentioned and smart, but I'll follow HJ Mitchell, Opabinia regalis, and Dennis Brown. I'm editing in many technical areas, and I run into a lot of COI editing. It's not all bad. I'll guess that 1/2 is good, 1/4 marginal, and 1/4 is bad. Deleting bookspam and refspam is a good thing; COI editing should be suspect. Sadly, I see links to good content deleted solely because it is hosted on a corporate website or the editor has some connection with the material. It's the content rather than the speaker that's important to me. A few days ago a clear COI editor corrected a significant error in an article about his work. Two other COI editors have reworked poor articles into much better ones. Another COI editor isn't contributing to an article about his work but he is deleteing any nonsense that is added by others. Yet another COI has done a lot of maintenance on his subject. A couple years ago I talked with a COI editor who started an article on his work and was pushing it; he's a smart guy and quickly understood WP's viewpoint; now I'm happy he's watching his article. In the middle ground, there are some well-meaning but confused editors. I've deleted some COI additions not because they are disguised advertising but rather they go into too much detail for an encyclopedia. Even paid COI editors are not unequivocably evil. I'm circumspect, and I've avoided outing even when pointing out failed paid-editting disclosure seems relevant. That's part and parcel with challenging the content rather than the speaker. Some quick digging in one article showed the subject of the article had hired a PR firm; looking at the PR firm's website provided a list of employees; the employee names matched the WP user names of three article contributors. Still, the article was just mediocre; after a discussion with another editor, we let the article sit instead of prod or AfD it. Even if one does not disclose his affilation, it is the content that should be attacked. At the bad end, there are PR firms that have done stellar jobs of making the subject's article look like it has WP:N; some of those articles survive AfD; I don't like that result, but I'm not on a search and destroy mission. Sorry, I'm wandering here. I don't share the candidate's views about the evilness of COI editing, but that difference of opinion is not the reason I'm opposing. I'm worried about the candidate's zeal in enforcing those views. I want reserved and tempered admins. I want enforcement, but I don't want a gung-ho police mentality. As it stands now, I'm not sure the candidate fits that bill. Glrx (talk) 21:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)−

    Glrx I appreciate your point of view and think we need to talk more about it. However, this is not a COI forum. It is a RfA of an excellent candidate that has a long history of superior editing, as you referred, very smart, and have a the appropriate attitude about learning from experiences. After studying his record, I have come to the conclusion that a few acts do not define his adminitrative qualities. As it has been said here, he will be impartial where he has to be, and that is the most important thing. I gave a few examples of diffs where I saw that happening (impartiality). My plea, is not to confuse our views on the subject with the candidate's abilities to function effectively as an admin. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 22:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

    I have no qualms with the candidate's article editing. He's smart, and he's done a good job of answering questions, but he did get lost on a couple. I'm not sure about learning from experiences; deleting a CSD template is a mistake, I'm not dinging the candidate for that, and I don't expect him to repeat that particular mistake. I don't see the clues that suggest the reserve that helps avoid mistakes in new territory. The discussions here suggest the candidate has a polarizing viewpoint that could result in some overzealous usage of the tools. That's a part that bugs me. Q1 mentions COIN, so my evaluation goes to that topic area. I went off on a tangential discussion about my experiences with COIs, but I said the difference of opinion with the candidate is not my reason to oppose. You characterize the candidate as agressive and assertive; you like those traits, but they raise red flags for me. In many circumstances, we want admins to step into trouble, but that does not mean I want an admin who is too eager to engage. A polar and fervent viewpoint coupled with agressive and assertive behavior is not a good mix. Glrx (talk) 23:19, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

    Glrx, Fair enough. Thanks Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 23:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

54. I originally !voted support because I wasn't swayed by the opposes, however, now that I've read (admittedly more researched) opposes by editors I trust, I find myself being forced to moved to oppose for the reasons spelled out by those above me. Kharkiv07 (T) 22:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
55. Oppose. Unfortunately, as this RfA has progressed, I have developed more and more doubts about Brianhe's suitability. His work at COI, and his ability to stay reasonably drama-free still impress me. However, while I think that he is a net positive for the project at the moment, I have concerns that he might tend towards over-zealousness. I had hoped that he would provide some reassurance against this, but while he does seem to generally reason through situations well, a number of past actions cited above, along with his essay suggest to me that he could get carried away. I apologise to Brianhe if I am misreading him; unfortunately this forum is one in which quick and often unfair characterisations are made. Harrias ^talk 22:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
56. Oppose BOGOF is incompatible with AGF, and therefore adminship. Bobby Tables (talk) 23:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
57. Oppose. As I read through the candidate's responses to questions, more and more I got the feeling that this is a person who should not be an administrator. Much of it was just a whole string of little details, no one of them definite enough to make an "oppose", but each of them adding to my general feeling of unease. I am actually very much closer to many of Brianhe's views on some issues, such as conflict of interest, paid editing, and BOGOF than are many of the editors who have expressed opinions here, but I am uncomfortable with some of the ways he applies those opinions in his comments. However, there is also one issue which, in my opinion, shows such a clear and unambiguous lack of clarity about Wikipedia policy that it pushes me from "Hmm, possibly not a suitable person to be an administrator" right over to "What? No! There is no question of this person being an administrator". This is his response to question 11. Here, it was pointed out to Brianhe that, just over two months ago, he had removed a speedy deletion tag from an article which he had created. He gave a vague answer about other aspects of the question, but did not address the issue of removing the speedy deletion tag at all, and even referred to it as "dePRODding". Subsequently, he posted another message in which he said, in part: "It has been pointed out ... that this may have been a mistake on my part vis-a-vis the correct WP:SPEEDY procedure ... I acknowledge that this was in all likelihood an incorrect action on my part." "It has been pointed out"?- meaning that the admin candidate didn't know about the policy on this? "May have been a mistake", and "was in all likelihood an incorrect action"? Meaning that even when it has "been pointed out"he still isn't sure? Didn't he go immediately to the relevant policy which he was ignorant of and check? So we have someone aspiring to be an administrator who (1) shows an astonishing degree of ignorance of policy in a major admin area, and (2) when his mistake is pointed out to him either does not bother to check the policy, or does check it but doesn't understand it, or does understand it but won't admit that he has made a mistake. No, no, no. The ignorance of such a basic piece of policy gave me serious doubts about the candidate's suitability as an administrator, but his shilly-shallying around with "may have been" and "in all likelihood" has put it way beyond merely "serious doubts". Any administrator will at times make mistakes, sometimes even really stupid mistakes (I have done so often enough) but an administrator who either can't or won't accept and admit that he has slipped up is going to be a bad administrator. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 00:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
58. Oppose per the information brought fourth by Cunard, as well as the follow-up discussion that has taken place since its introduction. I agree that COI and paid editing can be a controversial and emotional (sometimes even heated) topic to discuss, address, and perform action upon. However, in my experience with NPP, vandal patrolling, and helping new users - most blatant COI is properly handled and deleted - either because they fall into a CSD category, are deleted per consensus as part of an AFD discussion, or fixed to be neutral and up to par. Any time I've handled a COI, I've had clear evidence, used the welcome template on the user's talk page, and handled the article appropriately and on a case-by-case basis within policy. Similarly, there are policies that state that edits and articles can be reverted and deleted because the contributing user is banned. However, that does not mean that every single edit and article is reverted or deleted simply because of that status. We still keep constructive edits and articles that meet Wikipedia's guidelines and policy, and try to fix articles first before hitting the delete button (if it can be done). Going at such a controversial subject (COI) with the mindset and manner that has been presented not only discourages editors from learning from their mistakes and becoming long-term positive contributors to the project, it also goes against many of our founding principals and ignores policies and guidelines that already deal with many of the issues. I agree that giving Brianhe the tools would ultimately spark very negative attention and controversy if the tools were used to "combat" this issue topic. Administrators are supposed to be neutral, level-headed mediators that exemplify Wikipedia's policies and examine each issue without bias and on a case-by-case basis per Wikipedia's guidelines. The issues brought fourth with Brianhe's past responses as well as his/her views and actions on COI and paid editing clearly show that this is not how he/she has handled the issue area, and shows me that the admin tools would also not be used in that manner. I'm sorry to pile on, but I must oppose this RfA. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
59. Oppose: The candidate's work is good, but that does not extend to their vilification of COI editors. I am concerned about the candidate's tendency to judge an editor as a person on their mere conflict with Wikipedia's mission, not their edits or courtesy. Esquivalience ^t 00:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral I've got some nagging doubts. Firstly, with my Q10, the top Google hit for "Abbie McCarthy" for me is this, which verifies everything in the article stub (minus a little bit of puffery I threw in). There's also this radio profile. I don't think that's enough for an article, but it's enough to clear a speedy. Brian's answer is reasonable but showing he didn't search for sources is a problem. For Q11, the policy violation is "The creator of a page may not remove a speedy deletion tag from it" in WP:CSD. I think it's reasonable to suggest the CSD policy wasn't designed for circumstances like this, and I was hoping for a suitable explanation why Brian could IAR. If you want to get involved in the coalface of SPI and sock-hunting, you will start to accumulate enemies fast just by doing your job - look at how Dennis Brown has gone from the Patron Saint of Editor Retention in 2012 to a burned out admin who resigned from the bit in 2015, and part of that is from dealing with a huge amount of SPIs. Normally, I'd say that admins are perfectly allowed to make the odd mistake, but I think if you bash socks a lot, they will be looking for you to screw up and gleefully run to ANI / Arbcom shouting "Look! Brianhe is an abusive admin who clearly violated policy X! [diff]" and after a while I'm concerned you'll retire out of frustration. In fairness, a candidate can't read my mind and know what I'm hoping an answer will be, so I'm prepared to concede to poor communication from my end, but I can't hand on heart support this candidate. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Neutral I'd trust the candidate not to misuse the tools, but the examples of their content work that they themselves have highlighted are quite weak, with numerous basic mistakes that make me question how they would be able to engage meaningfully in dealing with content disputes. I couldn't reasonably vote against them, but equally, I'd feel unhappy against supporting them as an admin. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

1. Neutral I have some reservations; much along the thinking of Silk Tork, and Richie333. — Ched :  ?  16:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
2. Neutral: I also have some concerns. While it was fun to work together at cow tipping and there I appreciated the humor and sense of good fun, the "not getting it" at Talk:Indian_Chief_(motorcycle)#Requested move 24 March 2015 was a concern to me. Montanabw^(talk) 03:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
3. Neutral I am neutral for now but leaning towards support. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 05:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
4. Neutral. I am concerned that Brianhe's hyper-vigilant attitude towards COI will make him biased when it comes to making delete and block decisions, as evidenced by Cunard's and Crazynas' comment. However, the good diplomacy shown on his responses on this RfA has relieved some of my concerns. Deryck C. 11:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

   Neutral I see folks I respect in the support side, but I am also thinking about what Ritchie333 said. --John (talk) 22:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

   To some of the neutral !voters, especially Ritchie333 and John, and to oppose !voter Crazynas, thanks for raising what are valid concerns. You've made me think a lot about what you said. A campaign strategist would probably tell me not to reach out to a "neutral" voter when I have 90% approval, but I'd rather engage you in dialog and see what you think.

   Ritchie333, as for the Abbie McCarthy question, it didn't occur to me that you'd want me to demonstrate my ability to research or create articles for an RfA, so I went straight to the policy and administration type issues, treating the actual subject of the article as a hypothetical.

   As for my reply on Q11: I have been a harsh critic of promotional articles per G11, which I'm more than passing familiar with. I've owned up to mistakenly removing the speedy tag from an article I created. Honestly the issue of an editor doing this doesn't happen much in the space I'm most often involved with; we more frequently have to deal with sockfarms returning to support and/or re-create promo articles. In my history, back in 2010, I found this note to an editor with the summary "speedy deletion again" showing at that time I was aware of the discussion of his counter-to-policy removal of the template less than 24 hours prior, but it's a rare instance, maybe unique. I'm sure I won't forget this finer point of CSD vs PROD procedure after this RfA.

   Maybe more important to your concerns is this showing I'm willing to work with editors on saving articles even when I don't necessarily agree with the current content; sometimes I even help them with a start on sources [5]. The editor and I chatted offline and amicably agreed that I'd facilitate userfying the pages so he could improve them. I've rescued other articles in the past as you can see including this and Draft:Las Vegas EDM which was born from the ashes of an article deleted by consensus for containing PROMO content. The contribution was from a record label intern probably unaware of our COI stipulations, but the content looked salvageable to me and I AGFed that the contributor could learn from the experience and move forward with us. If there's any lingering doubt that I can work productively with COI editors and their contributions, one more example, templated an SPA editor on 30 June 2012 and continued work on his article 3-4 July, and subsequently. I hope this helps allay your doubts on that score.

   As for being hounded as an admin away by detractors, that shouldn't really be a concern. I've withstood a fair amount of criticism up till now and honestly it doesn't get under my skin that badly, but I do try to improve when legitimate issues are brought to my attention. My little protest over BOGO was during probably my most frustrating day here, and I managed to turn it into something productive after contemplation. If, in the future, this becomes a problem, there are plenty of avenues for my contributions to the project; I listed a few of them at my userpage when I was running for Cascadia Wikimedians User Group re-election. I've hung on for a decade and don't have plans for retirement anytime soon. – Brianhe (talk) 11:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

   I ask questions because I'm not sure how the candidate thinks or what their working process / thoughts are in action, and want to find out. I don't think there should be any "right answer" for questions - I would never ask a question expecting a particular answer, or determine my vote based on a "wrong" answer. For Q10, I didn't ask you to search for sources, but some editors wanting to save content do that as a first point of action and would mention it anyway. For the second question, it was simply seeing how you coped with other editors accusing you of having a COI and how you managed it. Again, to reiterate, I am not fussed that you challenged a CSD tag when technically you were the creator almost a decade earlier, I just wondered if you could find a policy problem - preferably before somebody finds it for you! I'm not sure what happened with Draft:Las Vegas EDM; a news search lit up with sources so I'm surprised it wasn't accepted. All in all, I just wanted to see how much you "banged the COI drum" and wanted to be reassured that many editors with a conflict of interest are simply trying to write an article because they think it's the right thing to do and are no way malicious scamsters. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

5. Neutral leaning support per Ritchie333. I feel like the candidate would be an effective admin but I have some reservations (but not enough to oppose). Spencer^T♦C 19:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
6. (Moved from support). I already had concerns about excessive zeal in pursuing COI, and the "revenge biography" of Charles Sipkins added enough. No such user (talk) 14:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
7. Neutral I am not convinced by the 'daylighting' stuff in the opposes RE COI. Every admin and editor (or at least, a significant number of them) has their own pet peeve. If this was the only issue I would likely support. I would also suggest to any other opposers, if you really only disagree with the candidate because they have taken a strong stand on one issue, take a look at the current admin corps. There are many high profile admins who have zero tolerance in certain areas - even to the extent of being in conflict with others - it generally does not hinder them in their admin duties. My main concern is Cunard's example of "I'm taking my ball and going home!" Its a childish response to not getting their own way (not to mention manipulative). On the other side we have all the great work they do, so sitting on the fence on this one. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
8. Neutral -- The Charles Sipkins business is several steps too far, and I have to withdraw my support I'm afraid. With more time to think about it, I might have gone all the way to opposing over that, but I'm holding back from doing so because I feel that several of the opposers are overstating their case by a country mile. Promotional editing is to my mind a big problem here, and I think Brian deserves some credit for tackling it. But not to the extent of creating attack pages, of course. --Stfg (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

General comments

• Comment: While I certainly understand the concerns with how passionate Brianhe has been in discussions regarding COI editing, that is almost entirely the only reason editors opposing this nomination are giving for their opposes. To be honest, while I also have some concerns in that area, I don't think Brianhe has shown any sort of inclination that he would go on some sort of rampage with the tools in that area. He seems pretty level-headed, has done a lot of great work on this project, and I simply don't think that one area in which he is very passionate should be grounds to deny a good editor the tools. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 16:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

  Further, I believe that to move from "Support" to "Oppose" in an RFA should require some hugely damaging revelation of malfeasance on a large scale. I can understand moving one spot (Support or Oppose to Neutral, or Neutral to Support or Oppose), I just don't understand going all the way from supporting a candidacy to opposing it. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 18:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

  I would've agreed in the past Hallward/Kevin, but more recently I've had someone above me who's said, "I never want to see an abstain or neutral or present vote: you're paid to give a decision one way or another; vote yes or no, and if you don't have a good reason for your vote, I can discount it, but I at least want to see which way you're leaning." So I know that philosophies like that exist (it's not my philosophy yet though). -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 19:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) I echo both of "Hallward's Ghost's" concerns here, but I would like to transform the last comment more explicitly into a request. It is obvious that some commentators carry more weight than others. Contrary to what it may appear, it is not always related to sound arguments, but more to personal histories of "following" the contributions of specific active users. Indeed, much is placed upon the shoulders of the most involved editors. This is evident in the way that some taciturn !voters express their thoughts, linking their decision to the views of others more because of a perceived tradition of sound judgement than to independent research. Surely, we cannot ask every !voter to spend a day's work through online archives. So, if there is a move from one extreme to the other, please, support your choice with as many coherent and persuasive arguments as possible. In this way, you would help readers consider the value of these new earth-shattering revelations. Observers would be able to discriminate between personal sentiments (e.g., “I don’t like…”) and cold reasoning based on what is better for WP. And in the process, you would help the entire project to become a bit fairer. Thanks. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 19:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

  What concerns me most here, is that if a person's !vote moves from support-->oppose (or vice-versa) without some hugely damning malfeasance, that perhaps slipshod research was done into the candidate to begin their !voting process. For me, unless something like off-line stalking, sockpuppeting, etc. comes up in the vetting discussion, I'd find it very difficult to go from supporting (or opposing) a candidacy to anywhere other than the "neutral" section. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 19:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

  Or perhaps when a person revisits a discussion after significant time has passed and much has been added, they find something more objectionable than before and it becomes a deal breaker.  Wisdom89 ^♦talk 21:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

  Perhaps. But I stand by my concerns on such extreme shifts. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 21:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

---

• On "tainting": If a COI promotional page comes up and someone else then rewrites it into neutrality, it is only too likely that the COI people are still lurking and will return in due course to slant the article back in their favour, as much as they can get away with. So we will either be left with a promotional article again or be caught up in an unending war of attrition, when we could have been doing something more useful. So this is how the topic remains "tainted". Now this would be no reason to dismiss an article on a topic of clear notability and real significance. But when notability is marginal and disputed, I can see how the "taint" could tip the balance whether to delete or keep. Everything in this RfA tells me that Brian is someone you can have a reasoned discussion with and won't "jump in" as an admin to block or delete too readily. I'm maintaining my support: Noyster (talk), 19:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

---

• "I don't like your essay therefore I don't like you": Brian should be commended for writing an essay that puts his present ideas out there for everyone to see, and discuss. He's not trying to acquire power without putting his cards on the table. By explaining his current thinking on a thorny issue, he's inviting others into the dialog. That dialog will very likely change Brian's mind, maybe a little, maybe a lot. The best way to handle COI editors, or COI articles, or editors and articles that look like they might have bad history, is not an easy question to resolve. Obviously nobody else has discovered the omniscient solution to every eventuality. Brian is working with the community to move us closer to an improved approach.

  As you can see from his history, he is always willing to admit error, change his opinions, or set aside his feelings for the greater good, or to respect consensus even if he doesn't agree.

  Admins have many different approaches, and they have diverse opinions. Their opinions change over time. Their actions as admins are a reflection of policy, not personal whim. Nobody has offered any evidence that Brian would abuse the admin tools. They just don't want to see somebody whose politics they don't like being brought into the circle. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

---

• Comment: I'm afraid that the current direction this RFA is taking is going to have a chilling effect on non-admin editors taking any sort of firm public positions, on any issues of import. I don't agree with every part of Brian's position on COI editing. However, for an RFA to go down in flames (as it appears this one will right now) because of, basically, a lot of single-issue opposes will not be an encouragement to anyone who has taken firm positions on even slightly-controversial issues to run for adminship. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 21:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• I understand the concern, but when an editor spends most of their time in a singular area, it isn't unusual for opposition to be singular as well. For instance, an editor that has never voted at AFD can't be criticized or praised on their AFD work. I don't think it can be oversimplified, or as some have claimed, be said that opposers disagree with his views. I've made hundreds of COI/Paid blocks, 300 in one SPI case, the largest on record. It is possible to agree in part but believe someone has a warrior attitude, or is too rigid in their application of policy. This is particularly true since paid editing isn't against policy, and policy allows for COI editors to edit articles directly, so there is obviously a consensus to allow these things. COI editing must be managed using finesse, not a hammer, and if someone has taken a very hard stance that contrary to current policy, either by letter or the spirit, then that is a very legitimate reason to oppose. It doesn't matter which policy we are speaking of. Admin are selected to enforce the will of the community, not to use the tools to do things the way they think they should be done. If there is a reasonable believe, backed by the candidate's own words, that they might not fulfill this obligation, then opposing is a reasonable stance. This may also indicate they will interpret other policies outside of the intended spirit. My RFA almost went down in flames because my CSD accuracy was only 91%, which (in my eyes) pales in comparison to the concerns and ramifications expressed in this RFA. It boils down to trust that a candidate will not substitute their own judgement in place of long standing community consensus. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

  Dennis, just your name makes me weight your opinion seriously, and I do agree that having an admin with those qualities is not what WP needs, but those are not Brianhe’s traits! Those are the overblown impressions that this discussion has produced by the turns and the twists related to the liability imbedded in this candidate’s area of specialty. If you look carefully and without the bias that has already been built up, you would notice that the first nominator clearly mentioned this candidate’s honesty and openness about its errors, which would make a better admin than one without such experience. Yet, even more importantly, if you study its decision-making process, you may also be amazed at how this editor is willing to come back and improve, all for the betterment of the project. And if that is not enough, the editor’s pledge here, about the recall, should settle the problem. We are not looking for perfection, but for dedication, good judgment, and above all, the eagerness to learn from experiences. Let’s for a moment doubt our own judgment, which is not based in extensive dealing with the candidate, but on a jumble of other things, many of them resulting from other issues not related directly with the candidate’s abilities to become a top-rated admin. One more thing: a candidate’s extensive experience in a controversial area should not play against him/her. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 02:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes it has been really hard to watch the tide rise in the Oppose !votes as this invented narrative that Brianhe is a rabid crazy person catches wind. Yes his essay is strongly worded. An opinion. If you look at what he actually has done, he has put hours and hours in, steady, digging through the garbagey underside of WP on things like orangemoody, as well as working on content generation. He is a steady and reliable editor. Nobody has brought tons of diffs showing him actually doing rabid, crazy things. And this is how the community treats him. Jytdog (talk) 03:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, I think the debacle that the single-issue opposes have turned this RFA into will have a long-term chilling effect on any good editor that was considering dipping their toe into helping out in potentially controversial editors. I know that, for me, I doubt that however long I end up staying on this project, I doubt I'll ever make an admin run. It's been very disheartening to see a good editor like Brianhe see their RFA candidacy torpedoed like this. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 05:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I am appalled to see how few work the archives, and rarer still move beyond a few diffs, but all then offer their cherish !vote with such a confidence. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 03:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I have almost always agreed with Dennis Brown is his judgment about people and articles, and I know the great energy and effectiveness of his work with COI problems, so I was quite surprised to see his opposition. As Jytdog just said, the question is not the candidates opinions, but their likely actions. But even his opinions are not all that far outside what I see as the range of our still-developing consensus. There are only two points of difference. First, whether people with COI should be told that they may never edit article content of involved articles, or whether they should be strongly advised not to do so except in the most straightforward cases. The second part of it is the current current mainstream interpretation of policy; Brianhe might prefer it to be the first, but I cannot imagine he would block people for making beneficial or harmless edits. My own view is somewhere it the middle--I certainly do tell people that though it is not prohibited, they would do better to totally avoid doing it, so as not to be misinterpreted--and I think the best of the declared paid editors here feel exactly the same way about it. The second is whether an article from a banned sockpuppet should be deleted entirely even if harmless, or even if someone with a good reputation here will take charge of it. This is a disputed issue, and my own view has changed. Two or three years ago I agreed exactly with Cunard about this, that there was no point in throwing out usable material for such reasons. Now I think otherwise, and accept the argument I previously rejected, that the attack on WP by advertisers is so great a threat that we must do what we can to discourage them, and that having their material always removed is the most effective discouragement within our powers. But I do not single-handedly use the tools to enforce my view of it, and neither will Brianhe. To make certain I never do, I avoid single-handed deletions altogether except for some technical cases, so to be sure that another admin will be watching, and i expect Brianhe will do that also. We have admins of various views, and they correct each other. I do argue for my position in cases I think it particularly justified--and so does Cunard, and we have opposed each other on many recent AfDs. But we take exactly the same approach to analyzing AfDs by detailed checking of the actual citations, and we are both willing to listen to each other and to accept the verdict of the consensus, which tends to vary. Neither of us ever closes disputed AfDs in favor of our own viewpoint on such things, and I am confident of all this also for Brianhe. As I said at Dennis's RfA [6] about his then over-extensive interpretation of speedy, and as others here have said of Brianhe, people will be watching. (But just as we all soon realized that Dennis learned very quickly in response to feedback, so I expect will Brianhe.) DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• I expect that would have been the case, if Brianhe had been granted the tools. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be how this thing is destined to end. Very disappointing indeed. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 06:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• To DGG and others, it is a matter of degrees. My opinion is based on his actual words. I think he needs to moderate his views and tone, as he will be a lightning rod for drama as it currently stands. As for restoring rewritten spam material, I'm a pragmatist, I don't support deleting all or keeping all. If anything, I lean towards deletion most of the time, but my real fear isn't the delete button, it is the block button. The fact is, COI editing and paid editing are allowed, so we have to be balanced in how we approach this unless policy is changed. I don't think he's a bad guy (I did support at first, albeit tepidly), but as HighInBC put it, Choosing to be neutral is easy, but knowing what neutral is much harder. Give it six months, get a better bead as to where the middle of consensus is, and I will support, but I genuinely think it would be disruptive to give him the bits right now. I don't think you can really compare my RFA to his, as I was still right 91% of the time with CSD, volunteered to mentoring and avoiding an area for a time: I admitted the problem and offered a path forward. I also participated in a variety of areas; editing regularly, AFD, mediation and mentoring. That isn't the case here. I wasn't a risk of blocking people out of consensus. Again, 6 months, moderate the tone and learn what the consensus really is, and I will be happy to support at that time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

  He's been a good editor for many years. Six months more will change nothing, in my view, unless he just becomes a panderer, who says things he doesn't actually believe. He has done nothing as an editor that should disqualify him from having the tools right now. That won't have changed in six months, and the same people will pile into the oppose section basically based upon the fact that he's more opposed to paid editing than they are. Because that is, generally speaking, what most of the opposes boil down to, which I think is patently unfair to a person like Brianhe who has devoted an extraordinary amount of time to improving this encyclopedia. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 14:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

  CoI and paid editing may be allowed but they are not good for the encyclopedia or its readers. Watching this RfA tumble into a COI discussion is troubling. The responses from numerous editors as they interact and shift in their loyalties and responses to Brian and re-evaluate what seemed to be a well-thought out decision is within their perview. But, hopefully, this candidate will narrowly escape and we will have an admin dedicated to protecting the encyclopedia and its readers from paid operatives whose allegiance is not the same as yours and mine. Buster Seven Talk 14:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

  I started out as a COI editor. I tried very hard to edit in a neutral tone, and didn't do so for pay (nor would I ever), but unquestionably had a COI in the areas I edited in. In a short time, I learned why it wasn't a good idea, moved to different areas, changed my editing style where I had a COI. I still edit in areas where I have a COI, and have never been accused of doing so improperly. I've never been paid, nor do I edit to my advantage, I just have a COI that am able to manage. Had we been so aggressive in 2006 when I started, I might have been blocked and run off the website. Not all people with a COI are evil. We ALL have some kind of conflict of interest, we all have biases. Whether or not we can overcome them to edit productively or not is another matter. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

  Sure, but I think the purpose of the project would be futile if we went with the "one size in one year fits all future years" approach. I think things have changed quite a bit more in recent times, and as times change, the project needs to adapt accordingly. That said, DGG's comment probably better explains that position with specific reference to yourself, how a good editor can be found from a questionable(?) editing style, and the issues as they stand. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• This is a prime example for what I have been saying for quite some time, is that it is essential that we make it easier to remove problematic administrators. Here is a good candidate going down the tubes for bad reasons, fueled by fear that he would be a lifetime appointment. Coretheapple (talk) 14:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with this statement wholeheartedly. I tend to oppose more than support for this very reason. If the tools were easier to gain and easier to lose, then it would be much more useful to the project. RfA's would be streamlined, without quite so much focus on one or two problematic areas. As it stands, once we have an Admin with problems, we can't get rid of them. We have few enough, but those we have are quite disruptive. Scr★pIron^IV 16:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

@Coretheapple:, you may think it is a bad reason, but I think how a person reacts to a heated situation where they have strong views is one of the best reasons out there. This has to do with their history in disputes. You explanation of the opposition is an oversimplification, the actual position being taken is far more nuanced.

This has nothing do to with "life-time appointment" which is a myth, we have dozens of desysoped admins(a lot more than have taken the bit to their graves that is for sure). I know enough about the history of desysoping to not worry about bad admins being removed. It took me months to become an admin, but I could get desysoped today if I wanted to. Getting the bit is WAY harder than losing it. HighInBC 17:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

HighInBC this is what I meant in my comment above - this myth of Brianhe being a rabid crazy person. Above you wrote " This has to do with their history in disputes." Please provide diffs of this supposedly terrible and extensive "history in disputes". You know what? You will not be able to. You are just being carried on the tide here. This is so, so sad. Not to mention dehumanizing. Brianhe is a real human being who has worked his ass off - mostly quietly in the basement - and people like you have come with the torches and pitchforks. It is just sad. Jytdog (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Crazy rabid person? I have never heard of this myth. The only person on this page who has said rabid is you. I think you are mis-characterizing the debate, and making assumptions about me that are not true. HighInBC 21:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

HighInBC and you didn't respond to the request for diffs . You said that there is some extensive "history in disputes" that show him to be not trustworthy. So prove it. Otherwise as far as I can see, you have just swallowed the narrative (and yes the core of the narrative is that Brianhe is not trustworthy because he is a rabid crazy person when it comes to COI) So show the diffs. I am being confrontational, I know. You actually had the nerve to say that there is evidence of behavior - a "history in disputes" - that actually show he is not trustworthy to hold the bit. So show this. Jytdog (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

If this has nothing to do with lifetime appointment than his going down in flames is even more nonsensical than I had thought. Coretheapple (talk) 18:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Several people including myself have made clear arguments. You might disagree with the ideas but they are for from nonsensical. HighInBC 19:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

(Note that the following is a more general comment, and not directed at HighInBC specifically...) The point is, if the tools were "unbundled", Brianhe could probably be granted everything except blocking (which seems to be what the opposes are most worried about), and could still help around. But, no – unbundling is "bad", even as we continue to not promote enough Admins to replace attrition (I'm almost ready to predict that less than 20 Admins will be promoted in 2016 which will be the lowest count ever) and few "resysop" anymore, so by all means let's keep doing what we've been doing, even if the last 5 years have shown clearly that it isn't working... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

---

• Do you have a different approach to regulating paid editing? Then move forward with it. I am very disappointed that this RfA has descended into assumptions of bad faith on both sides. It seems that the modern RfA requires a standard close to perfection of the candidate: their missteps live after them, while the good is oft interred with their bones. But moving forward, as community we still have to deal with the ongoing problem of paid editing. Many editors in the oppose columns have argued that Brian's approach is too "harsh" or "merciless". Other editors have risen to the defense of "buy one, get one free" editing: they argue, quite reasonably, that articles should not be deleted just because they were created by a paid editor, that the current state of the article is more important. Still others have called for extending more good faith to paid editors. I sincerely hope that the editors who made these good suggestions will follow through on them, and I recognize that many editors including those in the oppose columns have already been active in reverting spam and stopping sockpuppets. I hope that the other editors who have expressed an opinion will deal with paid editing in a way that fixes the failings of the approach they don't like. I personally believe in a more inclusive response to paid editing, such as engaging paid editors who are willing to communicate and fixing up articles that can be saved. But as a Wikipedian currently reading this post, the most important thing you can accomplish is to leave this page and find something to do that brings COI edits in line with our policies. Hunting down advertisements masquerading as articles and taking them to AfD—this helps the encyclopedia. Rewriting and saving those very same articles from deletion provided they are notable—that also helps the encyclopedia. Go investigate reports at WP:COIN, go and reach out to COI editors who have asked for help at the WP:TEAHOUSE, go clear the backlog of edit requests. The worst thing that could come out of this RfA is criticizing one editor's strict approach to paid editing while doing nothing to fix that problem. Be the change you wish to see in this world. Altamel (talk) 18:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• It's odd that you are assuming "bad faith" at this adminship, but not at the Dennis Brown adminship where you voted oppose due to no confidence in the impartiality of this candidate's judgement. Also, there are several discussions about COI happening right now, at village pump and here where those with the strongest anti COI opinions are pushing to approve OUTing for any perceived COI editor. Check it out! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 21:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment :The Candidate has been editing since 2004 which is well over 12 years and never was interested in Adminship and did not even here knew that he had been nominated and know this after this nomination page had been created and only when he Stumbled across RfA .Now he has been here for a very long time and do not see the user misusing his tools in particalar blocking more so given the fact he was not really interested in adminship ,he could have run in 2006 or 2007 . Now the candidate has created over 639 articles. Now one of then is a sourced article which is borderline notability or if the user removed a speedy tag in 2015 of a article created in 2006 which had been edited by several editors over the years in another. Clearly this nutpicking if the focus is on the 2 articles rather than remaining 637 articles .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

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.