Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Randall Brackett 4

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

Randall Brackett[edit]

Final (8/9/4) Ended 09:10, July 9, 2006 (UTC) Randall Brackett (talk · contribs) (previous account Megaman Zero) – I would request the administrative tools for my english wikipedia account. As of this report, I have 15, 194 edits in total with an even distribution across many namespaces. I have previously had three failed nominations for the administrative capabilities which can be viewed at the first nomination, the second and the most recent. I believe I've met the concerns raised by many of my critics in my nomination attempts as well having a sufficient amount of experience with the policies and the goals of wikipedia. I am currently nearing my second year as an established contributor. However, I must conceed I do not feel confident in my charisma to pass the rfa placed before the community.

I would prefer the tools for general grunt work similar to my ethic exhibited in mainspace, such as clearing out inapropriate fair use imagery after the seven day period, answering to requests of administrative action, clearing out various backlogs and the bypassing of pagemoves to apropriate venues. I think my sucessful editting history and general advocacy is proof of good decision making skills and would be welcome as an adminstrator. I know I'm not a popular editor, although I'm hopeful my dedication to wikipedia depicts my wish to assist the project with the tools.

As many can asertain I posess a horrid track record with rfas and I'm aware the rate of failure is high for the nomination. I'll try again and again in another few months if this is the case. I'm confident wikipedia would benefit from my capacity as an admistrator. -Randall Brackett 22:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update - Looks as if this isn't going to pass. Oh well. I'll allow it to run its course to failure and try again later. -Randall Brackett 03:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it's okay; it's still VERY early in the nomination. You still have a shot. — Deckiller 03:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Absolutely. -Randall Brackett 22:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. Support. Seems good to me, and I'm satisfied with the answers to the questions. SushiGeek 23:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support This Fire Burns.....Always 23:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. A very dedicated user with a profound interest in creating a good encyclopedia and I believe he has a well developed understanding in how good articles should be written. Wikipedia will benefit from Randall Brackett having access to admin tools and I would gladly have nominated him for adminship myself. Shanes 23:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support looks fine to me. I'm sure nobody will object because of WP space edits :) — Deckiller 23:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support, no reason to object. RandyWang (raves/rants) 00:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Moving to Neutral, per concerns raised by opposing voters. RandyWang (raves/rants) 03:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support A dedicated user. Although some of his actions such as failing to warn users he is reverting and a minor anomaly in his nomination statement, these do not have a bearing on me to oppose his RfA. His contributions to this project speaks for itself. It is time to give him the mop. Moreover, no Wikipedian is a PERFECT editor! --Siva1979Talk to me 01:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. DarthVader 01:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support per the answer to my question abakharev 02:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support per answers Jaranda wat's sup 02:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support -- Vitriouxc 02:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support, commitment and no ethics issues. What else matters? --Irpen 06:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Weak Oppose I see him revert vandalism, but not warning the users he's reverting. And it's not that I'm bothered that it happened once or twice (I personally have forgotten to do it a few times), but it seems to be a steady thing he does which may contribute to the large number of main namespace edits he has. — The King of Kings 00:48 July 09 '06
    :And less importantly, while reading his nomination statement that said I am currently nearing my second year as an established contributor. He created his account in June 2005. I wouldn't be bothered by that statement he made, but he added a whole year of experience he doesn't have under his belt which he claimed (unless I'm missing something). — The King of Kings 01:15 July 09 '06
    I think he meant that he is about to enter his second year as an established contributor. — Deckiller 01:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ugh, my eyes are killing me, I didn't see the word nearing. I crossed it out. — The King of Kings 01:21 July 09 '06
  2. Weak Oppose per above, revert vandalism and warning user should come in as a pair. --WinHunter (talk) 00:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It should. But on my vandalism reverts, I am almost always the last in a number of people to warn a vandal or its the silly kind of stuff that I don't think would constitute a warning as its done once and left at that. I have taken a fair amount of abusive IP's to the Admin request for intervention, however. A elaborative check will comply that my edits in mainspace are legitimate. I would assume the problem would be here is that I would block first without warning on the first instance. No, I would not. I'm common enough with wikipedia procedure and patient enough to go up to a fourth warning if need be. If in doubt, I say bring it to to the talkpage or I'd file a report on the noticeboard. -Randall Brackett 01:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So how is a vandal/misguided editor supposed to know when to stop doing the things their doing if you don't warn them, even of the silly stuff? [1] [2] [3] [4] Could you explain why you didn't at least comment to the editor of why you reverted thier edits I cited here? — The King of Kings 01:53 July 09 '06
    I must conceed you've got me there. Looking at those user's contributions, it would seem as if that was a one-shot deal for each so warnings would be unnecessary unless they were unrepentant. Really, its just good faith and I'm usually busy on working on something else. I've got multiple tabs open doing many things and while I can revert vandalism quickly while in this course I cannot be everywhere at once. I think what I'm trying to clarify is that this vote is in concern to me blocking and I have already given my word that I will not abuse the tools. I'm not perfect and I don't believe I ever will be. I'm trying. -Randall Brackett 02:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I'll assume good faith and believe that you meant well. I know the multiple tabs open can put a strain/or slighty confuse a person because I always have multiple tabs open (maybe 4 at a time). But I'd still like to keep my vote at weak oppose, because when I revert vandalism, one of those tabs is the vandals talk page. — The King of Kings 02:47 July 09 '06
    Okay. I'll concentrate on this a bit more. But I still firmly believe my skills in wikipedia would be welcome as an adminsitrator and I don't think its that's accurate depiction of what I could contribute. Many admins make mistakes in this vein and many do it while admitting they made a mistake or need to work on something. I really don't think its reasonable to oppose when I know I'm capable of trying my best and I'm ready to admit my faults. -Randall Brackett 02:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I am concerned about civility, [5] [6] [7]. It is not so much the content, these are not all that uncivil, but the volume of such comments. See the recent conrtibutions. Prodego talk 02:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I noted that. Its odd. I don't ever intend to say anything to give another slight but some people precieve me that way. If its any correlation, if a user points out I've been offensive, I retract my comment and give an apology. I don't intentonally throw out personal attacks or the like. I keep a mindest about being civil. I would see this as a problem if it were known to be serious and widely incomprehensible but its a minor flaw of my commnication and I think its good that I do keep people's feelings in mind. -Randall Brackett 02:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand. Honestly I do the same thing with spelling. I will consider your response, but sometimes, regardless of what you intended, editors will take any possibly negative statement as an attack. I recall one time I left a message about Durin, that, although I did not intend it to be, came across as an attack (not on Durin). Since then I have been very careful. I only have two criteria for admin candidates, civility, and a knowledge of policy. Prodego talk 03:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per above. Fair warnings should always be issued. --HResearcher 02:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose, very recent revert-warring and frankly inappropriate edit summaries. Kirill Lokshin 02:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose I'm sorry, but Kirill's diffs make me doubt the civility and patience usually necessary. This Fire Burns.....Always 03:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose, needs more experience and to be more open minded. My first contact with Randall was on Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning, and while I disagree with him there that is not my reason to oppose him. Rather, it's the logic he has displayed there and the closed minded thinking. I'd hate to see how he handled disputes as an admin. -- Ned Scott 03:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Kirill has pointed out a perfect example of revert warring; it's suprising you weren't blocked for violating 3RR (especially because the spoiler templates are appropriate). I'm really uneasy about the borderline incivility; this summary regarding the repeated reversions was inappropriate. Try again in October or November and perhaps I'll support. joturner 03:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong Oppose per Prodego and Ned Scott. Eluchil404 06:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Neutral. Seems good, but I'm puzzled about the RfA being at Megaman Zero. SushiGeek 23:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC) Changed to Support. SushiGeek 23:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Though your experience seems very good and you do make good contributions. I feel you need to build up more confidence per your nomination statement. Also, I would like to see your edit count, and I would do this, but i don't know how it works out with your name change and all. --WillMak050389 23:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Pending the answer on my question abakharev 00:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to support abakharev 02:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I am slightly concerned about civility, [8] [9] [10]. It is not so much the content, these are not all that uncivil, but the volume of such comments. Prodego talk 02:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to oppose after further examination. Prodego talk 02:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. You would make a great admin, but due to the issues brought up by opposing users and the blocks 2-3 months ago, I'm voting neutral. Damn edit conflict. Roy A.A. 02:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral, per concerns raised above. Seems to be an outstanding editor, but I'm concerned about poor use of warnings and potential incivility. Sorry. RandyWang (raves/rants) 03:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Merovingian {T C @} 04:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Why did you put this under your old name, if you've changed usernames? And why the change of names? -- nae'blis (talk) 22:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

23:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I debated on this. I had concluded it would be easier for editors to recongnize me as my time on wikipedia was spent as User:Megaman Zero and would thus be more apropriate. I recieved my account change to my real name as I regard my previous as very immature. If the current would be more acceptable I would have no qualms moving the page. -Randall Brackett 23:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nevermind, I'll execute the change. I do see how this can be confusing. -Randall Brackett 23:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Username	Randall Brackett
Total edits	15342
Distinct pages edited	3643
Average edits/page	4.211
First edit	18:16, June 14, 2005
	
(main)	7781
Talk	1132
User	548
User talk	2805
Image	1437
Image talk	10
Template	293
Template talk	89
Help	2
Category	13
Wikipedia	870
Wikipedia talk	362
Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: Clearing backlogs, image clean-up, assistance and answering to help pertianing to the adminsitrative tools would be my primary concern. I'm not a very "public" editor in that I tend to keep my mouth shut unless I feel my opinion necessary. I would prefer to assist wikipedia in a constructive manner without many touchy issues and I don't believe there are many admistrators in my area of the wiki.
I do recent changes on occasion, although not as consistently as other vandal fighters. I run into frequent vandalism on the articles I have watchlisted and the ones I encounter while shifting through categories and reading. I'm a generalist when needed so I could adopt to the situation as required. I follow policy, so I make decisions in support of it.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: - Not paticularly. I'm a jack of all trades but I focus on large edits and expansion to article space. I've created many articles and I'm keen of references and neat formatting. I can categorize in a competent manner, although not as efficiently as a editor like Hibana. I organize, clean-up whenever I come across a clean-up tag, remove content not suitible for encyclopediac inclusion (such as data that does not seem in-line with policies), merge per WP:FICT, execute page moves and have provided advice on many issues. I would prefer a featured article but no one really seems to give me assistance and I have many things to do across the wiki.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: - Yes. I'm currently questioning the value of spoiler tags and I'm engaging in intensive discussion although the commentary between editors in this debate has been quite civil. In the past I've been blocked for 3RR twice in which I forfeited my ability to edit in my defense of the encyclopedia. I've learned that while we, as editors, have a duty to defend an encyclopedia and its content this does not excuse clogging up the history with reverts. I've taken to more often discussing on the talkpage and inquiring third opinions to diffuse the conflict. I think I would be a good adminsitrator in dispute resolution.
I really don't become angry or fustrated on wiki, which I believe would assist in maintaining a objective view about things. I'm not perfect, however and I may become annoyed when a user refuses discussion or comprimise. I make mistakes from time to time and which may have to be pointed out to me. I recently attempted to depart the project because of accumulated stress in real life and a workload I insisted upon in the tasks I outlined for myself. I would advise editors to take it slow and get sleep. Such editting habbits gave me a bout of depression.
4. You have three blocks on your block list [11] given in April-May 2006. Can you tell us the story behind the blocks. Would you give the blocks if you were in the shoes of the administrators? abakharev 00:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A:- I explained this earlier in a summary on AN/I. I reproduce the relevant prose below:

During some article expansion, I ran into two disruptive editors (BIG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 70.231.130.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) on Talk:Colonel (Mega Man) and Ridge Racer during which said editors introduced/removed content from article space without any sources and any factually correct rebuttals. I made many reverts, for which I was subsquently blocked for [12], but respected due to the fact one must accept the consequences of his actions regarding the violation, despite the fact I was correct. I questioned the point of the blocks due to the fact, neither admistrator had taken the discussion on the talkpages into account and how each of the blocks were issued large timeframes after said violation (The first block occured 24 hours after the edit war was nullified and the page protected; the second several hours later, and after I had reverted myself to reach an comprimise). This incited a more active response from the editor, who had merely been watching my talkpage and contributions to this point. Druing the timeframe of my second block, He posted a note [13] on William's talkpage (Another one of my elaborate plans to take the wiki by storm) concerning an established contributor engaging in vandalism. I had extreme difficulty believing this post when I first saw it. I posted a reply rearding this shortly afterward [14] detailing my surprise at this bad-faith attempt to descend me into scurtuniy. William percieved this as a personal attack and threatened to block me shortly afterwards [15]. It certainly wasns't intended as a personal attack, but I removed the comment as I don't believe personal attacks accepteble on anyone. I complied and altered my comment as I deemed necessary [[16], after which William decided to block me anyway for being insolent.

I think it demonstrates edit warring is a bad thing even if you're correct. I don't object the reasoning of the blocks themselves but the timframe in which they were carried out was inapropriate. Blocks are to prevent disruption and can be seen as a "wake-up" for editors that do things not admissionable for the encyclopedia. These are my only violations on the matter and its not one I am proud of or would continue. I don't endorse the last block, however as I thought I had refractored to a sensible comment that lacked offense. I would have given blocks for egregious edit warring but would have done so in a manner to make it stop. Blocking long after a edit is over and everyone has reached a comprimise solves nothing. I would have very much liked to contribute to the talkpage discussion while those blocks were progress. -Randall Brackett 01:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from Mangojuicetalk:

1. What do you see as the difference between an admin involved in an editing dispute and a non-admin involved in an editing dispute? Would being an admin help you resolve editing disputes, and if so, how?
A:- Administrators have no more power in editing disputes than anyone else. The tools are to assist wikipedia in tasks not normally techically possible with the initial account. Mainspace is still mainspace. Admins are advised not to block when in a dispute. If the block is plausible, take it to WP:AN/I to review with outside parties.
2. If Wikipedia was fruit, what type of fruit would it be, and why?
A:- I'm not sure of this question.


Question from Deckiller:

Do you enjoy or tolerate doing tedious things without much reward?
I will do anything within the realm of assisting the encyclopedia. I do quite a bit of clean-up work and referencing, as well as other things that are glaring but no one else wants to do. I'm the sort of editor that does things so you don't have to. -Randall Brackett 01:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice answer, but I sometimes enjoy clearing the backlogs, so we'll have to share if you get promoted :-) — Deckiller 01:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Randall_Brackett_4&oldid=1142573706"