Brendanconway (
talk·contribs) – I have been a Wikipedian since February 2005. I enjoy contributing to the project, both as an author of articles, especially on Irish and medical topics. I see fighting Vandalism as a key mission for Wikipedia. I also enjoy welcoming new Wikipedians. I very much believe in Jimbo Wales' maxim: "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge.That's what we're doing"
File Éireann19:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Thank you all for your votes, I've just got in from the hospital (1.30 am), so I haven't had time to thank all of you in person yet, but I'm really honoured.--
File Éireann01:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Oppose. We don't need more admins. The AfD backlog is manageable; the quality of the articles due for deletion/merging is often not mission-critical (otherwise they'd have been speedied) and it doesn't hurt if articles due for keeping still have the AfD notice for an extra day or two. Nonsense articles are a problem, but most of the problematic articles are tagged for delete on sight, and are quickly handled by existing admins. Vandalism is not that serious; most vandalism that lasts longer than a few hours would not have been caught by anyone even if the rollback feature was available to every Wikipedian. I see no reason to support the addition of admins. It's nice, but not critical.
202.58.85.8 07:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC) Vote struck -- only registered users may vote at RfA.
Xoloz07:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)reply
There is plenty to administer on Wikipedia that is not included in your opposition vote. What makes you think your anonymous vote will be considered?
JFW |
T@lk07:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Neutral
Comments
Questions for the candidate A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
A. Vandalism is one of the main problems on Wikipedia. I frequently add delete tags to nonsense articles, sometimes they are removed again before anyone gets around to removing them. I'm naturally a very tidy person at home, a mop and bucket would make me feel much better. I think the time I devote to fighting vandalism on wikipedia would be more efficient if I could remove nonsense pages on sight. I would spend a good deal of time cleaning and scrubbing at the articles for speedy deletion. I would be sparing with use of the blocking facility but would use it when necessary.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I have become very involved in
Article Improvement Drive. I help to move on the old articles and make sure the new article is updated every Sunday (in collaboration with
User:Litefantastic). I produced the new template that makes
WP:AID more visible on the Community portal (
template:aid-summary), and I am responsible for giving information on the new article at
Community Portal each week . I have also contributed large numbers of articles about the west of Ireland (most not mentioned yet on my userpage). Recently, I have started to contribute articles on emergency medicine.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A. I have had minor conflicts only. In my line of work (emergency medicine), we are trained in conflict resolution. I always notice quickly if a dispute is escalating and quickly move to a sensible resolution, never imposing my views at the expense of others. I have, however, kept an eye on many of the disputes at Wikipedia, and feel many of them could be resolved more easily if both sides could be persuaded to step back from the heat of the situation. Wikipedia is at it's best when it evolves by consensus rather than by edit wars. I would only use sanctions such as blocking if all other attempts at resolution failed.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Brendanconway (
talk·contribs) – I have been a Wikipedian since February 2005. I enjoy contributing to the project, both as an author of articles, especially on Irish and medical topics. I see fighting Vandalism as a key mission for Wikipedia. I also enjoy welcoming new Wikipedians. I very much believe in Jimbo Wales' maxim: "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge.That's what we're doing"
File Éireann19:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Thank you all for your votes, I've just got in from the hospital (1.30 am), so I haven't had time to thank all of you in person yet, but I'm really honoured.--
File Éireann01:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Oppose. We don't need more admins. The AfD backlog is manageable; the quality of the articles due for deletion/merging is often not mission-critical (otherwise they'd have been speedied) and it doesn't hurt if articles due for keeping still have the AfD notice for an extra day or two. Nonsense articles are a problem, but most of the problematic articles are tagged for delete on sight, and are quickly handled by existing admins. Vandalism is not that serious; most vandalism that lasts longer than a few hours would not have been caught by anyone even if the rollback feature was available to every Wikipedian. I see no reason to support the addition of admins. It's nice, but not critical.
202.58.85.8 07:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC) Vote struck -- only registered users may vote at RfA.
Xoloz07:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)reply
There is plenty to administer on Wikipedia that is not included in your opposition vote. What makes you think your anonymous vote will be considered?
JFW |
T@lk07:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Neutral
Comments
Questions for the candidate A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
A. Vandalism is one of the main problems on Wikipedia. I frequently add delete tags to nonsense articles, sometimes they are removed again before anyone gets around to removing them. I'm naturally a very tidy person at home, a mop and bucket would make me feel much better. I think the time I devote to fighting vandalism on wikipedia would be more efficient if I could remove nonsense pages on sight. I would spend a good deal of time cleaning and scrubbing at the articles for speedy deletion. I would be sparing with use of the blocking facility but would use it when necessary.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I have become very involved in
Article Improvement Drive. I help to move on the old articles and make sure the new article is updated every Sunday (in collaboration with
User:Litefantastic). I produced the new template that makes
WP:AID more visible on the Community portal (
template:aid-summary), and I am responsible for giving information on the new article at
Community Portal each week . I have also contributed large numbers of articles about the west of Ireland (most not mentioned yet on my userpage). Recently, I have started to contribute articles on emergency medicine.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A. I have had minor conflicts only. In my line of work (emergency medicine), we are trained in conflict resolution. I always notice quickly if a dispute is escalating and quickly move to a sensible resolution, never imposing my views at the expense of others. I have, however, kept an eye on many of the disputes at Wikipedia, and feel many of them could be resolved more easily if both sides could be persuaded to step back from the heat of the situation. Wikipedia is at it's best when it evolves by consensus rather than by edit wars. I would only use sanctions such as blocking if all other attempts at resolution failed.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.