Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Runningonbrains

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


Runningonbrains

[edit]

Final (50/5/0); closed by bibliomaniac15 at 23:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

[edit]

Runningonbrains (talk · contribs) – I'm pleased to nominate Runningonbrains for adminship. I've long been impressed with his work at the meteorology project, an area of the wiki I'm very familiar with. He has been an editor for three years know, and in that time he's accumulated about 12,000 edits. He is primarily a content building: his most significant works include Tornado, Eye (cyclone), and Portal:Weather. (He has also been a significant contributor to several GAs and DYKs). Runningonbrains has a clean block log, and has used the rollback feature accurately and responsibly for three months now. A consistently civil and helpful editor, he often participates in discussions at the reference desk, where he provides thorough and well though-out answers to science-related questions. He has used Huggle on occasion, though the majority of his edits are manual.

If this nomination passes, he may not be the most active sysop, but he will certainly put the tools to good use. I believe that Runningonbrains would be exactly the type of admin we need to maintain the project, while still remaining free of drama. Cheers, –Juliancolton | Talk 21:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I thank Juliancolton for the nomination, and accept.-RunningOnBrains 21:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: As everyone seems to answer: New page patrolling and vandalism. Also, I eventually plan to reorganize the structure of Portal:Weather, which will require many, many deletions.-RunningOnBrains 21:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Bringing Tornado to WP:FA status. It was what drew me into Wikipedia in the first place: I was extremely interested in severe weather phenomena such as tornadoes, and when I came to the page, I saw it was a complete mess. It took nine months, but I'm still quite proud of the result (though it has changed quite a bit since that time).-RunningOnBrains 21:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I'm of the mind that almost no problem requires the drama people tend to bring to it, so I walk as softly as possible when dealing in discussions with users who may not exactly have community consensus as their top priority. I feel like I've dealt quite well with disruptive users in the past (see User_talk:DeWinter1 for a recent example), and I tend not to let people aggravate me, regardless of how aggravating they may be.-RunningOnBrains 21:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from Dlohcierekim . Hello, RunningOnBrains, and thank you for submitting your RFA. These questions are nominally 100% optional, but may help me or other voters decide. You can remove the questions if you like.

4.In reviewing new articles, is it better to delete an article that meets WP:CSD on sight, or to search for verifiable information with reliable sourcing that would show the subject to be notable? Does it make a difference as to which criteria the article meets?
A- In my New Page patrolling, I always do a quick google search to try to determine the page's notability/accuracy. Even when confronted recently with a hedgehog flu page, I performed due diligence and searched around for a minute, just in case. Unless the page title is something like "Martha has smelly feet" with page content "And is ugly too", I'm not going to jump straight for the delete button. In fact, for cases such as bands, people, and companies of unasserted notability, I believe I would still apply the CSD tag, so that the user may add a {{hangon}} template if they feel it is necessary.-RunningOnBrains 05:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Is there any set of circumstances in which you would block a user without them having received a full set of warnings?
A- Yes, but only very rarely, mostly for cases covered under Wikipedia:Blocking#Protection. If a user is making several slanderous edits to WP:BLP articles, making threats or maliciously posting personal information, they should immediately be blocked, since this is a damage-control measure for the WikiMedia Foundation and others. However, for simple vandalism or other forms of disruption, letting the normal sequence of warnings run its course seems the best way to go.-RunningOnBrains 05:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Why do you want to be an administrator?
A: It is mainly a matter of convenience: it adds unnecessary man-hours for me to have to add CSD tags and wait for an admin to delete a page, or to post at WP:AIV (although I admittedly have only had to do this a few times) and wait for a disruptive user to be blocked. Also, in odd hours (e.g. 3-5am on east coast US), I have found that on occasion, pages with CSD tags take hours to be checked by an admin, and I believe I and my chronic insomnia may be able to help that situation.
Finally, there was one incident that irked me: I was "on the scene", so to speak, when Ted Kennedy "died" in January, and ran through edit conflict after edit conflict for 10 minutes trying to remove the unsourced speculation (which later proved false), until finally I contacted WP:RPP (although I suspect that since the page was protected less than one minute later that I was too late in doing so). I'm not saying that me having the ability to protect that page would have made much of a difference in that particular case, but I hate needing to contact an administrator when I see something that needs doing (not that I don't like you guys :-D).-RunningOnBrains 05:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional (optional) question from Toddst1:

7. If you came across a user talk page from a newly registered user that said something to the effect of "I am thinking of killing myself." what would you do and why?
A: I would immediately bring it to the attention of the community through WP:AN. In cases like this snap decisions can only make things worse (What if it's a hoax? What if it isn't? Will deleting the page cause this person to kill himself? What about blocking him?), and I don't believe any one volunteer administrator should have to make the decisions in situations that could possibly have real-world consequences.
This is, of course, different from my response to an actual threat against others. These should be immediately reverted, blocked, and then reported to the community.-RunningOnBrains 05:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7.a. (Follow-up question): Thanks for answering that. In the case of a suicide threat or TOV against others, would you contact authorities? Under what circumstances and why or why not? Toddst1 (talk) 18:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have read Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm since my last answer, and while it is not an official policy I believe it to be sound reasoning. I would rather that another administrator who could better determine the location of the offender make the report (through CheckUser or some other means), or ideally a member of the Wikimedia Foundation, but if I were in the best position to make a prompt report, I would contact the relevant authorities. -RunningOnBrains 17:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional (optional) question from Groomtech:

8. Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what will you do to uphold them?
A: I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "rights", but I will try to answer best I can (let me know if you need clarification). To me, in this situation, a "right" is a basic, inalienable entitlement inherent to being a Wikipedian.
Individual Wikipedians have no Wiki-exclusive rights except those decided upon by community consensus. These include the right to edit free of harassment and personal attacks, and the Right to vanish. No Wikipedian has a "right" to edit any page they way they see fit, or to create any page they wish; they must always yield to Consensus, which includes any of the established guidelines such as WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V, etc.
Of course, nothing on Wikipedia can supersede those rights granted Wikipedians by their respective governments.-RunningOnBrains 16:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Additional (optional) questions from MuZemike:

9. Do you currently use or plan to utilize any of Wikipedia's IRC channels (which may, in some cases, help expedite the situation in Q7, as time is of the essence there)?
A: Yes. I have wandered on to the main wikipedia channel a few times, mainly when I am having trouble loading/editing pages to see if anyone else is having the problem, but otherwise I have not seen the need. In all honesty, I had forgotten about IRC until you mentioned it just now. As I understand it, all administrators are granted access to a dedicated admin channel. Since having instant access to other online admins would indeed be key in an extreme situation, I would most certainly utilize it.-RunningOnBrains 18:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Also, do you have a very strong login password, that is, one that is extremely difficult for someone to crack (my standard is 90% or higher at http://www.passwordmeter.com/ )?
A: My former password (before reading this post) was scored as 68%. I have changed to a password which is scored as 86%; I hope this is sufficient, as I'm not sure I trust myself to remember a more complex one. :-D-RunningOnBrains 18:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Dank
11. Point us to a conversation where you did a good job of explaining or supporting a policy or guideline; or if you prefer, point us to a conversation where you made a good argument against a policy or guideline.
A: I can't really recall a case where I've had to do any of those things explicitly. When I think an editor misunderstands wikipedia policy, I often contact them on their talk page instead of an area of centralized discussion (such as here), and most of my explaining of policy is to new, inexperienced wikipedians in regards to speedy deletions and the like (such as here and here). In regards to discussions and debates, I don't visit AFD very often, but I thought these difs represent good arguments supporting policies: [1] [2]. -RunningOnBrains 20:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Optional questions from User:Carlossuarez46
12a. A user creates a page for a web-company and the contents are no more than a link to its website and {{underconstruction}}, and another user tags it for speedy deletion; how long in its current state of construction would it be before you decided to grant a speedy deletion request?
A: In this case, I would weigh the notability of the company as usual. If it appears non-notable, I would delete it, but if I believed it to be a legitimate page, I would create a stub of an article, so it no longer meets CSD A3 (no content). If I was too busy to do such, I would put the page on my watchlist, and if it stayed in the same state for more than a few days, I would delete it under CSD A3 and contact the initial author. -RunningOnBrains 17:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12b. Would your answer be different if there were no link to its website, and the contents were only the underconstruction template?
A: No. Same answer applies. Granted, in both of these cases, I would need to be more convinced than usual that the company met Notability requirements, since there is no "assertion of notability" from a blank page. -RunningOnBrains 17:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12c. Given a choice, should Wikipedia(ns) spend more time retaining longer term contributors or newbies? What would you do as an admin to demonstrate the choice you make?
A: This is a very good question. IMO, almost every new editor, unless they thoroughly read WP:INTRO and related primers (which I believe I am right in saying almost no one does...I know I didn't :-D) gets bitten horribly for their attempted contributions. I am suprised that we even get content-based newcomers anymore, given that almost every subject in every corner of Wikipedia is saturated with its regular editors, and given the uneducated (in wikipolicy) nature of newcomers, they are often treated as vandals. I see little I can do to change this, aside from not doing it myself, and calling out others when they do so. As in almost any other situation, WP:AGF and pointing to policy while being polite are the best way to go.
Sorry, I think my answer has gotten a bit tangential. In short, we need to do a better job retaining newbies, and we can do this by not Biting them. -RunningOnBrains 17:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12d. In closing an AFD, are the comments and analyses of regular AFD participants and long time editors more weighty than those of newbies and anons?
A: I think that as long as their arguments are sound and grounded in policy, the status of the editor does not matter, since it is not a vote. -RunningOnBrains 17:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12e. If an athlete biography is nominated for deletion and the athlete passes WP:ATHLETE but fails WP:BIO, which governs? Is your answer the same if the athlete passes WP:BIO but fails WP:ATHLETE - assuming no other notability except sport?
A: I assume when you say WP:BIO you mean the basic criteria of notability. IMO, barring unusual circumstamce, if the athlete satisfies either criterion, the article can stay, provided it asserts the subject's notability properly. -RunningOnBrains 17:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Dylan620 Efforts · Toolbox
13. If this RfA passes, and you are sysopped, do you plan on arming yourself with the AbuseFilter userright?
A: No, at least not right away. I was not even aware of its existence until just now, and I do not believe, with my limited coding ability, that I could create an effective filter. After all, I could always request the creation of one if I believed it was needed. -RunningOnBrains 22:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

[edit]

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

Discussion

[edit]

User:Neurolysis/Counters.js

Support
[edit]
  1. Support per the excellent nomination statement. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you sure? I thought the nomination statement was well written, but the nominator makes me a bit wary. NW (Talk) (How am I doing?) 00:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am considering opposing simply because of the nominator. Abominable. — neuro(talk) 00:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. I checked this guy out before the RfA started and I think he'd be a great administrator. Soap Talk/Contributions 22:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Excellent dedication on working on Tornado for over 9 months, good number of edits, good dedication to the project, very civil, and I would marvel to see what this kid could do with the mop. Good luck.--(NGG) 22:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Works for me Tho I'd say he ain't no kid; a physics degree shows maturity, intelligence, and extreme patience. Plus he's a year older than me. :-) ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 23:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Per above, good luck.--Giants27 T/C 23:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. No immediate problems I could see, and I trust the nominator. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 23:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Seems like he will make an exellent admin. --Abce2|Howdy! 00:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Clearly here to help the project, and has done great work here. Per Soap. NW (Talk) (How am I doing?) 00:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Good answers to the questions, can be trusted, will put the bits to good use. No objections. tempodivalse [☎] 00:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Can be trusted with the tools. Will make a very good admin. Timmeh! 01:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strong support. Great user, and we need more admins. Wizardman 02:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Strong Support – Excellent editor, no concerns. American Eagle (talk) 02:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Per above. -download ׀ sign! 03:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support — Jake Wartenberg 03:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support --ThoseStarsBurnLikeDiamonds stargaze 04:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support as I see no evidence the tools would be abused. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support No brainer. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 05:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    :) LITTLEMOUNTAIN5 19:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Not only a strong candidate, but demonstrates a need for the tools. Valley2city‽ 05:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support per above and answers to questions. One (talk) 07:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support The more admins we have who actually contribute content and therefore understand what we're here for, the better. Nick mallory (talk) 11:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support, no reason to believe this user would misuse the tools. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  22. Support Liked the answers to my questions. Might want to revioew Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm. Cheers. Dlohcierekim 13:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Yup.  GARDEN  14:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Plenty of experience in both content creation and admin-related activities, and no red flags. Looie496 (talk) 17:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support LITTLEMOUNTAIN5 19:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Don't see why not. Stifle (talk) 21:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards as candidate has multiple good and featured credits while having never been blocked. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 01:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 11:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support per Juliancolton nomination and answer to Q8. KuyaBriBriTalk 16:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support I can't see any reason to oppose this candidate. BigDuncTalk 18:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support I can't see a reason to oppose. America69 (talk) 18:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support - Impressive. Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Strong Support-I don't see any problems here. He has never been blocked, has a number of featured/good articles and is very polite. I also would like to take the opportunity to say that I love your name...it stands for everything that is missing in today's society.Smallman12q (talk) 20:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. Very good answers. - Dank (push to talk) 22:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Good answers as well. Could be a asset to wikipedia. ⊕Assasin Joe talk 01:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Why not? - Fastily (talk) 03:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support - clueful editor with sufficient edits, no issues. Bearian (talk) 15:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  39. WP:Assume good faith--Caspian blue 18:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support: Solid, responsible. Like that you wouldn't hesitate to take action in such cases. Toddst1 (talk) 20:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support - Good-faith editor who's here to help; that's all there should be to it. (Plus it's about time another editor from WP:WPTC ran...) --Dylan620 Efforts · Toolbox 21:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support - 12,000 manual edits are really a lot; besides those contributions, he's been using the rollback feature effectively, showing he can be trusted with the tools. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support I doubt this user will abuse the tools. AniMatedraw 05:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Trustworthy editor, good answers on questions. I'm also impressed by the record of content-building. FlyingToaster 11:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support User has been around since March 2006 and feel the project will only gain with the user having tools.No concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. Checks out okay. — Σxplicit 02:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. What's not to like? The candidate is a great content builder, is experienced, works well with others and has a clue. Majoreditor (talk) 06:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Deserves to be an admin. A great user. --Siva1979Talk to me 06:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support Why not? Solid contributor, experienced, and civil. --Jmundo 17:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. Seems reasonable and able. -- Banjeboi 23:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
  1. Oppose Too many administrators currently. see here --DougsTech (talk) 00:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose He is not versatile enough and not very active. Sorry.--> Gggh talk/contribs 09:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you care to show this lack of versatility through some diffs, or even just some vague evidence? Thanks. — neuro(talk) 10:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, Neuro. Look at the talk page edit count distribution. I suppose it's a matter of quality/quantity. Overall, recent edit count could be higher, but candidate seems unlikely to misuse/abuse tools. Dlohcierekim 14:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the response, but my query was actually in response to the point that he lacked versatility -- I don't find the activity point too concerning. :) — neuro(talk) 13:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Excellent article contributions, but a lack of substantial WP-space edits puts me off (only ~5% of total edits, and the most substantial to Wikiprojects and the like). I don't really think that just because something is going to require deletions, it means clear need for tools. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per David Fuchs. I see very few contributions to the Wikipedia namespace outside of the reference desk. I also see few recent deleted contributions which may suggest an unfamiliarity with the deletion process. Nakon 01:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    True, but he has well over 500 deleted edits altogether (albeit over a period of two years), so I'd say he is indeed familiar with the deletion process. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Your link does not work for me (access restricted to administrators). What does it mean anyway to say someone has X deleted edits? It sounds like a bad thing to have.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 19:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not necessary. It can go both ways. Either it could be he wrote a lot of articles that got deleted, or he flagged many articles accurately for deltion and they got deleted. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    With the exception of some tropical storm sub-pages, the vast majority of the candidates deleted edits are tagging articles for various forms of deletion (I would guess mostly prod and CSD from the edit summaries). Protonk (talk) 10:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks but in the future I am just going to discount information about "deleted pages", just like anything else that only admins can see.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 15:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fair. I know it is helpful when checking for tags, but it is all very inscrutable for non-admins. I was going to copy/paste the contribution list into a scratch page, but I'm not sure that would be judged as wise. Protonk (talk) 16:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose Answer to question 6 indicates to me that patience would be a potential problem, the world won't end tomorrow. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 00:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't usually respond to opposers, but if you're referring to the Ted Kennedy part, the situation was somewhat urgent. In terms of BLP, his answer erring on urgency in those situations is, to me, a very healthy sign that he knows the BLP problem. PeterSymonds (talk) 09:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I was referring to the 1st half of the answer, since I doubt the Kennedy situation will come up again directly involving this user and the 1st half of the answer dealt with the generalities. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 12:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]


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.