Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Brianhe

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 216.80.117.134 (talk) at 07:49, 30 January 2016 (→Questions for the candidate: one more Question). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Brianhe

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (22/2/0); Scheduled to end 22:41, 5 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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?
A
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.

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

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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  5. Support. Excellent candidate. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  12. Support DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  14. Support - Per Kudpung. Mlpearc (open channel) 03:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support: He has earned the tools through his exemplary work.—azuki (talk · contribs · email) 03:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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. -- Ϫ 04:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  19. Support - Net positive after reviewing pretty much everything about this editor. CatcherStorm talk 05:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
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)[reply]

  2. 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)[reply]
Neutral


General comments


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Brianhe&oldid=702390967"