Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Blood Red Sandman

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Blood Red Sandman

Final (60/0/0); Originally scheduled to end 17:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC). Nomination successful. --Deskana (talk) 17:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) - Here's a user who I wanted to nominate earlier, however he was on a break for a time. Blood Red Sandman has a pretty balanced edit count across all namespaces, numbering over 1k in both name and projectspace. He has made Adam Air Flight 574 a Good Article due to his efforts, and helps out and contributes over at WP:DYK (which we always need more admin help at). He's a pretty balanced editor who helps out where needed, whether it be reporting vandals at WP:AIV, helping out with Portal:Current Events, or simply improving articles to FA-class, such as the Hamlet chicken processing plant fire. I don't see any reason not to make him an administrator. Wizardman 19:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I accept. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 06:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

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 admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I intend at first to do stuff like updating WP:DYK, soarting out candidates at WP:ITN/C (and, obviously, adding those that make it to the template), fix WP:ERRORS, do much more RC patrol than I currently do, as well as deal with reports to WP:AIV and WP:UAA and stuff in C:CSD. I'll likely also close some AfDs. From that, once I feel more confident with the mop, I may then branch out into dealing with some of the more complex issues - reports to the admin's noticeboard and other abuse. However, despite all that, my primary responsibility shall allways remain as improvement of articles.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Well, I guess my best stuff is the stuff I've listed on my user page - I have a number of GAs, and, as Wizardman points out, one FA, too. I guess my absolute best work probably is Hamlet chicken processing plant fire, closely followed by the work I did updating and maintaining Adam Air Flight 574 back when it's disapearance was a major current event, with the article linked from WP:ITN. I have also been involved with a number of things which reached WP:DYK. Really, I guess Wizardman had worked out pretty well what it is I do around here.
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 have never been in anything that I would call as serious as an edit conflict - obviously I have not allways agreed with people or been agreed with. I guess the reason I've avoided such heated disputes is because I try to understand other points of view, and, where possible, reach a compromise; I would allways seek talk page consensus in a dispute rather than just arguing it out on a one-to-one basis. I don't get stressed very easily, so if something was bad enough to cause me stress on here, it would be quite serious, and I really should be getting off-wiki for a while until I am destressed, before returning to take a fresh look at events.
4. Would you add yourself to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall? Why, or why not? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Remain civil at all times. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Blood Red Sandman before commenting.

Discussion

Support

  1. Strongly endorse - It's about time! Blood Red has been an active part of WikiProject Disaster management and WikiProject Aviation's Aviation accident task force for some time, and has consistently shown that he understands what this encyclopedia really should be. He's a holder of the prestigious Triple Crown award, and has worked hard to bring seven articles to GA status and at least one to FA status. His tireless edits to bring quality to this place is probably the most important reason I believe he deserves the mop, and I have no doubt that "quality" will be in the forefront of his thinking as he wields said mop. One of the tests, in my view, is how someone handles themselves when others disagree with something they've done. Blood Red consistently handles himself with grace and dignity, respecting the views of others. As an example, consider his comments in this AfD of an article he had created. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 16:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support as nom. Wizardman 17:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. See no problems. — Dorf⁠, was: AldeBaer 18:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support per nom Marlith T/C 18:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support I have not seen this user around. Perhaps we just have not crossed paths. But, in looking into the history, I do not see anything that blatently says that this person would not be trustworthy. --BlindEagletalk~contribs 18:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Same here. Incidentally, and while I'm an RfA "regular", I have to say the fact that I didn't come across him here additionally weighs in his favour. (...and also a bit against myself I guess.) — Dorf⁠, was: AldeBaer 22:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support James D. Forrester 19:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support east.718 at 19:59, October 5, 2007
  8. Support per above comments. STORMTRACKER 94 20:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - in the course of my dealings with the editor in question, and having looked over his history once earlier relevant to another discussion, I have no reservations whatsoever about the integrity or judgement of this editor. John Carter 21:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Per Akradecki. Support--WriterListener 21:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support A candidate that will be able to more effectively contribute with the addition of the mop, and per the nom. Phgao —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 22:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support - featured article writing, in addition to vandal fighting. Solid candidate. Addhoc 22:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. I met this user when I was active in WP:ACID, and I'm pretty sure that they'll use the mop well. bibliomaniac15 23:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strong Support Great Wikipedian, should have been an admin a long time ago. -- (Cocoaguy ここがいい contribstalk) 00:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Weak support appears to be an excellent editor, I am worried about the low edit rate for the last few months though. -Icewedge 00:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Has significant contributions to Wiki-related pages, excellent edit summary usage. --JForget 00:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Too many reasons to specify. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 01:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support - clearly a good 'pedia builder. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Jmlk17 02:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support An excellent user. Would make a fine admin as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support I don't see why not. Status for HirohisatHirohisat 03:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 03:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support based upon firsthand observations, Blood Red Sandman seems to have the right stuff for the mop. I'm dyeing one scarlet for this occasion. DurovaCharge! 13:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - Seems like a quality editor to me :) Tiddly-Tom 15:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Looks like this is a no-brainer. Would make an excellent admin. DoyleyTalk 20:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support - great editor who I have seen around for quite awhile and have come to like very much. Just give him the mop already!¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 22:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Nice work on the articles, worked on the admin topics already, good luck with the mop Neozoon 00:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support - One of the uncontroversial RfAs, and for good reason. This user has the right stuff for the mop. Good luck, Ανέκδοτο 00:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support Has been a consistent contributor with over 7000 edits with over 3000 in mainspace.Nothing in the edits to oppose no concerns Pharaoh of the Wizards 01:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. Good encyclopedia builder. The candidate has made substantial contributions to FA and GA articles. Majoreditor 02:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support I have worked with BRS many times at Aviation accident task force and he has loads of contributions to the article-writing side of the encyclopedia. He will be a a good admin. -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 05:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Seems like a great candidate. нмŵוτнτ 05:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support - looks like he'd do a good job with a mop Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! (Whisper...) 10:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support John254 21:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. No reason to oppose. Acalamari 22:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. I've seen him around and thought he already was an admin. Rigadoun (talk) 22:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support - I've edited with this editor and seen some of their work, and I'd trust them with the tools. Carcharoth 23:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Strong support - Will make a very un-disastrous admin. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Appears to be ready for the job. I don't see anything wrong. —Signed by KoЯnfan71 My Talk Sign Here! 01:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support oppose No reason to oppose. NHRHS2010 Talk 03:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Strong Support Wish I could have co-nominated this user. BRS is an excellent Wikipedia editor, and I have always found his work here (in all aspects) to be of the highest quality. Nishkid64 (talk) 03:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. A very-well proven candidate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Seems to be a good canidate. • Lawrence Cohen 13:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Strong Support - I've never seen anything but good from this user. --tennisman 15:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Good evidence of even-handed work and understanding. Kukini hablame aqui 17:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support - Per above. Dureo 20:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Definitive support - I have often seen Blood Red Sandman at work, he's a good editor and a good person, kind-hearted and knows the value of editors and editing (I met him when updating Adam Air Flight 574). Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 06:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support - lots of edits, a Scotsman, and vandal-fighting wounds; can be trusted as an admin. Bearian —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 13:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support - Lots of relevant experience. Great work so far on Wikipedia. Lradrama 14:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Strong support Despite my almost complete inactivity since, ironically, becoming a sysop (which is due to many varying reasons), I could not let this RfA go by without putting my full support behind BRS, someone whom I've seen frequently in the past and never lost faith in. He'll do a great job, just like he always has. -- Mike (Kicking222) 20:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Suppport good work at CSD and elsewhere. Carlossuarez46 21:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support good lot of edits, no reason to not be an admin.. ⊕Assasin Joe talk 22:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support A lot of good vandal fighting. --Banana 04:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support - The user's extensive contributions to the Adam Air article and other mainspace edits is only one of several reasons for support. Archtransit 15:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support! Looks like an outstanding candidate. --Folic Acid 18:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support - looks good. Lara❤Love 20:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support - BRS is a superior editor, top candidate and no reason whatsoever to worry here. Good luck! The Rambling Man 21:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support per Akradecki, my good impressions of Adam Air Flight 574, and a look at some of his contributions. EdJohnston 02:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 07:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support I've seen him around; great contributor. -- Chris B • talk 15:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

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/Blood_Red_Sandman&oldid=1142502932"