Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Brettzwo


 * ''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

brettzwo
FINAL (1/8/0); closed per WP:SNOW by EVula 17:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

- YOUR DESCRIPTION OF THE USER Brettzwo 14:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

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 to take part in bolstering current articles with additional references and information and providing clarification on the various viewpoints on controversial topics.  This is my main focus for now.  I may also be creating some articles down the road at some point.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: My poltical and religions contributions. I have provided some noteworty missing information on topics like the Iraq War and its early opposition as well as inclusions of religious points of view on topics like salvation that have been missing.


 * 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: In reaction to a recent update I made on the 'Iraq War' article, a wiki admin immediately deleted and dismissed my update on the early opposition b/c it mentioned Ron Paul as spearheading the movement in Congress to oppose the war before it began. This information was missing, yet crucial to that anti-war movement.  I was accused of being politically motivated; however, this admin's deletion without engaging in any debate was less than sincere.  As a result, I have appproached him to reconcile the matter.  I will continue to discuss items of conflict with other users and admins until there is full resolution on matters.  I find it unacceptable for admins to act in the manner which this individual acted and do not intend to do this myself.

General comments

 * See brettzwo's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

The aforementioned issue in #3 above is what prompted me to seek the administrative position. I find blanket deletion of articles, which this user has also done in the past to the dismay of others, to be unacceptable. If there is something that seems political in the wording, then that is what needs to be addressed...*not* deletion of the entire article. This behavior stand in contradisctinction to Wiki principles of liberty of information for all.


 * Links for brettzwo:

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

Discussion

 * I think someone should close this asap as oppose votes would just pile up. (Note: is it possible for non-admins to close these requests?) Phgao 15:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I added this message and welcomed user. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Brettzwo Phgao 15:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe anyone in good standing can close requests. Hut 8.5 16:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I would remove this myself, except I have no idea how to, from observing previous edits, the section has been removed, yet then I wouldn't know how to archive it. So perhaps someone else could do it? (unless you think it is too hasty) Phgao 17:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I expect a 'crat will notice it soon. Hut 8.5 17:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) --U.S.A. (talk contribs ) 15:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Any reason why?  Majorly  (talk) 15:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm just giving him the benifit of the doubt. I guess you can call it what people have phrased, "Moral support".--U.S.A. (talk contribs ) 15:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)



Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. Sorry your account is waaay too new. The things you want to do in response to Q1 you can do right now. Also becoming an admin won't change what contributions are acceptable to Wikipedia. I suggest discussing your concerns with the editor/administrator that removed your changes. Also please use the article talk pages to discuss issues with article content. You can not use administrator rights to win an edit war. -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 15:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong oppose and suggest withdrawal. You have less than 50 edits, many inappropriately marked as minor (including controversial edits like this), almost all of which appear to be reverted, and you say you want admin powers specifically to help you in edit-wars. —  iride scent   (talk to me!)  15:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. Typical admin candidates have at least 6 months of experience and a couple thousand edits. Many have considerably more of both. Without more time and at least 1000 edits, there is absolutely no way you could be promoted to admin. Sorry, but you just don't have the experience needed for the community to have learnt to trust you. But stick around and you may someday. Phgao 15:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) If you are going to use your admin tools to win edit wars, then I'd suggest withdrawal right away and learn how to edit constructively. Even more, it doesn't look like you have knowledge of core policies and guidelines, and your account is too new.  There is absolutely no way you could possibly be promoted at this point.  Strong oppose. —O (说 • 喝) 15:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose for a couple of reasons. Although I'm opposed to over-reliance on edit counts, there just isn't much of a history here of editing, which means not much experience with the ins and outs of editing. And, of course, the motivation for adminship (revenge?) leaves me uncomfortable.--Fabrictramp 15:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose per above.  Mi r a n da   16:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose sorry, but you haven't got anything like enough experience. The comment in "General comments" above suggests a poor motive for seeking adminship as well. Hut 8.5 16:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose, pretty much what everyone's already said. Wizardman  17:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

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.
 * 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.