Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BrokenSegue

BrokenSegue
final (16/2/0) ending 01:34, 10 January 2005 (UTC)

BrokenSegue has been around for several months, has probably made a few thousand edits, and has made excellent contribs in science and technology related articles. He and I collaborated on Battle of Inchon, which is now a featured article. An excellent even-tempered contributor. Disclaimer: personal friend. Neutralitytalk 03:53, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * I accept BrokenSegue 04:00, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Neutralitytalk 03:53, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) dab (ᛏ) 15:48, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Why? -- Netoholic @ 03:37, 2005 Jan 9 (UTC)
 * 1) Tuf-Kat 21:59, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Why? -- Netoholic @ 03:37, 2005 Jan 9 (UTC)
 * 1) Rdsmith4&mdash; Dan | Talk 23:47, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Why? -- Netoholic @ 03:37, 2005 Jan 9 (UTC)
 * 1) &mdash;Morven 23:54, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Why? -- Netoholic @ 03:37, 2005 Jan 9 (UTC)
 * 1) Hasn't been here very long, but his talk page implies inoffensive edits and a willingness to learn. Ben Brockert 04:13, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Cool but four months seems a bit short. But still should be okay.  --JuntungWu 13:58, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Looks good, plus I respect Neutrality who vouches for him. --MPerel 19:31, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Agree with MPerel. Neutrality's voucher is good enough for me. - Lucky 6.9 00:02, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) BLANKFAZE | (&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;??) 01:02, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Why? -- Netoholic @ 03:37, 2005 Jan 9 (UTC)
 * 1) 172 11:12, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Why? -- Netoholic @ 03:37, 2005 Jan 9 (UTC)
 * 1) R yan!  |  Talk  #: 17:43, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Why? -- Netoholic @ 03:37, 2005 Jan 9 (UTC)
 * 1) Lst27 ( t a l k )  20:40, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Why? -- Netoholic @ 03:37, 2005 Jan 9 (UTC)
 * 1) support Because his record indicates a likelihood that he will be a productive and non-controversial admin who operates in accordance with consensus. Michael Ward 05:26, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Looks good to me. --fvw *  06:02, 2005 Jan 9 (UTC)
 * 3) Well-behaved user who works well with others. Johnleemk | Talk 08:19, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Netoholic @ 22:52, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)
 * Why? Neutralitytalk 22:25, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Why ask why? And why must people ask "why?" whenever someone votes but doesn't leave an explicit reason? Anyway, my reasoning should be obvious - this person is your personal friend, plus, I have known you to make extremely poor decisions in the past. -- Netoholic @ 03:37, 2005 Jan 9 (UTC)
 * 1) Being nominated by the guy who hectors voters on one side but not the other for reasons (neutral? ahem) is not an endorsement in my books. Neutrality is not my idea of a positive influence in this community, so I can't support his personal friends, I'm afraid. Dr Zen 00:21, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * If I had been self nominated (or nominated by someone else) would you have supported me? I am certainly not the same person as Neutrality (physically and mentaly :P ). BrokenSegue 01:12, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * It's a difficult question. I don't bear you any personal dislike at all (a niggling sense of disquiet that I can't pin down, possibly from a vote on deletion, that's all, and I wouldn't oppose you on that basis). I also dislike factional voting here when it happens, so I'm not opposing you because Neutrality is a deletionist or a cabalist (but I am swayed a little by some voters' supporting you solely because Neutrality "vouches" for you -- if that is reason for, it is reason against, I suppose). In principle, I think all users with your level of experience should automatically become admins unless there is really good reason not to. So it's a weak oppose for all that. But whoever nominated you, the same endorsement would have the same result.Dr Zen 02:49, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments
 * BrokenSegue has 3228 edits, roughly 1000 of which are in the article space. His first edit was at 18:18 on September 6 2004, and he uses "u" instead of "you" on his user page. &mdash;Ben Brockert (42) UE News  05:16, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * I change the "u" to "you". Although I think it's odd that that is the comment you chose to make about my user page :). BrokenSegue 06:30, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Extracting these stats is a bit boring, so I usually try to find something interesting while I'm at it. For whatever reason, it's usually something negative. &mdash;Ben Brockert (42) UE News  04:13, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
 * A. I will probably continue doing what I have been doing but with the added responsiblity of admin abilities. I will work on New Pages and monitor CSD and Vandalism in Progress. I hope to help move more images to the commons and help clean out duplicate files.
 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. I guess I have to say Battle of Inchon, but I like the way the Google and Google Inc. split turned out.
 * 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 will deal with it in the future?
 * A. Not really. I have had some small discussions when I was tagging images. Sometimes I was right and sometimes I was wrong. Usually they were about definitions and had little significance. (what images should be tagged logo or PD or how to phrase some paragraphs.)