Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Brossow


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

Brossow
Final (14/16/8) ended 20:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

– I have known Brossow for a few years now through another internet forum, and I have found him to be of good character. He has a distinguished history of over 2,700 edits, including many original contributions. He has a strong grasp of the Wikipedia Manual of Style and Wikipedia's rules and regulations. I feel that Brossow's adminship would be a positive contribution to Wikipedia. Nova SS 03:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: ACCEPT &rArr; BRossow T/C

Support
 * 1) SUPPORT --Ford 14:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC) Fifth contrib by the user. --Gurubrahma 17:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support second that nom!Gator (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per nominator. -- Eddie UTC 17:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. I like the cut of his jib. JHMM13 (T | C) [[Image:Flag of the United States.svg|25px| ]] [[Image:Flag of Germany.svg|25px|  ]] 19:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Per my own nom. Nova SS 20:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support - I can't help it, I trust him (recent developments). --Latinus 22:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support No second thoughts in supporting this nom. Brossow is supportive of others, level-headed and stays on point and trustworthy. Stude62 00:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. Committed? Yes. Any ethical questions raised? No. Useful editor? Yes. What's the problem with the "too recent" issue is beyond me. --Irpen 00:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support, his response to the issues raised on the talk page is certainly better than I'd have done. I would usually perfer to see more experience in the WP namespace, but if Brossow finds a situation where he doesn't know what to do I'm sure he'll ask before acting. Raven4x4x 01:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support I don't like his car, but his Wikipedia activities are adequate enough for adminship! Waggers 08:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support A great user who would not abuse admin tools. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  14:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support Would be a valuable asset to the admin team. Juppiter 05:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Support.  Adminship should be no big deal. +sj + 19:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Support, looks OK to me.  J I P  | Talk 07:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. Whilst a member since October, only active since December. Lacks experience per my requirements at Standards. Sorry I can't support you at the moment. Try again in the future. Essexmutant 17:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose obvious sockpuppetry What appears, but may not be, sockpuppetry on his own nomination. KI 20:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Just because the nominator has no user page doesn't mean it's an alias. -- Eddie UTC 20:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This is patently false, not to mention offensive. Perhaps someone in authority would be so kind as to compare IP addresses. You'll find mine are in Minnesota whereas Nova SS's is/are in Texas. I've got 2700+ edits and have no reason whatsoever to use a sockpuppet to nominate myself. I truly hope you'll reconsider your vote or at least withdraw it. &rArr; BRossow T/C 21:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * discussion moved to talk page
 * 1) Oppose not now... if I get to know him then maybe later. gren グレン 20:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per all the above votes. M o e   ε  21:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose He's a great contributor, but he simply has not been here long enough. Jtrost (T | C | #) 02:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose too soon --Jaranda wat's sup 21:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose as per the above, only two months real activity with the majority this month, limited contributions in the project namespace, needs more experience. --pgk( talk ) 01:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose, much as I would like to support a fellow self-described anal-retentive grammar nazi from Minnesota. Some things are learned and seen to be learned only over time, and it is better for both the project and the editor that active participation before adminship be some months, not some weeks. Jonathunder 03:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose: Temperament seems a little on the edge in this RFA, but the reason for opposition is inactivity in encyclopedic content and lack of experience. Geogre 13:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose on grounds of inexperience. Give it a few months. Mackensen (talk) 14:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose for the same reasons as User:Kingboyk above. A lot of edits, but not enough time. -- tomf688 {talk} 22:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose No, not yet. Though you are on the right road, you aren’t there yet. The edit count certainly suggests commitment and availability. Your edits suggest the ability to write readable articles, good temperament, and the ability to work well with others. However, I’d like to see more time to show the sustainability of your effort and greater breadth of experience to show more of your critical thinking skills, your clarity of thought, and your people skills.Mikereichold 07:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose - Some borderline WP:OWNership issues in a couple of recent interactions surrounding a discussion of copyrights relating to All your base are belong to us. Generally a good contributor but I'd like to see more levelheadedness before giving the mop. (ESkog)(Talk) 00:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Despite the user's inherently kind and easy demeanor, I cannot stand by this. More and more nominations are being input with users that have had too little experience and are performing "burnout" editting habbits within the recent month proceeding the nomination. Please gain more experience. -ZeroTalk 07:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose Better have more experience.--Jusjih 00:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose Changing my vote, sorry. I don't see enough community intteraction, and the notice on your talk page that you will delete (rather than archive) old threads is classic newbie. #Neutral --kingboyk 21:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral, I like all the work he has done in the Image area, but he still needs to be active a bit more, all but about 400 of his edits have come in the last month. NoSeptember   talk  23:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Standards barely met for "decent activity throughout". Seems a good one, though, so, neutral leaning weak support. NSL E (T+C) at 01:19 UTC (2006-02-25)
 * 3) Neutral per NSLE. Nacon kantari   e |t||c|m 03:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral Great user, but around 80% of his edits coming only from this month. Needs more time really.  D a Gizza Chat  &#169; 06:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral, looks good. However, like DaGizza said, around 80% of his edits come from this month alone. An admin must have more experience. --Ter e nce Ong 17:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutral. Needs more time.  psch  e  mp  |  talk  03:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Neutral. Give it a little more time :(. --Dragon695 07:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Neutral, lack of Wikipedia namespace edits. Stifle 23:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments


 * Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 97% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 17:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * See Brossow's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.


 * In the interest of fairness, I'm striking an unsigned vote that I am sure came from a newly registered friend. While I deeply appreciate the gesture, it's not fair for anyone to "stuff the ballot box" with new user votes. I have also reformatted a couple early votes to better meet accepted practice. If someone disagrees with these actions, please let me know and/or revert my edits. I'm very uncomfortable manipulating my own voting page, but I feel it is important in this situation; please note that I did not change the vote tally in my favor in any way, shape, or form and I'm deeply interested in preserving the integrity of this vote. &rArr; BRossow T/C 16:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
 * A. Since joining Wikipedia in 2005 I have expanded my involvement from editing a single article to expanding, editing, and reorganizing a number of additional articles. More recently I have become involved with a number of other tasks as well in order to benefit the Wikipedia project, including monitoring recent changes for vandalism, tagging untagged images and notifying the respective uploaders, and most recently helping disambiguate links. I also make touch-up (and other) edits when I come across pages in need of attention.


 * Having said all of that, I would like to continue to expand my involvement with Wikipedia. I feel that adminship would allow me to more effectively and efficiently contribute to the cause, making thoughtful changes that I must currently ask other admins to do (for example, here and here), more easily making rollbacks to counter vandalism, dealing more directly with copyright infringement issues (especially in the Image namespace), stopping vandals in their tracks, and so on.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. In addition to the sizable contributions I've made recently to some of the aforementioned projects (hundreds upon hundreds of edits related to image tagging and disambiguation) I've also done a lot of work on the All your base are belong to us article. While many people may not find it interesting, important, or even worthy of the space on the servers, I believe a quick comparison of the article between my first involvement with it and the current version will reveal a noticeable improvement in the article (despite its all-around trouncing in its recent attempt to regain Featured Article status). I've also begun a major overhaul of the Chevrolet Nova page, taking it from my first edit of the page to its current condition (obviously with help from others). This project will continue as I work outside of Wikipedia with a large group of Nova enthusiasts to gather facts, add information, and document sources for upcoming additions to the article.


 * In terms of completely original contributions, I'm rather proud of the short but thorough article I contributed about block quotes. It covers all the bases without being overly wordy, excessive linking, or countless other problems plaguing many articles. There is certainly room for expansion and improvement, but I feel it represents well the quality of my work and my attention to detail.


 * Most of all, I'm simply proud to be a part of this community and contribute my time and talents to what I feel is an enormously worthwhile project.


 * 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 how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A. As with virtually any Wikipedia editor with more than a dozen edits under his/her belt, I have made edits with which others have disagreed. In no case has the disagreement gone to arbitration, gotten out of hand in an all-out edit war, or led to long-term hard feelings. An example of where there was some strong disagreement over changes I made can be found in Talk:Apple Macintosh, where a "spirited discussion" arose regarding image placement on the Apple Macintosh page and its effect on section heading display. Despite being called a moron during the course of the discussion, I feel I kept a reasonably level head and within 12 hours of tossing ideas back and forth we had worked out a resolution with which everyone was satisifed and with no hard feelings. This article subsequently went on to become a Featured Article on February 10 of this year, including the changes I made and the compromise we reached.


 * With regard to others causing me stress and my dealing with it, I feel that's one of the wonderful things about Wikipedia in specific and the Internet in general. Unlike my real-life stressors, with Wikipedia I can always get up and walk away if something is bothering me. Also unlike in real life, with Wikipedia there is a HUGE community of users who will almost always reach a reasonable group consensus (as compared with many situations in the real world where a single dictator makes all final decisions regardless of anyone else's input). It may not be the consensus I might hope for in any given situation, but I recognize and respect that the wishes of the community at large outweigh my desires as an individual editor. I'm okay with that and it doesn't bother me.  I have enough stress in my regular life; Wikipedia provides an outlet and even an escape at times, and if I ever feel stressed I can simply walk away without it taking a toll on me.


 * The above 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.