Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/E. Brown


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

E. Brown
Final (24/12/7) ended 05:22 27 October 2005 (UTC)

– E. Brown has been very active in the area of hurricanes and storms in Wikipedia. He has also created many articles on past hurricane seasons, and as of October 18 has 1,731 edits. I've also observed that he also helpfully answers many questions from other people. In my opinion he deserves adminship. -- NSLE (Communicate!)  06:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accept

Support
 * 1) Support as nominator, btw. -- NSLE (Communicate!)  00:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, agree with nominator (just tone down the language a bit every now and then). Tito xd (?!?) 05:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, agree with nominator, the most informed person I have ever met on the history of hurricanes. --Holderca1 13:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support He is worthy-- Xiph o  n  15:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Support I have to agree with all of the above comments, Eric has made many fine contributions to this site.  Ban e  s  15:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. He seems civil and highly knowledgable. His edit history looks pretty good, plenty of edits, and plenty of edit summaries. Overall good candidate. Voice of All  @ ''' 15:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. I'll take a solid Wikipedian who's new to adminship over a proto-admin who's not so much about the encyclopedia-writing any day. &mdash; mendel &#9742; 19:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. Does a lot of work on hurricanes to the detriment of, say, everything else, but seems informed, intelligent, active, and well-spoken, and frankly that's good enough for me. Lord Bob 19:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. I like that he has tons of "article talk" edits, for me it means that he plays well with others (or maybe not, but still discusses things rather than rushing into edits). Sebastian Kessel Talk 20:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Support I was pretty set to oppose due to low wikipedia namespace edits until I read his comment below. That swayed me, I'd rather have a dedicated contributor who did a bit of admin work once in a while than one who did none at all. He deserves it. -Greg Asche (talk) 20:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Support, despite lack of WP-space edits, because of his commitment to discretion. That's something we could use a bit more of around here.--Scimitar parley 20:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Merovingian (t) (c) ( e ) 23:52, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Support, per GregAsche. No doubt he will not abuse admin powers. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. From a look at his contributions, an extremely good editor, and that is good enough for me. Tintin 05:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, please. Lack of wikipedia namespace edits indicates a healthy reluctance to be dragged into interminable pointless disputes. Lupin|talk|popups 12:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Ryan Norton T 21:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. (see below. And good point, Lupin!) The Minister of War 21:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Have had a good deal of interaction with him on the hurricane pages, and he has always been helpful, informative, and polite. -- tomf688 {talk} 21:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. He has helped a lot in the hurricane pages in Wikipedia and certainly deserves to be an admin. 200.119.234.142 22:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, anonymous users are not allowed to vote. Please consider registering an account. Ac  e  tic  ' Acid  02:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. His extensive involvement in the project settles it for me. As for the alleged flaw in lack of edis to Wikipedia, I like Lupin's way to explain it a lot. Shauri  [[Image:Heart.gif|11px]]  smil  e  !  21:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --Kefalonia 08:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Johann Wolfgang 18:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Although I live in Florida and HATE hurricanes (especially the ones from Miami:) with a red hot passion, I support this candidate.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 06:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --hydnjo talk 16:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Seems levelheaded, and there is no harm in having a few admins who spend most of their time editing hurricane pages; procedual issues requiring an admin, like moves-over-redirects, arise everwhere, and frequently require more knowledge of things like "local" consensus on the affected pages than they do general policy knowledge. --Aquillion 07:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose Neutral
 * 1) Oppose, no edits to wikipedia, most edits to the same pages, not a lot of variety. If this person's just working on hurricane and storm articles, do they really need admin powers? Privat  e   Butcher  18:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Very Very few Wikipedia edits if any --JAranda'' | watz sup 20:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Sorry, but oppose per lack of experience in Wikispace (<50 edits in WP, zero in WP talk). Please join some discussions at FAC, RFC, ANI or (shudder) AFD and see what it's like. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 22:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Lack of Project edits indicates lack of experience in adminstrative areas. I'm willing to change my vote to neutral if you began voting on some AfDs and RfAs for the remainder of the week. But I think it's too soon to support someone with so little participation in the sysop-related areas. Ac  e  tic  ' Acid  03:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Changed to Neutral. See comment there. Ac  e  tic  ' Acid  19:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per above. Simply not enough Wiki edits. Marskell 16:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) --Boothy443 | comhrá 21:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Uhhpose Needs more edits to wikipedia. It shows that the user is active in the community and otherwise it can;t be seen as easily. Job  e  6  [[Image:Peru flag large.png|20px]] 21:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose due to lack of experience.  Bahn Mi 01:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Not saying you're not a good editor, you have done a lot of hard work on the Hurricane articles and such. However, you need to round out your WP experience, and spend some time on discussions outside the realm of the articles you work on. Keep up the good editing.  &laquo;&raquo; Who ? &iquest; ? meta  07:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) * Oppose till user sets/enables his email id. Let me know once this is done. =Nichalp «Talk»=  11:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for enabling it. =Nichalp «Talk»=  18:18, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak Oppose Apologies, but I've come down with a severe case of editcountitis due to some other RFAs, and I don't think I can vote for any other way for anyone under 2,000 edits until I get to the Wiki-Pharmacy for my illness or the climate around here changes. Low Edit Summaries and a lack of experience in Metapedianism clinch it(Question #3 seemed too vague), although I do think he'd be more than ready in a few months Karmafist 18:00, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Variety is the spice of life, and Wikipedia space edits are a must. Mike H (Talking is hot) 21:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Wikipedia edits a must to show understanding of how WP works. Borisblue 21:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. It really is necessary to have a good grip on how the various processes and things work and how the community behaves behind the scenes (and how admins behave...). Experiment a little between now and your next RfA, and you will learn a lot. -Splash talk 02:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral In looking over your edits, virtually all of them pertain to Hurricanes in one fashion or another. While I think your contributions there are probably second to none, I would need to see a lot more involvement in the type of janitorial chores expected of admins, and to use edit summaries with almost every contribution to help out RC Patrollers.--MONGO 08:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral Although I dont entirely agree with the idea that you should engage in sysop chores before you are admin, I am curious whether or not you would actually enjoy doing the admin chores. You seem to be the kind of person which would much rather be a valuable contributor than having to do all the (necessary) boring work. Feel free to comment. The Minister of War 10:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral. Good editor, but more variety and involvement is needed. Here are a few good links: You could help out in the Untagged Images section, vote frequently on RFAs and participate on its talk page, vote on AFDs, make it a duty to watch the Recent Changes and revert vandalism, warn editors and report incessant vandals on Vandalism in Progress. You could also watch and tag Special:Newpages. After familiarizing yourself with these, and continuing editing articles, you should be all set :).  Or an   e   (t)  (c)   (@)  19:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral, as the Project namespace edit count is low. I don't see a need for a mop and bucket if most of what you're doing is hurricane stuff, and though I'm heartily against editcountitis, admins have to have edits in the Project namespace. But I don't think you'd make a bad admin either, merely that adminship seems unnecessary. Your edits are very good, and you have an abundance of edits in the Talk namespace, which is a good sign. I could easily support if there was evidnece of more sysop chores going on. --BorgHunter (talk) 12:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral. Your expertise is very good, but I'd like to see more edits in the Wikipedia namespace, not for editcountitis but just to make sure you have experience in tasks that most admins spend a lot of time handling.  If you take care of that, then I will support your next nomination in case this one doesn't go through. --Idont Havaname 01:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)  (In addition, the previous Neutral voters have given very good advice in this RfA, and it would do you well do follow it. --Idont Havaname 01:37, 22 October 2005 (UTC))
 * 6) Neutral for the moment - I would like to see more variety in this user's editing before they are renominated for adminship. -- Francs2000 [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px| ]] 21:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Changed to Neutral per E. Brown fulfilled my request. The recent participation in administrative tasks is a huge plus, but it's still too soon to support. If your continue making help edits in the Project namespace for another month or so, someone is sure to renominate you. The results will be in your favor then. Ac  e  tic  ' Acid  19:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments
 * Minister, NSLE's nomination kind of caught me a little off guard. Most administrators (correct me if I'm wrong) sought the title or knew that they deserved the vote. Being an administrator was never a goal of mine. The reason I'm pursuing this is that a lot of people on the hurricane pages feel strongly in my favor. They have given me very encouraging feedback, including one who recently asked me when my page would be posted so that he could support me. I respect their opinions very much. Also, the reason I sounded apprehensive is that I didn't want to sound aggressive. I would use administrative powers when necessary, I wouldn't use them just to use them, because I don't think that's what being an administrator is all about. If I came across a prolific vandal, I would not hesitate to warn him, or block him if he had been warned at least twice before. If I came upon an article that contributed nothing and had little hope of being expanded into a worthwhile article, I'd delete it or put it up for deletion. I came across such an article once before and asked an administrator if he'd speedy delete it, which he did. I believe that an administrator should use a lot of discretion before using administrative powers such as speedy deletion and blocking. Should I be elected an administrator, that would be my philosophy: discretion. E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - my dropsonde 13:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments. I agree aggressiveness is not a good admin trait. Still, there is little point in supporting admin powers if you intend to use them rarely - they exist for you to do good in the world! Well on Wiki anyway. Perhaps this is something to think about yourself. I think you might potentially be a good admin, leaving me the choice of voting neutral with the message "come back later", or voting support with the message "try to familiarise yourself with the more mundane Wikipolicies" (as per Or an   e  's post above). I'll take door number two, and change my vote to support. The Minister of War 21:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * A chart showing this user's edits along with a total # of edits line and average edits per day line is available here: Image:EBrown-edits.png. I offer this not as a more refined version of editcountitis, but as just one tool to help evaluate an admin nominee with a somewhat low edit count on Wikipedia.--Durin 13:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Use of edit summaries is 30%, 37% over the last 500. Average edits per day is ~6, and gradually increasing over last 30 days; 13.8 per day over last 30 days. 1,036 edits in last 90 days (60% of total contributions). --Durin 13:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure exactly what you guys mean by saying that I haven't made many edits in Wikipedia. I've made nearly 2,000 of them. E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - my dropsonde 03:01, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, we mean that you have relatively few Project edits. Your edit count See where it says Project? Those are edits done to pages such as this page, WP:AN, WP:VIP, WP:AfD, and policy pages WP:POINT, WP:AGF, etc. Project talk (which doesn't appear on your edit count list, as you currently have none) are edits made to the talk pages of such projects. Ac  e  tic  ' Acid  04:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I have taken this feedback to heart an am now frequenting the Votes for deletion pages and intend to expand farther into Wikipedia. I would also like to express my deep gratitude to all those who supported me. I am also thankful to many of the opposers for they have given me useful feedback that I will work on and hopefully they will think better of me in the future. - Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde 22:13, 24 October 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. Fighting vandalism, frequenting the deletion pages more, speedy deletion when necessary, that's mostly it. I would block a vandal if direly necessary.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. Yes, I am particularly fond of my private ventures Catastrophic Florida Hurricanes: 1900-1960 and Catastrophic Florida Hurricanes: 1961-present. I spent a lot of time researching them and I believe that I have introduced a new way of telling the facts to Wikipedia.


 * E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - my dropsonde 00:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * 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. Yes, I have had two personal conflicts. Both were where I felt the other user was being childish and unreasonable and refused to listen to me when I tried to explain a misunderstanding. Other users have also had negative encounters with the same user. The other was with an anon user where I as politely as possible asked them to stop doing something and they thought I was being high-and-mighty (with the first mentioned user stirring the pot, so to speak). Those were the only two major ones. I've had disaggreements with other users before, but those two were the only ones that escalated.


 * E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - my dropsonde 00:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.