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)

Brossow (talk · contribs) – 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[1], 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)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: ACCEPT ⇒ 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)[reply]
2. Support second that nom!Gator (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support per nominator. -- Eddie UTC 17:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support. I like the cut of his jib. JHMM13 (T | C) 19:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support. Per my own nom. Nova SS 20:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support - I can't help it, I trust him (recent developments). --Latinus 22:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
10. Support I don't like his car, but his Wikipedia activities are adequate enough for adminship! Waggers 08:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support A great user who would not abuse admin tools. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support Would be a valuable asset to the admin team. Juppiter 05:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support. Adminship should be no big deal. +sj + 19:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support, looks OK to me. JIP | Talk 07:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
2. Oppose obvious sockpuppetry What appears, but may not be, sockpuppetry on his own nomination. KI 20:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Just because the nominator has no user page doesn't mean it's an alias. -- Eddie UTC 20:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   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. ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 21:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   discussion moved to talk page

3. Oppose not now... if I get to know him then maybe later. gren グレン 20:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose per all the above votes. Moe ε 21:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose He's a great contributor, but he simply has not been here long enough. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 02:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose too soon --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. 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)[reply]
8. Oppose, much as I would like to support a fellow self-described
   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)[reply
   ]
9. 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)[reply]
10. Oppose on grounds of inexperience. Give it a few months. Mackensen (talk) 14:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. Oppose for the same reasons as
    talk} 22:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
12. 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)[reply]
13. 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)[reply
    ]
14. 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. -
    Talk 07:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
15. Oppose Better have more experience.--Jusjih 00:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
16. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
2. T+C) at 01:19 UTC (2006-02-25
   )
3. Neutral per NSLE.
   t||c|m 03:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]
4. Neutral Great user, but around 80% of his edits coming only from this month. Needs more time really. DaGizza^{Chat ©} 06:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Neutral, looks good. However, like DaGizza said, around 80% of his edits come from this month alone. An admin must have more experience. --
   e Ong 17:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]
6. Neutral. Needs more time.
   emp | talk 03:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]
7. Neutral. Give it a little more time :(. --Dragon695 07:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Neutral, lack of Wikipedia namespace edits. Stifle 23:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
• 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. ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 16:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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.

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

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.

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.