Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BrendelSignature

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Contents

[edit] BrendelSignature

Final (38/0/0); Ended Sat, 19 May 2007 18:19:24 (UTC)

I am pleased to present BrendelSignature (talk · contribs) for your consideration. BrendelSignature has been a Wikipedian since November 2005 and has made over 14,000 edits since joining up. Before adopting his current user name, he edited under the name Gerdbrendel. As far as I am aware, he has never been blocked or otherwise harshly scolded.

According to his user page, BrendelSignature has an impressive array of articles to his credit, including at least five good articles. He contributes to a wide range of articles, but focuses on subjects related to political science, sociology, economics, world affairs, and luxury automobiles (didn't see that one coming, did you?). His contributions demonstrate a high level of intelligence and education.

My interaction with BrendelSignature has been only positive. I witnessed BrendelSignature withstand, quite admirably, vicious attacks on his ethnicity at the AFD for the American (ethnic group) article. Despite the long-winded attacks, BrendelSingature continued to respond with calm, reason, and and intelligent explanation with reference to guidelines and policy. BrendelSignature has a substantial number of project space edits. He appears to have the grasp of policy an administrator needs.

Clearly, Brendel has demonstrated that he would not abuse the extra tools available to administrators and would, in fact, be an even greater asset to the community with the tools than he is already. · jersyko talk 00:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept the nomination. Signaturebrendel 04:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


I believe in Wikipedia's mission. To provide a free, easy to navigate and use reference source available to nearly everyone. I have written several articles and have published my complete edit history on my user page. No, the statistics on my user page are not a case of "editcountities." They are there because I believe in transparency. If a user would like to see a summary of my contributions - to get an idea of what it is I do around here - he or she can simply visit my user page. As an administrator I will strive to preserve the integrity of Wikipedia through enforcing the civility guidelines and keeping an eye out for vandals who threaten our credibility as a resource.

[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A:

The civility notice board. I have withstood and seen several personal attacks. From personal experience I have seen how long the backlog on the civility notice board can be. Wikipedia as an encyclopedia needs to protect its editors from uncivil remarks. It is essential for the health of this institution that uncivil behavior is dealt with quickly.

I also intent to keep the vandalism notice board on close watch. Vandalism poses a severe threat to the credibility of Wikipedia. As someone who has put extensive effort into writing credible articles, I have a strong interest in seeing Wikipedia's credibility as a reference source maintain and improved.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A:

My best contributions are undoubtedly the articles I have written pertaining to socio-economics in the United States. I am most proud of my articles on Household income in the United States, Affluence in the United States, Average Joe, American middle class and other related articles. I have also re-written the economy section of the United States article which I check regularly for vandalism, OR and POV. My aim is to provide the public with information pertaining to areas of expertise. My articles, especially those that have been recognized as Good Articles, accomplish this mission- they educate and inform those who come here to seek knowledge. Furthermore, all information and all statements in these articles are referenced through college textbook, government data and authoritative periodical articles. Not only do these references ensure that the reader is provided with the best information possible, these articles also improve the credibility of Wikipedia. They show how well-researched and trustworthy Wikipedia articles can be. For the reason why I joined Wikipedia, please see the mission statement on my user page.

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:

Yes, I have had several experiences with users who have lost their temper or have been relentlessly trying to force a certain point of view on an article. Jersyko has mentioned a long conflict I was involved in with Eponyme. This user created an article entitled the "American people." Instead of discussing the diverse population of the United States, however, he had create an OR article that discussed those whom he consider to be "real Americans"- that is those descendent from colonial settlers. After explaining to him that his article was using the term "American" in an OR manner (applying it only to the Daughters of the Revolution), he quickly lost his temper, resorting to personal attacks and profane statements. I continued to reason with him, while starting an RfC and reporting him to the civility notice board. He was finally blocked for incivility.

3a. ...the second part of the question asks "and how will you deal with it in the future?" What if the other party is civil? Question submitted by VK35 21:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me answer that question in two segments.

First, if I were to once again encounter an uncivil and problematic user, I would react in a similar manner as before. I would attempt to explain Wikipedia policy in the clearest and calmest manner possible. If the user continues his or her problematic behavior I would consult other Wikipedians by the means of an RfC or a message on an active Wiki project. Once I am certain of the abusive nature the editor is exhibiting and that there is no reasoning with this individual I would (currently as non-admin) report him to the civility notice board.

Second, if the editor is civil I would assume that he or she shares the same interest in making Wikipedia a reliable source of information as I. First of all I would make sure that I am understanding the other editor correctly and am in the clear over the edits he or she intends to make. I would probably try and outline his or her position and then ask whether or not I am understanding them correctly. Then, I would outline my proposed edits and concerns-which usually results in me making a "compromise offer." In arguments with civil users I commonly single-out the text in question and attempt to revise it, so that the concerns of both parties are addressed. If no consensus is found, I would move on to starting an RfC-as I believe in the useful nature of third party commentary. I would look to the comments of other users to establish which revision would be best suited for the article containing the disputed statement. This scenario does of course assume that the other user is providing reputable sources and is no conducting any OR. If he or she is in violation of Wikipedia policy I would notify them of the policy and offer to consult other editors on the matter.

[edit] General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/BrendelSignature before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

Support

  1. Support as nominator. · jersyko talk 19:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support Been here around for a long time, 5 GA's, knows policy well, won't abuse the tools. Why not, anyways? Evilclown93 19:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support Adminship is no big deal. TTalk to me 19:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support Having worked with this editor on a number of articles I consider that he has sound judgement and ample common sense, all combined with a firm grasp of policy. I have no doubt that he will prove to be an excellent admin. --Xdamrtalk 19:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support Great contributor, responsible and always helpful. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support: Excellent amount of experience, and editor seems responisble and trustworthy. I would like to see a little better edit summary usage, but I can't see anything else wrong other than that.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 20:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support Just set your edit summaries to be forced in your user preferences and that should remove that obstacle in future. I see no problems with your contributions and I don't believe that the project would be harmed by you being granted the admin tools. (aeropagitica) 20:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
    I have adjusted my preferences, thank you! Signaturebrendel 20:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support Yeah, seems like it would be a nice fit. Jmlk17 21:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  9. Strong Support As far as I can tell, he will and even better help to Wikipedia given admin tools. He uses edit summaries conistently (except for when he started, but hey. We all did that.) He has made significant contributions to United States socioeconomic articles, which were sorely needed. Neranei 21:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support I dig admins with editing experience. the_undertow talk 22:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support This user meets my standards. --Random Say it here! 22:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support I don't see anything wrong with this user. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  13. -- Y not? 15:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support - Concerns in the neutral section are not serious enough to merit an oppose. Adminship is no big deal. Walton Need some help? 15:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support rock on --Infrangible 17:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support John254 18:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 19:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support. Probably would have co-nominated the BS-man (haha - I just made that up!) if I knew how to do so. Really appreciate his contributions to automobile related articles. These sometimes become a hotbed of conflict, especially when new models and concept cars come out and get kicked around; and also when well-intentioned editors go around snapping horribly-composed images of assorted cars they found in a local parking lot and just had to replace well established images, or litter the articles with more. Need another admin or two in there keeping an eye on things, to try to clarify the rules of engagement and encourage consensus. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 21:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support seems to be a reasonable and pragmatic guy on article talk pages, which is a fine trait in prospective admins, and no problems pointed out so far in this RFA. See no reason not to support. --W.marsh 00:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support good person that I think will be a good admin. Captain panda 04:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support qualified for adminship, good article work, nice activity, no concerns. —Anas talk? 13:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  22. Rettetast 19:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  23. It doesn't appear that the canadate will abuse the tools.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 02:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support - a pretty good choice I reckon..----Cometstyles 05:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support - will be ok. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 10:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  26. PeaceNT 11:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support Seems like a good editor. I like the answers the standard Qs, feel the concerns raised in the neutral section were addressed and haven't seen anything of concern while looking through the (extensive) contribution history. --Seed 2.0 16:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support from Neutral I am satisfied that Brendel doesn't make it a habit to use stats as a bat. The extent of your work, both in quantity and quality is impressive. JodyB talk 18:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  29. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 18:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support A fine user, from what I can see here. Acalamari 23:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support Have seen good work from this user, and trust them with the tools. --Aude (talk) 14:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  32. support per all aboveOo7565 22:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support - excellent user, no problems to suggest misuse of tools. James086Talk | Email 00:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support appears that he won't push the red button in haste. (For red button, see Nuclear warfare). VK35 16:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support. I actually thought you were an admin already. Am I confusing you with User:Interiot? Active, civil, knowledgeable. Seems like a safe RfA. --DeLarge 20:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support, yeah. -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 20:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  37. Why not?-—arf! 06:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support Has done and will do well. GDonato (talk) 15:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose (hoping to change to support) I placed a question (3a) which was never answered even after I sent a reminder to BrendelSignature several days ago. I hope his lack of response is not arrogance or a sign that he will be abusive and dictatorial as an administrator.VK35 19:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
"Abusive" and "dictatorial" seem like rather harsh comments to make in regard to not answering an optional question, no? (e.g., see Ragesoss's somewhat recent RFA) Perhaps he didn't notice the question until you notified him given that it's somewhat difficult to see. That said, I do hope he answers, even though I don't think we should really hold it against him too much if he does not. · jersyko talk 20:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I have answered the questions-I was simply busy with other tasks. I thought I had a little time to answer the optional follow up question and wasn't aware that my answer was needed so urgently (otherwise I would have reacted in a more prompt fashion). I'm sorry for the 48 hour delay. BTW: I didn't see the question until you notified me. Regards, Signaturebrendel 21:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I thought it was odd that there was initially no response even though Mr. Signature had editing activity.VK35 16:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

#Neutral. I am impressed with the volume of work and the quality of the work. But I am a bit troubled by this exchange from your talk page which suggests a unilateral view of some tasks [[1]]. In this second exchange [[2]], the editor came at you sharply but falling back on the number of edits troubles me. If these can be addressed I would certainly be inclined to support. JodyB talk 20:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, let me address your concerns: In the first instance I was following WP:Bold-I then agreed to have my changes reverted and the religion parameter continues to be part of the infobox. I was trying to be bold, but was then involved in a clam dicussion. In the second instance I tried to clam the discussion by "falling back on my edits." I was trying to say: "Look I am an experienced editor as well, no need to be so harsh." I simply wanted to let him know that we could discuss the topic professionaly without treating each other like children. I hope that addresses your concerns. Regards, Signaturebrendel 20:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutral Obviously someone who has done a lot of good work on Wikipedia. And I feel bad about not supporting. But I'm concerned with things like that comment about edit count. That doesn't look at all to me like an attempt to diffuse a situation, it looks like an ethos-based argument, and that's not the sort of argument I want to see from sysops. Further, the high edit count seems to be primarily from a reluctance to use the "show preview" button. Looking through your edit summary I see a lot of things like this -- Over 20 edits to the same article in a short time period. Or this -- over one hundred edits to a page in a row. And the whole edit summary is like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.225.124 (talk • contribs)

Well, I do use the "Show preview" button quite a bit when I write a new article (see the first couple of edits to my GA articles-there is quite a bit of text in few edits). But in discussions (such as the link you have provided above) I edit as I think-I re-word my arguments to be better and more efficient as I ponder the issue-over two days that may work out to 100 edits. As for the reference I made to my editing experience it was not meant the way it came out ;-) I simply wanted to state that the other user didn't need to treat me as harshly as he did. I simply wanted to say "Look we can discuss this professionally... because I am an experienced editor as well" -From your comments I now see how I came across in that particular instance- what a faux-pas! ;-) Signaturebrendel 01:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, IP's can't vote in an RFA, but are extremely encouraged to participate in the discussion section. Also, about the hundred edit comment. It was to a talk page. Brendel was simply commenting and comparing/showing ways to improve the article. That's actually highly encouraged for users interested in adminship, because it shows good communicating skills. Those skills are important because administrators have to interact on a daily basis with others. Evilclown93 13:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
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.