Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Brusselsshrek

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Brusselsshrek

Final (2/12/3) withdrawn by candidate 20:50 18 January 2006, original ending time 22:22 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Brusselsshrek (talk · contribs) – I am a workmanlike contributer who nominates himself. I would simply like to be able to expand my contributions into more administrative types of function.

If accepted as admin, I would like as my first task to set up a Wikipedia:Peer Review page system which would enable users to have other Wikipedians review their work, and would act as a training acadamy for future admins. Brusselsshrek 20:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I am very pleased that myself has considered myself as worthy of nomination, and as such I feel obliged to gratefully accept the nomination. Brusselsshrek 22:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support Well rounded, ethical, interesting new ideas, creative critical thinking skills, well read, and excellent temperance. --Masssiveego 06:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
    Oh COME ON! Just quit it aready. This is not even funny anymore.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 07:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support per masssivego Sunglasses 11:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose Not enough experience, very few project and talk invovements, answer to question 1 doesn't really give a lot to go on --pgk(talk) 22:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Pgk --Jaranda wat's sup 22:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose - 458 edits isn't enough of a sample size for your work, and you've only really been active since December. Would like to see more work involving consensus either in the Talk or Project namespace. (ESkog)(Talk) 00:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Would like to see more experience, almost no user talk and Project edits show lack of experience for two areas very important for admins, IMHO. xaosflux Talk/CVU 01:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. weeck Oppose I ward support this user but thare is allredy so menny amins wikipedia dos not nede mor amins there are 788 amins.**My Cat inn @ (talk)** 03:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
    Are you suggesting that there are too many admins on Wikipedia? Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 17:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Opposse Less than 500 edits, most of which have been in the last 6 weeks. I know edits aren't everything, but if you try back in a couple of months, my vote may be different. Basically ditto to ESkog's reasoning. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 03:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose Not enough edits in project and talk areas to demonstrate interaction with others as well as involvement in the back-end project that admins need to work on. Nothing in the answer to question one requires admin abilities to do. Please try again in a few months and make sure you look through the reading list given in question one. --TheParanoidOne 10:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose for now, but looks like you are good contributor so I'm sure you can be an admin in a couple more months --TimPope 17:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose and suggest withdrawal. Make lots of good edits to articles, using an edit summary each time (even for minor edits), and in a few more months ask someone to nominate you. If you do that, I'm sure you'll be a shoo-in. Jonathunder 18:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose for lack of experience. Good intention though; try again later. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-17 14:27Z
  11. Oppose. Interesting ideas, but only two months' real involvement with the project. Would probably support in a few months, as with most people here. Don't get discouraged. -Colin Kimbrell 14:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose Lack of experiance and edits. Try back in a couple of months and I'll support :-) — Moe ε 02:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Please get that overly large template off this page and use links to it instead. Thanks. Radiant_>|< 22:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral Candidate needs more experience. Also, please use edit summaries on all edits, minor and major.--Alhutch 04:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. --Signed by Chazz - Responses to (responses). @ 21:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 87% for major edits and 12% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and and 18 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces. Mathbot 22:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • See information about Brusselsshrek's edits with Interiot's edit count tool or Interiot's edit history tool.

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.
I quite like the community-type talking/discussion stuff, so I would imagine to be involved in decisions requiring discussion. It's a bit of lonely job just endlessly doing edits, so count me in for the heated debates! The hotter the better!! I'm also rather pernickety, so I would imagine getting involved in some of the cleaning-up-around-the-edges type of tasks, but I'm sure that if I became admin I would discover those more then. Or maybe I'll just be a lazy admin and watch all you lot do all the work, who knows ;-).
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A.
  1. I'm pleased with my work on English translations of the Bible, because after many small changes on many of the surrounding pages I began to see the big picture and take march larger reorganisations of the pages which I feel have greatly helped the overall structure.
  1. I'm also pleased with the clean-up of the Template:EnglishTranslations because it was a large and bold edit, but the template was just not showing any consistency, with people treating it as a big "Category" type of box, and it was missing some important translations, and it was becoming really unweildy in its size when included in all the minor translations pages. Though it may just look like I just hacked out everybody else's work, in fact I put a lot of effort into making sure each entry in the box was represented on the individual pages which are referred to (I created what I thought was a nice table comparison for you, but others thought it too big for here).
  1. Finally, I am pleased with the stub I wrote on Taffazin, a subject about which I knew absolutely nothing when I first started the article (I had stumbled across Taffazin as a word I did not understand when reading about Barth syndrome). I taught myself enough to write a stub through searching other internet articles. And fear not, a friend studying Bio-Genetics checked it for errors!
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.
There was some feeling against the work I did in the clean-up of the Template:EnglishTranslations which can be followed in the history, which was resolved amicably. It is rather stressful when people revert your work, but I like the interaction and feel I can remain calm under pressure.
I was also of course peeved when an admin deleted entirely a page which I had created for an obscure Bible version called A Conservative Version in the mistaken belief that this was simply a duplicate page. Such things are stressful since I had no idea at that time how to do a revert! And all my hard work had disappeared!! Nonetheless, I enjoyed the communication with the editor who had done the dirty deed, and I feel I remained calm and polite.
I have been burnt with e-mail wars in company situations, so think I have learnt the art of being professional when flame-war type things start up.


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.