Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Brian New Zealand

Add links
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.

Brian New Zealand[edit]

Final (43/18/8); Ended 01:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Brian New Zealand (talk · contribs) – Brian may not be widely known to the WP community outside the Oceania area, but he does a power of work on New Zealand-related pages and other pages within the Oceania region. He is courteous, friendly, helpful, and has just taken over the running of Portal:New Zealand. His NZ-related tasks frequently include things like vandalism-reversion, something that would make the admin tools most useful. Some 2800 edits since July last year, over a broad range of namespaces. Worthy of the tools, I'd say. Grutness...wha? 01:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I'm shocked that Grutness would nominating me. Yes, I will accept. Brian | (Talk) 07:26, 10 December 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 do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A:I anticipate that as an administrator, I will be better equipped in my efforts to help reduce vandalism and would focus on CAT:CSD, WP:CV, WP:PP, WP:RM, WP:IFD, and the different areas of WP:AN.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I am proud of all my contributions. I really enjoy writing an odd article that's missing from this wikipedia, expressly New Zealand related political subjects. I take delight in jobs such as copyediting, portal maintenance. As well as looking after the New Zealand Collaboration of the Fortnight
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: I've always tried to be civil and helpful, however, one of my experiences at Wikipedia was when I had what could be described as "a bit of a tiff" with User:TharkunColl, on his Talkpage over the Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom article, I got slightly annoyed at the edit warring that was taken place on the article, and tried to ask TharkunColl to stop, however it ended up becoming a bit hotheaded. From that, I gained a pretty good experience in distancing myself from arguments on Wikipedia, and I've taken away from it my knowledge of dispute resolution and ability to distance myself from disagreements on Wikipedia without too much difficulty. Should any future situation arise, I will be patient and helpful in my response. I feel a natural respect for the perspectives of others, which I do my best to understand and appreciate.
4. More than 80% of your mainspace contributions are marked as minor. Given this, could you point to some examples of contributions to articles that you feel have been significant? Dragons flight 02:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: Articles that I have done significant contributions to have been Monarchy in New Zealand & Governor-General of New Zealand, I have also written articles about New Zealand places, and local councils such as the Taupo District Council and the Taupo District. Most articles I have written, or articles I've written a majority on, I do most of the drafting in my Userspace, and then move the text to the mainspace when I've finished. I have also written the Articles on the New Zealand Cadet Forces (I wrote most of the article, my early edits were as an anon, I also wrote the New Zealand Cadet Corps, and New Zealand Sea Cadet Corps articles) I also have written the Compulsory Military Training in New Zealand article.

Optional questions from Malber (talk · contribs)

5. What do the policy of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you and how would you apply them?
A:
6. Is there ever a case where a punitive block should be applied?
A:
7. What would your thought process be to determine that a business article should be deleted using CSD:G11?
A:
8. What is your age?
A:


General comments

Discussion

Support

  1. Nom support! Grutness...wha? 01:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Nzgabriel 02:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong support. I considered nominating him about six months ago, but at that point I didn't think he had enough edits here to succeed.-gadfium 02:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support --Cspurrier 02:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jaranda wat's sup 03:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Sarah Ewart 05:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Brain is a great administrator over on Wikinews, and (IMHO) would be a great administrator here. From what I gather the number of Kiwi admins here on the WP is rather low. Brain, being based in New Zealand would be active when the administrators from the United States are either at work or sleeping. Terinjokes 05:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support per nom. A NZ admin would help in a variety of ways. --Bduke 08:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support per nom. Brian does good work monitoring highly visible articles (like Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom) and is polite and courteous when communicating with other users.--Oden 13:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support: clearly trustworthy, which is really all that mathers cause adminship should be no big deal. WP:1FA is really optional for me. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support He has been an admin on Wikinews for 10 months. FellowWikipedian 20:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Personal bias, but has helped me a lot on stuff I've done on WikiNews and elsewhere. ShakespeareFan00 21:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support meets my criteria, and is already experienced with the tools.-- danntm T C 00:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support I'm familiar enough with Brian's contibutions to feel confident in his judgement.--cj | talk 01:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Wikipedia needs additional admins from New Zealand who can watch over related articles. In addition Brian has admin experience from Wikinews therefore I Support. м info 01:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support I know of Brian's work mainly through the Māori-language Wikipedia where he was formerly active. He is polite and honest and a good worker. Wikipedia needs more people like Brian who are not interested in trumpeting their own greatness but just get involved in the way that works for them and the project Kahuroa 05:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  17. Support: Admin experience at Wikinews implies that he won't misuse the tools (and I don't believe he'll mess up with Wikipedia-specific stuff). TimBentley (talk) 16:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. I'm satisfied that the nominee can use the tools and can be trusted with them. Agent 86 21:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. This is a case where your adminship on Wikinews should be given a lot of weight. Your edit count is toward the low end of what people look for, but I am sure with Wikinews added in you would have a robust contribution set. The other problem is that your proficiency with the technology (AWB) is being used against you. I commend you for using the most efficient tools. TonyTheTiger 23:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Cliche Support I thought he alr--*stops* you know where this is going ;-) — Deon555talkdesk 02:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Obvious Support - he is an admin at WikiNews and has demonstrated there that he can be trusted. Nobody has uncovered any reason to oppose other than editcountits ... good grief ... support. BigDT 02:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support I think he would do better with the tools. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail 03:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support, unless we inherently distrust Wiki-news. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 05:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. I admit that I have seen BNZ more on Wikinews and Wikia than en.wikipedia. But I have seen him to be a fair and responsible user, and I do not think there would be any problem with him having the tools here: he has been here enough to know how things work, and personal qualities carry over from wiki to wiki. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 06:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. Brain clearly has experience with wikis, and is familiar with how to use the tools. While I am not certain this RFA may pass this time around, I recommend that you read a bit of our policies and guidelines, as there are some quirks that Wikipedia has and Wikinews hasn't (or you could argue it's the other way around... it's all relative). A bir more familiarity with process and hands-on experience couldn't hurt. Titoxd(?!?) 20:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support lovelaughterlife♥talk? 03:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support; user has great experience on Wikinews. Ral315 (talk) 03:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Nice guy. Mirror, Mirror, on the wall... 04:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Terence Ong 08:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Jon Harald Søby 14:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Strong support - nothing but praise for Brian. Very competent, willing to do the boring crap no one else is wanting to do, and also willing to accept when at fault. Already has admin experience from WikiNews I believe. Would do be a good admin. --Midnighttonight (rendezvous) 23:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support, per what I saw with Interiot's Tool Booksworm Talk to me! 15:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. Looks like a decent editor. Regards, —Celestianpower háblame 17:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Nothing to suggest there would be a problem here. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Experienced editor, admin at Wikinews; seems like a good choice to me. --Coemgenus 17:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support, From what I have seen of Brian, he is an excellent editor and would make an excellent admin. Somitho 03:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Wikinews experience as admin makes up for lack of experience here. Would ask user to be less taciturn in communicating with others. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support A good Wikipedian who is qualified for Adminship. Sharkface217 03:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support; Slade (TheJoker) 16:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Well deserved. // I c e d K o l a 22:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support More kiwi admins needed --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 23:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. Zaxem 00:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. I'm seeing almost no mainspace edits that are not AWB or some script. You'll probably pass anyway, but I have to oppose for that. -Amarkov blahedits 02:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak Oppose From your contributions I'm not very convinced that you effectively have a need for the tools. Apart from today, no vandal fight, and you barely warned any vandal. Maybe another month or two would help dissipate any doubts. You appear to be a great user though and I might change my position before this ends.--Húsönd 04:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been involved in vandel flighting in the past, just over the last month I've been busy with Exams, and have not had the time Brian | (Talk) 04:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per dire lack of meaningful WP: participation, including XfD - which matches up poorly with your answer to Q1. - crz crztalk 05:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I rarely participate in AFDs. Does this mean I'm unsuited for an admin's role? =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Depends on what you put into your Q1. If you listed CSD as your first task, then yes. - crz crztalk 00:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong oppose per crz. Brian indicates he wants to work on IFD, but doesn't have a single edit to that page. I realize that unopposed noms for deletion there result in a delete, but working in an area that is entirely new to the candidate seems bizarre to me. He also wants to manage CAT:CSD, which I find really unsettling given his AfD experience. He sometimes leaves reasons for his AfD !votes, often per somebody else. In other instances, his reasoning doesn't make any sense: Keep: I don't see anything wrong with it, or Keep- I agree, lets keep it. Sometimes, he hasn't given a reason at all, simply voting: 1 2 3, and 4 (though the last one could be interpretted as "per above"). One might believe this was just a misunderstanding on his part, if not for this AfD, where he's informed that he ought to give reasons, but insists it's unnecessary to make a "detailed recommendation". I so agree, but he didn't then give any reasoning at all. (Four hours later he commented he'd just seen the clip in question on television.) I don't want to see someone handling CAT:CSD who treats AfD as a vote and has almost zero experience discussing deletion policy.--Kchase T 06:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    After looking through more evidence, I've concluded I was too hasty in evaluating this candidate. He told me he's been doing new page patrol here and after looking through his deletion log at WikiNews, I'm reasonably satisfied of his competence to evaluate speedy candidates by the very similar criteria we use here. Still, a strong history of AfD participation would be a much better record with which to support, and given the AfDs I've cited above, I can't bring myself to do so. Switching to neutral. I will contact Xoloz and teh tennisman, as their !votes below may have been inspired by my opposition.--Kchase T 02:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per crz and Kchase02. Candidate exhibits clear lack of experience with Wiki-process, and yet expresses a desire to work in areas which depend upon such experience: not a good sign. Xoloz 13:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per above. Too little experience with what he wants to do; not enough well-spread edits IMO. teh tennisman 21:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose, good editor but needs more experience in too many areas. Deizio talk 23:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Essentially no involvement in Wikipedia policy or administrative processes. Answer to question one can be copied out of some admin handbook page; it is not the result of being familiar with the processes listed. Egregiously empty ballot-casting in what few AfDs there are. —Centrx→talk • 02:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. This candidate would benefit from more experience with process. (Radiant) 17:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per Radiant!. More process-related experience is a must, and process experience on Wikinews is not entirely equivalent to process experience here. Try to get involved a little more and give RfA another shot later. --Coredesat 19:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Weak Oppose as the number of mainspace edits seems a bit low. More experience, and I would have no problem switching to support. Yaf 22:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. A thorough look at your contribs reveals very little participation in janitorial tasks. Your contributions to New Zeland related articles is awesome. However, that alone does not qualify you for the mop. Your answers to the questions aren't impressive, either... not enough to convince me that you'd know what you were doing if awarded the mop. Sorry. – Lantoka (talk) 09:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Weak oppose, per Q1/process involvement mismatch issues, and modest total "throw-weight of contributions", which might otherwise have modified such concerns. Alai 01:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose. No slay vandal, no win vote. But excellent editor otherwise. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 17:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strong oppose This user has attacked me for attempting to prevent abuse of process. Hawkestone 19:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please have a read of WP:BITE, that user was a newbie, a simple message putting him right would have been better than everyone attacking him as if he’s scum. Brian | (Talk) 21:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In the context of Hawkestone's and others' comments at User_talk:Customs#Please_obey_the_rules_or_leave, I fail to see how Brian's comment at User_talk:Hawkestone#User:Customes attacks Hawkestone. I appreciate their concern for Wikipedia, but agree with Brian. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose Due to edit history and unimpressive answers. --Strothra 22:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose per Lantoka. I may switch to Strong Oppose if Hawkestone provides differences which show that the candidate has attacked him. Dionyseus 18:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose. An admin ultimately requires 2 qualities: being trustworthy and a thorough understanding relevant policies. The first is clearly satisfied here, not least due to Brian's role as an admin on Wikinews. However the diffs of participations in XfDs provided by Kchase and lack of involvement in process mean that I don't think the latter quality is demonstrated. - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 19:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Weak Oppose per Xoloz. Perhaps more participation in the areas you plan to work in would give the needed experience. Voice-of-All 23:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose per Xoloz. Future support likely. ~ trialsanderrors 00:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. I feel that you do not have sufficient edits in talk space, and I believe that you might need more experience with user interaction and conflict resolution. Also as Amarkov stated a large proportion of your mainspace edits are script based, which is not a disqualifier in itself, however your low number of content additions could be. Having said that though you a appear to be a competent well-intentioned editor so I would not feel comfortable voting against you. If you run again in a few months I would be sure to offer my support. TSO1D 03:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral while you seem to be a good user, I see almost no vandalism warnings to match your vandalism reverts. And per other concerns. — Seadog 04:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral Weak Oppose I think that you have the temperament and editing skill for adminship, certainly. There are two things that concern me based on a quite limited perusal of your contributions record .. so I might be encountering a sampling error here. First, as was pointed out, you seldom place warnings on the talk pages of anon-ip vandals; these are useful because they provide an indicator to other editors who encounter the vandal that this person has been naughty and facilitates escalation of response. Second, I notice that there are a substantial number of cases where you have forgotten to sign your posts; I think that's something quite basic and particularly important for someone who is acting with the admin hat on. I think the solution to each of these is just picking up the habits related to each ... which might come with more editing - but I really don't think 'too few edits' is in my mind - you have enough to qualify in my book. Regards, --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    My Mistake, most of the articles I reverted today have been on my watchlist for a while, and I've just got used to reverting them. I normally use the {{test}} messages through. As for signing my posts, I know I use to do that sometimes, but I thought I had signed most of them over the last few months Brian | (Talk) 04:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the explanation - I was dig-skipping through your contributions and could have easily missed the trends you point out. Regards, --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral I know that you're a good user, very active in helping users and wikignoming, but I'd proabably like to see more of the same, with a lot more involvement in the Project_talk namespace, as this shows us that you're using and discussing policy. Also, I'd like to see way more vandalism warnings, as has been pointed out, as they're indispensable when deciding to block (or not). Keep up the good work! Martinp23 14:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Martinp23 for the kind words, I remember when you were a new user here, and answering your {{helpme}} questions :) Brian | (Talk) 00:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah - I remember too :), and would have loved to support as well. Sorry Martinp23 17:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Switched from oppose. As explained there.--Kchase T 02:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Leaning support. I would have loved to support (I was going to), but the points brought up from the oppose !voters swung me slightly. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 09:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral, same as Daniel.Bryant. Sorry. riana_dzasta 11:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral per Seadog. You seem like you would be a good admin, but I would love to see you spread out your edits to other areas other than New Zealand. You're certainly capable of being an admin. I'd improve and try again in 3 months or so. --Wizardman 19:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Brian_New_Zealand&oldid=1140103321"