Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Brian New Zealand 2: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Discussion: Oppose
→Discussion: tidier
Line 105: Line 105:
#'''Support''' Experienced and trustworthy editor. [[User:Addhoc|Addhoc]] 17:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Experienced and trustworthy editor. [[User:Addhoc|Addhoc]] 17:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Having read the opposes as of this moment, I can discount them all. I see a hard working editor and member of the community who will do just fine with the tools. [[User:JodyB|'''JodyB''']]<sub>[[User talk:JodyB| ''yak, yak, yak'']]</sub> 01:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Having read the opposes as of this moment, I can discount them all. I see a hard working editor and member of the community who will do just fine with the tools. [[User:JodyB|'''JodyB''']]<sub>[[User talk:JodyB| ''yak, yak, yak'']]</sub> 01:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
# '''OTRS>>Admin''', the level of responsibility required for OTRS alone is much much much greater than that required for a mere wikipedia admin. Adminship is a job that can be done by an (admittedly smart and somewhat responsible) 15-year-old. What else can I say? Oh yeah, Go Kiwi! :-) --[[User:Kim Bruning|Kim Bruning]] 03:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
# '''OTRS>>Admin''', the level of responsibility required for OTRS alone is much much much greater than that required for a mere wikipedia admin. Adminship is a job that can be done by an (admittedly smart and somewhat responsible) 15-year-old. What else can I say? Go Kiwi! :-) --[[User:Kim Bruning|Kim Bruning]] 03:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
#'''Support''. [[User_talk:Semperf|<font color="#008000"><b><i>semper fictilis</i></b></font>]] 03:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
#'''Support''. [[User_talk:Semperf|<font color="#008000"><b><i>semper fictilis</i></b></font>]] 03:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


Revision as of 07:20, 5 August 2007

Brian New Zealand

Voice your opinion (talk page) (51/7/2); Scheduled to end 11:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Brian New Zealand (talk · contribs) - I offer up for your abuse discussion Brian New Zealand, he has had one previous RfA. I believe he has responded well to correcting those issues, and more importantly has corrected them. For those who do not know him, he is a 'crat, and Arbitrator, Checkuser, Oversighter at Wikinews. He also has been extremely involved with m:OTRS and the tools would only help the community in that respect. (There is a very large backlog for those who are not familiar with OTRS.) So lastly, lets give him a mop already, its overdue. Somitho 10:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thanks Somitho, I Accept Brian | (Talk) 11:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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: I anticipate that as an administrator, I would use my tools to help answering OTRS tickets more, there have been the occasion in the past where I have had to lean on my friendly neighbourhood admin to assist me. As an admin I would be able to process more tickets than I am now. I would in addition, aid on WP:RM, WP:AIV and WP:CSD; I have gained knowledge of policy and would like to assist in clearing backlogs.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: This has not changed since my last RFA, back in December. I am proud of all my contributions. I really enjoy writing an odd article that's missing from wikipedia, particularly New Zealand related political subjects. I take delight in jobs such as copy editing, and portal maintenance. Since getting involved with OTRS, I have enjoyed viewing, editing, and fixing the articles on Wikipedia, that are the subject of tickets. I have also learnt a few things, via answering OTRS, from articles that I would not normally read!
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: Not a lot has changed since last time I answered this question, I am not aware of any other conflicts as since since my last RfA. Also, I was elected a Arbitrator, on Wikinews in January, I like to feel I was elected because the Wikinews community felt that I can handle conflicts, should I ever get in to them
Additional questions from Orderinchaos
  1. You're an admin doing CSD backlog work and you see an article which has been tagged for speedy deletion per G11 (Blatant advertising) but on looking at it, although the article is in a parlous state, it may be able to be improved with reliable and independent sources. You're not sure where to find said sources, however. What action would you take?
  2. You're dealing with a seemingly one-off IP vandal who's vandalised articles for a school and several small towns nearby by replacing them with lame epithets. What action would you take?
Question from Septentrionalis PMAnderson
  1. There has been some controversy here over the nature, force, and extent of WP:BLP. I would expect a member of OTRS to be familiar with this; would you care to explain the controversy, as you see it, and you views on the questions involved? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question by User:Vodak

7. Would you please provide your most recent curriculum vitae?

Question from User:EdJohnston

8. Brian, your last 500 edits have all been marked as 'Minor', and many of them don't meet the definition given at WP:MINOR. Was this an oversight? EdJohnston 17:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion

Support

  1. Support He seems like a responsible user who handles conflicts well and has a long list of good edits, furthermore he has been an excellent admin over at wikinews. I see no reason why he shouldn't have the mop. Elmo 11:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support User has a solid contribution history here and I'm not familiar with his record at Wikinews but since he's a crat I'll trust it's good. -Nard 11:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. I only comment here if I already know something about the user. In this case I do and I believe we can trust him to use the tools wisely. --Bduke 11:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support I'm the nom, I of course have to support. :) Somitho 11:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Trustworthy Wikinews editor, does not suck at Wikipedia as far as I know, and plus OTRS-men should have adminship. MessedRocker (talk) 11:45, 31
  6. Strong Support - A very good and responsible editor and good job by the nominator in finding him..Good Luck..Go.. All Blacks..--Cometstyles 12:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Track appears good. Harlowraman 13:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Weak Support Seems like a good editor, however, Boricuaeddie makes a point. For that, I'm weak support. Politics rule 14:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support I'm scratching my head at the first two opposes and the neutral. Clearly his long history of contributions here and at WikiNews is sufficient experience and if there are aspects of policy he's less familiar with on Wikipedia, we can trust him not to jump into it like a madman. As for interaction with other users, again, this simply boggles the mind: OTRS and arbitrator on Wikinews is not exactly something you can do without having shown communications skills. Pascal.Tesson 14:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm. Wikipedia ≠ Wikinews. Wikipedia ≠ OTRS. Sorry, just felt like doing a little Math before going back to school. --Boricuaeddie 14:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    With or without math symbols, that argument does not make any sense. In your oppose you say that Brian should "sharpen one's skill at communication and dispute resolution". Do you really believe that Wikinews is so profoundly different that he could be an efficient arbitrator without that skill? You are citing AIV and CSD as if they could only be grasped after 6 months of intense study. They are not. In particular, I have full confidence (and I can't for the life of me understand why some wouldn't) that Brian's not going to start blocking people without asking around and reading the relevant policies to make sure he knows what he's doing. I never used WP:CSD#I8 before I became an admin. That's not a problem: when I started working on that backlog I simply read it, looked at deletion logs to see how others were handling it and started off with the simplest cases. Pascal.Tesson 17:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There's an active b'crat on Wikiquote who's banned from wp-en as a sockpupetteer who rigged RFAs. If what happens on Wikipedia doesn't effect people on other projects, I don't see why the reverse is true. --W.marsh 20:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There's only two bureaucrats on Wikiquote, and neither of them are blocked here. Who do you mean? Neil ╦ 20:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I was under the impression that Poetlister was a b'crat on Wikiquote, apparently he's just an admin. Nevertheless, my point stands. --W.marsh 21:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to correct a potential misconception - adminship involves granting of the tools to delete, undelete, block and unblock (and see deleted material), this isn't a contest for ArbCom or Mediation Committee. Orderinchaos 10:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support looks good. Bearian 17:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support; if he can manage all that on Wikinews, he's probably not half as thick as many of the people we do routinely sysop. I don't really care that the majority of his experience is on Wikinews. Not mental, could use the tools regarding the OTRS stuff = make him a sysop. Neil ╦ 17:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support per MessedRocker ~ Riana ⁂ 17:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support per Pascal. Policies on the wikis are not all the same, but they are similar. I can see that Brian can be trusted to use admin tools wisely and with due discretion. Shalom Hello 18:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Oppose concerns do not concern me. Captain panda 19:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support - he is positive, constructive, helpful and dedicated. A great help to us over at Māori Wikipedia too. Kahuroa 19:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - strongly qualified. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. Deserves the mop and bucket, has done his bit around the project. — E talkbots 21:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. Trustworthy, meets my requirements. A user with such high position on another wmf wiki should be auto-promoted, considering that thats what adminshp has always been about. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 22:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - I'm going to support. This is obviously an experienced editor who has been here for quite some time and upon looking at his total edits, not simply his last few dozen edits, I can conclude with confidence that this person wouldn't abuse the tools. Wikidudeman (talk) 22:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support I personally doubt the oppose votes know how important is the OTRS. We need more people who is willing to do OTRS work. Only the most trusted editors are accepted for that. Jaranda wat's sup 22:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support – he's good enough for WikiNews, he's good enough for us. Best of luck! ~ Anthøny 22:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. I know his work better on Wikinews as well, but his work on Wikipedia inspires just as much confidence. Plus, his OTRS work can only benefit from the additional resources.   user:j    talk   23:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Strong support. Daniel→♦ 23:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support, a reliable editor of long standing who already knows from other projects how the tools work.-gadfium 01:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. + Seriously, you can't get more trustworthy than this user. The sysop flag will only benefit the enwiki. Keegantalk 01:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. I think you were my first non-support vote on an rfa ever, so I'll make it up to you. Well, that and the fact that you're certainly capable of being a good admin helps too. Wizardman 01:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support, Brian is trustworthy and experienced. Being familiar with his activities, I have complete confidence that would be an asset as a Wikipedia administrator.--cj | talk 01:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Strong support. IIRC I suggested to Brian a few months back that he would be good admin material. About time he was given a mop. Grutness...wha? 02:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support A well rounded contributor that is expiernced. Marlith T/C 02:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support I'm still not very satisfied with experience with deletion or blocking (via AIV reports) here, but I'm willing to overlook those given other strengths, and also his OTRS work.--Chaser - T 03:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Needs yet another mop for his ever growing janitors closet. Nzgabriel 07:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Even with the myriad of projects Brian has on atm, I believe that he will be a great asset to the project Banzai777 07:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Would be a fine admin. --Siva1979Talk to me 09:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Qualified for adminship. Opposers' arguments are unconvincing. See Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 96#No clear need for tools. Mike R 15:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support he can be trusted. --rogerd 17:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. I see no reason to think that he will misuse the tools. -- DS1953 talk 18:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Natch. Spartaz Humbug! 18:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Kiwi Support --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 20:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Obviously qualified in more ways than one. The opposing sides do have good points, but I believe you have the abilities to learn quickly. Jmlk17 23:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Of course. Pilotguy 01:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Antipodean support. --Fire Star 火星 04:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Brian having the tools would be an asset to the project. -- John Reaves 22:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support After looking at Brian's extensive contributions on *this* project I am happy to support, quite apart from his admirable work elsewhere which would suggest he has the technical and personal experience to use the tools appropriately. Orderinchaos 04:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Trust him 100% to use the tools wisely. Very mature editor with large amount of experience. - Shudde talk 05:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support per nom and above. Peacent 14:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Weak Support- excellent editor but contributions exlcusively to New Zealand related isn't very diversified. I'm sure your excellent editing would also be appreciated in other mainspace areas. Onnaghar (Speak.work?) 14:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. Brian has been around the traps long enough and done enough here and elsewhere that its clear he can be trusted; there is no good reason to oppose that I can see. And I know that the extra buttons will help his OTRS work which is important. —Moondyne 16:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Experienced user, I trust him not to go mental and block me. Tim Vickers 19:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. Clearly to be trusted with the tools. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 20:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support Long time editor in good standing. I feel he's OK with the tools. At look at his logs on Wikinews is a good indicator that knows how to use them and can be trusted with them.--Sandahl 00:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Experienced and trustworthy editor. Addhoc 17:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Having read the opposes as of this moment, I can discount them all. I see a hard working editor and member of the community who will do just fine with the tools. JodyB yak, yak, yak 01:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. OTRS>>Admin, the level of responsibility required for OTRS alone is much much much greater than that required for a mere wikipedia admin. Adminship is a job that can be done by an (admittedly smart and somewhat responsible) 15-year-old. What else can I say? Go Kiwi! :-) --Kim Bruning 03:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. 'Support. semper fictilis 03:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose

  1. Oppose — Not convinced you need sysoping. Your latest mainspace edits don't inspire confidence within me. There's more to Wikipedia than OTRS or playing wikipolitics. Matthew 13:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you mean that OTRS is just wikipolitics? Brian's first edit dates back to 2005 and you might want to look at his first 500 edits instead. To say that he does not know what it means to contribute to Wikipedia is simply unfair. Pascal.Tesson 17:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong oppose- You say you want to participate at AIV, yet I don't see many reports, so I do not know if you know when to block. I have the same concern with CSD. You say you want to participate there, but I don't see much new page patrolling or anything to indicate that you have knowledge of the speedy deletion criteria. Your work with OTRS is appreciated, but I don't think it's helped you prepare yourself for adminship. I also could not find much interaction with other users, which I believe is necessary to sharpen one's skill at communication and dispute resolution; both of which are an important part of being an admin. Sorry. --Boricuaeddie 13:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I happen to think that OTRS participation is excellent preparation for adminship. —Moondyne 01:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose You haven't been very active in AIV with only 3 edits there. Is there anything besides OTRS that you do here. T Rex | talk 14:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per Matthew. While sysop powers are "no big deal", they are also not to given out lightly. Per his recent contrib history, I don't see this editor as carrying out tasks that vitally require sysop powers. I also see no substantial evidence of an ability to comport oneself with fairness and neutrality (in discussion). VanTucky (talk) 17:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    All apologies for hunting down the oppose voters but the "doesn't need the tools" argument has been debunked time and again. No editor vitally requires sysop powers. On the other hand, Wikipedia vitally needs sysops and sysops vitally need mature, responsible and committed editors to be granted sysop rights so that they can stop bugging us when they need to. Pascal.Tesson 17:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If it exists, please point me to the policy or guideline which says that not having an urgent and obvious reason to need the power to block, ban and protect is not a valid argument to oppose. Otherwise, I'll take the strength of your assertion as just that, an unverified assertion of consensus. I'm not going to give anyone an axe to hold over my head unless they can give me a damn good reason to, so when a user requests sysop powers when their contribution history shows no substantial administrative work, I'm going to oppose. It's not just a "doesn't need the tools" argument either. Someone with little to no administrative work experience or even a demonstration of their ability to weather heated discussion is certainly not a good candidate imo. VanTucky (talk) 23:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you won't find it much in guidelines and certainly not in policies. You can however take a look at this RfA where the issue was discussed in great lengths, this thread on the RfA talk page and this section in the (unfortunately so so) essay on arguments to avoid in RfAs. In any case, I'm not saying your oppose is against policy but rather against common sense. Having an "urgent and obvious" has never been a prerequisite to get sysop access and requiring that would be misunderstanding what the role of admins is. Moreover, at the risk of repeating myself, Brian's ability to "weather heated discussion" is amply demonstrated by his work on other Wiki-like projects. 03:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose, sorry, even though we need more kiwi admins. I see little improvement since your last RfA, in a period which is also marked by a rather low activity and lack of participation in admin-oriented tasks (particularly WP:AIV and WP:RM, where you plan to be helping should you be given access to the admin tools).--Húsönd 01:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose, While I see a fairly well intentioned editor I can't see a requirement for the admin tools until a greater variety of tasks is undertaken. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 14:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose. Has not been especially active since his last failed RfA. I see no evidence of this editor making significant strides since then. Singopo 11:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Talk space edits are extremely low. For me, talk space edits show an ability to work collaboratively and a lack of such edits puts that into question. Additionally, contributions seem very focused to one area of the encyclopedia. I'd like to see you broaden your horizons and get involved in other areas. Gain some additional experience through that, and I think you'll make a great admin. Lara♥Love 04:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. In essence, I'm opposing per Eddie. You say you wish to help out at speedy deletion, yet according to GRBerry your last 50 deleted edits go back to June of last year (I'm not an admin, so I can't verify this). That is a very, very small amount of CSD tagging, yet you wish to go around deleting such articles. Sorry, I just can't trust you to do that. Also a very low AIV count (4 or less, since wannabe_kate doesn't show it), yet you wish to help out there. Experience spawns trust, and I just don't see experience. Sorry mate, but WikiNews is a whole different kettle of fish; around here you just don't have my trust yet. By the way, go All Blacks :P Giggy Talk | Review 07:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. I'm not too sure about this user, no offence meant at all. He seems fairly good, but almost all of his last 500 edits are marked as minor, and his edit count summary usage is fairly low, and while mine isnt very good until lately, I think this is something i'd like to see more of in an admin candidate. Another minor problem is that he has quite low space talk edits. All of these things are minor, but they come together, at least for me, to be a neutral, for the time being. Good luck all the same -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. (Edit Conflict) Neutral. You have enough on your plate with all of your other duties in the other projects. I'm not entirely sure how much dedication you would give to adminship. J-stan Talk 14:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided, probable support at this stage, but no reason to oppose. Orderinchaos 10:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC) (Switched to support.)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Brian_New_Zealand_2&oldid=149303464"