Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Brian0918

brian0918
final (25/5/1) ending 20:35 5 March 2005 (UTC)

3555 edits. Notable contributions include:


 * Entirity of Great Lakes Storm of 1913, the Featured Article for Feb 27
 * I just noticed that the Signpost wrote a story on this article. Woohoo!
 * Organization of all existing and non-existing American Civil War battles into categories by theater and campaign
 * Creation of Campaignboxes for all Civil War battles, as part of WikiProject Battles
 * Addition of battleboxes to almost all currently existing Civil War battles, including addition of pictures for each. Also, created numerous articles on battles and people involved (eg Eppa Hunton, Edward Dickinson Baker).
 * Creation and implementation of Template:Superherobox (example) as part of WikiProject Comics
 * Added over 160 public domain images.
 * Also, previous involvement in Collaboration of the week, Featured picture candidates, reverting vandalism, etc.
 * Battle of Hampton Roads collaboration with User:Vaoverland and others to become a Featured Article

brian0918 20:35, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) support SYSS Mouse 23:55, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Will having admin abilities cause you to stop writing good content?  I hope not.  dbenbenn | talk 02:00, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Shanes 02:08, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Geoff/Gsl 02:18, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Very deserving of adminship. Rje 02:58, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) R yan!  |  Talk  04:30, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Tuf-Kat 06:28, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) CheekyMonkey 13:24, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) * You haven't edited much in the last couple months. You must really like this user to come from your editing hiatus in order to vote. -- Netoholic @ 19:10, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)
 * 10) **I don't think I've ever encountered him. --brian0918 19:21, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) *** It's certainly true that I've taken a break from editing recently. However, I've still noticed the work that Brian0918 has done. CheekyMonkey 21:13, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Meets my new admin criterion, jguk 14:34, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Alright by me. —Charles P. (Mirv) 15:14, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Pmeisel 15:16, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Support. There is no one I know who is more dedicated to Wikipedia. -Casito 21:01, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Neutralitytalk 02:55, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) Language is a bit colourful but should be okay. JuntungWu 16:38, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) Did a lot of good work on the battleboxes. I thought his "police alerted" messages were pretty funny. big_hal 19:11, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) Support - We've worked together well a number of articles, his contributions led to Battle of Hampton Roads earning FA status, I have been watching (bit not participating) in the article on Abraham Lincoln and he has done well keeping NPOV on a controversial subject. His battleboxes are a real plus,a nd similar work would benefit other WP projects, which I recently asked him to consider expanding involvement to include. I enjoy collaborating with him. I caught the "police alert, too". Just enough to spook some casual vandals, but nothing more than mild bluff, harmless, but possibly effective, and good for a laugh! Vaoverland 23:21, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) Support. ugen 64 23:32, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 21) Strong Support. In my opinion, the "Police is on the way" edit summaries are not inappropriate, and it shows Brian's sense of humour. --Lst27 ( t a l k )  12:24, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 22) Strong Support I have only had good experiences with him, and I agree with Lst27 comment above. bakuzjw (aka 578) 21:26, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 23) SUPPORT: I have no reason to oppose. "Police on the way" is humourous, not offensive. Jordi·✆ 02:25, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 24) Support. -- Darwinek 19:03, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 25) Support – I've had the pleasure of working with Brian alot recently, and he's proven to be very creative and willing to work with others. I have no doubt that he would make an excellent administrator. – ClockworkSoul 06:32, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 26) fair enough, dab (ᛏ) 10:01, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 27) Support Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 14:14, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * 28) Support Scott Gall 20:33, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) No user page, and he redlinks his username in his sig - annoying. Some very inappropriate edit summaries (revert vandalism, IP traced; authorities alerted; police on their way has been used by him dozens of times). Seems a bit aggressive and protective of his work.  Prefer to wait a while, when someone can nominate him again. -- Netoholic @ 16:37, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)
 * 2) Strongly opposed. Yeah, that police alerted thing is a bit messed up, and he's done it at least a dozen times! Other interesting edits include the removal of a question on his talk page, calling it vandalism, and asking 3 times in the edit summary for the user to be banned, a sarcastic personal attack, tagging an article a CSD when it should have been made into a redirect, tagging an article a CSD without checking the history, etc.  CryptoDerk 18:36, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) *Now strongly opposed. Brian0918 has admitted to making numerous mistakes yet asked me to withdraw my objections.  I said no and explained why (below), and now, a day later, he has left a message on my talk page requesting I strike out parts of my objection.  For instance, he acknowledged putting a speedy tag on a valid article without checking the history, and has now asked me to strike out the objection as invalid.  CryptoDerk 17:43, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) **Numerous = 3. As for your specific example, that was an accident on my part, I thought I was on the New Articles page at the time. I did not call your objections invalid, but asked you to decide if all of them are still valid.  I would not ask you to retract your objection, but to retract any parts which you felt had been clarified. Since you still consider them valid, that'll be the end of it, although I'd like to clear these things up instead of escalating it. Thanks. --brian0918 18:49, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I absolutely oppose admins with blank user pages. A blank user page makes the user look like a new user, confuses other users, and is generally unprofessional in appearance. —Lowellian (talk) 01:39, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * I now have a user page. Originally, it was an attempt at modesty. I had planned to put info about me on my talk page.  --brian0918 02:06, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * No longer opposing; changing vote to Neutral now that the user page exists. "Police alert" thing seems a bit bizarre. —Lowellian (talk) 04:10, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Annoying sig. Neutralitytalk 01:41, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Changed. --brian0918 02:06, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) I don't usually vote on WP:RFA, and realize that I'm probably not going to accomplish anything except make an enemy, but this post to WP:VIP earlier today has me very concerned. The edit he cites could well have been accidental, and calls for a test or at most a test2a on Hallosachin's talk page, not a call for a block—a block that, in a few days, brian0918 will be able carry out himself.  While he is a very strong contributor, becoming an administrator is not a reward for good writers. —Korath (Talk) 16:52, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) *I wasn't actually serious about blocking (bad wording on my part), since he had only made one edit, but at the time I didn't know if he was going to continue "vandalizing". The tests sound like a better idea. I've added "welcome" and "test" to his talk page. -- BRIAN 0918   17:01, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) I feel that Brian may make a good admin in the future, but I don't think his recent behavior shows that he understands WP policy/procedure. Even if the VIP thing was bad wording, it shows he doesn't understand the basic procedures for dealing with vandalism. VIP clearly states at the top: "Please only use this page for repeated malicious vandalism, not for one-off edits, or newbie tests." He even said when he posted that it was a one-off edit. I believe admins should understand the basic procedure for dealing with vandalism, and it's pretty clear that Brian isn't yet familiar with it. – flamurai (t) 08:25, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) * My bad. I'm reading up on it now and, if given admin powers, will not start using them until I've gone through the policies and feel more comfortable with using them. -- BRIAN 0918   14:54, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose for now.  In the comments section Brian says that he is still familiarizing himself with policies still, and his unnecessary calls for blocks and mistagging as CSDs are a bit of a cause for concern.  The user seems to be an excellent contributor to Wikipedia, though, and I would probably support this user in the near future, provided that more diplomacy and judgement is seen from him in the interim (particularly with regard to useful, helpful edit summaries).  --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:04, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) * The mistaggings were not misunderstandings of policy, but stupid mistakes (like 2*6=8) -- BRIAN 0918  20:08, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Neutral can't decide. the support by people who've worked with him is impressive, yet he appears a tad belligerent, and I feel he'll make an admin of the more heavy-handed sort. I would like to see brian acknowledge that an admin is a guy with a mop, acting on behalf of the community, and not a police officer or a law unto himself. (not that you need my vote, but I'd change my vote to support) dab (ᛏ) 13:47, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) The blank user page and red link signature are a bit annoying, but what concerns me is that the "police on their way" edit summaries could be mistaken as threats by some newer users. Carrp | Talk 16:44, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) * Sorry about that. Won't happen again. --brian0918 18:07, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) *Changed sig, now have a user page. --brian0918 02:06, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments
 * How long have you been around? Everyking 06:37, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I've been using Wikipedia since probably 2002, and have been contributing since mid-2004, starting out anonymously August 1, 2004. --brian0918 06:45, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Please strike thru ( thus ) any of your anon-edit claims that are not immediately verifiable, and clarify about start-date and count of your verifiable edits. (IMO this nom would be only strengthened by your suspending it while requesting attribution to you of IP edits.) --Jerzy(t) 16:13, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)
 * Done and done. --brian0918 18:07, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Reply to opposition 1:
 * 2) *I've added a user page and changed my sig. --brian0918 03:00, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) * The blank user page was started as a joke from Zork, which was the topic of my first articles. I'll put most of my content on my talk page. It's easier than waiting for Wikipedia to go between the pages. The redlinks were also as a joke, but now help me find my posts on a page more quickly, and are all a part of my attempt at being somewhat modest. It certainly can't be more annoying than Alkivar's sig :). It was also a little experiment of mine to see how many people ignore my posts or suggestions (which I will blame on the red sig, because I always make good suggestions :)). Also, the revert message was supposed to be humorous, and possibly deter a spamming vandal (such as someone I recently encountered who went through and blanked all the element pages, and left messages on my talk page as he did it) from continuing in the vandalism. It seems to have worked, but I figured that someone would eventually oppose it.  It won't happen again.  As for aggressiveness/protectiveness, I'm usually open to suggestions as I'm not always confident of my encyclopediaristic writing abilities.... --brian0918 18:03, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) ** While you may have placated some concerns, your actions during this vote and history both still worry me. Contrary to your request, I'll not be changing my vote.  Try again in a month or so, and please get someone to nominate you. -- Netoholic @ 16:59, 2005 Feb 28 (UTC)
 * 5) ***I did not ask you to change your vote, but to simply strikeout the invalid parts as it may confuse other voters. You are free to vote however you like. I'm not sure what I've said in this vote that worries you; please try not to add any connotations to my statements. Thanks. --brian0918 17:05, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) **** You know what confuses voters more? Long sections of threaded conversations with a bunch of cross-outs. This is why there is a comments section. -- Netoholic @ 17:15, 2005 Feb 28 (UTC)
 * 7) ***** Sorry, I'm just used to working on Featured article candidates where parts of an objection are crossed out when they are corrected. --brian0918 17:26, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Reply to opposition 2:
 * 9) *For the first item, the registered user was going through adding to various articles (such as Abraham Lincoln), and I was reverting them as he continued to vandalize.  Then he left an unsigned message on my talk page, which was obviously vandalism given that he knew very well what he was doing. (Note: my repeated use of "BAN THIS USER" was just an attempt to get the attention of anyone watching the Recent Changes pages for vandalism. Please don't interpret it as a sign that I forgot to take my pills :))
 * 10) *For the second item, the user had posted 2 very dear articles up for deletion with little reason except that he said he knew of no use for them. He had never even been involved in a topic related to the articles. I read through the vfd page and it seemed like he wasn't open to suggestions, but I acknowledge that I was too harsh and should've based my statement on something factual.
 * 11) *For the third item, I wasn't sure what the anonymous user was talking about as he spelled it wrong.
 * 12) *For the fourth item, what probably happened was that I hit the back button too many times and went from the list of New Pages to the list of Recent Changes and thought the article was a new page created by an anonymous user simply saying "^_^". --brian0918 19:04, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Regarding the third item, your explanation doesn't make sense. You first tagged the article as nonsense — it wasn't.  The second time you tagged it saying we already have an article on the person, so by then you knew what the anon was talking about, yet still considered it a CSD.  CryptoDerk 23:07, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * I just didn't recall everything that happened. At first I didn't know what he was talking about, because when I tried searching for that name, nothing came up. Then he removed my delete and added the name of who he was talking about, but because the article title was misspelled and there was already a huge article on him, I figured it should be deleted. I realize now that it probably would've worked better as a redirect, and will act accordingly in the future.  You're really going to discount all of my contributions because I accidentally put a misspelled one-liner by an anon up for deletion? --brian0918 23:15, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not discounting all your contributions because of one mistake. I'm just pointing it out.  I pointed out many things — my primary reason for voting oppose is your poor handling of vandalism ("police on their way", "BAN THIS USER!!!").  I think you're a good contributor, but considering that admins have the ability to delete articles and deal with vandals, that is what takes precedence here.  CryptoDerk 23:36, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * I've already stated my reasons for the two things you've mentioned. For the former, I've stated that it was supposed to be humorous and deter, and I've also stated that it won't happen again.  As for the 2nd, it was merely to distinguish the edit summary on the Recent Changes page for admins watching the page.  This will also cease in the future: all summaries being simply "reverted vandalism by X to previous version by Y".  Please, retract your objection.  Thanks. :) brian0918 23:49, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Anyone can say they won't make mistakes in the future. I base my vote on what has happened before, not what you say will happen in the future.  I can't believe that you acknowledge your errors, yet you ask me to retract my objection.  CryptoDerk 00:09, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I was hoping for a little more trust, but I understand your position. --brian0918 00:31, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not that I don't trust you, but actions speak louder than words. In my opinion RFAs typically don't reward good intentions so much as good actions.  In fact, I've staunchly opposed two people and when their RFAs came up again I was one of the first to support, and one user I nominated for adminship was one I had a huge argument with.  Anyway, I still think you are a good editor.  CryptoDerk 00:46, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --brian0918 01:10, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Reply to neutral #2:
 * 2) *You shouldn't think that your vote doesn't matter; I'm taking all comments seriously, both because I don't want to make enemies (I'm not a divider, but a unificator :)), and because I know that adminship is a privilege that can be taken away. I agree with your statements-- an admin's job is janitorial.  With respect to belligerence:  If you are referring to my use of "BAN THIS USER!!!", it was simply an attempt to get the attention of admins watching the Recent Changes pages (before I discovered W:VIP), and I restricted usage to anonymous individuals who were currently vandalizing numerous pages.  As for the usage of "police on their way" in my edit summary, I was just trying to be funny, although I see how it can be taken the wrong way, and will not use it in the future.  -- BRIAN 0918   17:22, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
 * A. I would continue to be involved in dealing with vandalism and finding solutions in revert wars.
 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. My favorite contributions to date are Great Lakes Storm of 1913, Image:American Civil War Battles by Theater, Year.png, and Image:Great Lakes 1913 Storm Shipwrecks.png, all of which involved a lot of research and time. The former was my first attempt at creating an article of substantial, original content, which I had planned from the start to bring to Featured Article status. The first image just seemed like something that needed to be made, although I still believe it can be improved upon.
 * 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 will deal with it in the future?
 * A. When I first started editing, I didn't understand what was considered worthy content, and so contributed several pages which were eventually deleted. More recently, I've been involved in a couple revert wars (such as that at Abraham Lincoln), in which I've tried to be as neutral as possible, and got admins involved when it became necessary (eg: for locking pages).