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

Brianga[edit]

Final (30/1/1); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 09:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brianga (talk · contribs) - Brianga has been editing Wikipedia for around 9 months, during which time he has made around 7,000 edits, including 3,500 to mainspace. Brianga is an avid vandal fighter, with over 200 posts to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, and has been awarded 5 RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstars. He has also been involved with requesting page protection, and has participated in numerous XfD discussions where he has displayed a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies. He is calm and polite user, who has been able to remain civil during times of conflict resulting from his vandal fighting. Brianga would make a great admin, and I can think of few editors who would have more use for the tools. Epbr123 11:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept with honor! Brianga 11:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: At this time, I am most interested and most dedicated to fighting vandalism. Most of my time will likely be spent at CAT:CSD, WP:AIV, Newpages, and similar. As my career on Wikipedia progresses and expands, I will surely explore the other aspects of admin work carefully and thoroughly.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contributions have been vandalism reverts, warning and informing users of their vandalism edits, and following through with reporting IPs and users to administrators when necessary. I have created some articles of my own, mostly stubs, such as Nokia Theatre Times Square. I am, however, a better gnome than article writer.
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: Honestly, I have not incurred stress from wikipedia editing in any way. I enjoy my time on Wikipedia, understand it's importance, and don't allow hostility or confrontation to get in the way of that. I always keep in mind that all of us are, for the most part, here for the same purpose. Some examples of scuffles include this one, and a disagreement with user:24.7.91.244. The latter involved an IP editor who was adding numerous weasel words to a couple articles. After a few reverts back and forth, and some accusatory comments on my talk page, I took the incident to the noticeboard so that an admin could sort the incident out. An admin helped draft an edit which both I and the aforementioned editor were satisfied with, and we both moved on without further incident.

Bonus question from Dlohcierekim

4.. Why do you want to be an administrator?
A: Thank you for the question! I am eager to be an administrator, but accept the outcome either way, and agree that being an Admin is not a big deal. However, having tools would allow me to complete my goals more expeditiously and thoroughly, and I believe it is in the best interest of Wikipedia with no foreseeable drawback. If I can clarify anything or you would like further explanation, please let me know. Brianga 20:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Monsieurdl

5. Over the past two months, your total edits have taken a precipitous fall, from over 1500 during July, August, and September to under 300. Is this an indicator of a loss of interest, or will you be here a lot more fighting vandalism if you are given the responsibility of being an administrator? Monsieurdl 23:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: Thanks for the question. My edit count has dropped for two reasons. First of all, the count was very high for those 3 months because of an abundance of free time. It has been lower since because I am working on a special project at my job which is occupying quite a bit of my time for the short term. Going forward, my monthly edit count will probably be somewhere in the middle of the two numbers you mentioned above, and not as erratic. Brianga 15:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question from utcursch

6. If you come across a poorly-written, unreferenced, very short article about a notable topic (e.g. "irfan pathan is a cricket player") while patrolling Newpages, would you delete it? How would you decide whether topic is notable or not? utcursch | talk 15:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: Thanks for the question. Firstly, I would try to give the writer a reasonable amount of time to elaborate and expand upon the initial article. If that does not happen, I would attempt to verify if Irfan Pathan is, indeed, a cricket player in order to eliminate the possibility of a hoax. I would do this by searching both Wikipedia and Google for any corroboration. If it fails this test, I would delete the article based on All attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed. If it passes the verifiability test, I would add the discovered reference to the article, mark the article as a stub, and attempt to categorize it.
I don't intend for this explanation to portray a belief that Google count is the definitive tool for determining notability, by any means. However, if Irfan Pathan is in fact a notable cricket player, I would expect Google or another article on Wikipedia to substantiate that claim.
This all being said, I would not make such a decision if I was in any doubt, especially early on in my tool-wielding days. In that case, I would likely leave the article for a more experienced Administrator to review. Please let me know if I can elaborate on any of this. Brianga 16:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Manderiko

7. Hypothetical situation: you come across an article on say, a supposedly famous restaurant in [insert exotic country] that draws some 10,000 customers a day. You have never heard of this place. The restaurant is called "Hot", so google throws up nothing terribly useful. The editor of the article tells you she is from that country and swears by its notability. She also tells you there is no internet coverage of the place. All she can show to prove notability is a picture she took with her a camera. The picture clearly depicts the restaurant, and it's clear it's a very big and popular restaurant. How would you be satisfied of its notability or non-notability? Thanks. Manderiko (talk) 02:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: Thanks for the question. Assuming no secondary sources can be found by the article creator, I would delete based on two reasons. The first is Notability guidelines of businesses since the article does not have any coverage in secondary sources.
Secondly, the deletion policy states that articles 'that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources' are grounds for deletion. The Verifiability policy states that 'If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.'
In this case, like I said before, I would not make such a decision if I was in any doubt, especially early on in my tool-wielding days. In that case, I would likely leave the article for a more experienced Administrator to review. Please let me know if I can elaborate on any of this. Brianga (talk) 04:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Brianga before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Support. Brianga is a worthy candidate. Axl 10:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support as nom. Epbr123 10:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Please de-bolden the answers to the three standard questions, as I do not believe they are meant to be; of course — the decision is yours. Qst 11:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Seems like a good choice to get the tools. I kind of like the bolded answers, actually. Darkspots 13:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support per nom shows readieness for the tools in requested areas. Able to revert unconstructive edits and warn appropriately w/o being bitey or unduly confrontational. 500+ deleted contribs. I personally don't care that the answers are bolded. It is not the way we usually do things, though. Dlohcierekim 13:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A further expansion of my ratioanle regarding "specialist admins" can be found here. Dlohcierekim 15:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support No problems here. A good editor. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - will be fine. Neil ☎ 14:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support This user has a broad range of experience with the areas that are specifically admin related. He has contributed heavily to AIV but also to some image discussions and copyright discussions. He appears civil and level headed. I can see no problem with giving him the tools. - JodyB talk 15:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support The Transhumanist 16:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support — Rudget contributions 16:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support, looks good. Redrocketboy 22:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. No bright red flags. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 00:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. Everything here looks good to me. The answers could have been more extensive, but I think I can trust this user with the tools. SorryGuy 02:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - I see no problems with the user and I also believe that a lack of Edits in a particular section should not have an effect on your chances. Some people are much better at certain things... PookeyMaster 02:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. --Brewcrewer 03:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - I think he will do a good job as an admin. Masterpiece2000 04:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support No drawbacks here. And I ❤ wikignomes. Pigman☿ 06:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support I'd rather have admins with experience developing articles, to be honest, but that's a personal opinion. Nothing wrong with having a wikignome admin. :-P I don't think you'll misuse the tools, from what I've been able to gather from your contribs. Raystorm (¿Sí?) 11:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Snowolf How can I help? supports this candidate for adminship, as he is confident that this user won't do anything stupid with the tools (added on 14:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  20. Support I think s/he will be a fine admin and, in addressing the concerns expressed below: I think s/he, because of the extensive experience in vandal fighting and RC patrolling, won't be venturing into the intricacies of feature article promotion or be resolving disputes on the most contentious content subtleties on day one. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Trustworthy user, and excellent vandal fighter. P.S. for Carlossuarez; it's a he. :) Master of Puppets Care to share? 23:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Nobody voiced any earnest concerns about this candidate, and they can need some support to counter an opposition that has been addressed. — Sebastian 00:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC) (If anyone sees a reason to change my vote, please let me know on my talk page. I'm not voting to do the candidate a favor, but because I think it's the right decision for Wikipedia. Therefore, please refrain from thanking me on my talk page, unless you have a really original or funny idea.)[reply]
  23. Support Don't see any problems and certainly don't have bias against wikignomes and looks a good one. Shenme (talk) 01:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support K. Jmlk17 04:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. Changed from neutral. Good answer to Question 6. utcursch | talk 04:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. Per the nom and the answer to Question 6. Cirt (talk) 13:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  27. I'm Mailer Diablo (talk) and I approve this message! - 15:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Looks good to me. --Sharkface217 01:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support ... but please read Kurt Weber's oppose comment and reflect on his comment about "fortress mentalities". I've seen this too often among admins that have focused solely on external threats. I encourage you to do some article-writing or if nothing else, dig up refs to save some of the mangy articles that have notability tags. Look for ways to say "yes" to content and to other editors. Otherwise you may just become an old and bitter man with a mop. Good luck, --A. B. (talk) 06:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Nothing suggests that this user will abuse the tools. Acalamari 17:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose — Cleanup work is essential. But when it's your primary means of contributing to Wikipedia, rather than actually writing and submitting content, that indicates to me that you're just interested in throwing your weight around. People who spend the bulk of their time fighting off vandals tend to develop a "fortress mentality" that is just not conducive to interacting with users who make honest mistakes. If you are made an administrator and this turns out not to be the case with you, I'd be more than happy to symbolically endorse you. But at this point, I can't. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, not to be throwing my weight around, but I beg to differ. Dlohcierekim 15:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you are making assumptions about my personality that are unfounded, but I respect your opinion. Brianga 20:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If they're throwing their weight behind a mop cleaning up and we can upgrade the mop, that is not wrong. If you can point out where the mop went awry, do so. Shenme (talk) 01:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, Kurt opposing a non-self nom must be prima-facie evidence of something... — Dihydrogen Monoxide 05:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral I don't see anything glaring, but I can't support somebody who has little to no experience developing articles. There tend to be two camps "vandal fighters" and "non-vandal fighters." While I don't require that anybody work in both arenas, I do believe people who are interested in Adminship show they are ready by delving into areas they may not work in the future.Balloonman 05:22, 4 December 2007 (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.
Category