Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Administrator/Brianmc 1

User:Brianmc
I'd like to nominate Brianmc -- he's a wonderful editor, mediator, and all around nice guy. --Chiacomo (talk) 17:49, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Nomination accepted. :-) Brian McNeil / talk 18:24, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Support --Cspurrier 17:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Strongly support --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 18:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: This user is a very strong editor who not only understands the policies of this website, but also understands the need to educate new users in our policies. He is also, as many others would say, a fantastic mediator.  Even though a few users who have only been here a few edits are trying to throw FUD at this nomination, I encourage all users to view Brianmc's edits - you'll see there is a solid editor dedicated to the cause.  I highly suggest all who oppose this nomination would give a good reason that isn't based on one or two possibly bad edits.  We're all human; we make mistakes sometimes.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 01:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Support (assuming Brian is finally willing to accept the nomination, of course.) -  Amgine | talk 18:34, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Opposed;Well, I see within the first 45 minutes what Mr.M calls a "posse" has ridden in with their votes; but I won't be swept away by the tide. I am willing to reconsider my vote if Brian will respond to my concerns; there's no doubt you have potential; but at this point you often don't read the edits before overreacting to the edits and issuing false accusations of a personal nature; as these two recent edits of yours show;
 * This is a very bad trait for someone who has blocking authority; and since you are relatively new here; perhaps a bit more seasoning might be called for. Brian, can you,perhaps, promise that you would take a bit more time digesting other contributors' edits before reacting to them in the future? In addition; I noticed you voted on MrM.'s talk page for him to retain his adminship. Could you please share with us why you believe MrM. is a net asset to the community? This is not a question meant to put MrM on the spot but rather to see how Brian evaluates this project and the contributions people make.Neutralizer 19:43, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Neutralizer, you should be ashamed of yourself of trying to hijack this RfA into a statement against me.  If you would have read the disclaimer, the vote means absolutely nothing and users who participate in it are not required to comment on their votes.  Similarly, the vote is rendered null-and-void if users were trying to seek anything out of the poll, or to use it to make a point (as you have).  I have undeleted the talk page which confirm this.  I do not think that I am up for discussion here.  So, I would respectfully ask that you keep anything about me out of association with this RfA.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 20:18, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * This is relevant to see how Brian evaluates this project and the contributions people make. Obviously,the nominee's views about what is acceptable behavior here is relevant; that's not rocket science. Neutralizer 20:52, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * This is irrelevent to the RfA. Plain and simple; not one sentence above had to do with Brianmc at all, other than your accusations of him being in my (non-existant) "posse".  If you want to rant about me, do it on my talk page.  I'll even give you a link: MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 20:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Support I think hes ready. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 20:04, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. --Deprifry|+T+ 20:04, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. In response to an edit meant for Boud; this nominee mistakenly thought the edit was meant for him and launched into a personal attack full of assumptions that had no basis of fact whatsoever; including...your crusade to get Wikinews to insinuate GWB is a Nazi...I think this "fly off the handle",only partially reading edits, overpowering and threatening approach may be one that many of the current administrators might find acceptable or even praiseworthy; but there is no doubt in my mind that many of the other contributors here might be kind of sick and tired of having to deal with it constantly. Let's see how the vote turns out; as always, I will abide by the will of the community...but NOT by the will of bosses.Our guidelines say our admins are supposed to be "janitors" not "junta" and I do not see any janitorial tendancies in this nominee. Neutralizer 20:52, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now - i am concerned that Brian seems to feel that his own beliefs are more important than a published statement by the most cited living arts/humanities author of the 1980's - he wrote: the quote itself is targetting the US administration and the reference to Nuremberg is just used to elicit an emotional response. i have nothing against Brian becoming an admin sometime in the future, but at the moment i feel that someone who wants to become an admin ought to make errors less often than this. i was also concerned (same article) about Brian's claim that a quote is a copyright violation, though he later explained that he was referring to what he alleges is copyright violation on an external website (my guess is that probably the page on the external site is consistent with copyright under fair use, anyway, that's getting off-topic here) - see details here Talk:60th_anniversary_of_Nuremberg_trials_marked, despite the fact that the quote was clearly labelled as a quote and two sources were given. Boud 21:37, 25 November 2005 (UTC) - updated Boud 15:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now - Especially lately, Brian has made many entries on talk pages has have alienated users (see comments above) or even driven users away from wikinews (see Talk:Indictment of Jose Padilla avoids Supreme Court and contains none of original charges). Even though his concerns may have been justified, he did not manage to communicate them successfully. Although I have experienced Brian open minded at times (he gave some good initial suggestions on how to fix up the "pre-war intelligence infobox", he has failed to provide a consistent position on how to proceed with it and watched the project he first proposed and I invested energy being driven down the drain. Brian's comments and initiatives are often sporadic and lack the seriousness and long-term vision that I expect from an administrator. This is not saying that all (or even the majority) of Brian's edits are of that form. In fact, I have enjoyed many articles that Brian made significant contributions to.
 * An important part of the role of administrators is to calm down and help mediate conflicts, not create them. Especially when it comes to dealing with new users as in the incient linked above, Brian should take more time to learn how to handle these appropriately and focus his energies. --vonbergm 23:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now - Brian seems to have a pattern of using the "it's emotional" argument to brush off ideas he may not like, doesn't want to hear or let others see, to justify his censorship and cover up his lack of ability to give constructive criticism. I feel that he and Amgine used their power abusively to shutdown the publication of an article on a very important and very controversial topic: Jose Padilla. Saying someone has "an axe to grind" is not constructive criticism. I understand that Brian may be very busy; and I know he made no attempt to assist me or answer my requests for comment besides referring me to the NPOV pages. As the guidelines say, it is not wrong to express a point of view, as long as it is not presented as fact, worded appropriately: and actually the point is to present as many points of view as possible, and to label them as such. I call on all administrators to try to understand that there will many times be "emotive" elements to peoples writing, especially when the topic concerns a crime against humanity or society, and it is the job of the wikinews community to present all the emotive states there are around an issue; that is where Brian could have expressed his emotional POV in the article instead of just blocking the entire reality of the Jose Padilla case with an unqualified npov mark. I would warn the wikinews community, that while I only have this one experience on being in the clutches of this person, be very wary of his judgement and willingness to communicate positively for ideas he does not agree with or that shock his point of view. Holon67 03:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * For the record, I'd like to add that I felt a bit tricked, verify for yourself at Talk:Indictment of Jose Padilla avoids Supreme Court and contains none of original charges. At first Brian requests a simple addition with the justification that people in his country don't know who this Padilla could be, and that the sources are missing. After I make these corrections, he blank blocks the publication with quite the emotive response and no serious constructive criticism "This has been written by someone with an axe to grind, please look at other articles that are not disputed to get an idea of the "tone" a piece on Wikinews should have. It isn't a court of law, and we certainly aren't trying to prosecute the government." None of my requests for followup were answered. Holon67 03:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Here is the blocked article that received no constructive criticism, but was replaced by another article by another author http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Indictment_of_Jose_Padilla_avoids_Supreme_Court_and_contains_none_of_original_charges who I know nothing about. That article contained everything that is here. Please note that the guidelines even use the word "shocking" in the examples as a valid pov -- was this my error, I'll never know -- as long as it is presented that way. Please read the guidelines you ask others to follow and practice writing some povs of your own so you know what other writers have to play balance with. Holon67 04:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It wasn't replaced. The other article was there first. And it is way more comprehensive than the article you started --Deprifry|+T+ 12:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it is very disingenuous and unethical of you, Deprifry, to manipulate the facts, and offer an opinion on quality on top of the manipulation, i.e. the article you refer to was just a stub for all of the 23rd, and since my article was censored, it didn't have the ability to get further input. Further, one could argue that mine influenced the second since it had more comprehension first. Mine also had more sources. The two should have been combined for the best of everyone, not one censored. Holon67 18:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Excuse me. Manipulation? Censorship? Disingenuous? Those are big words and IMO you should be careful before you accuse people of it. And this is a stub? It was better in its first revision then many published articles. And what exactly prevented you from participating in the development of this article? --Deprifry|+T+ 18:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for allowing me to explain yet again: First, it was my mistake that I did not improve upon the original; I did not see it, I admit. Second, I was told to fix my article, then, after the fix, it was unconditionally blocked by Brian and Amgine, call that what you will; I think it is an indication that these persons should be, for the record, on careful watch, but, of course, that is my humble opinion; I call it censorship since there was no feedback. I believe Brian just doesn't like what I wrote, which isn't so far-fetched, so he found some reason to block it; the first attempt failed when I did not go away, so he tried harder and with more authority. I find that really disturbing. Third, the other article may have been first afterall, but it was not originally more comprehensive, and on the day the event happened, was not improved upon, so your criticism could be construed, IMO, as disingenuous since you made no mention of that fact, but merely stated that it was first and more comprehensive, regardless of timing. Even with what you just said, you are in denial. Holon67 00:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, I was quite confused here for a moment. You're the user who removed the tags without addressing any of the issues raised on the talk page. I thought I'd actually been involved in this article or something. Glad to see I was mistaken. -  Amgine | talk 02:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Support After looking carefully at the concerns other users have raised against Brianmc I see no legitimate complaint that should prevent him from achieving administrator status. It seems to me that these complaints originate more from the American Left/Right divide than anything else. However, I would caution Brianmc to not allow his bias to get in the way of editing articles, as you've approached some issues with far more vitriol than what should be acceptable for an administrator. Try to be more polite. That said, I still think you'd make a good admin. --Wolfrider 23:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I think there is problem with (well, parts of) the present staff of administrators so untill that is solved i guess its best to wait. Brianmc will probably be a good administrator but above I read objections enough to give it a wait some time.International 15:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now.


 * Oppose for now.--Whywhywhy 12:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)