Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Bureaucrat/Brian New Zealand

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

Brian New Zealand (Bureaucrat) edit

Okay, Fellow Wikinewsies,

Bureaucrats turn regular users into sysops; perform username changes and bot flagging..

I believe that Wikinews's bureaucrat needs have at times been going unfulfilled, and I have been interested in running for bureaucratship for a while now, thus I think we could use some more, and after talking to people in IRC, I would like to humbly submit my name. I like to feel that I have shown dedication to this project, I have been a user here now for nearly 2 years, with most of that time active.

Please, feel free to ask any questions, and rest assured, what every the outcome, I’m here to stay :) Brian | (Talk) | ^{New Zealand Portal} 12:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support: DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 12:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
support JoshuaZ 14:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Adambro 15:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, a long time in the making. Brian already has checkuser, a much more senstitive tool, and has proven that he's 100% trustworthy with it. I see no reason why giving him bureaucrat tools would cause any negative effects on Wikinews. Daniel 01:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, does seem to be a need for more 'crats[1]. –Doldrums(talk) 13:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, BrianNZ is one of the well-respected and trusted contributors around here. I'd trust him with the powers. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 14:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacques Divol 20:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thunderhead - (talk) 06:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
About Bloody Time --Skenmy^{(t•c•w•i)} 06:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SVTCobra 09:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Someone I have complete trust and faith in - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 10:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
what's a bureucrat? -sp? -Edbrown05 11:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There's some information at Meta. Basically, they can technically promote other users to administrator status, change usernames, and grant bot flags. Cheers, Daniel 11:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - so the pecking order is: in order of importance starting from 1st to last: editor: accreditted user: administrator: arbcom: steward: bureaucrat: -BNZ is flip likeme -Edbrown05 11:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - If there is a "pecking order", stewards are certainly higher than bureaucrats (Meta), and I'd strongly argue that ArbCom is as well. However, as we all know, being an x or a y affords one no more power in debating an issue or anything else. It's merely a technical ability, like what administrators get, to perform maintenance tasks. Daniel 11:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Now I know better than to provide a vote rationale. -Edbrown05 11:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the wierd thing is, it goes from squeamish to a report in no time. I know BNZ supports that. -Edbrown05 12:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - a very trustworthy user here on Wikinews. --Nzgabriel | Talk 06:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I back Brian 100%, he deserves this. --TUFKAAP 17:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Zachary ^talk 16:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alastor Moody _{(T + C)} 21:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jcart1534 14:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.