Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Administrator/Kayau

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

Successful. I will grant them the reviewer right, while a bureaucrat will have to grant the admin bit. Diego Grez ^{return fire} 14:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kayau (talk · contribs) — adminship

Kayau has been an active and valuable contributor on en.Wikinews far too long to escape the mop. If xe chooses to accept the nomination, I personally would appreciate xyr having the bits. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amgine (talk • contribs) 04:41, 27 March 2011

Stats

Links for Kayau: Kayau (talk · contribs · deleted · count · logs · block log · review log · lu)

Questions and comments

Temporary decline until Friday. :) Kayau (talk · contribs) 04:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two questions: 1) As an admin, would you uphold and enforce the etiquette policy? 2) Do you agree with the concept of assuming good faith? Why or why not? Tempodivalse [talk] 18:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming good faith is a conscientious issue on Wikinews — there's a good reason that the link above is off-wiki. Indeed, the article Tempodivalse just linked to states quite clearly that AGF does not apply to Wikinews. As such, Kayau should not feel pressured into answering this optional question. — μ 19:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(We do have a AGF essay, by the way, but I figured a project-neutral link would be more appropriate.) Did I ever say an answer was mandantory? The candidate is not forced to answer. Tempodivalse [talk] 19:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure you made clear that you didn't consider it optional on my RfA. — μ 19:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────┘
I've made my views on AGF quite clear, repeatedly. For those reasons I am abtaining on the above vote where I feel a "rote answer" has been given. AGF is a Wikipedia policy; you can discuss how many angels can dance on the head of a pin to the heat death of the universe when writing an encyclopedia. That leads to those with the most free time, and perhaps the most biased 'agenda', winning the debate. Sometime diplomacy is the art of saying "nice doggie" until you can find a big enough rock. Thus I will ask, please stop asking potential administrators to pledge an oath to another project's standards. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 19:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking anyone to pledge anything. I am asking, neutrally, a user's opinion of a topic with regards to this project, not another. Again, nobody is forced to do anything. I've even already supported this nomination. Tempodivalse [talk]

I think the above 'rote answer' proves that what you think you're doing, and what those answering the question think, are fundamentally at-odds. I exhausted a decade's worth of 'AGI' with Neutralizer (talk · contribs); I tried to reason with xe, I tried to mentor xe, I tried to persuade to adhere to topic avoidance. Some people refuse to learn. It is a fundamental issue: AGF is not a policy suited to the mission of Wikinews. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 20:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me start off by saying that the link provided is written by me. Er, I mean I wrote it. :) I think Gopher65's comment above sums it up nicely: ' People can be handled softly, but content should be dealt with harshly. ' If somebody writes up an article that is in violation of WN:DG, there's no reason why it shouldn't be dealt with accordance to the guideline stated here.

However, it'd be unfair if a user is regarded, or even labelled, as a bad-faith editor simply because they have made a mistake or two. Long-time incompetence, on the contrary, can, IMO (though I don't know if this is common practice here) merit a short or even a long or indefinite block. Assumption of bad faith is not required such blocks, for they(as with any other) are only for the good of WN, not punishment. A POV-pusher's intent can be to push what he thinks is right; an immature user's intent can be good, etc.

I'm not saying that good faith should always be assumed. One should not assume that a blatant, persistent spammer is editing in good faith, for it's clear they aren't. As WN:AGI states, if there's obvious evidence that someone is editing in bad faith, then we should assume bad faith.

Finally, in response to the civility question, I'll certainly warn somebody of incivility. Yet if I can't stand the heat, then I'd get out of the kitchen instead and let an experienced admin deal with the situation. WN:BP is rather vague about incivility blocks, so until I've learnt the competence blocking status quo of WN, I wouldn't touch the block button for incivility. Kayau (talk · contribs) 16:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply! It's fine if you're not comfortable blocking for personal attacks, but do you agree to abide by WN:E yourself? (I'm asking because we've had a problem in the past with users conveniently ignoring this important cornerstone guideline whenever they didn't feel like adhering to it.) Tempodivalse [talk] 16:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. Apart from the AGF part, about which I have voiced my doubt, the page is composed of guidelines that one should always (or nearly always) follow, and I have no problem with abiding by them. Kayau (talk · contribs) 13:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AGF is "the customer is always right" of wiki policies; combined with rampant political correctness it is a poison. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 05:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I consider that to be a rather dramatic exaggeration, but everyone is welcome to his opinion. The question was not intended to stir up drama, I think everyone is satisfied now? Tempodivalse [talk] 14:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is intended to be a dramatic expression on the policy. As I'm sure most who've been here a while could, there are citeable examples of WikiLawyering – especially with policies such as this. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 13:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

Support as nom. - Amgine | t 04:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Also well we're at it, I support giving him reviewer bits. Bawolff ☺☻ 04:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support if he accepts. Clueful user, would do well with the tools. Give him reviewer as well, if we are going to trust him enough to be an administrator, he should be a reviewer too. Diego Grez ^{return fire} 04:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support the admin bit; that one was easy. As for reviewer, it took me only a few seconds' pause to realize, I don't need to know whether Kayau is ready to do peer-reviews; I only have to trust Kayau to decide when xe's ready. When I was nudged to apply for reviewer (after about a year on the project), I actually didn't consider myself ready to do peer-reviews; so I claimed only to know what not to do, did my first peer-review a month later, my second a month after than, and my third three months after that. So, yeah, I'll support reviewer, too. --Pi zero (talk) 11:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would incidentally also fully support giving Kayau reviewer rights too. Interesting how +sysop is now becoming easier to achieve than reviewer. Tempodivalse [talk] 15:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Mike moral ♪♫ 05:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support; user obviously understands there's no black and white, only shades of grey. For reviewer, this is a bit administrators should be trusted to take, and use, where they feel confident they can do the job. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 05:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Smart user. —fetch·comms 03:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Gopher65_talk 13:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Knows what they are doing. I agree they should be given reviewer as well. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 13:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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