Wikinews

Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Archive 4

< Wikinews:Requests for permissions
By date
2004  |  2005
2006  |  2007
2008  |  2009
2010  |  2011
2012–20
2021
2022–
By type


January 2007

edit
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

User:Munchkinguy

edit

Withdrawn. I've been away for a while, and in that time, many of my Wikinews colleagues have left. Many new editors do no know me, so I will just have to prove myself. My original application stemmed from the fact that I often couldn't contact administrators when I needed them. --Munchkinguy 17:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I, User:Munchkinguy would like to nominate myself for adminship. I believe I have always tried to be friendly and help with this project to the best of my ability. As an admin, I will strive to help keep the front page accurate, up-to-date, and free of fraudulent articles. --Munchkinguy 06:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions
Maybe he means working with articles that are unduely published.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 16:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. There are many new contibuters coming to Wikinews, but some are putting in articles that are biased, false, or copyvios. I will (on one hand) welcome these people and help them understand the rules, and (on the other hand) make sure the aforementioned poor articles are dealt with swiftly. --Munchkinguy 17:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, you can do that without admin rights, you could nominate for speedy, for deletion...--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My biggest Wikinews achievement was shaping the future for Audio Wikinews. I participated in many conversations on the subject, and was a faithful early contributer. I plan to resume doing this in the future. I also have worked hard to build consensus among contributers. Whenever I make a new article, I run the headline by the IRC channel for input. When "big" news stories are happening (like Sadam Hussein's execution), I try to ensure that other important (but less sensational) stories still get the coverage they deserve. --Munchkinguy 17:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes --Munchkinguy 17:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Votes
Comment. Yeah, I'll try to do that more. --Munchkinguy 17:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You probably know that there is an option in the preferences that automatically warns you for this, which helps most editors to reach 100%.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose with possible change of mind. Not that I think this is a bad editor at all. This seems to be a long time member who wishes to return and become more active, and I can only applaud that. But for me, he hasn't been active enough lately. Seems to have few edits in the article namespace. I suggest you prove what you're worth and convince me that we can trust you with admin tools, by indeed doing all you can already do now to "keep the front page accurate, up-to-date, and free of fraudulent articles", joining the Wikinews:Welcommittee, and helping out on Wikinews:Audio_Wikinews. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support, Mostly weak as you have not been active recently, but still support as you are: active in IRC, (were) Active in sub-projects which I personally think is just as important as being active in writing articles, and I remember from a while back when you were more active that you were a good contributor. Also I personally believe that giving adminship should be fairly lax. However I would still like to see more recent contribs. Bawolff ☺☻ 22:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: User has not earned my trust yet. User is too new, although he seems to have been contributing well and keep up the good work. This vote does not setermine future nominations etc... DragonFire1024 00:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've been here since February 2005. My situation is as Steven Fruitsmaak has described. I've been away for a while. --Munchkinguy 02:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uncertain Munchkinguy is a long standing user here on Wikinews, he even pre-dates me by 4 months. For such a long time, I'd expected you to have more then 500 edits. Munchkinguy, I guess I'll just like to see you more active. I thank you for your support with Audio Wikinews, and of course invite you back. terinjokes | Talk | Come visit the WikiBistro 04:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose This user is too new. You should not want to be an admin just to edit the main page, etc. We already have enough admins who can, and will, edit the main page, etc. This user needs more experience on Wikinews. This is just WAY too soon. —FellowWikiNews (W) 16:56, 7 January 2007 (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.


February 2007

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

User:Thunderhead

edit

This RfA has ended. I am awaiting administrator / bureaucrat confirmation.

I think it's time for Thunderhead to join the admin team now. To boost everyone's memory: Thunderhead already requested adminship twice (see Wikinews:Administrators/Archive). Since then he has written more stories, such as NYC students attempt to revive stoop culture and Wikinews interviews Florence Devouard, chair of the Wikimedia Foundation, but he also does gnome edits. He has experience on Wikia and a game wiki as an admin. Thunderhead definitely has humor, I can't remember him being negative anywhere.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you accept? Sure! --Thunderhead - (talk) 23:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Questions
  1. What is the meaning of life?
The meaning of life? 42. --Thunderhead - (talk) 03:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong! Clearly that is the meaning of life, the universe, and everything is 42 (google calculator never lies), However just life in itself is a much different thing. Bawolff ☺☻ 05:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I always thought that was funny how Google did that. Just life in itself, eh? To serve Jimbo Wales, master of the Cabal...

--Thunderhead - (talk) 05:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The second commandment - "Thou shalt have no other benevolent dictators before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image of sysops." — meta:Ten Commandments. Bawolff ☺☻ 05:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Votes:

Comment please accept, I think you've done enough now to earn the community's trust whereas before you may not have. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hours remaining? I thought RfA's lasted for seven days? --Thunderhead - (talk) 23:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They do :) --Cspurrier 01:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good, thought I was going senile. --Thunderhead - (talk) 01:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hours remaining in Feburary  | | |terinjokes | Talk 11:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can vote (though technically if you have less the 100 edits or have been registered less then month, your vote does not count for much)--Cspurrier 02:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, anyone can vote, except if you're very new, or a sock, or if you're blocked. Bawolff ☺☻ 03:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, OK, well I guess that the 'common people' could vote in someone. It is not like a country club. Which is good. I will still refrain from voting.--SVTCobra 03:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, TINC. Bawolff ☺☻ 04:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
TINC - thats what you think :) Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 18:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unless they want you to think, that's what you think! Bawolff ☺☻ 05:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But if they want us to think what they want us to think which is what we are supposed to think, then doesn't that mean there is a cabal? --Thunderhead - (talk) 05:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
sshhh!, you're confusing the cabal's tiny little head. Bawolff ☺☻ 05:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although Meta has a confirmation process in which only administrators can vote. --Thunderhead - (talk) 02:50, 5 March 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.

March 2007

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

User:Markie

edit

I'd like to nominate Mark for Adminship. He has been a great editor for the last three months, and I think he could be trusted with the tools -if he wishes to. You can consult his edit profile here: Interiot. Ever since his first edit, he has demonstrated random acts of kindness. Like his user page says, he doesn't write that much articles (examples are Snow causes disruption in UK and (started) Colts win Super Bowl XLI), but he corrects, moves and uploads with good edit summary usage and a minimal amount of swearing. He also seems to be a double redirect fixing freak with email enabled. So, what more could we ask for? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nominee, do you accept?
  • Yes sorry i have and will be away for another 2 days (sorry need a rest sometimes) but will be back and raring to go soon. Thanks for this and all the nice comments and sorry for the late reply. Thanks and YES.--MarkTalk 10:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

By the way, what happens if the user doesn't accept by the 6th?  Thunderhead  ►  08:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would assume we wait until he says yes or no. Bawolff ☺☻ 08:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Email sent. —FellowWikiNewsie 17:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to run away from his adminship...Maybe he's holding out for a motorcycle. Well the mansion is cool and all, but the car is a bit outdated. No one wants to drive arround in a car, when they can be cruising along in a motorcycle. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Markie's RFA is finished. Shouldn't a b'crat come to give him his special powers? —FellowWikiNewsie 17:49, 7 April 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.

April 2007

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

User:Dark Squall

edit

Our cadre of sports contributors is starting to run up against limits like our archiving policy. Dark Squall was the first to sign up on the Sports contributors page and has nearly 1,000 edits. I think he'd be a good addition to the Cabal admin team. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

edit

I see that this is normally commonplace on RFA's, so if anyone one has any i would be happy to oblidge. —Dark_Squall 04:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to be open to recall?--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definately, from what i understand this is in case other editors in good standing believe i am not doing a good job as an administrator, and it would only be fair to be open to this. —Dark_Squall 13:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

edit

As a note, this RFA has closed. Do not add any more votes.

Why Oppose? Wikinews has never set a high bar for admission to the admin club. Sure, we jest about there being a Cabal, but being open to new administrators dispels that myth. Those of us already "in the club" have an interest in more mainstream news which keeps you editing in main namespace. Sports is different, there's lots of tables and statistics involved. Keeping the sports portal relevant involves what you might see as wikignome work, but so is putting up infoboxes for every country on the planet. I'd rather see the user challenged to answer some questions if you're concerned about his political views or the length of his edit history. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well Said Brian. Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 05:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we have anything automated creating the various day articles, I'll try and figure out a list of menial tasks on the water cooler, which once set up should perhaps be moved to the toolserver. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I'll tell you what, I've only been here a few months, but Dark Squall's coverage of the Cricket World Cup is pretty good, for how many games there are. Squall's always doing good in the Sports section. I'll support Squall's nomination for administrator. --wjmoore 15:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really appreciate the support, but i do not do cricket, in fact, i've only been reading the cricket articles in order to learn how the game works. I'm the football (soccer) guy, i hope this does not alter your feelings, but if it does, so be it. I believe it is Shyam who works diligently on the cricket, and he does an amazing job.—Dark_Squall 02:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, my bad. I got that mixed up. Soccer/football is what I meant. I get them mixed up because there are always a ton of new articles from each in the sports portal. Still, my vote remains the same. --wjmoore 03:12, 13 April 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.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Zachary

edit

I would like to nominate Zachary.‎ I think his edits over the past month have demonstrated a dedication to the project and a good understanding of the goals. He is a valuable member of the community and I feel he would be a valuable addition to our administration team Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 11:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I accept! Thanks Brian and everyone else who has supported me! :) —Zachary talk 11:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're young and impatient. :) I can't comment on the age of our current candidates, but I'd hope you agree with me in saying that these people have earned the community's trust. We should always be open to new contributors and welcome them into the admin team. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I'm actually the youngest administrator on any Wikimedia project :)  Thunderhead  ►  23:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, I would be very surprised, how old are you ;)
And I believe, personally, just because you had 3 RfA's, is not a good reason to oppose, I believe the community would be interested in this case, why you use your right to oppose.
I also lost my first wikinews RfA, and that was a selfnom, so... Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 08:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I have nothing bad to say about Zachary, but a rubber stamp for someone who has only contributed on a regular basis since April 2 (just over a week) is not cool. There are less than 500 edits and not one of these edits have been a new article. Sorry, Zach, --SVTCobra 23:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes that true, but if you look at admin history, we should not be giving out admimship as every (or nearly every) admin's article count has gone down, and in many cases died after receiving adminship. Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 08:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but still only less than 10 days here. My comment on no articles may have been in error. I looked at Zachary contribs and saw no edits with the bold "N" indicating new page. But now I think that only works on the recent changes page. Is that true? --SVTCobra 12:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some irregularities in the editing of this section, and I do not see them as being in good faith. Would those who have edited the votes of others care to explain themselves? --00:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brianmc (talk • contribs) 00:24, 11 April 2007
I think it has been squared away. I have been in contact with both Thunderhead and Dark Squall. Thunder accidentally changed Dark Squall's vote when meant to change own. --SVTCobra 00:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Dark Squall's vote (directly above my own) was accidentally edited when I meant to change my own support to an oppose.  Thunderhead  ►  00:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, i'll just post to note that the above statements are correct, it was just a mistake. —Dark_Squall 01:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologize, SVT, but I have to ask what you mean by "not one of these edits have been a new article"? I have actually written a few articles, though not necessarily international news stories, they are articles. —Zachary talk 09:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at Zachary contribs and saw no edits with the bold "N" indicating new page. But now I think that only works on the recent changes page. Is that true? --SVTCobra 12:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I never noticed before, but now that you mention it, it appears that this is the case. It seems as though the only way to see pages created by a particular user is to go to Special:Newpages and enter the username. —Zachary talk 14:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Define to new, I have seen less qualified users receive adminship Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 02:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've not tallied the votes on this, but I would like some of those who've voted oppose to reconsider their position before the vote closes. Failing that, will one of those who opposes take it upon themselves to re-nominate in a month or so? I trust Zachary to continue his good contributions and win over the doubters. --Brian McNeil / talk 07:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still say "too new." What is the rush/need for Zach to be an admin? If you can demonstrate a reason, then maybe I'll reconsider. I contribute a fair amount and for longer than Zach, but I don't think admin would make my existence here much greater. Sure I could delete some spam instead of just tagging it speedy. Is Zach desperate to do some arduous archiving? --SVTCobra 23:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • With all due respect, I still think two months is a little short, if he doesn't have a specific reason why he wants to be an admin. If there is a specific thing he wants admin buttons for then it'd be a different story. Bawolff ☺☻ 00:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Zachary has already set up two bots - one of which would require admin permission to go through archived pages, and also protect pages such as Category:April 1, 2007. I am not comfortable granting a bot admin status unless the owner already has that status. --Brian McNeil / talk 07:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per Craig and Cobra. He is to new, I mean there were 4 edits in March and he's been on a non-stop editing rampage since April 2nd, but he's still too new. I waited a few months before I applied for adminship here. Re-apply in a month or two I say. --TUFKAAP 00:07, 18 April 2007 (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 talk page of the Admin's page or the talk page of the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for reconfirmation. Please do not modify it.

TUFKAAP

edit

So, I've recently become active again and I feel I haven't been living up to my administrative duties plus we have alot more new users since I dropped off the radar to cool my heels and I want to see what they think of me. ;) --TUFKAAP 00:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"planet wiki", I like that terminology :) -Edbrown05 01:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps that's why the blog aggregator (sp) is called Planet Wikimedia? Anyways Ed, you're Wikinews ' "Resident Witty one-liner speechwriter" ;) --TUFKAAP 03:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support votes mean to DE-ADMIN. See the top of this section. DragonFire1024 06:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't. This is the reconfirmation section.
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 talk page of the Admin's page or the talk page of the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for reconfirmation. Please do not modify it.

DragonFire1024

edit

I was here then I wasn't...Now i am and I just want to see if I am still trusted as an Admin. Sometimes, I feel as though I am not. So I am doing this to confirm or deny my suspicians. DragonFire1024 09:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Skenmy(t•c•w•i) 19:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I voice what I see will do great harm and damage to Wikinews. I never threatened revenge myself, I simply stated that other users might seek to do that. Also IRC statemnts are not supposed to be used as bait or whatnot in Wikis. There is a rule somewhere. I think fighting for something that will damage Wikinews greatly, is most definitely in "the best interest of Wikinews." Anyone who fights in a cause that could damage a project is IMO "acting in the best interest for wikinews", or whatever project they are on. DragonFire1024 05:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such rule. IRC may not be publically logged, however small, relevant quotes may be used in events such as this. --Skenmy(t•c•w•i) 06:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
whats the idea behind banning logging anyways? I've never really understood why. All that is ever really written about it is that it is punishable by crushing by an elephant. Bawolff ☺☻ 06:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have always understood it to be so that third parties (i.e. Daniel Brandt) cannot use the logs to their "advantage" - even though he has started taking his own logs of it. I'm not 100% sure myself. --Skenmy(t•c•w•i) 06:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whose he? DragonFire1024 06:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Main guy in wikipedia watch. He used to try to track down where varouis wikipedia admins live, and post that on the internet. His wikipedia article has more info. Bawolff ☺☻ 06:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why'd he do that? DragonFire1024 06:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, I think he got mad at the wikipedia admins because they wouldn't let him edit his article or something. Perhaps he is just crazy. (I've read his site, I think that is a fair suggestion. for ref[1]) Bawolff ☺☻ 06:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Chiacomo can add detail IRC log use for Wikinews. -Edbrown05 06:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Private logging is allowed, but he or his bots havn't been there for a long time. Bawolff ☺☻ 06:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
terinjokes | Talk 00:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
you don't need to be admin to vote. all users can. –Doldrums(talk) 11:59, 30 April 2007 (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 talk page of the Admin's page or the talk page of the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Jcart1534

edit

Jcart1534 has written up an impressive collection of articles in the two months the user has been on Wikinews, including Bacterial outbreak forces closure of Toronto hospital neo-natal unit written about a week after creating a Wikinews account, and Canadian inspectors to test food ingredients from China, the most recent.

i think the user knows news and wikinews policies well enough to be able to use the buttons. i'm happy to nominate Jcart1534 for adminship. –Doldrums(talk) 17:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominee, do you accept?
Yes, wholeheartedly. (feels like a wedding!) Jcart1534 21:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

edit
  1. Are you going to put yourself in the Category:Admins open to recall?
  2. What are your good and bad sides as a future admin?
  3. What do you want to contribute with the admin buttons?
--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answers

edit
  1. Yes.
  2. Good sides: patient, like to see balanced reporting, good editor. --> Bad sides: not so technical for things like javascript and IRC (but quick to learn)
  3. I would like to keep on top of vandalism where I can. Jcart1534 21:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

edit
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 talk page of the Admin's page or the talk page of the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.


May 2007

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

User:Zachary

edit

This user now has near 1,500 edits and has been diligently dealing with vandalism, redirects, and the like since he joined nearly 2 months ago. I likely instigated his earlier candidacy through discussion with BNZ, and I think that with things like the bots he's set up he will make very effective use of the extra buttons and access available to admins. Just this morning I was busy making Karl Rove look bad by categorising all his articles, and Zachary was busy fighting off our "Journalist on Wheels". --Brian McNeil / talk 09:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptance speech

edit

Thank you, I accept. First I'd like to thank my mom and dad, without them I wouldn't be here. I also like to thank the Academy and I'd like to thank Santa Claus, and Jesus, and ---music plays--- wait I'm not done yet! ;) —Zachary talk 09:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments/Questions

edit
  1. Without peaking, what is the capital of Somalia?--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Somalia City! —Zachary talk 23:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, so sorry. It is Mogadishu. But you can still stay alive by answering this question: Who is leading MLB in home-runs this season? --SVTCobra 01:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It could be A-Rod still, but I have not checked lately. He did hit six in his first seven games. —Zachary talk 01:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do I have to answer these in the form of a question? :) —Zachary talk 01:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct. A-Rod. Bonus Question: What other American athlete is also sometimes referred to as A-Rod? (sorry, I may be taking this joke too far) --SVTCobra 02:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I must admit that I learned this answer when looking up A-Rod on WP after answering your first Q, so I know that it's Andy Roddick. :P I'll yield to a different question though. —Zachary talk 02:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:Zach's nom seems to be going well, so I'll add a point that's been in the back of my mind. His bot writing skills are a valuable attribute for the wiki. I suspect some of his bots could do a lot more for us if they could edit protected pages. I expect one of the things this user will do once he has the buttons is request the same for things like Calendarbot. This should be temporary adminship for one-off jobs and a time limit should be specified. On the other hand, a bot to protect pages like day/month categories would need indefinite access to the buttons. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

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

User:SVTCobra

edit

has been active in Wikinews since August last year. he's written a diverse set of good quality articles (see user page). i find him helpful and well-informed about editorial matters in discussions. i'd trust him to use buttons fairly and well. –Doldrums(talk) 16:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I accept the nomination. It is an honor just to be nominated. As you can see by my activity here, I rededicated myself to the project in early March of this year. Most of you who have been active in the last few months, have probably run into me in one way or another. I hope it wasn't too unpleasant  .
I see myself remaining active in providing content, editing other articles, while taking on administrative duties. I will not shirk things like archiving, but I would like to still have time to write. Thank you for your consideration. --SVTCobra 17:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments/Questions

edit
  • Comment, I'd say stick to content and use the admin buttons when you need to. There are loads of admin jobs that improve the site but don't contribute content. We are more in need of contributors who write news articles than people like me who sit in the cheap seats and periodically do a spate of edits. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without peaking: the Tamil Tigers are an opposition group in what country?--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sri Lanka of course, I wrote several a few articles about them. They are the only rebel group in the world known to have both a navy and an airforce. Any other questions.--SVTCobra 19:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood? —Zachary talk 02:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go with 700 pounds or approximately 320 kilograms. --SVTCobra 13:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, who is visiting the United States currently. But I may be mistaken. She is definitely the longest reigning monarch in Europe. --SVTCobra 13:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I was wrong. It is His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand. --SVTCobra 15:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was a clue in who asked the question. :-) --Brian McNeil / talk 20:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

edit
Not that you have to, but could you give an example of such behaviour?--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 06:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I trust this user to ask the opinion of the existing admin community as he learns the ropes in the role. Getting admin can change the way you look at the wiki, you become one of its caretakers. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:50, 11 May 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.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for reconfirmation. Please do not modify it.

User:Brianmc

edit

I'd like a reconfirmation prior to adding Category:Admins open to recall to my user page. Yes, I've been a slacker on the news front - but I'd like to think I still have the support of the community for the work I do do. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments/Questions

edit
As an elaboration [to my vote below], I see you primarily as a facilitator within Wikinews, doing the Jobs we Hate (tm). It's jobs like these that need doing, as much as writing the news. --Skenmy(t•c•w•i) 18:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I didn't get admin on my first nomination and the community has - almost totally - changed since then. I started out with the "this is neat - and easier to find somewhere to 'play' than Wikipedia" approach and settled on researching Thailand and covering articles for there. I think I did a good job of covering the troubles in the south of the country until I discovered that there were huge administrative backlogs on some of those - as you say - Jobs We Hate (TM). Starting on the archiving process probably changed my focus on the wiki to how it can act as a historical archive - hence things like people categories. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

edit
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 talk page of the Admin's page or the talk page of the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

User:CalendarBot

edit

An admin flag would greatly improve the functionality of this bot, by allowing it to protect calendar-related pages and categories, as well as giving it the ability to edit those that are already protected. —Zachary talk 22:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats an interesting question, I know that admins can block/unblock people well blocked (wheel wars haven proven that quite well), but I'm not sure about deletions. Bawolff ☺☻ 05:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, you can't alter protection or delete things well blocked, so as long as the bot doesn't become intelligent enough to unblock itself we should be fine. Bawolff ☺☻ 05:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All righty, thanks for the note (you learn something every day!). Straight support, as promised :) Daniel 03:49, 9 June 2007 (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 talk page of the Admin's page or the talk page of the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.


June 2007

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

Nzgabriel

edit

I wish to request reconfirmation of my adminship. I believe that I do not really need these tools, as I hardly ever do any administrator actions, except for the odd deletion. I have done very little vandalism checking (but have found some). I have done very little articles lately (because I am trying to focus harder on original reporting and exclusive interviews.

Please do not vote based on what I have done article or community wise, but how and when I have used the special administrator tools. --Nzgabriel | Talk 01:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep them if you want them, request them removed if you want, but I definitly consider you trustworthy enough to have them them. Although you may not need them, they are not hurting you, you are not required to use them, and who knows they might come in handy one day. Its better to have them and not need them, then to be stuck here with no admins around well WoW goes on a rampage (but then again if that happens, all you need to do is have a quick chat with the folks at #wikimedia-stewards so it is not that big a deal). Besides, look at all are inactive admins. You're way more active then Eloquence, Chiacomo has more or less fallen off the face of the earth, there are several other editors who use them way way less. Administrative tools in my opinion are generally given on the basis of I trust you not to be an idiot, not I need the tools. (For the record that is a support you keeping them) Bawolff ☺☻
  • Support you keeping them, you've proven yourself trustworthy. Per Bawolff above me, an trusted admin who does even a handful of deletions etc. is better than no admin at all. Daniel 03:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The atmosphere here is to give adminship easily, but we still need good editors more.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 11:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Nzgabriel's writing/editing skills are excellent and he is a valued contributor. No need to give up "the buttons" just because they are not used often. Strong support! Jcart1534 12:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support We need more admins, who first and foremost are writers Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 05:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support of course Jacques Divol 09:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Bawolff has put it quite well, you may feel you initially got the extra buttons because you saw situations where they would be useful (i.e. you though you needed them). However, the community wouldn't have given you them if it did not trust you with them. I see no reason why that trust should be withdrawn, even if you're only deleting the odd bit of spam once or twice a month. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:22, 12 June 2007 (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 talk page of the Admin's page or the talk page of the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for reconfirmation. Please do not modify it.

Thunderhead

edit

I would like to request reconfirmation of my adminship. I have recently made some judgement errors, and I believe that I may not have the support of the community. While I haven't been an administrator for long, I want to make sure that the current and past community still wants me as an administrator. Thank you for your time. Thunderhead 01:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

edit
You're young (right?), you are likely to make mistakes. People are not so likely to fault you for that if you admit to your mistakes and learn from them. Do you think you've learned from what you consider your errors? Can you cite some examples - I know that sounds like "show you're maturing as a contributor" - but we've all made mistakes in the past. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Votes

edit
Yup. :) --Brian McNeil / talk 07:50, 21 June 2007 (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 talk page of the Admin's page or the talk page of the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

User:CommonsDelinker

edit

I propose granting this bot admin status to enable it to deal with problem images used in articles which have been archived and protected. The operation of this bot seems to be supported at WN:BOT#Request_for_UserPageBot, and admin status would greatly improve the ability of this bot to serve the project. For more information about the function of this bot see meta:User:CommonsDelinker. Please note that it is only adminship I am proposing, I don't think it is appropriate to give it a bot flag and this seems to be the consensus at WN:BOT. This is a very useful bot but it does need keeping an eye on as of course the admins over at Commons can make mistakes occasionally. Adambro 11:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - As the user proposing admin status, I of course support. Adambro 11:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Of course this bot would need admin status to be useful, but it would also need someone to watch over it... a lot of images that would get deleted could possibly be locally uploaded and if no-one checks what the images this bot removes, it would compromise the integrity of Wikinews as a news archive. So, who would watch after it? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • abstain. I'd like to note we still don't have clear agreement what to do when images go bye bye on archived news. Should we replace with similiar image, should we remove the image, or should we keep the red link there to show there used to be an image there. Bawolff ☺☻ 21:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't personally want a bot deleting images from our protected articles. We could have it list them on a page for human administrators to delete. Thunderhead 23:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose I dislike image bots on this project Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 03:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. a brain dead administrator, not bot. -Edbrown05 07:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Sorry, people make mistakes, automated software just speeds the process up and removes any potential step for quick corrective action. I support use of bots for readily defineable tasks (eg calendaring), but I don't think image management on archived articles is well defined. --Brian McNeil / talk 07:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Fair enough, it seems this is unlikely to be successful as users have valid concerns about this bot. However, if the community don't want CommonsDelinker deleting images (well, not from protected pages at least), are administrators going to actually monitor Wikinews:CommonsTicker. I can see images on that list that have been deleted but not yet dealt with. We cannot have it both ways, either we do the work in a prompt manner or, if unable, we let the bot do it. I note the comment by Bawolff, perhaps it is time to clarify our approach to deleted images. Adambro 08:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to apologise for this. I had fixed most of the links and pics but had just not filled out the sections in the template due to my huuuuuuuuuge hate of paperwork. If you look carefully most of the problems have been fixed. --MarkTalk 09:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as I have said before, this is a need. We lost the trophy image because we weren't careful enough, if we had noticed then it wouldn't have been deleted. This will help delete those images that no longer exist on old articles and we haven't noticed that have been deleted, making our "historical records" look better.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nzgabriel (talk • contribs) June 21
  • Support - A bot would help greatly with what I feel is a cumbersome maintenance task on Wikinews. All it does is edit, so I believe all the FUD-based opposes are dead wrong. If the bot screws up, it can be fixed. But as far as I know, I haven't heard anything bad about it. →MR 03:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We need a far more sophisticated bot than the CommonsDelinker if we are to deal with the deletion of images used in archived articles. Any change to material in the archive should be immediately visible to someone viewing the page. I have already made a number of enquiries on making this easier to enforce. Firstly we need left/right templates that are used to replace removed images on archived articles. Second, we need to see edits to protected pages in RC so this process is readily oversighted. I have briefly exchanged comments with Brion Vibber in IRC and he suggests RC showing a padlock icon next to any change to a fully protected article. I trust him not to suggest this if it was difficult, but it may need approval from somewhere to permit someone to spend paid-for time working on it. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Left/right templates— that is extremly easy to do. Highlighting edits to protected pages is harder (from the perspective of I can't make it happen), and would probably require something done on the server end by a developer, but we could highlight anything commonDelinker touches with a  , lock image   or   very easily. Bawolff ☺☻ 01:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Once I finish work I'll pop into #mediawiki and ask about a software change. Adambro, could you ask whoever runs the bot to take a look at our - not totally worked out - Archiving policy, and this discussion? I know they're trying to keep commons clean, but a bot isn't capable of deciding whether an image should be locally uploaded or replaced with a template that says it has been removed due to licensing issues. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I took the time to file a feature request on bugzilla. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:06, 27 June 2007 (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.


July 2007

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

Daniel

edit

Hello :) For those of you who I haven't yet met on Wikinews, I'm Daniel (talk · contribs), also known as Daniel Bryant. Some of you may also know me from the English Wikipedia, where I'm Daniel also, formerly Daniel.Bryant.

I'm nominating myself for administrator tools so I can help out the English Wikinews community. Beyond the normal stuff like deleting speedy candidates, closing deletion request discussions, and cleaning out abandoned etc. categories, I'd like to help out in the following areas also:-

  • Be able to edit protected/archived pages to remove redlinked categories (ie. Special:Categories)
  • Be able to respond to editprotected requests in a more timely fashion wherever possible
  • Be able to help out with archiving (I promise, I really don't hate it that much!)
  • In the event that such a situation occurs, be able to edit protected pages in response to an OTRS ticket

As for my other Wikinews, Wikipedia and Metawiki roles, I'm an English Wikipedia administrator, a member of the Mediation Committee, currently serving (no laughing, Martin!) as the Chair of that Committee. I've been a member of the Wikimedia OTRS team for a while now, dealing with English Wikipedia and (more recently) English Wikinews emails. And, thanks to this community's gratitude, I have accreditation to help me cover big events, although Adelaide has been devoid of these 'big events' for a while now (*crosses fingers*). My accreditation request is here.

On Wikinews, I've written these articles since I joined back in December. I've recently become more active here than on English Wikipedia in the article sense, because my true writing love is in reporting current events.

So, feel free to ask me any questions below, and I'll get back to you as soon as possible (I'm in-and-out of hospital/doctor's clinic in the next couple of days, and sleeping a lot to recover, so please forgive any short delays). I hope the Wikinews community can trust me enough to give me the extra three buttons so I can help maintain Wikinews :)

Cheers, Daniel 05:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

edit
I thought I knew the answer to this question, until I saw this exchange. Now I'm just confused :) Daniel 05:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright ... how about ... what is the numerical equivelant of infinity? Thunderhead - (talk) 05:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What... is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow? --TUFKAAP 17:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems AWB has since been given the feature to bot-like protect pages. That page, which was intended to solve the manual issue, may now be redundant to the AWB auto-protect feature (I'm not sure, having never tried protecting on Wikinews, not being an administrator). We'll have to see if anyone still wishes to use the APL... Daniel 06:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
also. I think ArchiveBot runs soon (second week of each month?) using these methods Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 06:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most certainly. Copyediting/'wikifying', as it's called on English Wikipedia, is something I really enjoy. Myself and Doldrums helped publish this (see right at the bottom - it's since changed a lot, such is the nature of Wikinews). There was also this one (where I changed this initial IP version into this published story). I am all for improving stories which meet our content guide, and it is a good area for experienced Wikinewsies to help out (the WN:SG can take some getting used to). Daniel 11:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I want to do some research about AOR on Wikinews before I commit either way. I didn't place myself in this category on the English Wikipedia as it was clearly being abused by people simply being annoying over petty little things, but from my limited experience with such disputes on Wikinews you guys seem to be a lot better. As I said, please give me a chance to read the history of AAA and reconfirmations in the archives of this page before I announce either way. Cheers, and thanks for understanding, Daniel 11:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up: Yes, I will, however I won't commit to it permanently. As I say, if the situation with regards to AOR at Wikinews becomes like English Wikipedia, then I will withdraw myself from that category. Otherwise, yep, I'm in. Daniel 00:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like to slip in a word wherever possible when something notable happens and there's a discussion on Wikipedia about a recent event. I also like the templates which bring attention to Wikinews (ie. "Wikinews has news articles on..."). Beyond that, a little invitation or two to grace us over here to some people I know when they are feeling pissed off with the unique environment at the English Wikipedia can't hurt either :) To answer the last part of your question, there are certainly some users we would want, and there are others who we wouldn't want. The key to continuing this brilliant community's run of success is keeping the balance, wherever possible, on the 'good' side. Daniel 11:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

edit
Haha, very funny ;) Thunderhead - (talk) 05:43, 12 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.
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]

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]
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.

August 2007

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

Adambro

edit

has been one of the more active 'newsies, contributing to articles as well as doing wiki maintenance - deletion, implementing the new fair use policy, vandalism watch. he has a good deal of Wiki experience, being an admin on WP and commons and i find him well informed on policy matters in discussions. i think it's time to give him the tools. –Doldrums(talk) 12:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I accept this nomination. I am grateful to be considered for adminship and look forward to hearing the opinions of other editors, which, regardless of the outcome of this RfA, I am sure will help me further develop as a Wikinews contributor.
Since joining the project, I have been active in a number of areas, from writing articles to dealing with more mundane, behind the scenes tasks like dealing with image issues. I feel this has given me a good understand of the project and how it differs from the other Wikimedia project I am involved with. One of the major differences is of size, articles like the Chris Benoit death did much to raise the profile of Wikinews but it remains a small project in comparison to many other. Despite this, the project still suffers from the same problems faced elsewhere such as vandalism. On a number of occasions I have watched vandalism ongoing and been unable to contact an administrator to deal with it promptly. This has left me frustrated and I would welcome admin rights to enable me to respond to incidents like this when I spot them.
I will be happy to answer any questions anyone may have but would warn that as I am to start a new job next Monday which will involve moving house, I might not be able to respond later in the week. Adambro 12:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Adambro was temporarily sysopified to deal with ongoing vandalism on en.wikinews.


Questions

edit

Votes

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

Messedrocker

edit

I'm not sure if this requires the full seven days, but in any case I would like to re-apply for the following reasons:

  • To revert large scale vandalism. I've seen two large scale vandalism episodes recently which took a while to stop because no admins were around to block the IPs, even though I was online and of no help unfortunately. When I was an admin, I was typically able to end pagemove vandalism and the like rather quickly, and I'd like to be able to do that again.
  • To maintain WN:CV, especially during the migration to the system I proposed (if it gets approved)

If that is good enough, please reconsider re-instating my adminship. MessedRocker (talk) 11:56, 15 August 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.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

User:Ironiridis, for the third time

edit

I, ironiridis, hereby nominate myself for adminship once again. I do this while reflecting on the frustration and difficulty that ended my previous position as an admin. For those of you who aren't aware, I was nominated (twice, actually) and "elected" into this position over a year ago. Due to continuous bickering and eventually all-out wheel wars, I elected to have myself blocked for 30 days, and eventually to have my sysop flag removed from my account.

I'm choosing, grudgingly, to attempt to return to the position for one reason: I wish only to have the power to fight vandalism without asking for assistance. Deleting articles. Issuing short, temporary blocks. Eliminating copyright violations from history logs.

Having learned well from the Neutralizer debacle, and having learned a thing or two about maintaining civility in the time since, I feel I am ready and willing to become a janitor once again. I am opting, if I am chosen by the community to return to my previous post, to place this template at the top of my user page.

In light of being informed that I might be able to simply be "re-instated", I'd like to indicate that I'd prefer a vote on this. I want to have the support of the community on this. As such, please put this to a vote.

(And, as a formality, I accept my self-nomination.) irid:t 03:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

edit
  1. What is the meaning of life? Thunderhead - (talk) 04:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Are you a janitor open to recall? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answers

edit
  1. The acquisition of knowledge, the observance of beauty, and the extollence of the virtues of love, honesty, and dedication. irid:t 04:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Without a doubt, I am. I voluntarily listed myself for de-admin the last time around because I felt I wasn't doing my job; I am more than happy to be held to community scrutiny at any time. irid:t 20:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

edit
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.

September 2007

edit
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

TheFearow

edit

Hey veryone, i'm TheFearow or better known (maybe not on here) as Matt. I'm from New Zealand, and I love the wiki system. I used to be mostly active on my enwiki account, with over 3K edits. I decided to come here as it's a smaller wiki with an actual community, and its possible to make decisions without being hunted by an angry mob. I do a lot of maintenance work, but I have written a few articles. I have done a lot of work on Larry Craig, as well as New Zealand and related areas. I am constantly finding things I need an admin to do, so becoming a sysop would allow me to take care of those myself. I know a lot about wikisyntax, mediawiki, and programming, as can be demonstrated by several things I have developed, such as the Ticker and my dynamic quiz system. Since all my systems end up complexish, ironiridis created {{WTF}} for me, which I use on systems that are still in development and not in real use or on pages about them that are not viewed a lot.

You can see what my opinions of admin tools etc are at this page, but to summarise it, I believe things should only be done after consensus (meeting the CSDs etc counts as consensus), and I believe in second chances. I do not like indefblocking unless necessary or obvious socks/VOA's.

No matter how this turns out, I will keep contributing heavily, and my work can only get better. I will happily request reconfirmation if any user in good standing requests it. If I make any mistakes, I will happily fix and apologise, as well as improve. If you oppose please tell me how I can improve, and if you support, tell me what i'm doing good so I can do more of it!

Thanks, Matt. TheFearow 01:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To make an addendum; I will likely respond to all opposes, I have some of my best and most interesting conversations with people that disagree with me. If you don't want me to reply, just say so. TheFearow 03:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

edit
42. TheFearow 01:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly that's wrong, because that's the meaning of life, the universe, and everything... --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 08:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If that was a bit broad, the more specific answer is 14. (Instead of being of the life, the universe, and everything, its a third, so only the life part). TheFearow | userpage | contribs 23:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
100%. If any user in good standing suggests I go for reconfirmation, I definately will. TheFearow 03:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mainly biographies and such, and I do see a lot of half-archived pages etc (tagged as archived but not protected, or the opposite). TheFearow | userpage | contribs 23:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As an admin will you continue to write articles or focus more on tech/admin tasks? --Jcart1534 01:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definately continue to write articles. I will use my admin actions where appropriate, and luckily tasks that need admin tools only come along occasionally, although should be handled promptly. The admin tasks usually are important, but there are few enough that they can be handled without influencing article work. TheFearow | userpage | contribs 03:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression it was a guideline, as other RfAs have passed with less than two months work. I also believe I have done a lot of good work, and I can be more helpful as an admin. TheFearow | userpage | contribs 23:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Without the consideration of past RfAs, from what in the official policy above are you extrapolating that the two criteria for adminship are guidelines? If the policy is unclear, perhaps it needs to be rewritten to reflect the community's wishes (guideline or mandatory rule). What are your feelings on this? --Jcart1534 01:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The way the header is worded, they appear to be guidelines. If they are not, that needs to be much more specific, and I would adivse a discussion on it as they have been treated as guidelines in the past as well as lately. I believe they should be guidelines, but not rules, however I do not mind either way. TheFearow | userpage | contribs 03:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You give the impression that you find Wikinews attractive because it is a smaller community, and you feel less like a "guppy in an ocean" whereas Wikipedia has grown beyond that. What opportunities do you see for us to recruit other Wikipedians into our community? --Brian McNeil / talk 13:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can imagine various ways to recruit Wikipedia members, and I believe the key ways would be to make ourselves more known, and target people who actively contribute to things such as w:Portal:Current Events and w:Template:In the News. The main part is showing how open we are, and how much of a community we have. Showing everyone that we're like the small village, whereas wikipedia is Tokyo. I also believe that many active users of Wikipedia would want to do some work on wikinews, even if it doesn't become their most active wiki. TheFearow | userpage | contribs 23:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

edit
I would like to point out I have done a lot of writing - Idaho senator arrested for disorderly conduct, Hurricane Felix now Category 5, Hurricane Felix strengthens to Category 4, New Zealand ATM gives out double the money, Republican leaders accused of double standard after Larry Craig's resignation, John Key admits to visiting strip clubs, and I know there is more. I also do a lot of minor editing of articles and cleaning up etc. TheFearow 03:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that you've made good contributions on these articles. But the first day you touched the article namespace was August 20th, which is 17 days before you applied for an admin position. I simply feel that's not enough time. -- IlyaHaykinson 15:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh ok. I have made one or two spelling corrections as an anon, but my first proper contribution was august 20th. TheFearow | userpage | contribs 03:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - While I do hope you stay true to your word and do continue to stay on here at Wikinews, I have to oppose your request do to the fact that you only started editing around a month ago. You do have the support and the trust of this community, I feel that you haven't been here long enough. Try joining the New Zealand cabal later. --Nzgabriel | Talk 05:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Where's the signup form for that? On a related topic, I did sort of expect a few oppose votes due to my time here - I know it is a bit short however I am a fast learnner and I know a lot of the policies from enwiki. TheFearow | userpage | contribs 05:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, some people may realise I am being hypocritical opposing TheFearow, while I was only around for about a month before getting my accrediation, but I have done some growing up since then. --Nzgabriel | Talk 05:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be accurate, Zachary, your first try for adminship (just shy of 1 month) did not succeed as people thought you were too new, even though they felt you would be a great addition. Your second Rfa did succeed, but you were just days away from 2 months. Jcart1534 13:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I stand corrected, though my register date and the date I actually started making contributions are two different things. Registered on March 14, first non-userpage edit was April 2, and I became an admin May 20, so it was about one and a half months. Still shy of the two month "guideline", though. —Zachary talk 15:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I assume work means working on articles/maintenance/policy/etc, so it would be since first non-userspace edit. TheFearow | userpage | contribs 23:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support --Jcart1534 04:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose due to the concerns highlighted above and also because I'm not happy with the nonsense that is {{WTF}} that this user seems happy to be associated with. As with brianmc, I would be happy to reconsider my views in a future RfA. Too new for adminship just yet. The user states their opinions about adminship at User:TheFearow/AdminToolOpinions. I feel this is entirely redundant since policy already sets out where action should be taken. I want admins to follow these policies not their own versions. Adambro 15:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
{{WTF}} is a joke - if you don't like it, i'd have no objection to it being deleted. Those are my opinions, which I would use if it was up to my discretion, or policy did not state what to do. I would follow policy unless there is a VERY good reason to do so, and if I ever did do something against policy I would happily explain my actions and discuss it further. TheFearow | userpage | contribs 02:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I created {{WTF}} as a joke. I also put it on one of his tools. I'm sorry that your primary point of opposition is related to what is essentially a userbox. Also, I should point out that the policies state that any admin should exercise their own judgment. For example, the policy on speedy deletion has no provision for articles created that clearly aren't news, yet have meaningful content, like the series of biographical stubs we've been getting recently. We speedy them anyway. I am clearly violating policy when I do that, but to what end should we follow policy? Develop a news story about somebody's 11-year-old turning 12? I support the idea that someone should make their personal stance on the policies (especially when they fall short) clear and public. irid:t 23:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I personally have noticed that common admin actions/traditions dictate policy, policies don't dictate actions. (With exception to core policies, like npov, privacy policy, etc). Some policies arn't fully followed all the time, some all almost totally ignored (cough, userbox policy. however that is mostly because it tried to change actions instead of document traditions, plus it was a compromise no one really liked, and most people probably are not even aware of its existence). Most policies have a bit of leeway in them as well. they often say you should do blah, you may do blah. In the end, I think common sense and good faith in all actions is what is important. Bawolff ☺☻ 03:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with you - common sense is common sense - if something policy says seems rediculous, pointless, or wrong in a particular situation, bend the rules. As long as its helpful, done in good faith (although this is not necessary if its helpful), and doesnt violate very important policies, I agree with using common sense and/or IAR. TheFearow | userpage | contribs 03:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit
  • Comment Please reply to all criticism. Unless it's a five page dissertation, criticism is constructive and informative, and discussion is the key. :) irid:t 03:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update For those of you keeping score at home, we currently have 8 supports, 4 opposes, and 3 neutrals. irid:t 03:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd like to say - before someone closes this vote - that I'm happy with the result. The user is likely going to pass in 3-4 weeks time when they apply again; they'll be a tad more level-headed about it having spent time tagging things that need admin action (hint! hint! If you see something that should be speedied, flag it to say "I could have done that").
Part of the delay before you're likely to get your hands on the admin tools is getting to know the people who already have them. We do not want wheel wars. So, learn where other admins (and users!) have specific interests. If you get into a conflict on something you think they're biased on then do your best to see the other side. Ask questions before making accusations. We share a common goal - the success of Wikinews. We should be able to achieve that regardless of our individual political affiliations. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:36, 16 September 2007 (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 talk page of the Admin's page or the talk page of the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.


October 2007

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

Matt

edit

Otherwise known as TheFearow, Matt's done a lot of work around here, and I see absolutley no reason why he shouldn't have the mop. He's also been helping us quite a bit with our bots, and has adminship on MediaWiki.org, so he's not a new administrator. I think that Matt certainly deserves the tools without question. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dodge Story (talk • contribs) 05:04, 6 October 2007‎

Questions

edit

Votes

edit
No such thing, IMO. Administrator is a status given to trusted users, and we can never have too many trusted users. Thunderhead - (talk - email - contributions) 00:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thunderhead is quite correct here. Admin is as much an indication of community trust as a requirement to help maintain the wiki. If you think back to before you had the priv bit I'm sure you recall intermittent frustration that you couldn't delete vandalism articles and the like. As a normal user you run up against a wall where you're using things like notnews to alert admins that stuff needs zapped. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit
  • Earlier RfA under the username TheFearow can be found in the archive.
  • I'm currently in the process of studying Matt's contributions in order to ensure I make a fair judgment of this user and have a small criticism to make. Looking through Matt's user talk page, I see a lot of other users who appear to be talking to themselves. I suspect this is because the user is replying to comments elsewhere. Doing this makes it very difficult for anyone else to follow the discussions and I would strongly discourage this practice. It might be appropriate in some instances to notify a user on their talk page that you have replied to ensure that they are aware as of course they may not be watching the page where they left the message. Adambro 15:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some people prefer to reply on the talk page of others because it gets the new message flag and you have a high degree of confidence they've seen your response. We can't enforce "I respond on my talk and notify you", but it may be a better approach to keeping discussions less fragmented.
For adminship and any investigation of a user's contributions you do want to see what they write on other people's talk pages, but you're more interested in "have they avoided or - better yet - defused disputes?", have they "borrowed" a mop and bucket and cleaned up vandalism? Adminship should be "ask not what the wiki can do for you (i.e. give you the priv bit) but what you can do for the wiki". What an admin can do for the wiki is help keep it a place where good-faith contributions are welcomed. There are discussions elsewhere on us being curt or rude with newcomers, this should be extended to potential admins. Zach and I had a run-in with a very rude admin on Wiktionary (?IIRC?) I don't want us having the same rep. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I reply on their talk page, especially with new users, as I find it much easier to keep track of replies. When I started on enwiki, I waited over a month for a reply before going to their page to ask for them to reply, and realising they replied on their page already. If someone asks me to reply on my talk page, I will. Also, if there are more than two people communicating (unless one is a new user) then I will keep it on one page. Matt | userpage | contribs 09:28, 7 October 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.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

David Shankbone

edit

Believe it or not, our star interviewer isn't an admin yet. I think he's earned enough respect and trust to fix that problem. David's done a lot of great work for us, and clearly know's our policies well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dodge Story (talk • contribs) 04:41, 25 October 2007‎

Candidate: Do you accept?

Questions

edit
Whew! For a second there I thought you weren't going to get the joke. (Although it should be mentioned that 42 is the Answer to life the universe and everything, not just life). Bawolff ☺☻
I live to give, and answer, 110%. --David Shankbone 00:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. --David Shankbone 00:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is your greatest flaw with regards to adminship?
I'm sensitive. --David Shankbone 00:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Haha - to not be sensitive? --David Shankbone 00:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do you feel about possibly having the most questions asked of you out of all the adminship requests (that i remember)
I don't mind questions (@#&*@$^*&@$#@!!) --David Shankbone 00:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My interviewees often turn my interviews around on me and I answer their questions honestly, which I hope makes for more honest exchanges. I just don't often include those aspects of the interviews -- be glad! I might not have been put forth for admin-ship! --David Shankbone 00:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joke questions for you just to add a few more - dont take these (or me!!) seriously

  • Will you hang out with us more on IRC??
What's IRC?  :-) --David Shankbone 00:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was funny. I was the one who asked for the Arb, knowing I pursued Ted Frank too diligently, but also knowing that being taken to task for that was not nearly as important as exposing him. If there was absolutely nothing wrong with what he was doing, then it would have taken an ArbCom to show me that. Instead, I was proven right. My main problem going into the ArbCom was that, after a year on Wikipedia, I never had cause to figure out the seemingly endless forums for resolving various strains of disputes (COI, Admin Noticeboard, Water Pump, RfC, et. al.) That and my frequent use of Ted Frank's name (mainly right after he changed his User name from TedFrank to THF) were seen as my problems. There are things I could have done better, but in the end, I felt vindicated. --David Shankbone 05:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

edit
Comment: The article was published because he found it worthwhile; there was no need for there to have been a deletion request on it in the first place. --Jigsaw (Talk) 14:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain irid t i e 22:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support - whats IRC??..hehe..good all-round editor..--Cometstyles 13:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose - I appreciate the work David has done here and I'm disappointed that it seems he is going to take a Wikibreak as he is becoming disgruntled with Wikinews but I'm not happy with him branding JoshuaZ's decision to change his vote to neutral in response to the concerns outlined by SVTCobra as "jumping on the bandwagon".[4] David should respect that people might not unnecessarily agree with him or support this RfA. His attitude towards this issue makes me oppose this RfA and I suggest those who have already voted should reconsider their position in response to his recent comments. Adambro 16:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose - David does not seem like the kind of person who wants Admin privileges, let alone be trusted with them. While I appreciate the work he has put into the site, I do not believe admin privileges are fitting at this time. --Skenmy(t•c•w•i) 18:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support I've been reading your interviews! Great work! I'm even jealous :) - Jurock (reply) 18:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose The New Zealand incident from the main page is a bit fresh in my mind, and at this point adding a temperamental administrator is something I don't think Wikinews needs. TheCustomOfLife 18:51, 3 November 2007 (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 talk page of the Admin's page or the talk page of the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.


November 2007

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

JoshuaZ

edit

I would like to nominate JoshuaZ for adminship. He has a decent list of well-written articles, has been actively editing here for more than a year and has a solid grasp on the policies and workings of Wikinews. I was impressed with his edits and comments on this article. He offered patient and level-headed suggestions in what was a fairly contentious debate. In addition, there are times when he could have helped out with vandalism, if he had "the buttons". Jcart1534 23:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

edit
Yes. JoshuaZ 13:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you plan to do as an admin?
Four activities: 1) Dealing with vandals. It has been somewhat frustrating when we have a page-move or other vandal running around and I'm stuck reverting his changes but can stop the vandal itself. 2) Speedy deletions (I've lost track of how many times I've had to nominate something for speedy rather than do it myself) 3) Correct categories, MOS and spelling/grammar for archived articles. I've had to make a lot of {{editprotected}} requests and this should be simplify that. 4) Possibly helping out archiving. JoshuaZ 13:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What would be your biggest strength and your biggest weakness as an admin?
I'm not sure. People on Wikipedia who think I'm a good admin there say that I keep a cool head during drama and don't get angry when insulted. Thankfully, Wikinews is a much nicer place all around and so those qualities won't matter as much. So I guess the next biggest strength is that I'm often online so will be paying attention to help out with needed admin tasks. Biggest weakness is easy- I've spent much more time on Wikipedia than I have on Wikinews, and we do many things very differently here. I suspect that every now and again I'll end up running into an issue where I might take a more Wikipedian rather than a more Wikinewsian approach. I hope that if that occurs, people will kindly revert whatever I did and let me know what I did incorrectly. JoshuaZ 13:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 12:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

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

PVJ59

edit

I believe it is time to test the Wikinews:Inactive Policy and de-admin this user. His departure from the project was in the midst of a de-admin vote due to conflict and wheel-warring. The user discarded respect for other's opinions and battled on-wiki. I believe on more than one occasion he unblocked himself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brian McNeil (talk • contribs) 11:35, 13 November 2007‎

Comments

edit
I believe it is appropriate to test the policy with a case such as this. I believe we need to prove we have a mechanism in place to remove privileges. I appreciate WN:IP is proposed policy, my point here is to test it in a case where the user also had other issues with co-contributors. Yes, the user needs informed and I would appreciate if someone else would undertake that duty. I had my run ins with him and don't want to open old conflicts. I do, on the other hand, want to see WN:IP or something similar become official policy. My belief is that we learn more by doing so applying it here will allow us to see if what has been proposed will work. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've contacted PVJ59 via Wikinews user page email and on his talk page. I found no account with an identical name on Wikipedia or Meta, and nothing turned up on Google. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We do have a mechanism for removing privileges, it is this de-admin procedure which is usually undertaken for abuse of said privileges. If this de-admin passes as a test of WN:IP then it provides a precedent and suggests that all the other inactive admins should be automatically de-admin'ed as well. It would be bad form to selectively de-admin people for inactivity if that's not the real reason that we are doing it. Do you also want to de-admin User:CGorman or User:NGerda? PVJ has more recent edits than they do, why not "test" WN:IP on them first? I think you are stacking the deck by picking someone you know is unpopular. --SVTCobra 22:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this doesn't seem a fair test. PVJ59 left on a bad note, and the inactive policy is proposed to de-admin the people who everyone liked (Like NGerda) but is not here. Note: My opinion on this on a plain and simple de-adminship request would be that he lost his last de-adminship request, taking an extended wikibreak doesn't change that and he should not have his +sysop flag at this point in time. Bawolff ☺☻ 00:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

edit
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.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
  • Request closed early by Adambro in the interests of all parties as this request is bound to fail. I would encourage Prasuk to take time to look through the archives of past requests to understand what is expected for a successful RfA. Adambro 22:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prasuk

edit

I'm able user in projects Wikimedia Fundation - polish Wikinews(nickname:Prasuk historyk), Commons(nickname:Tramman) and english wikipedia. I wants to become administrator en wikinews, because IMO I must to have sysop administrators, to fight vandalism.Prasuk 21:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

edit
  •   Oppose - Need to build trust up on this wiki IMO - only 20 edits and only 2 of these are in the namespace - also you can fight vandalism without the sysop rights --MarkTalk to me 22:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose This user vandalised my userpage twice with this IP. You can fight vandalism without the admin tools. I think this user was trying to make an excuse to get adminship on Wikinews. For that, I cannot trust this user. And this user is waaay too new. —FellowWiki Newsie 16:37, 21 November 2007 (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 talk page of the Admin's page or the talk page of the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.


December 2007

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

Blood Red Sandman

edit

I've often seen it said around here that we do not have enough admins here on Wikinews; particularly for tasks like archiving. As I have been around here for a while, and feel I have picked up all the policies etc here, I would like to offer my services with a mop. Please see my successful RfA on Wikipedia, in October, for evidence that I am trusted with the tools. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 22:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

edit
  • Will you put yourself into Category:Admins open to recall?
  • What is your greatest strength and your greatest weakness as an admin?
  • Is it difficult for you to divide your time between Wikipedia and Wikinews? What are your thoughts on how the two projects should relate?
  • Is there anything you would change about the Wikinews policies?

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 09:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responses
edit
 
The answer of life, the universe and everything - but what is the question?
  • Yes, I will add myself to Category:Admins open to recall. It is important not just to gain the community's support, but to ensure one maintains it.
  • My greatest strength: Probably high tolerance both to boring, menial, repetitive tasks and to vandalism that would deeply offend others. My greatest weakness: Poor ablity to spot my own mistakes; normally just typos, etc, but I would benefit from more rechecks of things before commiting them to apear for eternity.
    • Your greatest flaw is typos? You are pretty fantastic then! But I was trying to find out more about your personality and such... --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, no, my greatest flaw usualy only manifests itself in the form of a large number of typos compared to others. But it's worth considering that I am known to misread things etc before giving me the ability tocause a whole lot of damage. One Wikipedia admin recently misread something another had posted, and mistakenly arranged for the latter to be desysoped. Ouch. Personality-wise, although as yet I think I've kept a level head on-wiki, I do tend to have an ability to quite fiercely defend my point of view in the real world, which, whilst ok in itself, does not bode well for a position in which I need to listen to criticisms carefuly before rejecting it. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, dividing my time is more awkward than I thought it would be. In all honesty, I probably should try and spend a bit more time over there, as I ave projects in mind to complete there, too. As to interproject relations, that's quite topical right now. I do think greater co-operatio would be good, to ensure info on both agrees where it is repeated, and that all relevant info from each project finds it's way accross to the other.
    • Do you understand how the GFDL versus the Creative Commons license hinders cross-project cooperation with Wikipedia? What would you do if an admin from Wikipedia came here and copied a news-style article that was erroneously posted on Wikipedia? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think there's anything majorly wrong with the policies here. As with aything else on a wiki, they just require twiddled and amended as time goes on, and that's how it should be. They do their job just fine as is. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 13:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

edit

Comments

edit
  • Could you enable email on your account so users can contact you off wiki. Also, could you consider creating a userpage to tell other users a little bit about yourself or detail other WMF projects where you are active. Adambro 22:26, 26 December 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.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a discussion respecting what to do with inactive administrators. Please do not modify it.

Long term inactive administrators

edit

All of the administrators listed below have been inactive for a significant period of time and it is on this basis I propose the rights are removed. Whilst noting all these users have this in commons, there may be other things to take into consideration for each user so I've kept them separate rather than grouping them. Adambro 21:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has an attempt been made to contact these users? --SVTCobra 00:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
None whatsoever. For what reasons would you consider it worth attempting to contact them? Of the users listed below we have The bellman who has been inactive for 423 days all the way up to User:DouglasGreen who has been inactive for 884 days. I consider it unlikely that they are going to suddenly reappear and if they did, would it really be appropriate to step back into an admin role, would their knowledge of the current Wikinews situation really permit them to preform this role effectively? Whether it's just over a year or nearly two and a half, they clearly aren't on a short wikibreak. If they do return, and I certainly don't think reminding them they have admin rights is the right way to get them back, they should return under their own steam, the community can consider whether to reinstate the rights. Until then, we should remove the rights so as to try to get the number of users with admin rights down to a number that actually reflects the number of users who might actually use the rights. Adambro 12:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that you are essentially running a test of proposed policy, WN:IP, which requires that they be contacted. Also, these users were not around when this policy was proposed, so they cannot reasonably be assumed to realize that their inactivity would result in loss of privileges. --SVTCobra 14:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a test run of WN:IP and I'd ask that this isn't consider so, rather it is an attempt to begin to solve this issue in the most straightforward way possible which I consider this request to be. It would be ludicrous for any of these users to return after more than a year away expecting the status quo to have been maintained in that time. I don't consider it appropriate or necessary in this case to contact these users due to the length of time they've been absent as I've outlined above. Admin rights are granted not as some reward for hard work but as a tool that should be utilised. I don't see what contacting them would gain and would invite any suggestions as to why this should be done. Adambro 14:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, an attempt should be made to contact them. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Come on Jason, I've outlined a number of reasons why contacting might be pointless and/or unwise so don't just come along and say that they should be contacted. As I said in my comment above, I'd welcome any suggestions as to why contacting them would be useful despite the issues I've noted. Adambro 19:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look we have policies and procedures. And we follow them. And IMO, until ALL admins have been contacted or an attempt to truly contact them has been made, then no voting should even commence. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We do indeed have policies and procedures, although they say little about this situation, hence the proposed policy related to this. You are welcome to your opinion DF but this request is perfectly valid without contacting these users and the community are free to have their say and vote. Again, since no suggestions as to why we should contact these admins has been put forward I still don't consider it necessary or appropriate. Adambro 20:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but several of your colleagues have vastly different opinions, so you're welcome to dig your head out of the sand and come up with some sort of effort to address this issue. Surely you have heard of E-mail? Pilotguy roger that 21:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I welcome any comments and suggestions about how to proceed with this issue but whilst I note the two users suggesting I should contact these admins, I've not seen any justification for doing so to address the concerns I've already outlined. It is on this basis that I maintain my position. Adambro 21:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this diff, I am not going to feel forced into contacting these admins simply because my request is not receiving support. If anyone would put forward some reasons why these admins should be contacted then my thinking might be influenced. It is ridiculous that some members of the community consider it more important to remind these users who haven't participated for over a year that they have admin rights rather than putting the WN project, and its current contributors first. If this request fails because I don't contact them then so be it, I've made clear my concerns and no one has provided reasons for ignoring them. There needs to be some reviewing of priorities going on here. Adambro 23:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have always been under the impression we contact them. It is very simple: Leave a message on their talk page and e-mail them through Wikinews. I refuse to and will not vote on any de-admin unless an effort to contact them has been made. Since I have been around that's how we do it and I see no reason why it needs to change now. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to choose not to vote if you wish but I'm not going to go against my thinking on this issue simply because "that's how we do it". For a start, my understanding is that "we" haven't done anything about this issue in the past so I'm not sure how we can really have established a procedure. Policies or guidelines, conventions or traditions, they are all open to question and not set in stone. As I've stated, I have a number of concerns about contacting these inactive users and until some justification for contacting them is put forward my position will remain unchanged. I keep asking for this but no suggestions are forthcoming and still the "we must contact them" persists. If we were to contact these users, what would we say? Are we going to wait for some kind of reply? Adambro 19:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Life can be so simple sometimes... I just took 3 minutes to email User:The bellman and User:Karen through wiki-mail, the others don't have it activated and their pages don't list email addresses, plus they're not on WN:CV (were a lot of emails can be found). So, reasonable attempt made, no give them some reasonable time to respond. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can give you one good reason: These people are who took WN off the ground and made it what it is today. Without them there would not have been a Wikinews. And to simply take away their admin-ship because they may have personal issues or busy with other things is ridiculous. I am not concerned with a reply. I am more concerned with letting them know whats going on. They have that right, and so far as I know no one is required to sit in front of their computer and monitor every detail happening on WN and contributing to it. If it were difficult to contact them, I would agree with you. But in this case its very very easy. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Steven's message: I'm very disappointed that you'd choose to go behind my back as it were and choose to contact them despite the concerns I've outlined. The decision was not based on whether or not it would be possible to email them, I'm perfectly familiar with how to email a user. So now what do we do Steve? Are we supposed to sit around waiting for some kind of reply? Adambro 19:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes...a reasonable time frame. We don't have to wait weeks if that's what you are implying. But it was rather simple to contact them and if you were refusing to contact them, then I see no reason why someone else should not make that attempt. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 20:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've never suggested that there was any real problem with trying to contact these users, rather that it would be unwise to do so or not necessary worth doing. It should be plainly obvious that ignoring the concerns I've outlined is somewhat impolite. I've still yet to hear any reasons for contacting them despite this having taken place. Still, we can't change the past so perhaps Steve could at least provide us with a copy of the message he has sent so we can begin to consider what sort of response we might expect. There is plenty of time for them to respond now as the request won't be closed for a good while I'd think. In the meantime, I see nothing which prevents anyone from voting or otherwise commenting on these users and I don't see what response from these users would impact on the process. Unless of course they state on wiki that they wish for their rights to be removed which would speedy things up. Adambro 20:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going behind your back, I'm doing what is commonly done, i.e. informing users they're being voted on. I'd say wait at least a week. I simply sent them a short message inviting them to come here and comment if they want. I think that if they would, it could change some votes (mine at least). I didn't mean to insult you and if I have, I apologise, but it was not my intention. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm putting a message on the talk page of any admin listed below who hasn't been contacted. They might still watch us, just not contribute. Anyways, the way I see it is that this is a public process, and the people being voted on should know about it. I don't expect that they're are going to come back, all I expect them to do is maybe leave a note on top of there request at most. The way I see it is it is common courtesy to tell them what is happening. I wouldn't want this to happen to me without even an attempt at telling me. Bawolff ☺☻ 09:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have emailed ronline and Cgorman, as well left messages on their 'pedia talk page where they have edited recently. That just leaves DouglasGreen unknowing of this. Bawolff ☺☻ 11:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Bawolff for the email. You can remove my adminship status, no vote needed. I enjoyed writing here in the early days, and may some time return; however, for the moment, life is too busy for me to commit to this project. Good luck all. → CGorman (Talk) 12:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above response is exactly why these people should be contacted. Where the response is "I don't have time but might come back" phrased such as this we've been fair and civil. If there is no response then that may prejudice people if they come back at some point looking to have the same privileges.
I object to the entrenched positions that a couple of contributors have taken on this issue. Neither of those advocating either extreme have backed up their assertions with valid reasons. On one side we have "OMG! They were here in the beginning, we must apply a procedure I imagine we have" versus "OMG! You invited them back? What if they take you up on the offer and we can't de-admin?" --Brian McNeil / talk 12:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CGorman no longer has admin rights following his comment that he is happy for it to be removed. Adambro 13:03, 2 January 2008 (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.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for de-adminship which failed as consensus was keep as admin.. Please do not modify it.

User:The bellman

edit

No longer active. Last edit was 1 November 2006, last admin action was on 5 May 2005. Adambro 20:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
edit
  • I still do read the front page from time to time, but I haven't edited for a long time. I do however keep thinking to myself that I should get around to doing some editing again. If the community feels I should be de-admined, then I have no problem with that. ~The bellman | Smile 00:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I note a number of users have changed their minds and now oppose this deadminship request in response to the comment above from the user in question, justifying this decision on the basis that the user is active. I'd very much disagree, the proof of the pudding is in the eating as they say and this doesn't really suggest to me that this user is active. Adambro 18:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I really don't want to be the cause of any tension in the community. I'm not really an active editor as my edit history shows, however I do still keep an eye on what is going on. I am one of the few people who takes an interest in wikinews who remembers the start of wikinews, (or even what Brian recently referred to on the email list as the first generation, which was really actually the second generation). One of the reasons that I stick around (even if it is passively) is because I think not losing that institutional knowledge is important. Now i do not need admin powers to do that, however as i have already said, I do keep thinking I should get involved again (and in fact this whole little episode might just be the spark that I need), and it is up to you guys to decide if I should be treated as a new user again or as an admin. Either way, I don't really mind. ~The bellman | Smile 02:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Votes
edit
  •   Oppose Comment: This de-admin request wasn't a community effort. I wanted no part in it. I am glad to see you responded. As I see it, if you were welcome that long ago, you are still welcome to edit and be a part of the community. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 00:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course The bellman is welcome to return and edit and be part of the community but at the current time neither is the case. Not sure why DragonFire1024 feels the need to try to distance himself from this request, since when were adminship requests "a community effort", the whole idea is that this is raised by a user for the community to discuss and consider. We don't have discussions about whether we're going to have discussions. Suggesting users who haven't edited in years have admin rights removed is hardly the crime of the century, regardless of whether these people are contacted, although I appreciate that this could be seen as courteous. However, it is important to realise that we give users the rights to serve the community not as some kind of reward so I don't consider is necessary to inform users that haven't been around for ages that they might be de-admined, I would suggest that these should realise that if they do ever return that things will have changed. Adambro 07:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose Though my standard rationale has been "if you're not around to use the tools, you don't need them anymore", The bellman is obviously still somewhat active (as evidenced by the fact that he posted here... kind of definitive...). Though I'd prefer some more activity, any activity is more ideal than none, and his willingness to step down if the community doesn't want him as an admin just makes me want him as an admin. :) EVula // talk // 21:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Neutral Since being contacted, expressed interested in helping out. Haven't seen any edits yet though. --Jcart1534 20:29, 9 January 2008 (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 talk page of the Admin's page or the talk page of the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for de-adminship which concluded with the removal of admin rights.. Please do not modify it.

User:DouglasGreen

edit

No longer active. Last edit was 28 July 2005, last admin action was never according the log. Adambro 20:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
edit
Votes
edit
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 talk page of the Admin's page or the talk page of the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for de-adminship. Rights removed following comment from user.. Please do not modify it.

User:CGorman

edit

No longer active. Last edit was 8 August 2006, last admin action was on 27 August 2005. Adambro 20:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
edit
Votes
edit
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 talk page of the Admin's page or the talk page of the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for de-adminship which concluded with the removal of admin rights.. Please do not modify it.

User:Ronline

edit

No longer active. Last edit was 30 July 2006, last admin action was on 11 May 2005. Adambro 20:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
edit
Votes
edit
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 talk page of the Admin's page or the talk page of the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for de-adminship which concluded with the removal of admin rights.. Please do not modify it.

User:Karen

edit

No longer active. Last edit was 11 July 2006, last admin action was on 10 July 2006. Adambro 20:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
edit

I was without access for awhile, excepting public terminals. When my personal access was restored, I did fail to return to making edits. However I am currently involved in a publishing project that will be released in the next few months that may even be news-worthy. At the time I joined as an admin, it was because there were too few active admins, but I believe that situation has since changed for the better. I recommend trying to retain inactive admins by notifying them. Karen 21:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you plan to return to editing? --Skenmy(t•c•w) 21:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Votes
edit
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 talk page of the Admin's page or the talk page of the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews:Requests_for_permissions/Archive_4&oldid=4559493"