Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Archive 7

	2004 \| 2005
	2006 \| 2007
	2008 \| 2009
	2010 \| 2011
	2012-20
	2021

January 2010 edit

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

More then a week has gone by and guess what? We still love you Tempo! --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 08:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tempodivalse (talk · contribs) edit

I'm concerned that I'm not fully supported or trusted by the community any more. I've made a lot of unpopular decisions/suggestions recently (like the image warning thingy), and feel that I've done a lot of dumb things too. (For example: publishing an article with POV issues - or when I've been too involved, failing a story on POV when many other people disagreed with me.) I'd just like to see whether the community at large thinks I can still be trusted with the elevated privileges. Tempodivalse [talk] 00:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions and comments edit

Question What is your view of the distinction between support by the community and trust by the community? --Pi zero (talk) 16:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see the two as being very similar. In my mind, "trust" is the feeling of the community that you will not abuse the advanced privs. "Support" is sort of the same thing, but it refers more to whether the community wants you to retain the extra rights. (does that makes sense?) Tempodivalse [talk] 16:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me. --Pi zero (talk) 17:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for the support, guys. Kinda makes me feel like a fool for putting reconfirms up so frequently (last one was seven months ago). :-p I've had people tell me in RL that I lack enough self-confidence, so that's probably part of my problem here. Nonetheless, I'd prefer this goes the full seven days, constructive feedback is appreciated and I'd like to find areas where I can improve. Cheers, Tempodivalse [talk] 17:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We can all do really - and I mean really - stupid things. The best thing you can do is just get on with things and realise that we trust you to always do what you think is the right thing. If it isn't, the worse that will happen is someone will say so and we all move along. The community is small and tight; it isn't like a bigger wiki where everyone is a stranger. We - I'm sure I speak for everyone - like you and trust you. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the encouraging comment, Sandman. I agree, we're all human and eventally make mistakes, so best to move on - but I was concerned that I'm more prone to errors than average. Still, nothing on a wiki is irreversible, so I probably shouldn't be too worried :-) Tempodivalse [talk] 02:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Votes edit

Support There's a difference between screwing up - as we all do - and losing the support of the community. The image thing, as I commented, was a discussion we needed to have. As for the others - well, it's not that long since I was stopped on IRC before reviewing something I'd worked on too much. Don't be so hard on yourself. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 01:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Relax...you'll always make mistakes. Stop doubting yourself. Benny the mascot (talk) 04:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hmm, I miss all the good drama :P. Bawolff ☺☻ 05:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If we no longer trust you we'll let you know. Just keep doing your thing and stop doubting yourself, as overall your work has been excellent. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pi zero (talk) 17:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - you have nothing to worry about. Everyone screws up occasionally, and everyone makes the odd unpopular decision, but that doesn't stop people from trusting them. I trust your judgement, and you losing your rights would be a major loss to the project as a whole. Dendodge _T\^C 17:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support There's a learning curve. Wikinews is part of the Fourth Estate. You need to look critically at the forms of censorship other press apply to appease some vocal minority, and their story selection to rabble-rouse. And, be critical of sources based on who their financial backers are. I'd make a distinction between the press as the Fourth Estate and the "mob"; good press inform the mob and give them an opportunity to examine the facts before being conned into voting for a fast-talking salesman. You didn't mention VoA explicitly, but I've said this before; they're a propaganda division of the United States government – technically only for distribution outside the United States. What they call a terrorist attack, or who they say is a terrorist, is official policy being expressed. Many public-service broadcasters and news services in other countries (like the BBC) are much less dependent on government whim. So, the Rupert Murdochs of this world lobby the government to cut their funding; not just to get more paying viewers, but to promote their own political agenda and get people to vote against their own interests. Glenn Beck is living proof of that and you should go out of your way to watch OutFoxed - Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 17:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wikinews would fall apart without you as a sysop Cocoaguy ^talk_contribs‽ 18:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support because I don't see anything worth losing the bits over and where there have been minor hiccups you have taken criticism onboard. Heck we all screw up a bit occasionally. --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 19:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Amgine | ^t 22:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support because any of the people who have signed above can tell you that I've made plenty of mistakes. ;-D --Thunderhead 11:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. the wub "?!" 21:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Everyone above has pretty much summed up my thoughts but you have both my trust and support. Everyone makes mistakes and quite frankly, I don't think some of yours are even mistakes. Keep up the excellent work Tempo! (And you gave me my first(and only so far) barnstar which deserves a strong support really)! Tris 23:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hey, I have low self-confidence sometimes myself, but I don't let it get me down. --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 04:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pmlineditor ∞ 15:29, 8 January 2010 (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.

Mister man edit

I requested oversightship; I sysop on two projects. And I speake this job. Vote, please. --Mr. man^Talk 18:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Votes edit

Oppose, only a dozen edits to this project, can't tell if this would make a good oversighter due to lack of contributions to the project. Recommend speedy close. Tempodivalse [talk] 18:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose in the strongest possible terms. You have made a bare handful of edits, and yet you honestly expect to walk in here and be granted access to the single tool on the project that requires the most trust of any? Have you considered psychiatry? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed - Damn tempo and his EC's! Anyways, closed as this user has zero main page edits, not even an op and seems to lack a solid grasp of the english language. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 18:29, 23 January 2010 (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.

March 2010 edit

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

Unfortunately it is fairly clear that this will not pass. Votes were 5 oppose/1 neutral, and that would require more than 15 supports votes. While I don't think anyone wants to spite Rockerball's attempts, he has been Editor'd and de-editor'd twice, the last of which was January 22. Try not to be discouraged though, it is obvious the community still has hope for you yet. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 20:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

RockerballAustralia (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log) edit

This requeswt is basically the same reaseons as my previous request (and my past editor requests). House keeping and similar --RockerballAustralia (talk) 05:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and Questions edit

Comment You don't even have editor status now after being de-editored by the community about a month ago. All but one of our admins have Editor status; perhaps it would be wiser to try and regain that tool first, before proceeding to this? Tempodivalse [talk] 15:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can I amend this request to include Editor privs?--RockerballAustralia (talk) 22:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I suppose, although that would be rather unconventional... Might be easier and better just to do them separately though, to avoid confusion. Tempodivalse [talk] 23:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Votes edit

Oppose, concerns about the user being de-editored by the community recently. This does not seem like the right time to be going for adminship consideration. Cirt (talk) 16:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --SVTCobra 23:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I have nothing against Rockerball, but still am a bit uncomfortable about this request. I'd rather that he tried requesting Editor status first, and try to regain some trust of the community, and not jump directly to an admin. If this were an editor nom, I'd gladly support, but admins need to have full support of the community to avoid conflicts, IMO, and I'm not sure I see that here. Tempodivalse [talk] 23:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Sorry, but I must agree with Tempo here. --Mike moral ♪♫ 23:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with TDV. Pmlineditor ∞ 13:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, but i think it'd be best if you worked back up the ladder step by step. I'll support you if you start a request for editor. Bawolff ☺☻ 19:58, 3 March 2010 (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.

Closed as successful after one week per unanimous support. Tempodivalse [talk] 02:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cocoaguy (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log) edit

I've been an active user and editor on Wikinews for about three months now. I have extensive article writing experience with 40 under my belt so far. Cocoaguy^talk_contribs‽ 01:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions and comments edit

Votes edit

Support Trusted user, see no reason that he'd misuse the tools. Great article work as well. Tempodivalse [talk] 01:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 06:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- No worries, Cirt (talk) 16:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SVTCobra 23:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mike moral ♪♫ 23:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Why not? Pmlineditor ∞ 13:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- the wub "?!" 17:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PSD27 (talk) 21:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bawolff ☺☻ 22:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Benny the mascot (talk) 01:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 17:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Cspurrier (talk) 23:05, 6 March 2010 (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.

Closed as successful, user promoted by ShakataGaNai (talk · contribs). Tempodivalse [talk] 03:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The New Mikemoral (talk · contribs) edit

I'd like to nominate Mikemoral for adminship. He's been around for a long time, and been consistently active for the last few months. In my opinion, he's a responsible, trustworthy user who could do well with the extra bits. Tempodivalse [talk] 03:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions and comments edit

Question Do you accept this nomination? Tempodivalse [talk] 03:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you for the nomination. --Mike moral ♪♫ 03:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question What are your plans for world domination? --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 17:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't thought that far through yet, but when the time comes, the world will be mine. --Mike moral ♪♫ 21:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Votes edit

Support as nominator. Tempodivalse [talk] 03:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I swear i was just about to nominate him. Bawolff ☺☻ 06:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Planning to nominate as well! Tris 08:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support User is trusted enough by community, would not misuse the tools Cocoaguy^talk_contribs‽ 02:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 06:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- No worries, Cirt (talk) 16:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SVTCobra 23:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sure. Pmlineditor ∞ 13:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- the wub "?!" 17:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PSD27 (talk) 21:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Benny the mascot (talk) 01:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 17:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Cspurrier (talk) 23:05, 6 March 2010 (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 2010 edit

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

Promoted after seven days and no objections; congratulations! Tempodivalse [talk] 13:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RockerballAustralia (talk · contribs) edit

Let's see, see my last request for info on where I stand on a few things. Only diff is my agreemnt on the non-negotionable self publishing. --RockerballAustralia Rockerball is my sport, not me. 10:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

Question The answer to life, the universe and everything? --Thunderhead ^{(t - e - c)} 19:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Life is unfair, live with it; I live on a rock floating around some gas so I don't know; and I'm not s giant brain--RockerballAustralia Rockerball is my sport, not me. 00:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Votes edit

Support I think you're trustworty and will be able to help the project a lot more once you get the admin privs. Benny the mascot (talk) 11:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've seen you around a lot, and I've no reason to not trust you. :-) --Thunderhead ^{(t - e - c)} 19:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I trust you. :) --Diego Grez ^{let's talk} 14:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think you're ready, and I think (recalling Blood Red Sandman's remark last go around) you won't abuse the privileges. --Pi zero (talk) 15:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Could do a good job with it. Pmlineditor ^discuss 17:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems ok, I trust you and you seem to have developed a good knowledge of policy. Tempodivalse [talk] 17:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Go for it. --Mike moral ♪♫ 18:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sure, why not? C628 (talk) 21:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Even if you do make some mistakes (who doesn't?), you're obviously willing to improve, listen to advice, and seem to be genuinely interested in helping. No foreseeable deliberate abuse of tools. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:04, 18 April 2010 (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. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:CalendarBot (Removal) edit

It looks like this bot only used administrative privileges over a very short period of time, and only to fix a bug, unless I'm mistaken. Does it still need the sysop bit? --Thunderhead 23:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it was done on Meta. --Thunderhead ^{(t - e - c)} 00:33, 16 April 2010 (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 adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Closing as not successful. --Mike moral ♪♫ 23:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Grez (talk · contribs) edit

I'm a bit afraid of doing this. I have been for over 2 months there and have written many articles (mainly related to the Chile earthquake). I know I have not the editor privs, but I would like to help deleting spam and blocking those trolls when there's no one around or these kind of situations. If I don't get it, I'll try to improve the points you give me. Thanks in advance. :-S --Diego Grez ^{let's talk} 04:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

Question Do you plan to appeal your blocks on the other projects? That could be helpful in rectifying any past faults. Benny the mascot (talk) 19:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have appealed my blocks on the English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, and both were lifted, although I have to obbey some restrictions on the English Wiki. The Spanish Wikipedia is left :-P --Diego Grez ^{let's talk} 20:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I didn't notice that! This could be very helpful in cross-wiki coordination/editing. Benny the mascot (talk) 20:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Should I ask for editor privs first or not? Also, I'm gonna withdraw this after someone replies me. --Diego Grez ^{let's talk} 21:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Votes edit

Oppose (mildly) meh... not really active till the beginning of March, Not yet at the two months mark. Also I think the user needs more time around first. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 04:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the above reasons. I'm more worried about assimilation into the community rather than policy, though. Give it some more time and you'll have my support. --Thunderhead ^{(t - e - c)} 04:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'll have to disagree with both the above comments. The amount of work in January and February is sufficient I think --RockerballAustralia Rockerball is my sport, not me. 04:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose per Thunderhead, mainly. You're a good contributor, and I know you have a fair knowledge of policy, but I'd be comfortable with a little more time around first, say a month or two. Sorry. Tempodivalse [talk] 13:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support He has already written 25 articles. I think he knows the rules quite well. Benny the mascot (talk) 19:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain He has written a lot of articles, but I still think he needs more time then 2 months. Also he has been blocked from other projects (IE: Wikipeida) Irunongames•play 19:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a blocked account by my name currently (except es.wikipedia under the name of MisterWiki). --Diego Grez ^{let's talk} 20:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Comment I'd like to note he's been conditionally unblocked on en.wiki/ --Mike moral ♪♫ 20:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Sorry, but I'd honestly like maybe one more month of activity before I can give my full support. --Mike moral ♪♫ 20:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. --Diego Grez ^{let's talk} 20:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Sorry. I trust you, but too soon. Agree with mike. Bawolff ☺☻ 20:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Essentially per Mikemoral. C628 (talk) 21:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Your inflammatory comment crossed a line in my book. --William Saturn (talk) 22:41, 18 April 2010 (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.

User promoted per unanimous support, congratulations. Tempodivalse [talk] 21:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pmlineditor (talk · contribs) edit

Hi, I am Pmlineditor. I have been contributing to Wikinews for some time now and have written over 40 articles. I have participated in some community discussions such as DRs, FACs etc. I understand my edit count is quite low, but I could help in archiving and deleting/blocking spammers if the community has the necessary trust in me. FWIW, I am an admin in some other WMF wikis. If the community does not have enough trust in me, I will continue with my article work anyways. Thank you for your consideration. Pmlineditor ^discuss 17:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)Also, sorry for the short nom statement.[reply]

Comments edit

Votes edit

Support You've been an excellent contributor. Benny the mascot (talk) 17:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Trusted user. I actually was considering nominating you for adminship, but forgot. Tempodivalse [talk] 17:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mike moral ♪♫ 18:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great contributer, always making the RSS for reviews break Irunongames•play 18:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support without hesitation --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 18:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Certainly. C628 (talk) 21:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Does some good work. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support of course. --Thunderhead ^{(t - e - c)} 18:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cocoaguy^talk_contribs‽ 23:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support the wub "?!" 00:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support PSD27 (talk) 22:59, 23 April 2010 (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.

Closed as promoted, per unanimous support, congratulations. Tempodivalse [talk] 01:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Benny the mascot (talk · contribs) edit

Hello. I've been here since November, and I think my contributions to my 25 articles (mostly dealing with my home state of Illinois) make me a trustworthy editor here at Wikinews. If the community agrees that I deserve adminship, then I plan to focus on maintaining categories and dealing with the occasional vandal. Thanks in advance for your commentary. Benny the mascot (talk) 00:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

Comment While my very narrow focus on Illinois news may seem a bit selfish at times, I've always thought that a steady flow of closely-related articles is better than a slowly-growing, broad range of articles. Let's say, for example, that from now on I decided to cover news over a rotation of all 50 US states. For many states, that basically means one article for every 50 days, and readers wouldn't be impressed by Wikinews's inactivity, would they? But if I at least dedicate all of my efforts to Illinois news, as I have done, then at least Illinois readers might be more inclined to come back in the future. Therefore, I feel that my coverage of Illinois news isn't necessarily hurting the project. Feel free to comment. Benny the mascot (talk) 01:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)\[reply]

We've already been over that; nothing really came of it, but I'm not particularly excited about the prospect of doing it all over again. Anyway, I don't think it's particularly relevant here; what you write about shouldn't affect your actions as an admin. Cheers, C628 (talk) 01:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with C628, the scope of your articles shouldn't effect the vote here. There are varying opinions on if local news should be on the main page, but i don't think anyone feels it is hurting the project. Anyways, not really relevant. Bawolff ☺☻ 01:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can look at it several ways, I suppose. That's one view on it. My personal opinion is that, because our userbase is quite lacking, we should focus on only the most important topics both at the country and global level. That way, we'll have coverage that is relevant to more people overall, and will garner us more casual readers and perhaps contributors. To try and draw a parallel: if I were a random reader browsing through Google News' listings, and saw a story about a relatively small city on the other side of the world I'd never heard about, I wouldn't likely be inclined to click and read it. On the other hand, if the story was of national or international-importance, chances are it might affect/be relevant to me, so I'd want to read on and see what it's about.

Let's face it: if we take mostly micro-local stuff from a few small areas, that's basically an exercise in randomness. We'd be writing things that almost nobody would care about. Of course, if we were like Wikipedia, and had hoards of editors from all over the world, local news would make much more sense, because we could cover it *comprehensively*, and not just with a (somewhat undue) focus on two or three small, specific areas. Anyways, just my two pence. Cheers. Tempodivalse [talk] 01:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Votes edit

Support Bawolff ☺☻ 00:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Of course, yeah! --Diego Grez ^{let's talk} 00:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Trusted. I was intending to nom you earlier, but kinda forgot ... I'd personally wish you had a broader scope of articles that you covered, but that doesn't reflect on your ability to be a good admin. Tempodivalse [talk] 01:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm in agreement with Tempo; articles on more topics would be good, but I can't see how that would affect your actions as an admin. C628 (talk) 01:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent work as an article writer and reviewer. Pmlineditor ^discuss 07:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I could have sworn you already have the sysop rights. --Mike moral ♪♫ 19:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yeah, I could have, too. (per Mikemoral) --Thunderhead ^{(t - e - c)} 18:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cocoaguy^talk_contribs‽ 23:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support the wub "?!" 00:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I 100% agree with what Tempo & C628 said. PSD27 (talk) 22:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SupportHell yaIrunongames•play 00:57, 25 April 2010 (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.

William Saturn (talk · contribs) edit

I've been editing WikiNews since May 2008, and have written numerous articles. I have also conducted three high profile interviews, which I believe proves my "trustworthiness." I'd like to do some work with categorization, specifically for election articles. Thank you for your time. --William Saturn (talk) 03:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

Votes edit

Oppose 1) I do not trust you. 2) I never see you around. Otherwise I would have supported you. --Diego Grez ^{let's talk} 03:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
neutral leaning towards weak oppose Well I do trust you (or at the very least do not think your evil), and you have been around for a while, I don't feel that you're active enough. For example, you've only made 42 edits (I swear I'm not making that number up, thats actually what i counted) this year. Bawolff ☺☻ 03:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Basically what bawolff said. --Mike moral ♪♫ 03:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. Your article work is much appreciated, don't get me wrong (and I really liked your interview with the US prez candidate), but I have several concerns about this: firstly, as Diego and Bawolff mention above, I've seen you participate only very intermittently. You only have 154 edits to the project and, while I'm aware that edit count isn't always a good indicator of experience, in this case it is simply too low for me to form an accurate judgment of your knowledge of policy or ability to positively interact with other users. We generally don't have high standards for adminship, though - if you can continuously participate with the project for several weeks to two months (and by that i mean making at least a few edits a week, and participating in community discussion and/or content work), I would gladly reconsider. In any case, please don't get discouraged if this RFA turns out poorly - it is not a reflection on your value as an editor, it's just too soon. Cheers, Tempodivalse [talk] 03:49, 18 April 2010 (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.

Closed as successful with unanimous support, congratulations. --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 12:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why Alexandr closed this as he's not a 'crat and can't actually promote C628 ... but whatever; request is obviously successful so I'll bring out the sysop bits in a moment - don't think any potential COI is a problem here. Congrats. Tempodivalse [talk] 14:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

C628 (talk · contribs) edit

Hi, I'd like to nominate C628 for adminship here. He's been active for a little over two months now, has demonstrated his trustworthiness by being a prolific reviewer, and has written plenty of newsworthy articles. I think he'll do well with the sysop bits. Tempodivalse [talk] 14:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honored by Tempo's trust in me, and humbly accept his nomination. Thank you, C628 (talk) 19:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and questions edit

Question Do you accept this nomination? Tempodivalse [talk] 14:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted - see above. --Thunderhead ^{(t - e - c)} 17:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Historic Question What's the meaning of life, the universe, and everything? --Thunderhead ^{(t - e - c)} 17:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

42, of course. Cheers, C628 (talk) 18:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Votes edit

Support as nominator. Tempodivalse [talk] 14:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tempo beat me to the nom. --Mike moral ♪♫ 14:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bawolff ☺☻ 19:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Of course. Pmlineditor ^discuss 17:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
kill it with fire --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 18:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Boing" said Zebedee --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 20:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. --Thunderhead ^{(t - e - c)} 20:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support With all the articles you have made I assumed you were a admin so you deserve this! Irunongames•play 21:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hell Yeah! PSD27 (talk) 22:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure - Active consistently and no major issues. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support why not. --Diego Grez ^{let's talk} 02:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- the wub "?!" 19:23, 3 May 2010 (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.

May 2010 edit

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

Diego Grez (talk · contribs) edit

Hello. This is my second time on this side of the wiki, and I would like to throw myself to the lions --AlexandrDmitri because:

I feel capable to handle blocks on vandals after some time.
Delete spam (common thing on Wikinews).

And the most important reason, I'm running a customized version of a bot, named Pitsilemu (maybe you all know but it is extremely derivative from another bot). The main reason I need adminship, will benefit others as well. The bot handles blocks and deletions, in admin mode. I would set permissions to trusted users to delete pages by themselves. The bot is currently running on #pitsilemu@irc.freenode.net and you can test deletions on flaggedrevs_labswikimediawiki. I feel I have had enough time here and have written many articles too. I have done a good job with reviews too. In addition that I keep patrolling the recent changes on IRC (irc://irc.wikimedia.org/#en.wikinews, for instance). Thanks in advance. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 22:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

Your bot should not run under your own account. If you want to use the bot in admin mode (which sounds slightly scary...), you should make a separate request for the bot. Bawolff ☺☻
Lolno. It is a manual bot (it just goes to the special page and handles the block/deletion). It recognizes you by your cloak "wikimedia/Bawolff", "wikinews/Tempodivalse", etc. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 22:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but it edit/blocks/etc, it should do so from its own account. Bawolff ☺☻ 22:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  You know, you have tested it, it is completely safe and it is half a bot ;) --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 23:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IRC logging is forbidden. =P --Thunderhead ^{(t - e - c)} 01:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* Topic for #pitsilemu is: This is the channel of the greatest bot of Freenode... Pitsilemu! | SourceForge project: http://bit .ly/bZ6t30 | Homepage: http://pitsilemu.sourceforge.net | Public logging allowed | Check out #wikinews too. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 01:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People that gets in my channel should read the topic ;) --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 01:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, per suggestions by people that I really trust, I've decided to not run the bot, anyway :) --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 22:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Votes edit

Neutral I only got back to Wikinews from a break less than 24 hours ago and you've only been truly active since the 4th March. It's a neutral from me but keep up the good work! --James Pain (talk) 23:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose for now. I much appreciate the work you've been doing here - it has helped the project immensely - but, to be honest, I don't feel I can have sufficient trust in your overall judgment or knowledge of what to do in certain situations. For instance: retiring and unretiring in the period of half an hour is a bit disconcerting (even if it was made on a sudden impulse of anger), and not the sort of thing I'd like to see in an admin. Also, publishing an article, then changing your mind ten minutes later to unpublish it is of some concern to me as well. One other note, having a bot handle deletions thru IRC isn't really a good idea (what's wrong with going on-wiki and doing the admin action yourself?), especially when it's not running on its own separate bot account. No hard feelings, and nothing personal, i'm just not totally comfortable with this at present. Tempodivalse [talk] 23:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. For sure that won't happen anymore ;) But OK again. It's your opinion, and I appreciate it. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 23:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed this to "weak oppose" per Diego's use of rollback to undo non-vandalism edits, for instance: [1] [2]. TBH, I just don't think this user knows what the appropriate course of action is for certain situations. Tempodivalse [talk] 23:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support It should be noted by the closer that I have a pre-existing friendship with Diego from WP and that I'm far from a veteran editor here, but I just wanted to get my 2 pence worth in. I think he can handle it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not under any circumstance. A) The bot should not be attached to your personal account. B) IRC != Wiki and as such bots on IRC should not be able to manipulate the wiki in such a way C) An IRC bot is wayyyyyyyy too easy to abuse/break D) You're not even writing the bot code, you're running vanilla what other people are writing. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 22:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm not running the bot then. :) It was just a suggestion (for me being too lazy :P). --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 22:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on the RFA itself, but we run this bot on Simple English Wikipedia (a version of the bot, not Diego's bot). It works fine without problems. We allow it to be used as long as the admin in question takes full responsibility for actions taken by the bot. Griffinofwales (talk) 21:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose regrettably. This user is enthusiastic, and generally seems to want to work for the projects' good, but xe needs to take the spurs off and hide the cowboy boots. We've been through bot madness, and so on. We've had people in early teens take adminship, and do not too bad. Bed in with the project a good deal more before requesting this privilege, please. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 00:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per Brian's comment, and the people that has voted, and by myself. I have been thinking about this, and yes, I have to stay a little longer to ask for this mad right. Thank you all and this will help me become a better editor. At its due time, I'll certainly get this, but I think, and I agree with the people above, that this is not the time. :) --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 00:56, 17 May 2010 (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 2010 edit

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

Rights removed as per user request; not much else to do here. Tempodivalse [talk] 17:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brian McNeil (talk · contribs) de-checkuser edit

It's only with a heavy heart - and after consulting with other checkusers and administrators - that I put up this request for the de-checkusering of Brianmc. While he's been a very helpful user for Wikinews, and I appreciate his contributions helping promote the project, his recent actions involving the Matthewedwards scandal, primarily the threat of checkuser and poor treatment of other people, have IMHO been most unbefitting of any Wikinewsie, let alone one who is a bureaucrat, ArbCom member, and checkuser.

My biggest concern is with this edit, in which Brian, in no uncertain terms, threatened to checkuser an IP who disagreed with him. It turns out the check actually was carried out. Brian says it was carried out for non-personal reasons - namely that there was suspicion the IP was a persistent troll. The user was in fact was the same person commenting with rather poorly-thought out opinions on the talk page of our recent Gaza story. However, his comments at AAA, despite being unpopular, were quite logical and rational, in comparison to some of the other madness going on there, and nothing he did constituted trolling - which in my mind makes the justifications behind the check rather iffy. Regardless, the very act of threatening to use CU is unacceptable by itself. meta:Checkuser says: "The tool should not be used for political control; to apply pressure on editors; or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute."

I might have been more forgiving had there been some acknowledgment from Brian that all this was inappropriate; however, such has not been forthcoming and it doesn't appear it ever will. The ensuing drama from something like this, of course, shall be quite unpleasant, but I'm honestly not sure I can trust Brian to act appropriately anymore, and I don't know through what other venues this can be addressed. Tempodivalse [talk] 17:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

According to the CU log, Brian ran a checkuser on the ip and /20 and /24 blocks at 01:13, 1 June 2010, 11 minutes before he posted his comment.--Cspurrier (talk) 19:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.

However, as this was posted by an IP, much of the same information could have been inferred by absolutely anyone.

Community's choice. Not the best times to have done as requested; not the best of reactions – albeit in the face of someone who seemed policy-savvy, but otherwise unknown, wading into that debate. Nor, I would say, the right time to be taking this decision; but, I will leave it at that. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 20:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm correctly understanding you, I don't think it was particularly suspicious that the IP posted at AAA. He had been active before, and was probably one of those people taking a causal interest in wiki projects, but not enough to register (i've seen quite a few). Still, the main point I'm trying to push here is that the threat, and the whole overall attitude, is the thing to de-CU over, not as much the actual check. Tempodivalse [talk] 20:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I actually don't disagree with the check itself. I was suspicious of that user too — I actually thought it might be Matthewedwards himself, anonymously editing in his own defense. I didn't think "not logging in before posting" constituted an offense (although it was rude in this case), so I didn't say much, but I was suspicious, just like some of the others.

What I disagreed with was the use of checkuser as a *threat*. However Brian meant that comment to come across, to me it sounded like "I disagree with the content of your statement, so back off or I'll use my powers against you". I don't know who that anon user was, and I don't know exactly what Brian was thinking when he made that statement, but that's how it came off to me. And I do not like it when admins (or whoever) threaten to use their powers over content disputes. It reminds me too much of adrenaline junkie cops in the real world, tasering the helpless just because they think they can get away with it. Gopher65_talk 00:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per my remark below, please consider this my request that CheckUser be removed from my privileges in short order. Please point a steward at the diff containing this comment, get it done now, and put this sordid mess into an archive so the community can get over this horror story instead of tearing itself up anymore. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 14:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request made here. Sorry, Benny, didn't see your diff. Griffinofwales (talk) 15:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Benny the mascot (talk) 15:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, rights were removed by a steward. I'm closing this since there doesn't seem to be anything else to do here. Tempodivalse [talk] 17:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Votes edit

Support as nominator. Tempodivalse [talk] 19:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Checkuser isn't a big deal, in my opinion. And I don't think he misused it. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 17:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that it is a big deal. Unlike adminship, which relatively speaking is harmless as everything they do can be undone, checkuser-ship is a totally different bird. It's only given out to people above the age of eighteen for a reason: it allows users to get into very personal information, frequently without any supervision or oversight from anyone else. (Of course, as to whether Brian's actions constitute abuse is a different matter). Just my two pence. *shrug* Tempodivalse [talk] 17:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
checkuser is a very big deal. There is a large difference between your personal wiki and wikinews. Bawolff ☺☻ 20:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Checkuser is a big deal. I find Brian's threat completely inappropriate. Checkuser should never be used as a threat. I consider threatening its use in such a way to be an abuse worthy of removing the right. The CU itself is problematic as well. There is nothing wrong with an IP commenting on a community discussion. Even suspicion of trolling should not be enough to run a CU. We would need to suspect that the person was abusing multiple accounts for the CU to be appropriate. While I can understand Brian's anger, his behaviour throughout has been way below the standard we should expect of any Wikinewsie, much less one with his list of rights. In the interests of minimising drama and in light of the circumstances, I would support ignoring the massive WN:E violations throughout (all of which on their own could justify a block or rights removal). The checkuser abuses though are much to serious to ignore. I think removal of the checkuser bit is necessary as I do not think I can trust Brian to use the tool appropriately. --Cspurrier (talk) 19:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, grossly inappropriate actions made by an ArbCom member. Brian, you are an indispensable part of this community. However, after reviewing your actions, I no longer trust you with CheckUser access. Indeed, CheckUser is a big deal. Sincerely, Blurpeace 20:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain I do believe brianmc was out of line in his comment to the ip. With that being said, I believe the attitude of the community was a contributing factor. The mob mentality can be hard to resist, but a check-user should know when to step back, and not get swept up in the heat of things. A lot of people feel uncomfortable with the recent events, and we must be careful not to turn brianmc into a scrapgoat, as he is by no means the only one to blame. Bawolff ☺☻ 20:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I could not find where in Wikinews policy where you are allowed to blatantly CheckUser an IP for disagreeement even if they were trolling. What was your "valid reason to check a user?" Look at Meta's CheckUser policy. I find that misuse of a powerful tool is grounds for revocation of access. —Mike moral ♪♫ 21:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As stated on WN:AAA, a request by an established contributor. To reiterate the above, anyone - even someone not logged in could have gleaned 90% or so of the same information I did regarding edits elsewhere on the project from other IPs in the same range. Review what was said where, by who, and which pages ended up fully protected.

Personally, I was actually expecting someone to be incomprehensibly dickish about me posting correspondence - not this. So, go ahead, vote. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 22:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at what Craig posted, you used CheckUser before you even threatened the anon. A full 11 minutes between the time you used the tool at 1:13 and your comment at 1:24. —Mike moral ♪♫ 22:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at where I was nasty/curt with the IP, it was not to CheckUser him here, but to request checkuser elsewhere. Now, is there anyone else who does not read things carefully enough? --Brian McNeil / ^talk 22:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I don't think it matters much if the threat was for you to checkuser, or for you to get someone else to checkuser. At the end of the day, a threat was made by someone with checkuser privileges that the ip would be checkusered if he continued saying what he was saying. How the threat would be carried out beyond that it would involve checkusering is not that relevant imho. Bawolff ☺☻ 22:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And threatening any user, new or experienced, with CheckUser is both unethical and against policy. You should not threaten someone for disagreeing with you which is what seems to have happened. —Mike moral ♪♫ 22:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get this straight... A community member, in good standing, requests I perform a CheckUser; I do so, and a blacklist turns up a reported range containing the IP (a /14 incidentally). I widen the check on the IP up to /24, then /20; and, I hit someone wading into an article on the Israel/Palestine conflict, assuming we treat the project like Wikipedia and publish any old crap hoping someone cleans it up. That article is now protected, and I doubt it was ever properly reviewed in the first place; at least, when you look at the eventual removal of sources in response to my criticism, and then to the sighting of a revision.

However, if I'm to lose checkuser, so should everyone else who holds it due to highly erratic recent contribution histories; more often than not you are going to have to refer cases to Stewards. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 22:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brian, that part about CU inactivity isn't exactly true. Skenmy and Cirt are quite active with the tool, from what I'm told (the former is easily accessible thru IRC), and now that Craig's returned to more or less full activity, we should have enough to cover the gap. I still have to disagree the IP was a troll and especially with the way he was treated; as far as the Gaza article went, he simply wasn't familiar with our modus operandi and the publishing policy; at AAA, he was presenting a logical, although unpopular argument. And just because a community member requests a CU be performed doesn't mean one is obliged to fulfill it; ultimately the checkuser himself must ascertain that it is appropriate to perform the check. Tempodivalse [talk] 22:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was called a liar. No "proof"? I believe I just posted the aforementioned in my userspace.

Get on with it. Quote the diff containing this edit - you do have to ask a steward to toggle the bit, and they're more than welcome to than have you dickishly tear the project apart. Incidentally, nine times out of ten it is not skenmy you see in IRC, but an IRC bot. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 23:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know Skenmy uses a BNC. But I'm always able to ping him and get a response when I need something in the afternoon-evening UTC.

Seriously though, if people can't question another user's actions or provide a dissenting (but constructive) viewpoint without being replied to in such a manner, we are not going to have a good rep at all. While the IP's comments may have been somewhat upset (rightly or not), I don't see any real personal attack or outright rude comment that he made, either to you or anyone else. Tempodivalse [talk] 00:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm saddened that you consider me trying to tear apart the project; that is completely not the case. I dislike drama in general, I think it is divisive; but there are times when there's no avoiding it, and some problems simply need to be addressed upfront. It would be a sorry day indeed if we could not question or express concern about the actions of other users. If there's one thing about me, I'll always stand up for what I think is right or necessary for the project, even if it is unpopular. I'm honestly sorry if this has unduly angered or upset you; but I feel it has to be done. Tempodivalse [talk] 01:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Cspurrier and Tempo. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain — per Bawolff. More than enough blame to go around, and, indeed, humans are wired for easy manipulation by a mob mentality ~~(and the peer pressure that goes along with that mentality)~~ (sorry, incorrect turn of phrase there). Gopher65_talk 00:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note that even though I was, at the start, unfamiliar with the situation, and eventually I was the only one who voted to oppose the block, I still felt the pull of the mob on me. When I first hit AAA that day I almost went and voted {{support}} automatically, without thought, due to nothing more than the draw of the mob hive-mind. Once a mob is started, it is truly hard to resist its ferocious pull. Gopher65_talk 00:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain, noting the wise comment by User:Bawolff, above. Will defer to outcome of community consensus regarding this issue. -- Cirt (talk) 00:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain and remind that polls are evil. --Thunderhead ^{(t - e - c)} 04:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It is with great sadness that I feel I must support this motion. I count Brian as a personal friend, having met him IRL I know that he is a sane, rational human being. However, the conduct he has displayed recently is not befitting of someone who is in such a restricted and limited position of power. When Tempodivalse first spoke to me about it I spent some time going through CU policies and the Foundation's Privacy Policy to see if Brian truly had broken the rules - and unfortunately it seems he has - in two separate, individually power-removing cases. Brian has threatened the use of the CU tool in an attempt to pressure an editor. This is inexcusable, and warrants removal of access. Brian has used the tool without a valid reason - I quote from the CU log: "disruption of community process". This is, in itself, not inexcusable - the mob mentality and "peer pressure" arguments come in to play here - however combined with the threat that was issued after the use of the tool, I cannot see how I can, with a clear conscience and keeping the policies and guidelines we work by in mind, oppose this motion. --Skenmy ^talk 07:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support- Unfortunately, this case is a blatant violation of checkuser policies, which warrants removal of the tools. It is a shame that we must do this to one of our most valued community members, but these actions have caused me to not trust him with checkuser and the great deal of power involved with it. It saddens me that I must vote in this, but this again was a very serious violation of policy. Tjc₆ 09:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain Whilst I do not think that any valid concerns should ever be "swept under the carpet" I question the timing of this request whilst emotions are clearly still charged. Also per Thunderhead. --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 11:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support basically for all of the reasons given above. I'll flag a steward down on meta. Benny the mascot (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2010 (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. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Withdrawn by nominator. No consensus in any event. 7 support, 5 oppose, 7 abstain. Gopher65_talk 15:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to desysop and decrat Brian McNeil (talk · contribs) edit

Per recent actions that I think have been overly dramatic and inflammatory, I would like to submit to the community a proposal to revoke Brian McNeil's administrative and bureaucrat privileges. His actions have been unbecoming of Wikinews, and only serve to inflame emotions further, at a time when that is the last thing we need. His actions in the Matthewedwards fiasco and in more recent events showed extremely poor judgement, and directly lead to the departure of several contributors, both permanent and temporary. I open this proposal to community discussion. C628 (talk) 19:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and questions edit

Comment Enjoy your witch hunt guys. I do indeed regret What I did with Matthew Edwards' talk page. I do not regret what I did when I, much earlier than the block and image issue, removed his accreditation and email address. If Matthew is going to rant away below about the publication of emails - from which I removed personal email addresses and phone numbers - then someone else should have the nerve to publish IRC logs, and go over what happened there. There is an abundance of blame to go round; I've been this project's lightning-rod in the past, but it would seem I will cease to be such on, or after, the third of next month. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 00:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I thought I might change my vote, in light of points that have been brought up in the discussion (despite the astounding levels of hypocrisy by some of the parties making those points), but it has become crystal clear that this proceeding no longer has anything remotely to do with Brian. This is now only about the same mob that did the blocking and has never disbanded. It continues to gather momentum, and if allowed to run its course it will burn Wikinews to the ground until there is nothing left to burn. The mob doesn't care about Wikinews, one way or another; it doesn't care who its victims are, as long as it has a steady supply of them. I actually experienced a (relatively small scale) near-riot once, from the inside; the atmosphere felt like this, and afterward I concluded that perfectly rational remarks I had made to those around me had been amplified and fed back into that situation. Reread the comments here; some are reasonable, others amplify those and make new points that would seem perfectly reasonable if they were made differently. Notice the hypocrisy (about the only thing Brian did or was accused of that hasn't been done here is use images of death). Think about it. And keep thinking about it in the days ahead. Whether you decide you agree with me isn't important; what matters is that the more we stubbornly insist on thinking, the harder it will be for a mob to exist. --Pi zero (talk) 02:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I hope you won't mind a comment from someone with fairly extensive experience in complex user dispute resolution, who's on the outside looking in here. From my perspective, I see a good chunk of the Wikinews community going off the rails here, not simply one particular administrator/crat/checkuser. I look at the history of User:Matthewedwards' userpage, and I see quite a few names on the list, several of them admins editing through protection, for example. How you, as an independent community, decide to address the behaviour of specific individuals is strictly your call. I'll just suggest to you that removing the permissions of one individual does not mean that your community has actually solved the cultural problem that led to the behaviour we see here. I appreciate the fact that Wikinews has been striving to develop a more professional presentation, and that part of that professionalism is holding users to account if they are granted special permissions such as credentials. I cannot help wondering, however, why anyone would consider it professional to include of images of tombstones, guillotines and swinging corpses into block messages. Apologies to the user on the receiving end of such behaviour are entirely reasonable; however, if the apologies are user-specific, and there is no cultural shift away from the mentality that exacerbated what should have been a relatively straightforward and calm block discussion, you as a community will be here again. Risker (talk) 03:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC) For the record, this entire incident came to my attention because I am a listadmin for the Checkuser mailing list, and had to address certain issues following the removal of checkuser permissions[reply]
- well said. I personally think that this current debate has very little to do with Matthew, and much to do with how we as a community define professionalism. Bawolff ☺☻ 03:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, this is embarrassing...Upon thought, someone withdraw this proposal, for reasons cited by numerous people below—it's only prolonging drama at a time when such is the last thing we need. My nomination has been described as "spurious," and I don't deny that that there may have been an element of that in there. However, I still stand by my comments about Brian's actions, just no longer strongly enough to keep this nomination open. Now, the embarrassing part here is that I have not the slightest idea how to go about closing said discussion, so assistance would be appreciated...Regards, C628 (talk) 15:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Votes edit

Reluctantly support—I hate to have to say this, and it comes from a heavy heart, but I believe Brian mis-handled the situation, and has been acting in a matter unbefitting of an administrator. De-sysopping him seems, reluctantly, to be necessary due to recent events. However, I would be one of the first to jump at the opportunity to re-sysop him in a few weeks, when everybody has cooled down a bit. Sorry, Brian! Δενδοδγε _τ\^c 19:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Brian's always been a bit irascible —certainly since I've been here, anyway— and yeah, his nose has been out of joint over recent events ('nuff said). We as a community were collectively no longer comforable giving him checkuser, and he voluntarily relinquished it. But checkuser is a really phenomenally delicate power to wield, absurdly easy to abuse just by looking at it funny. Abusing the admin and crat bits would be a whole different sort of thing, and I don't think that of him. --Pi zero (talk) 19:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See my

Comment above. --Pi zero (talk) 02:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick clarification - are you striking your comment, or the vote as well? If it's the latter, then you probably should indent it and strike that out too. If the former, never mind ... Tempodivalse [talk] 02:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My vote stands. I should have said that explicitly here; apologies. --Pi zero (talk) 02:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Bit late, but whatever...support as nominator, for the record. C628 (talk) 19:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The strongest oppose ever He acted like an idiot, but I don't think we should be doing this. Everything is going from bad to worse. Stop the drama. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 19:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So what would you suggest? He just goes ahead acting like an idiot? Awesome. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - After considering this, I'm sorry but I have to Support this. Brian did very idiotic things. He abused his position of authority, and his actions seem very biased. Brian has done a very good job in the past, but he needs to take an obliged break. His grandmother died. We didn't knew his side. I feel like a fool too by supporting that idiotic community ban. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 23:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose enough with the crucifictions. Shit happened, he fucked up. he's already been bitch slapped a few times. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 19:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support What I saw in the past few days from Brian was, sadly, a display well below the standards I would expect every user to adhere to - especially an Administrator and Bureaucrat. The way that he handled Matthew's block and surrounding controversy - the hanging image, and especially the rude way in which he treated an IP, who was the only user smart enough to figure out what really was going on - would have been very easily a blockable offence had anyone else committed it. That only served to inflame an already bad, drama-infested situation. I appreciate Brian's ability to be blunt when required - sometimes you have to tell people things directly at the risk of hurting their feelings - but as of late, it appears he is no longer able to distinguish the line between when it is appropriate, and when it is flat-out, uncalled-for rudeness. As a direct result of this, several users have been deterred from the project and our image amongst the WMF, already poor, has been further spoiled. In response to Pi zero's comment above - no, I don't think he'd really abuse the tools per se, but an important characteristic any administrator needs to have is to be able to interact with other people reasonably well, and I'm not sure I see this here. Sorry Brian. I appreciate your work, but I just don't have much faith in your ability to act correctly anymore. Tempodivalse [talk] 19:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changed now to Abstain. I still feel upset and very uncomfortable about Brian's actions and behaviour, but at the same time am glad to see there's been some acknowledgment from him that things need to change, that he was wrong about Matthew, and that he's actively trying to propose new ideas. This has indeed turned to something of a witch-hunt; I think we need some time to cool down and reflect on whether we really needed this. Tempodivalse [talk] 12:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (edit conflict) Now we're just looking for scapegoats? Let's put all this crap behind us and move on and report the news like we are supposed to be doing. —Mike moral ♪♫ 19:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. - Amgine | ^t 20:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, he didn't abuse the tools and there are heated editors all about the project. I agree with Mikemoral's scapegoat sentiment. Removing his flags won't solve anything; can't we just put this behind us already? Blurpeace 20:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support, per [3]. Brian has clearly learned nothing from this incident. Blurpeace 23:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest support possible, obviously. Hey may not have abused the "tools", but he did abuse his position.

Every single post McNeil made at WN:AAA served to humiliate and damn me, and fuel the lynching mob.

He published private emails that no doubt everybody has seen by now at User talk:Brian McNeil/Tour of California. He knew he shouldn't because he said he "will publish [the emails] and be damned". As a crat, and as an admin, he should know that he is not allowed to publish private emails. Not only did he publish mine, which included naming the city I live in, but he also published Taya Varnuchpun's, the media rep from the event. How is this acceptable? He did not even publish all the emails. He published those that apparently proved his case in how awful and deceptive I am in an attempt to discredit me further.

If he did "waste hours writing emails", why is it he tells me, "For me, the fun's been writing some semi-outrageous bullshit to get you in. :D If you'd want to do the 2011 one too, then keep in touch with this promoter guy. The Wikinews Cabal would help sweet-talk him" and "Oh, and please make sure I get further opportunities to concoct outrageous bluffs."? He has lied and cheated his way to seeing me blocked because he feels he's been "taken for a ride". That is unacceptable behaviour for an admin and crat.

He vindictivly posted several images of death to my user page in a clear attempt to humiliate me: 1, 2, 3. This is not the behaviour of a well balanced individual who can be trusted to be an admin or crat.

Not only that, but he is obviously unaware of the policies and guidelines he is supposed to uphold as an admin. Surely he should know that this is block evasion, posting images of death one someone's userpage is not within Wikinews:Etiquette, emails are private and copywritten.

I won't get into the abuse of checkuser, because that's been handled already (but does anyone know if he checkusered me? Because I'm sure he believed that IP was me), but if anybody else had done what he has, they would be blocked. If they were an admin, they would be de-sysopped. But because McNeil has for so long been allowed to bully and stomp his way around here like an Editor in chief, and is under the disillution that he is a "senior editor", he feels he does not have to follow the rules. As a rule enforcer, he is one of the first who should follow them.

~~My actions did not damage this project. His did. Matthewedwards (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

According to the checkuser log, checkuser was not run on your user account. --Cspurrier (talk) 21:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Matthewedwards (talk) 21:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User abstains Benny the mascot (talk) 04:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support it's really not about abusing his tools, but he appears to be the godhead around here, and his recent actions have undermined the very thin integrity that Wikinews has. Keeping him as the figurehead of the project is a joke, and would make this project the same. Even supporters are saying "he fucked up" and "He acted like an idiot". But then the same supporters are happy for him to carry on carrying on. Joke. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been following the drama here and just wanted to provide an outsider opinion. I will remain neutral as a !vote however I am inclined to agree with the above post. As a bureaucrat he is supposed to maintain professionalism and he did some things that truly are unbefitting of such a position which reflects negatively on Wikinews as a whole. At the same time, he has done some outstanding things for this project that should also be taken into account, plus we shouldn't let this become yet another lynch mob, otherwise we haven't really learned from our mistakes the first time. If there should be any consequences I would suggest removing the crat rights but cut him some slack on the admin bit as a compromise maybe. -- OlEnglish (talk) 05:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: The edits to User:Matthewedwards were some pretty shameful shit. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — I see no reason to either de-admin or de-bureaucrat Brian. Abstain — Sorry. Gopher65_talk 23:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support regretfully, per Blurpeace. I didn't think this would get worse, but obviously I've been proved wrong for the umpteenth time. —fetch·comms 01:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- enough with the witch hunt. I have suggested to Brian that he take a break to collect himself and would add that if any one doen't get over this thing, I will swing the ban hammer --RockerballAustralia c 02:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain. — μ 13:00, June 7 2010 (UTC)
Support Basically per Blurpeace. Benny the mascot (talk) 14:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain Benny the mascot (talk) 05:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain --Per my piece on the Water Cooler. Tris 14:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And please read what Pi Zero and Risker say above-it makes sense. Tris 14:19, 7 June 2010 (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 successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Oversight requests - take two edit

Comment The below two requests were archived by SGN as failed. However, I'm going to be bold and return them here since there is AFAIK no time limit for these things to remain open, and really, it's rather unrealistic to think that we're going to be able to muster 25+ votes in only a few days. No need to rush into things, IMHO ... Tempodivalse [talk] 19:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind that much either way, but I would point out that new votes have stopped coming in (not counting C628 since that happened after the intial archive, the last vote to come in for either of these two candidates was a week ago) its been 2 weeks since both were intially open (well skenmys was 2 weeks minus 1 day, but almost) which is the recommended time. Bawolff ☺☻ 21:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My bad on Skenmy's, I forgot his was open later. Here's what I said about this on my talk page "If you guys want to, leave them open for another 2 weeks... honestly I don't think that'll make any difference. I canvas'd the mailing list (twice), tweeted about it, set site notices (twice) and generally harassed people." If we get 10 more votes for Skenmy (heck, leave it open for 2 more weeks)... I'll eat my hat. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 21:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ShakataGaNai (talk · contribs) (Oversight) edit

We have no oversighters and seem to have a need for them. Our recent .... scuffle... has gotten into the areas of private info. People requests stewards come in to do the oversighting, which is fine, but we should be able to do this in house. On top of that, when stewards come in, no one actually knows whats going on (Obviously it is private and that is why it was oversighted... but it is very strange to see oversights in places like WN:RFP out of the blue). So I run for said oversight. Yes I'm over 18, ~~no I dont mind being ID'd to the foundation~~. I'm not sure if oversight requires 2 people on wiki like CU does (or maybe it's the other way arround). Anyways, someone say something if we do. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 21:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment edit

Comment I don't think we need oversighters. Right now it's not like we're inundated with oversightable material (like en.wikipedia) and the stewards could handle it easily and in a timely manner. Whereas, if we had local OS, then the stewards would be reluctant to do it, and we'd have to wait for local OS to show up, which would take longer as there are fewer of them and not always online. So i'd probably not support getting local oversighters. (Does that make sense?) Tempodivalse [talk] 21:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would be ideal to have more than one oversighter, in different time zones. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 21:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But we still wouldn't have as many oversighters as there are stewards, and they wouldn't be nearly as active per capita. Tempodivalse [talk] 21:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me. I think the stewards would still be likely to do it, especially if you say "hey, look, our 2 are offline right this moment". It is time sensitive after all. I figure more accessible OS means faster OS. At least with local OS's, we'd be able to know what was OS'd (not to share, but at least to answer the "Why was this completely random edit OS'd? Well because someone forgot to login.") --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 21:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We do need 2 oversights locally --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 21:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I respectfully abstain from voting. No offence, but I'm of the opinion that we have users who are better suited to this position. Tempodivalse [talk] 23:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tempo. You know how we talked about the different ways of seeing the world, and how many times, even if you "mean well", you're insulting? This is one of those times. "No offense, but fuck you asshole" is still offensive, even if you prepend "No offense". By saying "we have users who are better suited to this position" basically you're saying "Ok, this idea has merit, but I'm specifically not going to vote for you". That is insulting. You and I don't see eye to eye, we never have... I don't expect you to vote for me, I'm not going to vote for you. That does not mean I'm going to show up at every vote you have saying "{{abstain}} No offense, This use simply isn't what Wikinews wants". I don't want to cause any more drama than the wiki already has... but in the future, consider simply shutting up and going somewhere else. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 06:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-shrug- Perhaps I should have, but this sort of vote doesn't allow for neutrals/abstentions and I don't want to oppose, so this seemed like the next best venue to explain my not voting. I know we're not exactly on the best terms with each other, and given our differing viewpoints on how things should be run, probably rarely will; bluntly, I think it's better we had someone for this position that could keep calmer in heated situations than yourself, since OS is so very difficult to undo. I get upset easily myself, so it's hardly for me to judge, but nonetheless I'm not 100% comfortable supporting. Sorry. Tempodivalse [talk] 12:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you consider your language and tone appropriate, SGN? I certainly do not. --Skenmy ^talk 12:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can oppose tempo. The vote for CU and OS is 25 support, 70% pass rate. So you can vote against it just like any other vote. Please, if you think I suck, feel free to vote against me (you'll note Skenmy has). I'm not upset at you, but we had many a fights between you and I, mostly started from the fact that your "trying to be nice" was anything but. I'm not the only one that is insulted by these things. I'm hoping that if I illustrate these situations... you'll understand them better and we won't have as much trouble in the future. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 16:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Skenmy, I'm sorry you felt slighted by my use of demonstration language. I was trying to make a point in the most clear terms possible. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 16:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question what personal qualities do you believe you have which make you suitable for the role of oversighter? --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 18:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know how the tools work (have them elsewhere). I've been around for long enough to know what should and shouldn't be orbital striked. I'm easy to get a hold of (Always in IRC). Most importantly, while I approach problems head on and have not made friends (See above), I am capable highly capable of discretion in terms of keeping peoples private info and requests safe. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 18:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Identified --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 07:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Votes edit

Support edit

Support I trust this guy, he won't abuse the tools, I'm sure (not really sure, but well). --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 21:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, trustworthy editor and a project the size of Wikinews requires at least two local oversighters. Tempodivalse's concerns are unconvincing. Blurpeace 21:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. -- Cirt (talk) 22:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Mike moral ♪♫ 23:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support —fetch·comms 23:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bawolff ☺☻ 23:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wikinews had oversighters in the past; I was one of them. That had to be handed back over a technicality, such being the change to voting requirements over on meta. Shaka is one of the few people I really would trust with such a tool. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 00:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Gopher65_talk 01:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pi zero (talk) 02:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --KTo288 (talk) 09:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support to get the numbers up. — μ 13:01, June 7 2010 (UTC)
Support Δενδοδγε _τ\^c 15:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I do see where the opposes have come from. However, particularly recently but from time to time throughout my years here, SGN has actually proven himself to be highly trustworthy and know what he's doing. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can trust him not to abuse the tools --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 22:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, trusted. Tjc₆ 02:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Loves huge tools Killing Vector (talk) 18:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I trust ShakataGaNai with this job. Cary Bass (talk) 18:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacques Divol (talk) 19:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Calebrw (talk) 20:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Cspurrier (talk) 00:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Turtlestack (talk) 06:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support well known from commons: good user ABF (talk) 09:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support What could possibly go wrong? Shoone (talk) 00:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hells yes Irunongames•play 22:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support (Changed from abstain) Was unsure, now decided. Enjoy! Tris 10:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose edit

Oppose without wanting to be dramatic, I don't trust SGN with the tools he already has, let alone Oversight. --Skenmy ^talk 14:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Skenmy Benny the mascot (talk) 13:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain edit

Abstain in the strongest possible measure. - Amgine | ^t 21:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC) (ps: <poke SGN>)[reply]
LOL. You love to not vote, and you just love to be a PITA. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 21:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain Unsure. Tris 18:05, 7 June 2010 (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.

Cspurrier (talk · contribs) (Oversight) edit

We may as well have two oversighters. I had it before as a steward and I know how to use it. I am already identified to the foundation from then as well. We have used oversight a handful of times in the past. I believe we can respond faster when its needed with local OS--Cspurrier (talk) 21:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

Comment Correction from my above, we do need 2. OS's, like CU. Check's and balances and all that. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 21:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Do you accept, Craig? Tempodivalse [talk] 23:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note he nommed himself. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 23:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pfft, this drama must really be getting to me. Sorry. Tempodivalse [talk] 00:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question I see from your contributions that you haven't been consistently active. Is this going to continue over the next year or so? Do you intend to be available to perform your oversight duties? Benny the mascot (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The big reason for my inactivity (working on my MA) is gone (I graduated), I expect to be able to maintain a reasonable activity level for the foreseeable future. --Cspurrier (talk) 15:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question what personal qualities do you believe you have which make you suitable for the role of oversighter? --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 18:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have experience using the tools, having used them both here and on other Wiki's as a steward. I believe (like all of the other candidates) that I have a good grasp of what would be an appropriate use of the tools.--Cspurrier (talk) 00:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Votes edit

Support edit

Support Why not. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 21:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support--ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 21:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Abstain in the most favourable (and strongest) fashion. - Amgine | ^t
Support, although I don't know him personally, he seems trustworthy enough for the flag. Sincerely, Blurpeace 22:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. -- Cirt (talk) 22:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Mike moral ♪♫ 23:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support —fetch·comms 23:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Trusted. Tempodivalse [talk] 23:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very level headed, and sane. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Gopher65_talk 01:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pi zero (talk) 02:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Skenmy ^talk 07:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --KTo288 (talk) 09:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Δενδοδγε _τ\^c 15:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tris 18:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support After careful thought - I know less of you than the other candidates - I trust you with the tool as well. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Trusted to use the tool well. Pmlineditor ^discuss 15:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Loves huge tools Killing Vector (talk) 18:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I trust Craig with this job. Cary Bass (talk) 18:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacques Divol (talk) 19:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose edit

weak oppose Craig vanishes for prolonged stints, and has given no indication this will not happen again. I do trust Craig to do the job, I just don't trust him to be there when needed, nor to have been suitably active in any on-wiki role to be less-useful than a steward. The whole principle is about having, on-tap, our own oversighters. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 19:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose I have to agree with Brian on this one. Congrats on graduating, but who knows if you'll be gone again. --Calebrw (talk) 20:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain edit

Abstain - I've not been on wikinews too long so I can only vote for members whom I've had experience with and since I have not yet met this candidate, I can neither vote yea or nay - but I did feel I should explain why, hence the abstain. Turtlestack (talk) 06:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain per above. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 15:57, 12 June 2010 (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.

Bawolff (talk · contribs) (Oversight) edit

We need at least 2 OS's, preferably more (should one not pass the election, or need to step down). Bawolff is possibly one of the most chilled, laid back, and least drama involved people on Wikinews I know. As such, I think he'd make an excellent Oversight. Plus, as an added bonus, we'd have more people for Tempo to haras should something need Orbital Striking. He, like everyone else up for vote, is a crat, and was also a previous ArbCom. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 23:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

Sure why not. :). Bawolff ☺☻ 23:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question what personal qualities do you believe you have which make you suitable for the role of oversighter? --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 18:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like to think I am level headed and all that. (Of course when evaluating myself I have a conflict of interest). Bawolff ☺☻ 02:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

identified. Bawolff ☺☻ 16:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Votes edit

Support edit

Support as om nom nom --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 23:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support because I love the ñam ñam ñam. I trust Bawolff. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 23:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support —fetch·comms 23:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sure. I trust bawolff, if he's willing to identify to the foundation, why not. Tempodivalse [talk] 23:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Mike moral ♪♫ 23:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Gopher65_talk 01:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pi zero (talk) 02:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, trustworthy. Blurpeace 04:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Skenmy ^talk 07:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --KTo288 (talk) 10:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. -- Cirt (talk) 11:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support — μ 13:04, June 7 2010 (UTC)
Support Δενδοδγε _τ\^c 15:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
.... Bawolff ☺☻ 02:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that if this RFP passes, a steward might look at this vote in a state of massive confusion... Benny the mascot (talk) 03:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Vote stricken as ambiguous. Please clarify. Benny the mascot (talk) 01:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was being naughty. It's a support. I wondered whether anybody would notice. Δενδοδγε _τ\^c 10:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Of course Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pmlineditor ^discuss 12:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Blurpeace 02:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This user voted twice. :-/ Benny the mascot (talk) 02:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly this is because I'm double trustworthy. Bawolff ☺☻ 03:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
lolself-esteem ;) --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 03:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
very strong support. As two people are required to man the Memory Hole Management Team, I have to pick Bawolff as the second, because I know I can get hold of him within a reasonable timeframe. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 12:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Loves huge tools Killing Vector (talk) 18:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I trust bawolff with this job. Cary Bass (talk) 18:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacques Divol (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Calebrw (talk) 20:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unconditionally Support. --Thunderhead ^{(t - e - c)} 20:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Cspurrier (talk) 00:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Turtlestack (talk) 06:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ABF (talk) 09:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 07:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose edit

Abstain 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-reviewership. Please do not modify it.

NuclearWarfare edit

Could someone please remove the reviewer flag from my account? Although I rarely edit here, I do not feel comfortable editing here at all at this time. NuclearWarfare (talk) 01:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Tempodivalse [talk] 01:03, 7 June 2010 (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 successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

C628 (talk · contribs) edit

Requesting adminship again after my return to the project. I'd like to know whether the community thinks I can still be trusted with the tools after the mess of the past couple of weeks, which I've been involved in. Cheers, C628 (talk) 01:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

Votes edit

Strong support as you were one of the few people during the mob-lynching that were rational, and probably the most mature person there. I trust you. Tempodivalse [talk] 01:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Welcome back. Gopher65_talk 01:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 02:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Mike moral ♪♫ 02:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support —fetch·comms 02:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Usually I am somewhat opposed to people resigning and then suddenly coming back and wanting their privs back (resigning should mean something), but in this case, everyone got a little heated, and I am very happy to see you want to come back. strong support. Bawolff ☺☻ 02:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I see your point, this was a lot sooner than I expected to be be back, but I felt that I couldn't just stand on the sidelines for this. C628 (talk) 02:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support The de-sysop nomination may or may not turn out badly, but it was done with thought and integrity, and the more admins we have with those, the better. --Pi zero (talk) 02:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm not sure if I have standing here, but if so, please register this as a support. This message is left in my capacity as a volunteer and editor, not as a staff member of the Wikimedia Foundation. Philippe (talk) 05:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support—welcome back! Δενδοδγε _τ\^c 10:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm very glad to see that you have not been driven away entirely. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 10:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support We all get a little heated sometimes - it's good you have seen sense --Skenmy ^talk 13:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I see you've chosen to reenter the Dark Side. Welcome back! :D Benny the mascot (talk) 14:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, now pick your monocle out your soup. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 01:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Welcome back. Pmlineditor ^discuss 10:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is safe to say the community approves. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 22:43, 8 June 2010 (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. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Benny the mascot (Reconfirm) edit

I accept partial responsibility for everything that happened regarding Matthewedwards and his community ban. I therefore put myself up for reconfirmation so that the community may decide if it still wants me to serve as admin and reviewer. Oh, and this happened. :( Benny the mascot (talk) 17:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

Question how do you feel you have addressed the issues you raise above? Note I shall be asking this of anyone putting themself up for reconfirmation --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 18:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. First of all, let me begin with my handling of the move war. My decision to protect the article was an unwise decision on my part, and I have promised to think more carefully the next time a similar incident occurs. As for the Matthewedwards fiasco, I have apologized personally to him on his talk page, and I am currently drafting a community resolution that will (hopefully) solve the mess we are in right now. --Benny the mascot (talk) 18:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Votes edit

Support without question. --Skenmy ^talk 17:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support You have my full trust, and were one of the few people during the entire fiasco to not lose their heads and rush into the mob lynching. As for the edit war thingy, I don't consider that to be a big mistake, just a small slip-up, nothing to be overly concerned about. However, i don't think it would be a bad idea for all us admins involved with Matthew's block in some way to put themselves up for reconfirm. I'm considering doing so. Tempodivalse [talk] 17:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Like Tempo said, you were an exception in that you didn't lose your mind during recent events. C628 (talk) 17:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support You are so far one of the best admins around. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 17:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, you called for the ban in the first place, but throughout the rest of it you didn't follow the crowd and seemed to be a lone voice often. Hey, you made a mistake with the edit war and that's no big deal provided you learnt from your mistake. I congratulate you on your willingness to put yourself up for reconfirmation. Tris 17:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support —fetch·comms 17:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Now, get back to work. ;-) --Brian McNeil / ^talk 12:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support OK --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 17:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Hey, you're more active than me, and you've made less screwups than me, and these people kept me around. :-) --Thunderhead ^{(t - e - c)} 01:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thought I already had. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Safe to say, we're not throwing you out (Yet). --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 19:08, 15 June 2010 (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 adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Skenmy (talk · contribs) (Oversight) edit

As one of your Bureaucrats, Checkusers, and long-term sysop, I feel that I would be suitable to hold the position of Oversight. Some people may call in to question the amount of inactivity I have had over the past few months, and I am not going to try and make excuses - my life has been getting in the way. However, I have stayed abreast of the community, I feel I am up to date with policy and current issues. Even during my apparent inactivity - I am pretty much always pingable on IRC for sysop, bureaucrat, and checkuser tasks.

Having more than 2 users with a priv is always a good idea to prevent corruption and misuse. I would not be particularly comfortable if our number of checkusers dropped below what we currently have, and I would not be comfortable with 2 (and slightly uneasy with 3) Oversighters. Therefore I believe it is in the best interests of the community that I offer my assistance and stand for the position of Oversighter.

I believe I am level headed enough to deal with the tool appropriately, I am not one prone to see red or get involved in slanging matches - I am honest, open, and I hope that I still have enough trust in this community to continue to hold tools bestowed upon me, as well as serve in new ways with new tools. As a CU, I am already identified to the Foundation. --Skenmy ^talk 17:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

Comment IIRC, you are actually part of your local constabulary. I am very wary of someone in such a position being given such a responsibility. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 19:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without making comment on the accuracy of the statement, why would you be wary? --Skenmy ^talk 15:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The risk of outside pressure to inappropriately use the tool. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 19:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even going to dignify that outrageous comment with a response. --Skenmy ^talk 09:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, on the assumption that you're a special constable - or otherwise involved with the police (which you have neither confirmed nor denied), you would resign from that position if a similar situation to the Virgin Killer one came up and you were ordered to remove content from the project by superiors. Really, I do not consider this an unreasonable comment or query. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 10:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Such a situation could not arise - paranoia aside, that sort of "ordering" simply doesn't exist outside of a court. --Skenmy ^talk 12:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not paranoia, and you are quite correct such should happen through a court. My concern is based on many years experience with authorities such as the police. The previous Virgin Killer 'incident' was hideously mismanaged, and the mass blocking of people's editing access to Wikimedia projects went ahead without any reference to a court. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 13:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That didn't have anything to do with the police though. That happened because the government in the UK handed off the job of watching the internet to a privately run special interest group manned by religious fanatics. You can't blame the police for that. Gopher65_talk 22:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Votes edit

Support edit

Support -- Tris 18:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Definitely. Level-headed, perfect oversighter material. Tempodivalse [talk] 19:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pi zero (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Gopher65_talk 03:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sure. Pmlineditor ^discuss 12:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Δενδοδγε _τ\^c 16:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support —fetch·comms 17:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--KTo288 (talk) 18:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Blurpeace 02:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Diego Grez ^{return fire} 14:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Loves huge tools Killing Vector (talk) 18:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I trust {{#USERNAME}} with this job. Cary Bass (talk) 18:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support You can't argue with that last name. Calebrw (talk) 20:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Cspurrier (talk) 00:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose edit

Abstain edit

Abstain - I've not been on wikinews too long so I can only vote for members whom I've had experience with and since I have not yet met this candidate, I can neither vote yea or nay - but I did feel I should explain why, hence the abstain. Turtlestack (talk) 06:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain per above. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 16:17, 12 June 2010 (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.

Skenmy (talk · contribs) (Oversight) edit

As one of your Bureaucrats, Checkusers, and long-term sysop, I feel that I would be suitable to hold the position of Oversight. Some people may call in to question the amount of inactivity I have had over the past few months, and I am not going to try and make excuses - my life has been getting in the way. However, I have stayed abreast of the community, I feel I am up to date with policy and current issues. Even during my apparent inactivity - I am pretty much always pingable on IRC for sysop, bureaucrat, and checkuser tasks.

Having more than 2 users with a priv is always a good idea to prevent corruption and misuse. I would not be particularly comfortable if our number of checkusers dropped below what we currently have, and I would not be comfortable with 2 (and slightly uneasy with 3) Oversighters. Therefore I believe it is in the best interests of the community that I offer my assistance and stand for the position of Oversighter.

I believe I am level headed enough to deal with the tool appropriately, I am not one prone to see red or get involved in slanging matches - I am honest, open, and I hope that I still have enough trust in this community to continue to hold tools bestowed upon me, as well as serve in new ways with new tools. As a CU, I am already identified to the Foundation. --Skenmy ^talk 17:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

Comment IIRC, you are actually part of your local constabulary. I am very wary of someone in such a position being given such a responsibility. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 19:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without making comment on the accuracy of the statement, why would you be wary? --Skenmy ^talk 15:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The risk of outside pressure to inappropriately use the tool. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 19:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even going to dignify that outrageous comment with a response. --Skenmy ^talk 09:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, on the assumption that you're a special constable - or otherwise involved with the police (which you have neither confirmed nor denied), you would resign from that position if a similar situation to the Virgin Killer one came up and you were ordered to remove content from the project by superiors. Really, I do not consider this an unreasonable comment or query. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 10:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Such a situation could not arise - paranoia aside, that sort of "ordering" simply doesn't exist outside of a court. --Skenmy ^talk 12:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not paranoia, and you are quite correct such should happen through a court. My concern is based on many years experience with authorities such as the police. The previous Virgin Killer 'incident' was hideously mismanaged, and the mass blocking of people's editing access to Wikimedia projects went ahead without any reference to a court. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 13:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That didn't have anything to do with the police though. That happened because the government in the UK handed off the job of watching the internet to a privately run special interest group manned by religious fanatics. You can't blame the police for that. Gopher65_talk 22:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite exactly why I was raising the concern; Skenmy's almost-always done really good stuff for the project, But, could possibly face a difficult situation if something really bad about law enforcement was published here – especially if it featured OR, and, say, unnamed sources. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 10:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is a big issue TBH. While I don't know what policy for this sort of thing is on the other side of the pond, seems like it would have to go through a court before any action could be forced, and even if it were, the WMF, not us, would probably be obliged to do it, as an office action. In any case, I trust Skenmy not to succumb to any external influence to use his tools inappropriately. Tempodivalse [talk] 13:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────┘

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see this as being any different than anyone else here who is employed by a large organization. Are we going to ban Google employees on the off-chance that we might some day publish something damaging to Google? Are we going to ban all government employees? Are we going to ban employees of the various Red Cross organizations, just in case we ever (re)publish a corruption story about them? If we're going to do that, then we're going to *really* limit our userbase. At that point the only people who can be admins are the self-employed, the chronically unemployed, and people who work for family owned businesses. Everyone else has potential conflicts of interest... if you're paranoid enough. I'm not saying that such conflicts couldn't happen, I'm saying we can't punish people based on long-shot hypothetical situations. What are we, the goons in Minority Report? Gopher65_talk 14:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without meaning to address at all the merits of the particular case, I do think there is very good reason to consider this case in a different light than, say, employment by Google. The more powerful the organization involved, the greater the difficulty of stabilizing society against fluctuations in the organization's smoothly beneficial behavior. When some part of a corporation (or the whole thing) goes off the deep end, we hope to get government to help rein them in. When some part of a government (...) goes off the deep end, it's the whole of society that one hopes to see deal with it, and an important component in the machinery for that is a free press. There's no stable state of this system; it takes perpetual rebalancing to keep it going. The system is especially vulnerable to instabilities in the smoothly beneficial functioning of government, and therefore the free press (that's us), being part of the backup system for that, needs to keep a careful eye on its contingency plans for those sorts of situations. --Pi zero (talk) 17:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This nomination has run it's course. Now that we have 3 OSes I'm happier to step down from my nomination rather than let it sit here - it's clear that I will not muster enough votes, what with the group of abstentions. --Skenmy ^talk 09:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Votes edit

Support edit

Support -- Tris 18:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Definitely. Level-headed, perfect oversighter material. Tempodivalse [talk] 19:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pi zero (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Gopher65_talk 03:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sure. Pmlineditor ^discuss 12:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Δενδοδγε _τ\^c 16:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support —fetch·comms 17:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--KTo288 (talk) 18:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Blurpeace 02:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Diego Grez ^{return fire} 14:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Loves huge tools Killing Vector (talk) 18:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I trust {{#USERNAME}} with this job. Cary Bass (talk) 18:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support You can't argue with that last name. Calebrw (talk) 20:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Cspurrier (talk) 00:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Essentially per Tempo. C628 (talk)
Support - Amgine | ^t 21:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Benny the mascot (talk) 14:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Jeff G. ツ 03:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose edit

~~Oppose~~ Per the discussion about Skenmy's police involvement. I trust Skenmy to know better; I don't trust his superiors. I have witnessed police incomeptence, read about police incompetence and been brought up with a man who dealt with police incompetence for seveal years on a professional basis. My concern is not so much that this is a problem; it is that Skenmy refuses to even acknowledge any merit in the question. Had Skenmy said the obvious rebuttal ("Most police aren't like that, I'm certainly not, I would resist such action and point out its illegality") then I would be quite satisfied. Unfortunately, Skenmy has chosen to sweep this aside without directly addressing the question. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have not addressed the question directly as I am a) not permitted to comment in any official capacity b) because it is offensive to myself. I am now being accused of possible corruption and of law-breaking, which is simply not on. I simply fail to see where the problem lies. --Skenmy ^talk 06:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You have been accused of nothing. You are being asked to distance yourself from it. I left my vote there quite some time, but not once did you recognise why someone might pop such a question. I did not change easily, or happily. How hard is it to have said "I'm better than that"? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 07:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would have hoped my years of service here would have proven my loyalty and trustworthyness, not the fact that I did not comment on a matter that I am not permitted to comment on. Clearly not. --Skenmy ^talk 07:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't even say you weren't allowed to comment. Why is this question any different from the general 'why do you think you are trustworthy?' questions that everyone gets asked, other than that it is tailored to circumstances? Your stance is most unsettling. It is not what I expected from you. Do you honestly expect us to treat you differently than any other CU candidate? We all know who you are, but we still throw these questions past the candidates. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 15:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having calmed down somewhat since originally reading your opposal, BRS, I see where you are coming from. I simply cannot and do not see a way of me being pressured by my superiors to do anything to the detriment of this site. It is a personal account, with a private password, not a job account. It is not something that I consider tamperable or usable by my employers, whether that be a police force or otherwise. You must realise that I am extremely limited in what I can say - however I hope that now my response settles you somewhat. It has taken some time to craft correctly. I considered the question different to the 'why do you think you are trustworthy?' set and my defence mechanism triggered as I read your comments as an accusation - for which I apologise. --Skenmy ^talk 20:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. After some thought, I will strike my oppose. I hope you won't be offended if I abstain from this election now. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ As per BRS --RockerballAustralia c 06:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ I hesitated a long time over this. I trust the candidate, which was the basis of my original support.

Institutions do not have fixed membership, and individuals in them have varying strengths and weaknesses. Trusting an individual is possible; trusting an institution is a type error: "trust" isn't an operation supported on objects of type "institution". The question that clarified my position on this was not what would happen to Wikinews if the candidate were inappropriately pressured, but what would happen to the candidate.

There are peripheral worries surrounding the discussions above, but they're murky. Most currently, if the candidate is not permitted to comment on an issue relevant to the nomination —which is unclear, to me anyway, from the above— then the nomination is inappropriate. --Pi zero (talk) 20:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sufficiently reassured that I'm striking my oppose vote. --Pi zero (talk) 17:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain edit

Abstain - I've not been on wikinews too long so I can only vote for members whom I've had experience with and since I have not yet met this candidate, I can neither vote yea or nay - but I did feel I should explain why, hence the abstain. Turtlestack (talk) 06:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain per above. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 16:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC) I suppose he isn't going to do anything bad. Striking my vote. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 17:29, 24 June 2010 (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 comment. Please do not modify it.

Comments on oversight requests edit

I am likely going to oppose all these oversight request. I am one of the people here who use to have oversight - before wmf decided to strip wn of all its checkusers and oversighters a couple of years back. However, the reason I oppose this request is as follows. I believe that this vote should have been held after the arbcom election. Indeed, that has how we have ran these things in the past. Furthermore, I believe that while all of these users can be trusted, I think we should have had a WC talk first, before all theses noms came in. Therefore, I oppose. Brian | (Talk) | ^{New Zealand Portal} 04:30, 9 June 2010 (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. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thunderhead (remove) edit

Hey there, everyone. I'd like to temporarily resign my administrative privileges. It's been quite a while since I've been working on the articles - I've been working behind the scenes on administrative tasks. I'd like to have my privileges removed so that I can focus on the articles. If at all possible, I'd like to regain them again in the future without a week-long referendum, but if I need to, then I can. :-) --Thunderhead ^{(t - e - c)} 02:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hold C628's reapplying for adminship kinda set a new precedent that says that former admins who want their privileges back must go through the week-long RFA process again. Are you ok with that? Benny the mascot (talk) 02:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If resigned under non-controversial circumstances, and not "under a cloud", they can just ask for it back, without a new RFA. -- Cirt (talk) 02:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm fine with that, I just didn't want to be a bother with another vote. Right now, my main goal is to focus on writing - not admin tasks - so, that's not an issue with me. --Thunderhead ^{(t - e - c)} 02:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah, yes — Cirt is correct! I took another look at the AAA discussion, and it seems that C628 had to undergo another vote because he resigned during a controversy. That is not the case here, so there should be no problem with giving your tools back whenever you need them. Best of luck! Benny the mascot (talk) 02:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Bawolff ☺☻ 02:35, 11 June 2010 (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 adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Diego Grez (talk · contribs – Edit rights) edit

Well. After all Matthew Edwards controversy, and that finally this has settled down, and we are going to get a bunch of nice oversighters, I'm nominating myself for adminship. I like to revert vandalism and with the admin mop it would be much easier (to delete them). I'm not really sure if the Wikinews community trusts me enough for this, after some failed attempts. I have done my best. I have +3000 edits, and I'm a sysop at MediaWiki.org. Also, I'm being mentored in Wikiversity on how to take appropiate decisions as admin. I did that voluntarily because I think I do rushed decisions and later I remorse. Anyway, vote! Thanks in advance for this (once again) opportunity :) --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 02:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

Votes edit

Neutral *sigh* You seem to be quite hot-headed sometimes; maybe the language barrier is preventing you from showing off your nicer side??? :-/ Perhaps it shall suffice to say that I doubt you have the ability right now to be diplomatic. However, I shall wait for other Wikinewsies to opine before I make my final vote. Benny the mascot (talk) 03:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Maybe I can't find sometimes nicer words to tell things. After all, I want this to do vandalism cleanup, Y'know ;-) --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 03:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But that's my main concern. Diplomacy is very important in vandalism cleanup, especially when we are dealing with potentially helpful contributors. Your wording here is quite discouraging. Benny the mascot (talk) 03:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think so. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 03:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Oppose. I appreciate your current work, Diego, and I know you mean well, but I'm not comfortable having you as an admin ATM. Specifically, I'm concerned you don't have the judgment necessary for a sysop. For instance, this wasn't exactly an insightful or helpful edit; additionally, your comments at AAA over the Matthew fiasco leave me somewhat disconcerted over your ability to act appropriately. It's not like we are in dire need of extra admins, and one can fight the little vandalism that we do have with other tools (like rollback, which you have). I'm also not comfortable with your comments to Mchris' talk page Benny linked to above; it's not against our policies to focus extensively on one specific topic, in fact that's usually a good thing. Sorry. No hard feelings Tempodivalse [talk] 03:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Abstain I'm rather unsure at this point. —Mike moral ♪♫ 03:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enough. I withdraw this. :) --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 03:34, 11 June 2010 (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. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Inactive Admins edit

Done Permissions were removed. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 18:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to this, the following admins have not been active in the last year (Since 2009-06-01). We should de-sysop them until the come back active again. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 22:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Lankiveil (talk · contribs)~~ Per self-request here, I removed this user's admin privs. -Tempodivalse [talk]
Stevenfruitsmaak (talk · contribs)
Nyarlathotep (talk · contribs)
Dark Squall (talk · contribs)
FellowWikiNews (talk · contribs)
Doldrums (talk · contribs)
Ral315 (talk · contribs)
Lyellin (talk · contribs)

Comments and questions edit

Question Has any attempt been made to contact any of these admins for comment? Tempodivalse [talk] 22:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. There is too much risk to project integrity has always been my stance on this. A "hacked account" is one point, not being up-to-date on policies is another. Our real supporters/contributors will take a period to break back in. If they care about the project, they will not complain about this.--Brian McNeil / ^talk 01:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nonetheless, it's at least a basic courtesy to inform the admins in question that their rights could be removed, give them a chance to reply. I'll ping them on talk pages and perhaps email shortly. Tempodivalse [talk] 01:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go right ahead; instead of bickering about it here. You can edit; says it on the tin. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 01:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uhuh. Pinged by talk page for now, I'll see if I can send out some emails in a bit as well. Tempodivalse [talk] 01:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment you missed one. But, that is because I would go by edits to the main namespace that are to published articles. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 01:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Votes edit

Oppose as I disagree with the inactivity policy. What harm do inactive users pose to the project? Honestly, I don't see the point of desysoping these users if they're likely going to get their rights back if/when they return - seems rather a waste of energy. Tempodivalse [talk] 22:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What harm do they pose? A lot if their account is compromised - and they'd never know - cause they aren't around. As we 'crats now have the power to take admin away, this is a piece of cake. We don't have to meta anything. So it's a few clicks to take it away and if/when they come back, it's a few clicks to give it back. In the mean time we can sleep better at night knowing their accounts wont be used for evil. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 22:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - But if someone wanted to crack an admin account, surely it wouldn't be any easier for them just because the user hadn't edited recently. Any potential hackers would just move on to other accounts that still have the bit. Tempodivalse [talk] 22:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, I'm not saying that it is any easier or difficult on inactive accounts. It is all about if it will go noticed. If someone cracks my account (possibly changing my password on me) and starts fooling about on wiki - I'm gonna notice and get my account shutdown till it is sorted (Like when Brian requested all his bits be removed due to viri). If someone is inactive, they will not notice if their account is being used for evil. The hacker will just go about causing us all sorts of issues till we were forced to revoke permissions due due to misdeeds. Now that user will have to get their setup fixed up AND prove to us that they weren't in control of their own account when used to do damage. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 23:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'd think that, should someone hack into an admin account, that would be immediately obvious to everyone (i.e. funny stuff going on in recent changes, logs, etc.). Tempodivalse [talk] 23:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Going to have to agree with Shaka on this one. Bad things happen if an admin account is compromised, and knowing from first-hand experience how easy it is for 'crats to desysop and resysop people, it makes sense to me take preventative measures. C628 (talk) 22:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain I don't care very much one way or another. I don't think the risk of their account being compromised is very significant (everything can be undone, whats the worst that can happen? Well de-admining them will reduce the number of potential targets, there will always be some targets) OTOH, they are not here, who cares if they are de-admined. If they become active again they can always be re-admined. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. Agree with Shaka, and if they decide to come back, bring them the bits without further problems (a.k.a. votings). --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 23:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support For ease of counting above vote --Skenmy ^talk 17:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Simple safety measure. --Pi zero (talk) 00:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
very strong support. Who can't think of significant changes in recent months? I've no issue about a speedier re-grant of privs, but with admin comes 'editor' – or the right to grant such. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 01:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Best to take of the sysop bit until their returns, to which I wouldn't have a problem regranting rights. —Mike moral ♪♫ 07:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support — I'll support this, but with the caveat that the re-admin process be fairly easy. They already went through it once, so I see no reason to go through the whole kit and caboodle again. Gopher65_talk 14:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support periodical purges aren't a bad thing --Skenmy ^talk 17:33, 21 June 2010 (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 successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Promoted. Tempodivalse [talk] 14:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

InfantGorilla (talk · contribs) edit

I have been back six weeks. Is my combined experience enough to show I can be trusted with the tools? I have a habit of littering the place with uncontroversial editprotected tags that I would like to deal with myself. I will be glad to assist with admin backlogs when I can. --InfantGorilla (talk) 08:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

A few statistics for the edit-counters: 1,768 edits, of which 108 are deleted; 528 different pages (averaging three edits a page), and 40% mainspace edits. Joined in November 2006; user has not opted into detailed statistics. Approximately 280 edits since the UK General Election. Before May 2010, the user was last active in February. — μ 10:49, June 24 2010 (UTC)

A quick perusal of InfantGorilla's last hundred Talk: contributions shows up 15 {{editprotected}} requests (based purely on edit summaries), spread evenly between today and the 17 May (but none in between). The current EP backlog is nine. One of them is a different user, and the other eight are InfantGorilla's, which are requests to add the same category to each. I'm not too sure if the categories are warranted. — μ 10:57, June 24 2010 (UTC)

Comment I am of the opinion that, having flagged revisions, the backlog is less of an issue than as-laid out above. The project desperately needs more extremely proficient users of the English language. We do not need more janitors; we need people serving their 10,000-hour apprenticeships and becoming masters of the written word. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 09:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that at my age my English skills will not improve much. With regular practice writing and copy editing here and elsewhere, I hope I can maintain them where they are.
In any case, I would like to volunteer as a janitor, not because wikignoming is a big issue, but because I enjoy it.

--InfantGorilla (talk) 09:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Votes edit

Support I've not had a lot of interaction with InfantGorilla, but from what I've seen he seems quite level-headed and rational, and I trust him to use the tools appropriately. Tempodivalse [talk] 15:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cspurrier (talk) 17:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support After some consideration. Gorilla seems to know xyr way around. Trustworthy Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems rational and user knows what he does. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 02:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support because IG downplays his ability to learn. I was probably on the Internet before many project contributors were even in kindergarten. My English has, through application and constructive critique, improved considerably over the last five or so years. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 23:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My English has improved through writing online for pleasure, but probably, it has merely been a restoration of the capability I had when I took GCE O Levels all those years back. I am glad to hear of the possibility that if I persist, I can improve beyond that level. --InfantGorilla (talk)

Support Clueful individual. —fetch·comms 23:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support No problems that I can see; seems unlikely to screw anything up. C628 (talk) 00:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support No reason to oppose. —Mike moral ♪♫ 03:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I also have no reason to oppose --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 13:00, 5 July 2010 (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. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Candidacy withdrawn by applicant. --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 12:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Grez (talk · contribs) edit

Hi guys. How many times have I done this. I hope you don't consider this disruptive. Well, I'm afraid I failed last time because of ME fiasco. I have been admin-coached by Jtneill, who seems to be a very good person as well. I have always wanted to do archiving =) Probably you could think I get too heated sometimes, but I hope you consider I always try to do my best, and will try to help always as I could. I spend almost all the day online, and I feel I could do well, to help our project. Have written +60 articles, and I hope you consider this humble request, Diego Grez ^{return fire} 02:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

Note: Prior requests, at 17 April 2010, 11 May 2010, 11 June 2010. Has not even been two weeks, since the last unsuccessful one. -- Cirt (talk) 03:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am inclined to a weak oppose vote. Not over Diego's involvement in the ME fiasco (my own was far more spectacularly ill-judged), but for a desire to engage in archiving work with a less-than-stellar command of the nuances of English. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 23:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Brian. My English isn't certainly perfect, but I try to do my best when I write articles. I don't think why should it be a major problem. Thanks for your comment, by the way! Diego Grez ^{return fire} 23:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Votes edit

Weak oppose/neutral It's been less than two weeks since you withdrew your last request. What's the big rush? :-) ATM, it's not as if there is an admin drought; we have plenty of people around to do everyday tasks. While I once again reitirate that I really appreciate your contributions to Wikinews, I know you have our best interests in mind, and I'd like to see you keep editing, my concerns from the previous requests haven't yet completely gone away and I'm not totally comfortable supporting this request. While trying not to sound condescending, my suggestion would be to buckle down for the next two or so months, help us improve Wikinews, try to be a little more level-headed, and don't worry so much about adminship. Seriously, it truly shouldn't be a big deal, especially on a small wiki like this. :-) Tempodivalse [talk] 03:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tempodivalse, many thanks for your vote. I understand your point. I think my words have been misunderstood on my last requests, or maybe my behaviour doesn't let you think about a different position. I know there's no real rush, and I was afraid to ask once more for this, and you know, I try to be helpful whenever I can. I have been in mentoring for some time with Wikiversity's Jtneill, and the rest of the warm Wikiversity community, who has done a great work teaching me how to use the thingies properly. I'd like to point out that I have knowledge of Wikinews' policies, and I don't think I could break anything, and even in doubt, I could ask someone of the many admins that live on IRC. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 17:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm decideing to disregard the last request as, IIRC, current admins were also involved in the incedent for which it was opposed. Diego has been more than helpfull and trustworthy IMHO. --RockerballAustralia c 10:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - ZooFari (talk) 19:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support, but I think another two months will do you more good. —fetch·comms 23:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Regretfully (I seem to remember telling you last time that another month and I'd give my support), but your actions during the Matthewedwards mess left me with a bad taste in my mouth. It's not that you're judgement was spectacularly bad (well, I guess it was bad, but it wasn't worse than anyone else's, and it's not like you've done obviously stupid things since), it's how you communicated during that. Something about how you talked to people seemed like it fit the situation extremely badly, and showed lack of clue in general. I'm specifically thinking of this and this, which, IMO, displayed a lack of good judgement, but during the whole mess in general it didn't seem like you displayed the restraint/tact/diplomacy/whatever that's essential to smooth communication. And so it doesn't seem I'm basing my entire judgement on one incident, I'd also cite this as another example of when it (at least to me) seems like you're jumping on people too fast and when it's unnecessary; in short, a lack of tact when dealing with others. My advice is roughly the same as Tempo's: just try to work in the mainspace for a while, keep up your article-writing (which is generally very good, by the way), and try to think more carefully about what you say. C628 (talk) 00:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. I think I was a bit overheated and the Spanish terms differ from English, and I must have been much 'offensive' than I thought. I deeply reproach that stupidity... but I think I have said (more than twice) that that won't happen more. I'm aware that sysop is such a very sensitive thing, and I don't think I could do bad with it or something, after all, I have been sysop-ing on MediaWiki.org for a while too. Diego Grez ^{return fire} 00:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, more or less per C628. Considering the Matthewedwards incident, I cannot support your candidacy. Your behavior in the IRC channel and on-wiki are too concerning for me to support. Your judgments are occasionally made too quickly, and you quickly revert yourself. I don't feel that you have the right qualities to be a mature, level-headed sysop. Sincerely, Blurpeace 00:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't read Tempodivalse's note about withdrawing only two weeks ago. It only furthers my belief that you are not ready for the responsibility's of properly managing a Wikimedia project. Regretfully, Blurpeace 00:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone commits errors, and everyone there were overheated. The 2-weeks ago rfa was just a 'try' and it failed so deeply because of these matters, the same ones you, tempo and c628 pointed out. I try to be as much helpful and possible and I don't think I could be a danger with the pow. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 00:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People do not rework their personalities in two weeks to a month. You illustrated that you were not ready for the tools then, and your quick reapplication illustrates it now. I think you need to take a step back and spend some time regaining the full trust of your fellow community members. It's clear that most editors here have less than strong support for your candidacy. Why don't you take a few months, and prove our concerns wrong? Sincerely, Blurpeace 00:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Good journalist. Seems to be doing fine as a janitor at MediaWiki.org. However, although admins behaved badly, we should still take temper into account in a request for permissions, which discourages me from offering my full support at this moment. --InfantGorilla (talk) 13:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral (like all my other votes for you requests for sysop) Sorry, but during the Matthew Edwards incident, you weren't very level-headed and you tend to jump rather quickly to positions then quickly change which concerns me, but otherwise you're a great journalist. —Mike moral ♪♫ 03:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Standard "protocol" oppose. I'll not support anyone for adminship who contests an unsuccessful RfA so soon, regardless of how they may have improved. Anyone with four RfAs in one year wants it too much -- and therefore does not understand what adminship means. It's not a tour-of-service medal. — μ 23:38, July 1 2010 (UTC)

I withdraw this candidacy; and I do it happy with three supports I got. I'll give time to the time, and thanks to everyone who voted! Diego Grez ^{return fire} 23:56, 1 July 2010 (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 successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Cspurrier (talk · contribs) (Oversight) edit

Closed as successful. Request on meta filed by Tempodivalse. Benny the mascot (talk) 17:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We may as well have two oversighters. I had it before as a steward and I know how to use it. I am already identified to the foundation from then as well. We have used oversight a handful of times in the past. I believe we can respond faster when its needed with local OS--Cspurrier (talk) 21:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

Comment Correction from my above, we do need 2. OS's, like CU. Check's and balances and all that. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 21:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Do you accept, Craig? Tempodivalse [talk] 23:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note he nommed himself. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 23:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pfft, this drama must really be getting to me. Sorry. Tempodivalse [talk] 00:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question I see from your contributions that you haven't been consistently active. Is this going to continue over the next year or so? Do you intend to be available to perform your oversight duties? Benny the mascot (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The big reason for my inactivity (working on my MA) is gone (I graduated), I expect to be able to maintain a reasonable activity level for the foreseeable future. --Cspurrier (talk) 15:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question what personal qualities do you believe you have which make you suitable for the role of oversighter? --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 18:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have experience using the tools, having used them both here and on other Wiki's as a steward. I believe (like all of the other candidates) that I have a good grasp of what would be an appropriate use of the tools.--Cspurrier (talk) 00:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Votes edit

Support edit

Support Why not. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 21:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 21:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Abstain in the most favourable (and strongest) fashion. - Amgine | ^t
Support, although I don't know him personally, he seems trustworthy enough for the flag. Sincerely, Blurpeace 22:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. -- Cirt (talk) 22:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Mike moral ♪♫ 23:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support —fetch·comms 23:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Trusted. Tempodivalse [talk] 23:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very level headed, and sane. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Gopher65_talk 01:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pi zero (talk) 02:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Skenmy ^talk 07:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --KTo288 (talk) 09:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Δενδοδγε _τ\^c 15:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tris 18:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support After careful thought - I know less of you than the other candidates - I trust you with the tool as well. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Trusted to use the tool well. Pmlineditor ^discuss 15:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Loves huge tools Killing Vector (talk) 18:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I trust Craig with this job. Cary Bass (talk) 18:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacques Divol (talk) 19:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support From what I've seen, he seems rational, calm, and possesses common sense. C628 (talk) 20:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Amgine | ^t 21:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Benny the mascot (talk) 23:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support getting nearer to 25 ;) ABF (talk) 12:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Jeff G. ツ 03:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose edit

weak oppose Craig vanishes for prolonged stints, and has given no indication this will not happen again. I do trust Craig to do the job, I just don't trust him to be there when needed, nor to have been suitably active in any on-wiki role to be less-useful than a steward. The whole principle is about having, on-tap, our own oversighters. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 19:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose I have to agree with Brian on this one. Congrats on graduating, but who knows if you'll be gone again. --Calebrw (talk) 20:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain edit

Abstain - I've not been on wikinews too long so I can only vote for members whom I've had experience with and since I have not yet met this candidate, I can neither vote yea or nay - but I did feel I should explain why, hence the abstain. Turtlestack (talk) 06:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain per above. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 15:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changed my mind. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 17:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain — μ 18:24, June 24 2010 (UTC)

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.

July 2010 edit

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

User promoted per consensus, congrats. Tempodivalse [talk] 17:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pi zero (talk · contribs) edit

I've had in mind for the past several weeks that I would request adminship here; I believe that my ability to help out here would be enhanced. Admittedly, if left entirely to my own devices I would probably have waited another month or even two, due to real-world demands on my time. It has been demonstrated to me recently, though, that there are occasions when participation here becomes important enough to me that I will find time for it — and then BRS nominated me for ArbCom. It seems reasonable to move up my schedule for RFA in light of that nomination. (I do have some limited experience with adminship, by the way, as I was granted it at Wikibooks about a month ago. No, I didn't request there, either; I just didn't choose to turn down the nomination.) --Pi zero (talk) 20:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

Votes edit

Strong Support. Great to have you. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I thought you were already. — μ 20:14, July 10 2010 (UTC)
Support Level-headed user, smart, great administrator material. Tempodivalse [talk] 20:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Definitely. —fetch·comms 00:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Has clue. I honestly thought you were one already. the wub "?!" 10:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, and, to corrupt the wub's supporting comment, has clue, groks Wikinews. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 10:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per l'Wub. Diego Grez ^{return fire} 14:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bawolff ☺☻ 20:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Benny the mascot (talk) 12:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tyrol5 (talk) 14:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per μ. —Mike moral ♪♫ 04:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per 'the wub'. Pi zero would be a great administator. --Nascar 1996 04:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support It would be kind of nice to have a non-admin candidate for ArbCom. Nevertheless, Pi zero will make a good admin, even if busy in real life for a couple of months. --InfantGorilla (talk) 08:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Someone close this up Tyrol5 (talk) 15:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit early at the moment, usually we let requests for adminship run at least a full week before closing to give everyone a chance to voice possible concerns. I don't think we need to rush atm. Tempodivalse [talk] 15:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, I wasn't thinking at the moment. I now realize that. Tyrol5 (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support without a doubt. And to think you were going to close this. :P --Thunderhead ^{(t - e - c)} 16:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Popping over to Support - I think he's a very good editor, not only here, but at WB as well, where he's an admin. Kayau (talk · contribs) 05:30, 15 July 2010 (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. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No consensus. Open for eight and a half days. Votes currently 8–8 among clearly established members of the community, with an additional supporting vote by OhanaUnited. --Pi zero (talk) 19:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brian McNeil (talk · contribs – Edit rights) edit

I solicit the opinion of the Wikinews community as to whether Brian McNeil should continue to hold administrator rights. In the interests of fairness, I will admit that I have just had a dispute with him in which my conduct was less than ideal. However, I believe there have been many issues regarding the way that Brian interacts with other editors here in the recent and not-quite-so-recent past. I will abstain from voting because even if I could maintain a neutral outlook, it wouldn't be perceived as such and I don't wish to appear to be settling a grudge against Brian. If I were an administrator on this project, I would put myself forward here out of fairness, but since I'm not, I've put myself up for reconfirmation of my reviewer rights. How closely the two are related, I'll allow the community to decide. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and questions edit

Comment Are you going to leave me with 'crat rights, but take away admin? --Brian McNeil / ^talk 00:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see no evidence of misuse of the admin/bureaucrat tools, and therefore no reason for this request. However, I am very disappointed that I see a couple of acknowledgements of bad days, accompanied by a willingness to continue the argument, with no public recognition that the recent approach can have an intimidating effect on fellow users. --InfantGorilla (talk) 09:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looking back over this, I come to the conclusion that the entire thing was badly handled from the start. On HJ Mitchell's part, some of the reviews weren't brilliant, the articles could've done with some copyediting or whatnot, but they're no worse than other one's I've seen. On Brian's part, I think the problem stems from his first comment on HJ's talk page, which while no worse than what Brian normally says, could be taken as insulting, condescending, what have you, by someone not familiar with his manner of speaking, which is obviously how HJ took it, part of the problem being that Brian sort of went halfway in fixing the article, de-publishing it (I don't agree with that, the needed changes were rather small, it's not like the entire article was a disaster, and HJ supplied the requisite third source later on) and doing some copyedits, but then failed to follow through with bringing the article back up to publishing standard. So then Brian reverts HJ's message on his talk page, which I think was the worst action possible in that situation, it just reinforces the appearance that Brian is somehow superior to others, particularly with an edit summary of "pah!" That said, HJ's note wasn't particularly within the realms of civility or etiquette (I won't even go into AGF), and was rather over the top, particularly when there's already rising tensions. (I, it must be said, didn't exactly help in calming those tensions...) Brian ends up avoiding the issue of civility in his response, which was the whole point of HJ's original message, only providing links to various diffs, which is not particularly helpful when not accompanied by an explanation. HJ's response is actually surprisingly good, given the circumstances, and I think points out the issues he has with Brian quite well. Should've been the first comment he made, not the second. Brian's response makes sense, but proceeds on the premise that it's not his responsibility to fix problems, at least as far as I can tell, which IMO is wrong, if he (Brian) sees something wrong, he should fix it, not point it out, fix something else, and go away. Then HJ goes and adds this, as well as the de-reviewer one. Makes sense, but I think jumped the gun a bit, at least this one. More discussion should have been attempted before, but given the reception HJ's comments received thus far, I can't fault him for having very little faith in discussion.

TL;DR: Brian over-reacted to the articles problems, HJ over-reacted to Brian's comment, and everything went downhill from there. C628 (talk) 14:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see a few comments here that "there has been no abuse of the tools so no reason to remove privs". That's true in some sense, but I believe there are other reasons to consider removing privileges. We select our administrators not only because we trust them not to delete the front page or obvious stuff like that, but also because we trust they have reached a certain level of maturity, know how to act appropriately, and observe site policies and guidelines. This is an exact repeat of what happened several weeks ago with a previous de-admin request and the de-checkuser request before that; a lot of people said something to the effect of "tempers flared, but it's okay now and it probably won't happen again". I find it becoming painfully obvious Brian cannot learn from any of this, and I see no evidence that further "reminders" or cautions to be more civil will have any lasting effect. Previous ones have not. Tempodivalse [talk] 15:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This would be a perfect thing to read in relation to this. Yes, I realize it's a Wikipedia page, and therefore numerous people, including the one who could use its advice best, will not open it. C628 (talk) 23:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The main difficulty (so it seems to me) when applying that essay to Wikinews isn't with the list of attributes, but with the "100%". Although the "100%" is hyperbole, "attitude" as elaborated is a much more important asset for a Wikipedia admin than procedural/technical cluefulness. On Wikinews, the relative importance of clue versus "attitude" is roughly reversed. --Pi zero (talk) 04:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<nod with Pi zero> And one dramatically different point: this vote is not about adminship; it's about bureaucratship. IMO, it has nothing to do with thinking about/acting like an admin. That position is solely about the best interests of, and the position in the larger picture of, the Wikinews project. - Amgine | ^t 14:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only time limitation on the RfP page is for adminship: 7 days. This has been running 10 days now. How long is this going to be allowed to be trolled? - Amgine | ^t 01:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure I don't see anyone trolling here, but rather having an active discussion about whether someone should retain their rights. Swatjester (talk) 18:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

wikt:troll, Etym 2, Verb, sense #6. - Amgine | ^t 18:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think any operations are being disrupted here, unless you think the entire RFP process is disruptive (in which case, its a paradox of "how can something part of normal operations be disruptive to normal operations"). But I guess we'll agree to disagree. Swatjester (talk) 18:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't consider it impertinent, how much a part of this online community do you consider yourself? - Amgine | ^t 18:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's rich, coming from someone with "This user left Wikinews, so leaving any messages on this page will be pointless." at the top of their talk page. the wub "?!" 18:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<grin> Despite which I initiate articles, edit/review/publish... (but never touch the leads), and reply promptly. - Amgine | ^t 18:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Philippe edit

As you all know well, the Wikimedia Foundation is loathe to engage in the internal decision making processes of the wikis. We've traditionally held the view that the communities govern themselves well, and without our interference. We continue to hold that view, and I'm not coming in wielding a big weapon or anything here. However, I think that sometimes the best thing I can do is to share my opinion, because I'm in the lucky position of being paid to watch and think about our projects all the time.

I am gravely concerned about some of the quotes that I'm seeing from Brian. In particular, I believe that this comment is beyond the pale. I'm embarrassed for our projects that someone in a leadership role left a message like that. While there's no meta policy for civility, there is a moral requirement that we treat each other with kindness and respect. I wish I could say that this is the first "slip up" of the type from Brian, but I can't help but see a pattern of uncivil discourse that is troubling from an acknowledged leader in this project.

I'm not going to try to tell this community how to treat it's own... but I strongly encourage you to think about how you want to be represented. These types of affairs are the ones that bubble up when people talk about bullying on our projects. These are the ones that contribute to public perception. Please know that I condemn, in the strongest possible terms, recent uncivil statements from Brian, particularly given what appears to be an ongoing and worsening problem.

Philippe Beaudette, Head of Reader Relations, Wikimedia Foundation. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 21:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phillipe, this is the first I've seen your comment; I have been very very busy with other things, something which has impacted how well I have worked on-wiki, and that comment was quite, quite unacceptable. I have admitted such. And, per what I am aware is being raised as drama elsewhere, I issued an apology when additional facts were brought to my attention. I would, however, refer yourself, and Swatjester – who has waded in and voted below – to WN:RFCU. I would also chide Swatjester for grossly mischaracterising my departure from the Communications Committee. How, exactly was my judgement impaired? I had, fairly quietly, complained the prior year that the fundraiser was extremely inconsiderate to projects other than Wikipedia. Trot out the phrase "cultural insensitivity" on-wiki in 2009, and *bing!*, I'm off the committee. But, I had no serious interest in remaining involved in the talking-shop for one of the top ten websites; that despite the hundreds of man-hours I devoted to trying to keep the WMF press queue cleaned up. I suggest you ask Cary for my Skype contact details should you wish to speak directly to me regarding this issue. I have seen that this issue has, by a certain party, been escalated to OTRS. I have not seen said correspondence, and it would be highly inappropriate for me to access OTRS and do so. It would also, I suspect, be a complete waste of time. I'd put good money on said correspondence coming via emails that are, effectively, untraceable. Really, is it any wonder that I lose my temper and go to pieces so fast the shrapnel hits people as I witness all the work I put into this project, and which Sandy admired enough to put me on CommComm because of, dismantled by people who put being nice, and politic, before hard, factual, non-copyright-violating news reportage? -- Brian McNeil (alt. account) /^{alt-talk • main talk} 20:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- We hold our users to a higher standard to not lose their temper and go to pieces. If you can't control your temper, you should not be in a position where that inability can hamper the project -- either here on Wikinews or anywhere else. I could refer you to Wikinews:Etiquette. You recognize that your comment was unacceptable. Good. If you've been in situations where you are making unacceptable comments like that, you need to take a voluntary break from the project, and you ought to relinquish admin privileges until such time as your judgment and temper are stable again. Swatjester (talk) 00:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Through use of "The Royal We", I will assume you are expressing the official position of the Wikimedia Foundation Dan. I cannot really think of anything more entertaining than youself and Mike Godwin having to fight off lawsuits, and defend the WMF in the face pf such because you've driven me off this project for losing my temper over, repeatedly, trying to avoid that happening to naiive contributors. You can't, on orders from Sue and Mike, wade into project-internal politics without seriously risking your security under safe harbour provisions. But, your choice. This vote is way overdue for closure; my advice would be to withdraw, with dignity intact; stop 'meatpuppetting' Wikipedians who might take your suggestions seriously, and realise your position, as a 'legal intern' with the WMF means you should have ran away from this particular task. The first particularly irate person with a smart lawyer who tries to sue the WMF over material published on Wikinews will, by virtue of this discussion, have excellent grounds to supoena the entire archives of the ComCom mailing list. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 18:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Votes edit

Support removal. Brian's recent conduct has been completely against what I'd expect of an administrator on the project, and anyone with less clout probably would have been blocked for it. While I appreciate his ability to be straightforward when necessary, unfortunately he is no longer able to tell when he's going too far. He banned and de-opped me from our #wikinews channel a few weeks ago solely for disagreeing with him, for instance - which does not inspire confidence in his ability to use privileges appropriately. The following comments, among others are highly unbefitting of a bureaucrat: [4] [5] [6] I'd like to be more forgiving, but Brian refuses to acknowledge that his attitude is offputting, even when many other contributors in good standing have voiced concern over it. Tempodivalse [talk] 00:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose we _just_ did this. Nom sounds like a Tempo mouth piece anyways. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 00:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Did we? I've been inactive for a while. I could always put Tempo up if that will assure people i'm speaking on nbody's behalf but my own. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Really, you're dealing with a news site. Would you be comfortable were I, per ShakataGaNai's comment, to request CheckUser? I seem to have misplaced that priv bit. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 00:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And that kind of comment is exactly why ~~it was taken away from you. the wub "?!" 09:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)~~ you no longer have it. the wub "?!" 21:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was taken away from me because I requested that be done. Twice, in the middle of a particularly disruptive vote on the issue. Do not twist, or otherwise misrepresent, substantive facts. This whole nomination is a particularly dramatic WN:POINT exercise. If the people who've joined from The Other Place want their AGI and whatnot, then bring yourselves, and other new arrivals from there, up to scratch. Stop rubber-stamp reviews; consider review and publish equivalent to enWP's "Good Article" criteria. You can't fix what Google News reads once something is published; you can't retract it from twitter, Facebook, and god-only-knows how many other feeds. And, comments about the state of my mental health? That is technically in print, thus libellous. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 20:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I had misremembered that, and certainly did not mean to deliberately misrepresent the situation. (Although it would be disingenuous to suggest the vote was not heading that way). Apologies too that the remarks with my vote were perhaps a little strong, they were in the heat of the moment, and could probably have been worded better. Believe it or not I am passionate about this project too, and like you my passion sometimes gets the better of me. The intention was not to speculate on your mental health, but to highlight your paranoia and increasingly erratic behaviour on-wiki. On reflection the wording was insensitive to both you and those who do have mental health problems.
It seems almost impossible to convince you of this, but I want to improve standards on Wikinews just as much as you do. The same goes for most (I would hope all) of the people voting here. I am utterly against "rubber-stamp" reviews, and am certainly not averse to removing reviewer bits when they are misused. But the sad fact is, there is a serious lack of good writers and reviewers on Wikinews. This project is dying - and that is demonstrably not just melodrama. Why? Well there are many reasons of course, but the hostile atmosphere has to be the main one. A user who has contributed countless good articles, and who has a vast amount of respect in the community, is viciously hounded off the project for no apparent reason other than disagreeing with you. A new reporter suffers a family tragedy, and returns to find himself blocked, with a gang baying for his blood, and a picture of a gallows placed on his userpage. The mere suggestion that we should assume good intentions of people is loudly denounced as the end of Wikinews as we know it. Wikipedia is constantly berated, despite being one of our biggest sources of traffic and potential users (though I do note you seem to have acquired the Wikipedian tendency to completely misapply WP/N:POINT). What kind of message does all this send? God knows why any new user would join up today, especially when the main protagonist of this remains an administrator and a bureaucrat on the project, and shows absolutely no evidence of changing his ways, or even acknowledging a problem.
And as we fail to attract new users, and drive off old hands (not just Tempo, several other users have already left in disgust - and I doubt they will be the last) a vicious circle continues. Fewer experienced users, reviews take longer. Newbies leave because by the time their articles are published they aren't news anymore, or worse they end up unpublished as {{stale}}. Reviewers slip up under the pressure. More users burnout, become disenchanted, or are driven off. We fail to cover major news stories. Quality doesn't improve - it declines.
Brian, you have done great work here, and believe me it really is appreciated. Wikinews certainly wouldn't be where it is today without you. But you don't have all the answers, you can't just ignore people's concerns, attempt to shut off discussions, threaten people with blocks when all they are trying to do is improve Wikinews too. You aren't omniscient - and please stop being so bloody patronising.
I'm sorry this is so long, but it seems remarkably hard to get through to you. Don't worry though, this is about the last time I'll try. I don't really care what the final result of this RfP is, though I would be upset at the message it sends if you keep the rights. What really matters is that you recognise that other people can have legitimate concerns, without being out to undermine or disrupt the project. I really hope that you can, because it would be extremely difficult to revive this project without you, but it wouldn't be half as difficult as you doing it alone. the wub "?!" 21:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ: I nommed him for desysoping and decrating back in June, I think, the result was a resounding "meh." C628 (talk) 14:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I can't fully support or oppose this nomination because of the second link Tempo provided and because Brian has acknowledged that he had a bad day (even by his standard) - this diff. --RockerballAustralia c 01:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Diego Grez ^{return fire} 02:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the comments below, this is not the right way to get us rid of the drama and idiotic fights. I change my vote to Oppose --Diego Grez (alternate account) ^{alt. talk} 14:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Whee, here we go again. Support removal of both crat and sysop privileges, especially because of that diff on Mikemoral's talk page, hadn't seen it, and general unpleasantness from Brian in recent months, highly unbecoming of anyone who holds any position of power on this site. C628 (talk) 03:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (sorry this sounds a little harsh) I do not feel brianmc's comments (or at least his initial comment) to HJ were inappropriate. However with that said brianmc's constant bickering with more and more people is getting tiresome. He does very good work, but so do other people. One must be able to get along with other people in order to be more useful than harmful. Bawolff ☺☻ 04:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone has been in a sour mood as of late. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 04:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not this sort of "sour". Tempodivalse [talk] 14:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Brian's behaviour has moved well beyond "curmudgeonly" now, and into the realms of "mentally unstable". The presented diffs are good evidence of this, and I'm sure other examples could easily be found. But it's not just the outbursts (I don't care about swearing), it's his entire attitude. He is egotistical, patronising, vindictive and completely unwilling to listen to others. This is driving off new contributors and old ones, and it has to stop. the wub "?!" 08:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I see no abuse of the tools, though I will concede that some comments he has made are sub-optimal. I would strongly urge Brian to curb the somewhat irrascible posts (think twice before posting and not in the heat of the moment). I would also request that some people stop baiting him. Oh, and some of the comments/votes smack appallingly of score-settling. --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 12:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom Benny the mascot (talk) 14:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also per the Hayashi interview deletion. Brian should not have closed a contriversial deletion debate that he was heavily involved in. Admins need to remain neutral when they are using the tools. Benny the mascot (talk) 16:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Everyone was involved in that debate. Admins have discretion, and I expect all admins to use their discretion to the benefit of the project. --InfantGorilla (talk) 10:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:::Well talk about the pot calling the kettle black. In the not-so-distant past you inappropriately used your tools when you were clearly involved. Are you going to hold yourself to your own standards of behaviour? --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 13:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Alex, Benny can be forgiven on grounds of age; but, it is good to highlight where others are standing inside glass houses. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 21:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I put myself up for reconfirmation after that incident. Benny the mascot (talk) 21:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed you did. You have youth on your side, unlike me at 39 years and 11 months, and my memory is not quite what it used to be. Duly struck. --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 23:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: People who claim they are leaving the project should do what they say; not be attacking those contributors who are saying they will remain and support the project. We don't need a scorched earth practice here. Wikinews is not a battleground. - Amgine | ^t 16:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not sure if I have suffrage on this site and/or in this discussion. However, the comments above by the wub seem to be on-the-money. I'm not sure if forceful removal is necessary, though. Personally, I'd much rather see Brian simply take a break from the site for a few weeks. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just did a wee bit of research on voting policy re: permissions. I cannot find a decently declared project policy. I believe it has been traditionally held that any wikimedian voting from a registered account may vote in any poll on Wikinews, and anon IP are welcome to vote in most, with final say being given to the person closing the poll (or the election committee, if one is established.) In short, just vote MZMcBride. - Amgine | ^t 14:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've always thought that people who aren't generally part of the community are allowed to vote, but their vote would probably not be counted, except for tie breaking. Bawolff ☺☻ 21:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per MZMcBride. This is a user conduct issue, and taking away the tools doesn't help. —fetch·comms 18:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think I'll Support this. After actually further examination, this behavior has been happening for a very long time, and none of the warnings given have helped. I think Philippe summed it up above: do we want this sort of attitude in a sysop or crat? —fetch·comms 21:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As far as I can tell, this is a long way from what Admins open to recall should be about. It should not be a beauty contest on whether a user is intimidating, egotistical or patronising: we have dispute resolution for that. I am glad that Mr McNeil is a member of the cleanup crew. --InfantGorilla (talk) 10:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Admins open to recall says he's willing to stand for reconfirmation if there's concrete evidence of misuse and enough editors in good standing ask him to. Reconfirmation is voluntary (except under extraordinary circumstances), and is a different section of the page; this is a removal proceeding. The nomination did not claim to be about misuse of the privileges, and most who mention misuse here say there hasn't been any. Also, as far as I know, he was not asked to stand for reconfirmation. --Pi zero (talk) 13:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks: I did not notice that section of the page. So, to avoid doubt, I reaffirm my statement: a removal debate should not be a beauty contest. User should keep his admin privileges. --InfantGorilla (talk) 13:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why? He's driving off editors and dragging down morale. I've nothing against him personally but his conduct is totally unbecoming anyone in any position of authority. What has he done that is so special for people to allow him to behave like this or that makes him more valuable than the editors he's driving off? If I acted like that, someone would do something and so they bloody well should. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~::::Seconded HJ Mitchell. And well put. He's an admin and a crat, not a God, let's not treat him like one. BarkingFish (talk) 03:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)~~ Comment struck - Enlightened by Brian, I withdraw from this debate. BarkingFish (talk) 22:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support, I think we've moved from "isolated incident" to "recurring problem". Definitely not befitting of a sysop or bureaucrat. Blurpeace 17:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* Support wholeheartedly - Having recently seen comments here which ultimately contributed to a user leaving the project, and other interactions he has had with users here, I don't believe that it is either right or proper for Brian McNeil to retain his privileges at this project any longer. Those kind of responsibilities entail keeping your head (and your responses) civil, something which this user has quite clearly forgotten. BarkingFish (talk) 23:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Comment struck - Enlightened by Brian, I withdraw from this debate. BarkingFish (talk) 22:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very curious how you compare/contrast this vote with your FlaggedRevs vote, edit summary "Votes: retain rights. Everyone deserves a second chance". - Amgine | ^t 03:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*::: Comment - I'm happy to clarify that for you, Amgine. My vote there is one which says "sort him out, teach him the right way and let him try again." - I don't believe HJ's been with us that long, and so he may need a bit of a boost with his understanding to help him do what he's doing. Brian on the other hand has been with us long enough and had enough people tell him about his behaviour to know what he is doing is wrong, and it's well past the option of second chances. We could give him as many as we liked, and he still wouldn't get the message. The time for talking is passed, way passed. BarkingFish (talk) 15:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)Comment struck - Enlightened by Brian, I withdraw from this debate. BarkingFish (talk) 22:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is a little past the second chance here, given that this is the second desysop proposal, he's only gotten messages on his talk page about a dozen times, not to mention everywhere else he's been told to stop. We blew right past the second chance ages ago. C628 (talk) 03:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose removal of admin status...or any status for that matter. I been around a long time to have to give my reasons. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 05:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry DragonFire1024, but it doesn't quite work like that. Being around for a long time doesn't mean you don't have to give reasons, or that you've earned any special right. You should know better than that. Without a reason behind your oppose, it's basically worthless. Swatjester (talk) 06:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually it is my right to not state a reason. I don't have to really. Being around long enough does matter. Assume good faith for one, especially a contributor that's been around for almost 5 years, and Brian even longer. With the amount of vandals, trolls, fakes and etc I have had to deal with, I can safely say that Brian is a lot more nice than ha has to be. If it were not for him and other devoted contributors, then I might not have gotten the OR I have gotten, we would not have a accredited emails, press badges, the list goes on. So put yourself in the shoes of people like him, and you can understand that its not all fun and games all the time. With that said, I could have just said a one word vote. And not given a reason. But I did, and I still stand with my vote. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 22:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, actually its not. This, like all projects, is egalitarian. Quote: "All participants are equal. If you are a good faith participant to Wikinews, your opinion counts as much as others." Wikinews:Policies_and_guidelines. There is no special privilege that being around longer means that you no longer have to explain your actions. Swatjester (talk) 00:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Dragonfire (as a user in good standing) can vote however he wants, and does not have to give reasons for his votes. Bawolff ☺☻ 00:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because I didn't see an abuse of admin rights. Everyone deserves a second chance. How many have we gotten from him? --Thunderhead ^{(t - e - c)} 05:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:: Comment Thunderhead, there isn't an abuse of admin rights, there is an issue that the behaviour and comments Brian has made, and the way in which he makes them, using expletives and such, is not becoming of an administrator, or a bureaucrat for that matter. It's not an abuse of his rights, it's his conduct which is at issue - and the issue is simple. If he can't control his language, his behaviour and his fuse in such a responsible position, he shouldn't have the responsibilities which go with that position. BarkingFish (talk) 14:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)Comment struck - Enlightened by Brian, I withdraw from this debate. BarkingFish (talk) 22:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tried to keep my interactions on this little wikidrama to a minimum; but, did you not also storm off in a petulant, churlish, and immature manner BarkingFish? Vowing never to contribute here while I held any position you considered one of authority? Then, you've the chutzpa to support "a second chance" for someone who reviews, and publishes, an article that could well lead to legal action against project contributors? Dan Rather did not get a second chance; good luck when it comes to begging to Mike Godwin post some other idiot publishing something libellous and facing litigation. The author, and reviewer, will be the ones in the dock. Not I, nor the Foundation. You're sadly deluded if you think "be nice" is going to make Wikinews as popular as Wikipedia. That's because it would make it as untrustworthy, and unreliable; something myself and many others have spent multiple years working to move away from. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 21:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment absolutely right, Yes I did, Brian. For those who didn't see it, here's what I posted in #wikinews late last night:

"i've just seen brianmc's comments at Tempodivalse's talk page. I think the limit of civility got pushed there. I'm not remaining on the project while he's here. We lost a perfectly good member because of you, brianmc - what you posted was downright fucking rude. I want nothing more to do with WN. See you."

I posted that because it appeared to me at first glance that your little interaction with Tempodivalse hadn't been dealt with, and I considered that absolutely bang out of order. Then someone informed me that it (and other things along with it) had attracted attention from the community, and were being discussed with a view to your being dealt with, something which should have happened imo a long time ago. That's the only reason I'm still here, because someone persuaded me to wait and see what happened here first. BarkingFish (talk) 22:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited, purely to correct indentation, your comment. It demonstrates a lack of situational awareness. Prior to the soap-opera-cum-drama on this page, Tempodivalse took our differences to dispute resolution. Xe has disengaged from that, a repetition of a habit I have become ever-increasingly frustrated with. You're free to hate me because I'm not adverse to liberal use of the Oxford English Dictionary of Unprintable Words; but I know journalism; Xe does not. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 22:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your frankness, Brian. I've withdrawn my vote here since I feel I may have missed a shedload of what's gone here before and I am therefore in no position to make any reliable comment.BarkingFish (talk) 22:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'm not around as much as I once was but I've long felt Brian's conduct is inappropriate for an admin/crat. Sure, a lot of the problems aren't specifically related to his use of those rights but those in positions of responsibility should set a good example of appropriate behaviour. As has been suggested, the recent diffs aren't an example of an isolated incident but part of a history of similar behaviour. Adambro (talk) 22:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can't expect an admin to use the f-word so many times in a paragraph even if he's frustrated. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Brian does a lot of really good things for our project. However, calling another user an “arse”, “an ignorant moron”, a “useless idiot”[7], and a “fucking ignorant bastard” [8] is completely inappropriate for any user. No one should have to tolerate this sort of abuse. If this was the first time we saw this sort of thing from Brian, it could be excused as a really bad day or a mistake and he would be given a second chance. This is not the first time though. Brian has a history of massively violating WN:E and we keep ignoring it because of all of the good he does. I think we have given him enough chances to improve his behaviour. Abusing adminship is more then just misusing the technical bits. It also includes violating the responsibility an admin has to serve the community and abide by its policies and guidelines. Abusing contributors and generally creating a hostile environment from a position of trust and power is as much of an abuse of adminship as any misuse of the technical bits. --Cspurrier (talk) 03:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Brian, your judgment is seriously impaired. Poor judgment like this was the reason you ~~were removed~~ resigned from the Communications Committee. And now, you're continuing to exercise poor judgment. You should not have the tools. Swatjester (talk) 06:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that at least is a bit more honest. Here is the Wikimedia Foundation making public an effort to de-bureaucrat a project member. Glad the smoke is lifting. - Amgine | ^t 08:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, what? I do not work for the WMF. So I don't see how your above statement is correct. Swatjester (talk) 18:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The ComCom is a closed, appointed-only-by-WMF-staff organization. - Amgine | ^t 00:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't made your point yet. How is the foundation making public an effort to de-crat a member? The foundation hasn't done a thing here. Swatjester (talk) 18:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was always under the impression that Brian resigned from the Communications Committee, rather than being forcibly removed. Was this incorrect? the wub "?!" 08:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[9] [10] are diffs where Brian painted it as a voluntary resignation. the wub "?!" 10:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He resigned under a cloud. It's my contention that he would have been removed anyway, but technically you are correct.. Swatjester (talk) 18:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It would be good for the project if Brian were to express himself with less extreme drama. However, it appears to me that de-crat/sysoping him would be a net minus for the project. --Pi zero (talk) 01:05, 4 August 2010 (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.

August 2010 edit

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

MerlLinkBot edit

Express your view on this user (comments) Nominated on 23:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

MerlLinkBot (talk · contribs – Edit rights) – user:Merlissimo wants to run this bot to fix about 124 deadlinks to the cbc website (cbc changed how its site is organized. For example http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/01/18/bcrain050118.html now is at http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/01/18/bcrain050118.html). I think this is a really good idea. For this to happen it will need temporary admin rights (and bot rights) to do its thing on archived pages. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regex is http://www.cbc.ca/story(?:view/[a-zA-Z]*)?/([a-z]*)/(national|international)/(\d{4}/\d{2}/\d{2})(?:/[a-zA-Z]*)?/(.*)

new URL is http://www.cbc.ca/$1/story/$3/$4, but also the topic ($1) has changed in some cases (science can now be health or technology, other topics (e.g.business) have changed to news, etc.).

I started to bot in debug mode and posted the log to User:MerlLinkBot/Log (148 links). How the bot works can be read at Wikinews:Bots/Archive_2#User:MerlLinkBot. Merlissimo (talk) 15:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General comments edit

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

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting. Unhelpful comments or votes may be removed at any time.

Discussion edit

See talk page.
Bot-style edits are not that difficult to do; I'd have finished this collection in less time than this vote has taken. (124 edits? c'mon! easy enough to do in a couple days.) - Amgine | ^t 14:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support edit

Support Bawolff ☺☻ 23:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support but I think we should have an editprotected right for bots. Diego Grez ^{return fire} 23:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support admin, but not botflag. Just run it nice 'n' slow. -- Brian McNeil (alt. account) /^{alt-talk • main talk} 05:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Brian. Please run at about one edit per minute, so they can be checked, which seems reasonable. —Mikemoral♪♫ 05:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'd meant even slower than that; but, ... -- Brian McNeil (alt. account) /^{alt-talk • main talk} 05:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then what did you have in mind? —Mike moral ♪♫ 05:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with a note to Mike that I think Brian wanted it run slowly enough to avoid flooding RC. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 15:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support No worries - I assume the flag will be removed after the 124 edits are complete? --Skenmy ^talk 16:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just temporary, of course. —fetch·comms 02:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Great idea. Those deadlinks in our old stories are disheartening. Gopher65_talk 02:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support a bot ~~from~~ Bawolff approves as it is not likely to precision-bomb Red Cross ambulances --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 18:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This bot is not of Bawolff btw. Diego Grez ^{return fire} 18:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I thought it was an Apache Longbow with the 30mm chaingun in Baghdad? </clue> --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 19:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I really should pay more attention. Still, Bawolff and Brian McNeil, both of whom have much experience in the IT world are in favour; therefore my support stands. --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 13:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm good with it. --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 06:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose edit

Neutral 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. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

the wub (talk · contribs – Edit rights) edit

Please remove my admin and reviewer rights. I can no longer contribute to this site in good conscience. the wub "?!" 23:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to hear that. I will not push for, but would like, to know more about why you have come to this decision. You excel in most of the qualities that I feel make an excellent Wikinewsie. -- Brian McNeil (alt. account) /^{alt-talk • main talk} 23:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I de-admined you. I'm very sorry to see you go. Bawolff ☺☻ 00:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bawolff also removed the wub's reviewer privilege. --InfantGorilla (talk) 08:58, 7 August 2010 (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 successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

BarkingFish edit

Express your view on this user (comments) Nominated on 22:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

BarkingFish (talk · contribs – Edit rights) – BarkingFish has been more than helpful in my opinion. He's an accredited reporter, and he just wouldn't be capable to fuck up with the tools. Pure admin material. Diego Grez ^{return fire} 22:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination: Accepted, with appreciation for the thought. BarkingFish (talk) 22:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notable works edit

World's first double arm transplant undertaken in Munich

Icelandic Internet bank suspends UK accounts

Magnitude 7.0 earthquake hits New Britain, Papua New Guinea (OR)

Papua New Guinea Culture and Tourism minister charged with attempted murder

British actor John Inman dies at 71 (As my original username, Tmalmjursson)

General comments edit

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

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting. Unhelpful comments or votes may be removed at any time.

Discussion edit

Editing stats posted at talk page. Diego Grez ^{return fire} 22:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support edit

Support as nom. Diego Grez ^{return fire} 22:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perhaps a little low on the editcount (we all know what an accurate judge that is), but he's clueful and works hard, and I trust him. —fetch·comms 00:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Trusted user. —Mike moral ♪♫ 04:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thumbs up user knows what xe's doing. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Barking mad support --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 22:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bawolff ☺☻ 22:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose edit

Neutral 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.

Diego Grez Bot edit

Express your view on this user (comments) Nominated on 20:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Diego Grez Bot (talk · contribs – Edit rights) – Diego has agreed (offwiki) to run his bot to add Category:Blood Red Sandman (Wikinewsie) to all the articles I've created - ~560 edits. To do that, it needs TEMPORARY adminship. Note: I see no reason to open a separate task request considering that the same users will be voting on that in this tight-knit community, so just consider this both. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General comments edit

Links for Diego Grez Bot: Diego Grez Bot (talk · contribs · deleted · count · logs · block log · review log · lu)

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting. Unhelpful comments or votes may be removed at any time.

Discussion edit

See talk page.

Comment Putting RFPs on separate pages while still open is completely inappropriate for this project. --Pi zero (talk) 22:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I preferred keeping these all on the same page at WN:RFP. —Mike moral ♪♫ 22:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to third that. Go yell at Diego. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, just subst it and remove the boxes to create separate pages if you want. I'm just too lazy to do it. :P --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 23:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support edit

Just do it. —Mike moral ♪♫ 22:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose edit

Neutral 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 2010 edit

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

Closed per user request and SNOW. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tempodivalse (talk · contribs – Edit rights) edit

Removal of Bureaucrat, Administrator, and Reviewer rights.

Whilst this user performed admirably in a janitorial role, youth and inexperience led them to risk the integrity of this project, it's listing on Google News, and exposure of contributors to legal action for libel.

An outstanding command of English misled me regarding Xyr age, so when treated - and cussed out - as I would a mature adult taking a ridiculous decision, we ended in dispute where Xe resigned from the project.

What upset me most over this was 'fishing' for access to accredited reporter tools & facilities. I offered best-effort credentials under a pseudonym if xe would ID with the foundation. Being informed that Mike Godwin, a former staffer with the EFF, would not be trusted was, well,...<expletive> ridiculous.

I'd happily see Tempo back with current rights in four or five years; that being, provided xe will ID, xe has some experience outside the cotton wool wrapper xyr parents provide, and truly understands what xyr interpretation of AGF risks in terms of this project's mission. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 22:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now, if this sub is hosed, someone fix it. I'm still on fieldwork.

(I've moved it to the RfD page, and somewhat adjusted the structure. --Pi zero (talk) 11:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

General data edit

RfPs for this user:

Requests for permissions/Bureaucrat/Tempodivalse

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

Please keep discussion constructive and civil.

Comments and questions edit

Comment To clarify: Brian McNeil made the nom. There were formatting problems, due to a state of the RfP page that there's a consensus to change but it hasn't actually gotten changed yet, and the nom kind of got lost; I just moved the nom here. I'm not a co-nominator or something. I'll write a separate comment about the substance of the nomination. --Pi zero (talk) 12:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is there an actual abuse of privileges associated with this nomination? That would, I think, be at the top of a pretty short list of valid reasons for de-crat/sysop. Evidence of untrustworthiness without actual abuse might become a valid reason if it was strong enough. I notice that the nomination does not suggest that privileges should be removed because the user has retired.

Tempo's youth isn't really a credible scapegoat for Tempo's reaction to being excoriated bluely; pretty much everyone seems to have agreed that Brian's behavior was out of line, including those who (like me) voted against de-crat/sysoping Brian for it.
A major argument against de-crat/sysoping Brian was that Brian hadn't actually abused privs. So if Tempo didn't abuse the privs either, Brian would seem to be in an especially weak position for this nomination.
It's not evident to me that Tempo's advocacy for AGF (later AGI) demonstrates the extraordinary level of bad judgment that would make it relevant here. I'm not aware that Tempo advocated imposing inappropriate aspects of AGF on Wikinews: when I suggested calling it AGI instead of AGF, Tempo (like Brian) liked the idea. When I added to the AGI essay explicit statements that AGI doesn't apply to things like deciding what to publish, Tempo was quite enthusiastic about it.

--Pi zero (talk) 15:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't buy into the view that abuse of rights is vital for a de-whatever; neither do I buy into the view that such abuse always makes such a move vital, just to get that one out the way.

AGF/I was an issue where I felt Tempo's judgement was bad, but on a political level - until Tempo (and others) were so keen to unblock Saki/Saqib. The result of that was.... Well, we all saw the interview. I forget if Tempo et al specifically said this was in the name of AGI/F, but that was the apparent mindset. I assume this is where Brian was going with the idea of exposing contributors to libel and risking the GNews listing.
Whilst I disagree with Brian that Tempo hiding xyr age was in and of itself a problem (I kept my own gob largely shut on same for a while when I showed up here), seeking access to the Wikinewsie facilities under a pseudoname, without explaining why publicly or privately (and using a questionable excuse), is a trust issue. Tempo could merely say that xe didn't wish to reveal xyr identity - a reasonable and accurate comment - and then either left it at that or opened a wider discussion on the pseudoname problem. In mitigation, Tempo may have felt trapped and pressured into making an excuse instead of recognising that xe had already had a sufficient reason to reject even the compromise offer presented.
To respond to Bawolff below, political disagreement comes into play, but if another user is genuinely concerned about someone's politics possibly affecting the site, then that may require action. I note that the vendetta idea is ironic, given the vendetta Tempo is waging on Wikipedia. That is, frankly, cross-wiki abuse on xyr part; I have long held that a user importing WP disputes to WN could expect rollback and/or block. The reverse should be true for WP, though of course, WP takes a gentler, slower approach to solving trouble.
To sum up, whilst there are issues raised that are 'valid', I doubt highly that they are strong enough (by an order of magnitude or five) to warrant removal of privs. These are political disputes; whilst I have said such can sometimes be grounds here, that is not the case. Dialogue could still, I think, have made headway. I note that Tempo, too, was guilty of walking away from dispute resolution. I also view placing Reviewer onto this nom as very unnecessary; sure, it's easy come, easy go - but is there really anything here that would require an Easy Go when the Come is so easy to regain anyway? Even if the other privs were removed, I find it hard to justify loss of Reviewer.
As Pi Zero mentioned briefly, the nom doesn't address the elephant in the room: this user isn't on the project any more. Bearing in mind that I support removal of privs for inactive sysops and expiry of accreditation, I'd be happy to support a nom on those grounds. I believe there may be others still with privs who retired (though they may all have resigned everything). They should also have them removed, and ideally this should be done in one big batch. They would remain users in good standing. Now... Is there to be any follow-up to this, or am I forced to oppose this nom? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. One thing I thought i should mention is that the saki interview (14 May 2010) came before saki was unblocked(19:57, 24 June 2010). Claiming that the interview was a negative result of Tempo's positions on agf is fallacious as it happened before tempo did anything. Bawolff ☺☻ 17:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I remembered it the other way around. Obviously, still an issue to my mind that such a user would be unblocked, but you're correct that the interview wasn't a consequence; rather, a circumstance. My recollection of the events was that there was a gap between publication and outcry over that article - was Saki unblocked in the lull in between? If so, the interview becomes an irrelevance to my comment. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment: It is considered extremely good security practice to only give those rights as are actually needed and in use, and when they are not needed or not in use to remove them. No implications for anything, just that it's best practice to reduce the number of people who have privileges to only those who need and use them. - Amgine | ^t 04:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't think I have sufficient standing in the community to vote and have it matter (although you probably know where I stand anyway). That said, I do have a few thoughts on this.
- I'm wondering about the timing of this. Tempo's been gone for nearly two months, so why is it now that Brian chooses to submit this? I mean, the way the nom is worded, the only reason this is happening is because Brian disagreed with Tempo. Old news, that. But why, since Brian's disagreed/fought with Tempo for god knows how long, did he choose to bring this up now? Why not right after the alleged mistakes, 'cause that would make a lot more sense to me than bringing it up as a sort of punitive punishment. This feels to me more like kicking the guy when he's already down.
- I also take issue with the substance of the nom, as I don't think there's anything Brian claims that's worthy of removal of priviledges.
  - I'm going to basically assume that the integrity of this project, GNews listing, and legal stuff was about the Saki interview. That, I think, is an incredible exaggeration. The interview, was, yes, a royal fuck-up on all of our parts, but at the time we published it, there was no way to know that it was anything out of the ordinary. As for Tempo's actions in response to that, I entirely fail to see how supporting Saki risked the integrity of the project. Saki apparently screwed up the interview (Brian has not seen fit to release the tiniest part of his communications with Creative Commons, which is understandable, but means I have to make an analysis based on what he says, and after Matthewedwards, I don't trust Brian to tell us each side of the story), but there was no indication that was deliberate, and Saki was therefore deserving of our support, as long as he was trying to help the community, which I, and apparently Tempo, felt was the case. Saying that Tempo risked permenantly damaging the site is being awfully melodramatic; his only sin was trying to retain a contributor. Whatever risk to the project was possible was exclusively due to the interview, which, IIRC, Tempo had nothing to do with. (This of course brings up another question: Me and Benny both also supported Saki's unblock, so why has Brian failed to nominate us for desysopping, in my case, or...something evil, in Benny's case?)
  - As for the part about Mike Godwin, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, but it seems that Tempo didn't want to reveal his identity/age. Only thing is, he didn't want to reveal it to the foundation. That is ridiculous. There is no reason in hell why Tempo should be shot down for wanting to remain anonymous, especially if he's a minor. What is the possible relation between his anonymity and his 'crat/sysop rights?
- Lastly, I find it highly ironic that Brian's desysop nomination failed due to a lack of abuse of the powers, not the position, of authority, and now he's nominating someone in the exact same position--no abuse of the tools, but alledged abuse of the position. I'm not entirely sure why he expects this to have a different outcome.
-C628 (talk) 14:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the edit loss; this section exceeds phone browser limitations. Revert this edit and mark this nom as closed per submitter request and "SNOW". I have been advised, as mentioned below, of crosswiki stalking and vendetta. I will raise that with an enWP 'crat or admin. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 17:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Votes edit

Oppose It appears as if Brianmc has a personal vendeta against this user. This request seems to boil down to, this user politically disagreed with me, and therefor is harmful to Wikinews. As a note, the only semi-valid rationale I see here is the saying "I don't want to identify because I don't trust Mike". However, Tempo was a minor, and wished to keep this private (which is perfectly reasonable on the Internet, all identification should be voluntary). What was he supposed to say - I don't want to identify because I'm a minor? That would obviously not work to keep that aspect of his life private. Bawolff ☺☻ 15:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I've seen no abuse of any rights by Tempo therefore there are no grounds for revocation of rights. —Mike moral ♪♫ 17:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tempodivalse has not abused his tools. By contrast, he always did (and still can) do a great job on Wikinews; always enthusiastic and helpful. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 19:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, obviously. Those who can walk away from dispute resolution, and this project, in a petulant frenzy are most definitely not deserving of 'crat rights. I am reliably informed this user is running a 'whispering campaign'/personal vendetta against me In The Other Place. That alone should be grounds to lose rights. There are numerous sub-age-of-consent contributors here that I've backed to the hilt - they never lied to me, even as "lies of ommission". That the user in question, as noted, walked away from their only attempt at dispute resolution with myself, then promptly retired, should - I believe - be grounds enough to strip of all privs. Supporting Saki/Saqib showed a breathtaking naiveté that no 'crat on this project should have. If someone feels this is 'politically motivated' and de-priv for resignation is more appropriate, then just do it. Once Xe has some real 'life experience', I'll be happy to consider them a user in good standing for reviewer, and possibly admin. But, I would not give back 'crat rights until Xe genuinely demonstrated an understanding of this project. It is not Wikipedia, it never will be, that despite xyr strenuous efforts to make it so. The 'deception by omission' is just the icing on the cake here; calling Mike Godwin untrustworthy to hide that you're under 18 should be grounds for instant removal of privs; it is impuning the man's professional standing to hide something nobody on this project gives a damn about. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 01:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think concensus is current "Something someone does at The Other Place should not impact what happens here." Whether this is politically motivated, I don't care. Tempo's views on Mike Godwin are Tempo's views, enough said--RockerballAustralia c 07:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I see no abuse or misuse of the tools in this situation. red-thunder. 14:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in present form. My massive deconstruction above of any real or possible faults of Tempo's leads me to conclude that the only possible one with de-everything consequences is the crosswiki vendetta. Since it's all about stuff on this site, and not on WP, I would take the view that it is relevant. However, the main substance of the nom doesn't deal with this issue. I would suggest that this nom be withdrawn, and recreated to allow us to decide if we want to 1) remove all rights as the user is retired (I do) or 2) consider his good standing lost over the crosswiki issue - which is possible, though I doubt it will happen. In the interests of openess, I'll say right now I'm about to email Brian suggesting that very outcome. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 14:26, 19 September 2010 (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.

October 2010 edit

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

Blood Red Sandman edit

7 days having passed since this nomination, and there being no objections to completion of the process nor the nominated party, I confirm that this nomination for bureaucratship is passed by 12/0/0. BarkingFish (talk) 20:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Welcome to the team! --Skenmy ^talk 20:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Express your view on this user Nominated on 08:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs – Edit rights) – Several bureaucrats have quite low levels of activity at the moment, so I feel it will be valuable to have an experienced and level-headed administrator, writer, editor (and former arbitrator) added to the roster. This should reduce the number of times we need to turn to stewards for renames, or wait for bot flags. Naturally I also trust him to award/revoke admin flags in the best interests of news gathering. InfantGorilla (talk) 08:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination:I accept. Many thanks, IG. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General comments edit

RfBs for this user:

Links for Blood Red Sandman: Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs · deleted · count · logs · block log · review log · lu)

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting. Unhelpful comments or votes may be removed at any time.

Discussion edit

Support edit

InfantGorilla (talk) 08:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC) as nom[reply]
He might breath fire on occasions but I trust him to judge consensus when flipping flags --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 10:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dmitri and Gorilla make good points --RockerballAustralia c 10:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blood Red will be a great asset to our community as a 'crat. red-thunder.
Sure. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 17:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wackywace^dictaphone 17:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Pi zero (talk) 19:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tyrol5 (talk) 19:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Yes. -- Cirt (talk) 02:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support trusted. Bawolff ☺☻ 11:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I thought you already were a 'crat. —Mike moral ♪♫ 23:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blood Red Support --Brian McNeil / ^talk 06:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose edit

Neutral 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. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unanimous support; noting there's no set time to run these for I see little point dragging it out any longer. Congratulations, and welcome to the team! Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Grez (talk · contribs) edit

Diego - who has accepted this nom via IRC - has, I believe, been working hard and to a high standard for quite some time now. He's had a few noms in the past, but the time has now come where I'm delighted to nom this user for the mop. We all trust Diego by now. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Diego Grez (talk · contribs) will need to post below, here, to accept the nomination, onwiki. -- Cirt (talk) 19:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I accept ;-) --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 19:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

Question - Your contributions to Wikinews have been positive and the community respects and appreciates your work on this project. However, can you please explain your Block log on English Wikipedia ? Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 19:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not something I like to remember. My early months on Wikipedia were really problematic, not only there but on es.wiki. I behaved very childishly, and I ended annoying the admins on Wikipedia. I think I have matured enough, not only here on Wikinews, that has been my real home on Wikimedia, but on my real life. For a reason I'm not blocked anymore on the English Wikipedia ;-) (Don't ask me about Spanish Wikipedia, they still hate me <.<). Diego Grez ^{return fire} 19:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, note that the very same person who blocked me for ten years on Wikipedia nominated me for adminship here. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 19:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thank you for the response. -- Cirt (talk) 19:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; and, in my capacity as enwp blocking admin, I supported Diego's request to have the block lifted. I'm happy to admit I kept a close eye on Diego when he arrived on enwn after that block, but it quickly became clear that wasn't needed. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Votes edit

Support as nom Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think he's definitely waited long enough. Bawolff ☺☻ 17:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Trustworthy user, very much admired his Chile earthquake reports and photos, and more recently his dispatches on the 200th bicentennial of the country. Certainly worthy of the mop. Wackywace^dictaphone 17:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pi zero (talk) 19:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Trusted, experienced user. Tyrol5 (talk) 23:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Mike moral ♪♫ 23:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support red-thunder. 23:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - If all the work Diego has put in doesn't prove by now that he's changed, I'll eat my hat. As good as passed :) BarkingFish (talk) 20:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Should do well. Pmlineditor ^discuss 08:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Now seems like a good time. —fetch·comms 02:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm fairly confident he'll do a good job and be useful around the place. Bencherlite (talk) 10:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SupportNo concerns here --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 13:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support due to real effort to fit in and understand project needs. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 05:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support He has been ready for a month or two. I am glad he accepted the nom. --InfantGorilla (talk) 20:47, 13 October 2010 (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.

December 2010 edit

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

Closed as unsuccessful by Blood Red Sandman at 15:05, 4 January 2011‎.

Bobby122 edit

Express your view on this user (comments) Nominated on 03:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Bobby122 (talk · contribs – Edit rights) – Hello everyone, I'd like to throw my name into the running for the mop. I've been here at Wikinews for about three months, though there have been a few short spells of inactivity, and have over 40 articles. I think that it would be a good thing for the project if I was granted the tools as I am usually up late into the night, as those in IRC can attest to. This could be an advantage in the event that anything occurred late at night which requires immediate admin intervention. In addition I should be available during the day, especially afternoons. Also, I was granted editor status about one month ago and I assume this means that I am trusted by my fellow users. If granted the mop I would help out with a variety of admin tasks such as archiving, blocking abusive users, deleting spam, blocking those with inappropriate usernames etc. Bobby122 Contact Me (C) 03:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notable works edit

General comments edit

Links for Bobby122: Bobby122 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · logs · block log · review log · lu)

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting. Unhelpful comments or votes may be removed at any time.

Discussion edit

See talk page.

Support edit

Oppose edit

Are you serious?. No, not yet, my friend. You have been just too few time here with us... and there is no serious lack of administrators on Wikinews (I myself try to help whenever I can, and will try to help more now that I'm in vacations until March!) Sorry, but try again, later. I am sure you would do well as an admin but, as I said, it's just too early. Diego Grez ^{return fire} 05:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You made your first edit on Wikinews two and a half months ago. Although the guidelines for the English language version of Wikinews states two months as a lower boundary, I would prefer to see several more before trusting anyone with the permission. Since then, you've made around 500 edits (on around 100 pages): a low amount for an administrator, although I accept that other administrators probably had low counts when they requested adminship as well. I commend you on your three-out-of-four article edits, but I'm not convinced that the 36 deleted edits (that I cannot see) are enough -- I would expect any successful candidate for administrative permissions to demonstrate a need for the extra buttons: what is the point in gaining them if they are not required? As such, I'd want to see several {{delete}} tags on articles: thirty is a low number, and so the backlog isn't decreased by much if you were to receive the flag, although I appreciate that it's pleasing that the count is low enough to not be several failed articles, and I appreciate that numbers aren't everything. You have good credentials on other projects, ignoring the garish userpage; although you do seem like you were after a collection of hats earlier this year. For what it's worth, 45 new articles isn't bad -- but you've only helped out on 22 articles that aren't your own. I accept that this is a very quantitative oppose, and recognise that it isn't everything; but I also do not feel that administrators are required, and therefore do not feel that administrative rights should be requested. — μ 21:37, December 16 2010 (UTC)*
Re the Wikipedia RFA, I'm not even sure why I ever did that, looking back on it now I wouldn't have done it. I think it's just my nature as a person who likes the administrative tasks and maintaining order. Bobby122 Contact Me (C) 21:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral 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. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User withdrew —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blood Red Sandman (talk • contribs) 15:05, 4 January 2011‎

Nascar1996 (talk · contribs) — adminship edit

Hello, I have been editing Wikinews since June 24, 2010. I have created 16 articles; however, I created one other which was not published. I also have over 800 contributions. My editing has had major improvements since I started, and I learn quickly. I wish to become an administrator on Wikinews, and since I have been here for more than two months, and I believe that I am trusted by my fellow users it time for me to request the rights. Thanks and happy editing. --Nascar 1996 21:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like this to be closed. I'm clearly not ready. Maybe this time next year. Nascar 1996 03:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stats edit

Links for Nascar1996: Nascar1996 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · logs · block log · review log · lu)

Questions and comments edit

Question: Do you have any articles, which you are particularly proud of? Bobby122 Contact Me (C) 22:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am particulary proud of Jimmie Johnson named 2010 Driver of the Year, NASCAR: Edwards wins O'Reilly Auto Parts Challenge, Brad Keselowski clinches Nationwide Series, and NASCAR: Edwards wins 2010 Ford 400; Johnson claims championship because I feel that the articles had good grammer and spelling. Nascar 1996 22:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boilerplate: Why do you want to be an administrator? Why do you feel you require adminstrative rights? If you receive administrative rights, what will you do with it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Microchip08 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 16 December 2010

I would like to become an administrator because I would like to help the project more than I can currently. If I receive the rights, I plan to use them correctly, I would watch for vandalism, and I would like to help you all archive articles. I would also be fair with decided blocks and other protections. Nascar 1996 22:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Votes edit

Ни за что!!! - At this time, you've created 16 articles in 6 months. Your edit count, while being over 800, currently only includes 322 to actual articles. I don't see with the length of time you've been here, and what you've achieved in that time, that you are quite ready for this at the moment. We're not short of administrators, we have roughly 60 at this point, I'd say leave it another month or two, get a few more articles out and spread your scope (widen the subjects you report on) and we'll have another look. BarkingFish (talk) 22:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The project may have 60, but more than 24 of them are not currently editing. I will tell you one thing, I plan not to create that many more articles until February. So it wouldn't change very quickly. This is school season also, so I only have a certain amount of time that I can use here. Everyone has their own feelings though, and thanks for participating in this request. Nascar 1996 22:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A favor ¿Por qué no? --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 16:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tut mir leid, aber ich dein Bewerbung widersetzen. You only have 17 article creations, all of which are in your narrow field of expertise. It would be nice if you could demonstrate edits in other fields, but a quick summary-only perusal of your recent edits only simple minor edits. There are currently 56 administrators, and, according to you above, 24 are inactive, which 32 remain active: a colossal amount when compared to the current size of the project, and therefore I would require a convincing argument in order to vote to increase the number any more. You do not show many talkspace edits, so I have no reason to believe you have any experience of collaboration. Digging into the archives, it would appear that you retired late October, gave a hard-felt spiel or two, yet you edited the next day to correct your userpages; and then, just days after retiring, decided to return, citing "I can't stay away, people need me to give them the news". Please understand the difference between "wikibreak" and "retirement". During the buildup to your eight day 'retirement', you stated that any articles you were to create in the future would be "the same". Wikinews, in my opinion, has no place whatsoever, for formulaic articles. Endorsing such a statement is not something an administrator should be doing. You also appear to lack patience. For example, it's been a short week. Whilst we're on the subject of patience, can va ss ing is bad, and shows that perhaps you have a penchant for hat-collecting. Even though it was several months ago, it makes me hesitant. Regards, — μ 21:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My articles will be similar, but not exactly the same. Which, I don't see 'you have to create anytype of article' as a requirement for adminship. I know I'm impatient, I have always been impatient. (I am here and I am in real life). Also the past is the past. Since then have you seen anything like it. I was about to retire because of school, but I found more time so I returned. Most admins retire anyway so does it matter? Nascar 1996 22:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You retired for eight days. That shows poor judgement, which is not a quality generally sought in your average administrator. Poor judgement in a user is disruptive, poor judgement in an administrator substantially increases its consequences, as an admin has blocks, deletion and protection at their disposal. A single bad decision from an administrator can, and has, bogged the wiki down in drama for weeks. You have also stated that you will not be active until early next year -- so why are you requesting adminship now? The past is the past, yes. But why should one ignore the past? He who controls the past, controls the future. It's not too far back for me to instantly dismiss it. To give a UK-centric example, you wouldn't dismiss Ian Huntley's past and give him a job as a school caretaker. An extreme example, perhaps, but to simply request dismissal of past actions outright is not something one should take lightly. Just because you have always been impatient, it does not mean that we should dismiss that either. It's still a trait I don't want an admin to have. — μ 22:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By your standards I won't become one, which I want to become one because I'm starting to edit again because the project normally has 6 articles for review. Also, what really gave me the thought of this is watching in the middle of the night all the users who vandalize the project. Also the template on my user pages, is to tell you that I will not be fully active as last year. I'm not creating articles week in and week out like I will mostly next year. Many change from their past. One may be disruptive in their childhood, but it doesn't mean that you will be as an adult. Nascar 1996 22:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Give me a decent reason as to why I should support, other than "I want to." Vandalism is less of an issue on this project, as everything for the end-user is checked and sighted: give me links to a few vandals that weren't reverted promptly, and therefore caused, or could reasonably have caused, disruption to an every-day reader. The child-adult transition does not generally take place within such a short period as five months. You don't need admin rights to edit; no-one is stopping you doing so.
That wasn't even a reason for you to support me, I'm not concerned with your vote. Two days ago, I was watching the recent changes and this user kept on contining to vandalise articles, and all I could do was revert, then finally a admin came along and blocked them. I'm not going change my editing to get your support. I just had this to see how I would do. I would like to become one but its not required and that important to me. Nascar 1996 02:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not at this time. —fetch·comms 02:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I just don't think your ready quite yet, come back in a few months and maybe yes. Happy Editing. Tofutwitch11-Chat 03:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I suggest you gain a bit more experience as per the above comments. Perhaps in a few months. Tyrol5 (talk) 01:13, 29 December 2010 (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. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

BarkingFish edit

Express your view on this user (comments) Nominated on 17:37, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

BarkingFish (talk · contribs – Edit rights) – I am applying to have my reviewers rights removed from en.wikinews effective immediately. I made a grave error in publishing a serious copyright violation, which resulted in the article requiring to be deleted and the revisions hidden. It should be noted in doing this, that this is the first error I have made on Wikinews in almost 2 years that has resulted in such a serious error. This request is made voluntarily, and I will continue to edit Wikinews after this unless further action is decided upon. BarkingFish (talk) 17:37, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General comments edit

Requests for removal for this user:

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

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting. Unhelpful comments or votes may be removed at any time.

Discussion edit

I am going to treat this as a resignation, and remove the rights unilaterally. I support what you're doing, but I'm also glad we won't be losing you altogether. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this resignation is necessary. Everyone makes occasional mistakes (although this one was significant:P). Given that you understand the seriousness of the issue at hand I'd rather you just learnt from the mistake and moved on. Gopher65_talk 22:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anything less than resigning the bit might have left lingering doubts about xyr trustworthiness with the bit (a catch-22, that). Xe may also want some downtime from reviewing in which to find xyr balance again; I'd certainly feel shaken if something like this had happened to me.

It works for the project as a whole, too. By owning up to a lapse in judgment and taking real consequences from it, xe presents an examplar of personal responsibility — and taking review seriously — for future reviewers to try to live up to. --Pi zero (talk) 05:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree wholeheartedly with Pi Zero's comment. This is a matter of honour for contributors, and the project. The action taken is honourable, and I support a speedy re-grant when time to reflect has been taken. (Random jab at US English: "I prefer the U in honour, something sadly lacking in the youth of today.") --Brian McNeil / ^talk 07:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Necessary, no, nor do I like this, but I agree with the point about honour and I think BarkingFish is doing the right thing. —fetch·comms 00:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He apologized, that is enough for me to give him the reviewer bit back. Everybody commits errors, and he was brave and responsible enough to come here and ask for his rights to be removed. That's awesome. Diego Grez ^{return fire} 03:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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