Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Archive 6

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search
By date
2004  |  2005
2006  |  2007
2008  |  2009
2010  |  2011
2012–20
2021
2022–
By type


January 2009

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

TUFKAAP

[edit]

Currently, we have 3 active bureaucrats. Overall, we have 7, four are inactive. I've been around for a few years... as in Wikinews' first year... 2005. I wouldn't mind taking on the small but still important tasks bureaucrats have, as such, I'm going to nominate myself. --TUFKAAP (talk) 02:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

[edit]
No and no. --TUFKAAP (talk) 04:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
Of course, I guess I should have clarified that 2005 was Wikinews' first full year. Since 2004 was more or less two months, and most of the time spent in beta. --TUFKAAP (talk) 02:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

[edit]
Comment: It has now been over seven days since this discussion started, with unanimous consent in support. I think it can be closed as successful and the candidate promoted. Cirt (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2009 (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.


February 2009

[edit]
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.

Ironiridis

[edit]

User hasn't edited in 14 months to now, and if we exclude the one-off edit in December 2007, for 16 months total. Propose desysopping for inactivity.

I have left a note at Ironiridis' talk page regarding this request and also sent an email linking to this discussion.

Regards,
Daniel (talk) 11:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
Already done. -- ♪TempoDiValse♪  03:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User de-sysoped (diff). -- ♪TempoDiValse♪  20:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

[edit]
Yes and no. Some of those desysop requests succeeded and others failed. One of the successful ones was because the user responded saying 'remove my admin rights'. Either way, it was never made policy, and I disagree with it in principle. --SVTCobra 23:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I won't oppose, if the user doesn't want the admin status. --SVTCobra 23:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support They dont need the mop & bucket if they aren't using it. Let's give it to someone else who will. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 00:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the bits. Users don't presently contribute and keeping them on clogs up the lists. Cary Bass (talk) 02:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per the reason given by Cary with no prejudice against restoring rights if requested. I don't think it is desirable to have a ever growing list of users with admin rights who haven't edited in years. I trust that anyone who the community has considered mature enough to have admin rights won't be offended by finding they've been removed if they haven't edited for a very prolonged period. Adambro (talk) 15:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I have supported the inactivity policy for a while but recently I reconsidered my opinion. Its not like there is a limit to a maximum number of admins we can have and I have no reason to doubt that our (now inactive) admins cannot be trusted to edit effectively. I think we should not de-admin unless the admin is causing problems. Thanks, Anonymous101talk 20:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC) changed to support Although I oppose WN:IP, I have changed to support as ironiridis has said he supports his de-adminship. Thanks, Anonymous101talk 20:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I say we switch this over to speedy. Iron himself is ok with this [1] --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 20:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • remove I am generally in favour of de-sysopping people who have been inactive for a prolonged period. From a tinfoil hat/security perspective, the more admins there are, the more accounts to try and crack the passwords of. Inactive accounts make the most obvious targets. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:48, 14 February 2009 (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.

Tomos

[edit]

User hasn't edited in 13 months to now. Propose desysopping for inactivity.

I have left a note at Tomos' talk page regarding this request; he does not have a valid email address confirmed so I was unable to notify him of the discussion using that.

Regards,
Daniel (talk) 11:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

Votes

[edit]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of the Admin's page or the talk page of the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.


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

Tempodivalse

[edit]

Over the last three months Tempodivalse has clocked up over 1600 edits to Wikinews, worked on many articles, and became one of Wikinews' best editors. He has also tagged many articles for speedy deletion, and this could have been simpler if he had adminship. Thanks, Anonymous101talk 18:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions/Comments

[edit]
Yes, I accept.  ♪TempoDiValse♪  20:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question This article was largely written by you. Herb143 (talk · contribs), who had never (ever) before edited on Wikinews, put a review on the talk page. He then put the {{publish}} tag on the article. Subsequently, you sighted the article, releasing it to the masses. My question to you is: Do you think that this article went through a proper reviewing process with which Wikinews can feel comfortable? --SVTCobra 02:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are suggesting that I am operating a sock puppet? I can assure you, I would not do such a thing. Tempodivalse is the only account I have ever edited Wikinews with. I only sighted that article because I thought that the reviewer forgot to sight it himself -- or couldn't sight it himself (I saw he was new, and assumed that he was reviewing without editor status and therefore couldn't sight his own edits). This was just a coincidence. Please feel free to checkuser me if you want to verify that the IP addresses behind the two accounts are different. -- ♪TempoDiValse♪  03:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC) Never mind, sorry for the misunderstanding. See my comment below. -- ♪TempoDiValse♪  17:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, you misunderstand. I am not accusing you of sockpuppetry. What I was seeking to discover was whether you felt that reviewer was qualified in reviewing the article. In my view, you ought to have reverted the {{publish}} instead of "sighting" it. But, that's just my view since it isn't spelled out in policy. You must have noticed that this was a brand new contributor. --SVTCobra 03:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for the misunderstanding.
I do agree that in retrospect, I should have reverted the addition of the publish template, given that the reviewer was brand new. I guess that just didn't occur to me at the time. -- ♪TempoDiValse♪  04:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RfA closed as SUCCESSFUL. Thanks to everyone who supported me, I appreciate your trust. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 19:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

[edit]
Actually, that was just a coincidence. I have had this signature for ages on Wikipedia, before I even registered with Wikinews. (The grey box is a new addition, though.) -- ♪TempoDiValse♪  20:43, 19 February 2009 (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.

Red Thunder

[edit]

Hello all. I have been a regular contributor here for the past two months or so, and have done peer reviewing as well as article writing. During the year and a half before I became active here, I had over 16,000 edits to the English Wikipedia. I would use the admin tools mostly for archiving, but also for speedy deletion and copyright violations in obvious cases. Thank you. R.T. 12:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions/Comments

[edit]
Oh, that was a fault on my part. I didn't put up a template but I've been extremely busy over the past week or so. I confirm that I'm still here. I'll be back to full activity by Monday. R.T. 22:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am now back to full activity. R.T. 15:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

[edit]

Closed as pass, user promoted. Small number of votes suggests we may need to revisit duration of RfAs. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:06, 7 March 2009 (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.


April 2009

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

Van der Hoorn (talk · contribs)

[edit]

I am nominating Van der Hoorn for adminship. He hasn't yet reached the two-month minimum recommended for an admin, but I think he already understands local policy well enough to be a sysop. Plus, he frequently works on editprotected requests and speedy deletes, which would be much easier if he had the bits. ♪ Tempodivalse ♪ 23:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

[edit]

Do you accept the nomination? ♪ Tempodivalse ♪ 23:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do. :) I have been working primarily on copy-editing and cleaning up issues from the maintenance reports on the Special:SpecialPages (especially Templates and Categories, because those are often not fully protected). There is still a lot of work to be done and being able to change fully protected pages would really increase productivity. I also noticed older articles are often missing appropriate internal links (to countries, etc.) and broken source links (often just moved on the original source site), which would be something I aim for in fixing. Cheers, Van der Hoorn (talk) 23:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering the area of work you are interested in, are you familiar with Wikinews:Archive conventions? (I'm asking because some people have concerns if you are familiar or not with our policies, and that is probably one of the most relevant policy to you, if you are copyediting stuff, especially older articles) Bawolff ☺☻ 05:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for this late response; I previously overlooked your question. :) I am aware that the content of articles should not be edited, although typo fixes + some punctuation changes are allowed. Sources should only be changed if the original source has moved (i.e. a different URL), but otherwise not. The "general idea" of the policy is of course that the article was news 'then' and thus should reflect the information that was available at that time, although there may be more insights now. Also, other news sources may have based their articles on ours. In other words: Wikinews is not an encyclopedia. I hope this answers your question?
    One question about this policy though: is it allowed to add a link to Wikipedia on the same subject? Often Wikipedia has also an article on the same news subject (and those articles often get written later than we publish the news article).
    Cheers, Van der Hoorn (talk) 17:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding {{wikipediapar}} links to Wikipedia is generally permitted, as far as I know -- anything that doesn't alter the content of the page should be okay. tempodivalse 18:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • Comment Maybe it's not wise to respond to some of the criticisms written below at the Votes section, but I cannot help myself. :)
    • My experience is indeed not in writing and reviewing articles, I fully agree and I can already tell you that this will probably not change. I found out I'm not a very good writer and reviewing articles is not what I'm interested in. This may be disappointing to some, but I think you have to do what you're good at. I would like to do some interviews on the next European elections, but then the content is written by or spoken by the person who is interviewed, thus not much creativity needed there (except for the questions, of course).
    • I'm not sure what falls under copy-editing, but I try to walk through every article that makes it to the front page and fix what I see (typos, lacking categories, often missing links or links that link to Wikipedia instead of Wikinews, punctuation, adding Category:Conversion templates, etc.). Unfortunately, most older articles are fully protected, so often copy-editing is impossible. I cannot add appropriate categories, fix typos and add links, thus the best I can do is to add the stuff to the talk page, but it takes quite some time to write a heading + {{editprotected}} + typo + typofix + explain sometimes why, which is quite frustrating. I have also copy-edited many typos in templates, but I often just say "Added a category" in the Summary box; it really takes too much time mentioning all the details of the edit.
    • I am seriously wondering what policies and/or procedures I am not familiar with. I went through quite some Help pages fixing typos and links and often read parts of the pages that seemed interesting and different from Wikipedia. If someone could point me to some policies and/or procedures that they find (very) important and think I missed, that would be really appreciated.
    • I'm currently going through all the maintenance reports on Special:SpecialPages, but alas I can only edit the Categories, Files and Templates. I also created some templates to help editors do their job, e.g. copied and modified the Category:Conversion templates from Wikipedia and created Template:Translated quote. I also rediscovered Template:Sic, which seems a really nice way in improving the inconsistencies currently used in articles in using sic. (I have seen: [sic], [sic], [sic], (sic), [SIC]). Unfortunately, older articles are fully protected and thus not editable.
    • So finally, I'm not expecting anyone to change their vote. I respect everyone's decision and opinion, but I just wanted to let you know mine. I'm good at fixing and sorting things, but not so much at writing things. :) If there would be a way to edit fully protected pages without becoming an admin, then I would have no problem going for that option, but I am not aware of one. If someone does, please do tell. Thanks for all your comments. Cheers, Van der Hoorn (talk) 00:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with him. The length of time one has been on the project is not always a reflection of the amount of knowledge of policy one has. Some users have been on the project for many months, and still don't fully understand the policy. I can tell that Van der Hoorn knows policy well due to his many commentaries in different discussions project-wide, which also demonstrate that he is civil and has good judgement. Also, nothing done by an admin is irreversible, and any mistakes he might make as a sysop can easily be undone. I would be glad to coach him in some of the administrative areas he is less experienced in, such as blocking/vandalism removal. The most important things when considering an RfA, in my mind, are trust and civility, and that is certainly not an issue here. I would also like to add, in response to some of the neutrals/opposes, that some of our best administrators rarely, if ever, write or review articles. That is certainly a plus for an admin candidate, but it is by no means a prerequisite. ♪ Tempodivalse ♪ 00:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I left notes on the talk pages of three bureaucrats that are 1) semi-sorta-active, and 2) have not commented in this RfA. Cirt (talk) 22:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

[edit]
  • Support as nom. ♪ Tempodivalse ♪ 23:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Been on the project less than a month and a half - first edit was 20 February 2009. So far as I can tell, no significant experience writing articles, nor reviewing articles - and also doesn't seem to have done much copyediting either. Edits are helpful - but I am sorry I think a bit more experience is needed in areas integral to the project. Would be a good step to consider writing and reviewing articles. Cirt (talk) 03:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - I can't oppose the RfA as the user has been extremely helpful to the project in the month and a half he has been here, but I can't help but shake the feeling that he doesn't have enough experience of our policies and procedures. Article writing isn't everyone's thing, and that shouldn't be a necessity for adminship, but keep up the current work and get involved wherever you can, and I see adminship coming your way sooner rather than later. --Skenmy talk 10:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - user will be able to use the tools effectively to do the jobs that they wish to do - whether or not that be article writing. --Skenmy talk 07:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral You have been a great help here, but you do need some more understanding of policy through more experience. red-thunder. 11:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC) Support per Tempo. red-thunder. 00:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • torn between Neutral and Support. User is a good contributor who is working diligently, and generally trying to improve the project. However, has not been seriously involved in content generation/validation. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support user has a demonstrated need for the "bits". However, if others are concerned about the level of content contributions, then perhaps it can be granted without Wikinews:Editor status. This is unusual, of course, as traditionally Admins are also Editors. --SVTCobra 00:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. As per Skenmy. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - has been doing good things. Bawolff ☺☻ 22:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - After reading all of the above and taking some time to think it over, and as per Skenmy. Cirt (talk) 03:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — As I said in Tempo's RfA, this will cut down on the number of {{editprotected}} requests, so it's a good thing. Since he needs to make a lot of edits to achieved articles (fixing spelling errors and such), I'd say this is warrented. Gopher65talk 04:30, 10 April 2009 (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 bureaucratship. Please do not modify it.

Bawolff (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Nominating Bawolff for the 'crat position. We don't really need more bureaucrats, but I think another one couldn't possibly hurt. I think he's the most qualified admin for the position, having been around longer than many of us (started editing in 2005), and would in general make a good addition to the bureaucrat team. I was rather surprised he wasn't a bureaucrat already. tempodivalse 17:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

[edit]

Do you accept the nomination? tempodivalse 17:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wow, I was not expecting this at all. I would be honored if the community feels I could fulfill this position. It should be noted that I am less active now than I used to be, but if the community feels i am active enough, than I certainly accept this nomination. Bawolff ☺☻ 22:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
Effectively, yes. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, then I know what I'm voting for. :) Cheers, Van der Hoorn (talk) 19:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

[edit]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of the Admin's page or the talk page of the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.


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

Mike Halterman (talk · contribs)

[edit]

I have been active on Wikinews since September 2007. I have been accredited since early 2008 and have interviewed 10 different entertainment personalities since then. I've reviewed many articles since then and I have also archived old successful and unsuccessful administrative requests. I believe I have spent enough time here that I would be very useful in performing administrative duties. Before, I was afraid I wouldn't be able to perform such actions all the time, but I am quite active now and I think I can handle it. I'm nominating myself for adminship. Please consider. Thank you! :) Mike Halterman (talk) 08:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

[edit]
/me makes Mike sit through the entire series of HHGTTG - in a dressing gown. --Brian McNeil / talk 05:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

[edit]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of the Admin's page or the talk page of the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.


May 2009

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

Tempodivalse (talk · contribs)

[edit]

I would like to see if I am still trusted and supported by the community as an administrator. I feel I've made some dumb decisions lately, such as unblocking a user who was harassing others in his unblock request, giving editor status to a user without consensus, etc. Thus, I am placing myself here, for reconfirmation. Tempodivalse [talk] 18:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

Votes

[edit]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of the Admin's page or the talk page of the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.


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

Calebrw (talk · contribs)

[edit]

I'm nominating Calebrw for adminship. We don't really have a serious need for administrators, but an extra one would never hurt. I've had several interactions with Calebrw, all of them positive. According to the edit counter, he has over 1100 edits and has been registered with Wikinews for close to a year now. He's made some excellent articles during his time here and is a good reviewer. I'm sure he will do well in the added capacity of a sysop. Tempodivalse [talk] 19:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions/comments

[edit]
  • Can you wait with your {{editprotected}} requests until your adminship is confirmed (it looks like a landslide)? Tempo is trying to keep up, but if you can do it yourself it really cuts the work to less than half. --SVTCobra 00:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry about that. I am all done now. I responded to you on your talk page as well, but the short of it was I wanted to have all the articles that needed to be tied into ManUtd known, so that I didn't have to make a ton of really complicated requests now. Thanks to Tempo for helping out. Calebrw (talk) 01:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

[edit]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of the Admin's page or the talk page of the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.


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

Killing Vector (talk · contribs)

[edit]

For my next administrator nomination, I would like to present user:Killing Vector. He's been here for several months, and during that time has written many outstanding articles, become an accredited reporter, and racked up close to a thousand edits. I think Vector would help the project well with the extra bits. Tempodivalse [talk] 14:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions & comments

[edit]
  • Question Do you accept this nomination? Tempodivalse [talk] 14:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure, why not? I'm honored that given my few months of activity I'm being nominated. Full disclosure: I am active in some non-mainstream political movements. I think I've been good at writing objectively while still writing about what interests me so far. I think I have a good handle on when to be involved and when to write, as well. --Killing Vector (talk) 14:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question How do you explain this edit, which was done without consensus? (Perhaps ironic that I would ask a consensus question.) However, I have no problem with the edit's content as it makes perfect sense to avoid the use of the Indian numbering system. Calebrw (talk) 20:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's something that should have been there, I had a general sense that there was consensus (informal discussions on IRC backed this up), and it was relevant to an article I was editing at the time. Furthermore, the use of "crore" is intrinsically ambiguous (it means different things in Iran and India) and we had no explicit position in our style guide; it is better to have a consistent position which can be discussed than to have no position. Short answer: we had no position, we needed one, the discussion on WP about how they arrived at theirs was useless, so I established one. --Killing Vector (talk) 22:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question What do you hope to achieve as an admin that you would not normally be able to do so as a user/accredited reporter/reviewer? Calebrw (talk) 20:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cleanup. I already spend a lot of time going "that's an editorial" or "that's stale" or "that's not in the right place"; I'd be able to fully accomplish maintenance tasks rather than poking admins to do them. --Killing Vector (talk) 22:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

[edit]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of the Admin's page or the talk page of the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.


June 2009

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

Tempodivalse (talk · contribs)

[edit]

One of the first editors that I encountered when I started to frequently edit here was User:Tempodivalse. I've seen them be an active part of the community here, fulfilling a range of roles from deleting articles to archiving them, to promoting and welcoming users.

I believe Tempodivalse can be trusted with bureaucrat rights and as such it is a pleasure to be the nominator. Computerjoe (talk) 22:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions/comments

[edit]
  • Do you accept the nomination? Computerjoe (talk) 22:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    wow, I wasn't expecting this at all! I'm honoured you think I would make a good bureaucrat, and I humbly accept. Thank you. Tempodivalse [talk] 22:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Link to user's archived RfA, ended 19 May 2009. Cirt (talk) 23:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Link to user's archived second PfP, ended 23 February 2009 as successful. Calebrw (talk) 04:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Link to user's archived first PfP, ended 13 December 2008 as withdrawn by the candidate. Calebrw (talk) 04:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Should your RfP be successful, would be be available on IRC on a more frequent basis so that if a problem arises that only a 'crat or admin could solve, you would also be available to help out. Obviously you are on top of Special:RecentChanges, so not much slips past you, however, somethings are discussed on IRC that are not always put on the Wiki. Calebrw (talk) 04:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Meh. I've been on the irc a few times before, and it seemed to me as if it is mainly used for informal chatting that isn't always very relevant to on-wiki matters, and there's not frequently much discussion about anything important, wiki-wise. If administrator or bureaucrat action is needed, then it would be just as easy to make a request at WN:AAA instead, where administrators will be sure to see it and probably react just as quickly. Right now, the only times I use irc are: for second opinions when I'm unsure of what to do when making a decision, and for alerting reviewers of breaking news that's just come up. Hope this answers your question. Tempodivalse [talk] 13:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It does. Thanks. Calebrw (talk) 22:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Unfortunately, I'm most likely going to be without access to a computer for the next several weeks, starting with next Sunday or so. I should be able to return to Wikinews only in early August (but I promise to return to full activity then). Thus, if everything goes as scheduled, this request should close before I have to leave, but if, as I suspect, it will run overdue past one week, then I won't be able to answer any questions that users will ask me at that time. Tempodivalse [talk] 20:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline calls for one week, but since we are small they usually take two weeks. This one has gone longer, perhaps because the steward/bureaucrat has not noticed it or is waiting for Tempo to return from break. --SVTCobra 21:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

[edit]
If I saw harm, I would have voted oppose and not neutral. --SVTCobra 00:05, 27 June 2009 (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.


July 2009

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

James Pain (talk · contribs)

[edit]

He's been around for like, forever. He does the audio news. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 01:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions/Comments

[edit]
  • How the hell did you manage to hang out here for 2 years and not get admin'd? --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 01:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess I just made myself unintentionally unnoticeable. Over the past few months college has sapped away my time which harmed my activity but I was still hanging around in my procrastination periods. Thankfully college is no more and I have freedom. So right places at the wrong times is my guess. --James Pain (talk) 01:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • To be accurate, James Pain really only became active on August 10, 2008. So it is more like a year. --SVTCobra 21:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Cobra is quite right, I was hanging around IRC from time to time but it was then when I thought I knew enough and kicked up the nerve to start editing and doing something. I had the time so I thought why not, about a month later I started doing Audio Wikinews. I'll stop since this could easily turn into a autobiography. --James Pain (talk) 21:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

[edit]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of the Admin's page or the talk page of the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.


August 2009

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

Computerjoe (talk · contribs)

[edit]

I'd like to nominate Computerjoe for sysop status. Over the past few months, he's become an accredited reporter, has written and reviewed many articles, welcomed new users, and is a useful Wikinewsie in general. I think he'd be able to help out the project well with these extra tools. Tempodivalse [talk] 20:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and questions

[edit]
Thanks for the nomination. I accept. Computerjoe's talk 09:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

[edit]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for bureaucratship. Please do not modify it.

ShakataGaNai (talk · contribs) (Bureaucrat)

[edit]

ShakataGaNai (talk · contribs) has been an active positive contributor to Wikinews for over a year now. His RfA had unanimous support, and an adminship reconfirmation also had unanimous support. I think that ShakataGaNai would serve the project well in this added capacity. Cirt (talk) 04:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and questions

[edit]

Votes

[edit]
  • Comment I think that is like saying "Why do we need more admins?". We've also got plenty of active admins. The problem is that we'd like to have someone active in each roll all the time, crat and admin. On most wiki's we'd want more than one active admin at all time because there is a lot to do, wikinews not so much, but it is still a good idea. So lets take a quick look at the crats, we've got 10. IlyaHaykinson (talk · contribs) has been editing on 10 days this year, Eloquence (talk · contribs) once so far, Chiacomo (talk · contribs) inactive since Oct 2008. Not saying anything bad about those people (Those were just 3 easy people to point out), but people come and go on wiki's. People get busy in real life, or simply get bored/tired/sick/frustrated with the wiki. That long boring spiel being said, Skenmy feels we've got enough, that's perfectly fine. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 16:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The difference is we use admins a lot more (for archiving / editprotected / copyvio, etc) than other projects do. We actually use the tools for our project goals, rather than them being there just for technical reasons. However, our Bureaucrats have no difference between other projects - they serve two purposes here on Wikinews - promoting users and renaming users. We have six Bureaucrats who I would consider "active" at this moment in time - plenty for a project of this size. This isn't a personal jab against you, SGN, I have every respect for you and you are a fantastic contributor to the community. I simply do not believe in giving out tools that are not needed, just because we trust in a user. Admins are sorely needed by the majority of our regular contributor base. Bureaucrats are not. --Skenmy talk 16:23, 18 August 2009 (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.

Juliancolton (talk · contribs)

[edit]

I'd like to nominate Juliancolton for adminship. Over the past two months, he's done a great job both writing and reviewing articles, and I believe he will be able to help the project even more in the added capacity of a sysop. Tempodivalse [talk] 00:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions and comments

[edit]
  • Sure, I accept. While I have a relatively low number of edits, I believe my work here has generally been of high quality. If it helps, I'm already an admin at enwiki, simplewiki, and commons. Thanks for the nomination, Tempodivalse! –Juliancolton | Talk 05:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

[edit]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for checkuser rights. Please do not modify it.

Cirt (talk · contribs) (checkuser)

[edit]

I would like to nominate Cirt as an additional checkuser. He's been an active editor/admin at this project for about two years now, and I believe he can be trusted with the tools. (He's already identified himself to the WMF, so that isn't an issue.) I think it's appropriate for him to have these rights, since he's a member of the ArbCom. Tempodivalse [talk] 15:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions and comments

[edit]
Thank you for the nomination. I accept. Cirt (talk) 16:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional active checkusers will help to ensure that someone will always be around to attend to an urgent issue, and significantly decrease time for requests in general. Cirt (talk) 02:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have yet to self-nominate for consideration of admin or other increased rights on this or any other wiki project. I am honored by the nomination from Tempodivalse (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 02:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't so concerned with who nominates, but was more interested in your sense of the need for such tools (which you answered in my first question). You are trusted and will get my vote, but these are serious privacy-related tools and so I feel a couple of probing questions are warranted. --Jcart1534 (talk) 10:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jcart1534, thank you for your trust in me, it is most appreciated. Cirt (talk) 17:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Cirt - I have nothing against you personally, you are a fantastic contributor to the project. However, as has been demonstrated previously, I do not believe in giving tools for the sake of tools. We have 4 checkusers on this project, two of which I would consider active, and the other two are around sporadically enough to be of use to us should we ever need 4 checkusers. I see no point in having another checkuser. I will not oppose the vote - CU is difficult to get as it is and I don't wish to hinder you. --Skenmy talk 13:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Skenmy, I thank you very much for your kind words about my contributions to this project. One thing to keep in mind is that the project must have a minimum of two checkusers to even have the local privilege at all. Four individuals is a small group of people. If any one of the four has to go inactive for personal reasons, then it may be hard to cover the gap. Cirt (talk) 17:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have highlighted this discussion on the checkuser-l mailing list. This list is for cross-wiki private communication between checkusers. Realistically, Wikinews cannot muster the required votes to get someone checkuser. There have been previous cases where checkusers from other projects have voted in such cases. Any non-regular who is voting because of this should please identify which project they are a regular contributor to/checkuser on, and where they know Cirt from. I know he's also active on en.wp, possibly elsewhere. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Will you assure us that you'll abuse your power? --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 06:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. I will strive to do my best to use the tools in the same manner in which I have used the admin tools in the past: to help the project. Cirt (talk) 06:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ShakataGaNai's sense of humour slip past you? --Brian McNeil / talk 16:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth both a chuckle and a serious reply. Cirt (talk) 16:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Awwww, thats no fun. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 17:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, perhaps instead I should have responded with another question: What are we going to do today, Brain? Cirt (talk) 17:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have made use of w:Nmap. Other methods include examination of the IP: static/dynamic, well known problem ranges, hosting companies and other unusual IP ranges, and IP specific records such as blacklists, well known proxy lists, and search engines. In the past I have not made determinations on port scanning on my own, but have rather consulted with more experienced administrators and checkusers and we have come to an assessment together. In the future I will continue to seek out the knowledge and experience of those that have been doing this longer than I, when a case is not obvious, as I feel input from other experienced administrators and checkusers is always a plus when performing such actions. Cirt (talk) 17:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Approximately Seven Days. Cirt (talk) 09:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

[edit]
  1. Support as nominator. Tempodivalse [talk] 15:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per nom. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support per nom. 22 votes to go! Computerjoe's talk 17:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 20:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Bawolff ☺☻ 21:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Pi zero (talk) 21:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Don't know much about you, but from what I have heard, you can be trusted. Drew R. Smith (talk) 14:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support --SVTCobra 22:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support fr33kman t 08:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  10. Support Of course. Definitely trusted. hmwithτ 14:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support per nom. Durova (talk) 16:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Maybe I mean, he's a good guy.... but can we trust him? He nom'd me for crat, obviously he's off his rocker. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 17:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And you got crat, so that would make the rest of us off our rockers too :-P DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support I've observed candidate from en-Wikipedia. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support --Jcart1534 (talk) 21:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support From en.wiki. YellowMonkey (talk) 05:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Known & trusted from Commons (which is where I tend to be!) --Herby talk thyme 16:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support I have had very little (if any) interaction with this user on Wikinews, but I have seen them doing fantastic work on the English Wikipedia, and see no reason for them to not receive my full support. Dendodge T\C(en.wp) 12:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support -I don't really need to vote seeing as there is unconditional support. but per others i do. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support IMatthew (talk) 20:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Very trustworthy, and having an extra pair of eyes is never a bad thing. I don't think projects need tons of CUs (except maybe enwiki), but having only two active (and two in reserve) is a little bit limited. EVula // talk // 20:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose While I have no personal objections to the user being given CU, I don't feel that there is any significant need (per Skenmy (talk · contribs)). Furthermore, I do not feel that Cirt (talk · contribs) would abuse the tools in anyway (and his track record as an admin here is pristine to my knowledge), however, the number of CU users is already high enough. That said, if one or more the existing CU withdrew they CU status, I would see the need for the Cirt to get the tools as he is a frequent contributor/admin. Calebrw (talk) 20:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Since you fully trust Cirt not to abuse CU, what harm do you see in him being given the extra bits? There's no reason to have a set limit of checkusers - the more we have, the shorter the response time will be when a check is needed to be done (and it's not like CU is a useless tool, from what I understand checks are performed almost every day). Besides, two of our checkusers (BrianNZ and Cspurrier) are completely inactive, so for all practical purposes we have only two, which I think is a bit on the low side for a project this size. Tempodivalse [talk] 20:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I gotta ask, what is with this communities love of "We don't need em, vote against em" policy? We're all friends here (Ok, most of us are friends... Ok... some of us are friends). --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 22:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I could have put Neutral, but I felt that Oppose better suited my vote. Calebrw (talk) 00:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Tempo: While BrianNZ and Cspurrier are indeed fairly inactive at this time based on the number of contributions, I have no reason to believe they haven't been using the CU on a daily basis (I'm simply unable to tell (so if there is in fact one, please let me know)). At this time, the only way in which I would change my vote, is if one or both of the two users currently given CU status, but apparently inactive were to be dis-allowed the status. I could also be swayed I suppose, by any relevant testimony by BrianMC or Skenmy were to give on this subject. Calebrw (talk) 00:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As Brianmc's comment above says, we have in effect only two users who have used the privs in the past year. If one of them becomes inactive, then the other will receive less oversight for his actions - and it might be difficult to cover the gap. Tempodivalse [talk] 03:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support We need more than two active CUs imo, and Cirt strikes me as a good choice. I would go so far as to say that one more CU as well as Cirt would be useful on this project. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Unlike some, I believe that even if we don't neccesarily need them right now-it does absolutely no harm to have a trusted user given privileges. I'm sure there will be some time when they are needed-if the others are unavailable etc. 2 active Check Users is really not enough anyway, so good luck.    Tris   20:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support I'd tended towards Skenmy's position on this until I saw the checkuser log. I'm perfectly happy for Cirt to have the tool - as long as he leaves it to the rest of us to beat the crap out of the investigate and take action on Scientologists if they come back. :-P --Brian McNeil / talk 11:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support One more support to 25. Good luck, Cirt. (I know Cirt from Commons and en.wp) --Kanonkas (talk) 18:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support The above points and votes have made me reconsider my earlier position. Cirt, I am proud to vote you #25 - welcome to the CU team on enwikinews :) --Skenmy talk 18:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Request Submitted: [2] --Skenmy talk 18:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Effectively this ends the voting. But as CU is an important election, we should keep it running for at least 24 more hours to make it the full 7 days. I'm not sure if CU is supposed to be 7 or 14 days, but seeing is how it is amazing we managed to get 26 votes for anything.... IMHO 7 is sufficient. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 18:54, 31 August 2009 (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.

CommonsDelinker (talk · contribs)

[edit]

At the suggestion of ShakataGaNai, I would like to propose that CommonsDelinker be given adminship tools. For those who do not know, CommonsDelinker is a automated bot that delinks images from articles on Wikipedia and other projects that were deleted from the Commons or renamed on the Commons. The main page about the bot can be read on Meta. The main purpose on why I ask is that a lot of the pages on here are protected and trying to make an image deletion on the Commons, with an image still being used, will be very hard to do. If CommonsDelinker is able to do the job that he is supposed to do here, it will make things easier for yall and the Commons. It makes things easy for yall since you do not have to hunt down new images if things get deleted from the Commons. For the Commons side of things, we can remove images faster once we know all uses are gone. The Commons and Meta pages have all of the documentation and the people who run it. Zscout370 (talk) 21:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC) (Commons sysop)[reply]

Questions and comments

[edit]
  • I tend to agree that the {{editprotected}} solution would be better, though since I can understand the reasoning behind this proposal, I won't oppose. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A related issue to this that springs to mind is 'snapshots' of pictures/maps/diagrams on Commons. Has anything been done about that? What I mean is - if a map of disease X spread is maintained on Commons are we getting snapshots made with a date in the title for use on our articles, and are these staying on Commons? --Brian McNeil / talk 15:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As SGN points out above, it isn't actually this bot which deletes the image. That's done by an admin on Commons, the bot is just cleaning out redlinks or changing to point to a replacement image. If I understand correctly, images on Commons get tagged, the ticker bot spiders where they're used and posts notices of a potential change. So, in theory, people here can go and check out votes for deletion and so. Post-vote Delinker is supposed to go round all the projects and tidy up. IIRC, the ticker bot wasn't particularly informative about how to look into this. With the vote below as it stands, I would like to suggest the following: the ticker bot is tweaked to give us better notification, only on archived articles. We should not be required to go and look at the discussion on Commons until after we've locally evaluated the change. In addition to notifying us, the ticker bot should caution the nominating user on Commons, and add a note in any vote on Commons for a deletion or change. Basically, it should tell them the image is in use on an archived and protected page on Wikinews and point them to WN:ARCHIVE or whatever parts of the mission statement clearly define the "known at a point in time" nature of the project. If a deletion or change still goes through after that, then delinker should use {{editprotected}} to request the change. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

[edit]
  • Support From my commons background, this really should be done. In fact it should have universal sysop but some groups a bitches. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 21:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per arguments below. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 23:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Commons has a habit of replacing images with newer updated versions, especially when it comes to charts, graphs, and maps. This has the potential for 'breaking' the archive. I realize it is a hassle for Commons sysops when Wikinews is the only one still using the old image. Therefore, I agree with Brian McNeil that the ideal solution would be for the Delinker bot to 'learn' to use {{editprotected}}. Then we can evaluate if the new image is an exact match and take action accordingly. --SVTCobra 23:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose mainly per SVTCobra. The bot could "break" the archive by updating images with newer versions when it shouldn't - i.e. updating a chart, which will cause it to incorrectly reflect the content of the article it is in. We need a human to make sure the replacement image is suitable - not a brain-dead bot. Additionally, as Brian points out above, many images unsuitable for Commons could be uploaded locally, under fair use, instead of being deleted wholesale. I think the best solution would be for CommonsDelinker to use the {{editprotected}} template on an article's talk page to inform of changes. Tempodivalse [talk] 03:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Considering our history with the bot, I think the so called some bitches includes us too (see the bots previous noms, and some of the discussion relating to the block of the bot in various user talk archives, as well as various grumbling elsewhere. Sufficed to say, this bot is not popular.). Well I understand the motivation for making sysop, and agree that in many (but perhaps not all) cases it would do good things, I don't really want it to be able to edit protected pages. I feel the {{editprotected}} solution would work best for everyone. If it proves that we agree with all the editprotected requests, we can revisit this discussion at a later date. Bawolff ☺☻ 03:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the arguments above --Skenmy talk 11:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The bot's work is important, no doubt, but sometimes it is unnecessarily destructive. An extra pair of human eyes would be a good thing. EVula // talk // 20:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This bot being an admin would allow Commons to go back to ignoring this project's specific needs. There is a long history of this bot breaking WN:ARCHIVE and I am vehemently against it regaining the ability to do so. This bot has been proven to be disruptive. I am of the view that image changes on archived articles should always be checked by an administrator. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 15:33, 30 August 2009 (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.


September 2009

[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.

Mass De-Bot'ing

[edit]

Here's the deal, I was looking at our bot list and noticed a bunch of bots are inactive. Since bot edits are hidden by default, I think we should remove the bot flag for those that don't need/use it. If they become reactive, we can give them back their flag very easily. Every bot on this list hasn't edited this year. If you have a reason to keep a specific bots flag, say so, otherwise this is a "1 for all" vote. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 01:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

Votes

[edit]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the 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.

Tristan Thomas (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Tristan Thomas, otherwise known as Dottydotdot, has been an active contributor to Wikinews for the past few months and has racked up about 750 edits. He's helped the project a lot in his time here, and i think he'd be a positive force with the sysop buttons. Tempodivalse [talk] 16:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and questions

[edit]

Votes

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

October 2009

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

Millosh (talk · contribs)

[edit]

I am mostly active at sr.wn and I am working on its infrastructure. A couple of days ago I am asked to make bots for en.wn. I need admin permissions mostly for page deletion because of dealing with bots. As a steward I have necessary permissions, but I need community consensus to use them. So, both options are good enough for me: (1) to have local admin permissions or (2) to have approval from the community to use my existing admin-related permissions which I have as a steward. --millosh (talk) 11:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and questions

[edit]
  • Comment Since you're trusted as a steward, and can take admin rights, the only other thing is editor rights. Administrators are generally trusted to handle these and it's effectively automatic with admin. As you are not too involved in the daily work on enwn with these tools are you happy to forego peer reviewing articles? Obviously, if you see vandalism, it's better you can revert to a sighted version where one exists. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Any technical work which I am able to do is not a problem. As I am working now on bots for en.wn, I am watching en.wn RC more often; so, if I see any vandalism, I'll revert it, as well as I may help with blocking [obvious] vandals and spammers. At the other side, my involvement at the most of Wikimedia projects is structural, which means that I am not an editor anywhere in the narrow sense. Even thou I wanted (and I want) to make interviews and to participate more in writing, I don't have enough of time for that (actually, I've made less than 10 real stories in Serbian since I've started to take care about sr.wn in 2007). In other words, I am good as a bureaucrat and not so useful as a journalist or encyclopedist. --millosh (talk) 15:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

[edit]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for desysop that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

ShakataGaNai (talk · contribs)

[edit]
Note: Withdrawn by Skenmy, at 19:34, 13 October 2009.

ShakataGaNai has promoted 3 users to Editor status without consensus after the Flagged Revisions RFP policy came into force on the 10th April 2009:

  • 17:07, 23 September 2009 ShakataGaNai (Talk | contribs | block) changed group membership for User:Shoone from (none) to Editors ? (He's trust worthy, I know him IRL. Besides, hes a VERY good c/e'r)
  • 01:35, 21 July 2009 ShakataGaNai (Talk | contribs | block) changed group membership for User:James Pain from (none) to Editors ? (he's been around for, like, forever)
  • 02:53, 4 June 2009 ShakataGaNai (Talk | contribs | block) changed group membership for User:Brynn from (none) to Editors ? (I know her, she's responsible.)

This is clear, consistent violation of a policy that had existed for over a month, nearly two, before the promotions were made.

ShakataGaNai is also a bit too loose with the block tool, in my opinion:

  • 02:00, 29 September 2009 ShakataGaNai (Talk | contribs | block) blocked Rayboy8 (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 48 hours (account creation disabled) ? (Repeated Copyvio.) (unblock | change block)
Despite what ShakataGaNai has claimed on IRC, I am only able to find a *single* instance of serious, blockable copyvio before this block. The block itself was unwarranted (per WN:BLOCK - "last resort - efforts to educate must be made first, followed by warnings" - I see one education attempt that was, quite frankly, pitiful.) for the "seriousness" of the offence - a single line that looked similar: [3]. Prove to me that the user maliciously copy and pasted this line into the article and I will concede this point. More often than not, I have studied sources, then written the article and found a few of my sentences have turned out very similar - it's simply not possible to re-write some things, and other times you get a bit of creative block.
Related Block:
  • 18:04, 2 October 2009 ShakataGaNai (Talk | contribs | block) blocked Rayboy8 (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 72 hours (account creation disabled) ? (Copyvio) (unblock | change block)
This block should have been applied, as it would have been the third serious offence. But 72 hours? Very excessive. "My patience is officially done. These block times are going to start escalating rapidly after this point." is also not behaviour befitting of an admin and bureaucrat on a user's - who has contributed 55 articles - talk page.

The above blocked user is clearly a constructive, helpful user, and we should be encouraging and helpful, rather than slapping him with bans for minor offences. This kind of behaviour is exactly why we have such a notorious reputation outside of our community.

ShakataGaNai is also an extremely hostile, immature, and childish person. Pretty much anyone who has dealt with him on-wiki or on IRC can attest to this. When I brought these comments to him on IRC, with every intention of being constructive, I was met with nothing but criticism and hostility, told I had "some bug in [my] bonnet" and placed on the ignore list, effectively trumping what could have been a constructive conversation. He often posts immature comments - one that springs to mind is the "I CAN HAZ CRATZ" comment on his Bureaucratship nomination. He refers to contributors as "minions", something which makes me consider whether he is a suitable person to have the tools and abilities he has been trusted with. Even as a joke, the comments concern me. ShakataGaNai exhibits classic behavious related to a power trip - something which greatly concerns me. I will not let my home project have one person apply their own agendas here - we follow policy and procedure, not the tempers of one power-tripping admin.

I am extremely hesitant about placing this request for the removal of ShakataGaNai's privilages, and extremely willing and hopeful that I am proved incorrect in my evidence above. I do not wish to disgrace a user in high standing lightly. However, I do not feel that ShakataGaNai exhibits the basic anger management, nor the people skills required to be an administrator or bureaucrat here on Wikinews. I, therefore, request that the Administrator and Bureaucrat flags are removed from ShakataGaNai.

To the judging administrator: I request that simple support or oppose votes are discarded if they are not accompanied by a reason. "as above", or "per username" count as a reason in my opinion. I request this an no-one (including myself) will learn anything without an idea of why people vote in such a way. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Skenmy (talk • contribs) 19:03, 13 October 2009‎

Comments

[edit]
The comment is not a personal attack, it is a reason why I do not feel SGN should hold his privileges. Where can I express this view if not openly and honestly here on my request? --Skenmy talk 19:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is a personal attack and it is a wholly inappropriate use of this page. Cirt (talk) 19:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

[edit]
  • Support as proposer. --Skenmy talk 19:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I don't see any discussion whatsoever, let alone dispute resolution, that occurred on Wikinews about this. In any event, some of the points mentioned above might be grounds for approaching the individual at their user talk page on Wikinews to address these issues - and if necessary seek out dispute resolution processes - but moving straight to a desysopping of the user seems wholly inappropriate. Cirt (talk) 19:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SGN is unwilling to engage in discussion, and therefore I am unwilling to chase him for it. Please suggest a viable method of curing SGN's disruptive and inappropriate behaviour and I will pursue it. --Skenmy talk 19:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I checked at User talk:ShakataGaNai, User talk:Skenmy, Wikinews talk:Flagged revisions/Requests for permissions, Wikinews:Admin action alerts. I see no evidence of any attempts at discussion. Cirt (talk) 19:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please read my previous comment. --Skenmy talk 19:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All I see are vague statements unsupported by evidence or diffs of any kind whatsoever. Cirt (talk) 19:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then please read and investigate the case before commenting. I have spent a significant amount of time on this, and it is clear you have not, with only 4 minutes between my posting and your opposal. If there is a clear indication that SGN is willing to try and change his ways then I am willing to withdraw this to a discussion. --Skenmy talk 19:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, the burden is on you to show evidence and diffs, especially when requesting that a respected administrator and bureaucrat on this site be desysopped with seemingly no evidence of any on-wiki discussion or attempts at dispute resolution. Cirt (talk) 19:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not willing to engage in a discussion with a user who is not willing to participate in it constructively. The evidence is all there, right in front of you. Diffs are lacking, I agree, but this can soon be remedied. Read it, and then comment. --Skenmy talk 19:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The so-called "evidence" consists of copy-paste of block and promotion logs. I see zero evidence or diffs of on wiki discussion and/or dispute resolution about this of any kind, prior to this dramatic request for a desysopping. Cirt (talk) 19:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(un-dent) Cirt, I am not an unreasonable person. Suggest how I should go about this and I am willing to reconsider my nomination and take other channels to resolve this. As I noted - this nomination was made with extreme hesitance, and I do not wish to disgrace a user unnecessarily. This is highly unconstructive. --Skenmy talk 19:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it is "highly unconstructive". It is "highly unconstructive" and causes undue drama to request a desysopping of someone when no on-wiki attempts at discussion or dispute resolution have been made. And that is what I would have suggested. Now I would simply suggest withdrawing the use of this page for bad faith requests for desysopping and using it as one's personal forum to make unsupported attacks. Cirt (talk) 19:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cirt, please do not even for a second consider this to be a bad faith request. I have nothing but respect for SGN and yourself, and I do not wish to disgrace users who have worked so hard for this site. Please suggest an alternative venue, and I shall reconsider my nomination. The seriousness of SGN's abuse is not something I feel I can let go, however, without proper discussion. --Skenmy talk 19:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Cirt. There should at least have been some attempt to resolve the issues elsewhere, before doing something like this. Couldn't you have left a note at SGNs talk page, noting your concerns? Maybe you two could have resolved it there, instead of coming here first. RfDA should be done only after all else fails, imho. Tempodivalse [talk] 19:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I have mentioned before, I do not believe SGN to be open to this kind of dispute resolution. As two of my peers have suggested it as an alternative, I am willing to try, as my opinion is clearly clouded. This is a withdrawal of the request - I will be moving to SGN's talk page. --Skenmy talk 19:34, 13 October 2009 (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.

Dendodge (talk · contribs)

[edit]

I'd like to nominate Dendodge for adminship here. He's been around for over half a year now, and has been consistently active for the past two or so months. He's written and reviewed a lot of articles in his time here, and I think he could help the project even more with the admin tools. Tempodivalse [talk] 20:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions and comments

[edit]

Votes

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

December 2009

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


The wub (talk · contribs)

[edit]

The wub (talk · contribs) has been registered with Wikinews for several years now, and has been active for the past few months. I think he has shown that he knows site policy well and can be trusted with the admin bits. Tempodivalse [talk] 21:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and questions

[edit]

Votes

[edit]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

I am failing this as no consensus. I would encourage Rockerball to stick WN out, and give another RfA ago in a few weeks. Improve the project some more. And I am sure you will pass next time Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 21:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RockerballAustralia (talk · contribs)

[edit]

I'm nominating so I can get round to doing some on site house keeping instead of requesting all of the time. --RockerballAustralia (talk) 10:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and questions

[edit]

Still a bit concerned about the incident in October. Do you feel you've got an adequate and comprehensive understanding of policy now? –Juliancolton | Talk 02:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes--RockerballAustralia (talk) 03:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you elaborate, please? My initial support was founded on a premise of good faith, but your short answer makes me feel slightly uneasy. In what ways have you matured? What have you learnt from your mistake? Dendodge T\C 00:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I've learnt to be more patient. You'll remember that I self published an article a while back. I've since had an article I wrote wait for review longer than that self publish. A couple now I think about it. --RockerballAustralia (talk) 04:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Expanded response - I self-published Australian rules football: West Gippsland Latrobe Football League Grand Final on September 19 (this diff). I've not self published since. Before i mentioned i waited for another article longer than the self publish. The artcle, Wikinews interviews Zahra Stardust about the upcoming by-election in the Bradfield electorate of the Australian parliament, was waiting for review for 44 hours give or take a few minutes (page history). Any other details just ask--RockerballAustralia (talk) 03:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are, in your view, the relative merits/demerits of these two situations:  (1) an editor self-publishes an article;  (2) an article is deleted without publication because no-one reviewed it until after it had gone stale. --Pi zero (talk) 19:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a line somewhere where someone with editor privs can self-publish but I imagine it's very hard to get to. There would need to some very strict rules on that. There needs to be proper oversight on each article.
Articles that are put up for review sould not IMHO go stale let alone be deleted because of that. Letting an article go stale while waiting for review is bad because, the way I see it, we could scare off mewbies before the get a firm grip on what's going on.--RockerballAustralia (talk) 21:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with these concerns but, independent review has to, in my opinion, be a non-negotiable point. I'm not totally happy at the basis of some of the below oppose votes; as far as editing goes it should be work towards the good of the project. Certainly, there's a need in your writing to take the international audience more into account and for sports stuff to minimise jargon and emotive terms. I voted support because I think you've matured enough to be given this chance. I do see where you can improve your writing and editing further. I think most Wikinewsies would agree that if you can master the news format it will serve you well in a wide variety of other places. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

[edit]
  • Weak support—I think you've made up for your previous mistake with some good work in the last couple of months, and see no harm in giving you the bit. Your expanded answer makes me feel slightly better about supporting, but I'm not sure if you have our trust just yet. I'll assume good faith and stick with weak support for now. Dendodge T\C 09:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I personally have nothing against you, but I'm concerned that you might not have the trust of the community (which is really the most important criteria of adminship). Sorry. Bawolff ☺☻ 22:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Sorry, but I'm not quite convinced you're ready. Your answer to my question is, unfortunately, painfully brief and vague. "Yes" is the obvious answer. I was hoping for an explanation and description of how you feel you've matured on wiki. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - I haven't been a part of this community long enough, so I feel that I'm not qualified to comment on your incident a few months ago. However, I have read the archived discussions here, and I see no reason to believe that you have regained the community's trust. I have nothing personal against you, but I'm just feeling really queasy about this request for adminship. Benny the mascot (talk) 00:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral --I'm slightly confused as you don't seem very keen to show how you have improved since last time. I think you might be fine, and so would be willing to change to support if you can improve on your answers.    Tris   08:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - Basically agree with Bawolff (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 13:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'm fairly happy the self-publish issue has got through to this user; no need to further berate and stigmatise for an expression of frustration on this issue. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant oppose I think you haven't learned the right lesson (from which I infer that you aren't ready yet). Self-publication isn't something that should only be done under dire circumstances, it's something that shouldn't even be considered under any circumstances, because it's contrary to the integrity of the project. --Pi zero (talk) 06:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - A quick scan of your talk page archives worries me. There are quite a few negative comments on there regarding your ability to make the right choice. You have done splendid work over the past couple of months but trust takes a long time to rebuild and not having it with the rest of the admins could cause problems. --James Pain (talk) 12:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll point out Brians comment above. I've losoked through my talk archives and the last major issue was the self publish. There have been some minor things between Brian and my self but they've been work out between us --RockerballAustralia (talk) 02:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just quickly scanned your contribs and found this and this. These were 3-4 weeks ago, quite recently in my books. I'm quite edgy about what gets published since it gets pushed to other websites when it gets put on the homepage, after that if we edit it, it doesn't get reflected onto the other sites. Since writing and publishing seems to be your chosen path, I say master that first before you go further. Also I'm still sticking to the point that you need to gain the trust and support of the other admins in order to have a nice easy time. --James Pain (talk) 12:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I agree with Bawolff and, to some extent, James Pain. Don't get me wrong - I do appreciate your contributions to Wikinews - but having the trust of the community and fellow admins is a must for new sysops, and I'm not sure I see that here, seeing as a sizeable portion of the community has expressed concern over some of your actions and ability to make the right decision. I, personally, don't see any convincing reason to oppose (the self-publish issue was long ago, and should already have been forgiven), but some of the above concerns make me slightly unsure about this RfA, so I'll stick with neutral. Tempodivalse [talk] 17:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since I haven't been here for a while, it's probably not appropriate for me to vote, but based on the other comments, and a look at your talk page, I'd have to oppose for now. --Thunderhead 05:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The key point: Do I think you'll abuse it? No, I trust you not to, so I'm happy to stick my neck out and support. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:00, 22 December 2009 (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 Bureaucrats (Removal)

[edit]

Julian has produced a list of 'crats, detailing when last active. There are few 'crat actions here on enWN, so it is understandable some may have not used the powers recently. However, it should be noted that one is currently a member of the Wikimedia Foundation's staff. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brian McNeil (talk • contribs) 20:34, 22 December 2009‎

He's edited once in January. This hasn't gone anywhere, so closed as stale. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 22:43, 20 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 de-adminship/cratship/editorship that did not gain concencuss to remove. Please do not modify it.

Eloquence (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Eloquence was one of the original contributors who helped get Wikinews set up. However, he's now moved on to better things and is the Deputy CEO of the WMF. This is somewhat of a conflict of interest akin to the Director General of the BBC having an editorial say in the running of BBC News.

As I understand it, all staff have privileges on any wiki to take "office action"; that would generally be items such as enforcing a court order against the WMF. That is required for the good functioning and governance of the WMF, but privileged access outside such scope conflicts with Wikinews' perceived impartiality.

Thus I am nominating Eloquence to have Bureaucrat and Administrator privileges removed to maintain a clear appearance of editorial independence. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
Not exactly, a steward has significant restrictions on what they are allowed to do. (more or less they are only allowed to act if someone is repeatedly vandalizing pages, and there are no local admins around to stop them.) Bawolff ☺☻ 20:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm probably missing something obvious, but I don't completely understand the COI argument. My first thought was: So what if Eloquence is a staff member? How would it bias him against us? I suppose the reasoning is that he won't be a neutral party to articles that have negative information against the WMF (e.g. Former Chief Operating Officer of Wikimedia Foundation is convicted felon), but won't other editors have similar COI issues as well? And none of Eloquence's edits, AFAIK, have raised COI concerns so far; i don't agree with removing the bits "preemptively" when there's been no sign of trouble. Open to thoughts. Tempodivalse [talk] 00:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Could someone email Erik about this? It's only fair that he have a chance to respond. I pinged him at his talk page here, but I don't think he checks it regularly. Tempodivalse [talk] 00:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As can be seen on the previous discussion, Erik is leaving this up to the community. I trust him not to interfere, even were Wikinews reporting on him in a bad light. However, it is the appearance that he has the ability to do so I see as the issue. There is not a real need for a lot of 'crats here but I do feel that those we have should exhibit signs of life on-wiki, even if that does not extend to using 'crat rights. The switch to Flagged Revisions and institution of a review process with various helper gadgets has caught out a few admins who've not realised what's going on behind the scenes for Google News. I expect Wikinews to continue changing on issues like that, processes will evolve and perhaps be sub-optimally documented. I would not use the term "probation", but any prior contributor of any level should go through some sort of reacclimatisation if they've been away for a long period. --Brian McNeil / talk 01:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've emailed him, because to be honest, its really not fair to have a de-adminship request going on without his knowledge. Well he's previously said that he won't be offended if the community removes his privs, i think it would be very impolite not to at least tell him that a vote is going on. Bawolff ☺☻ 06:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eloquence has been notified. response on talk page. Bawolff ☺☻ 07:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would have thought, with the Martin nonsense in the press calling the Wikimedia Foundation a protosocialist backed organisation people would understand that, while someone like Erik can fully be expected to work within the rules (He'd not be on-staff otherwise) it is indeed a matter of appearance. There are, and I speak from a sysadmin perspective, security concerns with long-term inactive privileged accounts. On any well-managed system you automatically close any privileged account that is, and will continue to be, inactive for a prolonged period. ShakataGaNai might be better able to testify the lengths gone to and level of persistence crackers will put in on a known high-value target. Even a quite modest botnet could make 100+ password guesses a day without ever using the same originating IP and thus triggering normal intrusion detection measures. That is one of my main reasons for supporting the inactive policy; it is an eminently sensible policy which minimises the available attack surface. It isn't barring the doors and raising the drawbridge; it's sensible precautions. I would fully support a fast-track back to privileges for anyone who loses them through inactivity, once they've demonstrated they are reacclimatised to current policy and conventions. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of people here would have these "perceived" conflicts of interst. Like User:Bastique, who's also on the Staff, and user:Skenmy, who's with the UK WMF chapter. I'm sure there are many others with COIs to other organisations. We're not going to de-admin them as well just for "appearance", are we? How many casual readers do you think would notice that Erik has 'crat privs here (probably very few to none, considering he doesn't edit frequently and has a low profile here), or even care? Would it really damage our credibility that much? If we're worried about trying to appear more credible in the eyes of our readers, then we should be working more on lowering our {{correction}} percentages and reporting more accurately, not this. Cheers, Tempodivalse [talk] 14:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hardly think we should worry about Martin (link for those unaware). He's most likely to view any action as confirming his suspicions. As for security, I'm sure Erik has a strong password, after all, he is WMF staff and something of a techie. And in the very unlikely event of his account being hacked, he's a steward - so taking away his privileges here will do nothing for security. the wub "?!" 14:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This has been open for more almost two weeks now and most of the active users have opined. Could an uninvolved 'crat please close the request as appropriate? I'm saying "uninvolved" because this is a close vote, so it's probably best to have someone more impartial. Tempodivalse [talk] 02:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

[edit]

Move to amend by requesting that Eloquence's editor priveleges be removed as well. Participants in this discussion are asked to revote. (Initial request withdrawn) Benny the mascot (talk) 04:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support with no comment on user's ability. We should try to avoid giving members of WMF staff privileges beyond editor. Most of them are stewards anyway, so this would not really have any effect beyond appearance. Dendodge T\C 20:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC) Moved to oppose, see below[reply]
Eh, I don't really agree with WN:IP; I don't see a compelling enough reason to de-admin based solely on inactivity. Tempodivalse [talk] 03:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose No reason to suspect that he will not step back from any issue that he has a COI in. He has been in WMF for two years and at no point has this been issue. I have no idea why this is coming up now since there are several other WMF staff and we are not applying the same rule to them, for example User:Bastique. Also i'm somewhat uncomfortable where this might take us. Will we ban officers of local Wikimedia chapters? Like Tempo, I've always opposed the inactivity policy. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 04:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Strongly per Tempodivalse. Also, WN:IP is a proposed policy, and if I remember correctly, there was some heavy debate on it. --Thunderhead 06:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't agree with removing rights for inactivity. Nor am I convinced by the conflict of interest claims. Many of us have external associations or views which could potentially present a COI if we became involved with an article on them. In that case we should take special care not to unduly influence, and possibly avoid the article altogether. But the vast majority of our articles can still be worked on with no issues. the wub "?!" 10:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My view on this is: so what that he has extra privileges? He'll still be our "boss", so to speak, regardless of whether he has +sysop here or not, being on the staff and all that. IMO, this RfDa is suggesting that staff members should not have extra rights anywhere on WMF wikis, which kinda limits their ability to contribute to projects, and it implies that admins have extra authority over other editors, which shouldn't be (Adminship not being "a big deal" and all that). This actually seems a bit counterproductive to me - for instance, by the same reasoning, we should demote all other paid employees of the WMF, some of which are quite useful editors (such as user:Bastique), and be depriving ourselves of extra help. Tempodivalse [talk] 19:41, 31 December 2009 (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.

Unanimous support after one week, closed as pass. Congrats Tempodivalse [talk] 21:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AlexandrDmitri (talk · contribs)

[edit]

I thought I'd throw my hat into the ring and offer myself up to the lions for adminship. I've been around for just over two months when I wrote my first article. Since then, I've gone on to write a further 38 and since receiving Editor status, have reviewed a number of articles for the community. Why am I offering my soul services? Because sometimes I don't have the time to write a full-blown article, but I think I'd be pretty handy with the dustpan and brush helping out with administorial duties, such as archiving, making edits to protected articles and any other admin duties you care to throw at me, such as looking after friendly trolls who pop up with interesting usernames. I'm not a nerd computer whizz-kid, but I generally learn quickly. With the hopeful increase in production around here when the writing competition starts, I would be available to help out with the less glamorous stuff that goes on behind the scenes, but is essential to keep any house in order. Any questions, and I'll be more than happy to answer them. --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 19:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and questions

[edit]
  • Correct, but his request for acccreditation was granted three weeks ago, yet he has submitted no OR articles that I could find. If he won't use his accreditation that much, then why should I believe that he will use his adminship abilities frequently and effectively? Benny the mascot (talk) 01:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Original reporting can be something that takes time to get into. Admin tasks can be a second or two's work from a look at Recent Changes. I've made very irregular use of my OR credentials – the same applies to several others. --Brian McNeil / talk 01:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As long as AlexandrDmitri can give a good, thoughtful statement on his OR work, then I will consider that when I vote. OR work isn't an absolute requirement in my mind. Benny the mascot (talk) 01:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough question concerning original reporting as an accredited reporter. OR requires a significant amount of time, as well as—as far I am personally concerned—a strong desire to report on the topic. A couple of ideas for articles have been floating around in my mind since I received accreditation, but only one so far has got off the starting blocks. That, alas, failed to come to fruition as the press officer did not reply to my email, the subject was quickly 'old news' and above all, a decent article was written by someone else, based on reports filed on other sites. I'm working on a couple of ideas in my head, but I need a little more time before my first OR piece will be published. It should also be noted that I live in Morocco, and that local OR is harder because of the language barrier (interviews would have to be in French, making my notes less comprehensible for reviewers), and that I planned to do most of my OR by email. This is an extension of how I have reported as a journalist since I joined the site; out of all of the articles written, only one has been about Morocco, as I prefer to write international news. Finally, I believe that admin duties and accredited reporter writing are two different ways that I can contribute to the site and that it is important to disassociate the two: the former will allow me to contribute when I have half an hour to spare which is every day and is a housekeeping job; the latter is a more important investment of time, will happen less frequently and is a way to enter into different realms of journalism. --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 08:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The areas I see myself working in are the housekeeping duties such as archiving, protecting articles, making edits to protected pages where necessary (such as adding new categories, changes requested via the {{editprotected}} template), deleting pages per policy (either standard or speedy), checking recent changes for vandalism and creation of inappropriate usernames, blocking where appropriate and assigning the Editor flag if consensus is clear to do so. --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 08:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

[edit]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Closed as successful, your bits have been retained. :-) Tempodivalse [talk] 04:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thunderhead

[edit]

Well, since it seems there's so much debate going on about WN:IP, and since I've been really inactive as of late, I'd like to put myself up for reconfirmation. One of the main reasons that I am doing this is that I intend to become more active in the Wikinews community in the very near future, and I'd rather not retain rights that the community feels I should not have. I'm more than willing to answer any questions. For those of you who've known me since my first edit, I've certainly matured (some) in the time frame that I've been away, so hopefully, you'll see fit to keep me onboard. Regardless, I'm looking forward to working with all of you again. I can't wait to hear from you. (By the way, does anyone get on #wikinews or #wikinews-en anymore?) --Thunderhead 06:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions / Comments

[edit]

Votes

[edit]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews:Requests_for_permissions/Archive_6&oldid=4559495"