Wikinews:Administrators

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!

This page is an official policy on the English Wikinews. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.

Shortcut: WN:A WN:RFA

This page is a list of administrators, as well as a place to request the granting and removal of admin status.

Admins have no special editorial rights. They can edit pages in the MediaWiki: namespace (system messages), block users, delete pages, and protect pages. Blocking, deletion, and protection are all governed by site policy. Statistics on these activities are here.

• Requesting adminship: You are probably qualified for adminship, provided that the following conditions are true:

1. You've done at least two month's work on Wikinews.
2. You are trusted by the community.

You can view some of the latest requests in the archive, where you can also see some common questions, comments and objections made during the process.

• Requesting de-adminship: Stewards are the only users who can remove administrator privileges. They will not de-admin unless there is community consensus for this to happen or at the request of the administrator in question.

We currently have 53 administrators on Wikinews who are listed below. Names of bureaucrats are listed in bold.

Inactive administrators: (No edits in the past 30 days)

Contents 1 Admin action required 2 Requests for adminship 2.1 Adambro 2.1.1 Questions/Comments 2.1.2 Votes 2.2 User:Ryan524 2.2.1 Questions / Comments 2.2.2 Votes 3 Requests for de-adminship 3.1 User:Jimbo Wales 3.1.1 Votes 3.2 User:Pingswept 3.2.1 Votes 3.3 User:RossKoepke 3.3.1 Votes 3.4 User:Uncle G 3.4.1 Votes 3.5 User:Dan100 3.5.1 Votes 3.6 User:Frankie Roberto 3.6.1 Votes 3.7 User:Mindspillage 3.7.1 Votes 3.8 User:NGerda 3.8.1 Votes 3.9 User:Crimson 3.9.1 Votes 3.10 User:Sfullenwider 3.10.1 Votes 3.11 User:Cllewr 3.11.1 Votes 3.12 User:Elliot K 3.12.1 Votes 3.13 User:Submarine 3.13.1 Votes 4 Requests for reconfirmation 4.1 Brian McNeil 4.1.1 Comments 4.1.2 Votes

Admin action required

See Wikinews:Admin action alerts. Please put all alerts there.

Requests for adminship

Adambro

I'd like to propose Adambro be given the buttons back. I believe his choice to surrender them was under pressure and inappropriate. His worst fault is he can be too sensible. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 22:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Questions/Comments

Do you accept this nomination? Cirt (talk) 23:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Votes

After seven days, a bureaucrat will turn those users into sysops who have consensus support from the community. Do not list people as administrators who have not been granted the appropriate permissions by a bureaucrat!

See /Archive for old requests. Don't forget to inform the Wikinews community of your RFA.

User:Ryan524

Some of you were involved in my last Rfa, well 5 people were. It fialed due to so few votes, so I am back this time I am really working on getting people out to vote. The reason I want to be an administrator is alot of what I do here is basic matnience type stuff. Some of which I don't need to be an admin to do, but something require it. The biggest thing is archiving. There is such a backlog and it seems most the time admins are just archiving the new stuff but not dealing with the backlog so that's one thing I want to fix. I have been a wikinews user for years, was an admin at one time but stepped down before taking an extended wikibreak, now I am back and I see nothing in the forseeable future that would cause another extended wikibreak.-Ryan524 (talk) 23:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

CLAIRIFICATION: YES, a previous Rfa closed about a week ago had failed, but not from opposition but essetially a lack of overall votes anyway to make a consensus. Under normal circumstances I would not be back doing this but concidering the situation in which my previous one was closed I see no issue. I'm glad to see a turnout for voting here, and I will be letting the Rfa go. That said reguardless of its outcome, this Rfa is it, what the final outcome is, is it. So I ask that you set aside your feelings about another Rfa so soon and vote how you think I would do as an admin again. I ask that you take a honest evaluation. If you really feel you are in a sistuation where you do not "know me well enough" well than I extend an invitation o you to come on IRC, I am on there at least once a day (on weekdays) and we can chat.

The other thing that was brought up by Cirt was some actions after my last Rfa, honestly it seems some might take these actions the wrong way. I am also more than happy to discuss it in IRC. The consensus discussion IMO is an important discussion to get everybody on the same page, while it was the previous Rfa that got me thinking about it, I get the sense some of you came to the conclusion that I was trying to change my Rfa or something, but that is not what it was about. Also Cirt mentioned the AAA entries. IMHO its obvious, I found articles needing archiving and they wern't currently listed in the DL at the bottom of WN:ARCHIVE so I added them there so an admin knew. It was not intended to be any form of "Revenge" I could come up with a better revenge if I wanted to get revenge, come on.

Any other questions, comments, or concerns, feel free to ask here, or find me in IRC.--Ryan524 (talk) 14:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Questions / Comments

Votes

• Neutral -- After his last RfA closed unsuccessfully, Ryan524 (talk · contribs) performed several actions which were not admirable, at least to me. He started a back and forth discussion about "consensus", which seemed to directly stem from his unsuccessful RfA. In addition, he flooded the Administrators' Alerts page with Archive requests, seemingly as a form of retaliation to create more work for Admins after his RfA was not successful. These are not traits we should have in our Admins. However, even given all this, if his behavior improves and he contributes positively for a couple months, I would most likely support an RfA in the future. I also think this one comes way too soon on the heels of the last one. I will provide Diffs, but have to run out at the moment, will be back later. Cirt (talk) 23:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how discussing something is "not admirable" I think it was a useful discussion. And listing archiove requests is harldy a form of retaliation but simply noting some articles I found that needed archiving. Though I can see how you would think these things I just want to clairify.-Ryan524 (talk) 23:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

If you would like further clairification i'd be happy tochat about it with you on irc.--Ryan524 (talk) 00:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

This comment was also troubling to me. [1] Cirt (talk) 00:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Changed to Neutral, Ryan524 has also been making some good contributions lately, but I am still a bit ambivalent, per above. Cirt (talk) 00:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Sorry Ryan, the issues Cirt mentions as well as your incredible desire to become an admin (wait a bit between RFAs :) ) leave me some what concerned and I can not support adminship at this time. --Cspurrier (talk) 01:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I would not say I have an incredible desire to become an admin. If I did I would have just asked a b'crat for my adminship back per the now removed reinstatement ability. Normally I would wait but seeing how it was not failed because of opposition but because of lack of consensus IMO there is nothing wrong with re-rfaing now, it would have been diffrent it the majority of my votes were oppose.--Ryan524 (talk) 04:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

NOw don't get me wrong, I do want to help out archiving is a big need right now and I would be glad to server in that capacity but only if the community chooses to let me. Also what I siad to Cirt about the "issues" that goes for anyone because while I can see how you could come to that conclusion that would be a misinterpretation and I would be more than happy to help expalin that better so everyone is on the same page.--Ryan524 (talk) 04:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support despite the issues raised as Ryan seems to know what he's doing and I don't believe he would abuse the tools. I he does receive adminship I do hope he doesn't prove me wrong, but I still trust him. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 06:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The issue has now become one where people appear to be opposing because they feel they are being badgered into granting the sysop bit. I know, meant to be "no big deal", but that's not the issue here. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 08:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support Blood Red Sandman. I'm glad to have someone standing with me here, but don't worry I would bet money you won't be the only support.--Ryan524 (talk) 14:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose What is the urgent rush to be an admin again? Bombarding the community with RfA's isn't going to do you any favours. There was an opportunity when the previous request was closed effectively due to no consensus to reflect on what was said and build up a better working relationship with the community for a few weeks but this seems to have been missed. I don't that think you shouldn't be an administrator again, just not yet. Adambro (talk) 06:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose time between requests is unseemly. I suspect the best course of action would be to withdraw the request and forget about this for a time (longer than between this and the previous) then quietly find someone to nominate instead of a self-nom. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 07:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose as i said on your previous request, wait a couple of month or so and you'll get my vote, 2 weeks is too short. Best wait that someone else propose you as admin; i like this way Jacques Divol (talk) 09:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It appears I didn't realize Rfaing so soon would be such an issue, IMO it shouldn't be because its not Ilike most people opposed me, it was just not enough either way. But even with this I'm going to let this one run it's course and howeer it ends...well lit ends.--Ryan524 (talk) 13:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is too soon after the last rfa.Anonymous101 :) 16:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral per all above comments. --Skenmy^(t•c•w) 17:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Requests for de-adminship

Remember: For requests for de-adminship, "support" means "remove admin access," and "oppose" means "keep admin access."

Note that we currently have a Category:Admins open to recall.

User:Jimbo Wales

User has never used the admin or bureaucrat rights he has on the project and considering the healthy number of admins we have I suspect he never will so doesn't need these rights anymore. Jimbo only edits extremely rarely here. Adambro - (talk) 19:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Votes

• Comment This user did not recieve adminship through normal processes. (I think Eloquence gave him the admin bit after he made a comment about mediawiki:Sitenotice, but don't quote me on that). Bawolff ☺☻ 22:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose removal of administrator rights, he often (on enwp) edits archives etc. to courtesy blank material per emails he recieves, and he may need that here. Better safe than sorry, really. Support removing bureaucrat rights. Daniel (talk) 23:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment His edit history here shows no use of admin rights and this perhaps suggests it is unlikely he'll ever use them in future. If he never had cause to use them when the community was smaller then I doubt he would now. Also, I'd hope that he'd think twice before doing so and instead leave such actions to our now much more established community. He's active over on enwp and so him having admin rights there is perhaps appropriate. Admin/b'crat rights are supposed to be practical tools, Jimbo having these rights instead seems to be symbolic now. Adambro - (talk) 11:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Adambro here. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 11:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Neutral per Adambro. --Skenmy^(t•c•w) 12:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support - changing vote. Adminship is provided here on the basis of "if you need it, and you are trusted, have it". Jimbo is a trusted person, but he does not need admin rights here. --Skenmy^(t•c•w) 15:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support the removal of all admin rights. Anonymous101 :) 14:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment This isn't important for the discussion but here is Jimbo's opinion on being desysoped per inactivity: " I think automatic desysopping anyone for inactivity is a really horrible idea and should be rejected". Note that this is not my opinion.Anonymous101 :) 14:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: This is really a waste of time. Jimbo will restore his adminship when he feels like it. He exists above policy and guidelines. -- Cat ^chi? 14:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Has anyone actually contacted the person in question? -- Cat ^chi? 16:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, on his Wikipedia talk page which he often checks. Anonymous101 :) 16:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Please email too... -- Cat ^chi? 16:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Why?Anonymous101 :) 16:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment This comment is transffered from the associated discussion on Wikipedia:

WikiNews rocks. Adminship is provided on the basis of necessity. It's a mop and bucket, not a badge of authority, as they say. This is great because it demonstrates a lack of favoritism. If Jimbo complains and gets sysop back, I'm going to have to eat my tongue, though. This comment by White Cat is incorrect:

Jimbo will restore his adminship when he feels like it. He exists above policy and guidelines.

☯  Zenwhat (talk) 15:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

As does all board members. They will not hesitate to re-admin re-bcrat or re-oversight themselves should the need arises. They (Foundation) own the site and they make the rules. Just because they let us decide some issues on our own does not mean they do not reserve the right to interfere. The removal of their access is hence symbolic. -- Cat ^chi? 16:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I do think you should not consider board members above the policies and guidelines. Anthere - (talk) 16:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Bravo! Anthere, you continue to prove why the community's trust was well placed in putting you on the board. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 19:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support -- Per Skenmy (talk · contribs)'s comment, from above. Cirt - (talk) 17:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support It isn't that Jimbo is not trusted, it is that he isn't active here. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 19:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support While I oppose removal for inactivity, I support this case because the privileges were not granted by the Wikinews community. --SVTCobra 19:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support — on the grounds of not going through a normal nomination process, and retaining normal board-level rights to make changes for OFFICE reasons. -- IlyaHaykinson (talk) 07:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support removal of admin and bureaucrat rights. TheCustomOfLife (talk) 08:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Pingswept

User had 3 edits in 2007 as a whole.

Votes

• Support per nom --MarkTalk to me 16:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support removal of admin rights due to inactivity. Adambro - (talk) 17:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support removal of rights. This user is clearly inactive on Wikinews. Theres no point in allowing him to keep the admin tools if he hasn't edited for months. If they return and request the admin tools back, however, I would probably support them. User:Anonymous101 :) 17:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support inactive --Ryan524 - (talk) 17:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support as inactive. Cirt - (talk) 19:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support Daniel (talk) 23:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support as inactive. --Skenmy^(t•c•w) 12:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose I oppose removal of adminship due to inactivity as a matter of personal opinion. I also oppose the proposed policy WN:IP. The only difference between these requests and an automatic removal seems to be that here, they don't get notified by email. --SVTCobra 19:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

If they are not being notified by email, then people should probably be voting no, like some did last time. Also, WN:IP does say that rfda'ed people should be notified by email. Well, the spirit of WN:IP is "Here is how to be polite about it." Nyarlathotep - (talk) 22:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it they've all been notified via their talk page and those with valid email addresses have been emailed but seriously what is the point? I keep questioning this but no one seems prepared to explain. For what purpose should we make efforts to contact them? "Run back to WN now and save you admin rights?" I don't think that is in the interests of the community and I don't think being polite really overrules this, clearly they're not active on Wikinews so I doubt they're going to be upset about their rights being removed and I would hope that any of our admins would be sensible enough not to expect Wikinews to be frozen in time when they leave. Adambro (talk) 08:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

That may be, but if so it would only be because of Daniel. It seems to me that the nominators both argued against it, so my assessment of the process is correct, imo. At the rate this purge has grown, I am not sure that Daniel got them all. Further, I just don't understand the purge. Why are we doing this? Have we ever had an inactive admin come back and abuse their privileges? --SVTCobra 00:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose I disagree with WN:IP. -- IlyaHaykinson (talk) 07:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

  Simply disagreeing with IP does not satisfactorily explain your opposition here IlyaHaykinson. IP proposes a certain way of handling inactive admins, the nomination of admins to have their rights removed is not automatically something to do with IP just because that proposed related policy exists. Please clarify your reasons for opposing these nominations. Adambro (talk) 08:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

In fact yes it does : It means I don't thing people should be deadmined for inactivity. Which is a reasonable point of view. Nyarlathotep (talk) 00:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Per SVT and Ilya. --+Deprifry+ 11:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

User:RossKoepke

User had 4 edits in 2007 as a whole.

Votes

• Support per nom --MarkTalk to me 16:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support removal of admin rights due to inactivity. Adambro - (talk) 17:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support removal of rights. This user is clearly inactive on Wikinews. Theres no point in allowing him to keep the admin tools if he hasn't edited for months. If they return and request the admin tools back, however, I would probably support them. User:Anonymous101 :) 17:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support inactive --Ryan524 - (talk) 17:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support as inactive. Cirt - (talk) 19:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support Daniel (talk) 23:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support as inactive. --Skenmy^(t•c•w) 12:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose I oppose removal of adminship due to inactivity as a matter of personal opinion. I also oppose the proposed policy WN:IP. The only difference between these requests and an automatic removal seems to be that here, they don't get notified by email. --SVTCobra 19:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose I disagree with WN:IP. -- IlyaHaykinson (talk) 07:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Per SVT and Ilya. --+Deprifry+ 11:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Uncle G

Last edited Dec 2007

Votes

• Support per nom --MarkTalk to me 16:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support removal of admin rights due to inactivity. Adambro - (talk) 17:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support removal of rights. This user is clearly inactive on Wikinews. Theres no point in allowing him to keep the admin tools if he hasn't edited for months. If they return and request the admin tools back, however, I would probably support them. User:Anonymous101 :) 17:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support inactive --Ryan524 - (talk) 17:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support as inactive. Cirt - (talk) 19:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support Daniel (talk) 23:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support as inactive. --Skenmy^(t•c•w) 12:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose I oppose removal of adminship due to inactivity as a matter of personal opinion. I also oppose the proposed policy WN:IP. The only difference between these requests and an automatic removal seems to be that here, they don't get notified by email. --SVTCobra 19:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose I disagree with WN:IP. -- IlyaHaykinson (talk) 07:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Per SVT and Ilya. --+Deprifry+ 11:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Dan100

User last edited in July 2007, almost a year ago.

Votes

• Support per nom --MarkTalk to me 16:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support removal of admin rights due to inactivity. Adambro - (talk) 17:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support removal of rights. This user is clearly inactive on Wikinews. Theres no point in allowing him to keep the admin tools if he hasn't edited for months. If they return and request the admin tools back, however, I would probably support them. User:Anonymous101 :) 17:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support inactive --Ryan524 - (talk) 17:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support as inactive. Cirt - (talk) 19:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support Daniel (talk) 23:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support as inactive. --Skenmy^(t•c•w) 12:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose I oppose removal of adminship due to inactivity as a matter of personal opinion. I also oppose the proposed policy WN:IP. The only difference between these requests and an automatic removal seems to be that here, they don't get notified by email. --SVTCobra 19:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose I disagree with WN:IP. -- IlyaHaykinson (talk) 07:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Per SVT and Ilya. --+Deprifry+ 11:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Frankie Roberto

User last edited in July 2007, almost a year ago. Also has only used the admin tools twice.

Votes

• Support per nom --MarkTalk to me 16:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support removal of admin rights due to inactivity. Adambro - (talk) 17:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support removal of rights. This user is clearly inactive on Wikinews. Theres no point in allowing him to keep the admin tools if he hasn't edited for months. If they return and request the admin tools back, however, I would probably support them. User:Anonymous101 :) 17:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support inactive --Ryan524 - (talk) 17:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support as inactive. Cirt - (talk) 19:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support Daniel (talk) 23:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support as inactive. --Skenmy^(t•c•w) 12:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose I oppose removal of adminship due to inactivity as a matter of personal opinion. I also oppose the proposed policy WN:IP. The only difference between these requests and an automatic removal seems to be that here, they don't get notified by email. --SVTCobra 19:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose I disagree with WN:IP. -- IlyaHaykinson (talk) 07:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Per SVT and Ilya. --+Deprifry+ 11:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Mindspillage

Last edited in April 2007, over a year ago.

Votes

• Support per nom --MarkTalk to me 16:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support removal of admin rights due to inactivity. Adambro - (talk) 17:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support removal of rights. This user is clearly inactive on Wikinews. Theres no point in allowing him to keep the admin tools if he hasn't edited for months. If they return and request the admin tools back, however, I would probably support them. User:Anonymous101 :) 17:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Shes a her. Bawolff ☺☻ 22:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support inactive --Ryan524 - (talk) 17:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support as inactive. Cirt - (talk) 19:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support as inactive. --Skenmy^(t•c•w) 12:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose I oppose removal of adminship due to inactivity as a matter of personal opinion. I also oppose the proposed policy WN:IP. The only difference between these requests and an automatic removal seems to be that here, they don't get notified by email. --SVTCobra 19:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose I disagree with WN:IP. -- IlyaHaykinson (talk) 07:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support as inactive. TheCustomOfLife (talk) 08:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Per SVT and Ilya. --+Deprifry+ 11:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

User:NGerda

Had 4 edits in 2007 as a whole.

Votes

• Support per nom --MarkTalk to me 16:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support removal of admin rights due to inactivity. Adambro - (talk) 17:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support removal of rights. This user is clearly inactive on Wikinews. Theres no point in allowing him to keep the admin tools if he hasn't edited for months. If they return and request the admin tools back, however, I would probably support them. User:Anonymous101 :) 17:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support as much as I like this user, ad heck I was even the one who nominated him, it would not be fair to the others for me to vote diffrently here so I support for being inactive.--Ryan524 - (talk) 17:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support as inactive. Cirt - (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support Daniel (talk) 23:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support as inactive. --Skenmy^(t•c•w) 12:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose I oppose removal of adminship due to inactivity as a matter of personal opinion. I also oppose the proposed policy WN:IP. The only difference between these requests and an automatic removal seems to be that here, they don't get notified by email. --SVTCobra 19:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose I disagree with WN:IP. -- IlyaHaykinson (talk) 07:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support as inactive. TheCustomOfLife (talk) 08:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Per SVT and Ilya. --+Deprifry+ 11:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Crimson

User has only used admin tools 5 times, and last edited in Oct 07.

Votes

• Support per nom --MarkTalk to me 18:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support per nom - Inactive for over 6 months and little use of the tools. Cirt - (talk) 18:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support removal due to inactivity. Adambro - (talk) 22:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support inactive --Ryan524 - (talk) 23:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Question: has an effort been made to contact these users via email? Daniel (talk) 05:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

  They have all been notified via their Wikinews talkpages - you would have to ask Markie (talk · contribs) if he emailed them. Cirt - (talk) 05:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

  I'm just thinking they may be more likely to get an email than a talk page message. Daniel (talk) 05:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

  IMO if the user isnt checking their userpages then they aint active or even involved with the community, but if you want to email them then feel free. --MarkTalk to me 09:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

  I emailed them just to be double-sure. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 13:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

  Crimson and Elliot were the only two with a valid email address/chose to recieve emails from other users, so they were the only two to get an email. I've voted for the others. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 13:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

  I'd agree with Mark. I'm of the opinion that we shouldn't be emailing users in these circumstances. What are we saying, that if they return they can keep their rights? Is that really appropriate, firstly, do we want users return from such a long period of absence and having all the buttons to play with and secondly do we want users returning for the reason of avoiding their rights being removed? I'd suggest not. Adambro - (talk) 14:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

  It should be noted that most of these users wouldn't have verified their email, as before they left, you did not have to. So most of them have emails, but you can't email them due to configuration changes. Also I think it is impolite to remove someone without telling them. the chance they'll come back is next to none, its just courtesy.Bawolff ☺☻ 22:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

  (re to Adambro) i) courtesy and ii) on the off-chance they'll come back and start being active, having been reminded of the project. It is unlikely they're sitting at home thinking "Thank god I left Wikinews", but have probably forgot all about it. Daniel (talk) 23:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support per nom. --Skenmy^(t•c•w) 09:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support --Brian McNeil / ^talk 12:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support removal of rights. This user is clearly inactive on Wikinews. Theres no point in allowing him to keep the admin tools if he hasn't edited for months. If they return and request the admin tools back, however, I would probably support them. User:Anonymous101 :) 17:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose I oppose removal of adminship due to inactivity as a matter of personal opinion. I also oppose the proposed policy WN:IP. The only difference between these requests and an automatic removal seems to be that here, they don't get notified by email. --SVTCobra 19:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose I disagree with WN:IP. -- IlyaHaykinson (talk) 07:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Per SVT and Ilya. --+Deprifry+ 11:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Sfullenwider

This user has used their admin tools only 3 times, and also are inactive, with one edit in Jan 2007, and before that in Oct 06.

Votes

• Support per nom --MarkTalk to me 17:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support per nom - Inactive for over a year. Cirt - (talk) 18:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support removal due to inactivity. Adambro - (talk) 22:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support inactive --Ryan524 - (talk) 23:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support per nom. --Skenmy^(t•c•w) 09:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support --Brian McNeil / ^talk 12:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support Daniel (talk) 13:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support removal of rights. This user is clearly inactive on Wikinews. Theres no point in allowing him to keep the admin tools if he hasn't edited for months. If they return and request the admin tools back, however, I would probably support them. User:Anonymous101 :) 17:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose I oppose removal of adminship due to inactivity as a matter of personal opinion. I also oppose the proposed policy WN:IP. The only difference between these requests and an automatic removal seems to be that here, they don't get notified by email. --SVTCobra 19:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose I disagree with WN:IP. -- IlyaHaykinson (talk) 07:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Per SVT and Ilya. --+Deprifry+ 11:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Cllewr

This one should be pretty simple also hopefully, as the user has NEVER used their tools, yes, 0 admin actions ever. They also last edited in October 07. --MarkTalk to me 17:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Votes

• Support per nom --MarkTalk to me 17:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support per nom - 6 months of inactivity (combined with never using the tools). Cirt - (talk) 17:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support removal due to inactivity. Adambro - (talk) 22:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support inactive --Ryan524 - (talk) 23:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support per nom. --Skenmy^(t•c•w) 09:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support --Brian McNeil / ^talk 12:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support Daniel (talk) 13:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support removal of rights. This user is clearly inactive on Wikinews. Theres no point in allowing him to keep the admin tools if he hasn't edited for months. If they return and request the admin tools back, however, I would probably support them. User:Anonymous101 :) 17:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose I oppose removal of adminship due to inactivity as a matter of personal opinion. I also oppose the proposed policy WN:IP. The only difference between these requests and an automatic removal seems to be that here, they don't get notified by email. --SVTCobra 19:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose I disagree with WN:IP. -- IlyaHaykinson (talk) 07:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Per SVT and Ilya. --+Deprifry+ 11:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Elliot K

This user has only used his admin tools 3 times, and last edited in Jan 07. --MarkTalk to me 17:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Votes

• Support per nom --MarkTalk to me 17:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support per nom - Almost 1.5 years of inactivity. Cirt - (talk) 17:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support removal due to inactivity. Adambro - (talk) 22:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support inactive --Ryan524 - (talk) 23:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support per nom. --Skenmy^(t•c•w) 09:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support --Brian McNeil / ^talk 12:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support removal of rights. This user is clearly inactive on Wikinews. Theres no point in allowing him to keep the admin tools if he hasn't edited for months. If they return and request the admin tools back, however, I would probably support them. User:Anonymous101 :) 17:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose I oppose removal of adminship due to inactivity as a matter of personal opinion. I also oppose the proposed policy WN:IP. The only difference between these requests and an automatic removal seems to be that here, they don't get notified by email. --SVTCobra 19:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose I disagree with WN:IP. -- IlyaHaykinson (talk) 07:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Per SVT and Ilya. --+Deprifry+ 11:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Submarine

Well im gunna put this user up for de-admining due to lack of use of the tools/inactivity. This one should be pretty simple IMO, as the user has NEVER used there tools, yes, 0 admin actions ever.--MarkTalk to me 17:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

also, this users last edit was just over a year ago. --MarkTalk to me 17:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Votes

• Support per nom --MarkTalk to me 17:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support per nom - in addition to nom statement, user has made no contributions to the project for over a year. Cirt - (talk) 17:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support removal due to inactivity. Adambro - (talk) 22:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support inactive --Ryan524 - (talk) 23:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support per nom. --Skenmy^(t•c•w) 09:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support --Brian McNeil / ^talk 12:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support Daniel (talk) 13:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support removal of rights. This user is clearly inactive on Wikinews. Theres no point in allowing him to keep the admin tools if he hasn't edited for months. If they return and request the admin tools back, however, I would probably support them. User:Anonymous101 :) 17:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose I oppose removal of adminship due to inactivity as a matter of personal opinion. I also oppose the proposed policy WN:IP. The only difference between these requests and an automatic removal seems to be that here, they don't get notified by email. --SVTCobra 19:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose I disagree with WN:IP. -- IlyaHaykinson (talk) 07:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Per SVT and Ilya. --+Deprifry+ 11:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support I talked to David earlier this week. He knows the debate is going on and doesn't seem to care either way. TheCustomOfLife (talk) 10:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Requests for reconfirmation

This conversation has been marked for the community's attention. Please remove the {{flag}} when the discussion is complete or no longer important.

Any user in good standing may request a reconfirmation of an admin who has marked themselves open to recall here. Any administrator who would like a confirmation that he has the continued support of the community may also list themselves here. If you are requesting reconfirmation due to inactivity, click here.

Please use Support if you believe the listed administrator should retain their administrator privileges, or Oppose to vote for their removal.

Brian McNeil

With recent issues I want the community to vote on whether I should continue in my position. I appreciate resigning everything prompts a snap election for ArbCom, but Jimmy Wales has characterised my leaking of information as unacceptable.

---

--Brian McNeil / ^talk 22:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Brian remarked, I appreciate resigning everything prompts a snap election for ArbCom, but Jimmy Wales has characterised my leaking of information as unacceptable. I believe that secrets breed more secrets. I'm surprised Jimmy's keeping his "loose lips sink ships" ideology even after the scandals of the past year. As Marilyn McCoo would say, "Let the sunshine in!" TheCustomOfLife (talk) 22:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• I do not see how these anti-Jimmy Wales and anti-Mike Godwin comments that people are posting are helping anyone, least of all Wikinews. --SVTCobra 22:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

In this case I feel Jimmy has parachuted into the discussion and will run away. I'd rather not get into a fight about that, we would not be here but for him setting the project up. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 22:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• I don't see how the foundation is helping us...If anything, by deleting material, NOT published nor even close to publishing, that makes Wikinews lose credibility. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 22:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Do