Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Archive 5

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

[edit] Dan100

Hello, I'd like my admin rights back please. Nobody contacted me about the "deadminship" process despite the socking great notice about how to contact me on my user page, plus the "deadminship" thing doesn't even seem to be policy. Dan100 (Talk) 21:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

• Comment - RfA, April 2005 (promoted, 30 April 2005), Request for de-adminship (notified), May 2008. Cirt (talk) 00:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Votes

• Oppose User hasn't edited for ages except to make this request. Anonymous101^talk 19:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose While WN:IP is still only proposed policy, the de-adminship discussion showed a strong consensus in favour of removing rights. I am not against Dan100 getting his admin bit back, but only if he can show that (1) he actually intends to be an active Wikinews contributor again (while he was active with it until July last year, this request for readminship is the only thing he's done since then) and (2) he understands the differences in how Wikinews works now compared to when he was last around, and will be capable of using admin powers responsibly in that framework. Without those two things, I can't see a need for him to be an admin. Chris Mann (Say hi!|Stalk me!) 00:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose This is why I oppose WN:IP. If there hadn't been a de-admin for inactivity, this would have never come up. Sorry, Dan100, you need to prove yourself all-over again. Of course, we are just wasting everyone's time. --SVTCobra 01:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral i do not like WN:IP at all Jacques Divol (talk) 13:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose No evidence user has returned to activity. Personal principle of only having rights where they are in use to minimise risk exposure. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 13:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose fourteen months of inactivity prior to request. I'd be willing to reconsider if he becomes more active again. Durova (talk) 05:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose user does not show basic levels of activity or commitment to receive admin bit. --Skenmy ^talk 07:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Closed Unfortunately this did not pass. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 20:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

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.

[edit] ShakataGaNai ‎

User is very active on Wikinews and can definitely be trusted. First edit 5 June 2008 and user became active in July. Twice todays he has asked me to perform an admin action, so he clearly has a need for the tools. Also, ShakataGaNai is a commons admin and an accredited reporter. Anonymous101^talk 19:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Questions

• Do you accept this nomination? Anonymous101^talk 19:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 19:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• If you successfully become an Admin, will you help out with admin tasks such as archiving articles older than seven days and Proposed deletions? Cirt (talk) 05:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I wuvvle killing things. Wait, am I supposed to admit that I enjoy destruction? Oh well, I can always get my fix on Commons and play nice here. Sure I can help with Protections of archives. I can probably make AWB do it for me even. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 05:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Per WN:ARCHIVE you should not use AWB for archiving. Anonymous101^talk 14:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

AWB has come a long way since I wrote those parts of WN:ARCHIVE. There are certain aspects of the process could be carried out with it (eg getting rid of stupid MS Word quotemarks and fixing spelling) but I strongly suspect a final once-through with a regular browser would still be required. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 09:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

Someone should create a dedicated reviewer barnstar for this user. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 08:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I gave him The Invisible Barnstar. :P -- Cirt (talk) 08:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Votes

• Support I approve this candidate. Good Commons admin too. Won't break the wiki. Cary Bass (talk) 19:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support as nom. Anonymous101^talk 19:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support Trusted elsewhere and regularly making other people break out the mop. Let xe do some cleanup too. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 21:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support, was wanting to be the nom but oh well :P -- Cirt (talk) 00:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support per "it's about time". Chris Mann (Say hi!|Stalk me!) 00:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support just don't feel so afraid of doing touch-up work on articles that you are reviewing. With some fixes, you can publish some of those you are currently failing. Cheers, --SVTCobra 01:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Yea. I've been working on taking a softer edge. I'm not failing for no cats and simple stuff that I can fix. I'm always open for comments and critque of what I'm doing. It's not like I'm the "expert" on reviewing - I just seem to have gotten the job. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 05:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support A great reviewer and I'm sure will make a great admin. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 02:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support Jacques Divol (talk) 13:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support active and trusted. Durova (talk) 05:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support o_O I honestly thought he already was. --Skenmy ^talk 07:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Closed Hey! I haz admin! --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 19:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

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.

Skenmy (Bureaucrat)

Skenmy (talk · contribs) is already a trusted sysop, checkuser, and member of the Arbitration Committee. I think he will do fine as a bureaucrat and ask the community to weigh in. We could use some help here at WN:RFP, as well as at WN:CHU and WN:BOTS. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 11:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Questions

• Question: Do you accept this nomination? Cirt (talk) 11:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Just like a marriage proposal, I do. --Skenmy ^talk 11:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• How do you feel the significant number of outstanding bot requests should be handled? Particularly given that many overlap and claim to do interwiki links? --Brian McNeil / ^talk 09:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

These need to be investigated and sorted. If we can consolidate bots and find one that does the lot it would be easier, but liaising with the bot owners is probably a good first step. --Skenmy ^talk 14:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

• Comment -- It has been over 7 days since this RfB discussion started, and it has a majority of support consensus. I think it can be closed as successful and the candidate promoted. Cirt (talk) 04:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Votes

• Support Anonymous101^talk 11:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support - as nom. Cirt (talk) 11:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support you are cirt are creepy mother fruiters. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 22:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support Trusted user, will be fine with the tools :-) TheFearow (userpage) 22:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 22:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support --Thunderhead 01:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support Jacques Divol (talk) 20:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support Bawolff ☺☻ 19:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• absolutely — bastique ☺☻ 20:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support --Brian McNeil / ^talk 09:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support --Cspurrier (talk) 02:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Abstain - Although I trust Skenmy, en.Wikinews has 5 active Bureaucrats and, so far as I have been aware, no recent issues in which Bureaucrats were unresponsive. So I do not perceive a need for more 'crats, in fact I think we should trim the one inactive 'crat as there is no benefit served. - Amgine | ^t 02:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Closed as Passed --Chiacomo ^(talk) 05:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

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.

[edit] PatrickFlaherty

PatrickFlaherty (talk · contribs) has been a steadfast positive contributor for the last four months now, and became an accredited reporter on 12 October 2008. He has written (14) solid articles on topics relating to finance, and also helps out with reviews. I believe he would continue to contribute positively to the project in his role as administrator. Cirt (talk) 18:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Questions

• Do you accept this nomination? Cirt (talk) 18:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the nomination and I do accept. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 18:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• If you successfully become an Admin, will you help out with admin tasks such as archiving articles older than seven days and Proposed deletions? Cirt (talk) 18:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes. I think I would do more archiving then deletions since it seems that deletions tend to be done quickly by other admins. But if I see a page that has been voted to be deleted, then I do just that. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 18:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
• Being an admin is supposed to be no big deal. Where do you see the extra privileges being most useful to you? --Brian McNeil / ^talk 22:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

  I think the biggest use is the ability to block vandals that go on a vandalism spree with multiple edits per minute. Occasionally we run into the problem and there was a case about a month ago that it took about 15 minutes for admin to block the vandals. Thinking about other uses, I would say the ability to edit full protected pages would be useful such as adding articles to newly created categories. Oh also to delete the main page would be really cool. Just joking about the last part, of course. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 00:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

[edit] Votes

• Support per nom. Cirt (talk) 18:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support I have come to trust PatrickFlaherty and have had excellent interaction with this user. PatrickFlaherty seems to have a firm grasp of what Wikinews is about. --SVTCobra 01:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support Looks ready for the bit. Durova (talk) 10:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support Has proven himself trustworthy and reliable. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support --Brian McNeil / ^talk 14:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Closed as Passed --Brian McNeil / ^talk 09:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

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.

[edit] Durova

Durova (talk · contribs) has been a steadfast positive contributor for the last nine months now, and she has written (19) articles on topics relating to healthcare and science research, helped out with four articles in other areas, and also helps out with reviews. The Meta-Wiki project she has spearheaded, WikiVoices, has brought in new contributors to Wikinews. She is an administrator on Wikimedia Commons and on Wikisource and an OTRS volunteer, and I believe Durova would continue to contribute positively to Wikinews in her role as sysop on this project. Cirt (talk) 23:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Questions

• Do you accept this nomination? Cirt (talk) 23:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, thank you very much for the nomination. Durova (talk) 23:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• If you successfully become an Admin, will you help out with admin tasks such as archiving articles older than seven days, proposed deletions and closing deletion discussions? Cirt (talk) 23:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, I'd be glad to. Durova (talk) 23:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, no interesting questions... I'll take this opportunity to contribute to wikinews in a non-useful manner ;). Bawolff ☺☻ 03:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• On the vote to start the Wikinews project, a famous Wikipedian said, "Would I ever vote against world domination?". Do you believe Wikinews should take over the world? (bonus points if you can tell me who said that)
• If Wikinews took over the world, and ruled everybody's life, what would the meaning of Wikinews be?
  • Follow up: if Wikinews took over the world, and ruled everybody's life, would I still be a wikiholic?

Answers:

1. Yes, absolutely. (Jimbo. No. 16.[1])
2. Forty-two.
3. Would you? Dunno. I can quit anytime I like.

Durova (talk) 04:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

• I want to also comment on this, now that I've been thinking about it a bit longer; that Durova has an enormous amount of energy, and she is also a good motivator for others. I love Wikinews and I'm sad that I can't spread my time around devoting more energy to this project; and for me, I can see this project only getting better with Durova on board as an admin. Plus, she's a girl and we need more girls. Cary Bass (talk) 23:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Votes

• Support per nom. Cirt (talk) 23:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose I oppose not because I don't trust the user with the bit, but because I don't think they know their way around well enough. Earlier this evening I had to delete stuff that should simply have been tagged {{delete}} or listed on WN:AAA; instead it was listed on the Water Cooler. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 23:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support previous vote struck, I think if those who support (myself included) help mentor Durova then there will be little in the way of problems. Comments below indicate a willingness to learn. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 17:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

She's gained experience in many varied areas of the project, and a few posts to Water Cooler show a drive to interact positively with the community. I highly doubt this would have any bearing on her actions as a sysop - quite the opposite - it demonstrates a willingness to seek out discussion with other users. It is certainly a bit difficult to learn one's way around on this project - note it was three tries before anyone gave her feedback on that. Cirt (talk) 23:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

She did not know that the place to seek admin help is WN:AAA. I expect that as a minimum for any candidate. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 23:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I am sure that a simple polite post from yourself for her to do that in the future would have been all it would have taken. This project is not that user-friendly in helping people find their way around - and surely someone who has already displayed qualities of both being able to bring in new users and also experienced users from other projects, and a strong capability to listen to others and solicit input, help, opinions and advice from more experienced users, is someone that will be level-headed and do well as a sysop. Cirt (talk) 23:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand my reasoning, why I do not know. I am opposed because the user is not familiar enough with the project, not used to tagging things they'd speedy as {{delete}}, and didn't know where the local equivalent of the administrators' noticeboard was. Durova also seems "casually active", something which influences me little but raises concerns that she may not learn where things are without more time applied to the project. Wiki experience elsewhere should not factor in here, it helps as a contributor but not necessarily as an administrator. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 23:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

My above rationale stands, but also I think Cary Bass summed it up pretty well in his Support comment, below. Cirt (talk) 00:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

In an effort to prove myself wrong I will say, "You're never content unless you get the last word". --Brian McNeil / ^talk 00:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Brian, you raise a worthwhile concern. Please note that documentation at WN:AAA is actually a bit thin with regard to speedy deletions. I've had that page on my watchlist for a while, yet from reading its sections had been under the impression it was primarily used for requests to edit protected pages, 3RR alerts, and unblock requests. Perhaps it would be a good idea to update and make the page clearer? I'll be sure to use it for this intended purpose in the future; please extend a little leniency about using another one for a few days before receiving a direction that wasn't clear on the desired page itself. Durova (talk) 01:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support While I understand Brian's concerns, I also realize that these are learning processes. I didn't know all the proper procedures when I ran for admin, and I somehow passed! I trust Durova with the access to the tools. Cary Bass (talk) 23:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral We could use another Admin, but I don't know if its a pressing issue at the moment. I trust the user and is a great writer. I am not against adminship at all though. Support We need more regulars and we are so behind on archiving its not even funny. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 01:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
• Very strong Support Durova is a great writer, a great editor and will make a great admin. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 01:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support - has read Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, what more can we ask from an admin? Bawolff ☺☻ 04:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support Giving Durova the sysop bit will definitely be a net benefit to the project. Chris Mann (Say hi!|Stalk me!) 22:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support per nom and Bawolff. Anonymous101^talk 19:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] ShakataGaNai

[edit] Case justification

I am Rschen7754, an admin for 2.5 years at the English Wikipedia and a confirmed user here at Wikinews (I did stuff relating to the US election). I indefinitely blocked a user known as Freewayguy at the English Wikipedia. This user has gone to Wikimedia sites that I edit and don't edit and made death threats against me - so much so that my username was added to the new page title blacklist by the stewards. He has been blocked on several wikis indefinitely (including commons, english, simple english, spanish, meta, italian, japanese, korean, chinese, german, whatever nl stands for...). This (NSFW) has the gory details.

That all to say that User:Freewayguy hit here tonight. I went into #wikinews and asked for an admin to indefinitely block this guy. ShakataGaNai was extremely rude and only blocked for 72 hours. I told him to look at the global contributions list, and he blatantly refused to do so several times. I was then blocked from the channel. User:Daniel, another administrator, is able to confirm this (as he talked to this user personally), as may others who can view channel logs of the channel at the time. Those in #wikipedia-en-admins may be able to confirm this as well through secondhand knowledge.

I don't know what the standards here are for adminship; I do know that this may have resulted in loss of sysop status at the English Wikipedia - and we don't even have a page for this. This user was extremely incivil and would not take input. Blocking me from the IRC channel for making the request for the blocking admin to look at global contribs was way out of line. This user has been making death threats against me; the fact that this user could not (and has not) been blocked indefinitely is despicable. --Rschen7754 (talk) 08:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

• Comment - I was not on IRC at the time so I cannot speak to what happened there (I am not even sure if we could take formal actions on-wiki based on something that happened on IRC). But perhaps Daniel (talk · contribs) could comment on this. I extended the block on Freewayguy (talk · contribs) to indef, based on vandalism, socking, and intimidating behavior/harassment on this project, in addition to this history of cross-wiki intimidation and harassment. I do not think ShakataGaNai (talk · contribs) should be desysopped based on the evidence in front of me, which is only the stuff that has happened on-wiki itself. Cirt (talk) 09:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Death threats should be taken up with civil authorities (i.e. police). en.WP checkusers will generally handle issues like this and pass sensitive information on for you, in some cases their judgement will be to take it up with the abusive user's ISP and get them warned/disconnected.

I can make no comment on the IRC discussion, I did not see it, but your comment indicates you persisted in demanding your chosen action be the one taken. If that was seen as being disruptive, I would expect you to be booted/banned. Incidentally, actions on IRC have absolutely zero bearing on the wiki. It is not an official WMF communications channel, and thus calling for de-sysop based on comments or actions there is pointless. de-sysop can only be based upon actions on this wiki. You have shown no evidence to support your crusade. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 09:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• • I was asking him to look at some evidence across Wikimedia - a reasonable request. I don't see the problem with that. --Rschen7754 (talk) 09:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
    • If it amounted to asking for someone to be persecuted for actions elsewhere then it is, in my opinion, a form of vendetta. Many users find they don't fit in on one project but can move to another and be productive. You certainly would not be happy were I to take your actions here as justification to call for you to be desysopped on en.wp, and I see little difference between that and what you're doing here. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 09:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Uh, he (Freewayguy) made death threats against me. Every other wiki he did this on indefinitely blocked him. Also, some (Simple and test) indefinitely banned him even though he did nothing wrong there simply due to what he did on other sites. Considering that he did make threats on Wikinews... --Rschen7754 (talk) 09:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
        • This discussion isn't about Freewayguy, and I'm not going to be distracted by that anymore. I looked at the global contributions and didn't see one credible death threat, just a messed up young kid being a dick. So, state your case against ShakataGaNai or I will delete this RfDA as a waste of the Wikinews community's time. Hint: You're supposed to provide proof of abuse of admin privileges. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 10:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
          • Making poor judgment calls can be grounds for desysopping as well. This was a bad call. Admins are supposed to be civil to the community - this one clearly wasn't. I gave the simple request for him to look at global contribs - he said he didn't need to. Nobody has addressed my concern regarding that. --Rschen7754 (talk) 10:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
            • He didn't need to; he's a volunteer like the rest of us. Doing harm on the project may be grounds for desysopping. Failing to do enough good (not failing to do any good, but doing less than enough good) is not grounds for desysopping. I imagine he didn't feel like investigating any further, and that's okay; you can ask someone who is willing to investigate further. Editors are valued for the work that they do choose to do. You can't force a volunteer to act. Sorry. WODUP 11:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
              • When you block someone, you take responsibility for the block. Failure to evaluate a block you just made is a serious concern. Being careful when you block and not looking at all the evidence is a serious concern. Moreover, admins are allowed to make mistakes (I've made several!) but not being willing to correct them is a serious concern. --Rschen7754 (talk) 11:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
    • ←When you block, you take responsibility for that block, absolutely. In this situation, it was a good block, but one that should have been set not to expire. Failure to re-evaluate a block is serious, yes, but I haven't seen anything to suggest that ShakataGaNai refused to re-evaluate the situation. I don't know what was said on IRC, but this edit shows me that ShakataGaNai was at least willing to review the user's behavior after the block expired and indef block then if necessary. As for looking at all of the evidence, I don't know what ShakataGaNai saw that made him know that a block was justified, but I assume that when he saw that there was enough to warrant a block, he blocked. That's it. This goes back to ShakataGaNai possibly not doing enough, but he hasn't abused the tools. Thankfully, absolute perfection isn't a requirement to be a sysop as I've made a few mistakes on enwiki, too. Your last sentence implies that ShakataGaNai wasn't willing to correct this mistake of underblocking the user, but doesn't allow for the possibility that he didn't see it as a mistake. If he didn't (absent evidence to the contrary, I'm assuming good faith), given the harassment and threats, I would see that as a lapse in judgement, but this one incident doesn't warrant desysopping; admins are allowed to make mistakes every now and then, but consistently poor judgement is how to lose the bit. Lastly, I'll note that your complaint was that the block wasn't long enough, that the offending user wasn't going to harm anything for three days, and that there would have been plenty of time during those three days to bring it to WN:AAA. From what I've seen, ShakataGaNai should not be desysopped. WODUP 16:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
• Hello. Like Rschen7754, I am more of a Wikipedian than a Wikinewsie, but I do have an opinion here. I don't see how the behavior Rschen7754 described (rudeness on IRC and banning from a channel) would result in a desysopping on enwiki like xe says it may. Add to that the fact that actions on IRC usually don't have consequences on wiki and that ShakataGaNai did at least block the user, and I can't conclude that the user should lose the bit. Also, it should at least be noted that User:Freewayguy has now been blocked indef. WODUP 09:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• I have asked on the checkuser-l mailing list if Rschen7754 has made any effort to get these death threats into the hands of the police, or his ISP. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 09:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• I have sent an email to Mike Godwin directly, as he will need to approve it (from past experience working with him on legal issues involving checkuser). Daniel (talk) 12:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• Do the parties in dispute agree that IRC logs should be disclosed to the community? --Brian McNeil / ^talk 11:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I just spotted all the activity on this page in RC so thought I'd take a look. As others have noted, there isn't a great deal on Wiki to suggest this user should have their admin rights removed. However, I would most definitely strongly disagree with the comments by Brianmc and DragonFire1024 which seem to completely dismiss the behaviour of users on IRC as being relevant to whether they should have admin rights on Wikinews. We don't give users admin rights simply because they can press buttons, we do so because we trust their judgement. If, as is being suggested, this user has simply ignored suggestions and acted inappropriate in booting someone from IRC then this has to be taken into account in assessing their judgement. The removal of admin rights is simply based upon community consensus. There is no requirement that only on Wiki actions have to be taken into account and nor should there be. It is perfectly possible for a Wikinews admin to harm the project by bringing it into disrepute or whatever without doing anything on Wiki. That doesn't mean they shouldn't loose their admin rights. Not having being in the IRC channel however means it isn't possible for me to comment as to whether the users actions should result in their admin rights being removed. I would welcome the publication of any IRC logs that are available though. IRC logs being kept private only serves to protect the guilty, it doesn't benefit the community as whole. I am slightly disappointed at the way in which Rschen7754's concerns have been branded a "crusade". Adambro (talk) 12:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

  I agree to some extent. But IRC is not WN, just like WN is not WP. The actions of users in IRC usually does not reflect their actions on Wiki. With that said, we really cannot force anyone on IRC to follow or abide by the policies of WN on IRC. We just have to assume good faith. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 13:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

  As you note, what people are prepared to say on IRC is different from what they are prepared to say on Wiki. Ultimately though, unless people are trying to claim to not be those chatting on IRC under their Wiki username, they are still the same person and I cannot possibly agree that the community shouldn't be able to judge an admin by their comments on IRC. Whenever and wherever someone identifying themselves as a Wikinews admin comments, there is the potential to bring Wikinews into disrepute and so all Wikinews admins, and other users for that matter, have a responsibility to behave in an appropriate manner elsewhere. If they fail to do so then I don't wish for them to be associated with Wikinews in such an obvious way as adminship. No one should feel untouchable simply because they don't actually behave inappropriate on Wiki. You don't suddenly stop being a Wikinews admin when you're not on Wikinews. Adambro (talk) 13:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

  After a session on IRC this morning I expect IRC logs to demonstrate that Rschen7754 was being irritating and pestering about what I consider a perfectly reasonable decision. I note Rschen7754 hasn't given permission for his side of the IRC logs to be released per my request. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 14:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• If Freewayguy is such a problem across many Wikis and issuing death threats, why wasn't a global block requested? --SVTCobra 15:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Apparently a couple stewards mulled this idea over - but as the user does not have a SUL account, the stewards would have to force merge SUL, and then global block the whole SUL account, and they did not want to do that - but you would have to check with a steward to actually get some hard data on their thought processes on that one. I think it may be a good idea in this situation. Cirt (talk) 15:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Requested at m:Steward requests/Global. Cirt (talk) 16:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I have never heard of anyone at enwikipedia being desysoped for being rude and/or banning someone from a channel on IRC. That's simply not true. File a Request for Comment or something else, but this is just ridiculous. Cary Bass (talk) 16:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• This silly frankly. However, the disturbance on Wikinews started when 75.47.208.145 began removing legitimate edits made by Freeway guy and issuing block warnings and demanding, without explanation, a block of a user who was in good standing on Wikinews. I do not know if that IP was Rschen7754, but the IP was name dropping (see diff). It is no wonder that ShakataGaNai may been a bit impatient or even discourteous on IRC, given the rude way Wikinews was introduced to problems with Freewayguy. There is a right way to notify Wikinews of potential cross-wiki problem users, and the way this was done was not the right way. A simple note on WN:AAA would have sufficed. --SVTCobra 18:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually I thought 75.47.208.145 was Rschen at first. It wasn't until much later after much digging that I realized there were 3 IP's from 75.47.X.X involved with this user. Though at the time, "Rschen" was on (IRC) from another IP address all together (in fact through WebIRC). I had no way to verify who any of the IP's were (or if they were the same user) other than the IRC IP and the on wiki IP were both EXTREMELY persistent. In fact the first time I got confirmation that he was _actually_ involved was when he post the request for de-sysop. (Note: No for defense, just explaining what I saw) --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 18:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Looking at everything, I think it might be best to bring this issue to the Arbitration Committee. There is several issues here: First, several IPs were essentially harassing Freeway. Second, Freeway's comments on Rschen7754. Thirdly, the IRC conversation. Lastly, we have this request, which in my mind is petty and could be a form of harassment on Rschen7754's part. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 18:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
• This is someone I've encountered on en:wiki who has problems with communication skills and is generally difficult to deal with. 72 hours isn't something I'd overturn for a first instance. If the problem recurs in this manner, wouldn't cut much slack. Durova (talk) 19:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
• As a colleague of Rschen7754 on enwp, let me lay out the situation as I understand it:
  • The 75 IP is a persistent anon user that has edited enwp for quite a while. Recently he was blocked by me for a couple months for incivility but has been evading the block and so the timer has been reset several times. As far as is officially known the 75 IP is not related to any other established account on Wikipedia (he has started his own accounts to circumvent the block, though).
  • Freewayguy is an editor on Wikipedia whose poor grammar and carelessness with regard to facts served as a net deficit to enwp. In other words, he didn't officially violate any policy, but we discussed things with some uninvolved admins, and all agreed that the amount of time it takes to clean up after his article-space contributions was too great as to warrant him still being on enwp. Rschen and I asked him to clean up his act and warned him. When Freewayguy persisted in editing and introducing new errors into the encyclopedia, Rschen blocked him. Upon review 3 uninvolved admins upheld the block.
  • Freewayguy then began editing other wikis, starting at commons and expanding to other language Wikipedias, editing his own and Rschen's userpages with the death threats and general nonsense. I personally thought most of it was amusing, but Rschen is treating it more seriously, because he lives in a county neighboring that of Freewayguy. I believe the proximity between the two editors is why Rschen is playing it safe and taking things seriously. Scott5114 (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - After looking at the logs posted by ShakataGaNai (talk · contribs) I can understand if SGN got a bit annoyed at Rschen7754 (talk · contribs) for his lack of patience and over-persistence in IRC. Probably Rschen7754 should have dealt with this more formally instead of IRC - contacting a steward, and privately emailing a local checkuser to this project. I don't see anything blatantly wrong done by SGN, though perhaps he could have just given Rschen7754 advice to do that - seek out a steward or en.wikinews checkuser to email privately about it. But certainly no grounds for desysop based on what is there in the logs. Cirt (talk) 21:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
  • But a block from the channel and a refusal to check the global contribs? That's what gets me. --Rschen7754 (talk) 21:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - Further, we now have (7) unanimous people weighing in as "Oppose" for this proposal of desysopping - perhaps it would be best at this point in time to close this discussion a bit early? Cirt (talk) 21:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This bullshit has wasted enough of people's time and attracted anonymous trolls from Wikipedia. A block on a /16 had to be instituted because of the fight being imported from Wikipedia. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 21:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Wow. Some thoughts and opinions on this
  • Actions have a very limited impact on your status on wikinews. If someone is doing something stupid on 'pedia, and comes over here, we'll going to watch them more closely, but it is doubtful we will block them unless they are doing something extremly stupid
    • Death threats are an example of something extremly stupid. It may warrent an automatic block here, but should be investigated before hand and disscussed to make sure that they are the same person, etc. This is something that should be formly brought up with administrators, not casually on irc
  • Actions of admins on other places do affect what happens to them on wikinews, if it relates to wikinews or you're threatening a wikinewsie. (per BP) + It seems common sense if admins are bashing wikinews, etc outside wikinews, thats not good
    • Therefor if you are being extremely stupid outside of wikinews [which includes irc], it will catch up to you here, but you have to so something very very stupid
  • demanding an admin do something is just generally not a good idea. If you believe an admin has not given you proper attention, ask someone else to review
  • We don't de-admin people for not doing enough. We really, as a general rule, do not deadmin people. You'd have a case if the admin was making the death threats, but saying that the admin did not do enough, when your side of the story is disputed, is not going to work unless you have a really good case [which you don't]
  • You have been very agressive in demanding this [based on your comments here] which counts against you.

Bawolff ☺☻ 21:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by administrator in question

• Comment from the prisoner Hey! I have to say for the record, for all the crazy things I've done - I never thought the first time someone actually filled a request for de-sysop would be because I _didn't_ block long enough. But what the hey, amusing either way. As for IRC logs... publish away! In fact I have a copy from my buffer. I even want to release the part after where I talk to DanielB about it and drop my fascade of being nice. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 17:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
• Logs of the first section have been posted. User:ShakataGaNai/IRC Logs 2008-11-20 --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 21:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Votes

Note that support indicates you agree the administrator should lose their privileges. Oppose means you believe they should retain them.

• Oppose Frivolous case that should be speedily removed from this page. No evidence of abuse of administrative privileges. Appeals to take into consideration IRC not accepted on Wikinews. Based on standards of Wikipedia, this is not Wikipedia. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 12:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose I have to agree with brianmc on this one. IRC is not enforceable in terms of WN policy. If it was, then we'd all be in a lot of trouble. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 12:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per my comment, above. Cirt (talk) 14:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per my comment, above. Cary Bass (talk) 16:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose see my comments. --SVTCobra 18:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Doesn't appear that ShakataGaNai did anything wrong or broke policy. Seems to be a baseless request. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 18:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose If it's so bad Rschen7754, allow the log to be posted. The fact that you are not OK with the log being posted, while SGN, gives me a good idea of who might be at fault. Anonymous101^talk 18:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

  Give the guy a chance. He hasn't responded to the thread since Brian asked for the logs. It is early morning for the user (PST), so they could be at school/job/etc. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 18:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

  I do give permission for my part to be posted; you'll have to ask Daniel about the rest. --Rschen7754 (talk) 21:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - riiiiight. --Skenmy ^talk 21:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - there is not anywhere enough evidence to support deadmin. at most, an investigation into conduct of admins might be warrented (but at first glance i do not feel you have enough for even that). Bawolff ☺☻ 21:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that was withdrawn by the candidate. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Tempodivalse (talk · contribs)

Want to see if I can get into this early. I know I've been here for only three weeks, but I have amassed over 1300 edits since then, about 900 of which are in the main article namespace, a number that is higher than that of some administrators. I also have 3500 edits at the English Wikipedia, and have been there for half a year. I thought that I could simplify things a bit if I had sysop status (if elected, I'd mainly do things like correcting mistakes in archived pages, tackling the archive backlog, and deleting nonsense pages). Thoughts? ♪TempoDiValse♪ 17:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Questions

• Question - If you successfully become an Admin, will you help out with admin tasks such as archiving articles older than seven days, proposed deletions and closing deletion discussions? Cirt (talk) 18:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that's already answered in the nom. --SVTCobra 18:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, yes, I will help out with those things. ♪TempoDiValse♪ 18:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay thanks. :) Cirt (talk) 19:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

• Comment We need more votes! ♪TempoDiValse♪ 21:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Votes

• Weak support Tempodivalse has proven himself an excellent contributer over the last few weeks, and, with his edits on WP going back much longer, I already trust this user, although the lack of experience has concerned me, I am leaning towards support. Anonymous101^talk 17:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
• Strong support Tempodivalse is a strong editor and clearly the tools will be useful to him. I understand the concerns that he might not have the length of time that is usually asked of admin candidates; however, I feel that he is is such a good editor here and at Wikipedia, that he can be trusted as an admin. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 17:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - Good contributor, but first contribution here was 21 November 2008, would like to see a history of positive contributions to this project for a bit longer track record than that. Certainly could support in a couple months or so if same types of positive work here continues. Cirt (talk) 18:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Tempodivalse is an invaluable contributor with a very high work-rate. I do not want to discourage him or her. However, Tempodivalse is just getting familiar with the Wikinews:Template messages and I would like to see Tempodivalse around a bit longer before the tools are bestowed. --SVTCobra 23:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral Too soon. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 08:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
  • PS. I dislike people stealing my name coloring. Confuses me. Leads to people getting accidentally banned. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 08:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral potential to make a good admin, just applied a few weeks too early. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 11:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral no doubt a fantastic contributor, but I echo the above comments - I just feel it's too early. Keep it up and you will be elected with no hassle in the new year. --Skenmy ^talk 14:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

NOMINATION WITHDRAWN I'll try again in a month or two. ♪TempoDiValse♪ 15:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Closed as withdrawn by the candidate. Cirt (talk) 21:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

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.

[edit] Gopher65

Gopher65 (talk · contribs) has been a great contributor to Wikinews since July. He has made over 1100 edits since then and does just about everything including copyediting, reviewing, adding new materials to developing articles, and is also a great reviewer. Gopher65 has created several articles but also has been involved in template designs. I believe the project would benefit by having Gopher65 as an admin. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 00:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Questions

• Do you accept this nomination? --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 00:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
  • He's on wikibreak, but it looks like he accepts the nom from this diff. ♪TempoDiValse♪ 15:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, I accept. I don't return home until Jan 4th, so I may not reply until then. Gopher65_talk 14:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
• Question- If you successfully become an Admin, will you help out with admin tasks such as archiving articles older than seven days and Proposed deletions? --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 00:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I can be an anally organized person, so I would certainly help with archiving and closing DRs, time permitting. I can't promise I'd singlehandedly archive everything of course;). Gopher65_talk 14:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
• Do you currently, or have you ever, had the intention to take over the world, and establish yourself as the autocratic dictator of the world?Bawolff ☺☻ 01:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
  • If so, is this simply the first step? Bawolff ☺☻ 01:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
    • One of my long-held goals is to take over the world for all hyper-intelligent genetically engineered gopher-kind, stopping both Brain the mouse and Snowball the Hamster in the process. You should all thank me for this service (and bow). Gophers will be far more benevolent masters of the world than our mouse or hamster brethren. Gopher65_talk 14:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

• Comment - Three votes before user has stated whether or not they will accept the nomination - this should really wait. Cirt (talk) 01:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
  • User is away until Jan 6, so yeah, we should probably wait t'll he is at least here. Bawolff ☺☻ 13:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Agree w/ Bawolff (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 04:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Nom accepted. Cirt (talk) 15:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
• Comment It's been over a week now since the nom. Shouldn't this be closed already?  ♪TempoDiValse♪  15:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Votes

• Support as nom. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 00:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support All hail to our new overlord Gopher65. Bawolff ☺☻ 01:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
• TempoDiSupport^TM--♪TempoDiValse♪ 01:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support per nom and answers to the questions. Cirt (talk) 15:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support no issues Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support Narf! --TUFKAAP (talk) 16:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Closed PASS out the mop and bucket. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 15:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

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.

[edit] TUFKAAP

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)

[edit] Questions

• Do you feel there is anything that needs to be done as a bureaucrat? Basically is there any specific reason as to why you nominated yourself, other then to help? Bawolff ☺☻ 02:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] Comments

• Technically we were started in November 2004 (but 2004 doesn't really count as a year). :P Bawolff ☺☻ 02:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Votes

• Generally Support. My only concern is that I'm not sure more beurrocrats are needed. I see no evidence of back logs (maybe bots, but i think that is a result of the bots approval process than any fault of the beurocrats). I definitly trust TUFKAAP to fulfil this role. Bawolff ☺☻ 02:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support - I was actually thinking of nominating TUFKAAP (talk · contribs) the other day, disappointed I did not get the opportunity but I am glad he decided to put himself up for it. TUFKAAP is already trusted as a sysop for a longtime, and will continue to serve the project well in this added capacity as a bureaucrat. Cirt (talk) 05:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support - we do not really need more bureaucrats, but if TUFKAAP wants to be one then I see no reason why not to give him the flag. --Cspurrier (talk) 19:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support TUFKAAP will make an excellent bureaucrat as he is a great admin and editor. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 19:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support I actually feel that while not vital, one more bureaucrat would be a better number, just to make sure we always got one handy. TUFKAAP is a great candidate and has my full support. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 12:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support Daniel (talk) 04:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support --Brian McNeil / ^talk 08:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

• I withheld from voting; thus I close this with promote Brian | (Talk) | ^{New Zealand Portal} 07:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

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.

[edit] Ironiridis

• Ironiridis (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves)

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)

[edit] Comments

• Comment - It has been over seven days, and this appears to be unanimous consensus to remove rights. Any objection to closing and making a note for the Stewards at m:Steward requests/Permissions? Cirt (talk) 01:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Already done. -- ♪TempoDiValse♪  03:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

User de-sysoped (diff). -- ♪TempoDiValse♪  20:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Votes

• Support as nominator. Daniel (talk) 11:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Cirt (talk) 21:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
• Neutral I disagree with the idea of desysopping for inactivity. Inactive admins do no harm. WN:IP is not policy and was widely opposed in April 2007. --SVTCobra 22:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, but the practice was widely supported in December 2007/January 2008 (more recent than your archaic discussion link), and resulted in numerous desysoppings for inactivity (Wikinews:Requests_for_permissions/Archive_3). So linking to a nearly-two-year-old discussion in such a fashion is distinctly misleading to those not aware of the history of RfDA's. Daniel (talk) 23:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

I won't oppose, if the user doesn't want the admin status. --SVTCobra 23:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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, Anonymous101^talk 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, Anonymous101^talk 20:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I say we switch this over to speedy. Iron himself is ok with this [2] --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 20:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
• 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)

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 (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves)

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)

[edit] Comments

• Comment Shouldn't this be closed, considering that it has been a full week since the request was posted? -- ♪TempoDiValse♪  17:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Agreed. 5 for remove rights, 4 opposing that, seems this could be closed as no consensus to remove admin rights - any objections? Cirt (talk) 01:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Done discussion closed. -- ♪TempoDiValse♪  14:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Votes

• Support as nominator. Daniel (talk) 11:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Cirt (talk) 21:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose I disagree with the idea of desysopping for inactivity. Inactive admins do no harm. WN:IP is not policy and was widely opposed in April 2007. --SVTCobra 22:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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, Anonymous101^talk 20:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
• remove per my comment in the earlier vote. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 10:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose — I oppose removal for inactivity unless we have some concrete reason for doing so (ie, if we had a set number of admins that we couldn't exceed). Gopher65_talk 15:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per the other oppposes -- ♪TempoDiValse♪  16:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

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.

[edit] Tempodivalse

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, Anonymous101^talk 18:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Questions/Comments

• QuestionDo you accept this nomination? Anonymous101^talk 18:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I accept.  ♪TempoDiValse♪  20:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment We need some more input, it's been almost three days since the nomination, and nobody has voted yet. -- ♪TempoDiValse♪  01:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

• Question Just wondering, what margin of support does an admin candidacy have to have in order to pass as successful? The policy doesn't seem to be very specific about it. -- ♪TempoDiValse♪  15:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Varries (depending on situation, and seriousness of the concerns raised, and really the b'crats have some lee-way), but generally around 70%. So far you're doing good imho. Bawolff ☺☻ 16:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
• Comment It has been a week to the day since this nom opened, I think that a bureaucrat can close it now. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 15:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

RfA closed as SUCCESSFUL. Thanks to everyone who supported me, I appreciate your trust. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 19:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Votes

• Support - Per nom by Anonymous101 (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 01:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support - In regards to svt's concerns - I personally feel since it was the user's very first edit, TempoDiValse should have perhaps asked an univolved party to sight the edit. However this is still a very grey area as to what to do, and I think Tempo's action were perfectly ok. Bawolff ☺☻ 04:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose stole my signature color scheme. Still grumpy. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 18:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

• Comment Goddamn kids and their multicoloured signatures! Every byte is sacred, every byte must be saved, and if a byte gets wasted, Brion gets upset! :-P --Brian McNeil / ^talk 18:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support --Brian McNeil / ^talk 18:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support Ed 20:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support --SVTCobra 23:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support — I'm supporting this to cut down on the number of {{editprotected}} requests that I have to wade through. ;o) Now he can do his own protected edits Muwhahahahaha! Gopher65_talk 15:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

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.

[edit] Red Thunder

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)

[edit] Questions/Comments

• Comment Looks like this RfA is ready to be closed, it's been over a week since the nomination. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 20:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I think it is fine if RfAs run over for proper vetting by the community. However, Red Thunder seems to have disappeared right after this nomination. --SVTCobra 15:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

I am now back to full activity. R.T. 15:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Votes

• Oppose - Much as I appreciate the article-writing and great contributions you have made to this project so far, two months seems a tad short. Would like to see a bit more activity and history of contributions, perhaps another month or two. Keep up the great work on the project and please think about being considered for nomination again at some point in the future. Cirt (talk) 01:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support = changed to Support. Taken some time to look things over a bit more and agree with Brianmc (talk · contribs) that this individual is a positive contributor to the project. Cirt (talk) 08:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
• abstain - Cirt brings up a valid point. Bawolff ☺☻ 04:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Dont recognize the name. Plus we dont have that many speedy deletes. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 18:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support From what I have seen, this user has consistently made beneficial edits, shown a reasonable understanding of policies, and worked towards improving the project. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 19:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support This user can clearly be trusted to be an excellent admin, and we need people archiving. Anonymous101^talk 08:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
• Neutral — I'd be inclined to wait another couple months, but I'm not opposed to this user's RfA. Gopher65_talk 15:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support Jacques Divol (talk) 19:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support no objections ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 21:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support --SVTCobra 03:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

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.