Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Archive May 2009 - December 2009

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive of requests for permissions from May 2009 until December 2009. They're kept for historical purposes.

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

[edit] ShakataGaNai (talk · contribs)

Note: Withdrawn by Skenmy, at 19:34, 13 October 2009.

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

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

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

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

  • 02:00, 29 September 2009 ShakataGaNai (Talk | contribs | block) blocked Rayboy8 (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 48 hours (account creation disabled) ? (Repeated Copyvio.) (unblock | change block)
Despite what ShakataGaNai has claimed on IRC, I am only able to find a *single* instance of serious, blockable copyvio before this block. The block itself was unwarranted (per WN:BLOCK - "last resort - efforts to educate must be made first, followed by warnings" - I see one education attempt that was, quite frankly, pitiful.) for the "seriousness" of the offence - a single line that looked similar: [1]. Prove to me that the user maliciously copy and pasted this line into the article and I will concede this point. More often than not, I have studied sources, then written the article and found a few of my sentences have turned out very similar - it's simply not possible to re-write some things, and other times you get a bit of creative block.
Related Block:
  • 18:04, 2 October 2009 ShakataGaNai (Talk | contribs | block) blocked Rayboy8 (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 72 hours (account creation disabled) ? (Copyvio) (unblock | change block)
This block should have been applied, as it would have been the third serious offence. But 72 hours? Very excessive. "My patience is officially done. These block times are going to start escalating rapidly after this point." is also not behaviour befitting of an admin and bureaucrat on a user's - who has contributed 55 articles - talk page.

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

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

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

To the judging administrator: I request that simple support or oppose votes are discarded if they are not accompanied by a reason. "as above", or "per username" count as a reason in my opinion. I request this an no-one (including myself) will learn anything without an idea of why people vote in such a way.

[edit] Comments

  • I will revise this comment to ShakataGaNai is, in my opinion, also an extremely hostile, immature, and childish person.. Please don't spill this onto my talk page. --Skenmy talk 19:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Please don't make personal attacks against other editors. Cirt (talk) 19:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
The comment is not a personal attack, it is a reason why I do not feel SGN should hold his privileges. Where can I express this view if not openly and honestly here on my request? --Skenmy talk 19:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
It is a personal attack and it is a wholly inappropriate use of this page. Cirt (talk) 19:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Votes

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

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

[edit] Comments and questions

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

[edit] Votes

  • Support Thoughtful and well-presented response to my question above, already trusted to manage bots, and has privs elsewhere. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support he can't do any more damage than he already is. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 15:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support giving him +sysop locally. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support, per Brian McNeil (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 19:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Tempodivalse [talk] 20:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support    Tris   20:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Adambro (talk) 07:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support we trust him with the tools as a steward, no reason to not give him them locally. --Cspurrier (talk) 00:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[edit] Mass De-Bot'ing

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

[edit] Comments

  • Comment I note that Craig's Bot (talk · contribs) also has administrator status. Perhaps it should it be desysoped, in addition to de-bot'd? Tempodivalse [talk] 01:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I missed that, but I full agree. If he needs it back, it can be given easily enough. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 01:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Alexbot is actually blocked as well. Bawolff ☺☻ 20:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Votes

  • Support --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 01:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Support the de-flagging of each of these bots. --SVTCobra 01:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Most of these bots are now redundant as they have been replaced by other, more active bots which do the same tasks. The majority of these will likely never be used again, and the few that will can easily go through the bot process again. Tempodivalse [talk] 01:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Support per Tempo — Gopher65talk 02:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Seems uncontroversial. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Calebrw (talk) 19:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Support No need for unused privs Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Seems reasonable. Cirt (talk) 19:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Support sensible preemptive maintenance. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Done All listed bots deflagged, after unanimous support and no objections in about seven days. Tempodivalse [talk] 12:52, 16 September 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 current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Computerjoe (talk · contribs)

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

[edit] Comments and questions

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

[edit] Votes

  • Support as the nominator. Tempodivalse [talk] 20:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Assuming he accepts. I thought he was one already. We don't exactly need more admins, but nonetheless an extra helpng hand is always welcome and the user can be trusted. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support I can see he is a helpful and willing user, and hopefully these traits will stick when adminship almost certainly comes his way. --Skenmy talk 20:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support pending acceptance of nomination. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support now nomination is accepted. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support, helpful and valued contributor to the project. Cirt (talk) 10:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support --Jcart1534 (talk) 23:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support --   Tris   18:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Shiny! --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 17:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support --Adambro (talk) 15:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

[edit] James Pain (talk · contribs)

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

[edit] Questions/Comments

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

[edit] Votes

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


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

[edit] Tempodivalse (talk · contribs)

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

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

[edit] Questions/comments

  • Do you accept the nomination? Computerjoe (talk) 22:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
    wow, I wasn't expecting this at all! I'm honoured you think I would make a good bureaucrat, and I humbly accept. Thank you. Tempodivalse [talk] 22:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: Link to user's archived RfA, ended 19 May 2009. Cirt (talk) 23:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: Link to user's archived second PfP, ended 23 February 2009 as successful. Calebrw (talk) 04:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: Link to user's archived first PfP, ended 13 December 2008 as withdrawn by the candidate. Calebrw (talk) 04:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Question Should your RfP be successful, would be be available on IRC on a more frequent basis so that if a problem arises that only a 'crat or admin could solve, you would also be available to help out. Obviously you are on top of Special:RecentChanges, so not much slips past you, however, somethings are discussed on IRC that are not always put on the Wiki. Calebrw (talk) 04:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
    Meh. I've been on the irc a few times before, and it seemed to me as if it is mainly used for informal chatting that isn't always very relevant to on-wiki matters, and there's not frequently much discussion about anything important, wiki-wise. If administrator or bureaucrat action is needed, then it would be just as easy to make a request at WN:AAA instead, where administrators will be sure to see it and probably react just as quickly. Right now, the only times I use irc are: for second opinions when I'm unsure of what to do when making a decision, and for alerting reviewers of breaking news that's just come up. Hope this answers your question. Tempodivalse [talk] 13:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
    It does. Thanks. Calebrw (talk) 22:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Unfortunately, I'm most likely going to be without access to a computer for the next several weeks, starting with next Sunday or so. I should be able to return to Wikinews only in early August (but I promise to return to full activity then). Thus, if everything goes as scheduled, this request should close before I have to leave, but if, as I suspect, it will run overdue past one week, then I won't be able to answer any questions that users will ask me at that time. Tempodivalse [talk] 20:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
  • How long do these usually last? –Juliancolton | Talk 20:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
The guideline calls for one week, but since we are small they usually take two weeks. This one has gone longer, perhaps because the steward/bureaucrat has not noticed it or is waiting for Tempo to return from break. --SVTCobra 21:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Votes

  • Support as nominator. Computerjoe (talk) 22:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Good faith positive contributor, should do fine with the added tools. Cirt (talk) 23:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Having interacted with this User on multiple occations, I can say that Tempo is a great contributor and has done excellent work as an Admin and have not reason to believe he would do good work as a Bureaucrat. I do have one question above, but the answer will not affect my vote. Calebrw (talk) 04:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support based on positive interactions at other projects (and here, as well). –Juliancolton | Talk 21:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support I of course believe this user is responsible enough to be given access to these tools. As a minor note theres not really much need b'crats. In the time i've been a bureaucrat, I have only ever had an opportunity to use the tools once (today actually. this comment would sound much better if i made it yesterday ;). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bawolff (talk • contribs)
  • Neutral I think Tempo is a great contributor, but we have recently elevated several people to bureaucrat, I don't think there is a need. --SVTCobra 00:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Neutral per SVT. I feel we have plently to 'crats already and there is no need for any more. Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 10:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
    I'm not sure i completely understand. I agree we don't have a need for another bureaucrat, but what harm do you see in having more of them? Tempodivalse [talk] 13:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
If I saw harm, I would have voted oppose and not neutral. --SVTCobra 00:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Neutral A user who has only been active here since November 2008 and an admin since February this year, wouldn't be very high on my list of candidates suitable for bureaucratship I'm afraid, even considering the excellent contributions. Adambro (talk) 12:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Neutral per SVTCobra and Adambro. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support-Don't know if they're needed but as a reliable contributor who writes articles-why not? Dotty••|☎ 19:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Nothing personal, but I feel there is no real need for any more Bureaucrats. It's tools for the sake of tools, IMO, and while we have active Bureaucrats who are managing the workload, there is no need for any more. --Skenmy talk 16:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
    What harm do you see in having additional bureaucrats? I would think having more bureaucrats would be a good thing, because there would be a higher chance someone is available if something comes up requiring a 'crat. Tempodivalse [talk] 16:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Tempo makes a good work here! Vitorbraziledit talk 03:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support There is no harm in having another bureaucrat and there is no reason why Tempodivalse shouldn't be one. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 05:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support I trust him with extra tools. It wouldn't hurt to have a lot of 'crats, in my eyes, as long as they're all good for te job. hmwithτ 22:16, 15 July 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] Killing Vector (talk · contribs)

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

[edit] Questions & comments

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

[edit] Votes

  • Support as nom. Tempodivalse [talk] 14:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Always admin-ey things needing doing, user has my trust to be responsible with the tools. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose due to the run ins I've had with this user. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 16:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
    What run-ins? Could you be a little more specific? Tempodivalse [talk] 18:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
    No. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 19:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. good contributor. As a minor point- I think the user (actually both parties) could of had a more cool approach to the debate over Wikizine - Year: 2009 Week: 7-22 Number: 106 however no one is perfect. Bawolff ☺☻ 00:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support, great interactions and knows policy. Mike Halterman (talk) 01:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support seems fine and I really don't see anything wrong over the Wikizine thing. A little matter of fact but not rude. Computerjoe (talk) 21:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support I have had no problems. --SVTCobra 00:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Seems quite thoughtful with answers and doesn't demonstrate any problems. Calebrw (talk) 15:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Trustworthy and capable user Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support I checked through some edits and I have no doubt that extra permissions would help this newsie a lot. (→Zachary) 08:03, 3 June 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 (talk · contribs)

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

[edit] Comments

  • Have you considered logging into IRC more regularly? There are usually other admins about who can give a second opinion and help with decision making. --Brian McNeil / talk 07:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
    Hm, good idea. Perhaps I'll consider doing that if I'm in doubt about what to do when making a decision. Tempodivalse [talk] 14:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Votes

  • Support, user recognizes mistakes quickly when they occur and deals with them professionally. Cirt (talk) 19:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Pobody's Nerfect - You have had plus points added to your standing in my mind by nominating yourself here - you recognise your mistakes and want to get better. --Skenmy talk 20:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Seriously. You've got to fuck up purdy badly. I mean look at me, I'm still a sysop! You're fine. Now get back to work bitches! --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 20:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Admitting errors is the first step to avoiding repeating them. While a minor distraction I think more people should put themselves up for reconfirmation where they've made mistakes. --Brian McNeil / talk 07:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Fantastic editor who seems to contribute lots to the project. Everyone makes a couple of mistakes. Computerjoe (talk) 23:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support --SVTCobra 02:02, 19 May 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] Calebrw (talk · contribs)

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

[edit] Questions/comments

  • Do you accept the nomination? Tempodivalse [talk] 19:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I do. Thanks for confidence. Calebrw (talk) 19:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Twitter. Identica. Or Neither. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 16:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't quite understand, and I have no idea what Identica is, though I now see it is similiar to Twitter. I do have a twitter account, but only use to follow a few select things. I'm not one to check it daily or post a whole bunch of status updates. Does this answer your question/comment Calebrw (talk) 03:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Can you wait with your {{editprotected}} requests until your adminship is confirmed (it looks like a landslide)? Tempo is trying to keep up, but if you can do it yourself it really cuts the work to less than half. --SVTCobra 00:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Sorry about that. I am all done now. I responded to you on your talk page as well, but the short of it was I wanted to have all the articles that needed to be tied into ManUtd known, so that I didn't have to make a ton of really complicated requests now. Thanks to Tempo for helping out. Calebrw (talk) 01:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Votes

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] Mike Halterman (talk · contribs)

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

[edit] Questions

  • What is your take on the "Life the Universe and Everything" question?--Brian McNeil / talk 10:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't do that dorky crap. I do soap operas. But, if I must, 42, and blah blah blah.... Mike Halterman (talk) 20:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
/me makes Mike sit through the entire series of HHGTTG - in a dressing gown. --Brian McNeil / talk 05:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Votes

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] Van der Hoorn (talk · contribs)

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

[edit] Questions

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

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

[edit] Comments

  • Comment Maybe it's not wise to respond to some of the criticisms written below at the Votes section, but I cannot help myself. :)
    • My experience is indeed not in writing and reviewing articles, I fully agree and I can already tell you that this will probably not change. I found out I'm not a very good writer and reviewing articles is not what I'm interested in. This may be disappointing to some, but I think you have to do what you're good at. I would like to do some interviews on the next European elections, but then the content is written by or spoken by the person who is interviewed, thus not much creativity needed there (except for the questions, of course).
    • I'm not sure what falls under copy-editing, but I try to walk through every article that makes it to the front page and fix what I see (typos, lacking categories, often missing links or links that link to Wikipedia instead of Wikinews, punctuation, adding Category:Conversion templates, etc.). Unfortunately, most older articles are fully protected, so often copy-editing is impossible. I cannot add appropriate categories, fix typos and add links, thus the best I can do is to add the stuff to the talk page, but it takes quite some time to write a heading + {{editprotected}} + typo + typofix + explain sometimes why, which is quite frustrating. I have also copy-edited many typos in templates, but I often just say "Added a category" in the Summary box; it really takes too much time mentioning all the details of the edit.
    • I am seriously wondering what policies and/or procedures I am not familiar with. I went through quite some Help pages fixing typos and links and often read parts of the pages that seemed interesting and different from Wikipedia. If someone could point me to some policies and/or procedures that they find (very) important and think I missed, that would be really appreciated.
    • I'm currently going through all the maintenance reports on Special:SpecialPages, but alas I can only edit the Categories, Files and Templates. I also created some templates to help editors do their job, e.g. copied and modified the Category:Conversion templates from Wikipedia and created Template:Translated quote. I also rediscovered Template:Sic, which seems a really nice way in improving the inconsistencies currently used in articles in using sic. (I have seen: [sic], [sic], [sic], (sic), [SIC]). Unfortunately, older articles are fully protected and thus not editable.
    • So finally, I'm not expecting anyone to change their vote. I respect everyone's decision and opinion, but I just wanted to let you know mine. I'm good at fixing and sorting things, but not so much at writing things. :) If there would be a way to edit fully protected pages without becoming an admin, then I would have no problem going for that option, but I am not aware of one. If someone does, please do tell. Thanks for all your comments. Cheers, Van der Hoorn (talk) 00:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with him. The length of time one has been on the project is not always a reflection of the amount of knowledge of policy one has. Some users have been on the project for many months, and still don't fully understand the policy. I can tell that Van der Hoorn knows policy well due to his many commentaries in different discussions project-wide, which also demonstrate that he is civil and has good judgement. Also, nothing done by an admin is irreversible, and any mistakes he might make as a sysop can easily be undone. I would be glad to coach him in some of the administrative areas he is less experienced in, such as blocking/vandalism removal. The most important things when considering an RfA, in my mind, are trust and civility, and that is certainly not an issue here. I would also like to add, in response to some of the neutrals/opposes, that some of our best administrators rarely, if ever, write or review articles. That is certainly a plus for an admin candidate, but it is by no means a prerequisite. ♪ Tempodivalse ♪ 00:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - It has been well over 7 days since this RfA started. Cirt (talk) 22:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Update: I left notes on the talk pages of three bureaucrats that are 1) semi-sorta-active, and 2) have not commented in this RfA. Cirt (talk) 22:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Votes

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


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

[edit] Bawolff (talk · contribs)

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

[edit] Questions

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

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

[edit] Comments

  • Question: Is the difference between an administrator and a bureaucrat the same as on Wikipedia? It appears the bureaucrat page on Wikinews redirects to the admin page, which is kind of confusing. Cheers, Van der Hoorn (talk) 18:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Effectively, yes. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Alright, then I know what I'm voting for. :) Cheers, Van der Hoorn (talk) 19:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment It has already been ten days since this RfB started, I think it can safely be closed now. tempodivalse 22:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I am inclined to leave it run for 14 days, as it is an RfB and not to many people have commented on it yet, imho Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 01:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Votes

  • Support as nom. tempodivalse 17:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Van der Hoorn (talk) 19:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support red-thunder. 21:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support — Dunno how many Bureaucrats we need, but Bawolff would make a good one if we need to add to their numbers. Gopher65talk 04:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Good admin, will make a good bureaucrat. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 04:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support I don't know how I didn't see this one at the bottom of the page here. :( Hope I can still get this support in before the close. :P Cirt (talk) 00:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support <3 Bawolff --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 17:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Mike Halterman (talk) 21:54, 21 April 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 (talk · contribs)

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

[edit] Comments

  • Have you considered logging into IRC more regularly? There are usually other admins about who can give a second opinion and help with decision making. --Brian McNeil / talk 07:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
    Hm, good idea. Perhaps I'll consider doing that if I'm in doubt about what to do when making a decision. Tempodivalse [talk] 14:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Votes

  • Support, user recognizes mistakes quickly when they occur and deals with them professionally. Cirt (talk) 19:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Pobody's Nerfect - You have had plus points added to your standing in my mind by nominating yourself here - you recognise your mistakes and want to get better. --Skenmy talk 20:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Seriously. You've got to fuck up purdy badly. I mean look at me, I'm still a sysop! You're fine. Now get back to work bitches! --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 20:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Admitting errors is the first step to avoiding repeating them. While a minor distraction I think more people should put themselves up for reconfirmation where they've made mistakes. --Brian McNeil / talk 07:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Fantastic editor who seems to contribute lots to the project. Everyone makes a couple of mistakes. Computerjoe (talk) 23:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support --SVTCobra 02:02, 19 May 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 bureaucratship. Please do not modify it.

[edit] ShakataGaNai (talk · contribs) (Bureaucrat)

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

[edit] Comments and questions

  • Question Do you accept the nomination? Cirt (talk) 04:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I can haz cratz? (Yes, I accept) --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 04:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Votes

  • Support, per nom. Cirt (talk) 04:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support –Juliancolton | Talk 05:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - why? Tools for the sake of tools. We have plenty of active Bureaucrats --Skenmy talk 07:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, Tempodivalse's RfB went overdue by several weeks, which might suggest that we do need a couple more bureaucrats. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Was a Bureaucrat actually notified about the end of the vote? I certainly wasn't :) --Skenmy talk 14:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I think that is like saying "Why do we need more admins?". We've also got plenty of active admins. The problem is that we'd like to have someone active in each roll all the time, crat and admin. On most wiki's we'd want more than one active admin at all time because there is a lot to do, wikinews not so much, but it is still a good idea. So lets take a quick look at the crats, we've got 10. IlyaHaykinson (talk · contribs) has been editing on 10 days this year, Eloquence (talk · contribs) once so far, Chiacomo (talk · contribs) inactive since Oct 2008. Not saying anything bad about those people (Those were just 3 easy people to point out), but people come and go on wiki's. People get busy in real life, or simply get bored/tired/sick/frustrated with the wiki. That long boring spiel being said, Skenmy feels we've got enough, that's perfectly fine. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 16:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • The difference is we use admins a lot more (for archiving / editprotected / copyvio, etc) than other projects do. We actually use the tools for our project goals, rather than them being there just for technical reasons. However, our Bureaucrats have no difference between other projects - they serve two purposes here on Wikinews - promoting users and renaming users. We have six Bureaucrats who I would consider "active" at this moment in time - plenty for a project of this size. This isn't a personal jab against you, SGN, I have every respect for you and you are a fantastic contributor to the community. I simply do not believe in giving out tools that are not needed, just because we trust in a user. Admins are sorely needed by the majority of our regular contributor base. Bureaucrats are not. --Skenmy talk 16:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 23:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Even if we did need more 'crats — an argument that I don't buy — I believe we have a number of users who are better suited for this position. --SVTCobra 23:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support    Tris   10:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Neutral for now per all arguments above. Van der Hoorn (talk • contribs) 22:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support there's no reason to have a set level of bureaucrats. If you trust the user, then give them the tools. I trust him so I support. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 20:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support User is able to be trusted with the tools. hmwithτ 14:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support --Jcart1534 (talk) 21:08, 27 August 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 request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

[edit] CommonsDelinker (talk · contribs)

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

[edit] Questions and comments

  • Comment I have had to fight to recover images this bot has deleted in the past. They were not acceptable for Commons but perfectly useable on Wikinews under fair use provisions. Why can't the bot use {{editprotected}} like everyone else who hasn't proven themselves to know local project rules? --Brian McNeil / talk 23:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
    • To be fair, the bot doesn't delete the images, it just cleans up red links after an admin has. It also tries to swap out images when dupes are discovered, and similar. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 03:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Previous nomination #1 - Wikinews:Requests_for_permissions/Archive_3#User:CommonsDelinker, previous nomination #2 Wikinews:Requests_for_permissions/Archive_4#CommonsDelinker. Bawolff ☺☻ 03:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment If CommonsDelinker cannot be programmed to use the editprotected template, perhaps we could consider using wikinews:CommonsTicker as an alternative? It is less intrusive than the delinker, as it doesn't edit anything but only makes notifications of changes. Tempodivalse [talk] 13:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I tend to agree that the {{editprotected}} solution would be better, though since I can understand the reasoning behind this proposal, I won't oppose. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment A related issue to this that springs to mind is 'snapshots' of pictures/maps/diagrams on Commons. Has anything been done about that? What I mean is - if a map of disease X spread is maintained on Commons are we getting snapshots made with a date in the title for use on our articles, and are these staying on Commons? --Brian McNeil / talk 15:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment As SGN points out above, it isn't actually this bot which deletes the image. That's done by an admin on Commons, the bot is just cleaning out redlinks or changing to point to a replacement image. If I understand correctly, images on Commons get tagged, the ticker bot spiders where they're used and posts notices of a potential change. So, in theory, people here can go and check out votes for deletion and so. Post-vote Delinker is supposed to go round all the projects and tidy up. IIRC, the ticker bot wasn't particularly informative about how to look into this. With the vote below as it stands, I would like to suggest the following: the ticker bot is tweaked to give us better notification, only on archived articles. We should not be required to go and look at the discussion on Commons until after we've locally evaluated the change. In addition to notifying us, the ticker bot should caution the nominating user on Commons, and add a note in any vote on Commons for a deletion or change. Basically, it should tell them the image is in use on an archived and protected page on Wikinews and point them to WN:ARCHIVE or whatever parts of the mission statement clearly define the "known at a point in time" nature of the project. If a deletion or change still goes through after that, then delinker should use {{editprotected}} to request the change. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Votes

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

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

[edit] Questions and comments

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

[edit] Votes

  • Support as nominator. Tempodivalse [talk] 00:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. High quality positive contributor to the project, should be quite helpful as part of the admin team. Cirt (talk) 05:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support --Skenmy talk 07:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support --Brian McNeil / talk 16:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support --Computerjoe's talk 17:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support good user --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 20:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 22:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support --SVTCobra 21:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support -- A true net asset to all WMF projects. fr33kman t 08:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Trusted. hmwithτ 14:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Great Wikimedian. Durova (talk) 16:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support --Jcart1534 (talk) 21:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support from enwiki YellowMonkey (talk) 05:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 07:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support This user has proven that he can be trusted on numerous occasions. Dendodge T\C(en.wp) 14:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for checkuser rights. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Cirt (talk · contribs) (checkuser)

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

[edit] Questions and comments

Thank you for the nomination. I accept. Cirt (talk) 16:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Please remember to use # to format votes, not *. Tempodivalse [talk] 15:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Question We have four users with checkuser. Why do you feel we need a fifth? Can you provide an example of where it would have been helpful to have had a fifth user with checkuser? --Jcart1534 (talk) 01:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Additional active checkusers will help to ensure that someone will always be around to attend to an urgent issue, and significantly decrease time for requests in general. Cirt (talk) 02:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Question As you are a member of ArbCom, would you have asked for the tools now or seen the need to ask for them were you not nominated? --Jcart1534 (talk) 01:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I have yet to self-nominate for consideration of admin or other increased rights on this or any other wiki project. I am honored by the nomination from Tempodivalse (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 02:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't so concerned with who nominates, but was more interested in your sense of the need for such tools (which you answered in my first question). You are trusted and will get my vote, but these are serious privacy-related tools and so I feel a couple of probing questions are warranted. --Jcart1534 (talk) 10:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Jcart1534, thank you for your trust in me, it is most appreciated. Cirt (talk) 17:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Cirt - I have nothing against you personally, you are a fantastic contributor to the project. However, as has been demonstrated previously, I do not believe in giving tools for the sake of tools. We have 4 checkusers on this project, two of which I would consider active, and the other two are around sporadically enough to be of use to us should we ever need 4 checkusers. I see no point in having another checkuser. I will not oppose the vote - CU is difficult to get as it is and I don't wish to hinder you. --Skenmy talk 13:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Skenmy, I thank you very much for your kind words about my contributions to this project. One thing to keep in mind is that the project must have a minimum of two checkusers to even have the local privilege at all. Four individuals is a small group of people. If any one of the four has to go inactive for personal reasons, then it may be hard to cover the gap. Cirt (talk) 17:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I have highlighted this discussion on the checkuser-l mailing list. This list is for cross-wiki private communication between checkusers. Realistically, Wikinews cannot muster the required votes to get someone checkuser. There have been previous cases where checkusers from other projects have voted in such cases. Any non-regular who is voting because of this should please identify which project they are a regular contributor to/checkuser on, and where they know Cirt from. I know he's also active on en.wp, possibly elsewhere. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Question Will you assure us that you'll abuse your power? --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 06:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
No. I will strive to do my best to use the tools in the same manner in which I have used the admin tools in the past: to help the project. Cirt (talk) 06:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
ShakataGaNai's sense of humour slip past you? --Brian McNeil / talk 16:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
It's worth both a chuckle and a serious reply. Cirt (talk) 16:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Awwww, thats no fun. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 17:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Heh, perhaps instead I should have responded with another question: What are we going to do today, Brain? Cirt (talk) 17:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Question Have you made use of w:Nmap in the past, or do you have other familiarity with IP protocols that might help in identifying open proxies and DHCP ranges of persistent vandals and abusers? --Brian McNeil / talk 16:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I have made use of w:Nmap. Other methods include examination of the IP: static/dynamic, well known problem ranges, hosting companies and other unusual IP ranges, and IP specific records such as blacklists, well known proxy lists, and search engines. In the past I have not made determinations on port scanning on my own, but have rather consulted with more experienced administrators and checkusers and we have come to an assessment together. In the future I will continue to seek out the knowledge and experience of those that have been doing this longer than I, when a case is not obvious, as I feel input from other experienced administrators and checkusers is always a plus when performing such actions. Cirt (talk) 17:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment You are currently an admin on wikinews, commons, wikipedia, wikisource, wikiquote, as well as having otrs access. How long before you take over the world? :P Bawolff ☺☻ 07:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Approximately Seven Days. Cirt (talk) 09:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Votes

  1. Support as nominator. Tempodivalse [talk] 15:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. 22 votes to go! Computerjoe's talk 17:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  4. Support --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 20:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  5. Support Bawolff ☺☻ 21:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  6. Support Pi zero (talk) 21:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  7. Support Don't know much about you, but from what I have heard, you can be trusted. Drew R. Smith (talk) 14:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  8. Support --SVTCobra 22:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  9. Support fr33kman t 08:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  10. Support Of course. Definitely trusted. hmwithτ 14:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  11. Support per nom. Durova (talk) 16:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  12. Maybe I mean, he's a good guy.... but can we trust him? He nom'd me for crat, obviously he's off his rocker. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 17:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    And you got crat, so that would make the rest of us off our rockers too :-P DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  13. Support I've observed candidate from en-Wikipedia. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  14. Support --Jcart1534 (talk) 21:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  15. Support From en.wiki. YellowMonkey (talk) 05:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  16. Support Known & trusted from Commons (which is where I tend to be!) --Herby talk thyme 16:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  17. Support I have had very little (if any) interaction with this user on Wikinews, but I have seen them doing fantastic work on the English Wikipedia, and see no reason for them to not receive my full support. Dendodge T\C(en.wp) 12:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  18. Support -I don't really need to vote seeing as there is unconditional support. but per others i do. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment WMF policy requires 25 support votes for CU as a minimum. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 18:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  19. Support IMatthew (talk) 20:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  20. Support Very trustworthy, and having an extra pair of eyes is never a bad thing. I don't think projects need tons of CUs (except maybe enwiki), but having only two active (and two in reserve) is a little bit limited. EVula // talk // 20:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  21. Oppose While I have no personal objections to the user being given CU, I don't feel that there is any significant need (per Skenmy (talk · contribs)). Furthermore, I do not feel that Cirt (talk · contribs) would abuse the tools in anyway (and his track record as an admin here is pristine to my knowledge), however, the number of CU users is already high enough. That said, if one or more the existing CU withdrew they CU status, I would see the need for the Cirt to get the tools as he is a frequent contributor/admin. Calebrw (talk) 20:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
    Since you fully trust Cirt not to abuse CU, what harm do you see in him being given the extra bits? There's no reason to have a set limit of checkusers - the more we have, the shorter the response time will be when a check is needed to be done (and it's not like CU is a useless tool, from what I understand checks are performed almost every day). Besides, two of our checkusers (BrianNZ and Cspurrier) are completely inactive, so for all practical purposes we have only two, which I think is a bit on the low side for a project this size. Tempodivalse [talk] 20:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
    I gotta ask, what is with this communities love of "We don't need em, vote against em" policy? We're all friends here (Ok, most of us are friends... Ok... some of us are friends). --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 22:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
    I could have put Neutral, but I felt that Oppose better suited my vote. Calebrw (talk) 00:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    Tempo: While BrianNZ and Cspurrier are indeed fairly inactive at this time based on the number of contributions, I have no reason to believe they haven't been using the CU on a daily basis (I'm simply unable to tell (so if there is in fact one, please let me know)). At this time, the only way in which I would change my vote, is if one or both of the two users currently given CU status, but apparently inactive were to be dis-allowed the status. I could also be swayed I suppose, by any relevant testimony by BrianMC or Skenmy were to give on this subject. Calebrw (talk) 00:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    As Brianmc's comment above says, we have in effect only two users who have used the privs in the past year. If one of them becomes inactive, then the other will receive less oversight for his actions - and it might be difficult to cover the gap. Tempodivalse [talk] 03:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  22. Support We need more than two active CUs imo, and Cirt strikes me as a good choice. I would go so far as to say that one more CU as well as Cirt would be useful on this project. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  23. Support Unlike some, I believe that even if we don't neccesarily need them right now-it does absolutely no harm to have a trusted user given privileges. I'm sure there will be some time when they are needed-if the others are unavailable etc. 2 active Check Users is really not enough anyway, so good luck.    Tris   20:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  24. Support I'd tended towards Skenmy's position on this until I saw the checkuser log. I'm perfectly happy for Cirt to have the tool - as long as he leaves it to the rest of us to beat the crap out of the investigate and take action on Scientologists if they come back. :-P --Brian McNeil / talk 11:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  25. Support One more support to 25. Good luck, Cirt. (I know Cirt from Commons and en.wp) --Kanonkas (talk) 18:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  26. Support The above points and votes have made me reconsider my earlier position. Cirt, I am proud to vote you #25 - welcome to the CU team on enwikinews :) --Skenmy talk 18:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
    Comment Request Submitted: [2] --Skenmy talk 18:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
    Comment Effectively this ends the voting. But as CU is an important election, we should keep it running for at least 24 more hours to make it the full 7 days. I'm not sure if CU is supposed to be 7 or 14 days, but seeing is how it is amazing we managed to get 26 votes for anything.... IMHO 7 is sufficient. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 18:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Tristan Thomas (talk · contribs)

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

[edit] Comments and questions

  • Question Do you accept the nomination? Tempodivalse [talk] 16:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
    With pleasure, thank you very much. I've made one big mistake, which most will know about; I'm not going to try & hide it-but trust me, that won't happen again! Thank you for the vote of confidence Tempo.    Tris   18:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
    If you've only made one big mistake, we might as well speedily promote you..... :) –Juliancolton | Talk 19:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
     ;) Big-the rest have been normal!    Tris   19:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Question Why do you contribute to Wikinews? What do you get out of it? --Brian McNeil / talk 20:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
    Answer:I contribute for a few reasons-firstly & most importantly, I enjoy it. Secondly, I believe if we can get it right, it can be the future of journalism. Citizen journalism is on the rise & with more & more people having access to the internet when they are mobile, it can only increase. It may not be Wikinews that grows because of that-it could be iReport or any of the others, but I want to try & help Wikinews be that one & with the base of contributors we have, I think it could be. Thirdly, it is so useful for me-I can spend a bit of time every day that keeps me up to date with current affairs, which otherwise busy life might take away from me.    Tris   07:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Question Do you think its lame that the wikinews community has ran out of 42 jokes to ask at RFA's? Bawolff ☺☻ 16:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Response: Without a shadow of a doubt.    Tris   17:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Votes

  • Support as nominator. Tempodivalse [talk] 16:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong support pending acceptance of nom. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Bawolff ☺☻ 17:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Support, per Tempodivalse (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 00:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Support --Jcart1534 (talk) 02:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Support --Brian McNeil / talk 07:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Uneasy support - I don't know what your "one big mistake" was, and I'm not going to bother to look, since I'm certain you would make a fine admin. The mistake, whatever it is, makes me uneasy, but I am not going to pressure you to reveal it (whatever it is, I am sure it will not affect my opinion, so there's no point). Dendodge T\C (en.wp) 10:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
    I don't mind saying-basically, I didn't check an article for copyvio properly & published it. I know you said it won't affect your opinion, but for anyone else who doesn't know-I'm not pretending it didn't happen, because it taught me a lesson & so served a purpose! Thank you for your support, however uneasy!    Tris   15:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Support — I have no objections. Gopher65talk 16:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Support --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 17:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Dendodge (talk · contribs)

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

[edit] Questions and comments

  • Question Do you accept this nomination? Tempodivalse [talk] 20:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I am honoured by the nomination, and humbly accept in the hope that it will be the first step towards achieving my evil plans for world domination! Dendodge T\C 20:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Take the job seriously, but never take yourself seriously. --Brian McNeil / talk 01:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Votes

  • Support as nominator. Tempodivalse [talk] 20:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - I nom'd him for sysop at the English Wikipedia, so I'm still pretty confident in Dendodge's abilities as an admin. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support, per Tempodivalse (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 21:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support although, I'm worried about this 'humbly' bit. You're supposed to become a Wikinews admin with plans for world domination — then get handed a bucket and mop. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support I agree I am a new user and do not know much about Wikinews policies and guidelines, why to support for an RfA under what conditions, etc. but Dendodge has helped me a lot in my early stages and he has guided me with the policies and I was totally new to Flagged Revs as wikipedia doesn't have it. He helped me out with that too. I think he is quite experienced and knows about wikinews and the community very well. So, I think I have to support and he has received good community consensus above. Srinivas 06:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Yep    Tris   12:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support per Brianmc though, this humbleness is a bit disturbing, but it could just be a ploy to get us to let our guard down ;). Bawolff ☺☻ 01:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Better now? Dendodge T\C 19:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Ha! The evil conspirator has his vile scheme uncovered! Weclome to the cabal janitor's room. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
        • Much better. Strong Support. Bawolff ☺☻ 01:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support I don't know whether I can !vote; however, I support Dendodge to use the tools well. PmlineditorTalk 09:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support I thought he already was... --Skenmy talk 10:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support No reason to believe that Dendodge will misuse the tools --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 10:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews:Requests_for_permissions/Archive_May_2009_-_December_2009&oldid=1075619"
Personal tools
Variants
Actions
Navigation
Wikinews
Regions
Print/export
Toolbox