Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Archive 8

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

This page is intended for historical reference only. Please do not edit it.

Contents


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

Diego Grez Bot[edit]

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

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

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

  • Comment Putting RFPs on separate pages while still open is completely inappropriate for this project. --Pi zero (talk) 22:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
  • To be honest, I preferred keeping these all on the same page at WN:RFP. —Mikemoral♪♫ 22:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Eh, just subst it and remove the boxes to create separate pages if you want. I'm just too lazy to do it. :P --Diego Grez return fire 23:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Support[edit]
  1. Just do it. —Mikemoral♪♫ 22:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Oppose[edit]
Neutral[edit]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

MerlLinkBot[edit]

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

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

Regex is http://www.cbc.ca/story(?:view/[a-zA-Z]*)?/([a-z]*)/(national|international)/(\d{4}/\d{2}/\d{2})(?:/[a-zA-Z]*)?/(.*)
new URL is http://www.cbc.ca/$1/story/$3/$4, but also the topic ($1) has changed in some cases (science can now be health or technology, other topics (e.g.business) have changed to news, etc.).
I started to bot in debug mode and posted the log to User:MerlLinkBot/Log (148 links). How the bot works can be read at Wikinews:Bots/Archive_2#User:MerlLinkBot. Merlissimo (talk) 15:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:
Requests for permissions/Administrator/MerlLinkBot

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

Discussion[edit]

  • See talk page.
  • Bot-style edits are not that difficult to do; I'd have finished this collection in less time than this vote has taken. (124 edits? c'mon! easy enough to do in a couple days.) - Amgine | t 14:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Support[edit]
  1. Support Bawolff ☺☻ 23:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
  2. Support but I think we should have an editprotected right for bots. Diego Grez return fire 23:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
  3. Support admin, but not botflag. Just run it nice 'n' slow. -- Brian McNeil (alt. account) /alt-talk • main talk 05:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
  4. Support per Brian. Please run at about one edit per minute, so they can be checked, which seems reasonable. —Mikemoral♪♫ 05:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Then what did you have in mind? —Mikemoral♪♫ 05:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
  5. Support, with a note to Mike that I think Brian wanted it run slowly enough to avoid flooding RC. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 15:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
  6. Support No worries - I assume the flag will be removed after the 124 edits are complete? --Skenmy talk 16:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
  7. Support Just temporary, of course. —fetch·comms 02:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
  8. Support — Great idea. Those deadlinks in our old stories are disheartening. Gopher65talk 02:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
  9. Support a bot from Bawolff approves as it is not likely to precision-bomb Red Cross ambulances --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 18:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
    This bot is not of Bawolff btw. Diego Grez return fire 18:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
    Comment I thought it was an Apache Longbow with the 30mm chaingun in Baghdad? </clue> --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 19:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
    I really should pay more attention. Still, Bawolff and Brian McNeil, both of whom have much experience in the IT world are in favour; therefore my support stands. --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 13:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  10. Support I'm good with it. --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 06:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Oppose[edit]
Neutral[edit]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closed per user request and SNOW. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 17:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Tempodivalse (talk · contribs – Edit rights)[edit]

Removal of Bureaucrat, Administrator, and Reviewer rights.

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

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

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

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

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

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

General data[edit]

RfPs for this user:
Requests for permissions/Administrator/Tempodivalse Requests for permissions/Administrator/Tempodivalse 2
Requests for permissions/Bureaucrat/Tempodivalse
Requests for permissions/Removal/Tempodivalse (admin/bureaucrat/reviewer) Requests for permissions/Removal/Tempodivalse (admin re-confirmation) Requests for permissions/Removal/Tempodivalse (admin re-confirmation 2)


Please keep discussion constructive and civil.

Comments and questions[edit]

  • Comment To clarify: Brian McNeil made the nom. There were formatting problems, due to a state of the RfP page that there's a consensus to change but it hasn't actually gotten changed yet, and the nom kind of got lost; I just moved the nom here. I'm not a co-nominator or something. I'll write a separate comment about the substance of the nomination. --Pi zero (talk) 12:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Question Is there an actual abuse of privileges associated with this nomination? That would, I think, be at the top of a pretty short list of valid reasons for de-crat/sysop. Evidence of untrustworthiness without actual abuse might become a valid reason if it was strong enough. I notice that the nomination does not suggest that privileges should be removed because the user has retired.
  • Tempo's youth isn't really a credible scapegoat for Tempo's reaction to being excoriated bluely; pretty much everyone seems to have agreed that Brian's behavior was out of line, including those who (like me) voted against de-crat/sysoping Brian for it.
  • A major argument against de-crat/sysoping Brian was that Brian hadn't actually abused privs. So if Tempo didn't abuse the privs either, Brian would seem to be in an especially weak position for this nomination.
  • It's not evident to me that Tempo's advocacy for AGF (later AGI) demonstrates the extraordinary level of bad judgment that would make it relevant here. I'm not aware that Tempo advocated imposing inappropriate aspects of AGF on Wikinews: when I suggested calling it AGI instead of AGF, Tempo (like Brian) liked the idea. When I added to the AGI essay explicit statements that AGI doesn't apply to things like deciding what to publish, Tempo was quite enthusiastic about it.
--Pi zero (talk) 15:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't buy into the view that abuse of rights is vital for a de-whatever; neither do I buy into the view that such abuse always makes such a move vital, just to get that one out the way.
  • AGF/I was an issue where I felt Tempo's judgement was bad, but on a political level - until Tempo (and others) were so keen to unblock Saki/Saqib. The result of that was.... Well, we all saw the interview. I forget if Tempo et al specifically said this was in the name of AGI/F, but that was the apparent mindset. I assume this is where Brian was going with the idea of exposing contributors to libel and risking the GNews listing.
  • Whilst I disagree with Brian that Tempo hiding xyr age was in and of itself a problem (I kept my own gob largely shut on same for a while when I showed up here), seeking access to the Wikinewsie facilities under a pseudoname, without explaining why publicly or privately (and using a questionable excuse), is a trust issue. Tempo could merely say that xe didn't wish to reveal xyr identity - a reasonable and accurate comment - and then either left it at that or opened a wider discussion on the pseudoname problem. In mitigation, Tempo may have felt trapped and pressured into making an excuse instead of recognising that xe had already had a sufficient reason to reject even the compromise offer presented.
  • To respond to Bawolff below, political disagreement comes into play, but if another user is genuinely concerned about someone's politics possibly affecting the site, then that may require action. I note that the vendetta idea is ironic, given the vendetta Tempo is waging on Wikipedia. That is, frankly, cross-wiki abuse on xyr part; I have long held that a user importing WP disputes to WN could expect rollback and/or block. The reverse should be true for WP, though of course, WP takes a gentler, slower approach to solving trouble.
  • To sum up, whilst there are issues raised that are 'valid', I doubt highly that they are strong enough (by an order of magnitude or five) to warrant removal of privs. These are political disputes; whilst I have said such can sometimes be grounds here, that is not the case. Dialogue could still, I think, have made headway. I note that Tempo, too, was guilty of walking away from dispute resolution. I also view placing Reviewer onto this nom as very unnecessary; sure, it's easy come, easy go - but is there really anything here that would require an Easy Go when the Come is so easy to regain anyway? Even if the other privs were removed, I find it hard to justify loss of Reviewer.
  • As Pi Zero mentioned briefly, the nom doesn't address the elephant in the room: this user isn't on the project any more. Bearing in mind that I support removal of privs for inactive sysops and expiry of accreditation, I'd be happy to support a nom on those grounds. I believe there may be others still with privs who retired (though they may all have resigned everything). They should also have them removed, and ideally this should be done in one big batch. They would remain users in good standing. Now... Is there to be any follow-up to this, or am I forced to oppose this nom? Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 17:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Good points. One thing I thought i should mention is that the saki interview (14 May 2010) came before saki was unblocked(19:57, 24 June 2010). Claiming that the interview was a negative result of Tempo's positions on agf is fallacious as it happened before tempo did anything. Bawolff ☺☻ 17:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I remembered it the other way around. Obviously, still an issue to my mind that such a user would be unblocked, but you're correct that the interview wasn't a consequence; rather, a circumstance. My recollection of the events was that there was a gap between publication and outcry over that article - was Saki unblocked in the lull in between? If so, the interview becomes an irrelevance to my comment. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 17:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  • comment: It is considered extremely good security practice to only give those rights as are actually needed and in use, and when they are not needed or not in use to remove them. No implications for anything, just that it's best practice to reduce the number of people who have privileges to only those who need and use them. - Amgine | t 04:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't think I have sufficient standing in the community to vote and have it matter (although you probably know where I stand anyway). That said, I do have a few thoughts on this.
    • I'm wondering about the timing of this. Tempo's been gone for nearly two months, so why is it now that Brian chooses to submit this? I mean, the way the nom is worded, the only reason this is happening is because Brian disagreed with Tempo. Old news, that. But why, since Brian's disagreed/fought with Tempo for god knows how long, did he choose to bring this up now? Why not right after the alleged mistakes, 'cause that would make a lot more sense to me than bringing it up as a sort of punitive punishment. This feels to me more like kicking the guy when he's already down.
    • I also take issue with the substance of the nom, as I don't think there's anything Brian claims that's worthy of removal of priviledges.
      • I'm going to basically assume that the integrity of this project, GNews listing, and legal stuff was about the Saki interview. That, I think, is an incredible exaggeration. The interview, was, yes, a royal fuck-up on all of our parts, but at the time we published it, there was no way to know that it was anything out of the ordinary. As for Tempo's actions in response to that, I entirely fail to see how supporting Saki risked the integrity of the project. Saki apparently screwed up the interview (Brian has not seen fit to release the tiniest part of his communications with Creative Commons, which is understandable, but means I have to make an analysis based on what he says, and after Matthewedwards, I don't trust Brian to tell us each side of the story), but there was no indication that was deliberate, and Saki was therefore deserving of our support, as long as he was trying to help the community, which I, and apparently Tempo, felt was the case. Saying that Tempo risked permenantly damaging the site is being awfully melodramatic; his only sin was trying to retain a contributor. Whatever risk to the project was possible was exclusively due to the interview, which, IIRC, Tempo had nothing to do with. (This of course brings up another question: Me and Benny both also supported Saki's unblock, so why has Brian failed to nominate us for desysopping, in my case, or...something evil, in Benny's case?)
      • As for the part about Mike Godwin, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, but it seems that Tempo didn't want to reveal his identity/age. Only thing is, he didn't want to reveal it to the foundation. That is ridiculous. There is no reason in hell why Tempo should be shot down for wanting to remain anonymous, especially if he's a minor. What is the possible relation between his anonymity and his 'crat/sysop rights?
    • Lastly, I find it highly ironic that Brian's desysop nomination failed due to a lack of abuse of the powers, not the position, of authority, and now he's nominating someone in the exact same position--no abuse of the tools, but alledged abuse of the position. I'm not entirely sure why he expects this to have a different outcome.
  • -C628 (talk) 14:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Apologies for the edit loss; this section exceeds phone browser limitations. Revert this edit and mark this nom as closed per submitter request and "SNOW". I have been advised, as mentioned below, of crosswiki stalking and vendetta. I will raise that with an enWP 'crat or admin. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Votes[edit]

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


the wub (talk · contribs – Edit rights)[edit]

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

  • I am sorry to hear that. I will not push for, but would like, to know more about why you have come to this decision. You excel in most of the qualities that I feel make an excellent Wikinewsie. -- Brian McNeil (alt. account) /alt-talk • main talk 23:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I de-admined you. I'm very sorry to see you go. Bawolff ☺☻ 00:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Bawolff also removed the wub's reviewer privilege. --InfantGorilla (talk) 08:58, 7 August 2010 (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. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Inactive Admins[edit]

Done Permissions were removed. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 18:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Comments and questions[edit]

  • Question Has any attempt been made to contact any of these admins for comment? Tempodivalse [talk] 22:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Irrelevant. There is too much risk to project integrity has always been my stance on this. A "hacked account" is one point, not being up-to-date on policies is another. Our real supporters/contributors will take a period to break back in. If they care about the project, they will not complain about this.--Brian McNeil / talk 01:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Nonetheless, it's at least a basic courtesy to inform the admins in question that their rights could be removed, give them a chance to reply. I'll ping them on talk pages and perhaps email shortly. Tempodivalse [talk] 01:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Go right ahead; instead of bickering about it here. You can edit; says it on the tin. --Brian McNeil / talk 01:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Uhuh. Pinged by talk page for now, I'll see if I can send out some emails in a bit as well. Tempodivalse [talk] 01:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment you missed one. But, that is because I would go by edits to the main namespace that are to published articles. --Brian McNeil / talk 01:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Votes[edit]

  • Oppose as I disagree with the inactivity policy. What harm do inactive users pose to the project? Honestly, I don't see the point of desysoping these users if they're likely going to get their rights back if/when they return - seems rather a waste of energy. Tempodivalse [talk] 22:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
    • What harm do they pose? A lot if their account is compromised - and they'd never know - cause they aren't around. As we 'crats now have the power to take admin away, this is a piece of cake. We don't have to meta anything. So it's a few clicks to take it away and if/when they come back, it's a few clicks to give it back. In the mean time we can sleep better at night knowing their accounts wont be used for evil. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 22:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
      • But if someone wanted to crack an admin account, surely it wouldn't be any easier for them just because the user hadn't edited recently. Any potential hackers would just move on to other accounts that still have the bit. Tempodivalse [talk] 22:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
        • No, I'm not saying that it is any easier or difficult on inactive accounts. It is all about if it will go noticed. If someone cracks my account (possibly changing my password on me) and starts fooling about on wiki - I'm gonna notice and get my account shutdown till it is sorted (Like when Brian requested all his bits be removed due to viri). If someone is inactive, they will not notice if their account is being used for evil. The hacker will just go about causing us all sorts of issues till we were forced to revoke permissions due due to misdeeds. Now that user will have to get their setup fixed up AND prove to us that they weren't in control of their own account when used to do damage. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 23:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
          • I'd think that, should someone hack into an admin account, that would be immediately obvious to everyone (i.e. funny stuff going on in recent changes, logs, etc.). Tempodivalse [talk] 23:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Going to have to agree with Shaka on this one. Bad things happen if an admin account is compromised, and knowing from first-hand experience how easy it is for 'crats to desysop and resysop people, it makes sense to me take preventative measures. C628 (talk) 22:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Abstain I don't care very much one way or another. I don't think the risk of their account being compromised is very significant (everything can be undone, whats the worst that can happen? Well de-admining them will reduce the number of potential targets, there will always be some targets) OTOH, they are not here, who cares if they are de-admined. If they become active again they can always be re-admined. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove. Agree with Shaka, and if they decide to come back, bring them the bits without further problems (a.k.a. votings). --Diego Grez return fire 23:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support For ease of counting above vote --Skenmy talk 17:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Simple safety measure. --Pi zero (talk) 00:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  • very strong support. Who can't think of significant changes in recent months? I've no issue about a speedier re-grant of privs, but with admin comes 'editor' – or the right to grant such. --Brian McNeil / talk 01:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Best to take of the sysop bit until their returns, to which I wouldn't have a problem regranting rights. —Mikemoral♪♫ 07:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support — I'll support this, but with the caveat that the re-admin process be fairly easy. They already went through it once, so I see no reason to go through the whole kit and caboodle again. Gopher65talk 14:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support periodical purges aren't a bad thing --Skenmy talk 17:33, 21 June 2010 (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.

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

Pi zero (talk · contribs)[edit]

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

Comments[edit]

Votes[edit]

  • Strong Support. Great to have you. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. I thought you were already. — μ 20:14, July 10 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Level-headed user, smart, great administrator material. Tempodivalse [talk] 20:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Definitely. —fetch·comms 00:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. Has clue. I honestly thought you were one already. the wub "?!" 10:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support, and, to corrupt the wub's supporting comment, has clue, groks Wikinews. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support per l'Wub. Diego Grez return fire 14:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Bawolff ☺☻ 20:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Benny the mascot (talk) 12:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Tyrol5 (talk) 14:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support per μ. —Mikemoral♪♫ 04:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support per 'the wub'. Pi zero would be a great administator. --Nascar1996 04:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support It would be kind of nice to have a non-admin candidate for ArbCom. Nevertheless, Pi zero will make a good admin, even if busy in real life for a couple of months. --InfantGorilla (talk) 08:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Someone close this up Tyrol5 (talk) 15:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
    It's a bit early at the moment, usually we let requests for adminship run at least a full week before closing to give everyone a chance to voice possible concerns. I don't think we need to rush atm. Tempodivalse [talk] 15:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
    I apologize, I wasn't thinking at the moment. I now realize that. Tyrol5 (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support without a doubt. And to think you were going to close this. :P --Thunderhead (t - e - c) 16:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Popping over to Support - I think he's a very good editor, not only here, but at WB as well, where he's an admin. Kayau (talk · contribs) 05:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
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.

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

InfantGorilla (talk · contribs)[edit]

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

Comments[edit]

A few statistics for the edit-counters: 1,768 edits, of which 108 are deleted; 528 different pages (averaging three edits a page), and 40% mainspace edits. Joined in November 2006; user has not opted into detailed statistics. Approximately 280 edits since the UK General Election. Before May 2010, the user was last active in February. — μ 10:49, June 24 2010 (UTC)
A quick perusal of InfantGorilla's last hundred Talk: contributions shows up 15 {{editprotected}} requests (based purely on edit summaries), spread evenly between today and the 17 May (but none in between). The current EP backlog is nine. One of them is a different user, and the other eight are InfantGorilla's, which are requests to add the same category to each. I'm not too sure if the categories are warranted. — μ 10:57, June 24 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment I am of the opinion that, having flagged revisions, the backlog is less of an issue than as-laid out above. The project desperately needs more extremely proficient users of the English language. We do not need more janitors; we need people serving their 10,000-hour apprenticeships and becoming masters of the written word. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I suspect that at my age my English skills will not improve much. With regular practice writing and copy editing here and elsewhere, I hope I can maintain them where they are.
  • In any case, I would like to volunteer as a janitor, not because wikignoming is a big issue, but because I enjoy it.

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

Votes[edit]

  • Support I've not had a lot of interaction with InfantGorilla, but from what I've seen he seems quite level-headed and rational, and I trust him to use the tools appropriately. Tempodivalse [talk] 15:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support --Cspurrier (talk) 17:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support After some consideration. Gorilla seems to know xyr way around. Trustworthy Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Seems rational and user knows what he does. --Diego Grez return fire 02:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support because IG downplays his ability to learn. I was probably on the Internet before many project contributors were even in kindergarten. My English has, through application and constructive critique, improved considerably over the last five or so years. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
My English has improved through writing online for pleasure, but probably, it has merely been a restoration of the capability I had when I took GCE O Levels all those years back. I am glad to hear of the possibility that if I persist, I can improve beyond that level. --InfantGorilla (talk)


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

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

Diego Grez (talk · contribs)[edit]

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

Comments[edit]

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

Votes[edit]

  • Weak oppose/neutral It's been less than two weeks since you withdrew your last request. What's the big rush? :-) ATM, it's not as if there is an admin drought; we have plenty of people around to do everyday tasks. While I once again reitirate that I really appreciate your contributions to Wikinews, I know you have our best interests in mind, and I'd like to see you keep editing, my concerns from the previous requests haven't yet completely gone away and I'm not totally comfortable supporting this request. While trying not to sound condescending, my suggestion would be to buckle down for the next two or so months, help us improve Wikinews, try to be a little more level-headed, and don't worry so much about adminship. Seriously, it truly shouldn't be a big deal, especially on a small wiki like this. :-) Tempodivalse [talk] 03:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
    Hi Tempodivalse, many thanks for your vote. I understand your point. I think my words have been misunderstood on my last requests, or maybe my behaviour doesn't let you think about a different position. I know there's no real rush, and I was afraid to ask once more for this, and you know, I try to be helpful whenever I can. I have been in mentoring for some time with Wikiversity's Jtneill, and the rest of the warm Wikiversity community, who has done a great work teaching me how to use the thingies properly. I'd like to point out that I have knowledge of Wikinews' policies, and I don't think I could break anything, and even in doubt, I could ask someone of the many admins that live on IRC. --Diego Grez return fire 17:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support I'm decideing to disregard the last request as, IIRC, current admins were also involved in the incedent for which it was opposed. Diego has been more than helpfull and trustworthy IMHO. --RockerballAustralia c 10:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - ZooFari (talk) 19:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak support, but I think another two months will do you more good. —fetch·comms 23:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Regretfully (I seem to remember telling you last time that another month and I'd give my support), but your actions during the Matthewedwards mess left me with a bad taste in my mouth. It's not that you're judgement was spectacularly bad (well, I guess it was bad, but it wasn't worse than anyone else's, and it's not like you've done obviously stupid things since), it's how you communicated during that. Something about how you talked to people seemed like it fit the situation extremely badly, and showed lack of clue in general. I'm specifically thinking of this and this, which, IMO, displayed a lack of good judgement, but during the whole mess in general it didn't seem like you displayed the restraint/tact/diplomacy/whatever that's essential to smooth communication. And so it doesn't seem I'm basing my entire judgement on one incident, I'd also cite this as another example of when it (at least to me) seems like you're jumping on people too fast and when it's unnecessary; in short, a lack of tact when dealing with others. My advice is roughly the same as Tempo's: just try to work in the mainspace for a while, keep up your article-writing (which is generally very good, by the way), and try to think more carefully about what you say. C628 (talk) 00:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
    Meh. I think I was a bit overheated and the Spanish terms differ from English, and I must have been much 'offensive' than I thought. I deeply reproach that stupidity... but I think I have said (more than twice) that that won't happen more. I'm aware that sysop is such a very sensitive thing, and I don't think I could do bad with it or something, after all, I have been sysop-ing on MediaWiki.org for a while too. Diego Grez return fire 00:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose, more or less per C628. Considering the Matthewedwards incident, I cannot support your candidacy. Your behavior in the IRC channel and on-wiki are too concerning for me to support. Your judgments are occasionally made too quickly, and you quickly revert yourself. I don't feel that you have the right qualities to be a mature, level-headed sysop. Sincerely, Blurpeace 00:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I hadn't read Tempodivalse's note about withdrawing only two weeks ago. It only furthers my belief that you are not ready for the responsibility's of properly managing a Wikimedia project. Regretfully, Blurpeace 00:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Everyone commits errors, and everyone there were overheated. The 2-weeks ago rfa was just a 'try' and it failed so deeply because of these matters, the same ones you, tempo and c628 pointed out. I try to be as much helpful and possible and I don't think I could be a danger with the pow. --Diego Grez return fire 00:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
  • People do not rework their personalities in two weeks to a month. You illustrated that you were not ready for the tools then, and your quick reapplication illustrates it now. I think you need to take a step back and spend some time regaining the full trust of your fellow community members. It's clear that most editors here have less than strong support for your candidacy. Why don't you take a few months, and prove our concerns wrong? Sincerely, Blurpeace 00:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Neutral Good journalist. Seems to be doing fine as a janitor at MediaWiki.org. However, although admins behaved badly, we should still take temper into account in a request for permissions, which discourages me from offering my full support at this moment. --InfantGorilla (talk) 13:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Neutral (like all my other votes for you requests for sysop) Sorry, but during the Matthew Edwards incident, you weren't very level-headed and you tend to jump rather quickly to positions then quickly change which concerns me, but otherwise you're a great journalist. —Mikemoral♪♫ 03:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Standard "protocol" oppose. I'll not support anyone for adminship who contests an unsuccessful RfA so soon, regardless of how they may have improved. Anyone with four RfAs in one year wants it too much -- and therefore does not understand what adminship means. It's not a tour-of-service medal. — μ 23:38, July 1 2010 (UTC)

I withdraw this candidacy; and I do it happy with three supports I got. I'll give time to the time, and thanks to everyone who voted! Diego Grez return fire 23:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Diego Grez (talk · contribs – Edit rights)[edit]

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

Comments[edit]

Votes[edit]

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

Enough. I withdraw this. :) --Diego Grez return fire 03:34, 11 June 2010 (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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thunderhead (remove)[edit]

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

  • Hold C628's reapplying for adminship kinda set a new precedent that says that former admins who want their privileges back must go through the week-long RFA process again. Are you ok with that? Benny the mascot (talk) 02:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
    • If resigned under non-controversial circumstances, and not "under a cloud", they can just ask for it back, without a new RFA. -- Cirt (talk) 02:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm fine with that, I just didn't want to be a bother with another vote. Right now, my main goal is to focus on writing - not admin tasks - so, that's not an issue with me. --Thunderhead (t - e - c) 02:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
        • Ah, yes — Cirt is correct! I took another look at the AAA discussion, and it seems that C628 had to undergo another vote because he resigned during a controversy. That is not the case here, so there should be no problem with giving your tools back whenever you need them. Best of luck! Benny the mascot (talk) 02:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Done. Bawolff ☺☻ 02:35, 11 June 2010 (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. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Inactive Bureaucrats (Removal)[edit]

Julian has produced a list of 'crats, detailing when last active. There are few 'crat actions here on enWN, so it is understandable some may have not used the powers recently. However, it should be noted that one is currently a member of the Wikimedia Foundation's staff.

  • Per Julian's list, Chiacomo (talk · contribs) could be a likely de-crat candidate. I do know he's still actively managing the wilinews-l mailing list. I've handed off several filtering issues that only the list owner can manage; in particular, blocking mosy of the Cyrillic spam --Brian McNeil / talk 01:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

He's edited once in January. This hasn't gone anywhere, so closed as stale. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 22:43, 20 June 2010 (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. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


User:CalendarBot (Removal)[edit]

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

Looks like it was done on Meta. --Thunderhead (t - e - c) 00:33, 16 April 2010 (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. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Benny the mascot (Reconfirm)[edit]

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

Comments[edit]

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

Votes[edit]

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

Safe to say, we're not throwing you out (Yet). --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 19:08, 15 June 2010 (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.

Oversight requests - take two[edit]

  • Comment The below two requests were archived by SGN as failed. However, I'm going to be bold and return them here since there is AFAIK no time limit for these things to remain open, and really, it's rather unrealistic to think that we're going to be able to muster 25+ votes in only a few days. No need to rush into things, IMHO ... Tempodivalse [talk] 19:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't mind that much either way, but I would point out that new votes have stopped coming in (not counting C628 since that happened after the intial archive, the last vote to come in for either of these two candidates was a week ago) its been 2 weeks since both were intially open (well skenmys was 2 weeks minus 1 day, but almost) which is the recommended time. Bawolff ☺☻ 21:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
My bad on Skenmy's, I forgot his was open later. Here's what I said about this on my talk page "If you guys want to, leave them open for another 2 weeks... honestly I don't think that'll make any difference. I canvas'd the mailing list (twice), tweeted about it, set site notices (twice) and generally harassed people." If we get 10 more votes for Skenmy (heck, leave it open for 2 more weeks)... I'll eat my hat. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 21:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


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

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

Comment[edit]

  • Comment I don't think we need oversighters. Right now it's not like we're inundated with oversightable material (like en.wikipedia) and the stewards could handle it easily and in a timely manner. Whereas, if we had local OS, then the stewards would be reluctant to do it, and we'd have to wait for local OS to show up, which would take longer as there are fewer of them and not always online. So i'd probably not support getting local oversighters. (Does that make sense?) Tempodivalse [talk] 21:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
    It would be ideal to have more than one oversighter, in different time zones. --Diego Grez return fire 21:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
    But we still wouldn't have as many oversighters as there are stewards, and they wouldn't be nearly as active per capita. Tempodivalse [talk] 21:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Makes sense to me. I think the stewards would still be likely to do it, especially if you say "hey, look, our 2 are offline right this moment". It is time sensitive after all. I figure more accessible OS means faster OS. At least with local OS's, we'd be able to know what was OS'd (not to share, but at least to answer the "Why was this completely random edit OS'd? Well because someone forgot to login.") --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 21:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment We do need 2 oversights locally --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 21:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment, I respectfully abstain from voting. No offence, but I'm of the opinion that we have users who are better suited to this position. Tempodivalse [talk] 23:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Tempo. You know how we talked about the different ways of seeing the world, and how many times, even if you "mean well", you're insulting? This is one of those times. "No offense, but fuck you asshole" is still offensive, even if you prepend "No offense". By saying "we have users who are better suited to this position" basically you're saying "Ok, this idea has merit, but I'm specifically not going to vote for you". That is insulting. You and I don't see eye to eye, we never have... I don't expect you to vote for me, I'm not going to vote for you. That does not mean I'm going to show up at every vote you have saying "{{abstain}} No offense, This use simply isn't what Wikinews wants". I don't want to cause any more drama than the wiki already has... but in the future, consider simply shutting up and going somewhere else. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 06:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • -shrug- Perhaps I should have, but this sort of vote doesn't allow for neutrals/abstentions and I don't want to oppose, so this seemed like the next best venue to explain my not voting. I know we're not exactly on the best terms with each other, and given our differing viewpoints on how things should be run, probably rarely will; bluntly, I think it's better we had someone for this position that could keep calmer in heated situations than yourself, since OS is so very difficult to undo. I get upset easily myself, so it's hardly for me to judge, but nonetheless I'm not 100% comfortable supporting. Sorry. Tempodivalse [talk] 12:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Do you consider your language and tone appropriate, SGN? I certainly do not. --Skenmy talk 12:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • You can oppose tempo. The vote for CU and OS is 25 support, 70% pass rate. So you can vote against it just like any other vote. Please, if you think I suck, feel free to vote against me (you'll note Skenmy has). I'm not upset at you, but we had many a fights between you and I, mostly started from the fact that your "trying to be nice" was anything but. I'm not the only one that is insulted by these things. I'm hoping that if I illustrate these situations... you'll understand them better and we won't have as much trouble in the future. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 16:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Skenmy, I'm sorry you felt slighted by my use of demonstration language. I was trying to make a point in the most clear terms possible. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 16:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I know how the tools work (have them elsewhere). I've been around for long enough to know what should and shouldn't be orbital striked. I'm easy to get a hold of (Always in IRC). Most importantly, while I approach problems head on and have not made friends (See above), I am capable highly capable of discretion in terms of keeping peoples private info and requests safe. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 18:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Votes[edit]

Support[edit]

  1. Support I trust this guy, he won't abuse the tools, I'm sure (not really sure, but well). --Diego Grez return fire 21:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  2. Support, trustworthy editor and a project the size of Wikinews requires at least two local oversighters. Tempodivalse's concerns are unconvincing. Blurpeace 21:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  3. Support. -- Cirt (talk) 22:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  4. Support —Mikemoral♪♫ 23:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  5. Support —fetch·comms 23:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  6. Support Bawolff ☺☻ 23:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  7. Support Wikinews had oversighters in the past; I was one of them. That had to be handed back over a technicality, such being the change to voting requirements over on meta. Shaka is one of the few people I really would trust with such a tool. --Brian McNeil / talk 00:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  8. Support — Gopher65talk 01:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  9. Support --Pi zero (talk) 02:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  10. Support --KTo288 (talk) 09:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  11. Support to get the numbers up. — μ 13:01, June 7 2010 (UTC)
  12. Support Δενδοδγε τ\c 15:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  13. Support I do see where the opposes have come from. However, particularly recently but from time to time throughout my years here, SGN has actually proven himself to be highly trustworthy and know what he's doing. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 11:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  14. Support I can trust him not to abuse the tools --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 22:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  15. Support, trusted. Tjc6 02:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  16. Support Loves huge tools Killing Vector (talk) 18:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  17. Support I trust ShakataGaNai with this job. Cary Bass (talk) 18:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  18. Support --Jacques Divol (talk) 19:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  19. Support --Calebrw (talk) 20:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  20. Support--Cspurrier (talk) 00:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
  21. Support Turtlestack (talk) 06:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
  22. Support well known from commons: good user ABF (talk) 09:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
  23. Support What could possibly go wrong? Shoone (talk) 00:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  24. Support Hells yes Irunongames•play 22:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  25. Support (Changed from abstain) Was unsure, now decided. Enjoy!    Tris   10:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose[edit]

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

Abstain[edit]

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


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

Cspurrier (talk · contribs) (Oversight)[edit]

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

Comments[edit]

  • Comment Correction from my above, we do need 2. OS's, like CU. Check's and balances and all that. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 21:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Question Do you accept, Craig? Tempodivalse [talk] 23:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
    Note he nommed himself. --Diego Grez return fire 23:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
    Pfft, this drama must really be getting to me. Sorry. Tempodivalse [talk] 00:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Question I see from your contributions that you haven't been consistently active. Is this going to continue over the next year or so? Do you intend to be available to perform your oversight duties? Benny the mascot (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
    The big reason for my inactivity (working on my MA) is gone (I graduated), I expect to be able to maintain a reasonable activity level for the foreseeable future. --Cspurrier (talk) 15:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Question what personal qualities do you believe you have which make you suitable for the role of oversighter? --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 18:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I have experience using the tools, having used them both here and on other Wiki's as a steward. I believe (like all of the other candidates) that I have a good grasp of what would be an appropriate use of the tools.--Cspurrier (talk) 00:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Votes[edit]

Support[edit]

Support Why not. --Diego Grez return fire 21:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  1. Support--ShakataGaNai ^_^ 21:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Abstain in the most favourable (and strongest) fashion. - Amgine | t
  2. Support, although I don't know him personally, he seems trustworthy enough for the flag. Sincerely, Blurpeace 22:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  3. Support. -- Cirt (talk) 22:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  4. Support —Mikemoral♪♫ 23:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  5. Support —fetch·comms 23:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  6. Support Trusted. Tempodivalse [talk] 23:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  7. Support Very level headed, and sane. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  8. Support — Gopher65talk 01:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  9. Support --Pi zero (talk) 02:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  10. Support --Skenmy talk 07:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  11. Support --KTo288 (talk) 09:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  12. Support Δενδοδγε τ\c 15:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  13. Support --   Tris   18:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  14. Support After careful thought - I know less of you than the other candidates - I trust you with the tool as well. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 11:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  15. Support Trusted to use the tool well. Pmlineditor discuss 15:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  16. Support Loves huge tools Killing Vector (talk) 18:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  17. Support --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  18. Support I trust Craig with this job. Cary Bass (talk) 18:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  19. Support --Jacques Divol (talk) 19:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose[edit]

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

Abstain[edit]

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


Bawolff (talk · contribs) (Oversight)[edit]

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

Comments[edit]

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

Votes[edit]

Support[edit]

  1. Support as om nom nom --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 23:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  2. Support because I love the ñam ñam ñam. I trust Bawolff. --Diego Grez return fire 23:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  3. Support —fetch·comms 23:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  4. Support Sure. I trust bawolff, if he's willing to identify to the foundation, why not. Tempodivalse [talk] 23:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  5. Support —Mikemoral♪♫ 23:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  6. Support — Gopher65talk 01:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  7. Support --Pi zero (talk) 02:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  8. Support, trustworthy. Blurpeace 04:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  9. Support --Skenmy talk 07:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  10. Support --KTo288 (talk) 10:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  11. Support. -- Cirt (talk) 11:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  12. Support — μ 13:04, June 7 2010 (UTC)
  13. Support Δενδοδγε τ\c 15:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
    .... Bawolff ☺☻ 02:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
    Note that if this RFP passes, a steward might look at this vote in a state of massive confusion... Benny the mascot (talk) 03:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
    Vote stricken as ambiguous. Please clarify. Benny the mascot (talk) 01:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
    I was being naughty. It's a support. I wondered whether anybody would notice. Δενδοδγε τ\c 10:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  14. Support Of course Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 11:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  15. Support Pmlineditor discuss 12:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
    Support Blurpeace 02:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
    This user voted twice. :-/ Benny the mascot (talk) 02:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
    Clearly this is because I'm double trustworthy. Bawolff ☺☻ 03:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
    lolself-esteem ;) --Diego Grez return fire 03:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  16. very strong support. As two people are required to man the Memory Hole Management Team, I have to pick Bawolff as the second, because I know I can get hold of him within a reasonable timeframe. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  17. Support Loves huge tools Killing Vector (talk) 18:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  18. Support --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  19. Support I trust bawolff with this job. Cary Bass (talk) 18:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  20. Support --Jacques Divol (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  21. Support --Calebrw (talk) 20:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  22. Unconditionally Support. --Thunderhead (t - e - c) 20:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  23. Support--Cspurrier (talk) 00:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
  24. Support Turtlestack (talk) 06:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
  25. Support ABF (talk) 09:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
  26. Support --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 07:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose[edit]

Abstain[edit]

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

Skenmy (talk · contribs) (Oversight)[edit]

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

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

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

Comments[edit]

  • Comment IIRC, you are actually part of your local constabulary. I am very wary of someone in such a position being given such a responsibility. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Without making comment on the accuracy of the statement, why would you be wary? --Skenmy talk 15:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
  • The risk of outside pressure to inappropriately use the tool. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not even going to dignify that outrageous comment with a response. --Skenmy talk 09:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • So, on the assumption that you're a special constable - or otherwise involved with the police (which you have neither confirmed nor denied), you would resign from that position if a similar situation to the Virgin Killer one came up and you were ordered to remove content from the project by superiors. Really, I do not consider this an unreasonable comment or query. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Such a situation could not arise - paranoia aside, that sort of "ordering" simply doesn't exist outside of a court. --Skenmy talk 12:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • This is not paranoia, and you are quite correct such should happen through a court. My concern is based on many years experience with authorities such as the police. The previous Virgin Killer 'incident' was hideously mismanaged, and the mass blocking of people's editing access to Wikimedia projects went ahead without any reference to a court. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • That didn't have anything to do with the police though. That happened because the government in the UK handed off the job of watching the internet to a privately run special interest group manned by religious fanatics. You can't blame the police for that. Gopher65talk 22:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Votes[edit]

Support[edit]

  1. Support --   Tris   18:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  2. Support Definitely. Level-headed, perfect oversighter material. Tempodivalse [talk] 19:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  3. Support --Pi zero (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  4. Support — Gopher65talk 03:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  5. Support Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 11:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  6. Support Sure. Pmlineditor discuss 12:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  7. Support Δενδοδγε τ\c 16:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  8. Support —fetch·comms 17:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  9. Support--KTo288 (talk) 18:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  10. Support, Blurpeace 02:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
    Support--Diego Grez return fire 14:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  11. Support Loves huge tools Killing Vector (talk) 18:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  12. Support --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  13. Support I trust {{#USERNAME}} with this job. Cary Bass (talk) 18:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  14. Support You can't argue with that last name. Calebrw (talk) 20:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  15. Support--Cspurrier (talk) 00:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose[edit]

Abstain[edit]

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

Comments on oversight requests[edit]

I am likely going to oppose all these oversight request. I am one of the people here who use to have oversight - before wmf decided to strip wn of all its checkusers and oversighters a couple of years back. However, the reason I oppose this request is as follows. I believe that this vote should have been held after the arbcom election. Indeed, that has how we have ran these things in the past. Furthermore, I believe that while all of these users can be trusted, I think we should have had a WC talk first, before all theses noms came in. Therefore, I oppose. Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 04:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Cspurrier (talk · contribs) (Oversight)[edit]

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

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

Comments[edit]

  • Comment Correction from my above, we do need 2. OS's, like CU. Check's and balances and all that. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 21:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Question Do you accept, Craig? Tempodivalse [talk] 23:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
    Note he nommed himself. --Diego Grez return fire 23:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
    Pfft, this drama must really be getting to me. Sorry. Tempodivalse [talk] 00:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Question I see from your contributions that you haven't been consistently active. Is this going to continue over the next year or so? Do you intend to be available to perform your oversight duties? Benny the mascot (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
    The big reason for my inactivity (working on my MA) is gone (I graduated), I expect to be able to maintain a reasonable activity level for the foreseeable future. --Cspurrier (talk) 15:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Question what personal qualities do you believe you have which make you suitable for the role of oversighter? --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 18:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I have experience using the tools, having used them both here and on other Wiki's as a steward. I believe (like all of the other candidates) that I have a good grasp of what would be an appropriate use of the tools.--Cspurrier (talk) 00:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Votes[edit]

Support[edit]

  1. Support Why not. --Diego Grez return fire 21:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  2. Support--ShakataGaNai ^_^ 21:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Abstain in the most favourable (and strongest) fashion. - Amgine | t
  3. Support, although I don't know him personally, he seems trustworthy enough for the flag. Sincerely, Blurpeace 22:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  4. Support. -- Cirt (talk) 22:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  5. Support —Mikemoral♪♫ 23:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  6. Support —fetch·comms 23:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  7. Support Trusted. Tempodivalse [talk] 23:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  8. Support Very level headed, and sane. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  9. Support — Gopher65talk 01:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  10. Support --Pi zero (talk) 02:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  11. Support --Skenmy talk 07:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  12. Support --KTo288 (talk) 09:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  13. Support Δενδοδγε τ\c 15:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  14. Support --   Tris   18:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  15. Support After careful thought - I know less of you than the other candidates - I trust you with the tool as well. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 11:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  16. Support Trusted to use the tool well. Pmlineditor discuss 15:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  17. Support Loves huge tools Killing Vector (talk) 18:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  18. Support --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  19. Support I trust Craig with this job. Cary Bass (talk) 18:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  20. Support --Jacques Divol (talk) 19:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  21. Support From what I've seen, he seems rational, calm, and possesses common sense. C628 (talk) 20:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  22. Support - Amgine | t 21:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  23. Support Benny the mascot (talk) 23:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  24. Support getting nearer to 25 ;) ABF (talk) 12:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
  25. Support   — Jeff G. ツ 03:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose[edit]

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

Abstain[edit]

  1. Abstain - I've not been on wikinews too long so I can only vote for members whom I've had experience with and since I have not yet met this candidate, I can neither vote yea or nay - but I did feel I should explain why, hence the abstain. Turtlestack (talk) 06:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
    Abstain per above. --Diego Grez return fire 15:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
    Changed my mind. --Diego Grez return fire 17:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
  2. Abstain — μ 18:24, June 24 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.


Skenmy (talk · contribs) (Oversight)[edit]

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

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

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

Comments[edit]

  • Comment IIRC, you are actually part of your local constabulary. I am very wary of someone in such a position being given such a responsibility. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Without making comment on the accuracy of the statement, why would you be wary? --Skenmy talk 15:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
  • The risk of outside pressure to inappropriately use the tool. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not even going to dignify that outrageous comment with a response. --Skenmy talk 09:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • So, on the assumption that you're a special constable - or otherwise involved with the police (which you have neither confirmed nor denied), you would resign from that position if a similar situation to the Virgin Killer one came up and you were ordered to remove content from the project by superiors. Really, I do not consider this an unreasonable comment or query. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Such a situation could not arise - paranoia aside, that sort of "ordering" simply doesn't exist outside of a court. --Skenmy talk 12:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • This is not paranoia, and you are quite correct such should happen through a court. My concern is based on many years experience with authorities such as the police. The previous Virgin Killer 'incident' was hideously mismanaged, and the mass blocking of people's editing access to Wikimedia projects went ahead without any reference to a court. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • That didn't have anything to do with the police though. That happened because the government in the UK handed off the job of watching the internet to a privately run special interest group manned by religious fanatics. You can't blame the police for that. Gopher65talk 22:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Not quite exactly why I was raising the concern; Skenmy's almost-always done really good stuff for the project, But, could possibly face a difficult situation if something really bad about law enforcement was published here – especially if it featured OR, and, say, unnamed sources. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't think this is a big issue TBH. While I don't know what policy for this sort of thing is on the other side of the pond, seems like it would have to go through a court before any action could be forced, and even if it were, the WMF, not us, would probably be obliged to do it, as an office action. In any case, I trust Skenmy not to succumb to any external influence to use his tools inappropriately. Tempodivalse [talk] 13:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

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

  • Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see this as being any different than anyone else here who is employed by a large organization. Are we going to ban Google employees on the off-chance that we might some day publish something damaging to Google? Are we going to ban all government employees? Are we going to ban employees of the various Red Cross organizations, just in case we ever (re)publish a corruption story about them? If we're going to do that, then we're going to *really* limit our userbase. At that point the only people who can be admins are the self-employed, the chronically unemployed, and people who work for family owned businesses. Everyone else has potential conflicts of interest... if you're paranoid enough. I'm not saying that such conflicts couldn't happen, I'm saying we can't punish people based on long-shot hypothetical situations. What are we, the goons in Minority Report? Gopher65talk 14:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Without meaning to address at all the merits of the particular case, I do think there is very good reason to consider this case in a different light than, say, employment by Google. The more powerful the organization involved, the greater the difficulty of stabilizing society against fluctuations in the organization's smoothly beneficial behavior. When some part of a corporation (or the whole thing) goes off the deep end, we hope to get government to help rein them in. When some part of a government (...) goes off the deep end, it's the whole of society that one hopes to see deal with it, and an important component in the machinery for that is a free press. There's no stable state of this system; it takes perpetual rebalancing to keep it going. The system is especially vulnerable to instabilities in the smoothly beneficial functioning of government, and therefore the free press (that's us), being part of the backup system for that, needs to keep a careful eye on its contingency plans for those sorts of situations. --Pi zero (talk) 17:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment This nomination has run it's course. Now that we have 3 OSes I'm happier to step down from my nomination rather than let it sit here - it's clear that I will not muster enough votes, what with the group of abstentions. --Skenmy talk 09:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Votes[edit]

Support[edit]

  1. Support --   Tris   18:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  2. Support Definitely. Level-headed, perfect oversighter material. Tempodivalse [talk] 19:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
    Support --Pi zero (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  3. Support — Gopher65talk 03:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
    Support Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 11:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  4. Support Sure. Pmlineditor discuss 12:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  5. Support Δενδοδγε τ\c 16:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  6. Support —fetch·comms 17:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  7. Support--KTo288 (talk) 18:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  8. Support, Blurpeace 02:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  9. Support--Diego Grez return fire 14:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  10. Support Loves huge tools Killing Vector (talk) 18:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  11. Support --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  12. Support I trust {{#USERNAME}} with this job. Cary Bass (talk) 18:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  13. Support You can't argue with that last name. Calebrw (talk) 20:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  14. Support--Cspurrier (talk) 00:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
  15. Support Essentially per Tempo. C628 (talk)
  16. Support - Amgine | t 21:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  17. Support Benny the mascot (talk) 14:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  18. Support   — Jeff G. ツ 03:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose[edit]

Oppose Per the discussion about Skenmy's police involvement. I trust Skenmy to know better; I don't trust his superiors. I have witnessed police incomeptence, read about police incompetence and been brought up with a man who dealt with police incompetence for seveal years on a professional basis. My concern is not so much that this is a problem; it is that Skenmy refuses to even acknowledge any merit in the question. Had Skenmy said the obvious rebuttal ("Most police aren't like that, I'm certainly not, I would resist such action and point out its illegality") then I would be quite satisfied. Unfortunately, Skenmy has chosen to sweep this aside without directly addressing the question. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment I have not addressed the question directly as I am a) not permitted to comment in any official capacity b) because it is offensive to myself. I am now being accused of possible corruption and of law-breaking, which is simply not on. I simply fail to see where the problem lies. --Skenmy talk 06:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment You have been accused of nothing. You are being asked to distance yourself from it. I left my vote there quite some time, but not once did you recognise why someone might pop such a question. I did not change easily, or happily. How hard is it to have said "I'm better than that"? Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 07:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment I would have hoped my years of service here would have proven my loyalty and trustworthyness, not the fact that I did not comment on a matter that I am not permitted to comment on. Clearly not. --Skenmy talk 07:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
You didn't even say you weren't allowed to comment. Why is this question any different from the general 'why do you think you are trustworthy?' questions that everyone gets asked, other than that it is tailored to circumstances? Your stance is most unsettling. It is not what I expected from you. Do you honestly expect us to treat you differently than any other CU candidate? We all know who you are, but we still throw these questions past the candidates. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 15:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Having calmed down somewhat since originally reading your opposal, BRS, I see where you are coming from. I simply cannot and do not see a way of me being pressured by my superiors to do anything to the detriment of this site. It is a personal account, with a private password, not a job account. It is not something that I consider tamperable or usable by my employers, whether that be a police force or otherwise. You must realise that I am extremely limited in what I can say - however I hope that now my response settles you somewhat. It has taken some time to craft correctly. I considered the question different to the 'why do you think you are trustworthy?' set and my defence mechanism triggered as I read your comments as an accusation - for which I apologise. --Skenmy talk 20:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Apology accepted. After some thought, I will strike my oppose. I hope you won't be offended if I abstain from this election now. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 17:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Oppose As per BRS --RockerballAustralia c 06:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Oppose I hesitated a long time over this. I trust the candidate, which was the basis of my original support.
  • Institutions do not have fixed membership, and individuals in them have varying strengths and weaknesses. Trusting an individual is possible; trusting an institution is a type error: "trust" isn't an operation supported on objects of type "institution". The question that clarified my position on this was not what would happen to Wikinews if the candidate were inappropriately pressured, but what would happen to the candidate.
There are peripheral worries surrounding the discussions above, but they're murky. Most currently, if the candidate is not permitted to comment on an issue relevant to the nomination —which is unclear, to me anyway, from the above— then the nomination is inappropriate. --Pi zero (talk) 20:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm sufficiently reassured that I'm striking my oppose vote. --Pi zero (talk) 17:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Abstain[edit]

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

BarkingFish[edit]

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

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

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

Notable works[edit]

World's first double arm transplant undertaken in Munich

Icelandic Internet bank suspends UK accounts

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

Papua New Guinea Culture and Tourism minister charged with attempted murder

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

General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:
Requests for permissions/Administrator/BarkingFish

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

Discussion[edit]

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


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

BarkingFish[edit]

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

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

General comments[edit]

Requests for removal for this user:
Requests for permissions/Removal/BarkingFish (reviewer)

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

Discussion[edit]

  • I am going to treat this as a resignation, and remove the rights unilaterally. I support what you're doing, but I'm also glad we won't be losing you altogether. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't think this resignation is necessary. Everyone makes occasional mistakes (although this one was significant:P). Given that you understand the seriousness of the issue at hand I'd rather you just learnt from the mistake and moved on. Gopher65talk 22:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Anything less than resigning the bit might have left lingering doubts about xyr trustworthiness with the bit (a catch-22, that). Xe may also want some downtime from reviewing in which to find xyr balance again; I'd certainly feel shaken if something like this had happened to me.
It works for the project as a whole, too. By owning up to a lapse in judgment and taking real consequences from it, xe presents an examplar of personal responsibility — and taking review seriously — for future reviewers to try to live up to. --Pi zero (talk) 05:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree wholeheartedly with Pi Zero's comment. This is a matter of honour for contributors, and the project. The action taken is honourable, and I support a speedy re-grant when time to reflect has been taken. (Random jab at US English: "I prefer the U in honour, something sadly lacking in the youth of today.") --Brian McNeil / talk 07:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Necessary, no, nor do I like this, but I agree with the point about honour and I think BarkingFish is doing the right thing. —fetch·comms 00:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  • He apologized, that is enough for me to give him the reviewer bit back. Everybody commits errors, and he was brave and responsible enough to come here and ask for his rights to be removed. That's awesome. Diego Grez return fire 03:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
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.


Diego Grez[edit]

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


Closed - Rights retained, speedied per Brian McNeil's suggestion. Not enough weight to warrant a desysop at this time. BarkingFish (talk) 18:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC) (closing admin voted in this RFP/R, second set of eyes welcomed)

Express your view on this user (comments) Nominated on 21:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Diego Grez (talk · contribs – Edit rights) – I feel that Diego Grez is, at this time, not suitable for the administrator flag on the English-language version of Wikinews. There is not one singular reason why I feel this is the case, but rather several minor issues that add up to make a large problem.

N.B.: As a non-administrator, the contents of the deleted pages are based on what I was told on IRC; they may be completely wrong.
Deletion
  • The deletion summary of Duoderry (a spam article), was simply 'NO!'. This is unacceptable: the delete-reason dropdown exists for a reason. It would have been far more appropriate to pick 'Advertising/spam' from the combo box and leave the additional fields blank.
  • The deletion summary of Talk:Bfvmmgmvbmgh was also inappropriate: insulting a user is unacceptable, and in direct contravention of What Wikinews is not.
  • Bhagat Mahasabha's summary of 'Bye' was inappropriate -- as a press release, using the combo box would have been more appropriate. Falkland Islands announce they are 'satisfied' with their defence also was sent off with a farewell. That particular article was tagged 'abandoned', yet deleted within a day, again in contravention of our deletion policy (that states three days, although the sources were well out of date).
  • The deletion summary of Nate's Birthday was extremely inappropriate. 'Fuck off' is never an acceptable summary for anything, especially not a press release of, I am told, a charity event, issued in good faith by someone who is unfamiliar with our ruleset.
  • Democracy Now! – now under a Creative Commons license was told to '[g]et back to where you once belonged' (granted, with an appropriate drop-down).
  • Odisha,india has a rather condescending deletion summary.
  • OWN was 'OWNED'. Regardless of the topic of the deletion, it's not helpful to start screaming memes at people.
  • Comments:Lady Gaga has a pointless deletion summary.
  • File talk:Information.svg is a completely inappropriate edit summary which should never have happened. The former WMF Legal Counsel says hi.
  • Art exhibition announcement: sending any article to 'hell' isn't encouraged either.
Blocking
  • Irate was blocked indefinitely with a rather unhelpful block summary. Blocking a user can be confusing for the recipient; being told that they were blocked for not being a plane is inappropriate, regardless of how justified the block was -- telling the user that they were being blocked as a sockmaster would have been more appropriate.
  • Blocking ངག་དབང་བསོད་ནམས། is particularly aggravating. Telling a user that the language they speak is one that 'nobody knows' is rather bad form. Would you like it if I turned round and said "I don't speak Spanish. Why should I? Nobody knows it.". Considering Diego Grez's penchance for using the wrong language in edit summaries, rendering it incomprehensible to 93% of the world's population.
Protection
  • Protection summaries are fine -- but a few have no edit summaries, and others have summaries in the wrong language.
Rights

*Diego gave BarkingFish's review bit back unilaterally against consensus and against the user's wishes. Removed. Don't drag me into this. It was dealt with.

Edits
  • A request for deletion was closed today with the edit summary of 'fuck off': inappropriate, not only for the expletive, but for the fact that the corresponding request was closed after two days with only one vote.

For what it's worth, Diego is a good content writer, and this shows pretty good mediation skills. But I do not feel that Diego is suited for the rôle overall. — μ 22:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Addendum

Perhaps I was overzealous with my desysop proposal: having trawled through 2,800 of Diego’s edits, I can find little in the way of evidence for why Diego should be desysopped (the few examples, to my discredit, are too long ago to have any freelance). I have no idea if I had completely misjudged Diego’s edits when they were first made & later found that they were completely benign; or whether the edits are concealed in talk pages of stale articles (of the ‘what do you mean my article has fallen off the review queue’ variety; I’m speculating). Regardless, it appears evident that the desysop proposal as it stands lacks water. I honestly thought that it would be a rather trivial task to find diffs for what I thought was a major problem (various ‘rants’ [if you forgive the POV word], such as the one below, unbecoming of an administrator).

I feel quite uncomfortable with the allegations that Diego makes below. I haven’t tried to deliberately disrupt the project -- I honestly thought I was saying what needed to be said, echoing other user’s opinions. As for the idea of me stalking him: all I did was trawl through the logs, something I do for many requests for adminship, and something I’d regard as standard protocol. To follow up the diff directly linked to in his comment, I had learned from my awful, embarrassing immature RfA at English Wikipedia in 2007 that adminship isn’t an entitlement, nor a reward. People who constantly request adminship perhaps don’t understand the meaning of the word. With regards to adminship, a bit of a Catch-22 comes into play people who want power certainly aren’t suited to it. I’ve had experience with users that have made obscene numbers of RfAs; I was basing my oppose on the candidate as it stood, not as the candidate until the end of time. My sentiment was perhaps faintly echoed by Tempo’s oppose.

As for Pitsilemu, I was annoyed with the bot. It wasn’t just me; other users in the channel were finding it annoying. Irrespective of that, I do not have operator privileges on #wikinews, and so I feel that it is unfair to pin the eventual +q mode assignment on me. As for the ‘since January’ comment, it’s a logical fallacy.

In response to Amgine’s comment that I withdraw the request: as much as I may wish to, I do not feel that I am in a position to do so, for the same reason I dislike people that ‘withdraw their nomination’ on deletion requests -- I have nothing against the candidate no longer wishing to stand for adminship (as without the user consent, adminship cannot take place), but once a discussion begins for almost anything else, it is not a single user’s place to determine the outcome of a discussion, nor to cut the discussion short, simply because they happened to be the one to initiate it. With regards to the Spanish language comment, I feel bound to state that I have edited the above nomination from 98% to 93% after the comment was made -- it was a simple typo (8 and 3 look very similar). Regardless, the point still stands -- Spanish shouldn’t be used on an English-language wiki when communication is paramount. (In a pointless deviation, I only added the statistic to add flavour; for comparison, English is approximately spoken by 11% of the world population, and about 27% of the Internet [Spanish is 36%].) — μ 12:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

General comments[edit]

Requests for removal for this user:
Requests for permissions/Removal/Diego Grez (sysop)

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

Discussion[edit]

  • It was funny to me to read this. It really seems that this guy has been, stalking what I do. Yes, most times I don't say things right, but I never do it with a bad intention, but Microchip seems to not have a sense of humor, as far as I see. The nomination seems to be a huge w:WP:IDONTLIKEIT, in the sense that Microchip never EVER wanted me to be a sysop. If the community considers that I don't have to be a sysop anymore, that's okay, it's not the end of the world to me and I have better things to do in my real life, but this has just confirmed to me that certain person here is not really well-intentioned. They even got annoyed (poor him) about an innocent bot who only said a "lol" after a "heh" they did on IRC. It's good to note the bot had been from, say, January in the #wikinews channel, until they made it rest in peace. Is that good? No, I don't think so. Bad... bad... bad. That's all, three-four, over and out. Diego Grez return fire 22:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Respectfully, attacking the person making allegations instead of the allegations themselves, doesn't really look very good imho. Bawolff ☺☻ 00:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Clarifying:
None of the comments I did in the deletion reasons were made with bad intention, I did them 'joking', and nobody had said anything about it until now. Why?.
When I gave BarkingFish his reviewer right back, I swear I did it because he's a good person, and I did not expect he would be reluctant to that, my fault, yes.
--Comment, don't worry about it, Diego. I know you did it with the best intentions, I just wasn't ready for it considering the reason I surrendered it in the first place. A nice thought, appreciated, just the wrong time. Don't blame yourself for it. It was resolved, end of. BarkingFish (talk) 05:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
His "Considering Diego Grez's penchance for using the wrong language in edit summaries, rendering it incomprehensible to 98% of the world's population." statement is completely wrong. Spanish is the third most spoken language in the world, and way more than just a 2 per cent of the people speaks it.
Is not using the default summaries for deletion, or protection wrong now? Why can't I have the freedom to say whatever but, anyway the deletion/protection is justified, don't you think?
Diego Grez return fire 00:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Some of the arguments presented above have merit. The vast majority do not. Some are as callous and inaccurate as those attributed to Diego Grez (e.g. the 93% comment, citation List of languages by number of native speakers.) But, fundamentally, not one nor the combined collection amount to a de-sysop justification. And not one effort, so far as I have seen, was made to alleviate the issues raised prior to this request. De-admining should not be the first action taken; it should always be the last after all other possible avenues (including ArbCom) have been exhausted. The request, imo, appears more disruptive than the issue it purports to resolve. I assume it was made in good faith, but I would encourage the nominator to withdraw it as I feel it is both divisive and unlikely to pass with the necessary majority. - Amgine | t 05:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Note my remarks further down about preliminary discussion before nominations for removal of access. I don't agree that de-sysop should systematically go to Arbcom before it comes here, but here definitely shouldn't be where it comes first; we need explicit words on the removal sections, about preliminary discussion between prospective nominator and nominee. Without explicit guidance, the mistake of sudden nom for removal is way too easy to fall into. --Pi zero (talk) 06:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I think a large part of the problem is we don't have sufficient dispute resolution infrastructure. Wikinews:Dispute resolution hasn't been used successfully in a very long time. Bawolff ☺☻ 06:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
The label "dispute resolution" is a problem in itself. What is wanted is not limited in scope to what happens after a dispute already exists. --Pi zero (talk) 07:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • [1] presents the log of constructive usage of the sysop rights by DiegoGrez. Again, I have to say it one more time - the concerns raised are serious, but quite similar and not major; just leaving a note at the talk page should be enough for this case. Gryllida 08:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Re Microchip's addendum to the nomination:
There would have been multiple advantages to discussing these matters with Diego before nominating (or, for that matter, asking someone else to do so if you felt Diego would take it better from someone else). Downstream, by the time of nomination the discussion might already be well established on an all-around respectful footing. Up-front, your concerns would be given a more thorough vetting beforehand, either resolving them without the need for a nomination, or giving them more focused and refined substance with which to move forward. So the nomination, if it happened at all, would run more smoothly. I learned the "discuss first" lesson the hard way myself, hence my frustration that the removal request sections fail to pass on that lesson, and people just keep having to relearn it for themselves (as I did, and you are doing).
I've had the impression myself in recent... months?... that Diego has gotten somewhat over-casual in his approach to the tools. They're serious things, after all, and a deadpan delivery is never out of place (whereas joking, swearing, or some combination of the two in one's summaries can easily go awry; it's not dissimilar to the cliched observation that everyone looks good in uniform). I've gotten the impression, a time or two, that Diego was a bit on the high-handed side when reviewing requests for unblock, too; it seems simply asking once isn't grounds to block ability to edit xyr talk page, no matter how obnoxious xe might have been to incur the block in the first place. If (as I think I remember) I saw such an incident going by, of course I should have remarked on it to Diego at the time... though I probably hesitated because I dislike leaving notes of criticism on people's talk pages, which is always difficult to do tactfully and usually creates tension if not annoyed retorts. My sense is, come to think, that the most concerning thing in Diego's recent attitude has been his reaction to criticism, of which his initial reaction to this nomination is suggestive.
But all that is only vague impressions on my part — and in any case, even if all those impressions were dead accurate and backed up by diffs, they wouldn't rise to the level of a de-sysop nom. They would rise to the level of a constructive-criticism note on Diego's talk page, though. --Pi zero (talk) 14:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Support[edit]
  1. Support (removal of rights): The diffs speak for themselves. Sorry Diego, you're an excellent writer and editor, but perhaps a little immature for adminship at the moment. Δενδοδγε t\c 22:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
  2. Support I'm sorry Diego, but Dendodge and MC8 bring up good points. Being an admin does require a level of maturity (you are, after all, role models to the community) and that hasn't been displayed by your actions. Sorry, ~YTT T | C 22:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
  3. Support Noting the user's reply. Has been a good article writer in the past, and we all acknowledge that I think; but valid criticism, even if over the top and harshly phrased, should be taken on board calmly. --Killing Vector (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Oppose[edit]
  1. Do not remove the rights. DiegoGrez has not been warned about the inappropriate summaries and other (quite similar) concerns at his talk page; those concerns are not excessively disruptive to the project. I think he understands his error and will do it right; just a warning as been given here would be enough in this case. Gryllida 22:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
    It's just disruption from that certain person... don't they have anything else to do? Ah, right, it's winter over there... Diego Grez return fire 22:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
  2. No chance on what's presented. Desysop for failure to use the dropdown box?! Would you care to advise me of the policy requiring edit summaries? The policy requiring use of the dropdown? I don't remember supporting them. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 07:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Concerns aren't complete phantoms, but don't rise to the level of dy-sysop (per my comments above). --Pi zero (talk) 15:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Agree with Amgine and Pi Zero. Bawolff ☺☻ 17:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  5. Extremely strong oppose I agree with Pi Zero. There are a couple of concerns, but nothing which in any way warrants Diego to have his administrative rights withdrawn. For what its worth, I don't appreciate a private matter which was nobody else's concern but mine and Diego's being used as a reason to desysop him. That was resolved entirely, he apologised for it, end of. Don't drag my issues into your problems, Microchip. BarkingFish (talk) 13:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  6. Oppose There's no compelling reason to desysop him. Diego may sometimes act a little ... hostile, but he can keep himself in check and knows what to avoid. —fetch·comms 16:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose and strongly suggest this be speedily closed and archived. The weak argument in favour of this discussion/poll seems to have involved a far more significant amount of effort than many people's article contributions. Now, get back to work! --Brian McNeil / talk 07:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Neutral[edit]
  1. Yes, those aren't things we would like to see in Wikinews and I definitely would not condone this behaviour but Diego is an exceptional author, mediator and reviewer. He is active as an admin and performs time-consuming tasks (some of which others wouldn't like to do) such as dealing with spam. ~YTT T | C 22:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
    According to the deletion logs, the phrase "spam" appears in his summaries fifteen times: in my mind, not enough to warrant keeping the bit in its own right. Anyone can edit, and any reviewer can review. One does not have to be an administrator to do so. — μ 22:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment[edit]

I am opposed to deadmining for anyone but inactive users. We have arbcom for a reason after all. Arbcom's remit includes de-admins as they are always controversial and are normally resulting out of a community depute - hence why we introduced arbcom. I feel that that body is the way to go. Community filed deadmins should not exist. Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 23:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Removal noms do not necessarily arise from community disputes — though they tend to cause them, about which I'll say more below. Limiting de-admin actions to Arbcom places the bar for such actions much too high, and, to my mind, abuses the Arbcom device. Arbcom should be exclusively a last resort: there should not be any broad class of problem for which Arbcom is the only recourse.
That said, we should develop recommendations to make removal noms go more smoothly. To be placed at the top of the removals sections here and at FR/RFP. Prior to nomination, the nominator should seek to maturely discuss the substance of the nomination with the nominee on the nominee's talk page. It's not properly "dispute resolution", because there might not be any dispute (beforehand), and resolution, though pleasant were it to happen, isn't the point. The point is that, for the good of the community, all sides of a removal nomination should conduct a mature discussion throughout, and that means beginning as we mean to go on, with a mature dialog. --Pi zero (talk) 03:31, 24 January 2011 (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. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Brian McNeil (talk · contribs – Edit rights)[edit]

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

Comments and questions[edit]

  • Comment Are you going to leave me with 'crat rights, but take away admin? --Brian McNeil / talk 00:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I see no evidence of misuse of the admin/bureaucrat tools, and therefore no reason for this request. However, I am very disappointed that I see a couple of acknowledgements of bad days, accompanied by a willingness to continue the argument, with no public recognition that the recent approach can have an intimidating effect on fellow users. --InfantGorilla (talk) 09:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Looking back over this, I come to the conclusion that the entire thing was badly handled from the start. On HJ Mitchell's part, some of the reviews weren't brilliant, the articles could've done with some copyediting or whatnot, but they're no worse than other one's I've seen. On Brian's part, I think the problem stems from his first comment on HJ's talk page, which while no worse than what Brian normally says, could be taken as insulting, condescending, what have you, by someone not familiar with his manner of speaking, which is obviously how HJ took it, part of the problem being that Brian sort of went halfway in fixing the article, de-publishing it (I don't agree with that, the needed changes were rather small, it's not like the entire article was a disaster, and HJ supplied the requisite third source later on) and doing some copyedits, but then failed to follow through with bringing the article back up to publishing standard. So then Brian reverts HJ's message on his talk page, which I think was the worst action possible in that situation, it just reinforces the appearance that Brian is somehow superior to others, particularly with an edit summary of "pah!" That said, HJ's note wasn't particularly within the realms of civility or etiquette (I won't even go into AGF), and was rather over the top, particularly when there's already rising tensions. (I, it must be said, didn't exactly help in calming those tensions...) Brian ends up avoiding the issue of civility in his response, which was the whole point of HJ's original message, only providing links to various diffs, which is not particularly helpful when not accompanied by an explanation. HJ's response is actually surprisingly good, given the circumstances, and I think points out the issues he has with Brian quite well. Should've been the first comment he made, not the second. Brian's response makes sense, but proceeds on the premise that it's not his responsibility to fix problems, at least as far as I can tell, which IMO is wrong, if he (Brian) sees something wrong, he should fix it, not point it out, fix something else, and go away. Then HJ goes and adds this, as well as the de-reviewer one. Makes sense, but I think jumped the gun a bit, at least this one. More discussion should have been attempted before, but given the reception HJ's comments received thus far, I can't fault him for having very little faith in discussion.
TL;DR: Brian over-reacted to the articles problems, HJ over-reacted to Brian's comment, and everything went downhill from there. C628 (talk) 14:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment I see a few comments here that "there has been no abuse of the tools so no reason to remove privs". That's true in some sense, but I believe there are other reasons to consider removing privileges. We select our administrators not only because we trust them not to delete the front page or obvious stuff like that, but also because we trust they have reached a certain level of maturity, know how to act appropriately, and observe site policies and guidelines. This is an exact repeat of what happened several weeks ago with a previous de-admin request and the de-checkuser request before that; a lot of people said something to the effect of "tempers flared, but it's okay now and it probably won't happen again". I find it becoming painfully obvious Brian cannot learn from any of this, and I see no evidence that further "reminders" or cautions to be more civil will have any lasting effect. Previous ones have not. Tempodivalse [talk] 15:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment This would be a perfect thing to read in relation to this. Yes, I realize it's a Wikipedia page, and therefore numerous people, including the one who could use its advice best, will not open it. C628 (talk) 23:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
The main difficulty (so it seems to me) when applying that essay to Wikinews isn't with the list of attributes, but with the "100%". Although the "100%" is hyperbole, "attitude" as elaborated is a much more important asset for a Wikipedia admin than procedural/technical cluefulness. On Wikinews, the relative importance of clue versus "attitude" is roughly reversed. --Pi zero (talk) 04:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
<nod with Pi zero> And one dramatically different point: this vote is not about adminship; it's about bureaucratship. IMO, it has nothing to do with thinking about/acting like an admin. That position is solely about the best interests of, and the position in the larger picture of, the Wikinews project. - Amgine | t 14:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

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

Pretty sure I don't see anyone trolling here, but rather having an active discussion about whether someone should retain their rights. Swatjester (talk) 18:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
wikt:troll, Etym 2, Verb, sense #6. - Amgine | t 18:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, I don't think any operations are being disrupted here, unless you think the entire RFP process is disruptive (in which case, its a paradox of "how can something part of normal operations be disruptive to normal operations"). But I guess we'll agree to disagree. Swatjester (talk) 18:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
If you don't consider it impertinent, how much a part of this online community do you consider yourself? - Amgine | t 18:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
That's rich, coming from someone with "This user left Wikinews, so leaving any messages on this page will be pointless." at the top of their talk page. the wub "?!" 18:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
<grin> Despite which I initiate articles, edit/review/publish... (but never touch the leads), and reply promptly. - Amgine | t 18:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment from Philippe[edit]

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

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

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

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

  • Phillipe, this is the first I've seen your comment; I have been very very busy with other things, something which has impacted how well I have worked on-wiki, and that comment was quite, quite unacceptable. I have admitted such. And, per what I am aware is being raised as drama elsewhere, I issued an apology when additional facts were brought to my attention. I would, however, refer yourself, and Swatjester – who has waded in and voted below – to WN:RFCU. I would also chide Swatjester for grossly mischaracterising my departure from the Communications Committee. How, exactly was my judgement impaired? I had, fairly quietly, complained the prior year that the fundraiser was extremely inconsiderate to projects other than Wikipedia. Trot out the phrase "cultural insensitivity" on-wiki in 2009, and *bing!*, I'm off the committee. But, I had no serious interest in remaining involved in the talking-shop for one of the top ten websites; that despite the hundreds of man-hours I devoted to trying to keep the WMF press queue cleaned up. I suggest you ask Cary for my Skype contact details should you wish to speak directly to me regarding this issue. I have seen that this issue has, by a certain party, been escalated to OTRS. I have not seen said correspondence, and it would be highly inappropriate for me to access OTRS and do so. It would also, I suspect, be a complete waste of time. I'd put good money on said correspondence coming via emails that are, effectively, untraceable. Really, is it any wonder that I lose my temper and go to pieces so fast the shrapnel hits people as I witness all the work I put into this project, and which Sandy admired enough to put me on CommComm because of, dismantled by people who put being nice, and politic, before hard, factual, non-copyright-violating news reportage? -- Brian McNeil (alt. account) /alt-talk • main talk 20:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
    • We hold our users to a higher standard to not lose their temper and go to pieces. If you can't control your temper, you should not be in a position where that inability can hamper the project -- either here on Wikinews or anywhere else. I could refer you to Wikinews:Etiquette. You recognize that your comment was unacceptable. Good. If you've been in situations where you are making unacceptable comments like that, you need to take a voluntary break from the project, and you ought to relinquish admin privileges until such time as your judgment and temper are stable again. Swatjester (talk) 00:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Through use of "The Royal We", I will assume you are expressing the official position of the Wikimedia Foundation Dan. I cannot really think of anything more entertaining than youself and Mike Godwin having to fight off lawsuits, and defend the WMF in the face pf such because you've driven me off this project for losing my temper over, repeatedly, trying to avoid that happening to naiive contributors. You can't, on orders from Sue and Mike, wade into project-internal politics without seriously risking your security under safe harbour provisions. But, your choice. This vote is way overdue for closure; my advice would be to withdraw, with dignity intact; stop 'meatpuppetting' Wikipedians who might take your suggestions seriously, and realise your position, as a 'legal intern' with the WMF means you should have ran away from this particular task. The first particularly irate person with a smart lawyer who tries to sue the WMF over material published on Wikinews will, by virtue of this discussion, have excellent grounds to supoena the entire archives of the ComCom mailing list. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Votes[edit]

  • Support removal. Brian's recent conduct has been completely against what I'd expect of an administrator on the project, and anyone with less clout probably would have been blocked for it. While I appreciate his ability to be straightforward when necessary, unfortunately he is no longer able to tell when he's going too far. He banned and de-opped me from our #wikinews channel a few weeks ago solely for disagreeing with him, for instance - which does not inspire confidence in his ability to use privileges appropriately. The following comments, among others are highly unbefitting of a bureaucrat: [2] [3] [4] I'd like to be more forgiving, but Brian refuses to acknowledge that his attitude is offputting, even when many other contributors in good standing have voiced concern over it. Tempodivalse [talk] 00:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose we _just_ did this. Nom sounds like a Tempo mouth piece anyways. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 00:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Did we? I've been inactive for a while. I could always put Tempo up if that will assure people i'm speaking on nbody's behalf but my own. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Really, you're dealing with a news site. Would you be comfortable were I, per ShakataGaNai's comment, to request CheckUser? I seem to have misplaced that priv bit. --Brian McNeil / talk 00:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  • And that kind of comment is exactly why it was taken away from you. the wub "?!" 09:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC) you no longer have it. the wub "?!" 21:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
  • It was taken away from me because I requested that be done. Twice, in the middle of a particularly disruptive vote on the issue. Do not twist, or otherwise misrepresent, substantive facts. This whole nomination is a particularly dramatic WN:POINT exercise. If the people who've joined from The Other Place want their AGI and whatnot, then bring yourselves, and other new arrivals from there, up to scratch. Stop rubber-stamp reviews; consider review and publish equivalent to enWP's "Good Article" criteria. You can't fix what Google News reads once something is published; you can't retract it from twitter, Facebook, and god-only-knows how many other feeds. And, comments about the state of my mental health? That is technically in print, thus libellous. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Apologies, I had misremembered that, and certainly did not mean to deliberately misrepresent the situation. (Although it would be disingenuous to suggest the vote was not heading that way). Apologies too that the remarks with my vote were perhaps a little strong, they were in the heat of the moment, and could probably have been worded better. Believe it or not I am passionate about this project too, and like you my passion sometimes gets the better of me. The intention was not to speculate on your mental health, but to highlight your paranoia and increasingly erratic behaviour on-wiki. On reflection the wording was insensitive to both you and those who do have mental health problems.
  • It seems almost impossible to convince you of this, but I want to improve standards on Wikinews just as much as you do. The same goes for most (I would hope all) of the people voting here. I am utterly against "rubber-stamp" reviews, and am certainly not averse to removing reviewer bits when they are misused. But the sad fact is, there is a serious lack of good writers and reviewers on Wikinews. This project is dying - and that is demonstrably not just melodrama. Why? Well there are many reasons of course, but the hostile atmosphere has to be the main one. A user who has contributed countless good articles, and who has a vast amount of respect in the community, is viciously hounded off the project for no apparent reason other than disagreeing with you. A new reporter suffers a family tragedy, and returns to find himself blocked, with a gang baying for his blood, and a picture of a gallows placed on his userpage. The mere suggestion that we should assume good intentions of people is loudly denounced as the end of Wikinews as we know it. Wikipedia is constantly berated, despite being one of our biggest sources of traffic and potential users (though I do note you seem to have acquired the Wikipedian tendency to completely misapply WP/N:POINT). What kind of message does all this send? God knows why any new user would join up today, especially when the main protagonist of this remains an administrator and a bureaucrat on the project, and shows absolutely no evidence of changing his ways, or even acknowledging a problem.
  • And as we fail to attract new users, and drive off old hands (not just Tempo, several other users have already left in disgust - and I doubt they will be the last) a vicious circle continues. Fewer experienced users, reviews take longer. Newbies leave because by the time their articles are published they aren't news anymore, or worse they end up unpublished as {{stale}}. Reviewers slip up under the pressure. More users burnout, become disenchanted, or are driven off. We fail to cover major news stories. Quality doesn't improve - it declines.
  • Brian, you have done great work here, and believe me it really is appreciated. Wikinews certainly wouldn't be where it is today without you. But you don't have all the answers, you can't just ignore people's concerns, attempt to shut off discussions, threaten people with blocks when all they are trying to do is improve Wikinews too. You aren't omniscient - and please stop being so bloody patronising.
  • I'm sorry this is so long, but it seems remarkably hard to get through to you. Don't worry though, this is about the last time I'll try. I don't really care what the final result of this RfP is, though I would be upset at the message it sends if you keep the rights. What really matters is that you recognise that other people can have legitimate concerns, without being out to undermine or disrupt the project. I really hope that you can, because it would be extremely difficult to revive this project without you, but it wouldn't be half as difficult as you doing it alone. the wub "?!" 21:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
  • @HJ: I nommed him for desysoping and decrating back in June, I think, the result was a resounding "meh." C628 (talk) 14:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Neutral I can't fully support or oppose this nomination because of the second link Tempo provided and because Brian has acknowledged that he had a bad day (even by his standard) - this diff. --RockerballAustralia c 01:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Diego Grez return fire 02:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
    I agree with the comments below, this is not the right way to get us rid of the drama and idiotic fights. I change my vote to Oppose --Diego Grez (alternate account) alt. talk 14:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Whee, here we go again. Support removal of both crat and sysop privileges, especially because of that diff on Mikemoral's talk page, hadn't seen it, and general unpleasantness from Brian in recent months, highly unbecoming of anyone who holds any position of power on this site. C628 (talk) 03:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment (sorry this sounds a little harsh) I do not feel brianmc's comments (or at least his initial comment) to HJ were inappropriate. However with that said brianmc's constant bickering with more and more people is getting tiresome. He does very good work, but so do other people. One must be able to get along with other people in order to be more useful than harmful. Bawolff ☺☻ 04:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Everyone has been in a sour mood as of late. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 04:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. Brian's behaviour has moved well beyond "curmudgeonly" now, and into the realms of "mentally unstable". The presented diffs are good evidence of this, and I'm sure other examples could easily be found. But it's not just the outbursts (I don't care about swearing), it's his entire attitude. He is egotistical, patronising, vindictive and completely unwilling to listen to others. This is driving off new contributors and old ones, and it has to stop. the wub "?!" 08:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I see no abuse of the tools, though I will concede that some comments he has made are sub-optimal. I would strongly urge Brian to curb the somewhat irrascible posts (think twice before posting and not in the heat of the moment). I would also request that some people stop baiting him. Oh, and some of the comments/votes smack appallingly of score-settling. --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 12:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support per nom Benny the mascot (talk) 14:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
'Everyone was involved in that debate. Admins have discretion, and I expect all admins to use their discretion to the benefit of the project. --InfantGorilla (talk) 10:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

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

  • Comment Alex, Benny can be forgiven on grounds of age; but, it is good to highlight where others are standing inside glass houses. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I put myself up for reconfirmation after that incident. Benny the mascot (talk) 21:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Indeed you did. You have youth on your side, unlike me at 39 years and 11 months, and my memory is not quite what it used to be. Duly struck. --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 23:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose: People who claim they are leaving the project should do what they say; not be attacking those contributors who are saying they will remain and support the project. We don't need a scorched earth practice here. Wikinews is not a battleground. - Amgine | t 16:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, I'm not sure if I have suffrage on this site and/or in this discussion. However, the comments above by the wub seem to be on-the-money. I'm not sure if forceful removal is necessary, though. Personally, I'd much rather see Brian simply take a break from the site for a few weeks. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
    Just did a wee bit of research on voting policy re: permissions. I cannot find a decently declared project policy. I believe it has been traditionally held that any wikimedian voting from a registered account may vote in any poll on Wikinews, and anon IP are welcome to vote in most, with final say being given to the person closing the poll (or the election committee, if one is established.) In short, just vote MZMcBride. - Amgine | t 14:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I've always thought that people who aren't generally part of the community are allowed to vote, but their vote would probably not be counted, except for tie breaking. Bawolff ☺☻ 21:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose per MZMcBride. This is a user conduct issue, and taking away the tools doesn't help. —fetch·comms 18:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually, I think I'll Support this. After actually further examination, this behavior has been happening for a very long time, and none of the warnings given have helped. I think Philippe summed it up above: do we want this sort of attitude in a sysop or crat? —fetch·comms 21:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose As far as I can tell, this is a long way from what Admins open to recall should be about. It should not be a beauty contest on whether a user is intimidating, egotistical or patronising: we have dispute resolution for that. I am glad that Mr McNeil is a member of the cleanup crew. --InfantGorilla (talk) 10:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Category:Admins open to recall says he's willing to stand for reconfirmation if there's concrete evidence of misuse and enough editors in good standing ask him to. Reconfirmation is voluntary (except under extraordinary circumstances), and is a different section of the page; this is a removal proceeding. The nomination did not claim to be about misuse of the privileges, and most who mention misuse here say there hasn't been any. Also, as far as I know, he was not asked to stand for reconfirmation. --Pi zero (talk) 13:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks: I did not notice that section of the page. So, to avoid doubt, I reaffirm my statement: a removal debate should not be a beauty contest. User should keep his admin privileges. --InfantGorilla (talk) 13:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Why? He's driving off editors and dragging down morale. I've nothing against him personally but his conduct is totally unbecoming anyone in any position of authority. What has he done that is so special for people to allow him to behave like this or that makes him more valuable than the editors he's driving off? If I acted like that, someone would do something and so they bloody well should. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment I have tried to keep my interactions on this little wikidrama to a minimum; but, did you not also storm off in a petulant, churlish, and immature manner BarkingFish? Vowing never to contribute here while I held any position you considered one of authority? Then, you've the chutzpa to support "a second chance" for someone who reviews, and publishes, an article that could well lead to legal action against project contributors? Dan Rather did not get a second chance; good luck when it comes to begging to Mike Godwin post some other idiot publishing something libellous and facing litigation. The author, and reviewer, will be the ones in the dock. Not I, nor the Foundation. You're sadly deluded if you think "be nice" is going to make Wikinews as popular as Wikipedia. That's because it would make it as untrustworthy, and unreliable; something myself and many others have spent multiple years working to move away from. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Comment absolutely right, Yes I did, Brian. For those who didn't see it, here's what I posted in #wikinews late last night:
"i've just seen brianmc's comments at Tempodivalse's talk page. I think the limit of civility got pushed there. I'm not remaining on the project while he's here. We lost a perfectly good member because of you, brianmc - what you posted was downright fucking rude. I want nothing more to do with WN. See you."
I posted that because it appeared to me at first glance that your little interaction with Tempodivalse hadn't been dealt with, and I considered that absolutely bang out of order. Then someone informed me that it (and other things along with it) had attracted attention from the community, and were being discussed with a view to your being dealt with, something which should have happened imo a long time ago. That's the only reason I'm still here, because someone persuaded me to wait and see what happened here first. BarkingFish (talk) 22:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I have edited, purely to correct indentation, your comment. It demonstrates a lack of situational awareness. Prior to the soap-opera-cum-drama on this page, Tempodivalse took our differences to dispute resolution. Xe has disengaged from that, a repetition of a habit I have become ever-increasingly frustrated with. You're free to hate me because I'm not adverse to liberal use of the Oxford English Dictionary of Unprintable Words; but I know journalism; Xe does not. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your frankness, Brian. I've withdrawn my vote here since I feel I may have missed a shedload of what's gone here before and I am therefore in no position to make any reliable comment.BarkingFish (talk) 22:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support I'm not around as much as I once was but I've long felt Brian's conduct is inappropriate for an admin/crat. Sure, a lot of the problems aren't specifically related to his use of those rights but those in positions of responsibility should set a good example of appropriate behaviour. As has been suggested, the recent diffs aren't an example of an isolated incident but part of a history of similar behaviour. Adambro (talk) 22:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support I can't expect an admin to use the f-word so many times in a paragraph even if he's frustrated. OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Brian does a lot of really good things for our project. However, calling another user an “arse”, “an ignorant moron”, a “useless idiot”[5], and a “fucking ignorant bastard” [6] is completely inappropriate for any user. No one should have to tolerate this sort of abuse. If this was the first time we saw this sort of thing from Brian, it could be excused as a really bad day or a mistake and he would be given a second chance. This is not the first time though. Brian has a history of massively violating WN:E and we keep ignoring it because of all of the good he does. I think we have given him enough chances to improve his behaviour. Abusing adminship is more then just misusing the technical bits. It also includes violating the responsibility an admin has to serve the community and abide by its policies and guidelines. Abusing contributors and generally creating a hostile environment from a position of trust and power is as much of an abuse of adminship as any misuse of the technical bits. --Cspurrier (talk) 03:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Brian, your judgment is seriously impaired. Poor judgment like this was the reason you were removed resigned from the Communications Committee. And now, you're continuing to exercise poor judgment. You should not have the tools. Swatjester (talk) 06:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
    Well, that at least is a bit more honest. Here is the Wikimedia Foundation making public an effort to de-bureaucrat a project member. Glad the smoke is lifting. - Amgine | t 08:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
    Uh, what? I do not work for the WMF. So I don't see how your above statement is correct. Swatjester (talk) 18:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
    The ComCom is a closed, appointed-only-by-WMF-staff organization. - Amgine | t 00:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
    You haven't made your point yet. How is the foundation making public an effort to de-crat a member? The foundation hasn't done a thing here. Swatjester (talk) 18:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
    I was always under the impression that Brian resigned from the Communications Committee, rather than being forcibly removed. Was this incorrect? the wub "?!" 08:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
    [7] [8] are diffs where Brian painted it as a voluntary resignation. the wub "?!" 10:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
    He resigned under a cloud. It's my contention that he would have been removed anyway, but technically you are correct.. Swatjester (talk) 18:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose It would be good for the project if Brian were to express himself with less extreme drama. However, it appears to me that de-crat/sysoping him would be a net minus for the project. --Pi zero (talk) 01:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'd like to withdraw this nomination. It was foolish to ask for the tools back by saying I wouldn't be very active. I don't want to provoke further drama and waste people's time, and even if the privs were returned, it would still cause needless conflict due to my being so controversial. I will still occasionally edit in the capacity of an editor and reviewer. Tempodivalse [talk]

Tempodivalse (talk · contribs)[edit]

I'd like to regain the sysop rights that I resigned last year. For better or for worse, I think I'm sorta back, although I can't promise to be nearly as active as before (other projects take up most of my time and interest nowadays), I wouldn't mind sometimes helping out with janitorial tasks like vandalism cleanup, archiving, and maintenance deletions. The rights can probably be restored without a vote since I didn't resign "under a cloud" (the deadmin request in September failed quickly with everyone but the nominator opposing). Note, I currently have no desire for +crat, just +sysop. Thanks. Tempodivalse [talk] 19:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

  • I'd prefer it if this went for the whole week, per sort-of this. You've edited 52 times in the last fortnight; it's only been three weeks since you returned. I'm not convinced that's active enough for an admin, especially after the long haitus; surely we should be judging you as if you were a brand new user? — μ 20:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
    From my observations, in these situations, the returning user isn't regarded as a newbie - his previous contributions usually account for something. Juliancolton (talk · contribs), for instance, immediately regained his rights after an eight-month hiatus by a simple request, without any discussion. Of course you are welcome to hold a different opinion. Tempodivalse [talk] 21:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment The discussion in September (as distinct from the mere tally of votes) was not cut-and-dried. BRS's vote was opposed to it in the form presented, with a recommendation that it be withdrawn and relaunched in a different form (well, the comment is there to read in all its nuances). I too had made a point of narrowly addressing only the specifically stated reasons for nomination, and I see that I never actually cast a vote.
IMHO there's a disturbing tone in this request of  (a) treating adminship as an entitlement; and  (b) cavalierly dismissing Brian, suggesting that the vendetta mentioned in September isn't dead yet. --Pi zero (talk) 21:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
No, no vendetta against Brian. I find the suggestion somewhat amusing; there's much more evidence to suggest that it is the other way round ... but what use is finger-pointing now. I was extremely angry at him at one point, and that caused me to do something I now realise was foolish - but that cooled over a long time ago. Certainly, I did not intend to come out as presumptuous or sniping at Brian, merely suggested that because the deadmin failed, I hadn't been put "under a cloud". Tempodivalse [talk] 22:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  • My opinion is the Wikinews community is in constant flux, and this is usually a good thing. However, it also means the community will needs to be polled anew to affirm the community as it is currently constituted puts trust in the candidate. For example, I will need to review recent actual news contributions by Tempodivalse, and other actions, to see whether I would vote to support. - Amgine | t 21:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Votes[edit]

  • Support I fully trust this user. Bawolff ☺☻ 21:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Baila Morena! Baila Morena! --Diego Grez return fire 21:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC) Neutral Sorry Tempo, actually MC8 brings up a good point; and you have said many times you "would never be [so] active again", so... I think that renders this request moot, unless you say something more convincing. Diego Grez return fire 22:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
    I didn't mean I wouldn't be active at all; just not as much as by my previous standards (which were very high). I still check in once or twice a day and copyedit articles, tag vandalism, etc. Tempodivalse [talk] 22:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose: there's a sense of entitlement in the wording of this nomination; marginalisation of Brian's comment in the aforementioned RfdA; inactivity. Juliancoulton didn't cause any drama when he left, you did. You seem to have a binary-state mind in some discussions: it's either "I agree, you are correct", or "I disagree, you are completely wrong" (YMMV). Whether I'm wrong or not, I don't feel comfortable with you regaining the bits so quickly, and not with such a presumptuous attitude. — μ 21:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Awarding adminship is, after all, something to vote for only when fully comfortable doing so. I pretty much agree with Microchip's remarks, having noted Tempo's comments here since. --Pi zero (talk) 23:54, 17 February 2011 (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. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Successful (non-crat close) Diego Grez return fire 22:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Microchip08 (talk · contribs) - Adminship[edit]

Hi. Not normal, I know, but I'd like to nominate Microchip08 for administrative duty on Wikinews. He's a very conscientious editor, who seems to be picking up the reins rather well, no major issues that I can see, and frankly, in my opinion, he'd make an excellent administrator. Trusted, works in a methodical manner and would be a major asset. BarkingFish (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Candidate: Thank-you for your trust in me, and thank-you to everybody else for a great community. Hopefully, I can help Wikinews a bit more with the extra couple of buttons. For what it's worth, I have edits to every single non-deprecated namespace (bar one, which suprisingly isn't the obvious choice!) To help you in your judgements, there's a list of all the pages I've edited on. I've written 38 articles on Wikinews (same as Dendodge, rather less than Diego, but none are featured, and rightly so, although UK students protest for second time this month is the one I am most proud of. Although my account was created in April 2008, my first real edit was January 2010. I have around a 45% mainspace rate, which has dropped considerably due to various userspace projects. In the last two weeks, I've been the second-top human user by number of edits; and have reviewed (just) 23 articles since February 2010. I've had a few complete failures recently; I apologise unreservedly. Ave Imperator, morituri te salutant. — μ 01:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Questions[edit]

Support[edit]

  • Support Excellent candidate for the mop and bucket honor. --Pi zero (talk) 01:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support —Mikemoral♪♫ 02:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Honestly thought you already were one. Bawolff ☺☻ 02:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Nominator support - Can't forget this, can I??? Will be great for the job. BarkingFish (talk) 04:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support; seems to have a good grasp of the community's dynamics, history working to improve the project, do not expect any issues with this user having the bits. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, obviously :-) Δενδοδγε t\c 18:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support; Has clue, will be sound with the tools. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Tyrol5 (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Sure, why not. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 16:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Been around a while and has been a good choice to have the mop. --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 18:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support I trust MC8 and I think it is time he got the mop. ~YTT T | C 23:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose[edit]

  • La más grande oposición nunca antes vista Don't ask me why, but I trust more in a stone. Diego Grez return fire 16:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
    Perhaps because a stone doesn't make mistakes on-wiki. But a stone also doesn't admit mistakes and learn from them. Nor can one expect a stone to be cautious about using the extra bits. --Pi zero (talk) 17:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
    This wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that MC8 nominated you for desysop would it? Cause it would be a very bad faith gesture if it turned out that that was the case... BarkingFish (talk) 19:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
    Well... one could argue it was so ill-thought-out as to preclude adminship. I don't, but it isn't necessarily knee-jerk hostility. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
    You can argue whatever you want. I just don't trust the guy. And it seems I'm the only one who doesn't :) Diego Grez return fire 20:30, 1 February 2011 (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. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • User withdrew

Nascar1996 (talk · contribs) — adminship[edit]

Hello, I have been editing Wikinews since June 24, 2010. I have created 16 articles; however, I created one other which was not published. I also have over 800 contributions. My editing has had major improvements since I started, and I learn quickly. I wish to become an administrator on Wikinews, and since I have been here for more than two months, and I believe that I am trusted by my fellow users it time for me to request the rights. Thanks and happy editing. --Nascar1996 21:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

  • I would like this to be closed. I'm clearly not ready. Maybe this time next year. Nascar1996 03:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Stats[edit]

              Questions and comments[edit]

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

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

              • I would like to become an administrator because I would like to help the project more than I can currently. If I receive the rights, I plan to use them correctly, I would watch for vandalism, and I would like to help you all archive articles. I would also be fair with decided blocks and other protections. Nascar1996 22:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

              Votes[edit]

              1. Ни за что!!! - At this time, you've created 16 articles in 6 months. Your edit count, while being over 800, currently only includes 322 to actual articles. I don't see with the length of time you've been here, and what you've achieved in that time, that you are quite ready for this at the moment. We're not short of administrators, we have roughly 60 at this point, I'd say leave it another month or two, get a few more articles out and spread your scope (widen the subjects you report on) and we'll have another look. BarkingFish (talk) 22:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
                The project may have 60, but more than 24 of them are not currently editing. I will tell you one thing, I plan not to create that many more articles until February. So it wouldn't change very quickly. This is school season also, so I only have a certain amount of time that I can use here. Everyone has their own feelings though, and thanks for participating in this request. Nascar1996 22:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
              2. A favor ¿Por qué no? --Diego Grez return fire 16:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
              3. Tut mir leid, aber ich dein Bewerbung widersetzen. You only have 17 article creations, all of which are in your narrow field of expertise. It would be nice if you could demonstrate edits in other fields, but a quick summary-only perusal of your recent edits only simple minor edits. There are currently 56 administrators, and, according to you above, 24 are inactive, which 32 remain active: a colossal amount when compared to the current size of the project, and therefore I would require a convincing argument in order to vote to increase the number any more. You do not show many talkspace edits, so I have no reason to believe you have any experience of collaboration. Digging into the archives, it would appear that you retired late October, gave a hard-felt spiel or two, yet you edited the next day to correct your userpages; and then, just days after retiring, decided to return, citing "I can't stay away, people need me to give them the news". Please understand the difference between "wikibreak" and "retirement". During the buildup to your eight day 'retirement', you stated that any articles you were to create in the future would be "the same". Wikinews, in my opinion, has no place whatsoever, for formulaic articles. Endorsing such a statement is not something an administrator should be doing. You also appear to lack patience. For example, it's been a short week. Whilst we're on the subject of patience, canvassing is bad, and shows that perhaps you have a penchant for hat-collecting. Even though it was several months ago, it makes me hesitant. Regards, — μ 21:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
                My articles will be similar, but not exactly the same. Which, I don't see 'you have to create anytype of article' as a requirement for adminship. I know I'm impatient, I have always been impatient. (I am here and I am in real life). Also the past is the past. Since then have you seen anything like it. I was about to retire because of school, but I found more time so I returned. Most admins retire anyway so does it matter? Nascar1996 22:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
                You retired for eight days. That shows poor judgement, which is not a quality generally sought in your average administrator. Poor judgement in a user is disruptive, poor judgement in an administrator substantially increases its consequences, as an admin has blocks, deletion and protection at their disposal. A single bad decision from an administrator can, and has, bogged the wiki down in drama for weeks. You have also stated that you will not be active until early next year -- so why are you requesting adminship now? The past is the past, yes. But why should one ignore the past? He who controls the past, controls the future. It's not too far back for me to instantly dismiss it. To give a UK-centric example, you wouldn't dismiss Ian Huntley's past and give him a job as a school caretaker. An extreme example, perhaps, but to simply request dismissal of past actions outright is not something one should take lightly. Just because you have always been impatient, it does not mean that we should dismiss that either. It's still a trait I don't want an admin to have. — μ 22:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
                By your standards I won't become one, which I want to become one because I'm starting to edit again because the project normally has 6 articles for review. Also, what really gave me the thought of this is watching in the middle of the night all the users who vandalize the project. Also the template on my user pages, is to tell you that I will not be fully active as last year. I'm not creating articles week in and week out like I will mostly next year. Many change from their past. One may be disruptive in their childhood, but it doesn't mean that you will be as an adult. Nascar1996 22:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
                Give me a decent reason as to why I should support, other than "I want to." Vandalism is less of an issue on this project, as everything for the end-user is checked and sighted: give me links to a few vandals that weren't reverted promptly, and therefore caused, or could reasonably have caused, disruption to an every-day reader. The child-adult transition does not generally take place within such a short period as five months. You don't need admin rights to edit; no-one is stopping you doing so.
                That wasn't even a reason for you to support me, I'm not concerned with your vote. Two days ago, I was watching the recent changes and this user kept on contining to vandalise articles, and all I could do was revert, then finally a admin came along and blocked them. I'm not going change my editing to get your support. I just had this to see how I would do. I would like to become one but its not required and that important to me. Nascar1996 02:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
              4. Oppose Not at this time. —fetch·comms 02:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
              5. Oppose I just don't think your ready quite yet, come back in a few months and maybe yes. Happy Editing. Tofutwitch11-Chat 03:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
              6. Oppose I suggest you gain a bit more experience as per the above comments. Perhaps in a few months. Tyrol5 (talk) 01:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
              The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


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

              Bobby122[edit]

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

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

              Notable works[edit]

              General comments[edit]

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

              Discussion[edit]

              Support[edit]
              Oppose[edit]
              1. Are you serious?. No, not yet, my friend. You have been just too few time here with us... and there is no serious lack of administrators on Wikinews (I myself try to help whenever I can, and will try to help more now that I'm in vacations until March!) Sorry, but try again, later. I am sure you would do well as an admin but, as I said, it's just too early. Diego Grez return fire 05:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
              2. You made your first edit on Wikinews two and a half months ago. Although the guidelines for the English language version of Wikinews states two months as a lower boundary, I would prefer to see several more before trusting anyone with the permission. Since then, you've made around 500 edits (on around 100 pages): a low amount for an administrator, although I accept that other administrators probably had low counts when they requested adminship as well. I commend you on your three-out-of-four article edits, but I'm not convinced that the 36 deleted edits (that I cannot see) are enough -- I would expect any successful candidate for administrative permissions to demonstrate a need for the extra buttons: what is the point in gaining them if they are not required? As such, I'd want to see several {{delete}} tags on articles: thirty is a low number, and so the backlog isn't decreased by much if you were to receive the flag, although I appreciate that it's pleasing that the count is low enough to not be several failed articles, and I appreciate that numbers aren't everything. You have good credentials on other projects, ignoring the garish userpage; although you do seem like you were after a collection of hats earlier this year. For what it's worth, 45 new articles isn't bad -- but you've only helped out on 22 articles that aren't your own. I accept that this is a very quantitative oppose, and recognise that it isn't everything; but I also do not feel that administrators are required, and therefore do not feel that administrative rights should be requested. — μ 21:37, December 16 2010 (UTC)*
                Re the Wikipedia RFA, I'm not even sure why I ever did that, looking back on it now I wouldn't have done it. I think it's just my nature as a person who likes the administrative tasks and maintaining order. Bobby122 Contact Me (C) 21:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
              3. Not at this time, more experience is necessary, I feel. —fetch·comms 02:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
              4. Agree with everyone above, your just not quite there yet. Sorry -- Tofutwitch11-Chat 03:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
              5. Oppose It's just too early. Tyrol5 (talk) 01:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
              Neutral[edit]
              The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
              The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
              Unanimous support; noting there's no set time to run these for I see little point dragging it out any longer. Congratulations, and welcome to the team! Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

              Diego Grez (talk · contribs)[edit]

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

              Comments[edit]

              • Question - Your contributions to Wikinews have been positive and the community respects and appreciates your work on this project. However, can you please explain your Block log on English Wikipedia ? Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 19:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
              • It's not something I like to remember. My early months on Wikipedia were really problematic, not only there but on es.wiki. I behaved very childishly, and I ended annoying the admins on Wikipedia. I think I have matured enough, not only here on Wikinews, that has been my real home on Wikimedia, but on my real life. For a reason I'm not blocked anymore on the English Wikipedia ;-) (Don't ask me about Spanish Wikipedia, they still hate me <.<). Diego Grez return fire 19:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
              • Also, note that the very same person who blocked me for ten years on Wikipedia nominated me for adminship here. --Diego Grez return fire 19:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
              • Alright, thank you for the response. -- Cirt (talk) 19:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
              • Indeed; and, in my capacity as enwp blocking admin, I supported Diego's request to have the block lifted. I'm happy to admit I kept a close eye on Diego when he arrived on enwn after that block, but it quickly became clear that wasn't needed. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

              Votes[edit]

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

              Bureaucrat[edit]

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

              Blood Red Sandman[edit]

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

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


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

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

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

              General comments[edit]

              RfBs for this user:
              Requests for permissions/Bureaucrat/Blood Red Sandman

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

              Discussion[edit]

              Support[edit]
              1. InfantGorilla (talk) 08:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC) as nom
              2. He might breath fire on occasions but I trust him to judge consensus when flipping flags --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 10:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
              3. Dmitri and Gorilla make good points --RockerballAustralia c 10:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
              4. Blood Red will be a great asset to our community as a 'crat. red-thunder.
              5. Sure. --Diego Grez return fire 17:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
              6. Wackywacedictaphone 17:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
              7. --Pi zero (talk) 19:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
              8. Tyrol5 (talk) 19:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
              9. Support. Yes. -- Cirt (talk) 02:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
              10. Support trusted. Bawolff ☺☻ 11:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
              11. Support I thought you already were a 'crat. —Mikemoral♪♫ 23:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
              12. Blood Red Support --Brian McNeil / talk 06:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
              Oppose[edit]
              Neutral[edit]
              The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


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

              Closed as successful Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 04:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

              the wub (talk · contribs) — adminship[edit]

              Hi there. I'd quite like to have the mop again if people are okay with that, it's frustrating seeing spammers about when I'm online and not being able to do anything! Within the next few weeks I should have a lot more time for Wikinews too, and would like to work on some appearance/usability/accessibility improvements (with discussion of course). Admin rights would be really helpful for that.

              Stats[edit]

                          Questions and comments[edit]

                          • Question I see you became a reviewer just a week ago and are applying for sysop role. Do you have any prior experience? (Just wondering) Cheers, Gryllida 03:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
                            TheWub used to be an administrator on this site some time ago, but resigned/retired due to stress and disappointment, if you look at his contributions. So yes, I'd say he has considerable prior experience. Tempodivalse [talk] 15:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
                          • Yes, I used to be both an admin and reviewer, but retired in August last year due to disillusionment with the project. You can see a record of my admin actions here. I've written more than 50 articles for Wikinews (listed on my user page) and have also been an admin on Wikipedia for over 5 years. the wub "?!" 15:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
                          • Although I initially was as concerned as the opposes below, further comments from The Wub have clarified things and I still suppout xyr. Xe and xyr is for people who don't care if you're male or female because it isn't relevant to a discussion. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 22:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
                            Well, personally, I'm annoyed when people call me "xe", even after I've asked them not to. It makes me think of some amoebic blob. :b If it's not that important, why not just respect personal preference? But, not a big deal, I suppose ... *shrug* Tempodivalse [talk] 00:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
                            That would involve memorising what your personal preference was. There's a lotta editors to do that for. Of course, half the time I end up using he/his anyway... Ultimately, using xe reminds me I'm concerned about a person's mind, not the contents of their underwear. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 01:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
                            As you will. But I find it borderline insulting, especially after repeated requests not to address me with it. I guess one can't please everyone. :b Even singular "they" sounds nicer imo. But we're digressing off-topic. Tempodivalse [talk] 01:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
                            I'm agreed with Tempo on this (in fact I've been drafting an essay "xe considered harmful"). But this isn't the place to discuss it anyway. the wub "?!" 09:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
                          • Comment A quite innovative, balanced candidate who knows what to do and what not to do. He carefully weighs and observes what's happening and makes decisions. His writing style is clear and expresses exactly what he means. I don't see any issues with the (friendly!) comment discussed in the opposes below, because it does represent an sensible view on the matter. Gryllida 08:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

                          Votes[edit]

                          • Strong support; user is around a lot, and quick to spot span and such which required admin action. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
                          • Has my ongoing Support. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 10:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
                          • Competent, and actually wants the job despite knowing what xe's getting into? Is this a trick question? Support --Pi zero (talk) 11:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
                          Oppose It appears from recent comments that the nominee both has, and is unable to recognize xyrself as having, deeply negative feelings about the project. That makes me uncomfortable with the nominee as an admin, and when I'm actually uncomfortable about it, the morally correct action for me to take is to vote in opposition. --Pi zero (talk) 21:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
                          I don't know if you've read my response to BarkingFish below, it may help clarify my thinking and the comments you refer to.
                          On the contrary to what you say, I have very positive feelings about the project and especially its potential. That's what eventually brought me back - and what makes me so passionate about it. I must admit that I sometimes find certain attitudes here frustrating, but that's part and parcel of a collaborative site. I expect and accept that other people might find my opinions frustrating as well.
                          My natural writing style is rather terse, and I appreciate that sometimes my thoughts can come off a little negative. Let me assure you that I think everyone here has sincerely held beliefs about what is good for the project, and is only speaking and acting in that regard - some people call this assuming good faith Smile.png.
                          (On another note, I am male, and happy to be identified as such. No need for the xe-xyr-xoo stuff) the wub "?!" 22:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
                          Heh, xoo. I still trust the wub to do things fine. Comments may be well taken out of context, it has happened before. アンパロ Io ti odio! 23:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
                          The wub, I had read your response to BarkingFish below. And I've reread it since. What seems clear from it, and from your comment above, is what I said above: you have deeply negative feelings and you are unable to recognize that you have them. (Note that this is not contrary to what you contrast with it above.) My lead question on the other page was whether you could see that your post was trolling, and it was clear from your reply that no, you could not see it. An inability to see your own biases is deeply troubling in an admin on a news site, and only more so when those biases pertain to the site itself.
                          (I'll try to remember, for the future, what gender of pronoun can be used for you when social circumstances seem to call for one. :-) --Pi zero (talk) 00:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
                          I didn't see any negative remarks about the project by the wub on this page. To the contrary, he appears rather optimistic about the future, perhaps more so than existing admins. Could you point me to some comments you felt were unacceptably negative? No, we aren't professionals, in the strict sense of the word. It's not "trolling" to say that we are wikt:amateurs (sense 2, in other words "volunteers"), it's quite a correct assessment actually. Tempodivalse [talk] 00:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
                          An interesting fork. If I detail what's offensive about The wub's comments, it also makes me look like the aggressor. And if I don't go into detail, I appear to be making unfounded accusations.
                          I was presented with much the same predicament before, on the other page. It was tempting to give a bulleted list of what was wrong with The wub's post, but in contemplating that I realized that (1) it would be observationally equivalent to feeding a troll, and (2) The wub ought to be able to see what was wrong with the post xyrself, at least once alerted to the problem. So first I asked whether xe could see it was trolling, hoping thereby to encourage self-reflection, and then replaced the potential bulleted list with an observation that there were multiple fallacies in it. I didn't even mention anything worse in it than mere fallacies. It's symptomatic of the problem that The wub apparently failed to take my concerns seriously, and thereafter treated the post as if the only difficulty with it were a misunderstood reference to amateurs. --Pi zero (talk) 01:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
                          Maybe you picked up something subliminal and subtle that I couldn't see, but after rereading the comments several times I fail to understand what was so offensive/dire about the comments. The "this is hilarious" remark, apparently, is the most concerning (?) but it has nothing other than a bit of irked sarcasm thrown in. Wikinewsies allow themselves that liberty sometimes to let off steam. From a logician's perspective it's not a sound argument, but I've seen much worse logical fallacies being made on a daily basis, and make them myself. I respect your opinion, but frankly it seems to be a flimsy concern to base an oppose on. Tempodivalse [talk] 02:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
                          Unfortunately, Tempo, I'm not really surprised you wouldn't see it, as you have somewhat related un-self-diagnosed bias. Nothing to do with subtlety. --Pi zero (talk) 03:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
                          "troll, noun, /trōl/ - 3. An e-mail message or posting on the Internet intended to provoke an indignant response in the reader" (my emphasis). I'm not sure how I can be simultaneously trolling, yet completely unaware of the fact, it seems like a contradiction in terms. If you see logical fallacies in an argument of mine, that's another matter and I would welcome them being pointed out. the wub "?!" 09:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
                          Intention without awareness is commonplace. (Did I ever not know that? Perhaps, when I had several decades less experience of human nature.) It's also especially unfortunate in the news media.
                          Your comment on the other page, and some of your comments here, evidence underlying disrespect for the opinions of others; you're rather AGF-ishly pleased with yourself for thinking others are (to be blunt but, alas, only somewhat hyperbolic) well-intentioned fools. Nor does it matter just what percentage of truth there is in that — there's some, and the ideal outcome here is that you raise your level of self-critical awareness. --Pi zero (talk) 06:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
                          My point on the other page was that Wikinews doesn't exist in a vacuum, and the opinions of experienced others outside our usual editor cadre may contain something of value too. I certainly do not think others are fools, nor have I ever meant to imply that.
                          I welcome this RfA as a chance for others to give feedback on how I might improve, and for me to reach a greater awareness of my weaknesses - in fact that it has attracted your opposition in some ways makes it a more valuable process. But this discussion is baffling me. When I ask precisely what you think is so wrong about my post on the other page, so that I can learn from your thoughts, you are evasive. You claim to be concerned at a perceived "underlying disrespect for the opinions of others", yet in this thread you have continued to openly dismiss my own opinions as "trolling" and Tempo's as the product of "un-self-diagnosed bias". the wub "?!" 11:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
                          • Support Tyrol5 (talk) 15:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
                          • ditto. アンパロ Io ti odio! 21:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
                          • Support —Mikemoral♪♫ 03:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
                          • Support Welcome back Wubby! --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 15:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
                          • Support; user can be trusted. --Nascar1996 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
                          • Support, of course. DENDODGE 16:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
                          • Support Nice to see someone with some enthusiasm. I'm glad you're back. Not going to post my boilerplate question about AGF&etiquette since Peter has already made his views known. Tempodivalse [talk] 18:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
                          • Support — Gopher65talk 02:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
                          Comment: Hi for all! Can i vote to this request? have not any limits?
                          Anyone is welcome to vote in requests for permissions. — μchip08 19:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
                          • Support yes. thank you μchip08 for attention :) --Sahim (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
                          • Support Gryllida 21:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
                          • strongest imaginable oppose ^ 10 - If this is what you think of us - "All on the pronouncement of a few amateurs (emph. mine) about what they feel is news?" - I would dread having someone like you in an administrative position. If you don't think we're capable of deciding what's news and what isn't, trust me, you need to take a walk and come back later. It's obvious to me with a comment like that, that you're clearly STILL disillusioned with the project. BarkingFish (talk) 20:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
                            • I meant amateur in the sense of unpaid (and apply it to myself too of course), as opposed to professionals who have been doing this as their livelihood for years. It's certainly not a judgement on talent or work on the whole, despite being amateurs we regularly produce better work than many professional journalists who are barely worthy of the name. That doesn't mean we should totally ignore what the best of them are doing and saying though.
                            • Of course I think we should be able to set our own standards. However that should be by community discussion, taking into account the standards of other organisations and the technologies and systems we have available. What I object to is individuals declaring "This is not news, and all those other people and groups who have been doing it for money for years know nothing" and claiming that's the end of the discussion. the wub "?!" 21:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
                              • No, but as mentioned elsewhere, we exists to provide an alternative to the mainstream. If everyone else published the old "london bus found in antarctic", we wouldn't follow. I think there's more than one of us who've said the same thing. BarkingFish (talk) 21:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
                                • We might publish it. Not because everyone else is doing so, but I hope we'd assess the story and the evidence for it on its merits, just like we do for every story. That's what makes us alternative (although thankfully the mainstream media still has a few good, critical journalists who don't just jump on bandwagons too.) What we wouldn't do is let someone shout "London buses in the Antarctic are never news because I said so!" on a talk page, and go along with that uncritically - just as we wouldn't do the reverse. the wub "?!" 21:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
                          • Support I don't see any issues with the above. —fetch·comms 19:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
                          • Support No issues here for me at least. Perhaps it is only me, but I cannot really understand the reasons cited in the opposes. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 13:25, 3 May 2011 (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. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

                          Closed as succesful (8 support 3 oppose 2 neutral 1 in-eligible support ) Bawolff ☺☻ 23:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

                          Gryllida (talk · contribs) — adminship[edit]

                          I think the user deserves the mop, knows to remain civil and has dealt with situations very well. And I'm sure you think the same. --Diego Grez return fire 00:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

                          Stats[edit]

                                      Questions and comments[edit]

                                      Question Has the nominee been consulted? Acceptance of nomination generally precedes votes either way. --Pi zero (talk) 00:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
                                      Yep, xe accepted my proposal of nomination when I talked to them about it, and xe's going to comment here shortly. Diego Grez return fire 00:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

                                      Accepting. %Gryllidatalk 00:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

                                      • Question (all optional, but would help me considerably as I have little to no previous interaction with you on which to base a vote)
                                      • 1) Do you agree with the concept of Assume Good Faith? Why or why not?

                                      Yes, the concept has been around at most Wikimedia projects for a long time and seems to have been working nicely. I think the current level of trust at Wikinews is fair enough when users can write and contribute but an uninvolved editor will review before the article is published. This system currently is balanced and assuming that people have good intentions can be important to keep them such. %Gryllidatalk 01:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

                                      Comment Interesting. I don't agree that AGF has been good for the projects that use it, other than one factor that can't apply here: it's over-the-top idealism, which can be a very good thing on a wiki since idealism is a good motivator for volunteer effort (but it doesn't apply here because that type of idealism is incompatible with the kinds of idealism that are our reason for existing as a project). --Pi zero (talk) 02:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
                                      I have to say that I agree with Gryllida in this regard. Knowing Gryllida from other projects, I have to say that he/she always treats people fairly. Although assuming good faith may be a more tiring approach to a project because it often requires more experienced contributes to step in, but if enough people are able and willing to put in the effort, why not? This is especially relevant on wikis because not doing so would make it much harder to bring in a new contributor base.
                                      • 2) Do you agree to abide by the etiquette policy and encourage others to do the same?

                                      Absolutely. %Gryllidatalk 01:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

                                      • 3) A look at your contributions shows you have only a handful of edits in the past half year. Do you feel you have enough experience and community interaction to be a good admin? Tempodivalse [talk] 01:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

                                      Yes, I'm an administrator at a few other projects which require human judgment on my side while still being courteous and open-minded. I've been inactive here for a few months; it might take a while to find something to write but I've landed back again and keep reviewing. %Gryllidatalk 01:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

                                      Comment (Recovering, and commenting on, some text that somehow disappeared, attached to the first question prior to nominee's answer.)

                                      You know, Tempo, there's something of entrapment about pushing relative newcomers to comment on one of the most toxic issues on Wikinews, with no warning of the hellscape they're been lured onto. --Pi zero (talk) 01:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
                                      Gryllida doesn't strike me as a "newcomer", having participated for over a year with the project. However, I'll strike the question since mentioning AGF always launches pointless drama. An honest answer, however, would have given me a great insight into how the user will to work with others on the project and how the user views Wikinews. Tempodivalse [talk] 01:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
                                      I meant "newcomer" relative to Wikinews admin level, which does change one's perspective on things. --Pi zero (talk) 01:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
                                      It appears my comments about striking my question got lost in an edit conflict. But I don't believe the candidate was "trapped", Gryllida could have easily simply ignored the question and avoided getting involved. That's been done before. This is a largely unproductive line of discussion, though. Tempodivalse [talk] 02:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
                                      Question Hi, I made a comment about a problem I noted with an article you passed here and you deleted your page [9] rather than responding. I am wondering if this would be usual behavior for an admin. Thanks, Mattisse (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

                                      I moved the comment to 2011 archive of the talk page. I'm watching the article via watchlist now. %Gryllidatalk 21:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

                                      Question I do not feel that you answered my question. Great that you have watchlisted the article. However, I am wondering if it is your practice to remove a comment without giving a response to a valid concern. Do you understand the problem of using a press release (without templating it as such) as a major source for the content of an article on a pharmaceutical study, resulting in the article promoting a specific drug? And the problem of misquoting the press release to accent the emphasis on that particular drug even more? Have you read the superior sources that an IP provided that do not mention the specific drug and correctly explain the neurology involved in the study, unlike the article you published? I am wondering if you understand the problem in publishing such an article without editing the misquotes or checking the quality of the sources? Mattisse (talk) 22:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

                                      So far the longest "Questions and comments" section I have seen on a Wikinews RfA :) Diego Grez return fire 22:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

                                      I realise the problem; scientific articles are rare at Wikinews - I hurried up when reviewing this one, and indeed didn't analyse the main source. No, I don't *remove* valid concerns, but indeed leaving some sort of response may have been better; I'm not reluctant to accept errors, make conclusions and move along, though I don't always leave a note. Probably I should? %Gryllidatalk 05:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

                                      A few people ask me to work on the article.. However there isn't much I can do other than remove last two paragraphs which promote the drug, and it would still not be very accurate. Publishing it is my mistake, and I've not unpublished articles before; most sources I could find are severely similar to the press release or aren't substantial. That's why I don't participate in it this time. I'm once again sorry for that I failed to have a critical approach with this article, it seriously isn't something that I do regularly. %Gryllidatalk 06:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

                                      Comment: One dodgy review is hardly something that would disqualify somebody from adminship. I would point out that Gryllida has shown an ability to be mature and take steps towards dispute resolution, keeping xyr head when we all lost ours, as was the case in this diff, as just one example. Reviewing articles is a reviewer thing. Maturity, sensibility, knowledge of policy, and dispute resolution are an admin's domain, and Gryllida has shown an aptitude for such things. DENDODGE 12:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

                                      It appears that the problem Mattisse is highlighting is not that the review was dodgy, and rather that the comment left on Gryllida's talk page was not responded to, and instead hidden in the archives without a reply to what Mattisse thought was a substantial issue. Communication is key to an administrator's rôle; blanking a comment shows lack of it. — μ 12:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
                                      Seconded, MC8. A question concerning something like that should be responded to. Removing the question and failing to reply to it shows an absence of communication with a relatively new user, which is not a good thing for a potential admin to be doing. The review wasn't dodgy by any means, the response from the user concerned after being questioned over it, most certainly was. Moving my vote to oppose. BarkingFish (talk) 12:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
                                      Well, I read the comment as a "heads up", notifying the user of the issue. Archiving the comment implied that it was read and understood, but AFAIK there was no question to answer. It was just saying, "You messed up, be more careful in future." DENDODGE 12:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
                                      Yes, but looks like leaving the comment unattended makes it look like I'm reluctant to accept my own errors - but I don't, an open-minded response would have been helpful apparently. Once again, thanks to Matisse for clarifying that. %Gryllidatalk 13:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
                                      I realise the concern. I didn't have enough information about the comment background to reslise that I should reply this time. I generally try to communicate with new people about the concerns I have (e.g. 1) and will try to pay more attention to responding to comments. %Gryllidatalk 13:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
                                      I'm concerned both with the apparently dismissive treatment of an expression of concern by another Wikinewsie about a very serious issue, and with the conveyed attitude of not taking that issue nearly as seriously as it should be taken. If something like that had happened to me, I'd have been all over it the moment I was aware. Both the attitude conveyed, and its conveyance, argue against readiness for adminship. --Pi zero (talk) 13:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

                                      Comment All I can say about the question is that I didn't pay enough attention. It didn't have malicious or hideous intentions. I usually communicate with newcomers (at Wikipedia too). I'd bring thanks for clarifying that what I did wasn't really ok, and restored the comment. Cheers, %Gryllidatalk 13:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

                                      • Comment I never suspected "malicious or hideous intentions". Rather, I suspected a lack of concern in maintaining reviewing standards, partly reflected in your failure "to have a critical approach" (as you say above), and partly in your unwillingness to engage in a discussion of the specific problems in the article on your talk page. Instead, you shut the discussion down by removing my concern about bias. If you had responded to my concern on your talk page, I would have been able to bring up my specific concerns for discussion, some of which I outlined in my second question above. Would you be willing to address the specifics in my second question? You have not so far and I am not clear that you understand the major issues that you did not address in your article review. Thanks, Mattisse (talk) 15:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
                                        • Yes, I know what bias is. Like I said I normally have critical approach and this review was not accurate, because the article is on a topic which is rare at Wikinews and just its presence was making a positive impression, due to which I didn't keep reading all sources thoroughly enough. It wasn't an unwillingness to engage in the discussion at my talk page, I just didn't see a question to respond to and didn't realise that you want to bring some of the issues up on my talk page instead of my article talk page. I thought it's just a notification about the situation; please do not take that as a desire to shut up the conversation, I just didn't understand that it needs a response. Responding to each comment sounds like a good idea, I will try that. %Gryllidatalk 21:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
                                        • "I am wondering if you understand the problem in publishing such an article without editing the misquotes or checking the quality of the sources? Mattisse (talk) 22:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)" --- yes, I do. This review was (one of my first) fail reviews in more than 6 months. Please do realise that it's not something which happens regularly. %Gryllidatalk 21:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
                                        • As was mentioned before, one bad review is not a reason to deny a request. What really matters is if Gryllida now understands the proper reviewing procedure. He/She has noted that this is a mistake that was made in the past and that it has been learned from. Why is this being made into a bigger deal that in is? Unless you can find numerous bad reviews, there is no reason to deny the request. So, in short, Gryllida understands the mistake, has learned from it, and is a better contributor because of it. --Aj00200 (talk) 22:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
                                        • The article will perhaps be replaced with a retraction notice per a deletion request. It can't be fixed now. Yes, it's based on a press release, inaccurate, and biased. I agree it was not a good idea to push that to public. I'm quite well aware of the reviewing policies; it's just a failure to work thoroughly at one point. %Gryllidatalk 22:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

                                      Comment It's okay for someone to close this request. Diego nominated me, but I probably shouldn't have accepted that due to my own inactivity (which causes lack of understanding of others about who I am). %Gryllidatalk 14:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

                                      Comment Matisse pointed out an inaccurate review and lack of elaborate communication style on my side. While the first one is a one-time error, I accepted the second one as true and promised to pay more attention to talks. That does not mean my lack of knowledge about how to review, and that does not mean that I try to "shut up" conversations on purpose. That does mean I need to work on the talk style, which I promise to do (and can do, like I already pointed out by another example at 1). I do think that the situation is overestimated here. Thanks, %Gryllidatalk 22:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

                                      Votes[edit]

                                      * Support Should be fine. --Pi zero (talk) 01:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

                                      I'm suspending my vote, pending further developments on Mattisse's question. The status of that article is now a right mess, and I really want to hear Gryllida's thoughts about it. --Pi zero (talk) 01:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
                                      Oppose I'm outside my comfort zone on this (per my comment above). --Pi zero (talk) 13:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
                                      • Support, low edit count was initially a bit concerning, but no problems after a quick check, and after reading the replies to the questions. I think you'll do well in the sysop role. Tempodivalse [talk] 01:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
                                      • Neutral Low activity and relatively low editcount overall; I see positives but don't feel I have enough edits on WN to assess this candidate as well as I'd like. —fetch·comms 02:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
                                      • Support—I see no reason not to, and that's good enough for me. DENDODGE 10:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
                                      • Neutral per Fetchcomms. I would've like to have seen a bit more activity to assess the candidate, but I don't see any major areas for concern. Tyrol5 (talk) 21:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
                                      • Let's give it a shot. This is so confusing now I am frankly not fussed :) Supply the rights. BarkingFish (talk) 22:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
                                      • Support They would do a great job. --Nascar1996 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
                                      • Support; user trusted to do job. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
                                      • Support Knowing Gryllida from some other projects, I have no reason to oppose the request --Aj00200 (talk) 22:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
                                      • Support — Gopher65talk 23:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
                                      • Oppose — until nominee answers my question above with a relevant response. If failing to respond but rather removing a comment regarding bias in an article she cleared to publish I made to her talk page, and/or if knowing the fundamentals of reviewing an article are irrelevant to being an admin, then please point that out to me and I will withdrawn my oppose. Mattisse (talk) 00:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
                                      • Support I know this user from other projects, she's very polite, always nice to the newcomers, and knows how to deal with difficult situations. (I generally don't edit on WMF wikis anymore, but I was lurking around and I saw this one) Pilif12p (talk) 20:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
                                      • Oppose — μ 22:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
                                        Any particular reason? Oppose votes without comments aren't particularly helpful to others, or to the closing bureaucrat. Tempodivalse [talk] 22:04, 18 April 2011 (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. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

                                      Closed as successful. Diego Grez return fire 14:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

                                      Wackywace (talk · contribs) - Admin[edit]

                                      Wackywace is a hardworking user, has written many articles of a great quality, clueful and knows what to do. He is exactly the kind of user I'd be happy to nominate for the mop. What do you guys think? Diego Grez return fire 19:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

                                      • Please accept this nomination here: I accept this nomination. wackywace 20:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

                                      Comments[edit]

                                      • Two [optional] questions: 1) As an admin, would you uphold and enforce the etiquette policy? 2) Do you agree with the concept of assuming good faith? Why or why not? Tempodivalse [talk] 19:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
                                        • I will certainly enforce the etiquette policy. I believe it is one of the most important policies we have as a community, because without it we would be disjointed and nothing get done. For example, I believe in being polite, and believe others should do too. If people are not prepared to be polite, they are quite welcome to write articles but shouldn't expect to be welcomed by the community.
                                        • I realise the policy of AGF has caused some controversy on Wikinews in recent months, but I believe in it. Lots of people come along to Wikinews not realising what we do and thus create articles promoting their companies, or copied from other websites in violation of copyright, and this is bound to happen. When a new user does this, I will welcome them and inform them of their mistake. I do take exception to the rule in some cases, however. If a user repeatedly spams, or repeatedly breaches copyright, I will warn them and, if necessary, block them. wackywace 20:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
                                          • Excellent response, thank you. This bolsters my confidence in your ability to be a good admin. Tempodivalse [talk] 20:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
                                            • Note that while I have no problem with assuming that the intentions of a new contributer are good, I don't think that principle should apply to the content people generate. People can be handled softly, but content should be dealt with harshly. As an example of what I mean, if someone posts an article that is blatant advertising, that doesn't necessarily mean they should be insta-banned (though it depends on the specific content of the page. Bots and spammers aren't always obvious, but they often are). As long as it doesn't look like bot-behaviour, and as long as it's just one time, a warning on their usertalk page is probably enough. But the content? It should be instantly deleted, with no warning (with the explanation on their usertalk page).
                                      Ditto with copyright violations. If the copyright violation is so bad that the content of the page needs to be blanked with a copyvio template, then it would be less effort to rewrite the article properly than it would be to fix the copyvioed one. Delete, and explain. There is no need to create extra red tape in the process. IE, blank the copyvio, insert a template, wait 1 day, then delete. For serious things like copyvios, just skip to the last step. After all, in the absolute worst case scenario you make a mistake and delete something that shouldn't be deleted. But it is just as easy to undelete something as it is to delete it. And the best part is that because you were nice and left a warning on their talk page, they know who to go to for the undelete should it be required! Gopher65talk 02:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

                                      Votes[edit]

                                      • Support Trusted user, I'm sure he'll do fine. Tempodivalse [talk] 19:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
                                      • Support OMG, I forgot to do this. Per my reasoning above. Diego Grez return fire 19:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
                                      • Support Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
                                      • Support Good to have some fresh blood as admins. Bawolff ☺☻ 02:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
                                      • Support — Gopher65talk 02:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
                                      • Support —Mikemoral♪♫ 05:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
                                      • Support Tyrol5 (talk) 19:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
                                      • Support I think he'll do good :) --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 19:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
                                      • Abstain per comment below. This is not meant as a comment on the user's ability to do the job, but on their willingness to give a 'desired answer' to a disingenuous question. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
                                      • Support Trusted user. theMONO 00:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
                                      • sure, they've been around for a long time. Kayau (talk · contribs) 14:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
                                      • Good at news. —fetch·comms 03:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
                                      • Neutral — μ 13:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
                                        Could you elaborate? Neutrals/abstains are not particularly useful if there is no comment attached to them that could help other people decide. Tempodivalse [talk] 21:34, 2 April 2011 (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. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

                                      Successful. I will grant them the reviewer right, while a bureaucrat will have to grant the admin bit. Diego Grez return fire 14:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

                                      Kayau (talk · contribs) — adminship[edit]

                                      Kayau has been an active and valuable contributor on en.Wikinews far too long to escape the mop. If xe chooses to accept the nomination, I personally would appreciate xyr having the bits.

                                      Stats[edit]

                                                  Questions and comments[edit]

                                                  Temporary decline until Friday. :) Kayau (talk · contribs) 04:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

                                                  Assuming good faith is a conscientious issue on Wikinews — there's a good reason that the link above is off-wiki. Indeed, the article Tempodivalse just linked to states quite clearly that AGF does not apply to Wikinews. As such, Kayau should not feel pressured into answering this optional question. — μ 19:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
                                                  (We do have a AGF essay, by the way, but I figured a project-neutral link would be more appropriate.) Did I ever say an answer was mandantory? The candidate is not forced to answer. Tempodivalse [talk] 19:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
                                                  I'm pretty sure you made clear that you didn't consider it optional on my RfA. — μ 19:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

                                                  ┌─────────┘
                                                   I've made my views on AGF quite clear, repeatedly. For those reasons I am abtaining on the above vote where I feel a "rote answer" has been given. AGF is a Wikipedia policy; you can discuss how many angels can dance on the head of a pin to the heat death of the universe when writing an encyclopedia. That leads to those with the most free time, and perhaps the most biased 'agenda', winning the debate. Sometime diplomacy is the art of saying "nice doggie" until you can find a big enough rock. Thus I will ask, please stop asking potential administrators to pledge an oath to another project's standards. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

                                                  I'm not asking anyone to pledge anything. I am asking, neutrally, a user's opinion of a topic with regards to this project, not another. Again, nobody is forced to do anything. I've even already supported this nomination. Tempodivalse [talk]
                                                  I think the above 'rote answer' proves that what you think you're doing, and what those answering the question think, are fundamentally at-odds. I exhausted a decade's worth of 'AGI' with Neutralizer (talk · contribs); I tried to reason with xe, I tried to mentor xe, I tried to persuade to adhere to topic avoidance. Some people refuse to learn. It is a fundamental issue: AGF is not a policy suited to the mission of Wikinews. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
                                                  Let me start off by saying that the link provided is written by me. Er, I mean I wrote it. :) I think Gopher65's comment above sums it up nicely: ' People can be handled softly, but content should be dealt with harshly. ' If somebody writes up an article that is in violation of WN:DG, there's no reason why it shouldn't be dealt with accordance to the guideline stated here.
                                                  However, it'd be unfair if a user is regarded, or even labelled, as a bad-faith editor simply because they have made a mistake or two. Long-time incompetence, on the contrary, can, IMO (though I don't know if this is common practice here) merit a short or even a long or indefinite block. Assumption of bad faith is not required such blocks, for they(as with any other) are only for the good of WN, not punishment. A POV-pusher's intent can be to push what he thinks is right; an immature user's intent can be good, etc.
                                                  I'm not saying that good faith should always be assumed. One should not assume that a blatant, persistent spammer is editing in good faith, for it's clear they aren't. As WN:AGI states, if there's obvious evidence that someone is editing in bad faith, then we should assume bad faith.
                                                  Finally, in response to the civility question, I'll certainly warn somebody of incivility. Yet if I can't stand the heat, then I'd get out of the kitchen instead and let an experienced admin deal with the situation. WN:BP is rather vague about incivility blocks, so until I've learnt the competence blocking status quo of WN, I wouldn't touch the block button for incivility. Kayau (talk · contribs) 16:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
                                                  Thanks for your reply! It's fine if you're not comfortable blocking for personal attacks, but do you agree to abide by WN:E yourself? (I'm asking because we've had a problem in the past with users conveniently ignoring this important cornerstone guideline whenever they didn't feel like adhering to it.) Tempodivalse [talk] 16:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
                                                  Certainly. Apart from the AGF part, about which I have voiced my doubt, the page is composed of guidelines that one should always (or nearly always) follow, and I have no problem with abiding by them. Kayau (talk · contribs) 13:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
                                                  • AGF is "the customer is always right" of wiki policies; combined with rampant political correctness it is a poison. --Brian McNeil / talk 05:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
                                                    Heh, I consider that to be a rather dramatic exaggeration, but everyone is welcome to his opinion. The question was not intended to stir up drama, I think everyone is satisfied now? Tempodivalse [talk] 14:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
                                                  • It is intended to be a dramatic expression on the policy. As I'm sure most who've been here a while could, there are citeable examples of WikiLawyering – especially with policies such as this. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

                                                  Votes[edit]

                                                  • Support as nom. - Amgine | t 04:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
                                                  • Support. Also well we're at it, I support giving him reviewer bits. Bawolff ☺☻ 04:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
                                                  • Strong support if he accepts. Clueful user, would do well with the tools. Give him reviewer as well, if we are going to trust him enough to be an administrator, he should be a reviewer too. Diego Grez return fire 04:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
                                                  • Support the admin bit; that one was easy. As for reviewer, it took me only a few seconds' pause to realize, I don't need to know whether Kayau is ready to do peer-reviews; I only have to trust Kayau to decide when xe's ready. When I was nudged to apply for reviewer (after about a year on the project), I actually didn't consider myself ready to do peer-reviews; so I claimed only to know what not to do, did my first peer-review a month later, my second a month after than, and my third three months after that. So, yeah, I'll support reviewer, too. --Pi zero (talk) 11:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
                                                  • Support I would incidentally also fully support giving Kayau reviewer rights too. Interesting how +sysop is now becoming easier to achieve than reviewer. Tempodivalse [talk] 15:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
                                                  • Support Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
                                                  • Support —Mikemoral♪♫ 05:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
                                                  • Support; user obviously understands there's no black and white, only shades of grey. For reviewer, this is a bit administrators should be trusted to take, and use, where they feel confident they can do the job. --Brian McNeil / talk 05:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
                                                  • Smart user. —fetch·comms 03:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
                                                  • Support — Gopher65talk 13:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
                                                  • Support Knows what they are doing. I agree they should be given reviewer as well. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 13:18, 2 April 2011 (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. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

                                                  TUFKAAP (talk · contribs) — reconfirmation[edit]

                                                  After last night's little incident with Nascar1996 (talk · contribs), I feel due to the slight controversy that I should see if they community wants me to retain my bureaucrat status (and possibly my admin status). So my fellow Wikinewsies, how do you feel?

                                                  Stats[edit]

                                                    Requests for permissions/Administrator/TUFKAAP
                                                    Requests for permissions/Bureaucrat/TUFKAAP
                                                      Requests for permissions/Oversight/TUFKAAP
                                                      Requests for permissions/Removal/TUFKAAP (admin re-confirmation)

                                                      Questions and comments[edit]

                                                      • Comment Here's my take on the whole thing. I did not plan on permanently removing Nascar's reviewer rights. If I was going to do that, I would bring it here. Instead, my attempt was to make it temporary until Nascar apologized for his behavior on IRC (racial/homophobic slurs and flooding via Wikilinker). I didn't want to swing my banhammer especially when I was not a direct witness to these events (other than the flooding, which I was present for). Plus, as we all know, banning should be done as a last resort, so I tried something novel via removing his reviewer flag/status until an apology was made to those offended. As such, upon doing so, I would have returned his flag to him. Unfortunately... it didn't work out that way and this is how we ended up here and how my talk page got more attention in one day then it has in the past six years I've been here. And that's my story. I hope this sets the record straight. --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 04:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

                                                      Votes[edit]

                                                      • Retain rights. — μ 18:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
                                                      • Retain, you didn't do anything wrong. --Nascar1996 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
                                                      • Comment Nascar, coming from you, who I did the action too, means alot to me. :) And I do hope you come back to us. You're still a good contributor, IMO. --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 19:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
                                                      • Retain the rights. You didn't do anything wrong IMO. Diego Grez return fire 18:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
                                                      • Retain—you didn't do anything wrong, you simply acted, based on available information, in what you believed were the best interests of the community, with the backing of a (small, admittedly) IRC consensus. DENDODGE 18:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
                                                      • Abstain I'm not comfortable with the way the mob was whipped up last night in IRC. Of all people, at least a bureaucrat should maintain a cool head and know what to do. The dereviewer was out of process. IRC should have no bearing on important on-wiki decisions. However, this is the first time I've seen you do something controversial, and I'm glad you decided to put yourself up for reconfirmation, so no strong opinion either way. Tempodivalse [talk] 18:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
                                                      Doesn't have the feel of a mob to me. Note Nascar's vote. --Pi zero (talk) 20:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
                                                      I meant the IRC "mob" (which you didn't witness, not being an IRC user), it didn't spill over on wiki, however. I still contest the action was out of process. Tempodivalse [talk] 20:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
                                                      That was what I understood you to mean. --Pi zero (talk) 20:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
                                                      Nascar's vote is characteristic of his generous nature. I have found him to assume blame (even when unwarranted) and quickly forgive others. Mattisse (talk) 20:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
                                                      • Comment I am surprise and saddened that a block like this can be decided via comments one evening from a small group of users who have access to an IRC channel, a process that is not transparent to the community. Mattisse (talk) 20:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
                                                      • Retain - We've seen a mob once before. I part-led it, could (maybe should) have been kicked off the project. This was not a mob. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
                                                      • Retain all rights - Nothing to do with you, not yout fault, don't eat yourself over it. I know the feeling all too well right now. BarkingFish (talk) 13:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
                                                      • Retain all rights ...and let's end drama and focus on content, please. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 13:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
                                                      • Support retention — I prefer that onwiki actions be separated from offwiki actions. This seems to be our general policy regarding users who are blocked on other WMF wikis (if they didn't do anything wrong here they aren't blocked, except in cases of cross-wiki vandalism), and I think that should extend to other media as well. Do something wrong in IRC, get blocked from IRC. Do something wrong on Facebook, get blocked on Facebook. Do something wrong here, get blocked here. Only in exceptional cases would I support blocking someone here for their actions elsewhere. That said, when you have a few people who all go "yeah, go ahead, do it", that can feel like a consensus, even though that small group's opinion isn't necessarily representative of the community's consensus on the matter. So I understand why you did what you did, even though I don't agree with it. Gopher65talk 17:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
                                                      • Retain all rights. No worries, trusted user. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
                                                      • Retain Tyrol5 (talk) 21:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
                                                      • Move to close reconfirmation I feel I have the support of the community. --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 13:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
                                                      • (Last minute) Retain rights. I obviously didn't see any of what occurred in IRC, but would generally concur with Gopher65 about consequences for offwiki actions. And I don't think rights should be removed without gathering an onwiki consensus, except in obvious emergency cases where the project is at risk. However this is a single lapse from a good bureaucrat, and I am not worried about Patrick repeating this in future. Also the candour in this request is admirable. the wub "?!" 18:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
                                                      • Go ahead and close it. I was going to support, but another vote is not needed. There were faults on both sides; Nascar should, I feel, be given an opportunity to return. The key issue is it was not a mob (such a characterisation is hyperbole). And, the disagreement could, given time to fade from memory, be forgotten if not fully forgiven. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
                                                      • I dislike IRC but I don't see a real problem here. Support. —fetch·comms 03:39, 1 April 2011 (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.
                                                      Retrieved from "http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews:Requests_for_permissions/Archive_8&oldid=1227965"