Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Archive 9

---

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 support for removal. Thus I am closing this as it has been over 7 days. Brian | (Talk) | ^{New Zealand Portal} 04:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

BarkingFish (talk · contribs) — remove SysAdmin

BarkingFish has an admirable record as an active contributor to the project. However xe has also been involved in some conflict with community members, in particular over a quickness to block, and as often indefinitely as not. In a recent IRC conversation xe asserted the decision to indef block was solely xyr right, as it was intrinsic to being an admin.

For this reason, and solely this reason, I would prefer if xe no longer had the responsibility for blocking users.

The specific event which pushed this issue to the forefront was the indef block on Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV (talk • contribs (logs) • block (block log)) for 'trolling' in the comments namespace, a portion of Wikinews set aside for the expression of personal opinions. The users non-comments page edits are minor copy edits which improved Wikinews's articles. Prior to being indef blocked by BarkingFish the user had never been blocked, had never received a warning from any community member.

There were, until very recently, two indef blocks by BarkingFish which were not supported in policy (there may be other policy-based justifications not alluded to in the block summaries):

• Xtzou (talk • contribs (logs) • block (block log)) as a sock puppet. There is no evidence on-wiki, including WN:CU, this account is a sock puppet.
• 5starlegacyfoundation (talk • contribs (logs) • block (block log)) for an unacceptable user name (Promotional/COI). Promotional/COI is not a part of Wikinews's username policy.

These were hardly the most egregious bad blocks in the history of en.WN, but the response to them is exemplary: BarkingFish blocked without considering policy, and would have left the blocks in place forever if xe had not been called on them. Admins should be trusted to do the right thing the first time, not only when they are 'caught'. I no longer have that trust in BarkingFish's judgement for blocks. - Amgine | t 15:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Response by involved party: BarkingFish

In my defence against this frankly annoying allegation, I wish to state that prior to the application of this block, I spoke with a bureaucrat (B-R-S), from which conversation went something like this: (abridged to remove comments from uninvolved users and channel bots)

B-R-S If you want to say he's an obvious troll and not really a holder of those views - i.e. just causing trouble - and block him, I won't argue.

BarkingFish B-R-S: Obvious troll is quite rampantly obvious

BarkingFish In the bin he goes.

BarkingFish I'm going to slap an indef on Ungolli...whatever the **** he's called. (that was uncalled for, I know)

BarkingFish He is clearly clearly trolling and doing nothing else.

B-R-S Fine by me, Fish.

---

I was then highlighted by pizero in #wikinews, enquiring as to the reason for the block.

00:12:21 pizero: BarkingFish: what's up with Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV?

00:13:15 BarkingFish: blocked for trolling on the LQT

00:13:22 BarkingFish: undo it if you think it's wrong

00:13:31 BarkingFish: I considered him to be trolling, I nailed him

00:15:08 B-R-S: He does look like he doesn't really hold the opinions he spouts - i.e. is causing trouble.

A rather heated conversation then followed, during which time Amgine asserted that admins should not indef users, because they don't have the ability to decide that a user has no unredeeming features. At the end of said conversation, during which varying arguments and unpleasant remarks got bandied about, I then posted this to pizero:

01:18:34 BarkingFish: pizero: I'll be frank with you. My work as an admin here, means precisely nothing, when someone tells me I don't have the authority to do what I do. I will be filing a bug on mediawiki and asking for all administrators to have the right to indefinitely ban users removed.

^^This I subsequently did, you can view the request here: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=28713

01:23:10 pizero: BarkingFish: You do have the authority. WN blocking policy is saner than any other I've encountered (most of the page is guideline, rather than policy). Which isn't to say there isn't always room for all of us to learn going forward; but yes, you definitely have the authority.

01:25:36 pizero: BarkingFish, I'm not defending Amgine. And I wondered, asked, and was satisfied about the particular block.

---

I also confirm that I have specific permission from both mentioned users to publish the IRC related material on this request.

01:47:57 B-R-S: Well, I certainly have no objection to you using that bit from me. Transparency & accounability etc. It's only fair that you can quote that. (via PM after showing them the notes)

01:50:42 pizero: BarkingFish: Like BRS, I feel morally I should stand by my comments here, so I give you permission to use them. Which may be needed since the channel specifies no public logging. (user had not seen my notes at this point, but was given a copy after they'd consented, they were viewed and the user did not object to this.)

---

In short, I see it as my intrinsic right as an administrator to this project to set a block of whatever length I see fit. Indef isn't the end of the world, indef is short for indefinite, meaning "indetermined length" in this case. It could be a week, 3 years, or until hell freezes and satan goes to work on a snowplough. The block was discussed, reviewed after questioning in irc by another admin, and I feel was well within my rights to apply.

In relation to the accusations that I'd "not considered policy", the block on 5starlegacyfoundation was applied because they were writing articles about an organisation which they appeared to be directly involved in, which in a news site, created a conflict of interest in my opinion. I trust that we don't let organisations spout about themselves here, and applied the block to stop them from promoting their own organisation's work.

The Xtzou block was because the account was marked registered here, and it was a KNOWN sockpuppet of another user, indefinitely blocked on another project. The indef was precautionary to prevent them from using the sock here.

In the past, if others have considered my blocks to be wrong, I have sometimes discussed them, I have sometimes compromised. But on some, I won't do that, where I consider that the block is required. I justified the block on Ungoliant MMDCLXIV after Brian McNeil lifted it, and you can find that on the Admin alerts board.

The ball is now in your court. Hit it however you wish. BarkingFish (talk) 17:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Stats

Requests for permissions/BarkingFish (admin)

Requests for permissions/Administrator/BarkingFish

Requests for permissions/Removal/BarkingFish (reviewer)

• Links for BarkingFish: BarkingFish (talk · contribs · deleted · count [quick] · logs · block log · review log · lu)
• Previous requests: RfA

Questions and comments

• Comment BarkingFish went about this thoughtfully. Disagreement on the part of other admins is always a possibility, and applied in this case. (Ungoliant has apparently slipped smoothly back into participation in comment space following the incident, BTW.) Note also that WN:Blocking policy is not a mass of red tape; on the contrary, the explicit instructions to admins are:

It is up to admins to use their discretion to decide when to block, and how long for, however for guidance: ...

(emphasis added) followed by the rest of the page. As I remarked in the above quoted comment, an extraordinarily sane policy. (Wikipedia, to its misfortune, needs far more bureaucracy because it has such a large number of cats to herd.) Since BarkingFish did consult with another admin intimately familiar with the case, I can't see this incident as representative of any fundamental fault with BarkingFish's judgement that would warrant de-admin.

(I do think, in line with my earlier comment about learning going forward, that it's practically always desirable for the block notice left on a user's page to specify how to request unblock — including indefinite block. We might want to make that part of the indefinite block template, with —perhaps— a parameter that can be used to explicitly suppress the instructions.) --Pi zero (talk) 18:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment To adress the blocks, in order:

Xtzou - sockpuppet investigations are by nature sometimes crosswiki and for this reason there exist private channels of comunication between them. Therefore, cross-project evidence is certainly acceptable to me.

5starlegacyfoundation - Eek! I was genuinely surprised to find this not covered in WN:E; I've probably done such myself (and am informed I have); however, I do note that spamming is a valid block reason. I understand there is an issue of "what the user does, not what they're called" - to counter, choosing a certain username is something they do and having a promotional username is advertising in its own right.

Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV - WN:BP is guidance-only, as noted above, but does expressly state troublemakers can be blocked. Now, I would never have blocked unilaterally. However, when another user (BarkingFish) agreed, I was then comfortable I was not imagining things. There are two conflicting pieces of 'policy' here - WN:BP, and the community consensus not to censor the comments namespace no matter how objectionable the content. There is an unresolved issue here; I'll come back to that. I have previously cited, and will do so again, the example of the interview I conducted with the head of the US National Socialist Movement - which is a legitimate political party. A Nazi candidate - the interviewee - stood against Obama &c. Now, this interview was reposted on the party's official forum and probably elsewhere among neo-fascist circles; naturally, it attracted a ot of attention from the man's racist supporters. It would be utterly wrong to deny these people the chance to defend themselves from the onslaught of negativity by other readers who were appalled by Nazi idealogy.

Coming back to the unresolved issue: we've talked about this properly for legitimately held opinions. We have never discussed how this applies to (real or perceived) trolling in which the opinions are not legitimately held. I think it hugely unfair to try to remove a user's rights for breaching a policy we haven't written yet.

• In short, I see a community (and the framework in which it exists) working well together to both reach decions carefully and maturely, and to check these decisions properly. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

  Well and thoughtfully commented. Would your reaction be an indef block, no account creation, with autoblock? Should it, perhaps, have been a talk page warning, or a less-than-24-hour block with warning? - Amgine | t 20:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

  (actually, the text needs copyedited, but I'll let it stand how it is, typos, poor constructs and all) Well, autoblock - and hence account creation block - does expire within 24 hours so I'm quite liberal with use of it. As for length (or warning first), I note that indef is not permanent. I'm not saying I would indef - I'm not altogether sure, right now, especially in light of the unclear community viewpoint now established - but I am saying it does not concern me greatly. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

  Functionally, an indef block is a ban. There is no logical argument to distinguish the two. Attempting to do so is a sad attempt at apologetics. Admins should not ban users. Especially, admins should not ban as the default. - Amgine | t 22:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

  On the contrary, I make no apology for indefinite blocks. It is impossible for one person to ban by definition. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 13:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

  Name any technical difference between an indef block and a ban. - Amgine | t 18:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

  A block is used to enforce a ban, amongst other uses. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

  They are, then, both indef blocks. Technically identical. - Amgine | t 21:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

  You're greatly over-narrowing the definition. "Ban" is a concept covering far more than merely the measure used to enforce it. Really, the issue here - now I'm quite clear where you're going with this - is not about the differences between blocks and bans, however. It's about interpretation of WN:BP; let us focus on that. Before I scream at a conversation going round in circles. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

<undent>

You may have a nuanced concept of ban. Functionally, anyone indef blocked is "banned", the only difference is there has been no process determining a ban is the best response to the situation. It is for that reason no admin should indef block. This admin indef'd 21 out of 49 block actions (including unblock actions and block alterations), each an unwarned initial offense block without any attempt to use any other tool in the admin box. The admin has made clear xe plans to return to exactly this M.O. as soon as this request for xyr bit fails. - Amgine | t 01:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

That's rather a shift from what's presented here. The obvious question to me: How many of these are users who have showed up and instantly either unambiguously vandalised or blatantly SEOd? These accounts will never, ever be used productively and the only possible re-use for such an account would be more such behaivior. Of course, autoblock dies off 24 hours after last login, so any user attempting to come back would be fine, and the chances of collateral damage are negligibly small within such a small community. Thus, I view those as a reasonable exception. Excluding those, what are we left with? These are the critical block actions to examine. (Also, how many individual blocks a) are among these actions b) would you say were inappropriately handled?) Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Strawman. Admins should not use the indef block as a first choice of response, especially for initial offenses. Vandal accounts and spambots generally do not get re-used ever, primarily because they do not record the passwords used. Any brief block will render the accounts harmless. Only when truly necessary should an account be indef blocked. - Amgine | t 18:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, I have not presented any full argument other than one for dismissing one (possible) part of these actions; any response to the rest is pending me finding out what the rest involves. I would be loathe to comment on information I do not have. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Votes

• Support as nom - Amgine | t 17:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per my above comment. --Pi zero (talk) 18:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per my above comment. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Live and learn. Espousing views you do not hold is a well-respected debating tactic; it should not be forbidden in Comments: namespace. As said elsewhere, these are the Wikinews "trolling" pages. If, short of clear libel, or incitement to illegal acts, it improves readership, it is serving its purpose; no matter how much people hate LQT. Just keep out of there Fish. If you spot something you find really objectional, ask someone else to act on it. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 21:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
• weak oppose/neutral I don't believe the list of faults is serious enough to warrant removal of privileges. Usually admins should be warned they've messed up before being nominated for removal of privileges like this. However, I have sometimes found BarkingFish to be hard to work with, which can stem from his refusal to even listen to points of view other than his own. An administrator should be open-minded and listen to all sides of an issue fairly. Please don't take this personally, just as a constructive comment from a fellow editor. Tempodivalse [talk] 20:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, sound rationale and logic by BarkingFish. -- Cirt (talk) 19:03, 4 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.

I'm not going to live forever, but this ain't gonna last forever either. Whatever, thanks to those who commented/voted. This was a stupidity and I didn't think it was going to fail so awfully. Sorry about that. アンパロ ^{Io ti odio!} 03:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Diego Grez (talk · contribs) — bureaucratship

Hi! I have been an admin here for more than eight months, and I'm nominating myself for bureaucratship because I think that, always that there are nominations for adminship, it takes at least two weeks to be completed by a bureaucrat, or so. I'm often around, it wouldn't be a big deal to handle these requests by myself. I'd like to know what cha think. アンパロ ^{Io ti odio!} 20:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Stats

Requests for permissions/Administrator/Diego Grez	Requests for permissions/Administrator/Diego Grez 2	Requests for permissions/Administrator/Diego Grez 3
Requests for permissions/Administrator/Diego Grez 4	Requests for permissions/Administrator/Diego Grez Bot

Requests for permissions/Removal/Diego Grez (sysop)

• Links for Diego Grez: Diego Grez (talk · contribs · deleted · count [quick] · logs · block log · review log · lu)

Questions and comments

• Comment Sorry, no Diego; I simply think you'd cause too many problems in that role. I've caused enough myself, but you couldn't talk, or write, yourself out of a corner. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 20:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Erm, what makes you think that, Brian? :) Have I caused any problems in my role as an administrator? Just because you, as a controversial person, have caused problems in this role, doesn't mean I should :P アンパロ ^{Io ti odio!} 20:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
    • You simply don't give a compelling reason; there are, despite what you say, active 'crats. And, it would be more precise to say I'm a controversial person who holds the 'crat right. I don't think I've specifically abused the privilege it confers. Don't confuse prior attempts to take the right from me as a clear indication I've abused it. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 20:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
      • I didn't mean it that way. I am aware there are active crats, however, backlogs in the RfA section occur very often, and I've been yelled-at several times because I closed them, and it's kinda boring to go knock at some crat's door (a.k.a. talk page) to give them the right, or whatever. That's my reasoning, Brian. アンパロ ^{Io ti odio!} 20:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
        • Like I said, not a compelling enough reason for me --Brian McNeil / ^talk 20:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
          • It's okay :) アンパロ ^{Io ti odio!} 20:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
• Question I looked at Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Archive 8.
  • Tempodivalse's self-request was addressed in 1 day.
  • Pi zero's request took 8 days, all of them were active voting.
  • InfantGorilla's request took 11 days, all of them were active voting.
  • Your request was self-withdrawed (by you) in 6 days.
  • Your request was self-withdrawed (by you) in 0 days.
  • Thunderhead's self-request in 0 days.
• Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Archive December 2009 - June 2010:
  • C628 re-admin 1 day
  • Diego Grez ~7 days
  • C628 (for reviewer) 7 days, most of them were active voting.
  • Benny the mascot 7 days, most of them were active voting.
  • ...

I have to arrive to conclusion that an at least week-long vote is normal on this matter (two-week for oversight), and self-requests/re-admin requests which don't require vote were handled in a timely fashion. As such, I have to disregard your reason for request. Do you have any other reasons? --Gryllida 22:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. I think I am responsible enough, with this kind of things. I learned something since the request to de-admin me last December (?), and since then I have helped with most things. I just think I'd do well with it. If this request does not succeed, nothing will change anyway, I'll continue to chingar around :P I just thought something needed to be done. And it kinda saddens me that ... obviously those opposes came from my previous and long-time forgotten sockpuppetry issues. Whatever it is decided, I'll be happy. アンパロ ^{Io ti odio!} 23:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• Question Bureaucratship role has many sides, and you have to point out which one you want to participate with, and why you find yourself strong with that side. Gryllida 00:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I particularly want to get involved in the RfA/RfB side, handing out the rights. I know how the process is, and how to do the rights-giving , I find myself competent to do this well. アンパロ ^{Io ti odio!} 01:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• Question I have to assume that by "handing out the rights", you mean to count the votes and visit the Special:UserRights page, right? Gryllida 01:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, of course. I love my Chilean Spanish dialect :P アンパロ ^{Io ti odio!} 02:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• Question How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized? Gryllida 02:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

In these cases, I'd put myself in the place of Wikinews, and the whole community; if I promote XYZ to admin/crat will it be for the best of the community or not? Perhaps in some circumstances it will not be the best decision to promote if there is not much consensus, or there is 'consensus' but some of the votes come from nowhere (editors with almost no edits here coming from another project only to vote), or in some cases it will be better to promote even if there is no consensus. Being a bureaucrat may be controversial most of times, IMO, but I should just think wisely about the decisions, otherwise, I'd leave it to another. アンパロ ^{Io ti odio!} 02:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I think that we're observing a sligt failure - you misunderstand the role here. You initially thought it allows you to 'hit the green buttons', and don't feel more ready to decide on a debatable RfP than to let someone else handle it. Yes, bureaucrats actually do need to make a large deal of decisions and judgments, which I don't see these questions reveal your potential with. I'm sorry, despite all the great OR reporting job and respect you have, I have to cast a 'neutral' vote and wait a few weeks before your next nomination. Gryllida 02:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Votes

• Oppose --Brian McNeil / ^talk 20:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Happened over the RFB in recent changes. I wasn't planning on editing here again, but this request deserves a firm no. With all due respect, Diego is not a user who I would consider mature enough to handle bureaucrat tools at this time. Tempodivalse [talk] 22:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Can you please elaborate why do you think I am not 'mature enough'? I find this vote somewhat related to my "Fuc*ers." comment some weeks ago at #wikinews-workshop, but anyways, you're just like Father Gatica, "you preach but you don't practice," since you weren't planning to edit here again. It isn't like I'm crying out loud for the 'crat rights, "not a big deal", however, some things gotta be said :) アンパロ ^{Io ti odio!} 22:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
    • I feel it was most inappropriate of Tempodivalse to vote here; however, it clarifies that xe - for whatever reasons - is still lurking/watching the goings-on here. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 06:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose; as Gryllida mentions above, the sole reason that this RfB rides on is not based in fact; as such, pending further reasons for the role, it appears to be hat-collecting. — μchip08 23:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
• Neutral per questions above. Gryllida 02:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I am not seeing any reason here to promote. Phearson (talk) 03:33, 5 June 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.

Closing as successful since it's been two weeks and all votes occurred on the first day of the nomination and there have been none since other than Will's somewhat ambiguous withdrawal of support. Making it a 4-1 consenus. --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 05:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

LauraHale (talk · contribs) — adminship

Let's see... where to start? Piles upon piles of original OR work all of which has been published, aside from one at this time, which is still pending review. Is accredited. Has flagged revs permisson. And last week, she helped me prune the Newsroom by nominating various spam and nonsense articles with speedy delete tags. Granted, she could have done that herself had she had the mop and bucket. And I think it's by time we give her that right. ;) Plus... it's been six months since we last have an admin nomination, it's high time for one. ;) :P --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 17:22, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Stats

• Links for LauraHale: LauraHale (talk · contribs · deleted · count [quick] · logs · block log · review log · lu)

Questions and comments

• Question Laura, do you accept the nomination? --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 17:22, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I accept. --20:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• Question As with most nominations and our highly informal vetting process... we must ask: What are your plans for world domination? --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 17:41, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

World domination starts with Australia and then moves eastward towards New Zealand. If I can't get a visa to stay in Australia, I'd like to get a kickstart grant and do Wikinews coverage on Oceania because I love the region and we don't get enough news. --LauraHale (talk) 04:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Votes

• Support of course, as nom. --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 17:22, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
• Assuming acceptance, support. Shouldn't need to go into great detail to justify this, Laura 'fits' with the Wikinews community and by-and-large has a clue what news is. I'd trust her with mob, bucket, and spam-tenderizing ban-hammer. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 18:03, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support Good user.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:15, 30 June 2012 (UTC), but latest submission makes me question if she understands newsworthiness.--William S. Saturn (talk) 09:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support Laura's always pretty much right on the money. Intelligent, competent, and trustworthy. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:36, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
• If she accepts. Nominee would only use superpowers for Good. I'd wait before voting, pro forma, for acceptance of nom, but evidently we're not doing that on this one. --Pi zero (talk) 19:07, 30 June 2012 (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.

Unanimous support. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 14:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Tom Morris (talk · contribs) — adminship

I've been on the site a year now and written 30 articles including a few OR stories and one FA. I've also made over a thousand edits.

I'd like to have administrator tools to be able to add categories and do other minor cleanup to archived stories, and to delete spam when I see it. I'm an administrator on English Wikipedia and thus far have not managed to cause mass panic or rioting in the streets, so, at risk of tooting my own horn, I'd simply say that I think I'm reasonably competent. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:22, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Stats

• Links for Tom Morris: Tom Morris (talk · contribs · deleted · count [quick] · logs · block log · review log · lu)

Questions and comments

Question What are your plans for world domination? --Pi zero (talk) 13:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia admin, then Wikinews admin, then I plan to invade a small island and form my own navy. Or perhaps start a religion. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Votes

• Support — I would've nominated him myself if I'd had the chance first! ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 12:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support The category hierarchy needs reform, as well as simple addition of people, places, and organizations; after more than a year puzzling over how to do the reform, I think I'm now getting close to ready to propose... something (but the js tools thing is a more immediate priority, as I'm pretty sure their availability will affect what one will see as possible for the cats). --Pi zero (talk) 13:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 13:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
• Readily support as Tom knows what he's doing. Incidentally, I'm trying to tidy up Wikinewsie.org at the moment after a godaddy screwup on the MediaWiki install. Slow going, but I'll let folks know on the WC when there's something worth looking at. Just now it's only really (temporarily) for email addresses. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 17:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support — :) Good luck! Gopher65_talk 23:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support, good editor.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:48, 22 December 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. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 15:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

William S. Saturn (talk · contribs) — adminship

I started editing here in May 2008 and was semi-active until November 2008. I edited sporadically after that until June of this year. Since then, I have been very active and have accumulated over 1000 edits and have written 31 articles (including interviews).

I feel I have gained the community's trust through my reviews and original work. Earlier this year I was added as an accredited reporter.

As an administrator, I hope to work on categorization, maintenance work and would lend a hand in blocking the sockpuppets of our resident troll.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Stats

• Links for William S. Saturn: William S. Saturn (talk · contribs · deleted · count [quick] · logs · block log · review log · lu)

Votes

• Oppose I don't trust your judgment, your behavior, nor yourself either. アンパロ ^{Io ti odio!} 00:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support I have no objections and I think you will do well with the admin bit. —Mikemoral♪♫ 00:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support WN sets a fairly low bar on admin and I think you more than meet the standard. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support --Pi zero (talk) 19:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support Tyrol5 (talk) 20:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support DENDODGE George Watson 20:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support Oh why not. —fetch·comms 03:44, 14 August 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 is made a admin Brian | (Talk) | ^{New Zealand Portal} 11:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Tyrol5 (talk · contribs) — adminship

I have been here for just under a year and have authored 36 articles. I've been a reviewer since last September. Although I don't review articles that often, I am requesting the administrative toolset for uncontroversial maintenance tasks (i.e. archiving, speedy deletion, vandals), should the community approve of this request. Thank you for your consideration. Tyrol5 (talk) 19:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Stats

• Links for Tyrol5: Tyrol5 (talk · contribs · deleted · count [quick] · logs · block log · review log · lu)

Votes

• Support --Pi zero (talk) 20:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support Yes. I've seen you around and all my interactions with you have been positive. I'm sure you'll be a good admin. Also! You were the only guy left in my Possible-Candidates-for-RFA list :P I just forgot it for so long. アンパロ ^{Io ti odio!} 20:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support I enjoyed reading many of those articles, and I do not see any problems that would bar you from having this permission. Phearson (talk) 03:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support, why not? —fetch·comms 00:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support - You seem friendly and task-oriented; your many positive contributions are appreciated, and you seem unlikely to be rude and drive away other editors. Mattisse (talk) 00:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support --Gryllida (% talk) 02:00, 6 June 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.

• Done by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and Brian McNeil (talk · contribs).

AlexandrDmitri (talk · contribs) — reviewer, accredited reporter and admin

I have long held the opinion that rights should be granted on an as-needed basis, and that it should be no big deal to grant or remove them. Given my utter lack of activity on Wikinews I think it is time to resign the advanced permissions that I no longer need. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 19:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Stats

Requests for permissions/Administrator/AlexandrDmitri

• Links for AlexandrDmitri: AlexandrDmitri (talk · contribs · deleted · count [quick] · logs · block log · review log · lu)

Questions and comments

• Alexandr, I'd be delighted to see you active again. Are you requesting all rights removed, or just a specific subset? --Brian McNeil / ^talk 19:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I think the reviewer, accredited reporter (never used and not technically an advanced permission but it is something I don't need) and admin rights are the only three I have and no longer need. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 10:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Partially done Per that, I've stripped out the actual userrights - admin and reviewer. Are you wanting your accredited reporter's email address shut down, then? If so, that would be Brian's job. Sorry to see you go. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 10:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
      • I'll get round to dropping you from the email list Alexandr; really sorry to see you go. You contributed a much-needed non-Anglocentric perspective; you "got" the humour around the production of news, and - to boot - wrote great copy. You've most certainly not resigned privs under a cloud, so they would be speedily restored should you ever come back. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 11:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Votes

---

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

This has been open for several months without the votes required. Whilst the high requirements imposed from above require us to leave these open than normal votes, months in plural is excessive. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 00:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

TUFKAAP (talk · contribs) — Oversight and CheckUser

We need more oversighters and checkusers. I've been long, valued and trusted member of this community. I know there a concern about having too much power in one user... but with such a small community that Wikinews it's bound to happen unfortunately. However, I am active and I feel like stepping up my role here on Wikinews. --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 18:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Notice: This RFP is now for OVERSIGHT PERMISSION ONLY. CheckUser has been dropped by me. --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 00:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Stats

Requests for permissions/Administrator/TUFKAAP

Requests for permissions/Bureaucrat/TUFKAAP

Requests for permissions/Oversight/TUFKAAP

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

• Links for TUFKAAP: TUFKAAP (talk · contribs · deleted · count [quick] · logs · block log · review log · lu)
• Previous requests: RfA · RfrA · RfB

Questions and comments

• Could we have these in separate requests? — μchip08 19:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
• These two privs are dramatically different. Per above, I would request they be separated completely. Oversight is predominantly good judgement; CU is highly technical. For example, do you know the difference between a /24 and a /16 Patrick? How many IPs would each check? What's the corresponding subnet masks? How do you establish which range you should check for ISP foo? --Brian McNeil / ^talk 20:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment Sorry for not responding sooner, usually I would, just been an unusually busy week at work due schedule changes by stakeholders and my organization. Per your concerns Brian, I am going to drop the CheckUser request and just turn this into a request for Oversight. --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 00:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Votes

Support

1. Support for OS. Good call on the choice of which one to do, TUFKAAP. BarkingFish (talk) 11:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
2. Support Like a Rolling Stone! アンパロ ^{Io ti odio!} 01:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
3. Weak support of oversight — μchip08 13:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
4. Support, trusted user, I've had some concerns about his actions before but nothing serious enough to merit an oppose. I don't agree with the "too many flags" argument. The rights list is obviously going to get long, current bureaucrats are the only people that are seriously considered for CU/OS anyway. We currently have many people with very long access lists, I don't see any complaints about them... Tempodivalse [talk] 20:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
   • Strongly oppose due to a) These not being broken into separate requests and, b) No attempt to answer my questions regarding technical ability to interpret CU results and investigate beyond simple httpd log access. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 10:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

   See Q&C above. --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 00:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

5. Support--Sahim (talk) 06:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
6. Support fully with Oversight access. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 13:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
7. Support, no worries, -- Cirt (talk) 05:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
8. Support Trustworthy. --Pi zero (talk) 06:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
9. Support Why not? —fetch·comms 05:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
10. Support Well-suited. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
11. Support Tyrol5 (talk) 19:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
12. Support, don't see any reason not to. the wub "?!" 22:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
13. Support Jcart1534 (talk) 21:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
14. Support I trust him. Mattisse (talk) 18:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
15. Support – I don't see why not. —MC10 (T•C•L) 04:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
16. Support - I thought I already had... DENDODGEGeorge Watson 14:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
17. Support Computerjoe's talk 10:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
18. Support Why not. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 17:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
19. Support I have no objections, so why not? —Mikemoral♪♫ 00:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

The following vote applies to the original combined request for oversight and checkuser; this voter has since voted "weak support" for oversight once checkuser was removed from the request.

• Oppose. "TUFKAAP ‎(bureaucrat, reviewer, administrator)" is already fairly long — "TUFKAAP ‎(bureaucrat, reviewer, administrator, check user, oversighter)" just seems too long. Coupled with the fact that you seem to have made/considered an awful lot of reconfirmation requests recently make me believe that you, perhaps, are not the best candidate for the jobs although if you had ipbe and flood as well, it would be bordering on the awesome side of things — μchip08 19:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

CommentIain is also a b'crat, reviewer and admin yet you voted support on his OS request? Any particular reason the switch in opinion? Does it have to do with my two reconfirmation requests? --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 21:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

That, combined with the fact that I hadn't noticed. — μchip08 22:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

1. Oppose. Gryllida 01:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

   Any specific reason, or just oppose in general? :) Just wondering if there's something I'm not aware of as I'm not exactly "active" much here anymore. —fetch·comms 02:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

   • My personal impression of the decisions made by the candidate during the last few years isn't 100% positive, so I'm in a doubt on whether this nomination is appropriate at this moment. Gryllida 02:56, 9 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.

Three months has past. I decleare this closed as a failed OS request. 25 votes have not been reached. 3 Months is a bit long to leave this open. Brian | (Talk) | ^{New Zealand Portal} 23:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Blood Red Sandman

Express your view on this user (comments) Nominated on 13:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) – At present, we have just three oversighters - and only one, Bawolff, is at all active. I'm regularly available, and it's a rare case when 24 hours would go between oversight required and it being done if I had the tools. I am of the age of majority in the jurisdiction(s) required and willing to identify. I note WN:OVERSIGHT suggests ArbCom approval is needed; is this an unused relic of policy or will that be forced upon me? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 13:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for Blood Red Sandman: Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs · deleted · count [quick] · logs · block log · review log · lu)

---

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

• Too late to move this to RFP on-page discussion, since the revision history needs to be conveniently bundled with it. Damn. I'd been dragging my feet about the on-page restoration, thinking the sections not yet fixed were hardly ever used... :-) --Pi zero (talk) 17:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
• User would need to be identified to wmf before he could have oversight. Bawolff ☺☻ 00:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
• How long are these usually open for? It's been over two months. —fetch·comms 02:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

  Usually these sorts of requests shouldn't drag on for more than two or three weeks at best, if they haven't gotten the 25 necessary votes by then, they probably won't ever. I think this one ought to be closed as not enough support, we've never had them stretch this long. Tempodivalse [talk] 03:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• Hm, I don't even know if there are 25 active users that check this page. Ah well. —fetch·comms 03:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment This request should be closed. How much longer can it be allowed to stay open? It's already been close to three months with not nearly enough support. Usually a lack of enthusiasm like this means "no consensus, not promoted". Tempodivalse [talk] 20:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Taking the question literally —"How much longer can it be allowed to stay open?"— and attempting to answer it narrowly: It appears that the rules are the same as for checkuser. That is, per m:Oversight#Access there isn't actually a set time limit on how long this can remain open. --Pi zero (talk) 20:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Support

1. Support You need a pair of oversighters for everything keep everyone happy; the current arrangement of 1+2 doesn't really do it for me. Having no access the the relevant log, I haven't a clue whether there is traffic to warrant an extra oversight permission (if not, perhaps we should go from 1+2 → 0?). If Bawolff thinks that another oversighter is warranted, that's fine by me. — μ 13:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
   • For reference, the majority of the small number of things in the oversight log were done by stewards or wmf staff (Mostly cross wiki stuff. Hiding usernames of the form So-and-so is a racial slur and similar things). Local oversighters have oversighted about 6 things in the last year. Bawolff ☺☻ 19:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
     • Just for the record. I'm not dead, I just don't edit ATM. I watch, sit on IRC... but not dead. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 05:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
2. Obviously. Diego Grez ^{return fire} 16:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
3. No concerns with the nominee. --Pi zero (talk) 17:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
4. Support. I think we should have local oversighters (even if not used often, its good to have), and those oversighters should be active. If BRS succeeds in this nom, i think the other oversighters should have their privs removed. Bawolff ☺☻ 19:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
5. Support - I think BRS can be trusted with something like this. Δενδοδγε _t\^c 09:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
6. Support - Agree with Dendodge (talk · contribs). ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 17:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
7. Support. Oversight should be easily subject to review by more than one other with the privilege. I trust Iain with this. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 14:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
8. Support Trusted, should do well. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 12:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
9. Should be OK. I trust no more corpses or billion year blocks will occur, of course. —fetch·comms 16:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
10. I'm supporting for the same reason why I supported Thenb314's CU nomination in WB. It's essential to have more than one oversight. Kayau (talk · contribs) 15:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
11. Support. Another active oversighter is needed. Whilst we've had our clashes in the past, I would certainly trust BRS with the right. the wub "?!" 17:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
12. Support Per other users. I have no concerns and trust this user. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 16:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
13. Support --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 01:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
14. moved to Support - We need more oversighters, God only knows we do. I'm getting off the fence. BarkingFish (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

    My previous comments

    Abstain The combination of rights like this makes me feel just a little uneasy. Already an admin and a crat, oversight would imo put too much power in one place. I don't feel that comfortable with having one person with so much control. BarkingFish (talk) 18:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

    Comment I have crat, admin, reviewer, and IP block exempt. The point is to have people we trust, and can speedily get hold of, with these rights. By-and-large to actually get Oversight will require input from non-newsies; there's a sort-of minimum support level required for this, or CU. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 15:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

    You're right, Brian. I'm moving to a support, will take this lot with me. BarkingFish (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

15. Support Fine by me. Bencherlite (talk) 16:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
16. Support Tyrol5 (talk) 19:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Abstain. Iain is an excellent editor and administrator, but I'm not comfortable with several of his actions. For instance: this punitive inappropriate 1 billion year block, edit warring to retain an image of a hanging corpse on a blocked user's page. I know this was some time ago, and I hate to dig up old wounds like this, but that alone makes me slightly uncomfortable. With highly sensitive tools at stake, I can't support with absolute 100% confidence, with no prejudice and no offence intended to BRS. Tempodivalse [talk] 17:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

   No offence taken. However, whilst I have no objection to the sentiment (whilst noting it would be better placed at a request for de-admin, which I'm openly surprised was never filed) I do object to the claim I was edit warring, mainly because I wasn't. Two edits do not make a war; could you describe them as reverts to an inappropriate revision, please? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC) Second thought: it's too fine a hair to really be worth splitting. Also, wrong does not equal punitive, but as I've said that before I assume you do not accept that I was truthful and hence a reiteration would be pointless.

   You reverted twice against two different editors in a short time period, and I felt that you would have unhesitantly done so again had brianmc not gotten there first twice thereafter. Even if not literally 3RR, that would appear to me in the spirit of edit warring. (Of course, I'm hardly in a position to blame you, having behaved in a rather poor manner myself. Tu quoque.) I've refactored my mention of "punitive", as well, per your comment; that's not exactly what I had meant. Tempodivalse [talk] 18:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

   "The spirit," and many possible interpretations thereof, is one of the main reasons I viewed it as not an argument with any point to it (the other reason being it was wrong anyway; why argue about which way it was wrong?). I recall counting reverts, so I'd have only been back once. Anyhow, since I'm not actually disputing anything, I'm going to quit waffling. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

   Tempo is at a disadvantage. Xe has been —relative specifically to Wikinews— frozen in time for the past half year, which in this context is a long time. Xyr thinking, including xyr resentments, are throwbacks to the past, while those of us who lived through the intervening time have had the opportunity to move on considerably from there. (Not that that's the only difference, but it's in the mix.) --Pi zero (talk) 23:14, 5 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 of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

---

Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) — adminship

Been on Wikinews for eight months now and have produced over 70 articles, including original reporting, interviews and news, oparticularly relating to sports and the Paralympic Games in London. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Stats

• Links for Hawkeye7: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs · deleted · count [quick] · logs · block log · review log · lu)

Questions and comments

• Question You've addressed your qualifications for adminship. For perspective, though, what is your reason for requesting adminship? What do you have in mind to do with it? --Pi zero (talk) 12:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Mainly to assist in the creation of news articles without having to ask for admin assistance. Protect and unprotect pages. I will also assist with minor maintenance tasks. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• As I've remarked elsewhere, there are only a few points were admin access helps with article production. Adding categories to fully protected articles is facilitated (one doesn't have to ask an admin to do it). Renaming unpublished articles without leaving a redirect is a luxury (renaming published articles must always leave a redirect, of course, and renaming fully protected articles is almost unheard of). Undeleting articles is unusual too. But certainly being able to do those things directly, rather than enumerating the request and waiting for someone else to process the request, means less work for everyone. --Pi zero (talk) 16:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Question Do you think Wikinews needs more help with reviewing, or with administrative tasks? --Gryllida 07:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Wikinews can never have enough reviewers!!! Many admin tasks can remain undone for months on end, but news must be timely! When I am working on WikiNews full time, I can generate a great deal of material in a short time and swamp the review process, and for that I must apologise. The best I can do is try to arrange for reviewer support beforehand, try and make the articles as easy to review as possible, and thank the reviewers for a job well done afterwards. I have the highest regard for our reviewers. They are worth their weight in gold bullion. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Question Did you think of nominating yourself to become a reviewer? Thanks, Gryllida 07:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • No, never. I requested adminship in order to facilitate article creation. I am more than willing to pitch in with minor maintenance tasks, but my focus is on article creation. If, in the opinion of the WikiNews editors, I have reached the point where my understanding of policies and standards is sufficiently advanced that I could be a reviewer, then they will nominate me; but I will not nominate myself. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Question What do you envision the "facilitate article creation" task involves (other than archiving and editing protected articles)? --Gryllida 11:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Mostly adding categories to fully protected articles. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Question

- Do you think there is a need for a timely response to a request to an edit to a protected article, or can it wait several hours without any serious harm? How timely should such responses you think should ideally be? Gryllida 11:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

- Do you think the current response times to protected article edits requests are close to the ideal? Thanks! --Gryllida 11:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• It's always unwise to compare against an ideal, for surely the ideal must be immediately. It is very rare that such a rapid response is required; but we are talking about news. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Thanks for your kind, detailed replies to all the questions. They brought light to an activity I was entirely unaware of: adding categories to archived articles. I appreciate that you volunteered to help with this task. Gryllida 12:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Votes

• Support No worries. --Pi zero (talk) 16:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support --Gryllida 12:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
• Strong support. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 13:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support --LauraHale (talk) 16:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support Don't see why not. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support Excellent candidate. -- CalF (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support, agree with CalF (talk · contribs), above. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support Bidgee (talk) 14:08, 11 January 2013 (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 bureaucratship. Please do not modify it.

---

Pi zero (talk · contribs) — bureaucratship

I would like to nominate Pi zero, our great reviewer and administrator, to a promotion to bureaucratship. I can see the following things peculiar in the candidate and invaluably useful for making fair, sensible use of the new proposed position.

• Being familiar with the policies and atmosphere after months (probably over a year) of consistent review work. Pi zero is familiar with the key policies as closely as a glove fits one's hand, and shapes them to the right direction.
• Devotion to the project (we all _know_ it!).
• Willingness to do a research and look into things and issues that are brought up. Look for reasons behind every actions.
• Familiar with the software behind the wiki, including (most notably) templates and gadgets, how they work, and how to fix them properly without breaking things.
• Ability to make sensible judgements of what to do and what not to do. I would point it out that pi zero clearly follows the "never assume" rule but remains warmly courteous at all times.
• Open-minded, courteous spirit with a knowledge when to drop a topic or discussion if needed.
• Openless to collaboration and detailed explanation for any topics that is useful to talk about: pi zero likes to tell a thing in a neutral, informative way, if there is a need to make something more clear.
• Balanced, calm reaction to events, discussions, issues, and concerns.
• It can never be stressed well enough: ability to think about why something happened, and make a new guideline or policy to shape the atmosphere to improve efficiency of work of everyone at Wikinews. This includes the development and collaboration on the WN:PeP policy, just as an example.

I expect the nominee to leave a note to the I-accept-this-nomination effect shortly. Thanks, Gryllida 13:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• I accept this nomination. --Pi zero (talk) 13:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Stats

Requests for permissions/Pi zero (admin)

Requests for permissions/Administrator/Pi zero

• Links for Pi zero: Pi zero (talk · contribs · deleted · count [quick] · logs · block log · review log · lu)

Questions and comments

• I don't really feel active enough to legitimately vote in this. However I did want to mention that I think Pi Zero is an excellent candidate for crat. Bawolff ☺☻ 15:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• It surprised me to see your last 50 edits cover about a year. But, they're spread enough through that period to indicate you're probably aware of what is going on, if not able to get more involved.

Translation: I think you're perfectly entitled to vote. Is there anyone else taking part in this discussion does not know Bawolff? --Brian McNeil / ^talk 20:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Like bawolff, I don't want to explicitly support because I haven't been here for a while, but based on Pi zero's work before I went away, I support this nomination. Kayau (talk · contribs) 07:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
• Like bawolff and kayau, I don't want to explicitly support because I am not exactly here, but based on Pi zero's contributions, I support this nomination. Wikiwide (talk) 02:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment From what I know of Wikinews procedure, the vote of MZMcBride certainly doesn't count, and probably not KhabarNegar, due to lack of record of contribution to the project. (Though I'm not aware of any such obstacle to Computron, who now has several published articles.) --Pi zero (talk) 23:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Votes

• Support Excellent candidate. --LauraHale (talk) 13:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
• Obvious support is obvious, for obvious reasons. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Thankfully, 'crat does not have a significant additional workload here on enWN. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 14:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support An excellent and obvious choice. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
• Strong support Brilliant candidate -- CalF (talk) 16:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support, essentially per Tom Morris (talk · contribs), above. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support Pi zero will make a very good bureaucrat.--Cspurrier (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support As a fellow 'crat, albeit, a not very active one due to his worklife, I believe Pizero is an excellent canadiate. --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 13:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support Good candidate! --House1630 (talk) 10:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support Well, of course!! --Bddpaux (talk) 20:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support Pi zero put a lot of time and constructive comments into my first (and only so far) Wikinews publication. DavidMCEddy (talk) 04:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support obviously. He's our most valuable asset here.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
• Make it so --RockerballAustralia c 09:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• Make it so Hope for a better site in future.KhabarNegar (talk) 11:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose: I believe I'm entitled to a vote here. I've recently been in a heated discussion with Pi zero regarding EdwardsBot and its role in global message delivery. I've found myself annoyed with his comments, but when someone suggested that I oppose his request for bureaucratship in retaliation, I said that that would be a dick move.

  Why am I here opposing, particularly given that it's almost certain that I'll be out-voted? I came across m:Proposals for closing projects/Closure of English Wikinews, where it seems that I'm not the only one who finds this user's behavior unacceptable. However, more than those worrying concerns (that only date back two or three months, Pi zero seems to have almost no understanding of how to use rollback. In multiple instances, he has now mis-used this administrative tool. I can't see how he could be trusted to use more advanced tools.

  Will this vote stop the nomination from succeeding? Probably not. But it should be on the record nonetheless, given the toxicity and hostility of this place. It can hopefully be used as further evidence against the "leadership" of Mr. Pi zero and Mr. McNeil when they're ousted one day. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Support Been really supportive to me as I am new here and as far as what MZMcBride is saying, I read the first four lines and got bored, you've just proved you are a "dick".--Computron (talk) 23:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

---

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

---

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

I am archiving this request. User had his rights emergency-removed, and with no forthcoming explanation for actions or any indication that the account is not compromised - the pertinent action is to keep them removed! --Skenmy ^talk 12:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Diego Grez (talk · contribs) — remove admin

Without explanation on-wiki, Diego deleted an article from the archives — without, by the way, replacing it with a stub, as is always done when deleting a published article so as not to create a memory hole — and then, again without explanation on-wiki, hid the delete actions in the deletion log. The only remark about these actions on-wiki was to ask anyone who wants to know about it to PM him.

Had only the deletion occurred, not the log-hiding, there would still be a reasonable possibility that the deletion was at least intended to be some sort of privacy-related action, and I'd not be making this nomination just yet. However, the log-deletion doesn't appear to have any likely reason behind it except revisionism, trying to erase from history the fact that the article existed. Which is, btw, quite quite futile since there's plenty of evidence of it even on other WMF sister projects.

It's possible that Diego will have a private explanation for the action that cannot be shared publicly, in which case it might be necessary to shelve this public discussion (if the private explanation has some merit). Presumably ArbCom would then have to take up the matter privately. But there is nothing to be accomplished by not making this nomination immediately, since the existence of the article long ago became irreversible and there is nothing minor about the seeming breaches of site policy and journalistic ethics.

See also: w:Streissand effect.

--Pi zero (talk) 14:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Stats

Requests for permissions/Administrator/Diego Grez	Requests for permissions/Administrator/Diego Grez 2	Requests for permissions/Administrator/Diego Grez 3
Requests for permissions/Administrator/Diego Grez 4	Requests for permissions/Administrator/Diego Grez Bot

Requests for permissions/Removal/Diego Grez (sysop)

• Links for Diego Grez: Diego Grez (talk · contribs · deleted · count [quick] · logs · block log · review log · lu)

Because the stats template (above) only (currently) turns up items from before a certain date, here are a couple of others possibly relevant; can't guarantee they're the only ones. --Pi zero (talk) 16:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• WN:RFP/Archive 8#Diego Grez (talk · contribs)
• WN:RFP/Archive 9#Diego Grez (talk · contribs) — bureaucratship

Questions and comments

• At minimum, Diego has demonstrated very poor judgement in how he went about this. The evidence suggests he doesn't understand how serious the matter is. Those might be sufficient reasons to withdraw sysop privs regardless of the fate of the specific article. --Pi zero (talk) 14:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• What was deleted? Why was it deleted? Why were others not consulted via e-mail such as scoop, or on IRC channels or on talk pages? Reading the comments from the failed RfAs, this sort of potential behavior seems to why there was opposition back in 2010. --LauraHale (talk) 15:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • The page in question was Wikinews interviews Diego Grez, Chilean earthquake survivor, as well as its talk and comments pages. It's mentioned in an audio brief, translated into French, and duplicated around the 'net (including on NewsTrust). As is regularly said of material on the Internet, trying to delete it seems a bit... fruitless. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 15:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I was linked here from his Encyclopedia Dramatica page, probably has something to do with it, j/s —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 174.232.131.83 (talk • contribs)

• It is not private (but it is personal), he is hiding everything that trolls can use against him for his article. Just FYI. AndrésSnape (talk) 21:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• About the Emergency Rights Removal: I cannot believe (neither do others, I think) that his account was compromised, his actions were perfectly rational (rational as in matching his personality, because they still were foolish/stupid), I'd like to have a CheckUser to compare the login he did for deleting those articles with some of the previous (I bet the IPs are almost the same, i.e. same subnet). And also, he was already a know sockpuppeteer, so it should be easy for him to create a sockpuppet and talk privately with Blood Red Sandman, thus tricking him deadmin him because Grez already saw his actions were bad and that he could not make a decent defense here, so he decided to, at least, deadmin him with "honour" and saying that it was a "hacked account". Clever moves. AndrésSnape (talk) 22:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

If someone could not catch my thoughts properly (as some people probably inferred, english is not my first language), just let me know here so I can rephrase those thoughts up. AndrésSnape (talk) 23:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, the allegation is that the account was hacked after these actions. So that in itself is not a defence. A CU has been filed as a matter of course for any possible hack, and that really takes the matter out of my hands. I trust out CUs (and ArbCom, if need be) to deal with it. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Hacked after? Hmm, that should probably be social engineers, although if the account was hacked after the deletes I cannot find any logical reason for someone to hack it. However, how did he contact you? (IRC, email, et cætera) AndrésSnape (talk) 23:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Looking at the rights BRS has removed on a basis this would be wise in the short-term, I note that Diego had granted xyrself bot. Since that hides edits from casual perusal in RecentChanges, this is further grounds to consider not returning these rights. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 06:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Snape is blocked on Wikipedia for sockpuppetry; xyr intervention here would appear an attempt to inject dramah. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 06:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Votes

• Remove as nominator. --Pi zero (talk) 14:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Remove On the basis of what is publically available. If Diego has details we are not party to, then I will reconsider when/if they are shared publically. If he does not wish to share something, then ArbCom will have to step in and figure out what's going on and what can and cannot be revealed. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 14:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Remove We are not some trashy tabloid that deletes things that people may be embarrassed about.

There are a wide range of options available other than deletion, and deletion of a long-archived article without at least consulting other administrators privately is unacceptable.

If Real-life issues, such as stalking, are a concern then the image could have been removed without deleting the text. If there are serious issues with the factual accuracy of the content, which I have no reason to believe there are, then that's something to 'fess up to rather than commit a Hari.

In any case, the 'rouge act' merits removal of administrative privileges unless very convincing extenuating circumstances are put forward. I am minded, following this act, to speedily remove administrator privileges and restore them should reasons to do so be found, or this vote favour retention. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 20:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Remove I'd favour speedy removal of admin rights, with the option to return them if a good explanation is offered either privately or publicly. I'm also concerned about the removal/deletion of his talk page, with no explanation. (I've deleted my own stuff but it tended to be re-directs, articles that were not going to be submitted, draft templates.) There has been other multiple deletion of pages of his with out explanation, which I feel warrant a speedy removal with possibility of restoring rights once the story is clearly understood in order to prevent future possible abuse of tools. --LauraHale (talk) 20:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Remove, It has been confirmed (not only once, but several times before) that he is not prepared to be an admin because his emotional inestability and foolishness. AndrésSnape (talk) 21:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Under your current account, you aren't a Wikinewsie; while we welcome input from outsiders (well, civil input, of course :-), persons from outside this project don't get a vote in these proceedings. --Pi zero (talk) 22:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I perfectly understand, I just wanted to explicitly state the reasons he did this and my opinion about this (although I'm sure that I am not the only one who thinks like me about this issue). Thanks for your feedback. AndrésSnape (talk) 22:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment It's not much of a leap to assume Snape is one of Diego's tormentors from ED, hence striking out all comments and votes. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 06:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• Remove I'm not happy to concur, but xyr failure to respond to a "Huh??" I put on his talk page indicates (in the least) an unwillingness to justify xyz rationale. --Bddpaux (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I am opposing this until I see more interaction and/or explanation from the nominee. --Gryllida 13:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

It seems the account was compromised. There's a good chance no such interaction/explanation will be forthcoming for a very long time. --Pi zero (talk) 13:20, 15 October 2012 (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.