Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Archive 8

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search
By date
2004  |  2005
2006  |  2007
2008  |  2009
2010  |  2011
2012-20
2021
By type


January 2011[edit]

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)[reply]

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within a day, again in contravention of our deletion policy (that states three days, although the sources were well out of date).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)[reply]

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)[reply]

General comments[edit]

Requests for removal for this user:

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • [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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  4. Oppose Agree with Amgine and Pi Zero. Bawolff ☺☻ 17:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Questions[edit]

Support[edit]

Oppose[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.


February 2011[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.

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)[reply]

Blood Red Sandman[edit]

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)[reply]

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 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Support[edit]
  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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  2. Obviously. Diego Grez return fire 16:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. No concerns with the nominee. --Pi zero (talk) 17:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  5. Support - I think BRS can be trusted with something like this. Δενδοδγε t\c 09:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - Agree with Dendodge (talk · contribs). ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 17:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  8. Support Trusted, should do well. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 12:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  12. Support Per other users. I have no concerns and trust this user. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 16:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 01:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  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) [reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    You're right, Brian. I'm moving to a support, will take this lot with me. BarkingFish (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Fine by me. Bencherlite (talk) 16:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Tyrol5 (talk) 19:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
Neutral[edit]
  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)[reply]
    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.[reply]
    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)[reply]
    "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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Votes[edit]

  • Support I fully trust this user. Bawolff ☺☻ 21:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]


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.


March 2011[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.

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)[reply]

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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amgine (talk • contribs) 04:41, 27 March 2011

Stats[edit]


Questions and comments[edit]

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

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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
I'm pretty sure you made clear that you didn't consider it optional on my RfA. — μ 19:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────┘
 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Votes[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.

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? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TUFKAAP (talk • contribs) 18:21, 27 March 2011‎

Stats[edit]


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)[reply]

Votes[edit]

  • Retain rights. — μ 18:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain, you didn't do anything wrong. --[[::User:Nascar1996|Nascar1996]] ([[::User talk:Nascar1996|talk]] • [[::Special:Contributions/Nascar1996|contribs]]) 18:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Retain the rights. You didn't do anything wrong IMO. Diego Grez return fire 18:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Doesn't have the feel of a mob to me. Note Nascar's vote. --Pi zero (talk) 20:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
That was what I understood you to mean. --Pi zero (talk) 20:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Retain all rights ...and let's end drama and focus on content, please. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 13:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Retain all rights. No worries, trusted user. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain Tyrol5 (talk) 21:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to close reconfirmation I feel I have the support of the community. --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 13:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • Excellent response, thank you. This bolsters my confidence in your ability to be a good admin. Tempodivalse [talk] 20:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]

Votes[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.


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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Question Hi, I made a comment about a problem I noted with an article you passed here and you deleted your page [2] rather than responding. I am wondering if this would be usual behavior for an admin. Thanks, Mattisse (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • "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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Votes[edit]

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

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)[reply]
Oppose I'm outside my comfort zone on this (per my comment above). --Pi zero (talk) 13:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The wub (talk • contribs) 09:55, 25 April 2011‎

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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Votes[edit]

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)[reply]
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 .
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Support yes. thank you μchip08 for attention :) --Sahim (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Gryllida 21:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
  • Support I don't see any issues with the above. —fetch·comms 19:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

TUFKAAP (talk · contribs) — Oversight and CheckUser[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Stats[edit]

Questions and comments[edit]

  • Could we have these in separate requests? — μchip08 19:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Votes[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Support for OS. Good call on the choice of which one to do, TUFKAAP. BarkingFish (talk) 11:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Like a Rolling Stone! アンパロ Io ti odio! 01:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Weak support of oversight — μchip08 13:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    See Q&C above. --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 00:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support--Sahim (talk) 06:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support fully with Oversight access. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support, no worries, -- Cirt (talk) 05:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Trustworthy. --Pi zero (talk) 06:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Why not? —fetch·comms 05:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Well-suited. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Tyrol5 (talk) 19:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support, don't see any reason not to. the wub "?!" 22:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Jcart1534 (talk) 21:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support I trust him. Mattisse (talk) 18:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support – I don't see why not. —MC10 (T•C•L) 04:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - I thought I already had... DENDODGE 14:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Computerjoe's talk 10:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Why not. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 17:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support I have no objections, so why not? —Mikemoral♪♫ 00:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
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.
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)[reply]
That, combined with the fact that I hadn't noticed. — μchip08 22:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose. Gryllida 01:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
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.


May 2011[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.

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)[reply]

BarkingFish (talk · contribs) — remove SysAdmin[edit]

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):

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)[reply]

Response by involved party: BarkingFish[edit]

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)[reply]

Stats[edit]

  • Previous requests: RfA


Questions and comments[edit]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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.

<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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Votes[edit]

  • Oppose per my above comment. --Pi zero (talk) 18:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per my above comment. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Oppose, sound rationale and logic by BarkingFish. -- Cirt (talk) 19:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.


June 2011[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.

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)[reply]

Diego Grez (talk · contribs) — bureaucratship[edit]

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)[reply]

Stats[edit]


Questions and comments[edit]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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

Votes[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.

User is made a admin Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 11:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrol5 (talk · contribs) — adminship[edit]

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)[reply]

Stats[edit]


Questions and comments[edit]

Votes[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.


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

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)[reply]

Stats[edit]


Questions and comments[edit]

  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]

Votes[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.


August 2011[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 as succesful. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 15:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William S. Saturn (talk · contribs) — adminship[edit]

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)[reply]

Stats[edit]


Questions and comments[edit]

Votes[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.


December 2011[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.

Unanimous support. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 14:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Morris (talk · contribs) — adminship[edit]

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)[reply]

Stats[edit]


Questions and comments[edit]

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

Votes[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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews:Requests_for_permissions/Archive_8&oldid=4559497"