Wikinews:Administrators: Difference between revisions

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Browse history interactively
← Older editNewer edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Cowicide (talk | contribs)
119 edits
Line 145: Line 145:
* '''Support''' User:TUFKAAP tells it as it is. [[User:Joann|Joann]] 03:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
* '''Support''' User:TUFKAAP tells it as it is. [[User:Joann|Joann]] 03:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
::Just so everyone is aware, this user has made eight edits to the Wiki. S/he was also the user who [http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews:Polls/Arbcom%E2%86%92official&diff=prev&oldid=230034 voted against] Arbcom one minute after creating an account. - [[User:Borofkin|Borofkin]] 03:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
::Just so everyone is aware, this user has made eight edits to the Wiki. S/he was also the user who [http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews:Polls/Arbcom%E2%86%92official&diff=prev&oldid=230034 voted against] Arbcom one minute after creating an account. - [[User:Borofkin|Borofkin]] 03:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' for obvious reasons. (I'm sure now I'll be a target by "others" here, but so be it) [[User:67.190.61.6|67.190.61.6]] 06:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' for obvious reasons. (I'm sure now I'll be a target by "others" here, but so be it) [[User:Cowicide|Cowicide]] 06:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


===[[w:User:Mindspillage|Mindspillage]]===
===[[w:User:Mindspillage|Mindspillage]]===

Revision as of 06:54, 11 April 2006

This page is a list of administrators, as well as a place to request the granting and removal of admin status.

Admins have no special editorial rights. They can edit pages in the MediaWiki: namespace (system messages), block users, delete pages, and protect pages. Blocking, deletion, and protection are all governed by site policy.

  • Requesting adminship: You are probably qualified for adminship, provided that the following conditions are true:
  1. You've done at least a month's work on Wikinews.
  2. You are trusted by the community.
  • Requesting de-adminship: Stewards are the only users who can remove administrator privileges. They will not de-admin unless there is community consensus for this to happen.


Current administrators are:

Inactive administrators are: (No edits in the past 30 days)

Admin action required

See Wikinews:Admin action alerts. Please put all alerts there.

Requests for adminship

After seven days, a bureaucrat or steward will turn those users into sysops who have consensus support from the community.

See /Archive for old requests.

DragonFire1024

I am renominating myself as I did run before. I have made considerable contributions to Wikinews in the areas of both Original Reporting and Photojournalism. I have also contributed to and or published nearly 100 articles here and here. I also send welcome messages to new users and users that do not have accounts, in hopes they will sign up :) I also try to print out a Wikinews print edition when there are hot story(s). I tend to write more along the lines of big breaking news, and sometimes the little ones count too. I hope to do many more local stories as well. Jason Safoutin 23:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Enthusiastic, active contributor. Has a large knowledge of policy, and has proven this in many cases. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 23:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Great user, no objections. ReporterFromAfar3136 23:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. As before, incredibly persistent contributer. Covers stories nobody else covers, lots of OR, works very hard. irid:t 23:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose; I did not vote when he was nominated before; his withdrawal remarks(re; his last nomination) less than 2 weeks ago; "I withdrawl my request for admin. due to the fact that some admind believe their voice is more important than the community's. Until some admins can learn to work with the community, then I will gladly accept any nomination. Jason Safoutin 02:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)"} say it all; arrogant,combative and childish. Neutralizer 01:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Uh, I think you need to be logged in there, buddy. Thank you. irid:t 02:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I do not feel I can trust this user. - Amgine | talk en.WN 01:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - reading the votes and also Jason's acceptance, it seems like we are using the adminstrator duties as a "reward" for good reporting, lots of reporting, etc. Everything Jason says are things any editior can do, not just an admin. I'm cautious to be handing out lots of adminships which may or may not be needed. Lyellin 02:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agreed that an adminship is not a reward. It does, however, indicate that he is willing to work on the site considering a lack of substatial reward. A user that contributes so much original work with research and photography and interviews is not simply here to play games; he's serious about Wikinews. irid:t 02:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't disagree at all. I am cautious giving users adminship though, in almost any case. Do we need more? Are we suffering from a backlash of vandalism/deletion requests/etc that the current admins can't handle it? This goes for all the people being voted on, not just Jason. I completely respect Jason's work - for instance today on the Scotland bird flu article. Lyellin 02:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ah, you have a point. We don't need a ton of admins right now. I figure, however, it doesn't hurt to empower members of the community that are willing to do the work. That way, more admins can focus on writing articles, rather than screwing around with administrative tasks. I don't think it hurts to have too many admins. I am willing to bet someone will disagree with me here. irid:t 02:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I am disturbed by this sequence of edits on the Arbcom workshop page: [1] [2]

[3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] In my opinion this is a classic example of an attempt to "steamroller" discussion by repeatedly and forcefully asserting opinion as fact. Such activity has caused me to lose trust in this user. - Borofkin 02:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Actually my beef is simple: Admins get voted in by the community, and they get voted out by the community. That is the right of the users on this Wiki. Jason Safoutin 02:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Your beef is certainly simple. My issue is that you feel the need to state it, over and over again. Everyone knows that you think Arbcom shouldn't have the power to de-admin. To state that opinion, over and over again, is steamrollering. The comment you have made here is another example. - Borofkin 03:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, by that same philosophy, Borofkin, that means we are not allowed to dissent? I'll say it, heck, I'll scream it: I... HATE... ARBCOM! I'm finding your statement above extremely troubling. If voicing your opinion over and over again is a crime, than I know a bunch of admins who need to be re-evaluated by your standards. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 01:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by "crime". It certainly isn't against policy, although I'd prefer to see some rational discussion rather than repeatedly stating the same thing. I only mention it here because it is the reason that I have opposed adminship. - Borofkin 01:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And, I've seen nothing but the same, generic, monotonous message from users who accept the Arbcom. Inquiries are not supposed to be forced - they are provided at the will of the user. Perhaps, if you ask nicely, it will be returned. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 01:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean by "inquiries are not supposed to be forced". I attempted to discuss the issue with Jason on his talk page. Take a look at my inquiries, and his reponses. You will see that even though I acknowledged his opinion on Arbcom, and was actually asking about something else, he felt it necessary to state and restate his position, in a repetitive way. Such behaviour demonstrates a difficulty engaging and collaborating with other users. - Borofkin 01:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's a little too bad on your views. I did not see one thing in the requirements that stated he must do those things. And, to get a vote, I wouldn't. You are criticizing him for letting his opinion be heard - although, you haven't an issue bringing yours up here. That is disrespectful. Perhaps you don't see it that way, but I see no issue with him restating his case. It's fair game for discussion. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 01:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are opinionated and vocal, (I like both those qualities), but you haven't been around long enough for the community measure the impact you would have, that makes you a wild card. -Edbrown05 03:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not around long enough: I support Iron to be an admin, but your statement contradicts itself. He has not been around as long as I. Jason Safoutin 10:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not enough trust. --vonbergm 04:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support : he seems to have good will. we need goodwill to build wikinews Jacques Divol 12:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm sorry. But someone who wants to be admin this much, should not be given it. DF, hang, wait, write and let someone nominate you when the time and the community trust in you is right. In my humble opinion, you seem to get too upset too easily. In my dealings with you, you have occassionally steam-rolled the conversations and admins must be patient and willing to hear the other side of the coin. I'm sorry, but when you were nominated before I offered the same advice to hang back and get some time in with the community. Please reconsider this again now. -Drew 23:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Not enough trust. StrangerInParadise 23:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I find it striking, and appalling, that some users say they cannot trust this user. That, to me, is a more personal issue rather than a leadership issue. This user has shown nothing but utmost devotion to the community, which is why he opposes Arbcom - his comments on the pages as of now show that he doesn't want anything or anyone telling the community what to do. That to me shows leadership. He was not afraid, even though many users have hassled him, for voting no on it (Yes, he was one of only two - the other was myself). He voiced his opinion and showed that he would not let anything or anyone become superior to the community on this website. He has a great wealth that I wish all users will someday obtain - the understanding and knowledge of this site's policies and guidelines, which ensure that this wiki keeps its eyes on the ball. If I could say that about every single administrator on this site as of now, I probably would go along with others and say we don't need another admin. But we do. He's active enough, he dedicates time almost daily to helping this wiki in various fashions - writing excellent articles, reverting spam, marking bad pages for speedy deletion or a DR request, etc. So, why not? He's qualified. He can be trusted. Look not at who nominated them. Look at the one being nominated. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 01:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • support I have umed and hared over this; taken in all users opinions, however I have to agree with MrM on this, so Support Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 12:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Dragonfire is not good as admin for now. His editing exept contribution to newsmaking reminds of Mrm. International 07:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anymore personal attacks you would like to add? Jason Safoutin 10:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This reminds me about Dragonfires some oversensetivity to critic. An administrator must have the ability to remain calm. If Dragonfire think this respons help him to get my support it is one more reason to oppose his nomination.International 21:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am calm. You are not. I am sick of your attacks. Read WN:NOT. You voted, now please stop with the attacks. Jason Safoutin 01:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dragon, you will never get to be an administrator if you can't learn to control yourself. Eventually you'll make it if you can just learn to control yourself a bit to earn more community trust. I think you have done better this time haven't you? Don't be discouraged. Neutralizer 03:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just so everyone is aware, this user has made eight edits to the Wiki. S/he was also the user who voted against Arbcom one minute after creating an account. - Borofkin 03:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mindspillage

Clearly trustworthy: en.wikipedia & meta.wikimedia admin, en.wikipedia arbitration committee twice, follows 1RR, knows stuff, gets stuff resolved, and generally a nice person. Admittedly, shes not always around soo much, as heavily committed elsewhere, but that doesn't seem problematic. Nyarlathotep 16:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind nomination. I am warning that as mentioned I won't be particularly active as an admin, but nonetheless I accept. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not trying to derail anything here, I better understand the system at this point, and I'm no longer concerned with this vote. irid:t 03:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for de-adminship

Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews:Administrators&oldid=237199"