Wikinews:Administrators

This is an official policy on English Wikinews. It has wide acceptance and is considered a standard for all users to follow. Changes to this page must reflect consensus. If in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.

Shortcut: WN:A WN:RFA

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. Statistics on these activities are here.

• Requesting adminship: You are probably qualified for adminship, provided that the following conditions are true:

1. You've done at least two month's work on Wikinews.
2. You are trusted by the community.

You can view some of the latest requests in the archive, where you can also see some common questions, comments and objections made during the process.

• 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 or at the request of the administrator in question.

We currently have 14 administrators on Wikinews who are listed below. Names of bureaucrats are listed in bold.

• Adambro
• Anonymous101
• Bawolff
• Brian
• Brian McNeil
• Chiacomo
• Chris Mann
• Cirt
• Craig Spurrier
• Blood Red Sandman
• Borofkin
• Daniel
• Deprifry
• Divol, Jacques
• Doldrums
• DragonFire1024
• FellowWikiNews
• IlyaHaykinson
• Jcart1534
• JoshuaZ
• Nathan Carter
• Markie
• Messedrocker
• Nyarlathotep
• Nzgabriel
• Planoneck
• Ral315
• Skenmy
• Steven Fruitsmaak
• SVTCobra
• Terinjokes
• Thunderhead
• TUFKAAP
• Zachary
• Zanimum

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

• Dark Squall
• Eloquence
• ironiridis
• Lankiveil
• Lyellin
• TheFearow
• Tomos

Users with administrative privileges not otherwise listed

• Brion Vibber (WMF CTO)
• CalendarBot (Software agent)

Admin action required

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

Requests for adminship

After seven days, a bureaucrat will turn those users into sysops who have consensus support from the community. Do not list people as administrators who have not been granted the appropriate permissions by a bureaucrat!

See /Archive for old requests. Don't forget to inform the Wikinews community of your RFA.

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

---

Chris Mann

Chris Mann (talk · contribs) has been a steady positive contributor to this project for almost a year now, since August 2007. I often see Chris pitching in and helping out, sometimes even answering questions and "acting as if" an admin already. I am nominating Chris Mann for consideration for adminship. Cirt (talk) 03:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Comment - Do you accept this nomination? Cirt (talk) 03:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Sure. I think I know the ropes well enough to handle it, and would appreciate being able to do admin tasks myself rather than having to report them and wait for someone to come along (and with the huge gap in time zones between me and the majority of admins, that can sometimes be a while). Chris Mann (Say hi!|Stalk me!) 00:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - If you successfully become an Admin, will you help out with admin tasks such as archiving articles older than seven days and Proposed deletions? Cirt (talk) 03:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• No point in having the tools if you aren't going to use them :) I'll even try to check WN:DR for requests that might need closure. Chris Mann (Say hi!|Stalk me!) 00:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Votes

• Support - Per my nom and answers to my questions. Cirt (talk) 00:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support A very good candidate, already doing as much administrative work as he can without the tools. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 00:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support I've admired his work and dedication for a while now, and I think he would be a good administrator. Mike Halterman (talk) 11:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support A user who has got to know the project well enough that he is "hitting the ceiling" that not being a sysop has. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 11:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support So me misidentifying you as an admin in the ArbCom election seems to be more like a premonition than a mistake. --SVTCobra 23:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support - I can't see a reason why not! --Skenmy^(t•c•w) 06:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support per nom Thunderhead 05:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support Jacques Divol (talk) 05:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Anonymous101^talk 16:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

---

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

Requests for de-adminship

Remember: For requests for de-adminship, "support" means "remove admin access," and "oppose" means "keep admin access."

Note that we currently have a Category:Admins open to recall.

Requests for reconfirmation

Any user in good standing may request a reconfirmation of an admin who has marked themselves open to recall here. Any administrator who would like a confirmation that he has the continued support of the community may also list themselves here. If you are requesting reconfirmation due to inactivity, click here.

Please use Support if you believe the listed administrator should retain their administrator privileges, or Oppose to vote for their removal.

Request for Checkuser

Brianmc

Brianmc (talk · contribs) has effectively been checkuser since his election to the local arbcom. Because we've had to remove the status in order to enforce established checkuser policy requiring arbcoms be supported by 25-30 users, I'm suggesting that his name be put forth as a checkuser again. Cary Bass (talk) 22:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Comment Before we start considering whether or not Brianmc (or anyone else) should have checkuser rights I think we should really first be discussing whether anyone having local checkuser rights is necessary. How often are these rights used and in what kind of circumstances? Adambro (talk) 23:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

  The rights, according to the log, have been used almost daily in the last month; in many cases as cross-wiki checks, sometimes finding vandals. I think that Wikinews is high profile enough to merit at the very least a pair of checkusers. Cary Bass (talk) 23:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

  I think how much they are used is not all the story. Are all these checks really necessary? In what kind of circumstances are checks being made? Adambro (talk) 23:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you have to question everything? Yes, they are needed. Look up JvT or Grawp as examples of very persistent vandals who work cross-wiki. Checkuser includes access to a private mailing list where this information is shared, allowing such pests to be caught with a proactive approach as opposed to a reactive approach. It is perhaps the case that you see no need for this because I've been diligently doing the job. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 07:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

That would be my feeling as well, both Brians are very competent and conscientious CUs. I'm not clear why Adambro is casting such aspersions. ++Lar: t/c 13:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

See here for an indication of some of the things needing dealt with. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 09:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Per the discussion yesterday with Cary in IRC these votes are pointless unless at least 25 support votes are garnered. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 08:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

  ...and these votes are just as pointless if they rely on having to canvass users who aren't active to support them. It is very disappointing that Cary seems to be happy for this to go on. If we're going to let anyone count towards the required numbers then we might as well just put a stop to this nonsense and grant checkuser to anyone who wants it now. I find it quite shocking however that people who aren't active here can have a say about who gets to access confidential information about those who are. Adambro (talk) 12:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I should not be disappointed that you seem to see the support from people not active on this project as "pointless". Yet I am. You have utterly ignored the example of what limited public information is available that I have given above and chosen to fasten onto this comment and then decided to promogulate a view which I firmly believe is detrimental to the project. CheckUser is not a game, it is not a barnstar or brownie point in your favour, it is a job - and, based on experience - I would describe it as a thankless task which remains invisible to the community at large. Where - as I have strived to do - this job is diligently and competently carried out, you will see nothing; cross-wiki vandals who have started elsewhere are blocked before they get to Wikinews, open proxies are identified before they become a problem - and the accounts created through them blocked.

Wikinews is a very small community, mustering the required votes on a purely local basis is an unrealistic goal. It would only serve to further your agenda of denying me this privilege and be seriously detrimental to the project as people would be forced to constantly run to stewards for something that could - and should - be handled locally.

Your personal vendetta against me has become tiresome. It should be painfully obvious to all involved in the project that such is the nature of your comments herein. You disrupted the ArbCom elections by attempting to vote oppose and, despite several requests to do so, refused to reformulate your input as a question or other constructive input that could be responded to. I will make no bones about the fact that I am strong-willed and notably opinionated, and I will make no effort to change that. Get used to the facts, if I believe a troll deserves a taste of their own medicine I will give them it, if a childish teenager merits a series of short blocks until they notice and raise it in IRC - I'll do it, and if some plonker who has swallowed a dictionary marches in and tries to tell us how to do things I'll reserve the right to swear at them. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 13:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Of the users that have so far voted in support, I am unable to consider the following to be active members of the Wikinews community and as such their votes should be discounted from the required number. Presumably this situation is similar with the other nominations. My next question would be where has the canvassing to get these users involved gone on? Adambro (talk) 13:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Lar - last edit in August 07, total edits 13
2. DerHexer - last edit in January 08, total edits 6
3. GreenReaper - last edit in November 07, total edits 189
4. Alison - last edit July 08, total edits 4
5. Herbythyme - last edit December 2007, total edits 7

• Comment Edit counts do not tell the whole story. I think I have plenty of standing to comment on this since I have first hand experience working with the candidates. I'm a steward, and active on many wikis. I'm also a CU on several wikis, and have had many chances to interact with both Brians in the course of performing their and my duties. I administer the CU list, processing adds and removals to the subscriber base. I became aware that Wikinews had lost its CUs when I saw Brian removed. That lack of CUsh is quite concerning, as my judgment is that WN really needs competent and active CUs. I can't speak for the other people you single out, except to say that for the most part they too are CUs or stewards who have a good basis for evaluating your candidates since they have worked closely with them via the CU list as well. The community can choose to disregard that input if it likes. But we stewards and fellow CUs are here because we're concerned, we don't think WN should be without CUs and we are trying to help resolve that. I rather think that Newsies should be GLAD we turned up to try to help. Because if these CU requests fail, we'll be here anyway, those of us that are stewards, doing the work that a local CU could have been doing had the community not rallied around, and surely not doing it as well, since we are not quite as in tune with the community as local CUs would be. ++Lar: t/c 13:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Votes

1. Support as nom. Cary Bass (talk) 22:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
2. Support as well. Brianmc is the shining example of dedication and work in this community and I feel the status quo should not be changed. Mike Halterman (talk) 22:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
3. Support Absolutely. ++Lar: t/c 23:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
4. Support 100%, irrevocably, and totally. Would make an excellent CU, as demonstrated by his complete dedication to the Wikinews projects and consistent presence in #wikinews and #wikinews-en. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 23:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
5. support Regards, DerHexer (talk) 23:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
6. Support. I don't feel rights previously granted should be taken away without cause, and Wikinews has a high enough profile that it will be beneficial for local users to have them. GreenReaper (talk) 23:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
7. Very strong support. Met him at Wikimania, and I know for sure he's a sane guy (even though he wears a kilt ^_^) One of our most active editors, cares very much about the project so will make a good checkuser. Majorly (talk) 23:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
8. Support - a very good editor that has been around for a long time :)...--Cometstyles 23:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
9. Support - definitely - Alison (talk) 01:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
10. Support.--Jcart1534 (talk) 01:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
11. Support - per nom. Cirt (talk) 01:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
12. Support Cary thinks he's a good person for the job, how can you say no to that? Oh yea, and seems to be a decent person --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 02:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
13. Support DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 05:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
14. Support --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
15. Support Daniel (talk) 11:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
16. Support --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 12:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
17. Support I have full trust in Brian. He is one of our longest standing members and fully deserves to be trusted in this way. --Skenmy^(t•c•w) 13:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Brian (Brian New Zealand)

The standard checkuser policy requires at least two users to have checkuser to provide oversight for one another. I would like to suggest that Brian (talk · contribs) be granted this status. He is an accredited Wikinews reporter and bureaucrat, and an OTRS member, trusted Commons user, and Wikipedia administrator as well. It has been a pleasure working with him in the past, and I feel he is well-suited to this additonal responsibility. GreenReaper (talk) 23:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I accept this nom, as we do need two cu per policy, and well, personally I feel I have been non controversial as a CU. I have always been able to process CU promptly – even during my less editing this year, and would like to able to continue to serve wikinews in this manner. I also will not vote in this election, due to my name been nominated Brian | (Talk) | ^{New Zealand Portal} 23:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Votes

1. Support as nominator. GreenReaper (talk) 23:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
2. Support Established checkuser, should be able to use the tools effectively. Cary Bass (talk) 23:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
3. Support - kiwi kiwi kiwi - oi oi oi A very established experienced CU, what more do you need? :) :DD..--Cometstyles 23:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
4. Support - Let's have an all Brian CU team! (unless Craig can be convinced to stand again) ++Lar: t/c 23:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
5. Support - of course :) - Alison (talk) 01:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
6. 100% Support - An excellent user, good contact and fantastic WN contributor, also consistent presence on IRC. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 01:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
7. Support. --Jcart1534 (talk) 01:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
8. Support - Per nom. Cirt (talk) 01:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
9. Support I find this Brian's work to be outstanding as well and I trust him completely with such tools. Mike Halterman (talk) 02:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
10. Support "Commons Trusted User" ROFL. That is not much in the way of a credential ^_^ --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 02:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
11. Support DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 05:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
12. Support --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
13. Support per the usual. terinjokes | Talk 07:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
14. Support --Brian McNeil / ^talk 07:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
15. Support Anonymous101^talk 07:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
16. support DerHexer (talk) 07:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
17. Support Daniel (talk) 11:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
18. Support --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 12:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
19. Support I have full trust in this Brian aswell. He is another of our longest standing members and fully deserves to be trusted in this way. --Skenmy^(t•c•w) 13:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Skenmy (Paul Williams)

I would like to nominate Skenmy as an additional checkuser. He is one of the newly elected ArbCom members, I believe already identified to the Foundation, and as I said when voting to support his ArbCom membership, mature beyond his years. I have every reason to believe that he has the best interests of the project at heart, as well as the technical knowledge to interpret CU results and take appropriate action. I trust him to keep up to date with the checkuser mailing list and block open proxies as they are discovered, as well as share findings from locally prompted checkusers with the list as an aid to keeping cross-wiki vandalism under control. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 09:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Skenmy, do you accept this nomination? --Brian McNeil / ^talk 09:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I accept this nomination --Skenmy^(t•c•w) 10:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Votes

1. Support as nom, and assuming user accepts. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 09:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
3. Support per nom Anonymous101^talk 10:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. Cirt (talk) 12:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
5. Support --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 12:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)