Wikinews:Administrators: Difference between revisions

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Content deleted Content added
Cspurrier (talk | contribs)
→‎Brian McNeil: move Jimbo's sig to the rigt spot
Markie (talk | contribs)
→‎Requests for de-adminship: close jimmys, no new votes for 3 days, only 1 oppose vote
Line 89: Line 89:

{{RFA box|request for de-adminship which resulted in admin rights being removed}}

===[[User:Jimbo Wales]]===
===[[User:Jimbo Wales]]===
User has never used the admin or bureaucrat rights he has on the project and considering the healthy number of admins we have I suspect he never will so doesn't need these rights anymore. Jimbo only edits extremely rarely here. [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] - ([[User talk:Adambro|talk]]) 19:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
User has never used the admin or bureaucrat rights he has on the project and considering the healthy number of admins we have I suspect he never will so doesn't need these rights anymore. Jimbo only edits extremely rarely here. [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] - ([[User talk:Adambro|talk]]) 19:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Line 125: Line 125:
*{{support}} removal of admin and bureaucrat rights. [[User:TheCustomOfLife|TheCustomOfLife]] ([[User talk:TheCustomOfLife|talk]]) 08:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
*{{support}} removal of admin and bureaucrat rights. [[User:TheCustomOfLife|TheCustomOfLife]] ([[User talk:TheCustomOfLife|talk]]) 08:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
*{{support}} ''[[User:DragonFire1024|DragonFire1024]]'' ('''[[User talk:DragonFire1024|Talk to the Dragon]]''') 20:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
*{{support}} ''[[User:DragonFire1024|DragonFire1024]]'' ('''[[User talk:DragonFire1024|Talk to the Dragon]]''') 20:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
{{RFA box footer}}


Revision as of 21:49, 19 May 2008

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.

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 13 administrators on Wikinews who are listed below. Names of bureaucrats are listed in bold.

Inactive administrators: (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 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.

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.

User had 3 edits in 2007 as a whole.


If they are not being notified by email, then people should probably be voting no, like some did last time. Also, WN:IP does say that rfda'ed people should be notified by email. Well, the spirit of WN:IP is "Here is how to be polite about it." Nyarlathotep - (talk) 22:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it they've all been notified via their talk page and those with valid email addresses have been emailed but seriously what is the point? I keep questioning this but no one seems prepared to explain. For what purpose should we make efforts to contact them? "Run back to WN now and save you admin rights?" I don't think that is in the interests of the community and I don't think being polite really overrules this, clearly they're not active on Wikinews so I doubt they're going to be upset about their rights being removed and I would hope that any of our admins would be sensible enough not to expect Wikinews to be frozen in time when they leave. Adambro (talk) 08:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That may be, but if so it would only be because of Daniel. It seems to me that the nominators both argued against it, so my assessment of the process is correct, imo. At the rate this purge has grown, I am not sure that Daniel got them all. Further, I just don't understand the purge. Why are we doing this? Have we ever had an inactive admin come back and abuse their privileges? --SVTCobra 00:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I disagree with WN:IP. -- IlyaHaykinson (talk) 07:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Simply disagreeing with IP does not satisfactorily explain your opposition here IlyaHaykinson. IP proposes a certain way of handling inactive admins, the nomination of admins to have their rights removed is not automatically something to do with IP just because that proposed related policy exists. Please clarify your reasons for opposing these nominations. Adambro (talk) 08:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In fact yes it does : It means I don't thing people should be deadmined for inactivity. Which is a reasonable point of view. Nyarlathotep (talk) 00:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User had 4 edits in 2007 as a whole.


Last edited Dec 2007


User last edited in July 2007, almost a year ago.


User last edited in July 2007, almost a year ago. Also has only used the admin tools twice.


Last edited in April 2007, over a year ago.


Shes a her. Bawolff 22:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Had 4 edits in 2007 as a whole.


User has only used admin tools 5 times, and last edited in Oct 07.


Yet, you just moved yourself from the list of inactive admins, to active admins. Does that mean you are returning? --SVTCobra 00:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user has used their admin tools only 3 times, and also are inactive, with one edit in Jan 2007, and before that in Oct 06.


This one should be pretty simple also hopefully, as the user has NEVER used their tools, yes, 0 admin actions ever. They also last edited in October 07. --MarkTalk to me 17:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


This user has only used his admin tools 3 times, and last edited in Jan 07. --MarkTalk to me 17:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Well im gunna put this user up for de-admining due to lack of use of the tools/inactivity. This one should be pretty simple IMO, as the user has NEVER used there tools, yes, 0 admin actions ever.--MarkTalk to me 17:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

also, this users last edit was just over a year ago. --MarkTalk to me 17:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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.

With recent issues I want the community to vote on whether I should continue in my position. I appreciate resigning everything prompts a snap election for ArbCom, but Jimmy Wales has characterised my leaking of information as unacceptable.


So, you can add me to the list of people along with Adambro who is,

well, I am not "pushing for" you to resign from OTRS, but I think it would be the proper thing to do.


--Brian McNeil / talk 22:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I think it quite unfair of Brian to selectively quote remarks I made in private in such a fashion that some good editors have interpreted this as some kind of slam by me against Wikinews. In my email I compared Wikinews favorably with the New York Times and argued that we should treat the idea of leaking private communications from 3rd parties to Wikinews as being equal to leaking them to the New York Times. When people email us with concerns, they are owed a duty of respect and care that does NOT include our leaking things to the media, and particularly not in an ad hoc and random fashion. I think it imperative that people keep in mind that I have not criticized Wikinews, that I have not suggested and do not support deadminship for Brianmc on Wikinews, but rather that I am saying that OTRS volunteers have a special position with respect to privacy.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Brian remarked, I appreciate resigning everything prompts a snap election for ArbCom, but Jimmy Wales has characterised my leaking of information as unacceptable. I believe that secrets breed more secrets. I'm surprised Jimmy's keeping his "loose lips sink ships" ideology even after the scandals of the past year. As Marilyn McCoo would say, "Let the sunshine in!" TheCustomOfLife (talk) 22:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have a "loose lips sink ships" ideology at all. I, too, believe that secrets breed more secrets. At the same time, I think it is perfectly appropriate for people who email OTRS with an expectation that their complaint is made in private, deserve respect for that privacy, and that it is wrong to leak those emails to the press... including the New York Times and Wikinews.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In this case I feel Jimmy has parachuted into the discussion and will run away. I'd rather not get into a fight about that, we would not be here but for him setting the project up. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have neither parachuted in, nor am I running away. I think there is an important principle at stake here, and one that needs to be openly discussed.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll make what comments I feel are appropriate, and considering the context, it is appropriate in my view. TheCustomOfLife (talk) 06:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? There were anti-Mike-Godwin comments posted? Where? I should hope it is clear to everyone that I'm interested in legally defending the projects, including, by the way, Wikinews. MGodwin (talk) 22:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the first vote (below) as well as the first comment. --SVTCobra 00:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how the foundation is helping us...If anything, by deleting material, NOT published nor even close to publishing, that makes Wikinews lose credibility. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 22:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you mean that you don't see how the foundation is helping us beyond providing a free website without advertisements on which to post our news stories? One that has direct links from Wikipedia? One that lets you get accredidation? --SVTCobra 23:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thaty's not fair for one. They should look at us with respect and dignity. They should think of us first when they want to publish a story. They should be completely open to defense regarding misquotes or alleged false news stories. They should be more willing to give us the stuff we need to do our jobs instead of intentionally making it harder. When your parent organization starts to censor news stories, that don't show that organization in a good light, IMO that is something to be very concerned about. After all this is an organization against supposed "censorship". But here we are...having this conversation because WMF went against the principal foundation/rule for this and all other WMF projects. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 20:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These threads are beginning to get outside direct relevance to discussing whether or not Brianmc (talk · contribs) should be reconfirmed, IMHO. Cirt (talk) 20:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Hey! I object to Adambro being desysopped! He and I might disagree from time to time, but that's healthy, right? --Brian McNeil / talk 22:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's an obvious question from this... Who is going to nominate Adambro for admin? --Brian McNeil / talk 22:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that Cspurrier speedied the de-sysop, no more than 11 minutes after Adambro made this statement diff. While I would nominate, I won't unless Adambro shows an interest in returning. --SVTCobra 22:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Adambro (talk · contribs) made the same request on Meta, and Cspurrier (talk · contribs) was responding to that. And FYI, see above, Brianmc (talk · contribs) nominated Adambro for Admin consideration, though Adambro has yet to accept. Cirt (talk) 23:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I saw his request on the IRC StewardBot thing, after talking with him on IRC I carried out his request. I hope he remains a Wikinews editor and will reconsider adminship after things ave calmed. --Cspurrier (talk) 03:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regrettably, Adambro has declined the nom. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a quick chat with Mike (TheCustomOfLife), I want to stress that me re-nomming Adambro was not meant to be "playing both sides" or opposing Mike's posted de-admin. I supported the bringing of the de-admin request as a wake up call to Adambro. I wanted him to see that the community had serious concerns over how he comported himself and that here, at least, the news trumps policy on other WMF sites (including OTRS). I expected it to be closed "no consensus" and Adambro suitable chastised. Re-nomming him was a gut reaction because - while so anal that proctologists run screaming - he is a useful contributor and this was the first serious abuse of privs I think I've seen. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What? Not even David?
Seriously (am I ever serious?) Jimmy has jumped into this without looking and learning. There need to be rules for disclosure and this was a case that I believed merited it. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We should have that discussion, then. But what remains true is that you did this without asking anyone, and violated the proper expectation of privacy of a third party. If we should have a policy under which some kinds of communications to OTRS are eligible for leaking to the press, then we should have that policy. We should not simply do it in an ad hoc fashion.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ral315, thank you for your support. I had talked through this with one of the OTRS admins and a short suspension of access was being discussed until Jimmy got involved. Having had a brief Skype chat with Cary this morning (I think he stayed up late to catch me) I believe Jimmy will be getting admonished for jumping in without even having read the OTRS ticket and associated article. Even the EFF are involved in this case now (my fault, I emailed Eddan Katz). There's no movement on the steps to professionalizing per stuff on wikinews-l, and that is seriously frustrating me. We need Wikinews:Journalistic ethics and had I remained an anonymous source I would not be in this position. Yet, I believe in fairly radical transparency and owned up to the leak. Was that wrong? --Brian McNeil / talk 08:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Brian abused his position as an OTRS volunteer in releasing the ticket to Cirt. He should consider whether there is a conflict of interests between his position as a reporter for Wikinews, which is generally about making information available, and an OTRS volunteer for the Foundation where information has to be kept private. As I've noted previosuly there is no real justification in releasing the ticket to Cirt, he was never going to be praised for uncovering some great scandal because there wasn't one and the exact details being open don't reallly benefit the community. I think this is simply a poor judgement on Brian's part. My behavior in releation to the DR was however inappropriate. I objected to the article before it was even written on the basis that it was an internal legal matter which we shouldn't be reporting on because it could impact on the discussions between the Foundation and the Church. This is a view which I maintain. Had I nominated the article for deletion on this basis then things would have been more straightforward. The community would have disagreed and addressed the points I raised, the article would have been kept and we'd all live happily ever after, the community with the article being kept and me having had my concerns addressed. However, my mistake was to mention my concerns about to what degree information from OTRS was used in the article. My intial comment about this was certainly not meant to accuse any particular individual of violating OTRS rules but this is how it seems to have come across to Daniel and Brian. It was unfortunate at this stage that due to being busy in real life I wasn't able to quickly clarify my comments to attempt to calm things. Due to the serious nature of OTRS, I should have raised my concerns more sensitivily and by different channels. As it became obvious that the article as whole wasn't going to be deleted I then attempted to remove the material which I considered to have been obtained from OTRS by Brian, as per his comment on the talk page that he had released the ticket to Cirt. This was of course quickly reverted however it was my view that regardless of the view of the community, the rule that OTRS information should be held privately has to be respected and this was why I continued to revert. My comments however, had not convinced anyone else and based upon discussions on IRC it became clear that I'd end up being blocked if I didn't stop and so I left the article alone. I still maintain that information obtained against WMF rules should not be included in our articles. This information wasn't leaked by a third party to us, it was leaked by us and that is completely inappropriate. Whilst much of the community might feel differently, we as a WMF project have a responsibility to play by the rules they set. Just as I'm sure if UK citizens were asked whether they wanted to pay tax anymore the answer would be no, it just isn't going to happen. There is a limit to what can be based on community consensus, we can't do as we wish simply if most people agree. If people want to do so then they can create a new Wikinews, independent of the WMF but I'm sure they'd quickly realise that the problems we have are far outweighed by the benefits we have in being part of the wider WMF family. Brian is a valuable contributor to Wikinews and it is for this reason I feel he shuld retain his admin rights. However, I don't think we can claim that he is without his flaws. His treatement of me during this incident has being as if I'm some prey that he can toy with and laugh as it dies. I've also raised concerns about his blocking of a user for, if I recall, multiple instances of 1 minute which he justified with something along the lines of it making the user look bad by having a long block log. I would suggest rather that this simply reflects badly on him, Wikinews isn't a game, as an admin he should use the tools to do the job the communiy has given not toy with users. He makes mistakes, which I would like it if people recognised, but overalll I think he makes a positive impact on the project. Whether it is appropriate for him to retain OTRS access is a matter for the admins there but I don't think there is any movement towards removal. I understand he has been warned about his behaviour and risks loosing his rights if he disregards OTRS rules again in future. Adambro (talk) 11:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This lengthy comment does not address some of the issues raised, but thank you for the support.
First off, does it really matter who or what we're reporting on? Should we really - as you imply - self-censor?
Second, yes I may well be barred from OTRS for a period to "cool off" and reflect. Had I remained an anonymous source we would not be in this position, but the article would have been less credible in the eyes of the community.
You accuse me of treating this like a game. This shows you don't know me as well as you might think; I believe life is a game we are all destined to lose. As my reaction to Mike's feedback on nominating you for adminship should show, I already had a position staked out. I wanted your de-admin to fail but the community be allowed its opportunity to say your choices were wrong and you too often failed to listen to criticism.
The one minute blocks was Symode09, better known on IRC as brown_cat. Again you throw up my actions in my face and fail to see how they might be appropriate in the case in question. I believe - again - the community would support me in that action and you would be in a minority considering it abuse of powers.
Obviously there is no need for us to question whether JWales is supreme overlord of this project. It's like herding cats round here and, well, even Cary took a break from his holiday to point out he opposed my de-sysop and waited up to talk to me regarding this. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Brian said, Adam is "throw[ing] up my actions in my face and fail to see how they might be appropriate in the case in question." But, Brian, that is exactly what you did to Adam at Wikinews:Dispute resolution/Brianmc and Adambro in your listing of CU discussions. So I don't think you can take the higher ground on that. --SVTCobra 00:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support --+Deprifry+ 12:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I can't say I know the specifics of the OTRS situation. But I suport you fully continuing here at Wikinews as an admin and as a b'crat even though I still don't agree with some of your decisions.--Ryan524 (talk) 16:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support To me it seems like it's the Pentagon Papers in smaller form... Brian is Daniel Ellsburg and Jimmy and Mike are like Nixon and the plumbers. I have nothing again Mike or Jimmy, but like Brian said, he's kinda parachuting into this discussion and risking turning to it into some sort of WikiWatergate. --TUFKAAP (talk) 04:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Slight typo there, it is Daniel Ellsberg and I'm flattered. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]