Withdrawn. I've been away for a while, and in that time, many of my Wikinews colleagues have left. Many new editors do no know me, so I will just have to prove myself. My original application stemmed from the fact that I often couldn't contact administrators when I needed them. --Munchkinguy17:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I, User:Munchkinguy would like to nominate myself for adminship. I believe I have always tried to be friendly and help with this project to the best of my ability. As an admin, I will strive to help keep the front page accurate, up-to-date, and free of fraudulent articles. --Munchkinguy06:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Questions
You don't need to be an admin to edit the frontpage (well most of it anyway). Do you have any thing else specific you wish to do. Bawolff☺☻08:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. There are many new contibuters coming to Wikinews, but some are putting in articles that are biased, false, or copyvios. I will (on one hand) welcome these people and help them understand the rules, and (on the other hand) make sure the aforementioned poor articles are dealt with swiftly. --Munchkinguy17:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My biggest Wikinews achievement was shaping the future for Audio Wikinews. I participated in many conversations on the subject, and was a faithful early contributer. I plan to resume doing this in the future. I also have worked hard to build consensus among contributers. Whenever I make a new article, I run the headline by the IRC channel for input. When "big" news stories are happening (like Sadam Hussein's execution), I try to ensure that other important (but less sensational) stories still get the coverage they deserve. --Munchkinguy17:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose with possible change of mind. Not that I think this is a bad editor at all. This seems to be a long time member who wishes to return and become more active, and I can only applaud that. But for me, he hasn't been active enough lately. Seems to have few edits in the article namespace. I suggest you prove what you're worth and convince me that we can trust you with admin tools, by indeed doing all you can already do now to "keep the front page accurate, up-to-date, and free of fraudulent articles", joining the Wikinews:Welcommittee, and helping out on Wikinews:Audio_Wikinews. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support, Mostly weak as you have not been active recently, but still support as you are: active in IRC, (were) Active in sub-projects which I personally think is just as important as being active in writing articles, and I remember from a while back when you were more active that you were a good contributor. Also I personally believe that giving adminship should be fairly lax. However I would still like to see more recent contribs. Bawolff☺☻22:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: User has not earned my trust yet. User is too new, although he seems to have been contributing well and keep up the good work. This vote does not setermine future nominations etc... DragonFire102400:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've been here since February 2005. My situation is as Steven Fruitsmaak has described. I've been away for a while. --Munchkinguy02:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain Munchkinguy is a long standing user here on Wikinews, he even pre-dates me by 4 months. For such a long time, I'd expected you to have more then 500 edits. Munchkinguy, I guess I'll just like to see you more active. I thank you for your support with Audio Wikinews, and of course invite you back. terinjokes | Talk | Come visit the WikiBistro04:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose This user is too new. You should not want to be an admin just to edit the main page, etc. We already have enough admins who can, and will, edit the main page, etc. This user needs more experience on Wikinews. This is just WAY too soon. —FellowWikiNews(W)16:56, 7 January 2007 (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.
Comment I thought only other admins could vote here. At least two voters are not admins (according to the latest list [1]) --SVTCobra02:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can vote (though technically if you have less the 100 edits or have been registered less then month, your vote does not count for much)--Cspurrier02:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, OK, well I guess that the 'common people' could vote in someone. It is not like a country club. Which is good. I will still refrain from voting.--SVTCobra03:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But if they want us to think what they want us to think which is what we are supposed to think, then doesn't that mean there is a cabal? --Thunderhead - (talk) 05:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
I'd like to nominate Mark for Adminship. He has been a great editor for the last three months, and I think he could be trusted with the tools -if he wishes to. You can consult his edit profile here: Interiot. Ever since his first edit, he has demonstrated random acts of kindness. Like his user page says, he doesn't write that much articles (examples are Snow causes disruption in UK and (started) Colts win Super Bowl XLI), but he corrects, moves and uploads with good edit summary usage and a minimal amount of swearing. He also seems to be a double redirect fixing freak with email enabled. So, what more could we ask for? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominee, do you accept?
Yes sorry i have and will be away for another 2 days (sorry need a rest sometimes) but will be back and raring to go soon. Thanks for this and all the nice comments and sorry for the late reply. Thanks and YES.--MarkTalk10:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - if user accepts. Markie just keeps popping up in RC doing wikignome tasks; I think its time he had tools to take on vandals and do other work that may need the magic buttons. --Brian McNeil / talk13:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to run away from his adminship...Maybe he's holding out for a motorcycle. Well the mansion is cool and all, but the car is a bit outdated. No one wants to drive arround in a car, when they can be cruising along in a motorcycle. Bawolff☺☻23:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Our cadre of sports contributors is starting to run up against limits like our archiving policy. Dark Squall was the first to sign up on the Sports contributors page and has nearly 1,000 edits. I think he'd be a good addition to the Cabal admin team. --Brian McNeil / talk10:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definately, from what i understand this is in case other editors in good standing believe i am not doing a good job as an administrator, and it would only be fair to be open to this. —Dark_Squall13:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I haven't been here very long, but Dark Squall left me feedback on my first few articles, helped me improve them, and got me involved in the community. He's got my support. :) —Zacharytalk11:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Seems like a good user. We are not in chronic shortage of admins but I think he could use the tools well. --Skenmy(t•c•w•i)21:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I see that Dark Squall is all around a good user, but I need to oppose for now. I'd like to see this user edit more main space and show more edits on community discussion pages. Like other users have said, we are not really lacking admins. I would probably support in the future though. —FellowWikiNewsie22:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why Oppose? Wikinews has never set a high bar for admission to the admin club. Sure, we jest about there being a Cabal, but being open to new administrators dispels that myth. Those of us already "in the club" have an interest in more mainstream news which keeps you editing in main namespace. Sports is different, there's lots of tables and statistics involved. Keeping the sports portal relevant involves what you might see as wikignome work, but so is putting up infoboxes for every country on the planet. I'd rather see the user challenged to answer some questions if you're concerned about his political views or the length of his edit history. --Brian McNeil / talk23:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I hope the system of statistical organization brought by sports people (thinking Zachary) can be applied here to other news categories. -Edbrown0510:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we have anything automated creating the various day articles, I'll try and figure out a list of menial tasks on the water cooler, which once set up should perhaps be moved to the toolserver. --Brian McNeil / talk11:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'll tell you what, I've only been here a few months, but Dark Squall's coverage of the Cricket World Cup is pretty good, for how many games there are. Squall's always doing good in the Sports section. I'll support Squall's nomination for administrator. --wjmoore15:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really appreciate the support, but i do not do cricket, in fact, i've only been reading the cricket articles in order to learn how the game works. I'm the football (soccer) guy, i hope this does not alter your feelings, but if it does, so be it. I believe it is Shyam who works diligently on the cricket, and he does an amazing job.—Dark_Squall02:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, my bad. I got that mixed up. Soccer/football is what I meant. I get them mixed up because there are always a ton of new articles from each in the sports portal. Still, my vote remains the same. --wjmoore03:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
I would like to nominate Zachary. I think his edits over the past month have demonstrated a dedication to the project and a good understanding of the goals. He is a valuable member of the community and I feel he would be a valuable addition to our administration team Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal11:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, user is already running up against limits that adminship would get round. Has, albeit being here for less than a month, already racked up a good count of edits - all good-faith contributions. I'm happy to say this user has gained my trust, and support for adminship. --Brian McNeil / talk11:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're young and impatient. :) I can't comment on the age of our current candidates, but I'd hope you agree with me in saying that these people have earned the community's trust. We should always be open to new contributors and welcome them into the admin team. --Brian McNeil / talk22:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, I would be very surprised, how old are you ;)
And I believe, personally, just because you had 3 RfA's, is not a good reason to oppose, I believe the community would be interested in this case, why you use your right to oppose.
Oppose - I have nothing bad to say about Zachary, but a rubber stamp for someone who has only contributed on a regular basis since April 2 (just over a week) is not cool. There are less than 500 edits and not one of these edits have been a new article. Sorry, Zach, --SVTCobra23:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes that true, but if you look at admin history, we should not be giving out admimship as every (or nearly every) admin's article count has gone down, and in many cases died after receiving adminship. Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal08:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but still only less than 10 days here. My comment on no articles may have been in error. I looked at Zachary contribs and saw no edits with the bold "N" indicating new page. But now I think that only works on the recent changes page. Is that true? --SVTCobra12:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are some irregularities in the editing of this section, and I do not see them as being in good faith. Would those who have edited the votes of others care to explain themselves? --00:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brianmc (talk • contribs) 00:24, 11 April 2007
I think it has been squared away. I have been in contact with both Thunderhead and Dark Squall. Thunder accidentally changed Dark Squall's vote when meant to change own. --SVTCobra00:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologize, SVT, but I have to ask what you mean by "not one of these edits have been a new article"? I have actually written a few articles, though not necessarily international news stories, they are articles. —Zacharytalk09:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I never noticed before, but now that you mention it, it appears that this is the case. It seems as though the only way to see pages created by a particular user is to go to Special:Newpages and enter the username. —Zacharytalk14:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeHis first edit was less then a month ago. If he keeps up with what he has been doing I have no doubt he will receive adminship soon, but he is a bit too new right now. --Cspurrier15:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral A good user I can see doing brilliant things. But the user is very new - take some time before ladening yourself with admin tasks. --Skenmy(t•c•w•i)20:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've not tallied the votes on this, but I would like some of those who've voted oppose to reconsider their position before the vote closes. Failing that, will one of those who opposes take it upon themselves to re-nominate in a month or so? I trust Zachary to continue his good contributions and win over the doubters. --Brian McNeil / talk07:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still say "too new." What is the rush/need for Zach to be an admin? If you can demonstrate a reason, then maybe I'll reconsider. I contribute a fair amount and for longer than Zach, but I don't think admin would make my existence here much greater. Sure I could delete some spam instead of just tagging it speedy. Is Zach desperate to do some arduous archiving? --SVTCobra23:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, I still think two months is a little short, if he doesn't have a specific reason why he wants to be an admin. If there is a specific thing he wants admin buttons for then it'd be a different story. Bawolff☺☻00:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Zachary has already set up two bots - one of which would require admin permission to go through archived pages, and also protect pages such as Category:April 1, 2007. I am not comfortable granting a bot admin status unless the owner already has that status. --Brian McNeil / talk07:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Craig and Cobra. He is to new, I mean there were 4 edits in March and he's been on a non-stop editing rampage since April 2nd, but he's still too new. I waited a few months before I applied for adminship here. Re-apply in a month or two I say. --TUFKAAP00:07, 18 April 2007 (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 talk page of the Admin's page or the talk page of the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for reconfirmation. Please do not modify it.
So, I've recently become active again and I feel I haven't been living up to my administrative duties plus we have alot more new users since I dropped off the radar to cool my heels and I want to see what they think of me. ;) --TUFKAAP00:10, 18 April 2007 (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 talk page of the Admin's page or the talk page of the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for reconfirmation. Please do not modify it.
I was here then I wasn't...Now i am and I just want to see if I am still trusted as an Admin. Sometimes, I feel as though I am not. So I am doing this to confirm or deny my suspicians. DragonFire102409:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This may seem radical and against popular opinion however I have seen Jason behave in a manner that I consider unbefitting of an admin (a member of the community who has been voted into a position of power and trust by the community members) over various topics, at one point declaring on IRC that "If [Wikinews] wants a rebellion, then you got one", or words to such an effect. This is completely unacceptable, in my opinion. I have witheld filing an RfDA purely because I do not have the time to source and cite the behaviour I have seen. Jason appears to not understand policies before becoming enraged over them (re: Image Licensing), and does not appear, to me, to have the best interests of the community as a whole at heart, rather wishing to push Wikinews in the direction he feels it needs to go. (reading: Wikinews talk:Image use policy/New Wikimedia resolution for image licensing) This is not the job of a sysop, and I do not feel that Jason understands what is expected of him as an administrator of the community - calm, rational behaviour that is in the interests of the community, not the individual.
Comment: I voice what I see will do great harm and damage to Wikinews. I never threatened revenge myself, I simply stated that other users might seek to do that. Also IRC statemnts are not supposed to be used as bait or whatnot in Wikis. There is a rule somewhere. I think fighting for something that will damage Wikinews greatly, is most definitely in "the best interest of Wikinews." Anyone who fights in a cause that could damage a project is IMO "acting in the best interest for wikinews", or whatever project they are on. DragonFire102405:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such rule. IRC may not be publically logged, however small, relevant quotes may be used in events such as this. --Skenmy(t•c•w•i)06:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
whats the idea behind banning logging anyways? I've never really understood why. All that is ever really written about it is that it is punishable by crushing by an elephant. Bawolff☺☻06:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have always understood it to be so that third parties (i.e. Daniel Brandt) cannot use the logs to their "advantage" - even though he has started taking his own logs of it. I'm not 100% sure myself. --Skenmy(t•c•w•i)06:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Main guy in wikipedia watch. He used to try to track down where varouis wikipedia admins live, and post that on the internet. His wikipedia article has more info. Bawolff☺☻06:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, I think he got mad at the wikipedia admins because they wouldn't let him edit his article or something. Perhaps he is just crazy. (I've read his site, I think that is a fair suggestion. for ref[1]) Bawolff☺☻06:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Lots of admin tasks get performed by this user, and done well. Admins do and plz do sometimes express opinions, and maybe those expressed don't work out for them. Oh well, + he's a prodigious reporter. -Edbrown0504:51, 27 April 2007 (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 talk page of the Admin's page or the talk page of the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successfulrequest for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Good sides: patient, like to see balanced reporting, good editor. --> Bad sides: not so technical for things like javascript and IRC (but quick to learn)
Support (beat the nom.; normally I wait but user has accepted on talk page). Nominee's article list is impressive, and edits suggest that he knows what he's doing.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:06, 29 April 2007 (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 talk page of the Admin's page or the talk page of the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
This user now has near 1,500 edits and has been diligently dealing with vandalism, redirects, and the like since he joined nearly 2 months ago. I likely instigated his earlier candidacy through discussion with BNZ, and I think that with things like the bots he's set up he will make very effective use of the extra buttons and access available to admins. Just this morning I was busy making Karl Rove look bad by categorising all his articles, and Zachary was busy fighting off our "Journalist on Wheels". --Brian McNeil / talk09:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I accept. First I'd like to thank my mom and dad, without them I wouldn't be here. I also like to thank the Academy and I'd like to thank Santa Claus, and Jesus, and ---music plays--- wait I'm not done yet! ;) —Zacharytalk09:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct. A-Rod. Bonus Question: What other American athlete is also sometimes referred to as A-Rod? (sorry, I may be taking this joke too far) --SVTCobra02:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I must admit that I learned this answer when looking up A-Rod on WP after answering your first Q, so I know that it's Andy Roddick. :P I'll yield to a different question though. —Zacharytalk02:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Zach's nom seems to be going well, so I'll add a point that's been in the back of my mind. His bot writing skills are a valuable attribute for the wiki. I suspect some of his bots could do a lot more for us if they could edit protected pages. I expect one of the things this user will do once he has the buttons is request the same for things like Calendarbot. This should be temporary adminship for one-off jobs and a time limit should be specified. On the other hand, a bot to protect pages like day/month categories would need indefinite access to the buttons. --Brian McNeil / talk11:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Zach has certainly kept his nose to the grindstone in the past month since his first nomination. He also spends most of his time with Admin type of activities, so I think the additional powers will make him even more effective. --SVTCobra15:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successfulrequest for adminship. Please do not modify it.
has been active in Wikinews since August last year. he's written a diverse set of good quality articles (see user page). i find him helpful and well-informed about editorial matters in discussions. i'd trust him to use buttons fairly and well. –Doldrums(talk) 16:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I accept the nomination. It is an honor just to be nominated. As you can see by my activity here, I rededicated myself to the project in early March of this year. Most of you who have been active in the last few months, have probably run into me in one way or another. I hope it wasn't too unpleasant .
I see myself remaining active in providing content, editing other articles, while taking on administrative duties. I will not shirk things like archiving, but I would like to still have time to write. Thank you for your consideration. --SVTCobra17:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I'd say stick to content and use the admin buttons when you need to. There are loads of admin jobs that improve the site but don't contribute content. We are more in need of contributors who write news articles than people like me who sit in the cheap seats and periodically do a spate of edits. --Brian McNeil / talk17:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sri Lanka of course, I wrote several a few articles about them. They are the only rebel group in the world known to have both a navy and an airforce. Any other questions.--SVTCobra19:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, who is visiting the United States currently. But I may be mistaken. She is definitely the longest reigning monarch in Europe. --SVTCobra13:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - User tends to be too judgemental and agressive in jumping to conclusions without fully investigating less confrontational options. Not really an example of the wiki spirit; therefore not admin material. -- Davodd | Talk03:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I trust this user to ask the opinion of the existing admin community as he learns the ropes in the role. Getting admin can change the way you look at the wiki, you become one of its caretakers. --Brian McNeil / talk22:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for reconfirmation. Please do not modify it.
As an elaboration [to my vote below], I see you primarily as a facilitator within Wikinews, doing the Jobs we Hate (tm). It's jobs like these that need doing, as much as writing the news. --Skenmy(t•c•w•i)18:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I didn't get admin on my first nomination and the community has - almost totally - changed since then. I started out with the "this is neat - and easier to find somewhere to 'play' than Wikipedia" approach and settled on researching Thailand and covering articles for there. I think I did a good job of covering the troubles in the south of the country until I discovered that there were huge administrative backlogs on some of those - as you say - Jobs We Hate (TM). Starting on the archiving process probably changed my focus on the wiki to how it can act as a historical archive - hence things like people categories. --Brian McNeil / talk18:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, most certainly. Wikinews needs predominantly-janitors as well as predominantly-article-writers, especially those we can trust and who have a proven record like you. Daniel06:21, 31 May 2007 (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 talk page of the Admin's page or the talk page of the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successfulrequest for adminship. Please do not modify it.
An admin flag would greatly improve the functionality of this bot, by allowing it to protect calendar-related pages and categories, as well as giving it the ability to edit those that are already protected. —Zacharytalk22:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, however I'd like it to have a programmed shut-off function for administrators to enact (as far as I'm aware, administrator accounts can still use their buttons when blocked), just to be sure. If I'm wrong about being able to un/block, un/protect etc. whilst being blocked, ignore this and consider it a straight support :)Daniel06:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thats an interesting question, I know that admins can block/unblock people well blocked (wheel wars haven proven that quite well), but I'm not sure about deletions. Bawolff☺☻05:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, you can't alter protection or delete things well blocked, so as long as the bot doesn't become intelligent enough to unblock itself we should be fine. Bawolff☺☻05:26, 8 June 2007 (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 talk page of the Admin's page or the talk page of the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
I wish to request reconfirmation of my adminship. I believe that I do not really need these tools, as I hardly ever do any administrator actions, except for the odd deletion. I have done very little vandalism checking (but have found some). I have done very little articles lately (because I am trying to focus harder on original reporting and exclusive interviews.
Please do not vote based on what I have done article or community wise, but how and when I have used the special administrator tools. --Nzgabriel | Talk01:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep them if you want them, request them removed if you want, but I definitly consider you trustworthy enough to have them them. Although you may not need them, they are not hurting you, you are not required to use them, and who knows they might come in handy one day. Its better to have them and not need them, then to be stuck here with no admins around well WoW goes on a rampage (but then again if that happens, all you need to do is have a quick chat with the folks at #wikimedia-stewards so it is not that big a deal). Besides, look at all are inactive admins. You're way more active then Eloquence, Chiacomo has more or less fallen off the face of the earth, there are several other editors who use them way way less. Administrative tools in my opinion are generally given on the basis of I trust you not to be an idiot, not I need the tools. (For the record that is a support you keeping them) Bawolff☺☻
Support you keeping them, you've proven yourself trustworthy. Per Bawolff above me, an trusted admin who does even a handful of deletions etc. is better than no admin at all. Daniel03:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nzgabriel's writing/editing skills are excellent and he is a valued contributor. No need to give up "the buttons" just because they are not used often. Strong support! Jcart153412:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bawolff has put it quite well, you may feel you initially got the extra buttons because you saw situations where they would be useful (i.e. you though you needed them). However, the community wouldn't have given you them if it did not trust you with them. I see no reason why that trust should be withdrawn, even if you're only deleting the odd bit of spam once or twice a month. --Brian McNeil / talk09:22, 12 June 2007 (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 talk page of the Admin's page or the talk page of the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for reconfirmation. Please do not modify it.
I would like to request reconfirmation of my adminship. I have recently made some judgement errors, and I believe that I may not have the support of the community. While I haven't been an administrator for long, I want to make sure that the current and past community still wants me as an administrator. Thank you for your time. Thunderhead01:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're young (right?), you are likely to make mistakes. People are not so likely to fault you for that if you admit to your mistakes and learn from them. Do you think you've learned from what you consider your errors? Can you cite some examples - I know that sounds like "show you're maturing as a contributor" - but we've all made mistakes in the past. --Brian McNeil / talk11:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - We all make mistakes, the key is to learn from them and not make the same mistakes again. I'm not aware of what errors you feel you've made recently but providing you can learn from them I wouldn't have too much concern about it. Adambro08:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Mistakes are human nature, im sure Brian has made a few mistakes at some point and i don't mind admiting that ive made a few. As long as you learn from them i dont see any problems. --MarkTalk09:22, 20 June 2007 (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 talk page of the Admin's page or the talk page of the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
I propose granting this bot admin status to enable it to deal with problem images used in articles which have been archived and protected. The operation of this bot seems to be supported at WN:BOT#Request_for_UserPageBot, and admin status would greatly improve the ability of this bot to serve the project. For more information about the function of this bot see meta:User:CommonsDelinker. Please note that it is only adminship I am proposing, I don't think it is appropriate to give it a bot flag and this seems to be the consensus at WN:BOT. This is a very useful bot but it does need keeping an eye on as of course the admins over at Commons can make mistakes occasionally. Adambro11:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Of course this bot would need admin status to be useful, but it would also need someone to watch over it... a lot of images that would get deleted could possibly be locally uploaded and if no-one checks what the images this bot removes, it would compromise the integrity of Wikinews as a news archive. So, who would watch after it? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
abstain. I'd like to note we still don't have clear agreement what to do when images go bye bye on archived news. Should we replace with similiar image, should we remove the image, or should we keep the red link there to show there used to be an image there. Bawolff☺☻21:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't personally want a bot deleting images from our protected articles. We could have it list them on a page for human administrators to delete. Thunderhead23:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, people make mistakes, automated software just speeds the process up and removes any potential step for quick corrective action. I support use of bots for readily defineable tasks (eg calendaring), but I don't think image management on archived articles is well defined. --Brian McNeil / talk07:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Fair enough, it seems this is unlikely to be successful as users have valid concerns about this bot. However, if the community don't want CommonsDelinker deleting images (well, not from protected pages at least), are administrators going to actually monitor Wikinews:CommonsTicker. I can see images on that list that have been deleted but not yet dealt with. We cannot have it both ways, either we do the work in a prompt manner or, if unable, we let the bot do it. I note the comment by Bawolff, perhaps it is time to clarify our approach to deleted images. Adambro08:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to apologise for this. I had fixed most of the links and pics but had just not filled out the sections in the template due to my huuuuuuuuuge hate of paperwork. If you look carefully most of the problems have been fixed. --MarkTalk09:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as I have said before, this is a need. We lost the trophy image because we weren't careful enough, if we had noticed then it wouldn't have been deleted. This will help delete those images that no longer exist on old articles and we haven't noticed that have been deleted, making our "historical records" look better.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nzgabriel (talk • contribs) June 21
Support - A bot would help greatly with what I feel is a cumbersome maintenance task on Wikinews. All it does is edit, so I believe all the FUD-based opposes are dead wrong. If the bot screws up, it can be fixed. But as far as I know, I haven't heard anything bad about it. →MR03:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We need a far more sophisticated bot than the CommonsDelinker if we are to deal with the deletion of images used in archived articles. Any change to material in the archive should be immediately visible to someone viewing the page. I have already made a number of enquiries on making this easier to enforce. Firstly we need left/right templates that are used to replace removed images on archived articles. Second, we need to see edits to protected pages in RC so this process is readily oversighted. I have briefly exchanged comments with Brion Vibber in IRC and he suggests RC showing a padlock icon next to any change to a fully protected article. I trust him not to suggest this if it was difficult, but it may need approval from somewhere to permit someone to spend paid-for time working on it. --Brian McNeil / talk20:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Left/right templates— that is extremly easy to do. Highlighting edits to protected pages is harder (from the perspective of I can't make it happen), and would probably require something done on the server end by a developer, but we could highlight anything commonDelinker touches with a , lock image or very easily. Bawolff☺☻01:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Once I finish work I'll pop into #mediawiki and ask about a software change. Adambro, could you ask whoever runs the bot to take a look at our - not totally worked out - Archiving policy, and this discussion? I know they're trying to keep commons clean, but a bot isn't capable of deciding whether an image should be locally uploaded or replaced with a template that says it has been removed due to licensing issues. --Brian McNeil / talk09:03, 27 June 2007 (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.
Hello :) For those of you who I haven't yet met on Wikinews, I'm Daniel (talk · contribs), also known as Daniel Bryant. Some of you may also know me from the English Wikipedia, where I'm Daniel also, formerly Daniel.Bryant.
I'm nominating myself for administrator tools so I can help out the English Wikinews community. Beyond the normal stuff like deleting speedy candidates, closing deletion request discussions, and cleaning out abandoned etc. categories, I'd like to help out in the following areas also:-
Be able to edit protected/archived pages to remove redlinked categories (ie. Special:Categories)
Be able to respond to editprotected requests in a more timely fashion wherever possible
Be able to help out with archiving (I promise, I really don't hate it that much!)
In the event that such a situation occurs, be able to edit protected pages in response to an OTRS ticket
As for my other Wikinews, Wikipedia and Metawiki roles, I'm an English Wikipedia administrator, a member of the Mediation Committee, currently serving (no laughing, Martin!) as the Chair of that Committee. I've been a member of the Wikimedia OTRS team for a while now, dealing with English Wikipedia and (more recently) English Wikinews emails. And, thanks to this community's gratitude, I have accreditation to help me cover big events, although Adelaide has been devoid of these 'big events' for a while now (*crosses fingers*). My accreditation request is here.
On Wikinews, I've written these articles since I joined back in December. I've recently become more active here than on English Wikipedia in the article sense, because my true writing love is in reporting current events.
So, feel free to ask me any questions below, and I'll get back to you as soon as possible (I'm in-and-out of hospital/doctor's clinic in the next couple of days, and sleeping a lot to recover, so please forgive any short delays). I hope the Wikinews community can trust me enough to give me the extra three buttons so I can help maintain Wikinews :)
It seems AWB has since been given the feature to bot-like protect pages. That page, which was intended to solve the manual issue, may now be redundant to the AWB auto-protect feature (I'm not sure, having never tried protecting on Wikinews, not being an administrator). We'll have to see if anyone still wishes to use the APL... Daniel06:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You say you will be "cleaning out abandoned etc. categories", will you also be saving articles from the floor of the newsroom by formatting and expanding them? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 11:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most certainly. Copyediting/'wikifying', as it's called on English Wikipedia, is something I really enjoy. Myself and Doldrums helped publish this (see right at the bottom - it's since changed a lot, such is the nature of Wikinews). There was also this one (where I changed this initial IP version into this published story). I am all for improving stories which meet our content guide, and it is a good area for experienced Wikinewsies to help out (the WN:SG can take some getting used to). Daniel11:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I want to do some research about AOR on Wikinews before I commit either way. I didn't place myself in this category on the English Wikipedia as it was clearly being abused by people simply being annoying over petty little things, but from my limited experience with such disputes on Wikinews you guys seem to be a lot better. As I said, please give me a chance to read the history of AAA and reconfirmations in the archives of this page before I announce either way. Cheers, and thanks for understanding, Daniel11:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up: Yes, I will, however I won't commit to it permanently. As I say, if the situation with regards to AOR at Wikinews becomes like English Wikipedia, then I will withdraw myself from that category. Otherwise, yep, I'm in. Daniel00:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like to slip in a word wherever possible when something notable happens and there's a discussion on Wikipedia about a recent event. I also like the templates which bring attention to Wikinews (ie. "Wikinews has news articles on..."). Beyond that, a little invitation or two to grace us over here to some people I know when they are feeling pissed off with the unique environment at the English Wikipedia can't hurt either :) To answer the last part of your question, there are certainly some users we would want, and there are others who we wouldn't want. The key to continuing this brilliant community's run of success is keeping the balance, wherever possible, on the 'good' side. Daniel11:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successfulrequest for bureaucratship. Please do not modify it.
Bureaucrats turn regular users into sysops; perform username changes and bot flagging..
I believe that Wikinews's bureaucrat needs have at times been going unfulfilled, and I have been interested in running for bureaucratship for a while now, thus I think we could use some more, and after talking to people in IRC, I would like to humbly submit my name. I like to feel that I have shown dedication to this project, I have been a user here now for nearly 2 years, with most of that time active.
Support, a long time in the making. Brian already has checkuser, a much more senstitive tool, and has proven that he's 100% trustworthy with it. I see no reason why giving him bureaucrat tools would cause any negative effects on Wikinews. Daniel01:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's some information at Meta. Basically, they can technically promote other users to administrator status, change usernames, and grant bot flags. Cheers, Daniel11:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
so the pecking order is: in order of importance starting from 1st to last: editor: accreditted user: administrator: arbcom: steward: bureaucrat: -BNZ is flip likeme -Edbrown0511:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a "pecking order", stewards are certainly higher than bureaucrats (Meta), and I'd strongly argue that ArbCom is as well. However, as we all know, being an x or a y affords one no more power in debating an issue or anything else. It's merely a technical ability, like what administrators get, to perform maintenance tasks. Daniel11:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
has been one of the more active 'newsies, contributing to articles as well as doing wiki maintenance - deletion, implementing the new fair use policy, vandalism watch. he has a good deal of Wiki experience, being an admin on WP and commons and i find him well informed on policy matters in discussions. i think it's time to give him the tools. –Doldrums(talk) 12:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I accept this nomination. I am grateful to be considered for adminship and look forward to hearing the opinions of other editors, which, regardless of the outcome of this RfA, I am sure will help me further develop as a Wikinews contributor.
Since joining the project, I have been active in a number of areas, from writing articles to dealing with more mundane, behind the scenes tasks like dealing with image issues. I feel this has given me a good understand of the project and how it differs from the other Wikimedia project I am involved with. One of the major differences is of size, articles like the Chris Benoit death did much to raise the profile of Wikinews but it remains a small project in comparison to many other. Despite this, the project still suffers from the same problems faced elsewhere such as vandalism. On a number of occasions I have watched vandalism ongoing and been unable to contact an administrator to deal with it promptly. This has left me frustrated and I would welcome admin rights to enable me to respond to incidents like this when I spot them.
I will be happy to answer any questions anyone may have but would warn that as I am to start a new job next Monday which will involve moving house, I might not be able to respond later in the week. Adambro12:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Adambro was temporarily sysopified to deal with ongoing vandalism on en.wikinews.
The Meaning of Life is a 1983 film from the Monty Python team which presents the meaning of life in the form of a gold wrapped booklet at the end, described as "nothing very special".
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successfulrequest for adminship. Please do not modify it.
I'm not sure if this requires the full seven days, but in any case I would like to re-apply for the following reasons:
To revert large scale vandalism. I've seen two large scale vandalism episodes recently which took a while to stop because no admins were around to block the IPs, even though I was online and of no help unfortunately. When I was an admin, I was typically able to end pagemove vandalism and the like rather quickly, and I'd like to be able to do that again.
To maintain WN:CV, especially during the migration to the system I proposed (if it gets approved)
Support I appreciate the point that Messedrocker makes about the frustration of seeing vandalism ongoing and not being able to stop it as this is a point I made in accepting my nomination, although I think, based upon the history, it is appropriate to leave this to run for the full seven days. I've looked at the context in which you stepped down and I am in some ways disappointed that you did that and then returned, in some ways I feel your resignation could appear to be an unnecessarily disruptive way of making a point. I am supporting you on the understanding that you have thought carefully about this and would think very carefully before resigning any privileges in the future. I think the community would be much less tolerant of any future problems. Despite these concerns, I've not seen any problems in your contributions and so support your request. Adambro15:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the pretext: at the time of my resignation, Wikinews had been a boring experience for the last several months, so I decided that I would eventually resign. The image controversy was mainly what provoked me to make that moment sooner, but really it's an inaccuracy to say that I resigned to make a scene or that I was embroiled in controversy. MessedRocker (talk) 17:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolute Support but I don't think you need the full seven days since you willingly resigned your admin status, and there was no controversy. Thunderhead - (talk) 19:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successfulrequest for adminship. Please do not modify it.
I, ironiridis, hereby nominate myself for adminship once again. I do this while reflecting on the frustration and difficulty that ended my previous position as an admin. For those of you who aren't aware, I was nominated (twice, actually) and "elected" into this position over a year ago. Due to continuous bickering and eventually all-out wheel wars, I elected to have myself blocked for 30 days, and eventually to have my sysop flag removed from my account.
I'm choosing, grudgingly, to attempt to return to the position for one reason: I wish only to have the power to fight vandalism without asking for assistance. Deleting articles. Issuing short, temporary blocks. Eliminating copyright violations from history logs.
Having learned well from the Neutralizer debacle, and having learned a thing or two about maintaining civility in the time since, I feel I am ready and willing to become a janitor once again. I am opting, if I am chosen by the community to return to my previous post, to place this template at the top of my user page.
In light of being informed that I might be able to simply be "re-instated", I'd like to indicate that I'd prefer a vote on this. I want to have the support of the community on this. As such, please put this to a vote.
The acquisition of knowledge, the observance of beauty, and the extollence of the virtues of love, honesty, and dedication. irid:t04:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Without a doubt, I am. I voluntarily listed myself for de-admin the last time around because I felt I wasn't doing my job; I am more than happy to be held to community scrutiny at any time. irid:t20:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support It was very crazy times back them, hell most the users involved are no longer involved here. Ironiridis was never involved in the warring, instead, he chose (unwisely in hindsight) to intervene to try and stop the situation getting worst. Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal21:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support This user should never have left the admin "corps", I am glad that we have not seen disruption like then since and think we now have a team that could avoid those problems. Irid would make a good addition to that team (again). --Brian McNeil / talk22:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm new here, but I've got a few thousand edits in at en.wiki so I know what's up. Constructive, helpful and friendly editor. Lara♥Love02:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Hey veryone, i'm TheFearow or better known (maybe not on here) as Matt. I'm from New Zealand, and I love the wiki system. I used to be mostly active on my enwiki account, with over 3K edits. I decided to come here as it's a smaller wiki with an actual community, and its possible to make decisions without being hunted by an angry mob. I do a lot of maintenance work, but I have written a few articles. I have done a lot of work on Larry Craig, as well as New Zealand and related areas. I am constantly finding things I need an admin to do, so becoming a sysop would allow me to take care of those myself. I know a lot about wikisyntax, mediawiki, and programming, as can be demonstrated by several things I have developed, such as the Ticker and my dynamic quiz system. Since all my systems end up complexish, ironiridis created {{WTF}} for me, which I use on systems that are still in development and not in real use or on pages about them that are not viewed a lot.
You can see what my opinions of admin tools etc are at this page, but to summarise it, I believe things should only be done after consensus (meeting the CSDs etc counts as consensus), and I believe in second chances. I do not like indefblocking unless necessary or obvious socks/VOA's.
No matter how this turns out, I will keep contributing heavily, and my work can only get better. I will happily request reconfirmation if any user in good standing requests it. If I make any mistakes, I will happily fix and apologise, as well as improve. If you oppose please tell me how I can improve, and if you support, tell me what i'm doing good so I can do more of it!
To make an addendum; I will likely respond to all opposes, I have some of my best and most interesting conversations with people that disagree with me. If you don't want me to reply, just say so. TheFearow03:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definately continue to write articles. I will use my admin actions where appropriate, and luckily tasks that need admin tools only come along occasionally, although should be handled promptly. The admin tasks usually are important, but there are few enough that they can be handled without influencing article work. TheFearow | userpage|contribs03:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression it was a guideline, as other RfAs have passed with less than two months work. I also believe I have done a lot of good work, and I can be more helpful as an admin. TheFearow | userpage|contribs23:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Without the consideration of past RfAs, from what in the official policy above are you extrapolating that the two criteria for adminship are guidelines? If the policy is unclear, perhaps it needs to be rewritten to reflect the community's wishes (guideline or mandatory rule). What are your feelings on this? --Jcart153401:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The way the header is worded, they appear to be guidelines. If they are not, that needs to be much more specific, and I would adivse a discussion on it as they have been treated as guidelines in the past as well as lately. I believe they should be guidelines, but not rules, however I do not mind either way. TheFearow | userpage|contribs03:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You give the impression that you find Wikinews attractive because it is a smaller community, and you feel less like a "guppy in an ocean" whereas Wikipedia has grown beyond that. What opportunities do you see for us to recruit other Wikipedians into our community? --Brian McNeil / talk13:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can imagine various ways to recruit Wikipedia members, and I believe the key ways would be to make ourselves more known, and target people who actively contribute to things such as w:Portal:Current Events and w:Template:In the News. The main part is showing how open we are, and how much of a community we have. Showing everyone that we're like the small village, whereas wikipedia is Tokyo. I also believe that many active users of Wikipedia would want to do some work on wikinews, even if it doesn't become their most active wiki. TheFearow | userpage|contribs23:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. While I think that TheFearow's technical contributions are wonderful, and I really appreciate having him here as a contributor, I feel that less than one month of mainly-technical contributions is not enough for adminship. I would prefer to wait a month or two in order to further see how the user handles editing tasks over this longer time. If it wasn't for the time/edits, I would support this nomination. -- IlyaHaykinson02:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that you've made good contributions on these articles. But the first day you touched the article namespace was August 20th, which is 17 days before you applied for an admin position. I simply feel that's not enough time. -- IlyaHaykinson15:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - While I do hope you stay true to your word and do continue to stay on here at Wikinews, I have to oppose your request do to the fact that you only started editing around a month ago. You do have the support and the trust of this community, I feel that you haven't been here long enough. Try joining the New Zealand cabal later. --Nzgabriel | Talk05:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Where's the signup form for that? On a related topic, I did sort of expect a few oppose votes due to my time here - I know it is a bit short however I am a fast learnner and I know a lot of the policies from enwiki. TheFearow | userpage|contribs05:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, some people may realise I am being hypocritical opposing TheFearow, while I was only around for about a month before getting my accrediation, but I have done some growing up since then. --Nzgabriel | Talk05:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. A good tech but a bit new on Wikinews. You could do many things without admin flag. Anyway not a place for frustrated wikipedian (^-^) Jacques Divol12:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although you are relatively new to our community, I would be a hypocrite if I said no when I became an admin in less than a month. :P Hope to see some fun new stuff from you in the future! —Zacharytalk13:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be accurate, Zachary, your first try for adminship (just shy of 1 month) did not succeed as people thought you were too new, even though they felt you would be a great addition. Your second Rfa did succeed, but you were just days away from 2 months. Jcart153413:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I stand corrected, though my register date and the date I actually started making contributions are two different things. Registered on March 14, first non-userpage edit was April 2, and I became an admin May 20, so it was about one and a half months. Still shy of the two month "guideline", though. —Zacharytalk15:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to the concerns highlighted above and also because I'm not happy with the nonsense that is {{WTF}} that this user seems happy to be associated with. As with brianmc, I would be happy to reconsider my views in a future RfA. Too new for adminship just yet. The user states their opinions about adminship at User:TheFearow/AdminToolOpinions. I feel this is entirely redundant since policy already sets out where action should be taken. I want admins to follow these policies not their own versions. Adambro15:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
{{WTF}} is a joke - if you don't like it, i'd have no objection to it being deleted. Those are my opinions, which I would use if it was up to my discretion, or policy did not state what to do. I would follow policy unless there is a VERY good reason to do so, and if I ever did do something against policy I would happily explain my actions and discuss it further. TheFearow | userpage|contribs02:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I created {{WTF}} as a joke. I also put it on one of his tools. I'm sorry that your primary point of opposition is related to what is essentially a userbox. Also, I should point out that the policies state that any admin should exercise their own judgment. For example, the policy on speedy deletion has no provision for articles created that clearly aren't news, yet have meaningful content, like the series of biographical stubs we've been getting recently. We speedy them anyway. I am clearly violating policy when I do that, but to what end should we follow policy? Develop a news story about somebody's 11-year-old turning 12? I support the idea that someone should make their personal stance on the policies (especially when they fall short) clear and public. irid:t23:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I personally have noticed that common admin actions/traditions dictate policy, policies don't dictate actions. (With exception to core policies, like npov, privacy policy, etc). Some policies arn't fully followed all the time, some all almost totally ignored (cough, userbox policy. however that is mostly because it tried to change actions instead of document traditions, plus it was a compromise no one really liked, and most people probably are not even aware of its existence). Most policies have a bit of leeway in them as well. they often say you should do blah, you may do blah. In the end, I think common sense and good faith in all actions is what is important. Bawolff☺☻03:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with you - common sense is common sense - if something policy says seems rediculous, pointless, or wrong in a particular situation, bend the rules. As long as its helpful, done in good faith (although this is not necessary if its helpful), and doesnt violate very important policies, I agree with using common sense and/or IAR. TheFearow | userpage|contribs03:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
neutral Sorry, I just don't know you well enough to say support yet. However from what I've seen so far, you're well on your way. Bawolff☺☻00:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
oppose I'm opposing with a similar reason with IlyaHaykinson above. I felt your contributions to wikinews are great, just I would like to see more first. terinjokes | Talk23:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentPlease reply to all criticism. Unless it's a five page dissertation, criticism is constructive and informative, and discussion is the key. :) irid:t03:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd like to say - before someone closes this vote - that I'm happy with the result. The user is likely going to pass in 3-4 weeks time when they apply again; they'll be a tad more level-headed about it having spent time tagging things that need admin action (hint! hint! If you see something that should be speedied, flag it to say "I could have done that").
Part of the delay before you're likely to get your hands on the admin tools is getting to know the people who already have them. We do not want wheel wars. So, learn where other admins (and users!) have specific interests. If you get into a conflict on something you think they're biased on then do your best to see the other side. Ask questions before making accusations. We share a common goal - the success of Wikinews. We should be able to achieve that regardless of our individual political affiliations. --Brian McNeil / talk20:36, 16 September 2007 (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 talk page of the Admin's page or the talk page of the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Otherwise known as TheFearow, Matt's done a lot of work around here, and I see absolutley no reason why he shouldn't have the mop. He's also been helping us quite a bit with our bots, and has adminship on MediaWiki.org, so he's not a new administrator. I think that Matt certainly deserves the tools without question. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dodge Story (talk • contribs) 05:04, 6 October 2007
Primarily work on cleaning up vandalism, deleting speedy deletion stuff, and blocking vandals/trolls/etc. I'd also like to help clean up the archiving backlog, which should be done ASAP. All generic admin tasks :) Matt | userpage|contribs21:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thunderhead is quite correct here. Admin is as much an indication of community trust as a requirement to help maintain the wiki. If you think back to before you had the priv bit I'm sure you recall intermittent frustration that you couldn't delete vandalism articles and the like. As a normal user you run up against a wall where you're using things like notnews to alert admins that stuff needs zapped. --Brian McNeil / talk09:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Earlier RfA under the username TheFearow can be found in the archive.
I'm currently in the process of studying Matt's contributions in order to ensure I make a fair judgment of this user and have a small criticism to make. Looking through Matt's user talk page, I see a lot of other users who appear to be talking to themselves. I suspect this is because the user is replying to comments elsewhere. Doing this makes it very difficult for anyone else to follow the discussions and I would strongly discourage this practice. It might be appropriate in some instances to notify a user on their talk page that you have replied to ensure that they are aware as of course they may not be watching the page where they left the message. Adambro15:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some people prefer to reply on the talk page of others because it gets the new message flag and you have a high degree of confidence they've seen your response. We can't enforce "I respond on my talk and notify you", but it may be a better approach to keeping discussions less fragmented.
For adminship and any investigation of a user's contributions you do want to see what they write on other people's talk pages, but you're more interested in "have they avoided or - better yet - defused disputes?", have they "borrowed" a mop and bucket and cleaned up vandalism? Adminship should be "ask not what the wiki can do for you (i.e. give you the priv bit) but what you can do for the wiki". What an admin can do for the wiki is help keep it a place where good-faith contributions are welcomed. There are discussions elsewhere on us being curt or rude with newcomers, this should be extended to potential admins. Zach and I had a run-in with a very rude admin on Wiktionary (?IIRC?) I don't want us having the same rep. --Brian McNeil / talk16:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I reply on their talk page, especially with new users, as I find it much easier to keep track of replies. When I started on enwiki, I waited over a month for a reply before going to their page to ask for them to reply, and realising they replied on their page already. If someone asks me to reply on my talk page, I will. Also, if there are more than two people communicating (unless one is a new user) then I will keep it on one page. Matt | userpage|contribs09:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
Believe it or not, our star interviewer isn't an admin yet. I think he's earned enough respect and trust to fix that problem. David's done a lot of great work for us, and clearly know's our policies well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dodge Story (talk • contribs) 04:41, 25 October 2007
Whew! For a second there I thought you weren't going to get the joke. (Although it should be mentioned that 42 is the Answer to life the universe and everything, not just life). Bawolff☺☻
Do you feel that your experience as an interviewer has helped prepared you for these questions? Is it different asking the questions and being asked them? Bawolff☺☻22:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My interviewees often turn my interviews around on me and I answer their questions honestly, which I hope makes for more honest exchanges. I just don't often include those aspects of the interviews -- be glad! I might not have been put forth for admin-ship! --David Shankbone00:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Joke questions for you just to add a few more - dont take these (or me!!) seriously
I think it was funny. I was the one who asked for the Arb, knowing I pursued Ted Frank too diligently, but also knowing that being taken to task for that was not nearly as important as exposing him. If there was absolutely nothing wrong with what he was doing, then it would have taken an ArbCom to show me that. Instead, I was proven right. My main problem going into the ArbCom was that, after a year on Wikipedia, I never had cause to figure out the seemingly endless forums for resolving various strains of disputes (COI, Admin Noticeboard, Water Pump, RfC, et. al.) That and my frequent use of Ted Frank's name (mainly right after he changed his User name from TedFrank to THF) were seen as my problems. There are things I could have done better, but in the end, I felt vindicated. --David Shankbone05:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Supporty™—FellowWikiNewsie 16:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC) I crossed out my vote because what's the point of a person becoming admin after saying that "Wikinews is not fun" and "I simply don’t find the community on here enjoyable." David, if you really don't want to become admin withdraw this admin request. —FellowWikiNewsie22:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I think "hey man! Dalai Lama!", mail David and he's pretty much already lined up an interview with his U.S. representative. So... David as an admin? He's demonstrated a good understanding of our policies, he works within them and isn't one of those people who tests their bounds. So... I'd trust him with the buttons. We don't set the bar too high on Wikinews, there are a number of issues that constrain what you can do if you are not an admin so we have a high user/admin ratio. --Brian McNeil / talk20:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Not to be a contrarian, but I would like to see David spend some more time here before gaining Adminship. There are still policies and practices with which David should become more familiar. For instance, today he published an article that was still up for DR [3]. And recently, David uploaded an image from a competing news outlet, claiming fair-use WN:DR#Image:Ashton_Bonds.jpg. Don't get me wrong, the interviews are fantastic and I have complimented him on them. David also seems earnest in his pursuits. I just would like to see him spend some more time here before gaining Adminship. --SVTCobra21:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article was published because he found it worthwhile; there was no need for there to have been a deletion request on it in the first place. --Jigsaw (Talk)14:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I appreciate the work David has done here and I'm disappointed that it seems he is going to take a Wikibreak as he is becoming disgruntled with Wikinews but I'm not happy with him branding JoshuaZ's decision to change his vote to neutral in response to the concerns outlined by SVTCobra as "jumping on the bandwagon".[4] David should respect that people might not unnecessarily agree with him or support this RfA. His attitude towards this issue makes me oppose this RfA and I suggest those who have already voted should reconsider their position in response to his recent comments. Adambro16:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - David does not seem like the kind of person who wants Admin privileges, let alone be trusted with them. While I appreciate the work he has put into the site, I do not believe admin privileges are fitting at this time. --Skenmy(t•c•w•i)18:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The New Zealand incident from the main page is a bit fresh in my mind, and at this point adding a temperamental administrator is something I don't think Wikinews needs. TheCustomOfLife18:51, 3 November 2007 (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 talk page of the Admin's page or the talk page of the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
I would like to nominate JoshuaZ for adminship. He has a decent list of well-written articles, has been actively editing here for more than a year and has a solid grasp on the policies and workings of Wikinews. I was impressed with his edits and comments on this article. He offered patient and level-headed suggestions in what was a fairly contentious debate. In addition, there are times when he could have helped out with vandalism, if he had "the buttons". Jcart153423:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Four activities: 1) Dealing with vandals. It has been somewhat frustrating when we have a page-move or other vandal running around and I'm stuck reverting his changes but can stop the vandal itself. 2) Speedy deletions (I've lost track of how many times I've had to nominate something for speedy rather than do it myself) 3) Correct categories, MOS and spelling/grammar for archived articles. I've had to make a lot of {{editprotected}} requests and this should be simplify that. 4) Possibly helping out archiving. JoshuaZ13:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What would be your biggest strength and your biggest weakness as an admin?
I'm not sure. People on Wikipedia who think I'm a good admin there say that I keep a cool head during drama and don't get angry when insulted. Thankfully, Wikinews is a much nicer place all around and so those qualities won't matter as much. So I guess the next biggest strength is that I'm often online so will be paying attention to help out with needed admin tasks. Biggest weakness is easy- I've spent much more time on Wikipedia than I have on Wikinews, and we do many things very differently here. I suspect that every now and again I'll end up running into an issue where I might take a more Wikipedian rather than a more Wikinewsian approach. I hope that if that occurs, people will kindly revert whatever I did and let me know what I did incorrectly. JoshuaZ13:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've never really interacted with JoshuaZ that much, but I have seen him around the various projects where he and I are both active. I think he'd be a good admin here. EVula// talk //19:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for de-adminship. Please do not modify it.
I am closing this has successful, I have refrained from commenting, So am closing it: as a Bcrat, and 2, as a netural party, I have never had any disputes to my knowledge with this user. Will list on meta Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal04:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is time to test the Wikinews:Inactive Policy and de-admin this user. His departure from the project was in the midst of a de-admin vote due to conflict and wheel-warring. The user discarded respect for other's opinions and battled on-wiki. I believe on more than one occasion he unblocked himself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brian McNeil (talk • contribs) 11:35, 13 November 2007
Comment - I would vote to de-admin PVJ for the other reasons mentioned above and my own past observations of PVJ behavior, but I cannot do so here because the nomination implies that such a vote is a test of WN:IPOL (now also WN:IP), a proposed policy, the text of which was just added on November 13. This seems backwards. Vote on the policy first, then you can use it to de-admin someone using it. --SVTCobra02:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is appropriate to test the policy with a case such as this. I believe we need to prove we have a mechanism in place to remove privileges. I appreciate WN:IP is proposed policy, my point here is to test it in a case where the user also had other issues with co-contributors. Yes, the user needs informed and I would appreciate if someone else would undertake that duty. I had my run ins with him and don't want to open old conflicts. I do, on the other hand, want to see WN:IP or something similar become official policy. My belief is that we learn more by doing so applying it here will allow us to see if what has been proposed will work. --Brian McNeil / talk18:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've contacted PVJ59 via Wikinews user page email and on his talk page. I found no account with an identical name on Wikipedia or Meta, and nothing turned up on Google. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We do have a mechanism for removing privileges, it is this de-admin procedure which is usually undertaken for abuse of said privileges. If this de-admin passes as a test of WN:IP then it provides a precedent and suggests that all the other inactive admins should be automatically de-admin'ed as well. It would be bad form to selectively de-admin people for inactivity if that's not the real reason that we are doing it. Do you also want to de-admin User:CGorman or User:NGerda? PVJ has more recent edits than they do, why not "test" WN:IP on them first? I think you are stacking the deck by picking someone you know is unpopular. --SVTCobra22:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this doesn't seem a fair test. PVJ59 left on a bad note, and the inactive policy is proposed to de-admin the people who everyone liked (Like NGerda) but is not here. Note: My opinion on this on a plain and simple de-adminship request would be that he lost his last de-adminship request, taking an extended wikibreak doesn't change that and he should not have his +sysop flag at this point in time. Bawolff☺☻00:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
supporting per repeated conflict, wheelwarring and possible POV pushing. I don't have any opinion on whether the Inactivity Policy should be adopted. JoshuaZ02:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, this user has become inactive and shouldn't have admin rights, but I had no problem with him as a Wikinewsie, and I don't support this based on WN:IP, although I support that proposal. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is only a proposal (which I disagree with) and he is not causing any harm by being inactive, if he has broken other policies (as suggested by other users) I might change my vote but for now I think we should keep him as admin. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anonymous101 (talk • contribs) [5]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
Request closed early by Adambro in the interests of all parties as this request is bound to fail. I would encourage Prasuk to take time to look through the archives of past requests to understand what is expected for a successful RfA. Adambro22:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm able user in projects Wikimedia Fundation - polish Wikinews(nickname:Prasuk historyk), Commons(nickname:Tramman) and english wikipedia. I wants to become administrator en wikinews, because IMO I must to have sysop administrators, to fight vandalism.Prasuk21:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Need to build trust up on this wiki IMO - only 20 edits and only 2 of these are in the namespace - also you can fight vandalism without the sysop rights --MarkTalk to me22:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This user vandalised my userpage twice with this IP. You can fight vandalism without the admin tools. I think this user was trying to make an excuse to get adminship on Wikinews. For that, I cannot trust this user. And this user is waaay too new. —FellowWikiNewsie16:37, 21 November 2007 (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 talk page of the Admin's page or the talk page of the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
I've often seen it said around here that we do not have enough admins here on Wikinews; particularly for tasks like archiving. As I have been around here for a while, and feel I have picked up all the policies etc here, I would like to offer my services with a mop. Please see my successful RfA on Wikipedia, in October, for evidence that I am trusted with the tools. Blood Red Sandman(Talk)(Contribs)22:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The answer of life, the universe and everything - but what is the question?
Yes, I will add myself to Category:Admins open to recall. It is important not just to gain the community's support, but to ensure one maintains it.
My greatest strength: Probably high tolerance both to boring, menial, repetitive tasks and to vandalism that would deeply offend others. My greatest weakness: Poor ablity to spot my own mistakes; normally just typos, etc, but I would benefit from more rechecks of things before commiting them to apear for eternity.
Well, no, my greatest flaw usualy only manifests itself in the form of a large number of typos compared to others. But it's worth considering that I am known to misread things etc before giving me the ability tocause a whole lot of damage. One Wikipedia admin recently misread something another had posted, and mistakenly arranged for the latter to be desysoped. Ouch. Personality-wise, although as yet I think I've kept a level head on-wiki, I do tend to have an ability to quite fiercely defend my point of view in the real world, which, whilst ok in itself, does not bode well for a position in which I need to listen to criticisms carefuly before rejecting it. Blood Red Sandman(Talk)(Contribs)19:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, dividing my time is more awkward than I thought it would be. In all honesty, I probably should try and spend a bit more time over there, as I ave projects in mind to complete there, too. As to interproject relations, that's quite topical right now. I do think greater co-operatio would be good, to ensure info on both agrees where it is repeated, and that all relevant info from each project finds it's way accross to the other.
Do you understand how the GFDL versus the Creative Commons license hinders cross-project cooperation with Wikipedia? What would you do if an admin from Wikipedia came here and copied a news-style article that was erroneously posted on Wikipedia? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am all too familiar with this issue. My response would be to first mark it as a copyvio as with any other such article, then inform the admin of his mistake, and then ask the original author if they would mind relicensing their contributions. Blood Red Sandman(Talk)(Contribs)19:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's anything majorly wrong with the policies here. As with aything else on a wiki, they just require twiddled and amended as time goes on, and that's how it should be. They do their job just fine as is. Blood Red Sandman(Talk)(Contribs)13:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you enable email on your account so users can contact you off wiki. Also, could you consider creating a userpage to tell other users a little bit about yourself or detail other WMF projects where you are active. Adambro22:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a discussion respecting what to do with inactive administrators. Please do not modify it.
All of the administrators listed below have been inactive for a significant period of time and it is on this basis I propose the rights are removed. Whilst noting all these users have this in commons, there may be other things to take into consideration for each user so I've kept them separate rather than grouping them. Adambro21:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
None whatsoever. For what reasons would you consider it worth attempting to contact them? Of the users listed below we have The bellman who has been inactive for 423 days all the way up to User:DouglasGreen who has been inactive for 884 days. I consider it unlikely that they are going to suddenly reappear and if they did, would it really be appropriate to step back into an admin role, would their knowledge of the current Wikinews situation really permit them to preform this role effectively? Whether it's just over a year or nearly two and a half, they clearly aren't on a short wikibreak. If they do return, and I certainly don't think reminding them they have admin rights is the right way to get them back, they should return under their own steam, the community can consider whether to reinstate the rights. Until then, we should remove the rights so as to try to get the number of users with admin rights down to a number that actually reflects the number of users who might actually use the rights. Adambro12:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that you are essentially running a test of proposed policy, WN:IP, which requires that they be contacted. Also, these users were not around when this policy was proposed, so they cannot reasonably be assumed to realize that their inactivity would result in loss of privileges. --SVTCobra14:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a test run of WN:IP and I'd ask that this isn't consider so, rather it is an attempt to begin to solve this issue in the most straightforward way possible which I consider this request to be. It would be ludicrous for any of these users to return after more than a year away expecting the status quo to have been maintained in that time. I don't consider it appropriate or necessary in this case to contact these users due to the length of time they've been absent as I've outlined above. Admin rights are granted not as some reward for hard work but as a tool that should be utilised. I don't see what contacting them would gain and would invite any suggestions as to why this should be done. Adambro14:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Come on Jason, I've outlined a number of reasons why contacting might be pointless and/or unwise so don't just come along and say that they should be contacted. As I said in my comment above, I'd welcome any suggestions as to why contacting them would be useful despite the issues I've noted. Adambro19:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look we have policies and procedures. And we follow them. And IMO, until ALL admins have been contacted or an attempt to truly contact them has been made, then no voting should even commence. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We do indeed have policies and procedures, although they say little about this situation, hence the proposed policy related to this. You are welcome to your opinion DF but this request is perfectly valid without contacting these users and the community are free to have their say and vote. Again, since no suggestions as to why we should contact these admins has been put forward I still don't consider it necessary or appropriate. Adambro20:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but several of your colleagues have vastly different opinions, so you're welcome to dig your head out of the sand and come up with some sort of effort to address this issue. Surely you have heard of E-mail? Pilotguyroger that21:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I welcome any comments and suggestions about how to proceed with this issue but whilst I note the two users suggesting I should contact these admins, I've not seen any justification for doing so to address the concerns I've already outlined. It is on this basis that I maintain my position. Adambro21:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this diff, I am not going to feel forced into contacting these admins simply because my request is not receiving support. If anyone would put forward some reasons why these admins should be contacted then my thinking might be influenced. It is ridiculous that some members of the community consider it more important to remind these users who haven't participated for over a year that they have admin rights rather than putting the WN project, and its current contributors first. If this request fails because I don't contact them then so be it, I've made clear my concerns and no one has provided reasons for ignoring them. There needs to be some reviewing of priorities going on here. Adambro23:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have always been under the impression we contact them. It is very simple: Leave a message on their talk page and e-mail them through Wikinews. I refuse to and will not vote on any de-admin unless an effort to contact them has been made. Since I have been around that's how we do it and I see no reason why it needs to change now. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to choose not to vote if you wish but I'm not going to go against my thinking on this issue simply because "that's how we do it". For a start, my understanding is that "we" haven't done anything about this issue in the past so I'm not sure how we can really have established a procedure. Policies or guidelines, conventions or traditions, they are all open to question and not set in stone. As I've stated, I have a number of concerns about contacting these inactive users and until some justification for contacting them is put forward my position will remain unchanged. I keep asking for this but no suggestions are forthcoming and still the "we must contact them" persists. If we were to contact these users, what would we say? Are we going to wait for some kind of reply? Adambro19:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Life can be so simple sometimes... I just took 3 minutes to email User:The bellman and User:Karen through wiki-mail, the others don't have it activated and their pages don't list email addresses, plus they're not on WN:CV (were a lot of emails can be found). So, reasonable attempt made, no give them some reasonable time to respond. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can give you one good reason: These people are who took WN off the ground and made it what it is today. Without them there would not have been a Wikinews. And to simply take away their admin-ship because they may have personal issues or busy with other things is ridiculous. I am not concerned with a reply. I am more concerned with letting them know whats going on. They have that right, and so far as I know no one is required to sit in front of their computer and monitor every detail happening on WN and contributing to it. If it were difficult to contact them, I would agree with you. But in this case its very very easy. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Steven's message: I'm very disappointed that you'd choose to go behind my back as it were and choose to contact them despite the concerns I've outlined. The decision was not based on whether or not it would be possible to email them, I'm perfectly familiar with how to email a user. So now what do we do Steve? Are we supposed to sit around waiting for some kind of reply? Adambro19:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes...a reasonable time frame. We don't have to wait weeks if that's what you are implying. But it was rather simple to contact them and if you were refusing to contact them, then I see no reason why someone else should not make that attempt. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 20:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've never suggested that there was any real problem with trying to contact these users, rather that it would be unwise to do so or not necessary worth doing. It should be plainly obvious that ignoring the concerns I've outlined is somewhat impolite. I've still yet to hear any reasons for contacting them despite this having taken place. Still, we can't change the past so perhaps Steve could at least provide us with a copy of the message he has sent so we can begin to consider what sort of response we might expect. There is plenty of time for them to respond now as the request won't be closed for a good while I'd think. In the meantime, I see nothing which prevents anyone from voting or otherwise commenting on these users and I don't see what response from these users would impact on the process. Unless of course they state on wiki that they wish for their rights to be removed which would speedy things up. Adambro20:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going behind your back, I'm doing what is commonly done, i.e. informing users they're being voted on. I'd say wait at least a week. I simply sent them a short message inviting them to come here and comment if they want. I think that if they would, it could change some votes (mine at least). I didn't mean to insult you and if I have, I apologise, but it was not my intention. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm putting a message on the talk page of any admin listed below who hasn't been contacted. They might still watch us, just not contribute. Anyways, the way I see it is that this is a public process, and the people being voted on should know about it. I don't expect that they're are going to come back, all I expect them to do is maybe leave a note on top of there request at most. The way I see it is it is common courtesy to tell them what is happening. I wouldn't want this to happen to me without even an attempt at telling me. Bawolff☺☻09:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have emailed ronline and Cgorman, as well left messages on their 'pedia talk page where they have edited recently. That just leaves DouglasGreen unknowing of this. Bawolff☺☻11:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Bawolff for the email. You can remove my adminship status, no vote needed. I enjoyed writing here in the early days, and may some time return; however, for the moment, life is too busy for me to commit to this project. Good luck all. → CGorman (Talk) 12:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above response is exactly why these people should be contacted. Where the response is "I don't have time but might come back" phrased such as this we've been fair and civil. If there is no response then that may prejudice people if they come back at some point looking to have the same privileges.
I object to the entrenched positions that a couple of contributors have taken on this issue. Neither of those advocating either extreme have backed up their assertions with valid reasons. On one side we have "OMG! They were here in the beginning, we must apply a procedure I imagine we have" versus "OMG! You invited them back? What if they take you up on the offer and we can't de-admin?" --Brian McNeil / talk12:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are neglected pages on this very issue - WN:SL. If we're going to do things right I'd think the first people that the stop-loss should be applied to are inactive admins. --Brian McNeil / talk12:20, 21 January 2008 (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 of a request for de-adminship which failed as consensus was keep as admin.. Please do not modify it.
I still do read the front page from time to time, but I haven't edited for a long time. I do however keep thinking to myself that I should get around to doing some editing again. If the community feels I should be de-admined, then I have no problem with that. ~The bellman | Smile00:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I note a number of users have changed their minds and now oppose this deadminship request in response to the comment above from the user in question, justifying this decision on the basis that the user is active. I'd very much disagree, the proof of the pudding is in the eating as they say and this doesn't really suggest to me that this user is active. Adambro18:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I really don't want to be the cause of any tension in the community. I'm not really an active editor as my edit history shows, however I do still keep an eye on what is going on. I am one of the few people who takes an interest in wikinews who remembers the start of wikinews, (or even what Brian recently referred to on the email list as the first generation, which was really actually the second generation). One of the reasons that I stick around (even if it is passively) is because I think not losing that institutional knowledge is important. Now i do not need admin powers to do that, however as i have already said, I do keep thinking I should get involved again (and in fact this whole little episode might just be the spark that I need), and it is up to you guys to decide if I should be treated as a new user again or as an admin. Either way, I don't really mind. ~The bellman | Smile02:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeComment: This de-admin request wasn't a community effort. I wanted no part in it. I am glad to see you responded. As I see it, if you were welcome that long ago, you are still welcome to edit and be a part of the community. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 00:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course The bellman is welcome to return and edit and be part of the community but at the current time neither is the case. Not sure why DragonFire1024 feels the need to try to distance himself from this request, since when were adminship requests "a community effort", the whole idea is that this is raised by a user for the community to discuss and consider. We don't have discussions about whether we're going to have discussions. Suggesting users who haven't edited in years have admin rights removed is hardly the crime of the century, regardless of whether these people are contacted, although I appreciate that this could be seen as courteous. However, it is important to realise that we give users the rights to serve the community not as some kind of reward so I don't consider is necessary to inform users that haven't been around for ages that they might be de-admined, I would suggest that these should realise that if they do ever return that things will have changed. Adambro07:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Though my standard rationale has been "if you're not around to use the tools, you don't need them anymore", The bellman is obviously still somewhat active (as evidenced by the fact that he posted here... kind of definitive...). Though I'd prefer some more activity, any activity is more ideal than none, and his willingness to step down if the community doesn't want him as an admin just makes me want him as an admin. :) EVula// talk //21:42, 4 January 2008 (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 talk page of the Admin's page or the talk page of the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for de-adminship which concluded with the removal of admin rights.. Please do not modify it.
Note: This is the only admin who has not been contacted. We have gone through a reasonable effort to find him, and we have not. Bawolff☺☻04:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support If you're not around to use the tools, you don't need them anymore. This doesn't reflect poorly on the candidate in the least. (also, somewhat ironic that his userpage says that he comes here every day...) EVula// talk //21:39, 4 January 2008 (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 talk page of the Admin's page or the talk page of the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for de-adminship. Rights removed following comment from user.. Please do not modify it.
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 talk page of the Admin's page or the talk page of the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for de-adminship which concluded with the removal of admin rights.. Please do not modify it.
Support If you're not around to use the tools, you don't need them anymore. This doesn't reflect poorly on the candidate in the least. EVula// talk //21:37, 4 January 2008 (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 talk page of the Admin's page or the talk page of the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for de-adminship which concluded with the removal of admin rights.. Please do not modify it.
I was without access for awhile, excepting public terminals. When my personal access was restored, I did fail to return to making edits. However I am currently involved in a publishing project that will be released in the next few months that may even be news-worthy. At the time I joined as an admin, it was because there were too few active admins, but I believe that situation has since changed for the better. I recommend trying to retain inactive admins by notifying them. Karen21:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support If you're not around to use the tools, you don't need them anymore. This doesn't reflect poorly on the candidate in the least. EVula// talk //21:36, 4 January 2008 (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 talk page of the Admin's page or the talk page of the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
|
|
|terinjokes | Talk 11:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
.
, lock image 
or 
very easily. Bawolff ☺☻ 01:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Support --Brian McNeil / talk 08:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Oppose - Not to be a contrarian, but I would like to see David spend some more time here before gaining Adminship. There are still policies and practices with which David should become more familiar. For instance, today he published an article that was still up for DR [3]. And recently, David uploaded an image from a competing news outlet, claiming fair-use WN:DR#Image:Ashton_Bonds.jpg. Don't get me wrong, the interviews are fantastic and I have complimented him on them. David also seems earnest in his pursuits. I just would like to see him spend some more time here before gaining Adminship. --SVTCobra 21:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Thunderhead - (talk - email - contributions) 23:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Neutral Since being contacted, expressed interested in helping out. Haven't seen any edits yet though. --Jcart1534 20:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)