Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Archive 5

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


January 2008[edit]

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for bureaucratship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Adambro (Bureaucrat)[edit]

I was just prompted to look around for a bureaucrat to contact and noticed that we could perhaps do with some more bureaucrats. Of the four bureaucrats currently listed as active on this page we have Brian who has stated he is unlikely to be active for 6 months to a year, IlyaHaykinson who isn't terribly active, and Chiacomo who whilst has been reasonably active as late has a contributions history with large breaks. Also, of the three active bureaucrats listed as active (excluding Brian), all seem to reside in North America which means they are likely to be active at similar times of the day so any issues might not be dealt with as promptly as if we had a better spread of bureaucrats across timezones. On this basis, I consider my request to become a bureaucrat is justified and appropriate.

Whilst I have been editing Wikinews for a relatively short length of time since joining in early/mid 2007, I feel I quickly became a useful contributor and since becoming an administrator I think it would be reasonable to suggest that I'm amongst the more active admins. I'm also an admin on Wikimedia Commons and the English Wikipedia, and an OTRS volunteer, which has been useful both in terms of the experience it has given me and practically in dealing with issues which cross between the WMF projects. Whilst I've had numerous disagreements, I have at all times remained civil, and I'd suggest that not being afraid to speak up where I have concerns is a good characteristic of any user.

I have a good knowledge of the operation of bots on WMF projects and operate AdambroBot to update the weather map every hour which I think puts me in a good position to, if I become a bureaucrat, review requests for bot flags.

I'd invite everyone to assess my request and welcome comments or questions. Thank you for your time. Adambro 19:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Questions[edit]

  • You claim that it would be better to have an even spread of B'crats across time zones to provide a prompt response, what would this be to as theres is rarely anything that requires quick responses from b'crats. (i'm stuggling to think of anything)
  • Why do you feel that your contribution to other project (such as commons etc) has any relevance here?
    • Do you feel that these contributions should be considered to show relation to this project with respect to your low (comparitive) edit count and time spent here?

--MarkTalk to me 10:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • On your first point, I would accept that there is unlikely to be the same urgency to deal with any issues as there would be in respect of admin rights but I still feel it is in the interests of the community that our bureaucrats are, not only in different time zones to enable requests to receive a more timely response, but also to better reflect the mix of different cultures from which the Wikinews community draws its contributors.
  • With reference to your second question, I feel very strongly that experience gained on other WMF projects is beneficial to me and the community and also feel that this should be taken into consideration with respect to my relatively short length of time participating in this project. When I started contributing here, I was already very familiar with how WMF projects work and their common policies, and as a result was able to quickly establish myself on the project needing only to take time to understand the variations in policies and the unique aspects of the Wikinews project whereby it differs from other WMF projects. Adambro 17:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments and votes[edit]

  • Neutral. I agree that we need another active Bureaucrat for when User:Brian is less active, and possibly someone from another time zone. I think you have an excellent admin record, your contributions have been valuable and copious and your adminship on other wikis and your OTRS work are a real plus. However, I feel that there are more suitable candidates on the site who are still very active but have been around for a lot longer. The only thing holding me back is that I feel that you are still relatively new for Bureaucratship; I would personally expect something like 2 years of experience. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Neutral. Same reason as Steven, no reasons to oppose, just too new. Thunderhead - (talk - email - contributions) 22:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment As I've noted, I appreciate I haven't been active here for terribly long but I've been involved in WMF projects since mid 2004 which I feel makes up for this. I may be relatively new here but I've been able to rapidly turn myself into a valuable contributor because of my familiarity with WMF projects, their policies and their conventions. Adambro 23:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Neutral. Nothing against your qualifications, Adambro, but I feel that for this position there are some longer-tenured admins that I would like to see given consideration. --Jcart1534 01:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Appears to have strongly held opinions on process. Plus bureaucrats do almost nothing, they don't need to be active. Nyarlathotep 11:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Nyarlathotep, can you explain what you mean by "strongly held opinions on process"? What opinions might he have? Can you show us examples of what you mean? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 12:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'd also invite Nyarlathotep to clarify his point. Of course I have opinions but before I express an opinion I make sure that I'll be prepared to stand by it. Are bureaucrats expected to have no opinions or immediately withdraw their opinion when any opposition to that is made? I don't consider having strong opinions a bad thing but more importantly, I don't believe I've ever let my opinions negative impact on my actions as an admin. Adambro 12:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose —FellowWiki Newsie 18:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose It's not a bad thing that potential bureaucrats have strong opinions. It is, however, a bad thing when said potential bureaucrat can be seen as combative when expressing those opinions. So, for me? I'm good, but thanks. TheCustomOfLife 04:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Okay, fair enough. I appreciate that this request is going to fail anyway now but I would like to make the most constructive use of the comments I've received. In particular, I'd ask TheCustomOfLife to expand on his point that I could be seen as combative in my approach to some discussions, could you point to some examples where I should have taken a different approach. Adambro 07:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose There is a world of difference between having a strongly held opinion which you assert and having a strongly held opinion which you use as a basis for persuading other users to see an issue from your side. I don't expect Adambro would have misused the buttons, but the community has shown little eagerness to give him the dust-buster as well as the mop. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Could you explain what you mean by your first sentence, I don't understand. Thanks. Adambro 17:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I mean what I say, although to put it more bluntly I could say you stake out a position then invite others to challenge it. This is a somewhat confrontational approach although I can understand it might not seem so when you are confident of the foundations for your belief. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Neutral per Steven, Brian. --Skenmy(t•c•w•i) 17:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Adambro would make a fine Bureaucrat. His particular proclivities, to which some have objected, are actually valuable in this position. Bureaucrat is a pretty simple job and those entrusted with it should follow the rules, for which Adambro is a stickler. This is not a job for someone is trying to be bold and it doesn't carry the more sweeping powers, with which Stewards are entrusted. --SVTCobra 00:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[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 bureaucratship. Please do not modify it.

Brianmc (Bureaucrat)[edit]

Brianmc has been an active user on Wikinews for just over three years and in that time has racked up over 19000 edits. He is an admin, accredited user with oversight, check user and a member of the Arb Com. He has also shown utter dedication to the project with many hours spent around the project, on IRC, going to places to represent wn and also wikinewsie.org. he also never seems to sleep and therefore is pretty much around all the time but really all this doesn't matter, Brian doesn't need this rubbish intro, he talks for himself :-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Markie (talk • contribs) 17:33, 21 January 2008

  • Accepting nomination, there's little B'Crat-specific work although finishing cleaning out the de-admin would be nice. If people ask me to close off things like Admin votes I'll get to them as soon as I can. Despite Markie's checking in IRC and alleging I'm a robot almost good enough to pass the Turing test I think my warped sense of humour proves that wrong.
If I had to say what I thought was the worst Admin action I've taken in the last six months-year it would be blocking our Scientologist friend Misou who any admin without WN:CU privs can probably guess with reasonable certainty edited from axiom28.scientology.net without being logged in. Google "Axiom 28" and you'll see it is their propoganda wing. I regret this because (a) The Clams will hide and (b) There was a &*@% of a lot more troll-baiting mileage in that user. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Votes[edit]

Even if they could I wouldn't de-admin without community consensus and we don't seem to be reaching that on the vote I started about Eloquence. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments[edit]

I'm not going anywhere soon, unless I vanish off the face of the planet totally. :-) I'm almost embarrassed at the support this has garnered - and nobody has grilled me on it. I am open to questions in this section - I think we can do better than presidential debates and learn more about candidates for positions. --Brian McNeil / talk 00:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, I'll toss one across the plate for you. If you had to choose between Sheik Yerbouti and Joe's Garage, which would it be and why? --Jcart1534 00:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is probably the hardest question I'll get thrown at me... I'd chose the Joe's Garage option because I have more chance of convincing aspiring musicians to try it. --Brian McNeil / talk 00:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

<sarcasm> Ok, I got a really hard question that is way better than any of the presidential debate questions, well here it is: What is the answer to life? —FellowWiki Newsie 00:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no answer to life, there is an answer to "life the universe and everything" - which is 42. Pretty pointless if you don't know more of the specifics about the question. --Brian McNeil / talk 00:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm Brianmc, not Deep Thought --Brian McNeil / talk 22:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Worth a try... Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 07:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[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 de-adminship , no consensus - Keep privileges. Please do not modify it.

User:Eloquence[edit]

Policy basis[edit]

No longer active. Last edit was August 10, 2007. Last main namespace edit, June 11, 2007. Last admin action: 28 June 2007.

Introduction to reasoning[edit]

Erik's userpage hasn't been updated to reflect the fact that he has left the board for employment on the WMF staff. This - in and of itself - isn't reason to de-admin - but I can see no possibility of him being in a position to make significant contributions or patrolling activity to exercise his Admin or B'Crat powers. With his position in the Foundation he can at any time tell Brion to give him these rights back and as such, and with some of our recent coverage of WMF issues, I would prefer that be the way it is - a two person process.

I have not contacted Erik regarding this. I am of the opinion that if he promptly responds and wants to argue a case it should be a test of our inactive guidelines. (Eg do we count people who keep track of what's going on as inactive?) If I am requested to contact him I will, I have his Foundation email address. I would, at such a point, also ask the Chair to become involved and Sue Gardner - perhaps with a view to having a specific resolution on administrative involvement in the Wikinews project by staff and board. There is indeed a serious issue of COI (please help make this policy) around this and I have tried to see how we can get guidelines for us creating content, and the people making it possible for us to do it here, to set ground rules. --Brian McNeil / talk —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brian McNeil (talk • contribs) 18:16, 22 January 2008‎

Comments[edit]
  • Do not attempt to link this with recent events, or Erik being among the project founders. I would prefer this be no popularity or conspiracy contest. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Erik has not contributed to the community for almost a year. He has made no attempt to get involved with us or our projects on WN. It seems, in all fairness, that Erik has abandoned Wikinews IMHO. So regardless of being founder of Wikinews, he should have been given the same treatment, at the same time as the users above. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 22:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    What do you consider is different with the cases above where the period of inactivity is much greater but you've not supported yet you support this request? Adambro 22:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Nothing...if you want to do this based on inactivity, he should have been up here with the rest. Either way it does not change the fact that he is non-representative of this community. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 02:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'd note that I didn't list everyone who I'd say is inactive and should have their admin rights removed, that would be a long list, rather a selection of those who are at the most extreme end that I thought would be the least controversial to gauge community feeling towards my feeling that users should use or loose these rights. Eloquence fell outside this. Adambro 06:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Although I understand why you'd rather not link it to his position, I think he deserves special consideration because of his position for the board as founder (position in wmf is another matter, which i don't have a good opinion on). CoI doesn't really work, because i'm sure theres areas where others have conflicts of intresets, and they just don't edit those articles (as well mindspillage is an admin, and has equal conflicts). If I was basing my vote on if he was inactive, I would say remove. Bawolff ☺☻ 22:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I am afraid I do not understand the reasons for not contacting User:Eloquence. Do you think Erik will object and raise hell? If so won't he be even angrier if he were to discover it was done without his knowledge? That said, Erik seems to be the type that gladly acquiesce with a de-adminship, given his new position. I'd see this as only a COI issue since the inactivity is far shorter than many others (and six months is not almost a year). --SVTCobra 00:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • i don't see much of a COI issue with adminship, which is supposed to confer no extra editorial influence. admin actions are publicly logged and can be reviewed in full by any other administrator. to my knowledge, there's been no suggestion that Eloquence's admin actions has raised COI concerns and i certainly don't see a need for a "pre-emptive" removal of admin status. –Doldrums(talk) 08:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Per some of the comments here I have emailed Erik (CC Sue Gardner/Florence Devouard). Links to this section here and WN:COI were provided. IIRC This isn't the first time I've asked for input on WN:COI. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quick comments:

  • Do whatever you think is best; my feelings won't be hurt. :-)
  • I'd advise you to read up a bit about the meaning of conflicts of interests in non-profits; there are a lot of misunderstandings regarding what a COI is and isn't in our community.
  • Whether on Wikinews or elsewhere, I've never believed in de-adminning people for inactivity; I think labeling inactive admins is generally sufficient, unless there's reason to believe that their accounts might be compromised or they might actively do damage. It's just process overhead with little obvious benefit and potential downsides (i.e., you reduce the number of people you could reach out to if you had to).

--Eloquence 21:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd be happy to withdraw the RfDA if you want to stand for reconfirmation. That would be less controversial. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Votes[edit]

Note: {{support}} means you support removal of the candidates privileges. Keep comments in this section brief and use the above section. It is intended for discussion prior to people casting votes.

  • Oppose I don't buy your COI argument for numerous reasons. Btw, doesn't the COI argument violate your comment? Anyway people should vote how they like for their own reasons. If those reasons don't convince others to vote accordingly, fine. fyi, not contacting seems like a general violation of etiquette. <shrug>  :) Nyarlathotep 20:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC) ps, Once upon a time we tried not to be the source for news *about* wikipedia, not that this view was ever used constructively, but its a historical point.Reply[reply]
Can you strike and subsequently remove your comment to move to the comments section? I would like to carry on a discussion on this but you offer insufficient information to do so. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Neutral Let him stand for reconfirmation on his own grounds before we request a demotion. Thunderhead - (talk - email - contributions) 20:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Neutral (very close to weak oppose). Bawolff ☺☻ 22:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Neutral —FellowWiki Newsie 00:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep as admin. No need to remove privileges.--+Deprifry+ 08:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That is not the point. Rather the point is whether there is any reason to retain the rights. Adambro 01:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support privilege removal - while I appreciate and respect everything Eloquence has done for the project, it is irresponsible to have a list of admins - whom new and old users alike may wish to contact - with people who are massively inactive on it. It is not based upon his status in the community, nor his ability as an admin, more on the fact that he has not and has shown no signs of (nor can I see good reason for him to return to) editing for the project, even in a small capacity like our Bureaucrats. --Skenmy(t•c•w) 18:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support with the condition that if he returns to WN activity for a period of time, it be reinstated so as to prevent any future misuse of de-admining rivals or otherwise. But if he's not present here, an account with admin access is just a liability on having its password stolen or something similar. Sherurcij 04:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose we deadmin people because we do not think they are doing good as admins or because they have disappeared and are not likely to ever be seen again. Neither is the case here. He is without a doubt trustworthy and while not actively editing, he is certainly about. --Cspurrier 02:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. I haven't been around long enough to know the many of the inactive admins. I see nothing wrong with contacting them to see if they are interested or not in helping the project. Eloquence has been contacted and, without saying it directly, seems to have a willingness to stay on as admin. I used the same rationale for User:The bellman. --Jcart1534 15:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. Users like Eloquence, Jimbo, Kate etc. were mentioned in the policy discussion to have an exception status because they have vast experience, are unlike to ever abuse their powers, and their contributions are likely to benefit Wikinews. Eloquence's last edit wasn't even that long ago. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 16:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support If I recall correctly, it was I that mentioned some possible exceptions to any inactivity policy however I have since reconsidered my position and would now support of removal of rights from anyone who isn't using them. Adminship is not a reward, it is a practical tool that is to be used. Eloquence is inactive and so shows no need to retain the rights. Adambro 01:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support TheCustomOfLife 00:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose I do not agree with de-adminning for inactivity. -- IlyaHaykinson 16:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[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 adminship. Please do not modify it.

ArchiveBot (Temporary Bot Admin)[edit]

In order to carry out the automatic archival of the ~3000 articles per recent discussion on WN:AAA, this bot needs the admin flag. This will be a temporary adminship - I do not expect the job to last any longer than 1 month. The alternative to adminising the bot is to use my user account for the process - which is *highly* undesirable as it will flood RC with the changes made, and ArchiveBot already has a bot flag. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Skenmy (talk • contribs) 18:35, 25 January 2008‎

Questions / Comments[edit]

Votes[edit]

  • Support as nominator and bot owner. (strike if COI issues prevent vote) --Skenmy(t•c•w) 18:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support per previous discussion at WN:AAA. Wilhelm 18:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. We grant users bureaucrat rights because we trust their judgement. I suggest a 'crat uses their discretion and immediately grants temp adminship to this bot account considering that we already trust this already trust this user with both a bot flag and admin rights so combining the two to complete a task which has received the support of the community per WN:AAA seems uncontroversial. Adambro 19:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. Per Adambro, this is a formality. Could be speedied. --Jcart1534 19:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support speedy admin, to get this bot running right away! (→Zachary) 21:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support--David Shankbone 21:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support - As per the poll. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support --MarkTalk to me 21:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[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.

February 2008[edit]

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

Anonymous101[edit]

I have decided to nominate myself for an admin as I want to help archive old articles and help fight vandalism on Wikinews. I have started about 50 articles in the three and a half months I have been at Wikinews and am quite familiar with Wikinews. If the community think I should not become an admin I will withdraw my request as there is no point in keeping a vote open if the community don’t want me to become an admin--Anonymous101 14:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Questions / Comments[edit]

  • What happened to the motivation behind your comment on your user page: "Just to make this clear, I have no interest in becoming an admin."? --Skenmy(t•c•w) 15:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • When I wrote that I was new to Wikinews and I had no interest in taking an active role in it. Since then I have started to take more of a active role and have decided I would be able to help in archiving articles, for which there is an incredible backlog. When I wrote I did have no interest in becoming an admin but since I have enjoyed Wikinews and have had looked at lots of articles and thought that it is 6 months old and needs archiving. So I have changed my mind as I think that by becoming an admin I cound help Wikinews. Also, at the time of writing that I did not fully understand Wikinews policy so I did not think it would be a good idea for me to become an admin. I now understand Wikinews policy, and as a result I am now less likely to make a mistake. --Anonymous101 16:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Before you note you may wish to take a look at my list of pages that may help you choose which way. to vote Also remember that voting is evil, but that you should Ignore all rules. . (Actually voting is evil isn't a rule so isn't covered by ignore all rules). --Anonymous101 Talk RfA 17:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Questions[edit]

Question: If you could have a recurring feature on Wikinews, what would it be?
Question: Wikinews is currently faced with some important issues about how to remain true to its policies while increasing readership and experimenting with content. Do you plan to participate in the discussion about these news directions? --David Shankbone - (talk) 16:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

'Answer:I know this is not a new feature but I think the current obituaries feature is very good and should be made weekly. 'Answer: If I became an admin I would not use my position as an excuse to push may opinion further than that of a usual user, although I would take part in the disscusion. My personal opinion on this is that Wikinews should diversify to include more content like your Israel report although I think any page which could be a POV or Editorial should be in a different namespace and should not appear on the main page (except for possibly a small box which is clearly separate from the usual articles and clearly marked editorials). I also think that only accredited reporters should be allowed to write editorials. This is to stop Wikinews becoming a site with blog like content --Anonymous101 Talk 20:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Answer to question 1: I will definately add myself to Admins open for recall. Anonymous101 Talk 06:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Answer to question 2: This isn't a weakness that will change if I become an admin but my I think biggest weakness is my lack of imagination, which means I won't be the one to come up with this amazing new design or this radical new idea that will improve Wikinews. (On a side note - the new main page design is brilliant). --Anonymous101 Talk 15:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • What is the meaning of Life and the universe (but not everything)? Bawolff ☺☻ 05:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I was wondering when I would get this question. There is no answer to life and the universe (not everything) ,but the answer to "life, the universe and everything" is .--Anonymous101 Talk 07:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Votes[edit]

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 de-adminship which resulted in admin rights being removed. Please do not modify it.

User:Simeon[edit]

Another de-adminship request for the community to consider. Here we have Simeon. Looking at his contribs, it appears he stopped editing in January 2006, made a couple of edits in July 2007, then returned briefly at the end of January this year when he has stated that "Having re-visited Wikinews briefly after a long hiatus... I will not be back again. Please delete my 'user' pages." [1] I think this is a strong signal that his admin rights should be removed. I'd also, whilst accepting it is a long time ago, would draw attention to his block log which is lengthy (over 50 entries) as a result of constantly unblocking himself in May 2005, getting into a block/unblock war with another admin. This behavior is very unacceptable and I'd suggest would make this user someone who it would be inappropriate to leave with admin rights. I will be notifying the user of this request via email and talk page. Adambro - (talk) 12:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support removal of admin rights. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support - no need to have them retained. User has shown intention to leave. --Skenmy(t•c•w) 14:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support --Brian McNeil / talk 14:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support - A wheel war three years ago is not a valid reason for de-admin. The issue was dealt with at the time. However, his recent comments suggest that he no longer supports the community or the goals of the project, and intends to remain inactive, and therefore I support de-adminship. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Borofkin (talk • contribs) 21:39, 18 February 2008
    I've not said that he should have the rights removed because of it, rather I'd suggest it doesn't really compel us to look past his inactivity and leave the rights in place. Adambro - (talk)
  • Support. --Jcart1534 - (talk) 22:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support from what I understand, the user is not returning. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 23:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support However I'd like to join Borofkin in saying the wheel war note is a bit random. It was dealt with at the time. Also several users, not just Simeon were involved in that, and he should not be singled out as responsible. Bawolff ☺☻ 04:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Gone is gone. --TUFKAAP - (talk) 17:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support terinjokes | Talk 05:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
desysoping done. Darkoneko - (talk) 16:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[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.


March 2008[edit]

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for de-adminship which resulted in admin rights being removed. Please do not modify it.

User:The_bellman[edit]

G'day, a while back I was put up for deadministration (?) and said that I would like to try and get involved with wikinews again. However in doing this I underestimated how big a commitment doing Honours at university would be. Now that I have a better idea of what this year will hold for me, I am now pretty certain that I won't be getting involved again any time soon. So I would now support my de-admining. Cheers ~The bellman | Smile 10:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC).Reply[reply]


desysoping done. Darkoneko - (talk) 16:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[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 adminship. Please do not modify it.

Planoneck[edit]

Hope it's not too arrogant of me, but I'ma go ahead and request adminship. I figure the worst that could happen is to be rejected and go back to doing the same stuff I've always been doing. Then maybe I can even improve myself and make my editing not suck as bad, so that I won't be rejected the next time.

The thing is, I'm more interested in creating articles than the technical stuff that admins usually do. But if I become an admin, I'll probably find myself doing more of the technical stuff, since I'll have access to more tools. Maybe I'll even find time to (gasp) participate in a community discussion!

So give me your honest opinion, and don't be afraid to tell me I suck. Believe me, I'm used to it. ;) ~Planoneck~ 02:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Questions/Comments[edit]

  • Why do you need the tools? What admin tasks will you help with?
When I'm not writing articles, I usually watch recent changes, looking out for vandalism and the like. I can revert most vandalism, but sometimes it takes an admin a couple of minutes or longer to notice a vandal page and delete it. That's the kinda stuff I want to help out with. I might also be involved with archiving, if it happens to be a slow news day. Oh, and being able to make requested edits to protected articles would be pretty cool. ~Planoneck~ 00:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, I guess. Just in case I do suck as an admin. ~Planoneck~ 00:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • What do you think should be the minimum age for admins?
I don't think there should be a minimum age. If someone is trusted by other users and they have made good edits, their age shouldn't matter. Of course, I may be just a tiny bit biased... ;) ~Planoneck~ 00:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • What is your greatest personal weakness with regards to adminship? And your greatest strength? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My greatest weakness would have to be my age. No matter how nerdy and wiki-oriented I may be, I'm still a teenager, and teenagers by definition do stupid things. Hopefully I won't do anything too stupid. My greatest strength is my life - or rather, my lack thereof. This means that I have a bunch of time to waste on wiki stuff. Expect this to change next year when I enter high school, and I have to suffer the self-imposed workload of too many Advanced Placement classes. I'll probably still find time to edit at 3:00 in the morning, though. Don't worry about me. ~Planoneck~ 00:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Votes[edit]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 adminship. Please do not modify it.

Markie[edit]

Markie is experienced and a regular contributer. I'm not going to write a long description because all of you have seen his excellent contributions. --Anonymous101 (talk · contribs) 17:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Questions/Comments[edit]

Do you accept this nomination? --Anonymous101 (talk · contribs) 17:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

of course :-) --MarkTalk to me 17:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Markie was previously an administrator who asked this his rights be removed[2], why was this the case and what is to say we're not going to find ourselves in this same position in the future? Adambro - (talk) 20:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

i requested the removal of my sysop flag after this event (the comments tab stuff). the reason i requested removal was because i felt that i had let the community down by doing something that had affected many users. the aftermath of this, shown on AAA, was not at all good, and further re-iterated the point to myself that what i had done was wrong. therefore i decided to ask for the permissions to be removed, kinda like a recall vote, but decided this on my own.
i would like to think that i have learnt from this, and in the future try to avoid making errors of judgements in the same way, such as editing things which will affect many users if i am not 101% sure i can fix any breakages. also i would like to think that i could, now i know the community more, accept the fact that i have broken/done something wrong and just move on from it. --MarkTalk to me 23:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is the average wing velocity of an unladen swallow? --TUFKAAP - (talk) 10:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hmmm, wikilinker says " Error with your calculation.", however we can conclude that you should navigate your way to http://www.style.org/unladenswallow/ for a very thorough answer :-p --MarkTalk to me 12:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Votes[edit]

i was, remember?? :-p --MarkTalk to me 17:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
heheh :-) --MarkTalk to me 16:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[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.

April 2008[edit]

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

User:Cirt[edit]

Cirt has been a regular contributer with central months who has requested many actions at AAA. If he was an admin he could make those changes without having to ask at AAA. This would be helpful for things like preventing vandalism. His contributions have been excellent and he should be an admin. Anonymous101 (talk · contribs) (Note I have no link with the organization anonymous) 19:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Questions/Comments[edit]

Do you accept this nomination? Anonymous101 (talk · contribs) (Note I have no link with the organization anonymous) 19:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I accept. I know I focused on a particular topic when I started out here and was learning the ropes, but I have since attempted to diversify the type of articles I write, contributing to 10 articles on other unrelated topics. It has been quite fun collaborating with others in some of those areas, particularly recently on articles related to Africa, which is underrepresented in coverage in this project and that is an area I would like to continue to contribute to more often. Anonymous101 (talk · contribs) is correct - I often find myself making requests at WN:AAA and it would be nice to be able to help out the community and perform administrative actions without waiting for an administrator. I also would like to help out dealing with vandals, and archiving pages. I will strive to confer with other administrators in order to get some good guidance as a new administrator. Cirt - (talk) 19:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would also put myself in Category:Admins open to recall. Cirt - (talk) 21:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Will you participate in the efforts to archive articles? --SVTCobra 01:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I will participate in WN:ARCHIVE. Some of the articles that I have written/significantly contributed to are over a month old and have yet to be archived, so I am aware of the backlog issue. I have also noticed posts about this issue at WN:AAA, and I would love to be able to help out cut down on the backlog and archive articles older than Seven Days. Cirt - (talk) 01:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What are your strong points and weaknesses as an admin? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well in monitoring a bunch of articles I have dealt often with reverting vandals and reporting them to WN:AAA, so it would help to be able to semi-protect articles that are subject to active vandalism. As I said above, I would like to help out with WN:ARCHIVE and help clear the backlog with that. I have been participating and commenting in the WN:DR process, but I would certainly consult with one or two more experienced admins before jumping into that process and deleting articles myself, after a consensus to delete has been established. Cirt - (talk) 04:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So you have no weakness? --SVTCobra 21:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, of course I do - I don't have a whole lot of experience in how to do deletion closures - that's why I said above I would consult with other more experienced administrators first, before closing items that have reached consensus at WN:DR. Cirt - (talk) 22:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
LOL, so your weakness is that you will consult with others to avoid making mistakes. That's OK. In a job interview I said that my weakness was that I was "too diligent". --SVTCobra 23:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well aside from inexperience in that area, with respect to article writing I don't have much experience setting up interviews - but I am actually in the process of working on that, for a Africa-story about healthcare delivery in Darfur. Cirt - (talk) 23:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Votes[edit]

  • Support as nom. (presuming Cirt accepts nom) Anonymous101 (talk · contribs) (Note I have no link with the organization anonymous) 19:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Neutral without insulting everyone and sugar coating this, I don't have a level of trust with his user. He himself states above that he came here with one thing in mind, and while, yes, he has diversified, I don't think enough time has passed to build a level of trust. I would gladly support in a couple of months, should Cirt continue on the road that he is on - as a good contributor. --Skenmy(t•c•w) 21:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think he has managed to build a good level of trust and remember, as Jimbo said, Adminship should be no big deal. A101 - (talk) 08:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hes adding himself to admins open to recall so if he does start making major mistakes and abusing his power we can deadmin him, (However I doubt he will make major mistakes and abuse his power)A101 - (talk) 09:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not know what else to say in response to this above comment - other than that I have diversified my contributions - and that I will continue to contribute to/write/create articles on a wide variety of topics, both before and (hopefully) after I become an Admin. I think that the "Support" comments below by David Shankbone (talk · contribs) and SVTCobra (talk · contribs) are also helpful in illustrating/explaining this point. Cirt - (talk) 19:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Full faith and trust in this editor. I don't mind he came on here with one purpose--cover Scientology protests--that's what we all do. I only came on here to do interviews. Some of us only cover pop culture. As volunteer reporters, we cover what interests us. --David Shankbone - (talk) 19:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Cirt was once on my list of suspected SPA, but has already proven to be a contributor that picks up on our conventions and follows them to a 'T'. I think Cirt will become a valued member of the admin team. --SVTCobra 01:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Cirt has made sure he knows the policies and sticks to them. --Brian McNeil / talk 06:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Per others. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 20:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support I was considering to nominate Cirt... I shoulda done it. A101 stole my nomination. :( --TUFKAAP - (talk) 03:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Despite his SPA-ish beginnings, Cirt's proven his understanding of core policies like WN:NPOV, and has clearly diversified, not just in terms of article breadth but in taking part behind the scenes as well. Chris Mann (Say hi!|Stalk me!) 03:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Jacques Divol - (talk) 17:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support without question. Thunderhead 04:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[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.

User:Ryan524[edit]

Well as some of you may have known awhile ago I was verry active on Wikinews, I fought alot of vandalism and was an admin. There was at one point an issue that arose on Wikipedia at the conclusion of which I did leave for a decent amount of time >1 year, since I have come back again as I figured I most definatley would some day, though I can't promise the amount of activity I had before I took a wikibreak, I can check by daily, or at least almost daily, and I will continue to fight vandalism here, with or without community approval to be an admin again, it just makes things so much easier to be able to block the vandals myself I found. I do expect to be sticking around for some time and look foward to making Wikinews a bad wiki to vandalise.--RyanB88 - (talk) 01:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry it seems I logged in under a diffrent account, this account was the one I was an admin with, I created the other one when I forgot the password to this one which I have since remembered. Sorry for the confusion there.--Ryan524 - (talk) 02:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Questions / Comments[edit]

4, the answer to everything is 4. 1000000*1=One Million=Ten=Three=Five=Four=Four... see, lol. ;) On a serious note though if you want my honest views, I was created by God, for a purpose here on earth, well so was everyone else. Not thats it should matter but I am a born again Christian so my plan is to censor out any anti-christian material with my admin powers, well maybe not quite, I still respect others opinions even if they do call them facts and respect each persons freedom of speech, especially since some countries don't even have such a thing.--Ryan524 - (talk) 03:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, and would also help fulfil {{editprotected}} requests.--Ryan524 - (talk) 16:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment Your total edit count, counting your past as well, is very low. In fact, I believe that if you are reinstated, you'd have the lowest edit count of any active Admin. Since your return, your have fairly few edits in "mainspace" and as of this writing only had one edit at all in the last three days. I'd like to see more of a commitment on your part, even though I respect the right-to-return. Your comment that your "plan is to censor out any anti-christian material with my admin powers, well maybe not quite" is disconcerting, even if made jokingly. Also, I suggest that you go to Wikinews:Changing username and get the User:RyanB88 account merged, before sockpuppetry is alleged. --SVTCobra 23:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Votings[edit]

  • Support No objections. Thunderhead 02:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose It would be nice to see a reasonable level of contributions before granting admin rights again for a number of reasons. It is a while since you've last edited, I'd like to see that you still understand our policies and guidelines and are able to apply this appropriately. It would also be nice to be fairly confident that you're not simply going to disappear again and for this I'd need an impression of how you handle different situations. I'd like to see a period in which you can demonstrate your efforts to fight vandalism as can of course be done without the admin rights. I also note from looking through your contributions that you seem to contribute in bursts, making many edits in one day and then not editing for weeks. I'm not sure this is what we want from an admin. We surely want people who are keeping themselves familiar with Wikinews affairs and are around to explain their actions. It is great that you're back and I look forward to working with you but I think it is a little much to expect it is appropriate to step back into your previous admin role. Adambro - (talk) 05:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose currently, as Wikinews has probably changed a lot since 2006 --A101 - (talk) 05:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Support as I have now seen that he understand policy. A101 - (talk) 16:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment To address both your concerns, the fact is Wikinews actually hasn't changed that much since December of 06, its got more users, more artivles, but the underying principal is there, and alot of the main policies still exist saying mostly the same thing, I have been going over and reading over each and every policy to ensure I know what it is currently and I am finding that. To address the concern of just stepping back into a previsous admin role, officially it says here, "Former administrators who resigned their adminship in good standing may be reinstated at the discretion of any bureaucrat" I think thats this is exactly my case I resigned as admin as noted in the dif you linked to, I was not removed for doing anything wrong, but nonetheless I think the community should be behind me if I become an admin again. I hope this helps you understand the specifics of this situation and whatever the outcome I respect the decision of the community.--Ryan524 - (talk) 18:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand your reasoning but I would like to see you edit for about a month first. --A101 - (talk) 05:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment I am almost tempted to close this as a pass under the past admins may reply for status rule Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 15:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'd suggest considering the opposition that would be inappropriate. I'm close to feeling that such actions would be inappropriate in all circumstances. Letting an RfA run and giving everyone a chance to raise any issues is hardly going to cause too much hassle or disruption, especially if the request is uncontroversial. I think in all instances like this we should have the opportunity to discuss it. If a user has previously disappeared and requested their rights be removed we should consider whether this is likely to happen again. It wouldn't be fair on our stewards for us to allow people to return and give them back their admin rights straight away for them to only disappear after a short while again, creating unnecessary work for the stewards. Adambro - (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I am aware of this rule but have specificallly chose to go though a community vote again because I personally feel it's important to have the backing of the community, which i'm glad to see their is not alot of opposition and this has served a purpose in giving Anonymous101 a chance to voice his concerns and I am glad to see his concerns have been delt with and he supports me, I do hope to aliviate Adambro's concerns as well. The only thing I can really say to Adambro though at this point it while I agree such would be unfair to stewards to have to keep removing admin rights for someone who keeps leaving their is hardly any history of such being a problem, leaving once is something that could hapen to anyone, between RL and my need for a wikibreak I just had to leave for an extended time, nothing else is comming up that would cause an extended leave to come up again which is why I am requesting to be reinstated as an admin. I hope this gives you some understanding into my situation Adambro, and the reasoning behind me going though the Rfa again Brian.--Ryan524 - (talk) 16:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support If the user is back, and is regularly contributing, I see no reason why a former admin, who was NOT de-admined for breaking policy etc, should not be an admin again. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 15:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose, but weak oppose. In a couple of months, you'll got my vote :) Jacques Divol - (talk) 17:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support I don't remember anything iffy from before. Nyarlathotep - (talk) 10:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC) This vote has been struck, as it was too late to be counted --MarkTalk to me 22:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[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.


May 2008[edit]

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for de-adminship which resulted in admin rights being removed. Please do not modify it.

User:Submarine[edit]

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

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

Votes[edit]

  • Support per nom --MarkTalk to me 17:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support per nom - in addition to nom statement, user has made no contributions to the project for over a year. Cirt - (talk) 17:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support removal due to inactivity. Adambro - (talk) 22:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support inactive --Ryan524 - (talk) 23:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support per nom. --Skenmy(t•c•w) 09:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support --Brian McNeil / talk 12:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Daniel (talk) 13:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support removal of rights. This user is clearly inactive on Wikinews. Theres no point in allowing him to keep the admin tools if he hasn't edited for months. If they return and request the admin tools back, however, I would probably support them. User:Anonymous101 :) 17:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose I oppose removal of adminship due to inactivity as a matter of personal opinion. I also oppose the proposed policy WN:IP. The only difference between these requests and an automatic removal seems to be that here, they don't get notified by email. --SVTCobra 19:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose I disagree with WN:IP. -- IlyaHaykinson (talk) 07:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Per SVT and Ilya. --+Deprifry+ 11:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support I talked to David earlier this week. He knows the debate is going on and doesn't seem to care either way. TheCustomOfLife (talk) 10:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[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 resulted in admin rights being removed. Please do not modify it.

User:Elliot K[edit]

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

Votes[edit]

  • Support per nom --MarkTalk to me 17:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support per nom - Almost 1.5 years of inactivity. Cirt - (talk) 17:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support removal due to inactivity. Adambro - (talk) 22:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support inactive --Ryan524 - (talk) 23:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support per nom. --Skenmy(t•c•w) 09:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support --Brian McNeil / talk 12:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support removal of rights. This user is clearly inactive on Wikinews. Theres no point in allowing him to keep the admin tools if he hasn't edited for months. If they return and request the admin tools back, however, I would probably support them. User:Anonymous101 :) 17:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose I oppose removal of adminship due to inactivity as a matter of personal opinion. I also oppose the proposed policy WN:IP. The only difference between these requests and an automatic removal seems to be that here, they don't get notified by email. --SVTCobra 19:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose I disagree with WN:IP. -- IlyaHaykinson (talk) 07:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Per SVT and Ilya. --+Deprifry+ 11:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[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 resulted in admin rights being removed. Please do not modify it.

User:Cllewr[edit]

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

Votes[edit]

  • Support per nom --MarkTalk to me 17:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support per nom - 6 months of inactivity (combined with never using the tools). Cirt - (talk) 17:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support removal due to inactivity. Adambro - (talk) 22:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support inactive --Ryan524 - (talk) 23:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support per nom. --Skenmy(t•c•w) 09:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support --Brian McNeil / talk 12:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Daniel (talk) 13:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support removal of rights. This user is clearly inactive on Wikinews. Theres no point in allowing him to keep the admin tools if he hasn't edited for months. If they return and request the admin tools back, however, I would probably support them. User:Anonymous101 :) 17:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose I oppose removal of adminship due to inactivity as a matter of personal opinion. I also oppose the proposed policy WN:IP. The only difference between these requests and an automatic removal seems to be that here, they don't get notified by email. --SVTCobra 19:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose I disagree with WN:IP. -- IlyaHaykinson (talk) 07:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Per SVT and Ilya. --+Deprifry+ 11:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[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 resulted in admin rights being removed. Please do not modify it.

User:Sfullenwider[edit]

This user has used their admin tools only 3 times, and also are inactive, with one edit in Jan 2007, and before that in Oct 06. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Markie (talk • contribs) 17:57, 9 May 2008‎

Votes[edit]

  • Support per nom --MarkTalk to me 17:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support per nom - Inactive for over a year. Cirt - (talk) 18:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support removal due to inactivity. Adambro - (talk) 22:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support inactive --Ryan524 - (talk) 23:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support per nom. --Skenmy(t•c•w) 09:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support --Brian McNeil / talk 12:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Daniel (talk) 13:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support removal of rights. This user is clearly inactive on Wikinews. Theres no point in allowing him to keep the admin tools if he hasn't edited for months. If they return and request the admin tools back, however, I would probably support them. User:Anonymous101 :) 17:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose I oppose removal of adminship due to inactivity as a matter of personal opinion. I also oppose the proposed policy WN:IP. The only difference between these requests and an automatic removal seems to be that here, they don't get notified by email. --SVTCobra 19:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose I disagree with WN:IP. -- IlyaHaykinson (talk) 07:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Per SVT and Ilya. --+Deprifry+ 11:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[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 resulted in admin rights being removed. Please do not modify it.


User:Crimson[edit]

User has only used admin tools 5 times, and last edited in Oct 07. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Markie (talk • contribs) 18:04, 9 May 2008‎

Votes[edit]

  • Support per nom --MarkTalk to me 18:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support per nom - Inactive for over 6 months and little use of the tools. Cirt - (talk) 18:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support removal due to inactivity. Adambro - (talk) 22:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support inactive --Ryan524 - (talk) 23:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Question: has an effort been made to contact these users via email? Daniel (talk) 05:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    They have all been notified via their Wikinews talkpages - you would have to ask Markie (talk · contribs) if he emailed them. Cirt - (talk) 05:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm just thinking they may be more likely to get an email than a talk page message. Daniel (talk) 05:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    IMO if the user isnt checking their userpages then they aint active or even involved with the community, but if you want to email them then feel free. --MarkTalk to me 09:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I emailed them just to be double-sure. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 13:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Crimson and Elliot were the only two with a valid email address/chose to recieve emails from other users, so they were the only two to get an email. I've voted for the others. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 13:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'd agree with Mark. I'm of the opinion that we shouldn't be emailing users in these circumstances. What are we saying, that if they return they can keep their rights? Is that really appropriate, firstly, do we want users return from such a long period of absence and having all the buttons to play with and secondly do we want users returning for the reason of avoiding their rights being removed? I'd suggest not. Adambro - (talk) 14:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It should be noted that most of these users wouldn't have verified their email, as before they left, you did not have to. So most of them have emails, but you can't email them due to configuration changes. Also I think it is impolite to remove someone without telling them. the chance they'll come back is next to none, its just courtesy.Bawolff ☺☻ 22:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    (re to Adambro) i) courtesy and ii) on the off-chance they'll come back and start being active, having been reminded of the project. It is unlikely they're sitting at home thinking "Thank god I left Wikinews", but have probably forgot all about it. Daniel (talk) 23:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support per nom. --Skenmy(t•c•w) 09:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support --Brian McNeil / talk 12:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support removal of rights. This user is clearly inactive on Wikinews. Theres no point in allowing him to keep the admin tools if he hasn't edited for months. If they return and request the admin tools back, however, I would probably support them. User:Anonymous101 :) 17:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose I oppose removal of adminship due to inactivity as a matter of personal opinion. I also oppose the proposed policy WN:IP. The only difference between these requests and an automatic removal seems to be that here, they don't get notified by email. --SVTCobra 19:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose I disagree with WN:IP. -- IlyaHaykinson (talk) 07:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Per SVT and Ilya. --+Deprifry+ 11:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment I'm sorry for my absence, I've been very busy at work the past few months. Is there a shortage of available admins and tasks that need done? I'm willing to pitch in if there's a need but if there's a surplus of admins I'm not going to insist on remaining an admin for the sake of having a title. Crimson (talk) 03:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yet, you just moved yourself from the list of inactive admins, to active admins. Does that mean you are returning? --SVTCobra 00:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[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 resulted in admin rights being removed. Please do not modify it.

User:Dan100[edit]

User last edited in July 2007, almost a year ago. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Markie (talk • contribs) 16:21, 10 May 2008‎

Votes[edit]

  • Support per nom --MarkTalk to me 16:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support removal of admin rights due to inactivity. Adambro - (talk) 17:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support removal of rights. This user is clearly inactive on Wikinews. Theres no point in allowing him to keep the admin tools if he hasn't edited for months. If they return and request the admin tools back, however, I would probably support them. User:Anonymous101 :) 17:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support inactive --Ryan524 - (talk) 17:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support as inactive. Cirt - (talk) 19:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Daniel (talk) 23:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support as inactive. --Skenmy(t•c•w) 12:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose I oppose removal of adminship due to inactivity as a matter of personal opinion. I also oppose the proposed policy WN:IP. The only difference between these requests and an automatic removal seems to be that here, they don't get notified by email. --SVTCobra 19:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose I disagree with WN:IP. -- IlyaHaykinson (talk) 07:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Per SVT and Ilya. --+Deprifry+ 11:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[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 resulted in admin rights being removed. Please do not modify it.

User:Frankie Roberto[edit]

User last edited in July 2007, almost a year ago. Also has only used the admin tools twice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Markie (talk • contribs) 16:21, 10 May 2008‎

Votes[edit]

  • Support per nom --MarkTalk to me 16:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support removal of admin rights due to inactivity. Adambro - (talk) 17:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support removal of rights. This user is clearly inactive on Wikinews. Theres no point in allowing him to keep the admin tools if he hasn't edited for months. If they return and request the admin tools back, however, I would probably support them. User:Anonymous101 :) 17:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support inactive --Ryan524 - (talk) 17:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support as inactive. Cirt - (talk) 19:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Daniel (talk) 23:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support as inactive. --Skenmy(t•c•w) 12:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose I oppose removal of adminship due to inactivity as a matter of personal opinion. I also oppose the proposed policy WN:IP. The only difference between these requests and an automatic removal seems to be that here, they don't get notified by email. --SVTCobra 19:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose I disagree with WN:IP. -- IlyaHaykinson (talk) 07:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Per SVT and Ilya. --+Deprifry+ 11:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[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 resulted in admin rights being removed. Please do not modify it.

User:Mindspillage[edit]

Last edited in April 2007, over a year ago. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Markie (talk • contribs) 16:21, 10 May 2008‎

Votes[edit]

  • Support per nom --MarkTalk to me 16:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support removal of admin rights due to inactivity. Adambro - (talk) 17:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support removal of rights. This user is clearly inactive on Wikinews. Theres no point in allowing him to keep the admin tools if he hasn't edited for months. If they return and request the admin tools back, however, I would probably support them. User:Anonymous101 :) 17:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Shes a her. Bawolff ☺☻ 22:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[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 resulted in admin rights being removed. Please do not modify it.

User:NGerda[edit]

Had 4 edits in 2007 as a whole. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Markie (talk • contribs) 16:21, 10 May 2008‎

Votes[edit]

  • Support per nom --MarkTalk to me 16:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support removal of admin rights due to inactivity. Adambro - (talk) 17:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support removal of rights. This user is clearly inactive on Wikinews. Theres no point in allowing him to keep the admin tools if he hasn't edited for months. If they return and request the admin tools back, however, I would probably support them. User:Anonymous101 :) 17:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support as much as I like this user, ad heck I was even the one who nominated him, it would not be fair to the others for me to vote diffrently here so I support for being inactive.--Ryan524 - (talk) 17:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support as inactive. Cirt - (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Daniel (talk) 23:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support as inactive. --Skenmy(t•c•w) 12:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose I oppose removal of adminship due to inactivity as a matter of personal opinion. I also oppose the proposed policy WN:IP. The only difference between these requests and an automatic removal seems to be that here, they don't get notified by email. --SVTCobra 19:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose I disagree with WN:IP. -- IlyaHaykinson (talk) 07:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support as inactive. TheCustomOfLife (talk) 08:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Per SVT and Ilya. --+Deprifry+ 11:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose If Wiki Radio gets off the ground maybe he'll return... I hope. --TUFKAAP (talk) 04:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[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 resulted in admin rights being removed. Please do not modify it.

User:Pingswept[edit]

User had 3 edits in 2007 as a whole. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Markie (talk • contribs) 16:28, 10 May 2008‎

Votes[edit]

  • Support per nom --MarkTalk to me 16:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support removal of admin rights due to inactivity. Adambro - (talk) 17:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support removal of rights. This user is clearly inactive on Wikinews. Theres no point in allowing him to keep the admin tools if he hasn't edited for months. If they return and request the admin tools back, however, I would probably support them. User:Anonymous101 :) 17:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support inactive --Ryan524 - (talk) 17:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support as inactive. Cirt - (talk) 19:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Daniel (talk) 23:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support as inactive. --Skenmy(t•c•w) 12:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose I oppose removal of adminship due to inactivity as a matter of personal opinion. I also oppose the proposed policy WN:IP. The only difference between these requests and an automatic removal seems to be that here, they don't get notified by email. --SVTCobra 19:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If they are not being notified by email, then people should probably be voting no, like some did last time. Also, WN:IP does say that rfda'ed people should be notified by email. Well, the spirit of WN:IP is "Here is how to be polite about it." Nyarlathotep - (talk) 22:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I understand it they've all been notified via their talk page and those with valid email addresses have been emailed but seriously what is the point? I keep questioning this but no one seems prepared to explain. For what purpose should we make efforts to contact them? "Run back to WN now and save you admin rights?" I don't think that is in the interests of the community and I don't think being polite really overrules this, clearly they're not active on Wikinews so I doubt they're going to be upset about their rights being removed and I would hope that any of our admins would be sensible enough not to expect Wikinews to be frozen in time when they leave. Adambro (talk) 08:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That may be, but if so it would only be because of Daniel. It seems to me that the nominators both argued against it, so my assessment of the process is correct, imo. At the rate this purge has grown, I am not sure that Daniel got them all. Further, I just don't understand the purge. Why are we doing this? Have we ever had an inactive admin come back and abuse their privileges? --SVTCobra 00:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose I disagree with WN:IP. -- IlyaHaykinson (talk) 07:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Simply disagreeing with IP does not satisfactorily explain your opposition here IlyaHaykinson. IP proposes a certain way of handling inactive admins, the nomination of admins to have their rights removed is not automatically something to do with IP just because that proposed related policy exists. Please clarify your reasons for opposing these nominations. Adambro (talk) 08:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In fact yes it does : It means I don't thing people should be deadmined for inactivity. Which is a reasonable point of view. Nyarlathotep (talk) 00:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[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 resulted in admin rights being removed. Please do not modify it.

User:RossKoepke[edit]

User had 4 edits in 2007 as a whole. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Markie (talk • contribs) 16:28, 10 May 2008‎

Votes[edit]

  • Support per nom --MarkTalk to me 16:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support removal of admin rights due to inactivity. Adambro - (talk) 17:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support removal of rights. This user is clearly inactive on Wikinews. Theres no point in allowing him to keep the admin tools if he hasn't edited for months. If they return and request the admin tools back, however, I would probably support them. User:Anonymous101 :) 17:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support inactive --Ryan524 - (talk) 17:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support as inactive. Cirt - (talk) 19:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Daniel (talk) 23:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support as inactive. --Skenmy(t•c•w) 12:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose I oppose removal of adminship due to inactivity as a matter of personal opinion. I also oppose the proposed policy WN:IP. The only difference between these requests and an automatic removal seems to be that here, they don't get notified by email. --SVTCobra 19:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose I disagree with WN:IP. -- IlyaHaykinson (talk) 07:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Per SVT and Ilya. --+Deprifry+ 11:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[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 resulted in admin rights being removed. Please do not modify it.

User:Uncle G[edit]

Last edited Dec 2007. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Markie (talk • contribs) 16:28, 10 May 2008‎

Votes[edit]

  • Support per nom --MarkTalk to me 16:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support removal of admin rights due to inactivity. Adambro - (talk) 17:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support removal of rights. This user is clearly inactive on Wikinews. Theres no point in allowing him to keep the admin tools if he hasn't edited for months. If they return and request the admin tools back, however, I would probably support them. User:Anonymous101 :) 17:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support inactive --Ryan524 - (talk) 17:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support as inactive. Cirt - (talk) 19:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Daniel (talk) 23:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support as inactive. --Skenmy(t•c•w) 12:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose I oppose removal of adminship due to inactivity as a matter of personal opinion. I also oppose the proposed policy WN:IP. The only difference between these requests and an automatic removal seems to be that here, they don't get notified by email. --SVTCobra 19:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose I disagree with WN:IP. -- IlyaHaykinson (talk) 07:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Per SVT and Ilya. --+Deprifry+ 11:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[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 resulted in admin rights being removed. Please do not modify it.

User:Jimbo Wales[edit]

User has never used the admin or bureaucrat rights he has on the project and considering the healthy number of admins we have I suspect he never will so doesn't need these rights anymore. Jimbo only edits extremely rarely here. Adambro - (talk) 19:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Votes[edit]

Comment This user did not recieve adminship through normal processes. (I think Eloquence gave him the admin bit after he made a comment about mediawiki:Sitenotice, but don't quote me on that). Bawolff ☺☻ 22:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Oppose removal of administrator rights, he often (on enwp) edits archives etc. to courtesy blank material per emails he recieves, and he may need that here. Better safe than sorry, really.
  • Support removing bureaucrat rights. Daniel (talk) 23:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Comment His edit history here shows no use of admin rights and this perhaps suggests it is unlikely he'll ever use them in future. If he never had cause to use them when the community was smaller then I doubt he would now. Also, I'd hope that he'd think twice before doing so and instead leave such actions to our now much more established community. He's active over on enwp and so him having admin rights there is perhaps appropriate. Admin/b'crat rights are supposed to be practical tools, Jimbo having these rights instead seems to be symbolic now. Adambro - (talk) 11:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I tend to agree with Adambro here. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neutral per Adambro. --Skenmy(t•c•w) 12:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support - changing vote. Adminship is provided here on the basis of "if you need it, and you are trusted, have it". Jimbo is a trusted person, but he does not need admin rights here. --Skenmy(t•c•w) 15:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support the removal of all admin rights. Anonymous101 :) 14:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment This isn't important for the discussion but here is Jimbo's opinion on being desysoped per inactivity: " I think automatic desysopping anyone for inactivity is a really horrible idea and should be rejected". Note that this is not my opinion.Anonymous101 :) 14:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: This is really a waste of time. Jimbo will restore his adminship when he feels like it. He exists above policy and guidelines. -- Cat chi? 14:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment This comment is transffered from the associated discussion on Wikipedia:


WikiNews rocks. Adminship is provided on the basis of necessity. It's a mop and bucket, not a badge of authority, as they say. This is great because it demonstrates a lack of favoritism. If Jimbo complains and gets sysop back, I'm going to have to eat my tongue, though. This comment by White Cat is incorrect:

Jimbo will restore his adminship when he feels like it. He exists above policy and guidelines.

☯  Zenwhat (talk) 15:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As does all board members. They will not hesitate to re-admin re-bcrat or re-oversight themselves should the need arises. They (Foundation) own the site and they make the rules. Just because they let us decide some issues on our own does not mean they do not reserve the right to interfere. The removal of their access is hence symbolic. -- Cat chi? 16:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, I do think you should not consider board members above the policies and guidelines. Anthere - (talk) 16:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bravo! Anthere, you continue to prove why the community's trust was well placed in putting you on the board. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments made after de-adminship discussion was closed[edit]

Please comment at WN:AAA not here as the request is closed

Please comment at WN:AAA not here as the request is closed
Due to recent developments, I am here more often and anticipate being here more often. Please restore my admin rights. Also, please reconsider the policy of removing admin rights simply due to inactivity on this project, particularly as applied to people who are active throughout Wikimedia.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would have to respectfully disagree. I mean this is a very strong consensus. Although I don't see why there couldn't be a request made for re-adminship. The vote has been going on now since may 10, ten days ago. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 04:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree with this comment made by TheCustomOfLife (talk · contribs) at WN:AAA, as well as comment by DragonFire1024 (talk · contribs). Over 10 days, 10 users commented with a sentiment one way or the other. 10 supported removal of bureaucrat rights, and 9 supported removal of sysop and bureaucrat rights, with 1 opposed to the removal of sysop rights. Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs) also never had an initial RfA on Wikinews. Cirt (talk) 04:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Note: As this de-adminship discussion was closed after 10 days, no further discussion should take place here. As Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs) has been desysopped after community consensus, the proper procedure according to process if the user wants to become an Administrator on Wikinews would be to have a new RfA discussion. Further discussion about this particular closed de-adminship discussion is taking place at WN:AAA. Cirt (talk) 04:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[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.

Closed per user withdrawl

User:Ryan524[edit]

Some of you were involved in my last Rfa, well 5 people were. It fialed due to so few votes, so I am back this time I am really working on getting people out to vote. The reason I want to be an administrator is alot of what I do here is basic matnience type stuff. Some of which I don't need to be an admin to do, but something require it. The biggest thing is archiving. There is such a backlog and it seems most the time admins are just archiving the new stuff but not dealing with the backlog so that's one thing I want to fix. I have been a wikinews user for years, was an admin at one time but stepped down before taking an extended wikibreak, now I am back and I see nothing in the forseeable future that would cause another extended wikibreak.-Ryan524 (talk) 23:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CLAIRIFICATION: YES, a previous Rfa closed about a week ago had failed, but not from opposition but essetially a lack of overall votes anyway to make a consensus. Under normal circumstances I would not be back doing this but concidering the situation in which my previous one was closed I see no issue. I'm glad to see a turnout for voting here, and I will be letting the Rfa go. That said reguardless of its outcome, this Rfa is it, what the final outcome is, is it. So I ask that you set aside your feelings about another Rfa so soon and vote how you think I would do as an admin again. I ask that you take a honest evaluation. If you really feel you are in a sistuation where you do not "know me well enough" well than I extend an invitation o you to come on IRC, I am on there at least once a day (on weekdays) and we can chat.

The other thing that was brought up by Cirt was some actions after my last Rfa, honestly it seems some might take these actions the wrong way. I am also more than happy to discuss it in IRC. The consensus discussion IMO is an important discussion to get everybody on the same page, while it was the previous Rfa that got me thinking about it, I get the sense some of you came to the conclusion that I was trying to change my Rfa or something, but that is not what it was about. Also Cirt mentioned the AAA entries. IMHO its obvious, I found articles needing archiving and they wern't currently listed in the DL at the bottom of WN:ARCHIVE so I added them there so an admin knew. It was not intended to be any form of "Revenge" I could come up with a better revenge if I wanted to get revenge, come on.

Any other questions, comments, or concerns, feel free to ask here, or find me in IRC.--Ryan524 (talk) 14:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Questions / Comments[edit]

Votes[edit]

  • Neutral -- After his last RfA closed unsuccessfully, Ryan524 (talk · contribs) performed several actions which were not admirable, at least to me. He started a back and forth discussion about "consensus", which seemed to directly stem from his unsuccessful RfA. In addition, he flooded the Administrators' Alerts page with Archive requests, seemingly as a form of retaliation to create more work for Admins after his RfA was not successful. These are not traits we should have in our Admins. However, even given all this, if his behavior improves and he contributes positively for a couple months, I would most likely support an RfA in the future. I also think this one comes way too soon on the heels of the last one. I will provide Diffs, but have to run out at the moment, will be back later. Cirt (talk) 23:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see how discussing something is "not admirable" I think it was a useful discussion. And listing archiove requests is harldy a form of retaliation but simply noting some articles I found that needed archiving. Though I can see how you would think these things I just want to clairify.-Ryan524 (talk) 23:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you would like further clairification i'd be happy tochat about it with you on irc.--Ryan524 (talk) 00:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This comment was also troubling to me. [3] Cirt (talk) 00:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Changed to Neutral, Ryan524 has also been making some good contributions lately, but I am still a bit ambivalent, per above. Cirt (talk) 00:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Sorry Ryan, the issues Cirt mentions as well as your incredible desire to become an admin (wait a bit between RFAs :) ) leave me some what concerned and I can not support adminship at this time. --Cspurrier (talk) 01:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would not say I have an incredible desire to become an admin. If I did I would have just asked a b'crat for my adminship back per the now removed reinstatement ability. Normally I would wait but seeing how it was not failed because of opposition but because of lack of consensus IMO there is nothing wrong with re-rfaing now, it would have been diffrent it the majority of my votes were oppose.--Ryan524 (talk) 04:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
NOw don't get me wrong, I do want to help out archiving is a big need right now and I would be glad to server in that capacity but only if the community chooses to let me. Also what I siad to Cirt about the "issues" that goes for anyone because while I can see how you could come to that conclusion that would be a misinterpretation and I would be more than happy to help expalin that better so everyone is on the same page.--Ryan524 (talk) 04:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support despite the issues raised as Ryan seems to know what he's doing and I don't believe he would abuse the tools. I he does receive adminship I do hope he doesn't prove me wrong, but I still trust him. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 06:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The issue has now become one where people appear to be opposing because they feel they are being badgered into granting the sysop bit. I know, meant to be "no big deal", but that's not the issue here. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the support Blood Red Sandman. I'm glad to have someone standing with me here, but don't worry I would bet money you won't be the only support.--Ryan524 (talk) 14:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose What is the urgent rush to be an admin again? Bombarding the community with RfA's isn't going to do you any favours. There was an opportunity when the previous request was closed effectively due to no consensus to reflect on what was said and build up a better working relationship with the community for a few weeks but this seems to have been missed. I don't that think you shouldn't be an administrator again, just not yet. Adambro (talk) 06:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose time between requests is unseemly. I suspect the best course of action would be to withdraw the request and forget about this for a time (longer than between this and the previous) then quietly find someone to nominate instead of a self-nom. --Brian McNeil / talk 07:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose as i said on your previous request, wait a couple of month or so and you'll get my vote, 2 weeks is too short. Best wait that someone else propose you as admin; i like this way Jacques Divol (talk) 09:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It appears I didn't realize Rfaing so soon would be such an issue, IMO it shouldn't be because its not Ilike most people opposed me, it was just not enough either way. But even with this I'm going to let this one run it's course and howeer it ends...well lit ends.--Ryan524 (talk) 13:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. This is too soon after the last rfa.Anonymous101 :) 16:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Neutral per all above comments. --Skenmy(t•c•w) 17:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Neutral I personally think he'd be a good admin. However I also feel one of the most important qualities of an admin is that he is trusted by the community at large, which does not appear to be the case at this point in time. Sorry, better luck next time. Bawolff ☺☻ 02:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[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 resulted in admin rights being removed. Please do not modify it.

User:Adambro[edit]

It is with disappointment and sadness that I feel this is necessary. Adambro has been difficult with other users as far as consensus goes, but words turned into actions with the most recent deletion debate over the Mormon copyright infringement article, and the leaked OTRS ticket that proved such an infringement did occur. Despite journalistic ethics allowing for fair reporting from within an organization, and no other voices coming to Adambro's aid (in fact, the overwhelming consensus is to keep the article), Adambro has vowed to fight on, consensus be damned, even going as far as to war with other admins to do it.

As always, Wikinews relies on contributors who can engage - sometimes spiritedly - in discussion, and it is "no big deal" to have adminship. Yet, there have been proposals in the past to have admins work to 1RR instead of 3RR. Adambro's actions go far beyond this with at least four reverts and a "fingers-in-ears-la-la-la" attitude to advice given by other administrators. Furthermore, he abused administrator rollback twice in reverting administrators, and in total reverted against three different administrators without discussing at all. I ask that the Wikinews community consider whether such behavior is compatible with being an administrator on this site.

I'd be more forgiving and forgetting if this were an isolated incident, but with Adambro's penchant of screeching dialogues to a halt, as well as disrupting Wikinews and article space at the detriment of other writers to "win his case," I feel he's really abused the trust of the community who voted for him to begin with.

His actions do not put Wikinews first. I'm sorry, but this had to be done. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mike Halterman (talk • contribs) 11:31, 15 May 2008‎

I would very much question much of TheCustomOfLife's comments in this nomination. I have not "vowed to fight on". I have made my position clear with regards to the article that material obtained in violation of WMF OTRS rules should not be included and I don't consider "it has been leaked" be be an adequate excuse considering it was us, as Wikinews, that made this information public. Daniel has insisted that I raise my suggestions that OTRS was misused with the Communications Committee and I have done so. I have been discussion on IRC about my recent actions and have accepted that I will not continue to remove the material and am instead awaiting to hear back from ComCom. I do, and will continue to, maintain that the inclusion of this material is inappropriate through appropriate channels and this does not make be unfit to be an admin.
I'd be very irresponsible if I didn't raise legitimate concerns where I feel necessary yet I am being made an outcast for doing so. This can be illustrated by Brianmc raising the issue of me querying his use of CheckUser at Dispute Resolution. Is it really so bad to dare to question Brian's actions? It appears so.
I'd debate whether my use of rollback in reverting the addition of the material from OTRS can really be classed as an abuse of my admin rights. Clicking "undo" instead of "rollback" would have pretty much the same result.
I do not and will not hesitate to question the actions of other editors and raise concerns about articles where I see fit. I fail to see how doing so has impacted negatively on our readers. Rather, it is part of our responsibility to our readers that we ensure that we address internal issues. Whatever I have done has always been done with the best intentions for improving the project and it is a great shame that it would appear that some users have taken a disliking to me for my opposition to some of the things they have done. If this results in the removal of my admin rights then that will be very disappointing but unless I'm banned from contributing then I'm not going to simply agree with anything that is said to keep people happy and will question editors however inconvenient it might be for them to justify or explain what they've done. It is in the interests of the project and our readers that I continue to do so. Adambro (talk) 12:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This drama does not belong here, it belongs in your response to my filing of a WN:DISPUTE. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mike, it would be appropriate to sign a nomination for de-admin. Also, could you document with diffs where the reverts occurred or at least the page or article name. Thanks. --SVTCobra 14:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I signed under votes. I don't think it's that difficult to assume who filed the report since I said I was the nominator. The article in question is Wikimedia Foundation receives copyright infringement claim from Mormon Church. TheCustomOfLife (talk) 20:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Votes[edit]

  • Support as nom. TheCustomOfLife (talk) 11:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment I am currently in dispute with this user. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Okay, seriously, I have no idea what any of this OTRS crap is, so I don't know if my vote has any weight, but I strongly oppose de-admining Adambro. He's doing what he thinks is best for Wikinews, even if the rest of you think he's wrong. (I'm starting to think he's wrong, but frankly I never cared much in the first place. Can we get back to writing articles instead of fighting over them, please?) Yeah, I guess we could do without the revert wars, but he naturally feels very strongly about this. Not that I support revert warring, but it's not something to get de-admined over. At least not until it becomes a severe problem, which I honestly don't think it has at this point. Removal of admin rights is a serious thing. It should not be done unless an admin is seriously harming Wikinews. So let's count the number of articles Adambro has disrupted/attempted to delete. I count 1. Now let's count the number of articles Adambro has created: 26. This is not counting the number of times he reverted vandals, protected pages, or otherwise cleaned up the site. He will not be able to do many of these things if he is no longer an admin. I have the feeling that he is being nominated for de-adminship because Wikinewsies consider him an annoyance, an obstacle, someone whose differing opinion always seems to get in the way. Wouldn't it be great if you could just get rid of things that annoy you? Oh wait, you can. This is Wikinews, where an angry mob of angry editors is given more respect than an administrator. The fact that everyone else disagrees with him does not give anyone the right to remove his admin privileges. If anything, THAT would amount to censorship (a word that is passed around too lightly these days). In b4 people proving me wrong. ~Planoneck~ 11:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support; what I saw today was unfortunately an exhibition well below the standards of decorum required to be an administrator. Suggestions that this is just an occasional thing are both without merit and irrelevant; administrators should be judged on all their actions, not just the 90% positive ones, and Adambro has a history of disrupting consensus-building through inappropriate means when participating in disputes. This was one of the worst examples I've seen in a while. He reverted on his lonesome, against expressed consensus, and continued to do so after being reverted with descriptive edit summaries and after suggestions to drop it and let the Communications Committee deal with it. Rather than following this, he continued to revert, this time using administrator rollback, and only stopped when told he would be blocked if he touched that article again. This episode shows two things: i) that Adambro's judgement is fatally flawed and not up to the stanard required; ii) that Adambro thinks and acts for himself and not for Wikinews and consensus of the community. It also strikes me as malicious payback against Brianmc after the CoS checkuser incident, a view not lessened when Adam said "I have a desire to pursue this beyond what has been said/done here on Wikinews". All-in-all, I do not believe Adambro has the consensus support of the community, as a result of ignoring them and going on an anti-consensus rampage of reverts and rollbacks for what has strong undertones of personal gain, as well as some sort of martyrdom against the current consensus forming at WN:DR against his passionate attempts to delete the article entirely. Sorry, and with regret, Daniel (talk) 11:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Could you provide a link to the quote you mention please. Adambro (talk) 12:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Er, here. Your quote doesn't make sense in its entirety because you left out an "on Wikinews", after the "rather than". Daniel (talk) 12:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The full quote, which I stand by reads: ":I contacted ComCom on Daniel's insistence that I should take up my suggestion that there has been some misuse of OTRS access here with the Committee rather than because I have a desire to pursue this beyond what has been said/done here on Wikinews". With this additional context it should be clear that, in explaining my reasoning for contact ComCom, was because Daniel insisted that was the correct channel I should be using rather than because I want to pursue this issue. There never was meant to be an "on Wikinews" after the "rather than". It only doesn't make sense because you're trying to read it differently to how I've written it. Adambro (talk) 12:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I seriously cannot understand how it can be read any differently, but whatever. With or without the quote, I stand by every conclusion I came to in my initial comment. Daniel (talk) 12:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There is a separation that I think is being missed here. Wikinews <> WMF. Were this someone leaking documents from another site we'd have no problem and be calling on the Foundation to support us. I've already dragged the EFF into this issue over the DR, and our article should stand. Adambro has acted as an agent of the WMF without their request to do so, and in doing so violated WN:3RR. His intentions were good, but the execution and interaction with other editors has displayed an uncompromising and defensive position that is not good for an Admin. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    In response to Daniel: Well I would maintain that you are wrong to try to twist my comment by suggesting that there should be additional words in there but I'll go on to address some of the other points you raise. I do not have a history of disruption, I have a history of speaking out when I have concerns and I won't apologise for that. I use appropriate channels to do this but have on this occasion resorted to using revert to try to enforce my position. This is regretful and I've accepted that I might as well wait for the response (if any) from ComCom to clarify this situation. I do however feel that in attempting to enforce the key rule of confidentiality of OTRS tickets that my continued reverting was appropriate but ill judged. As in my previous comments above, I see it irrelevant how I reverted the change, whether or not I used rollback I cannot consider to be important since the end result is pretty much identical to if I was to click "undo".
    The link between this incident and the "CoS checkuser incident" is only that the two incidents have two editors common. I have no personal vendetta against Brian. Whether he is the same is perhaps questionable, quickly turning my disagreement about the appropriateness of this article into some kind of personal dispute and highlighting an example where, shock horror, I dared question the actions of Brian. I fail to see on what basis Daniel suggests there is any element of personal gain on my part that might come from any of it.
    In response to Brian: I am well aware that whilst we are a WMF project, we have a responsibility to our readers to not suppress stories which could show the Foundation in a bad light or whatever. No I'm not an agent of the office but I, like every other editor, have a responsibility to stick to the rules governing what we do. By including this material in the article we are effectively condoning the disregarding of the key OTRS rule that information is confidential. This is not something I want to see Wikinews doing. We have responsibilities to our readers but we also have responsibilities to the Foundation. Adambro (talk) 12:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
<not so indented>
My bringing this up on WN:DISPUTE was due to this being another case of you not being a team player. I would rather have seen things played out there than here. This de-admin is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, and from comments in IRC it seems you (Adambro) still don't see why so many people are pissed at you. For all the serious contributors it should be "Wikinews before WMF" yet this is what your DR is going against. You are putting the rules of the source from which material has allegedly been leaked above those of this site and its goals.
I have no intention of voting in this RfdA, I made that clear early on with my statement that I had raised a dispute item. That was not intended to influence things here, but it may well have. I'd be happy to see this RfdA closed as "disruptive and unlikely to reach a consensus", but that ain't going to happen. And, seriously, you need to take a long, hard look at how some people in the community view you. Are you too conservative? Are you forgetting to park the Commons mindset when you log in here? Seriously. Seriously, I used the nickname "Dr No" (per Ian Paisley) on IRC because it is something everyone can laugh off, but there's also the hope that it will sink in as a, "do people really think of me like that?" thing. Yes, there are those who do. They don't hate you, I can't say it isn't personal, and they usually have other users they wish would be more "with it" and receptive to input, we all have a vision for the site and some aspects are more worth pursuing. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose I still believe in de-admining only for abuse of privileges. Yes, technically, using rollback for edit warring constitutes such abuse but as he rightly pointed out, using the "undo"-button would have the same result. --+Deprifry+ 13:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm glad to see you stepping in here and having an old man raise his voice. :-P I'd like to wistfully think this means you might sustain a higher level of involvement with the project. Wikinews has - to my mind - just started to hit puberty; we need all the words of wisdom we can get. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support strongly. Dosen't matter if he could do the same thing if he wasn't an admin. He still overstepped his powers. He has continued to show why he should not be an admin.--Ryan524 (talk) 14:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd like to see this as a wake-up call to Adambro. As mentioned above, if you're logged in here it is "Wikinews before WMF". --Brian McNeil / talk 16:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support -- Per Daniel (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 16:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment Adambro, I would request that you as an admin step down from your position. Admit you made a mistake, and take the consiquences. I would be up to support a future Rfa IF you did the right thing here and stepped down instead of letting the rfda finish, and you makde good edits for a few months to show you have learned from your mistake and it won't happen again.--Ryan524 (talk) 17:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm afraid I'm not going to do so. As I've discussed with you on IRC, the message that will be sent out if this de-adminship request is successful will be that it is acceptable to to violate OTRS rules to obtain information and that it is not acceptable to question the actions of other editors; if you want to make it on Wikinews you keep your mouth shut apart from to say you agree with everyone else. If that is the situation then the chance of me every wishing to become an administrator again would probably be slim. I am simply not prepared to keep quiet about concerns to keep everyone happy. It would be irresponsible and unethical of me to do so. This whole de-adminship is nonsensical. The problem that people have with me is not my use of admin rights, it is that I dare to question their actions. The only thing that will change if/when my rights are removed is that I'll be in a poorer position to contribute my time to maintaining Wikinews. You loose one slightly irritating user who likes to know why things have been done the way they have but contributes a great deal of time using their admin rights towards trying to maintain the project and are left with one slightly irritating user who likes to know why things have been done the way they have but perhaps feel better for giving me a kicking. It is however ultimately the project that will suffer, not simply because we're going to loose one of our more active admins, but more importantly because we'd be encouraging this attitude of patting each over on the back regardless. As Planoneck notes, this whole de-adminship requests smells like an attempt to shut me up because people disagree with what I've said rather than there being any real evidence that I'm not capable of being an admin. Adambro (talk) 18:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose I am not sure if this little skirmish is enough to de-admin anyone. There have been worse fights and actions and I am not sure if this is one of them that merits a de-admin. Yes adambro broke 3rr but so have others. If this de-admin request is somewhat based on the 3rr then he should have been blocked when it happened. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support; while I believe that the OTRS leak is a serious issue that should be forwarded to ComCom, Adambro has made far too big a deal out of this situation in inappropriate venues, causing unnecessary drama. His shocking inability to adhere to consensus, and use of rollback (yes, rollback is a significant tool, because it tells other users that their edits were so patently offensive or vandalous that an edit summary was unnecessary) are extremely unbecoming an administrator. I had considered weighing in on this request earlier, but wasn't really sure until this edit. Even if Adambro was just trying to let me know about the situation, it was extremely inappropriate to do so on-wiki, causing even more drama. A private e-mail (I have e-mail enabled on Wikinews and Wikipedia) would have been sufficient. In short, I don't believe these actions are becoming of an administrator, and I believe he should be desysopped. Ral315 (talk) 18:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose deadminship strongly. Adambro is one of the few editors who are willing to follow policy even when it is controversial. Anonymous101 :) 19:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[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.

Brian McNeil[edit]

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

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

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

--Jimbo

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

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

Comments[edit]

  • Brian remarked, I appreciate resigning everything prompts a snap election for ArbCom, but Jimmy Wales has characterised my leaking of information as unacceptable. I believe that secrets breed more secrets. I'm surprised Jimmy's keeping his "loose lips sink ships" ideology even after the scandals of the past year. As Marilyn McCoo would say, "Let the sunshine in!" TheCustomOfLife (talk) 22:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not have a "loose lips sink ships" ideology at all. I, too, believe that secrets breed more secrets. At the same time, I think it is perfectly appropriate for people who email OTRS with an expectation that their complaint is made in private, deserve respect for that privacy, and that it is wrong to leak those emails to the press... including the New York Times and Wikinews.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I do not see how these anti-Jimmy Wales and anti-Mike Godwin comments that people are posting are helping anyone, least of all Wikinews. --SVTCobra 22:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In this case I feel Jimmy has parachuted into the discussion and will run away. I'd rather not get into a fight about that, we would not be here but for him setting the project up. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have neither parachuted in, nor am I running away. I think there is an important principle at stake here, and one that needs to be openly discussed.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll make what comments I feel are appropriate, and considering the context, it is appropriate in my view. TheCustomOfLife (talk) 06:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Excuse me? There were anti-Mike-Godwin comments posted? Where? I should hope it is clear to everyone that I'm interested in legally defending the projects, including, by the way, Wikinews. MGodwin (talk) 22:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was referring to the first vote (below) as well as the first comment. --SVTCobra 00:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I don't see how the foundation is helping us...If anything, by deleting material, NOT published nor even close to publishing, that makes Wikinews lose credibility. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 22:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Do you mean that you don't see how the foundation is helping us beyond providing a free website without advertisements on which to post our news stories? One that has direct links from Wikipedia? One that lets you get accredidation? --SVTCobra 23:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thaty's not fair for one. They should look at us with respect and dignity. They should think of us first when they want to publish a story. They should be completely open to defense regarding misquotes or alleged false news stories. They should be more willing to give us the stuff we need to do our jobs instead of intentionally making it harder. When your parent organization starts to censor news stories, that don't show that organization in a good light, IMO that is something to be very concerned about. After all this is an organization against supposed "censorship". But here we are...having this conversation because WMF went against the principal foundation/rule for this and all other WMF projects. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 20:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
These threads are beginning to get outside direct relevance to discussing whether or not Brianmc (talk · contribs) should be reconfirmed, IMHO. Cirt (talk) 20:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Votes[edit]

  • Support KEEPING admin rights. This has gone on long enough. We are a news agency. If Jimbo or the board or the office staff or Godwin does not like that then they can get rid of us. I think its time they show us some respect. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 22:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support keeping the rights. I really don't horribly care what Jimmy thinks; his impact on Wikinews is rather null and void considering there's a vote to remove all his rights and it's succeeding. I think Brian is doing a good job and in this past situation, he was in the right. This is a Wikinews matter that needs to be sorted out within our community, and I'm glad Brian's taking this to a vote. I still have confidence in him and that has never been lost. TheCustomOfLife (talk) 22:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support - per TheCustomOfLife (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 22:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support no comments really, you speak for yourself... keep on smiling :-) --MarkTalk to me 22:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support I don't think there is any reason to de-sysop Brianmc. Resigning from OTRS is matter to be resolved on Meta. I will just remark that I am saddened that we lost Adambro over this. --SVTCobra 22:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)