Wikinews:Administrators

Shortcut:
WN:A

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

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

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

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

• Requesting de-adminship: Stewards are the only users who can remove administrator privileges. They will not de-admin unless there is community consensus for this to happen.

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

• Bawolff
• Brianmc
• Brian New Zealand
• Cartman02au
• Chiacomo
• Crimson
• Craig Spurrier
• Deprifry
• Divol, Jacques
• Doldrums
• DragonFire1024
• Eloquence
• FellowWikiNews
• IlyaHaykinson
• Messedrocker
• Nyarlathotep
• Nzgabriel
• PVJ59
• The bellman
• TUFKAAP
• Stevenfruitsmaak

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

• Borofkin
• CGorman
• Cllewr
• Dan100
• DouglasGreen
• Elliot K
• Frankie Roberto
• Karen
• Lankiveil
• Lyellin
• Mindspillage
• NGerda
• Pingswept
• Ral315
• Ronline
• RossKoepke
• Ryan524
• Sfullenwider
• Simeon
• Submarine
• Tomos
• Uncle G

Admin action required

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

Requests for adminship

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

See /Archive for old requests.

User:Thunderhead

Not to be standoffish, but I am nominating myself for Adminship. I don't really expect complete support, since I've only been here for a while, but I feel that I have made quite significant edits to the wiki, and that I have been marking articles for quite a while. I have launched the Wikinews Humor project, and I have made anon edits at work, school, and home. I also admin the Ace Combat Wikia on w:Wikia, so I have some knowledge of the admin tools. Thunderhead(talk) 22:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC) I was once known as User:Urameshi2

Accept Just in case nomination doesn't count. Thunderhead(talk) 22:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Questions

I know I'm doing something more wikipedia-like but I don't think a little structure can harm.

I'm a bit confused by your account rename, that's why I have some questions, to make sure that I understand your level of experience here correctly.

1. How long have you been on Wikinews? Have you been on other Wikimedia projects as well (besides wikia)?
2. Which articles have you started or made major contributions too? Any ones you're particularly proud of, or that show your understanding of Wikinews and how it works?
3. Have you ran into any conflicts with other users before? How was the problem resolved?
4. What sysop chores would you like to do?
5. What are your strong sides and your pitfalls here on WikiNews?

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem! I'd be happy to answer your questions!

1. At least a year, with my recent edits being in the past two months.
2. Yes, I am on Wikipedia, Wiktionary, and Wikibooks, although I have not made major edits except on News or 'Pedia.
3. Check here. I have started Wikinews:Humor, and I have been a Wikignome for most of my career here.
4. Nope. No conflicts ever. :)
5. I would just like to be able to help Wikinews in the best way I can, and I have found that I would like to be an administrator to help with my gnome edits.
6. Well, I have always tried my best to be helpful, I haven't really run in to any problems, and I have alot of knowledge of Mediawiki I also consider myself to be polite.. My pitfalls are that I tend to ask fairly obvious questions sometimes, and that I have occasionally copy/pasted before I was reminded to not to do so.

Any other questions? Go ahead! Thunderhead(talk) 20:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

1. Exactly what stories have you written as an anon? It's hard to find if the ip-address changes a lot... Although you have some confirmed. And which did you start when you where logged in, only the latest Al-Qaeda 9/11 story?
2. Do you still make anon edits? Why is that?

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

1. Well, my last logged-in was the latest FDA E. coli (I think), although a few were deleted for Template:copyvio, although I did write a temp article. I never recieved anything on that. Another one I wrote is US Air Force chief proposes using non-lethal military weapons domestically, and Sharapova takes U.S. tennis title. One more I wrote is Child abuse case in West Virginia ends in jail time
2. My school does not allow us to login to anything, so I have to make anon edits on WN at school, although i will say unlogged @ school on mine.

Comments

• Usage of edit summary seems rather low.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• AAAAAAAAA! Hang in there <cough cough> remember Rosey <splutter splutter> and sign in often <even when they treat you like a dog> -Edbrown05 08:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Support

• Support. Bawolff ☺☻ 22:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Seems like a sensible chap---Eloquence 01:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Certainly deserves it. By the way, Erik's comments on Wikinews are not representative of the Board of Trustees in any way. I know that should sound obvious, but it's gotten Erik slapped around a bit I believe. —this is messedrocker (talk) 20:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Jason Safoutin 21:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support --Nzgabriel | Talk 19:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

• neutral Jacques Divol

Oppose

• Oppose We have more than enough Administrators already. Besides, some of this user's actions have led me to doubt whether he will be capable of handling the responsibility of being a sysop. PVJ^(Talk)_{(Articles I have written)} 08:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Can I ask what I did wrong? I understand that we have alot of Admins, but what did I do wrong? Thunderhead(talk) 13:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I would not be comfortable revealing exactly what you did to influence my opinion of you in this manner. However I can tell you that I do not think that users who go "behind the backs" of other users should be allowed to have Administrator privileges. Transperency is a must on Wikinews, as anywhere else. Best of luck with your RfA. PVJ^(Talk)_{(Articles I have written)} 14:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for telling me that. I will do my best to "be bold" on Wikinews. Thanks! Thunderhead(talk) 17:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

PVJ...and you're the pot calling the kettle black. Jason Safoutin 21:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Ummm, I've seen a lot of people (basicly almost every admin, besides well, Karen is the only exception I can think of. Note I'm including myself in that list.) go behind peoples back at one time or another (I'm not saying Everyones done major stuff behind someone elses back, but most people have dones something minnor at one point.) I know you don't want to reveal specifics, but I'm really curious as to what happened Bawolff ☺☻ 02:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

It was just my personal judgement that if he is given sysop access, he may use it in a way that is not compatible with the level of openness that we except from our Administrators, especially when dealing with blocks of users. PVJ^(Talk)_{(Articles I have written)} 02:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Bawolff ☺☻ 03:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose: This user has obvious good qualities: humour, friendly, helpful, knows MediaWiki... Although I'm sure this is admin material because he loves gnome edits, this user has a such a high level of those edits with very few (only one? I'll change my opinion if I'm mistaken here) story he started. I believe you learn how this place works by writing news stories, which might explain the "obvious questions". Also, usage of edit summary seems rather low, which I think is a kind of Good Admin Practice. I really don't want to sound pretentious since I'm quite the newbie-admin, but maybe it's better to wait a month and a few stories?--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for your comments! Thunderhead(talk) 20:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Stevenfruitsmaak has it down exactly. Thunderhead has alot of good qualities, but also a lack of any major story writing. With no real urgent need for adminship, I think it is best to wait a bit. --Cspurrier 01:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why thats such a problem. Lets look at Admin tasks: Fixing images that commons deleted, Gnome like edits to archiving, Archiving, Deleting, protecting edit war zones, Blocking. These Are all Matinance/Gnome like tasks. Also Some other admins, have made very few articles (my grand total is 2 - which wern't very good, I don't think Karen has made very many either (don't quote me on that)) Bawolff ☺☻ 03:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

A lack of story writing can be made up for by a lot on talk pages or community pages, by a urgent need for new admins (iirc when you became an admin we were still getting off hour vandalism) or by am overwhelming amount Gnome tasks (like Karen). Since Thunderhead has not done any of these, I can not say I know him well enough to trust him with adminship.--Cspurrier 17:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for your comments! Thunderhead(talk) 20:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose, no real criticisms but try again when you've more edits and given people time to build a better picture of you as a contributor. I don't think we should refuse on the grounds of "enough administrators", but less than 100 edits in the Main namespace isn't enough to form an opinion. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 18:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for your comments! Thunderhead(talk) 20:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks, I don't want to discourage you as a contributor because you do useful work. However, I want to see you being more involved by doing things like rescuing poorly sourced articles instead of tagging them. Best summed up as, "Practice random acts of kindness". Nobody can do it all the time, and some things just need tagged, but contributing at a level where you get more feedback on - or more viewing of - your contributions will build people's trust. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 13:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the advice. I am pretty sure I'm not going to get it this time, although I do see that I have earned the trust, and support from many contributors (including some who oppose). I will try again in a while, but until then, thanks for the advice. Thunderhead(talk) 16:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose, based on [1]. Why the hell is there a) a need for a NS wikia when there's already an individual NationStates wiki, and b) a need to advertise this RFA there? NSLE 05:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about, and how can you base a decsision off that? Wikia is an entirely seperate Wiki, and has nothing to do with my Wiki status here. Thunderhead(talk) 05:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think desicions for this should be allowed to be based on actions at other wikis, unless it directly has to do with Wikinews. Bawolff ☺☻ 17:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Requests for de-adminship

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

Please note that only administrators who have misused the administrative privileges granted to them (as can be proved through concrete evidence) may be listed here.

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

User:PVJ59

As much as I appreciate PVJ's efforts to make Wikinews more neutral, I can't say that I can trust him as an admin. Admins are expected to be civil, yet PVJ in the whole Category talk:Israel debacle made very intimidating comments towards people of Israel. In fact, a contributor from Israel pointed out these highly incivil comments he has made. Additionally, PVJ has violated 3RR too many times (for an administrator), and has at one time unblocked himself so he could make a comment. I would still like PVJ59 to be a contributor, but I think he should spend some time without his admin tools so he can regain the trust of the community. —this is messedrocker (talk) 17:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

PVJ59 has posted a message regarding this RfDA.  — Doldrums(talk) 18:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

If my contributions to Wikinews are repaid in the form of my Admin access being withdrawn, I will quit the project. In case the RfDA passes, I ask that my user and user-talk pages be deleted. Thank you. PVJ^(Talk)_{(Articles I have written)} 03:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Questions

• Question: What other possibilities are there? "At their discretion, lesser penalties may also be assessed against problematic administrators, including the restriction of their use of certain powers or placement on administrative probation." ¹ Is this an option?--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 00:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

In certain cases, Wikipedia policy is transwikied to Wikinews. We are permitted to use their policies where ours is lacking. In this case, however, there doesn't appear to be any facility to implement administrative probation unless the ArbCom becomes involved. --Chiacomo ^(talk) 05:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• Comment: Since it always is an issue in RfDAs, remember Support means remove adminship and Oppose means he should keep his adminship. Also this is PVJ's second RfDA, his first one ended with 6 opposes and 2 supports. --Cspurrier 17:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Note that PVJ59 is currently blocked and will not be able to respond on this page.  — Doldrums(talk) 17:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • PVJ is welcome to comment on his talk page. —this is messedrocker (talk) 17:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I generally oppose the RfDA process and will not vote, but will comment. I also think that PVJ's stance on Adminship being a requirement for his editing is unfortunate. Adminship is supposed to be about duties of cleanup, maintaining policy, and being a trusted user to take care of some tasks that we don't want to offer to every editor. It is not supposed to be a function to help a user edit on Wikinews. -- IlyaHaykinson 05:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: After I get about ten support votes (or a difference of ten in favour of me being de-sysoped), I shall retire from the project. I do not, however, wish to imply that I am quitting (it is only a matter of time now) out of any ill-will toward my fellow contributors. It is just that I do not wish to burden Wikinews with my presence if the community does not wish to have me on as an Administrator. I once again urge the community to vote as they please-remember that my departure will not have any catastrophic impact on the project, and thus there is no need for the voters to exercise any sort of restraint while voicing their opinion in this regard. I hope that this unpleasant business will be sorted out quickly so that we may all go back to doing what needs to be done. PVJ^(Talk)_{(Articles I have written)} 16:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Please reconsider that stance, I'm afraid tha the RfDA should make it clear to you that there are a number of people who are losing trust in you using administrative powers appropriately. I count at least 2 times you've unblocked yourself and two times you've blocked yourself, I'm not going to look for other breaches but I suspect they exist. You can't do that, if you're going to breach the rules you must not breach the ones that normal editors can't. In addition to that, you should only break the rules when you're prepared to take the consequences. It better be a hell of a good point you're trying to make.

Right now you probably still have a good degree of sympathy for some aspects of the POV you've expressed, were you to bring the Israeli recognition issue to any article involving one of the countries that does not recognise it, then you'd get sympathy for working the detail into the story. Beyond that you're questioning the right of the majority of contributors to defer to Wikipedia on the status of Israel. I'm not going to reach for analogies, they been beaten to death in an effort to get you to accept the reasonableness of using a category Israel. As you are repeatedly reminded, the countries who wish it didn't exist have to refer to it in some way, and they frequently use "Israel" with choice adjectives.

Finally, there are ways to express your POV on Wikinews and stay within project guidelines. Through your choice of story submissions you may express your POV, provided that each story is within the project guidelines. So, you ignore U.S. "propaganda" and concentrate on reports from other countries. That way you can look for news that relates to what you consider the under-reported POV and bring them to light alongside the more mainstream coverage that you may not be so happy with. You may have to live with what other contributors add, but if you can't work with that you shouldn't be on a wiki. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 17:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Support

• Support as nominator. —this is messedrocker (talk) 17:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Sorry, but I gotta Support. Thunderhead(talk) 17:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Sadly gotta Support removal of adminship too. He was blocked for these infractions, but RfdA is the more adult & appropriate venue. However, a double wammy is no good. So I'm unblocking him. And this support vote is conditional upon him not being reblocked for these specific infractions. Nyarlathotep 02:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support, doesn't inspire trust.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

* Oppose- seems overreactive to me. Blueline 16:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC) to explain; I believe in forgiveness and peaceful solutions to disagreements so I do not want him to be kicked off the administrative job. A sports arena is a good place for fights but I do not see his actions as being very different from several other administrators so I think they are all doing good work for no money so I want them all to stay as long as they want. Blueline 16:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC) sock of Neutralizer --Cspurrier 17:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

* Oppose-The great contribution PVJ has made to Wikinews far outshines his wrongdoing. الموت على الاسلام 16:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC) Sock of Tohstsalstuen, who is a new user using an open proxy and is a probbaly sock of Neutralizer --Cspurrier 17:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC) * Oppose-By DeAdmining PVJ we risk losing him, as he stated. If this happens, Wikinews will stray to an even further pro-western bias than it already has. This would be detrimental to Wikinews. Remember how Wikinews' popularity falls when Neutralizer is banned? The same loss of popularity will occur when PVJ resigns because of this. Think people think. Tohstsalstuen 17:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC) New user using an open proxy, using a sock and is a probbaly sock of Neutralizer --Cspurrier 17:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• OpposeMessed and Cspurrier supported MrM and Amgine when they committed much worse and more frequent misuse of their admin powers.This is simply an attempt to silence the one administrator who is willing to fight the anglo-american pov which is (perhaps unknowingly) being pushed by many of our admins. It would be very harmful to the Wikinews project if this indirect form of censorship is successful. Paulrevere2005 17:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment -You bring up a good point. الموت على الاسلام 17:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)