text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Removal/Adambro (admin)

User:Adambro
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.

 * 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)
 * 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)

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)

 * 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)

Votes

 * as nom. TheCustomOfLife (talk) 11:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I am currently in dispute with this user. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Could you provide a link to the quote you mention please. Adambro (talk) 12:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

 * 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)
 * 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)

 * 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)
 * 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)

 * -- Per . Cirt (talk) 16:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


text: User talk:Abdlzcn

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:Abdlzcn


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Removal/Jimbo Wales (admin/bureaucrat)

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

Votes
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)
 * 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.
 * removing bureaucrat rights. Daniel (talk) 23:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * I tend to agree with Adambro here. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

per Adambro. --Skenmy(t•c•w) 12:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * - 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)
 * the removal of all admin rights. Anonymous101  14:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Has anyone actually contacted the person in question? -- Cat chi? 16:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, on his Wikipedia talk page which he often checks. Anonymous101  16:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Please email too... -- Cat chi? 16:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Why?Anonymous101  16:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 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:

☯ Zenwhat (talk) 15:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)

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

 * -- Per 's comment, from above. Cirt - (talk) 17:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It isn't that Jimbo is not trusted, it is that he isn't active here. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * While I oppose removal for inactivity, I support this case because the privileges were not granted by the Wikinews community. --SVTCobra 19:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * — on the grounds of not going through a normal nomination process, and retaining normal board-level rights to make changes for OFFICE reasons. -- IlyaHaykinson (talk) 07:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * removal of admin and bureaucrat rights. TheCustomOfLife (talk) 08:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 20:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments made after de-adminship discussion was 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)
 * 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)
 * Agree with this comment made by at WN:AAA, as well as comment by .  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.   also never had an initial RfA on Wikinews.  Cirt (talk) 04:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Note: As this de-adminship discussion was closed after 10 days, no further discussion should take place here. As  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)


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Removal/Pingswept (admin)

User:Pingswept
User had 3 edits in 2007 as a whole.

Votes

 * per nom --Mark Talk to me 16:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * removal of admin rights due to inactivity. Adambro - (talk) 17:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * inactive --Ryan524 - (talk) 17:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * as inactive. Cirt - (talk) 19:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Daniel (talk) 23:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * as inactive. --Skenmy(t•c•w) 12:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

 * I disagree with WN:IP. -- IlyaHaykinson (talk) 07:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

 * Per SVT and Ilya. --+Deprifry+ 11:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Removal/RossKoepke (admin)

User:RossKoepke
User had 4 edits in 2007 as a whole.

Votes

 * per nom --Mark Talk to me 16:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * removal of admin rights due to inactivity. Adambro - (talk) 17:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * inactive --Ryan524 - (talk) 17:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * as inactive. Cirt - (talk) 19:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Daniel (talk) 23:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * as inactive. --Skenmy(t•c•w) 12:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * I disagree with WN:IP. -- IlyaHaykinson (talk) 07:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Per SVT and Ilya. --+Deprifry+ 11:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


text: User talk:Mandarax

title: User talk:Mandarax


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Removal/Uncle G (admin)

User:Uncle G
Last edited Dec 2007.

Votes

 * per nom --Mark Talk to me 16:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * removal of admin rights due to inactivity. Adambro - (talk) 17:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * inactive --Ryan524 - (talk) 17:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * as inactive. Cirt - (talk) 19:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Daniel (talk) 23:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * as inactive. --Skenmy(t•c•w) 12:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * I disagree with WN:IP. -- IlyaHaykinson (talk) 07:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Per SVT and Ilya. --+Deprifry+ 11:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Removal/Dan100 (admin)

User:Dan100
User last edited in July 2007, almost a year ago.

Votes

 * per nom --Mark Talk to me 16:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * removal of admin rights due to inactivity. Adambro - (talk) 17:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * inactive --Ryan524 - (talk) 17:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * as inactive. Cirt - (talk) 19:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Daniel (talk) 23:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * as inactive. --Skenmy(t•c•w) 12:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * I disagree with WN:IP. -- IlyaHaykinson (talk) 07:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Per SVT and Ilya. --+Deprifry+ 11:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Removal/Frankie Roberto (admin)

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

Votes

 * per nom --Mark Talk to me 16:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * removal of admin rights due to inactivity. Adambro - (talk) 17:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * inactive --Ryan524 - (talk) 17:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * as inactive. Cirt - (talk) 19:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Daniel (talk) 23:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * as inactive. --Skenmy(t•c•w) 12:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * I disagree with WN:IP. -- IlyaHaykinson (talk) 07:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Per SVT and Ilya. --+Deprifry+ 11:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Removal/Mindspillage (admin)

User:Mindspillage
Last edited in April 2007, over a year ago.

Votes

 * per nom --Mark Talk to me 16:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * removal of admin rights due to inactivity. Adambro - (talk) 17:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Shes a her. Bawolff ☺☻ 22:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

 * inactive --Ryan524 - (talk) 17:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * as inactive. Cirt - (talk) 19:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * as inactive. --Skenmy(t•c•w) 12:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * I disagree with WN:IP. -- IlyaHaykinson (talk) 07:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * as inactive. TheCustomOfLife (talk) 08:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Per SVT and Ilya. --+Deprifry+ 11:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Removal/NGerda (admin 2)

User:NGerda
Had 4 edits in 2007 as a whole.

Votes

 * per nom --Mark Talk to me 16:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * removal of admin rights due to inactivity. Adambro - (talk) 17:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * as inactive. Cirt - (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Daniel (talk) 23:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * as inactive. --Skenmy(t•c•w) 12:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * I disagree with WN:IP. -- IlyaHaykinson (talk) 07:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * as inactive. TheCustomOfLife (talk) 08:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Per SVT and Ilya. --+Deprifry+ 11:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If Wiki Radio gets off the ground maybe he'll return... I hope. --TUFKAAP (talk) 04:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Removal/Crimson (admin)

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

Votes

 * per nom --Mark Talk to me 18:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * per nom - Inactive for over 6 months and little use of the tools. Cirt - (talk) 18:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * removal due to inactivity. Adambro - (talk) 22:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * inactive --Ryan524 - (talk) 23:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Question: has an effort been made to contact these users via email? Daniel (talk) 05:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * They have all been notified via their Wikinews talkpages - you would have to ask if he emailed them.  Cirt - (talk) 05:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. --Mark Talk to me 09:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I emailed them just to be double-sure. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 13:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * (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)
 * per nom. --Skenmy(t•c•w) 09:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * --Brian McNeil / talk 12:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * I disagree with WN:IP. -- IlyaHaykinson (talk) 07:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Per SVT and Ilya. --+Deprifry+ 11:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Removal/Sfullenwider (admin)

User:Sfullenwider
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.

Votes

 * per nom --Mark Talk to me 17:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * per nom - Inactive for over a year. Cirt - (talk) 18:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * removal due to inactivity. Adambro - (talk) 22:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * inactive --Ryan524 - (talk) 23:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * per nom. --Skenmy(t•c•w) 09:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * --Brian McNeil / talk 12:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Daniel (talk) 13:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * I disagree with WN:IP. -- IlyaHaykinson (talk) 07:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Per SVT and Ilya. --+Deprifry+ 11:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Removal/Cllewr (admin)

User:Cllewr
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. --Mark Talk to me 17:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * per nom --Mark Talk to me 17:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * per nom - 6 months of inactivity (combined with never using the tools). Cirt - (talk) 17:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * removal due to inactivity. Adambro - (talk) 22:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * inactive --Ryan524 - (talk) 23:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * per nom. --Skenmy(t•c•w) 09:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * --Brian McNeil / talk 12:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Daniel (talk) 13:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * I disagree with WN:IP. -- IlyaHaykinson (talk) 07:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Per SVT and Ilya. --+Deprifry+ 11:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Removal/Elliot K (admin)

User:Elliot K
This user has only used his admin tools 3 times, and last edited in Jan 07. --Mark Talk to me 17:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * per nom --Mark Talk to me 17:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * per nom - Almost 1.5 years of inactivity. Cirt - (talk) 17:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * removal due to inactivity. Adambro - (talk) 22:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * inactive --Ryan524 - (talk) 23:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * per nom. --Skenmy(t•c•w) 09:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * --Brian McNeil / talk 12:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * I disagree with WN:IP. -- IlyaHaykinson (talk) 07:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Per SVT and Ilya. --+Deprifry+ 11:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Removal/Submarine (admin)

User:Submarine
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.--Mark Talk to me 17:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * also, this users last edit was just over a year ago. --Mark Talk to me 17:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * per nom --Mark Talk to me 17:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * removal due to inactivity. Adambro - (talk) 22:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * inactive --Ryan524 - (talk) 23:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * per nom. --Skenmy(t•c•w) 09:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * --Brian McNeil / talk 12:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Daniel (talk) 13:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * I disagree with WN:IP. -- IlyaHaykinson (talk) 07:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Per SVT and Ilya. --+Deprifry+ 11:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Removal/Brianmc (admin re-confirmation 2)

Brian McNeil
With recent issues I want the community to vote on whether I should continue in my position. I appreciate resigning everything prompts a snap election for ArbCom, but Jimmy Wales has characterised my leaking of information as unacceptable. "So, you can add me to the list of people along with Adambro who is, well, I am not "pushing for" you to resign from OTRS, but I think it would be the proper thing to do.

--Jimbo"

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

 * 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)

Comments

 * 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)

 * 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)

 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * I was referring to the first vote (below) as well as the first comment. --SVTCobra 00:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * These threads are beginning to get outside direct relevance to discussing whether or not should be reconfirmed, IMHO.  Cirt (talk) 20:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * 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)
 * 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)
 * - per . Cirt (talk) 22:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * no comments really, you speak for yourself... keep on smiling :-) --Mark Talk to me 22:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * I don't always agree with you, but we need you nonetheless. I would also like to echo SVTCobra's sentiment regarding Adambro. ~Planoneck~ 22:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey! I object to Adambro being desysopped! He and I might disagree from time to time, but that's healthy, right? --Brian McNeil / talk 22:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There's an obvious question from this... Who is going to nominate Adambro for admin? --Brian McNeil / talk 22:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems that Cspurrier speedied the de-sysop, no more than 11 minutes after Adambro made this statement diff. While I would nominate, I won't unless Adambro shows an interest in returning. --SVTCobra 22:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * made the same request on Meta, and was responding to that.  And FYI, see above,  nominated Adambro for Admin consideration, though Adambro has yet to accept.  Cirt (talk) 23:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I saw his request on the IRC StewardBot thing, after talking with him on IRC I carried out his request. I hope he remains a Wikinews editor and will reconsider adminship after things ave calmed. --Cspurrier (talk) 03:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Regrettably, Adambro has declined the nom. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've had a quick chat with Mike (TheCustomOfLife), I want to stress that me re-nomming Adambro was not meant to be "playing both sides" or opposing Mike's posted de-admin. I supported the bringing of the de-admin request as a wake up call to Adambro. I wanted him to see that the community had serious concerns over how he comported himself and that here, at least, the news trumps policy on other WMF sites (including OTRS). I expected it to be closed "no consensus" and Adambro suitable chastised. Re-nomming him was a gut reaction because - while so anal that proctologists run screaming - he is a useful contributor and this was the first serious abuse of privs I think I've seen. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

 * reconfirmation. And Brian can never call anyone else a drama queen again.  Make me come off my work break for this s***, sheesh.  Cary Bass (talk) 01:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What? Not even David?
 * Seriously (am I ever serious?) Jimmy has jumped into this without looking and learning. There need to be rules for disclosure and this was a case that I believed merited it. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * We should have that discussion, then. But what remains true is that you did this without asking anyone, and violated the proper expectation of privacy of a third party.  If we should have a policy under which some kinds of communications to OTRS are eligible for leaking to the press, then we should have that policy.  We should not simply do it in an ad hoc fashion.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

 * not sure wtf happened here, but I support you keeping admin stuff. Bawolff ☺☻ 01:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * if anything, the OTRS access may be in question, but as far as I'm concerned, adminship is not. Ral315 (talk) 02:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ral315, thank you for your support. I had talked through this with one of the OTRS admins and a short suspension of access was being discussed until Jimmy got involved. Having had a brief Skype chat with Cary this morning (I think he stayed up late to catch me) I believe Jimmy will be getting admonished for jumping in without even having read the OTRS ticket and associated article. Even the EFF are involved in this case now (my fault, I emailed Eddan Katz). There's no movement on the steps to professionalizing per stuff on wikinews-l, and that is seriously frustrating me. We need Journalistic ethics and had I remained an anonymous source I would not be in this position. Yet, I believe in fairly radical transparency and owned up to the leak. Was that wrong? --Brian McNeil / talk 08:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

 * . Brian abused his position as an OTRS volunteer in releasing the ticket to Cirt. He should consider whether there is a conflict of interests between his position as a reporter for Wikinews, which is generally about making information available, and an OTRS volunteer for the Foundation where information has to be kept private. As I've noted previosuly there is no real justification in releasing the ticket to Cirt, he was never going to be praised for uncovering some great scandal because there wasn't one and the exact details being open don't reallly benefit the community. I think this is simply a poor judgement on Brian's part. My behavior in releation to the DR was however inappropriate. I objected to the article before it was even written on the basis that it was an internal legal matter which we shouldn't be reporting on because it could impact on the discussions between the Foundation and the Church. This is a view which I maintain. Had I nominated the article for deletion on this basis then things would have been more straightforward. The community would have disagreed and addressed the points I raised, the article would have been kept and we'd all live happily ever after, the community with the article being kept and me having had my concerns addressed. However, my mistake was to mention my concerns about to what degree information from OTRS was used in the article. My intial comment about this was certainly not meant to accuse any particular individual of violating OTRS rules but this is how it seems to have come across to Daniel and Brian. It was unfortunate at this stage that due to being busy in real life I wasn't able to quickly clarify my comments to attempt to calm things. Due to the serious nature of OTRS, I should have raised my concerns more sensitivily and by different channels. As it became obvious that the article as whole wasn't going to be deleted I then attempted to remove the material which I considered to have been obtained from OTRS by Brian, as per his comment on the talk page that he had released the ticket to Cirt. This was of course quickly reverted however it was my view that regardless of the view of the community, the rule that OTRS information should be held privately has to be respected and this was why I continued to revert. My comments however, had not convinced anyone else and based upon discussions on IRC it became clear that I'd end up being blocked if I didn't stop and so I left the article alone. I still maintain that information obtained against WMF rules should not be included in our articles. This information wasn't leaked by a third party to us, it was leaked by us and that is completely inappropriate. Whilst much of the community might feel differently, we as a WMF project have a responsibility to play by the rules they set. Just as I'm sure if UK citizens were asked whether they wanted to pay tax anymore the answer would be no, it just isn't going to happen. There is a limit to what can be based on community consensus, we can't do as we wish simply if most people agree. If people want to do so then they can create a new Wikinews, independent of the WMF but I'm sure they'd quickly realise that the problems we have are far outweighed by the benefits we have in being part of the wider WMF family. Brian is a valuable contributor to Wikinews and it is for this reason I feel he shuld retain his admin rights. However, I don't think we can claim that he is without his flaws. His treatement of me during this incident has being as if I'm some prey that he can toy with and laugh as it dies. I've also raised concerns about his blocking of a user for, if I recall, multiple instances of 1 minute which he justified with something along the lines of it making the user look bad by having a long block log. I would suggest rather that this simply reflects badly on him, Wikinews isn't a game, as an admin he should use the tools to do the job the communiy has given not toy with users. He makes mistakes, which I would like it if people recognised, but overalll I think he makes a positive impact on the project. Whether it is appropriate for him to retain OTRS access is a matter for the admins there but I don't think there is any movement towards removal. I understand he has been warned about his behaviour and risks loosing his rights if he disregards OTRS rules again in future. Adambro (talk) 11:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This lengthy comment does not address some of the issues raised, but thank you for the support.
 * First off, does it really matter who or what we're reporting on? Should we really - as you imply - self-censor?
 * Second, yes I may well be barred from OTRS for a period to "cool off" and reflect. Had I remained an anonymous source we would not be in this position, but the article would have been less credible in the eyes of the community.
 * You accuse me of treating this like a game. This shows you don't know me as well as you might think; I believe life is a game we are all destined to lose. As my reaction to Mike's feedback on nominating you for adminship should show, I already had a position staked out. I wanted your de-admin to fail but the community be allowed its opportunity to say your choices were wrong and you too often failed to listen to criticism.
 * The one minute blocks was Symode09, better known on IRC as brown_cat. Again you throw up my actions in my face and fail to see how they might be appropriate in the case in question. I believe - again - the community would support me in that action and you would be in a minority considering it abuse of powers.
 * Obviously there is no need for us to question whether JWales is supreme overlord of this project. It's like herding cats round here and, well, even Cary took a break from his holiday to point out he opposed my de-sysop and waited up to talk to me regarding this. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Brian said, Adam is "throw[ing] up my actions in my face and fail to see how they might be appropriate in the case in question." But, Brian, that is exactly what you did to Adam at Dispute resolution/Brianmc and Adambro in your listing of CU discussions. So I don't think you can take the higher ground on that. --SVTCobra 00:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

 * --+Deprifry+ 12:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't say I know the specifics of the OTRS situation. But I suport you fully continuing here at Wikinews as an admin and as a b'crat even though I still don't agree with some of your decisions.--Ryan524 (talk) 16:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * To me it seems like it's the Pentagon Papers in smaller form... Brian is Daniel Ellsburg and Jimmy and Mike are like Nixon and the plumbers. I have nothing again Mike or Jimmy, but like Brian said, he's kinda parachuting into this discussion and risking turning to it into some sort of WikiWatergate. --TUFKAAP (talk) 04:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Slight typo there, it is Daniel Ellsberg and I'm flattered. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

 * --Skenmy(t•c•w) 12:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have deep respect for Wikinews, and think Brian does a good job. My complaint was from the OTRS side of things.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a larger issue here, which is how do we deal with things like this? WMF needs a "disclosure policy" that is more sophisticated than "Ask Mike Godwin". Secrecy is an insidious poison and to be avoided wherever possible. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Secrets are strange alive things abit like kids, very difficult to manage (soupire). Yes, a larger issue, to be discussed cool headed around a beer (or a milk, or a beaujolais, or a single malt, don't mind). A place like wikimania could be choosen but unfortunatly too few wikinewseers'ld attend. Jacques Divol (talk) 11:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


text: User talk:Yahsan.hasin

title: User talk:Yahsan.hasin


text: User talk:Silenzer12

title: User talk:Silenzer12


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Administrator/Dan100 3

Dan100
Hello, I'd like my admin rights back please. Nobody contacted me about the "deadminship" process despite the socking great notice about how to contact me on my user page, plus the "deadminship" thing doesn't even seem to be policy. Dan100 (Talk) 21:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

 * - RfA, April 2005 (promoted, 30 April 2005), Request for de-adminship (notified), May 2008. Cirt (talk) 00:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * User hasn't edited for ages except to make this request. Anonymous101talk 19:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * While WN:IP is still only proposed policy, the de-adminship discussion showed a strong consensus in favour of removing rights. I am not against Dan100 getting his admin bit back, but only if he can show that (1) he actually intends to be an active Wikinews contributor again (while he was active with it until July last year, this request for readminship is the only thing he's done since then) and (2) he understands the differences in how Wikinews works now compared to when he was last around, and will be capable of using admin powers responsibly in that framework. Without those two things, I can't see a need for him to be an admin. Chris Mann (Say hi!|Stalk me!) 00:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This is why I oppose WN:IP. If there hadn't been a de-admin for inactivity, this would have never come up. Sorry, Dan100, you need to prove yourself all-over again. Of course, we are just wasting everyone's time. --SVTCobra 01:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * i do not like WN:IP at all Jacques Divol (talk) 13:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No evidence user has returned to activity. Personal principle of only having rights where they are in use to minimise risk exposure. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * fourteen months of inactivity prior to request. I'd be willing to reconsider if he becomes more active again. Durova (talk) 05:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * user does not show basic levels of activity or commitment to receive admin bit. -- Sken   my talk 07:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Administrator/ShakataGaNai

ShakataGaNai
User is very active on Wikinews and can definitely be trusted. First edit 5 June 2008 and user became active in July. Twice todays he has asked me to perform an admin action, so he clearly has a need for the tools. Also, ShakataGaNai is a commons admin and an accredited reporter. Anonymous101talk 19:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Questions

 * Do you accept this nomination? Anonymous101talk 19:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. -- Shakata Ga Nai ^_^ 19:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

 * If you successfully become an Admin, will you help out with admin tasks such as archiving articles older than seven days and Proposed deletions? Cirt (talk) 05:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I wuvvle killing things. Wait, am I supposed to admit that I enjoy destruction? Oh well, I can always get my fix on Commons and play nice here.  Sure I can help with Protections of archives.  I can probably make AWB do it for me even. -- Shakata Ga Nai  ^_^ 05:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Per WN:ARCHIVE you should not use AWB for archiving. Anonymous101talk 14:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * AWB has come a long way since I wrote those parts of WN:ARCHIVE. There are certain aspects of the process could be carried out with it (eg getting rid of stupid MS Word quotemarks and fixing spelling) but I strongly suspect a final once-through with a regular browser would still be required. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments
Someone should create a dedicated reviewer barnstar for this user. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I gave him The Invisible Barnstar. :P -- Cirt (talk) 08:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * Support I approve this candidate. Good Commons admin too.  Won't break the wiki. Cary Bass (talk) 19:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * as nom. Anonymous101talk 19:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Trusted elsewhere and regularly making other people break out the mop. Let xe do some cleanup too. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * , was wanting to be the nom but oh well :P -- Cirt (talk) 00:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * per "it's about time". Chris Mann (Say hi!|Stalk me!) 00:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * just don't feel so afraid of doing touch-up work on articles that you are reviewing. With some fixes, you can publish some of those you are currently failing. Cheers, --SVTCobra 01:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yea. I've been working on taking a softer edge. I'm not failing for no cats and simple stuff that I can fix. I'm always open for comments and critque of what I'm doing.  It's not like I'm the "expert" on reviewing - I just seem to have gotten the job. -- Shakata Ga Nai  ^_^ 05:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * A great reviewer and I'm sure will make a great admin. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 02:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Jacques Divol (talk) 13:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * active and trusted. Durova (talk) 05:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * o_O I honestly thought he already was. -- Sken   my talk 07:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Bureaucrat/Skenmy

Skenmy (Bureaucrat)
is already a trusted sysop, checkuser, and member of the Arbitration Committee. I think he will do fine as a bureaucrat and ask the community to weigh in. We could use some help here at WN:RFP, as well as at WN:CHU and WN:BOTS. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 11:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Questions

 * Question: Do you accept this nomination? Cirt (talk) 11:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Just like a marriage proposal, I do. -- Sken   my talk 11:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

 * How do you feel the significant number of outstanding bot requests should be handled? Particularly given that many overlap and claim to do interwiki links? --Brian McNeil / talk 09:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * These need to be investigated and sorted. If we can consolidate bots and find one that does the lot it would be easier, but liaising with the bot owners is probably a good first step. -- Sken   my talk 14:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

 * -- It has been over 7 days since this RfB discussion started, and it has a majority of support consensus. I think it can be closed as successful and the candidate promoted. Cirt (talk) 04:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * Anonymous101talk 11:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * - as nom. Cirt (talk) 11:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * you are cirt are creepy mother fruiters. -- Shakata Ga Nai ^_^ 22:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Trusted user, will be fine with the tools :-) TheFearow (userpage) 22:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 22:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * --Thunderhead 01:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Jacques Divol (talk) 20:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Bawolff ☺☻ 19:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * — bastique ☺☻ 20:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * --Brian McNeil / talk 09:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * --Cspurrier (talk) 02:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Abstain - Although I trust Skenmy, en.Wikinews has 5 active Bureaucrats and, so far as I have been aware, no recent issues in which Bureaucrats were unresponsive. So I do not perceive a need for more 'crats, in fact I think we should trim the one inactive 'crat as there is no benefit served. -  Amgine | t 02:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Administrator/PatrickFlaherty

PatrickFlaherty
has been a steadfast positive contributor for the last four months now, and became an accredited reporter on 12 October 2008. He has written (14) solid articles on topics relating to finance, and also helps out with reviews. I believe he would continue to contribute positively to the project in his role as administrator. Cirt (talk) 18:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Questions

 * Do you accept this nomination? Cirt (talk) 18:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the nomination and I do accept. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 18:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

 * If you successfully become an Admin, will you help out with admin tasks such as archiving articles older than seven days and Proposed deletions? Cirt (talk) 18:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. I think I would do more archiving then deletions since it seems that deletions tend to be done quickly by other admins. But if I see a page that has been voted to be deleted, then I do just that. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 18:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Being an admin is supposed to be no big deal. Where do you see the extra privileges being most useful to you? --Brian McNeil / talk 22:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the biggest use is the ability to block vandals that go on a vandalism spree with multiple edits per minute. Occasionally we run into the problem and there was a case about a month ago that it took about 15 minutes for admin to block the vandals. Thinking about other uses, I would say the ability to edit full protected pages would be useful such as adding articles to newly created categories. Oh also to delete the main page would be really cool. Just joking about the last part, of course. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 00:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * per nom. Cirt (talk) 18:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have come to trust PatrickFlaherty and have had excellent interaction with this user. PatrickFlaherty seems to have a firm grasp of what Wikinews is about. --SVTCobra 01:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks ready for the bit. Durova (talk) 10:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Has proven himself trustworthy and reliable. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 12:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * --Brian McNeil / talk 14:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Over 500 people missing in Leh floods in India

Article Delete
The article is ready for deletion as it has been merged with Flash floods kill over a hundred in India, 500 missing. -- Srin  ivas  09:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

✅. Actually, I just redirected it. Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 10:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Administrator/Durova

Durova
has been a steadfast positive contributor for the last nine months now, and she has written (19) articles on topics relating to healthcare and science research, helped out with four articles in other areas, and also helps out with reviews. The Meta-Wiki project she has spearheaded, WikiVoices, has brought in new contributors to Wikinews. She is an administrator on Wikimedia Commons and on Wikisource and an OTRS volunteer, and I believe Durova would continue to contribute positively to Wikinews in her role as sysop on this project. Cirt (talk) 23:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions

 * Do you accept this nomination? Cirt (talk) 23:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you very much for the nomination. Durova (talk) 23:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, no interesting questions... I'll take this opportunity to contribute to wikinews in a non-useful manner ;). Bawolff ☺☻ 03:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC) Answers: Durova (talk) 04:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If you successfully become an Admin, will you help out with admin tasks such as archiving articles older than seven days, proposed deletions and closing deletion discussions? Cirt (talk) 23:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd be glad to. Durova (talk) 23:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * On the vote to start the Wikinews project, a famous Wikipedian said, "Would I ever vote against world domination?". Do you believe Wikinews should take over the world? (bonus points if you can tell me who said that)
 * If Wikinews took over the world, and ruled everybody's life, what would the meaning of Wikinews be?
 * Follow up: if Wikinews took over the world, and ruled everybody's life, would I still be a wikiholic?
 * Yes, absolutely. (Jimbo. No. 16.)
 * 1) Forty-two.
 * 2) Would you? Dunno.  I can quit anytime I like.

Comments

 * I want to also comment on this, now that I've been thinking about it a bit longer; that Durova has an enormous amount of energy, and she is also a good motivator for others. I love Wikinews and I'm sad that I can't spread my time around devoting more energy to this project; and for me, I can see this project only getting better with Durova on board as an admin.  Plus, she's a girl and we need more girls.  Cary Bass (talk) 23:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * per nom. Cirt (talk) 23:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I oppose not because I don't trust the user with the bit, but because I don't think they know their way around well enough. Earlier this evening I had to delete stuff that should simply have been tagged delete or listed on WN:AAA; instead it was listed on the Water Cooler. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * previous vote struck, I think if those who support (myself included) help mentor Durova then there will be little in the way of problems. Comments below indicate a willingness to learn. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * She's gained experience in many varied areas of the project, and a few posts to Water Cooler show a drive to interact positively with the community. I highly doubt this would have any bearing on her actions as a sysop - quite the opposite - it demonstrates a willingness to seek out discussion with other users. It is certainly a bit difficult to learn one's way around on this project - note it was three tries before anyone gave her feedback on that. Cirt (talk) 23:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * She did not know that the place to seek admin help is WN:AAA. I expect that as a minimum for any candidate. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I am sure that a simple polite post from yourself for her to do that in the future would have been all it would have taken. This project is not that user-friendly in helping people find their way around - and surely someone who has already displayed qualities of both being able to bring in new users and also experienced users from other projects, and a strong capability to listen to others and solicit input, help, opinions and advice from more experienced users, is someone that will be level-headed and do well as a sysop. Cirt (talk) 23:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand my reasoning, why I do not know. I am opposed because the user is not familiar enough with the project, not used to tagging things they'd speedy as delete, and didn't know where the local equivalent of the administrators' noticeboard was. Durova also seems "casually active", something which influences me little but raises concerns that she may not learn where things are without more time applied to the project. Wiki experience elsewhere should not factor in here, it helps as a contributor but not necessarily as an administrator. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * My above rationale stands, but also I think Cary Bass summed it up pretty well in his Support comment, below. Cirt (talk) 00:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In an effort to prove myself wrong I will say, "You're never content unless you get the last word". --Brian McNeil / talk 00:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Brian, you raise a worthwhile concern. Please note that documentation at WN:AAA is actually a bit thin with regard to speedy deletions.  I've had that page on my watchlist for a while, yet from reading its sections had been under the impression it was primarily used for requests to edit protected pages, 3RR alerts, and unblock requests.  Perhaps it would be a good idea to update and make the page clearer?  I'll be sure to use it for this intended purpose in the future; please extend a little leniency about using another one for a few days before receiving a direction that wasn't clear on the desired page itself. Durova (talk) 01:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

 * While I understand Brian's concerns, I also realize that these are learning processes. I didn't know all the proper procedures when I ran for admin, and I somehow passed!  I trust Durova with the access to the  tools. Cary Bass (talk) 23:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * We could use another Admin, but I don't know if its a pressing issue at the moment. I trust the user and is a great writer. I am not against adminship at all though. We need more regulars and we are so behind on archiving its not even funny. DragonFire1024'' (Talk to the Dragon) 01:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Very strong  Durova is a great writer, a great editor and will make a great admin. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 01:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * - has read Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, what more can we ask from an admin? Bawolff ☺☻ 04:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Giving Durova the sysop bit will definitely be a net benefit to the project. Chris Mann (Say hi!|Stalk me!) 22:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * per nom and Bawolff. Anonymous101talk 19:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)