text: User talk:Censored42

title: User talk:Censored42


text:
User:Shankarnikhil88 (alternate account)/About

If you see this account vandalizing or behaving oddly, please block it as it is probably compromised.

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


text: Comments:Bronislaw Komorowski sworn in as president of Poland


text: User talk:Taufik alhaddad

title: User talk:Taufik alhaddad


text: Comments:Former US Senator Ted Stevens among five killed in Alaska plane crash


text: User talk:Hidroxitriptamina

title: User talk:Hidroxitriptamina


text: User talk:Cariaso

title: User talk:Cariaso


text:
Wikinews:Water cooler/assistance/archives/2010/July

Please remove duplicate
I made a duplicate (no idea how) on Comments:'Misleading' Burger King advert banned in the United Kingdom. Please remove it. Kayau (talk · contribs) 13:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

FlaggedRevs
Scholastic sued for Harry Potter copyright infringement cannot be edited because it's protected, but the protection is not yet reviewed. Kayau (talk · contribs) 04:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅. -- Cirt (talk) 04:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


text:
Template:Kosovo

An infobox for and its news. ''Are newer articles not showing? [ Refresh]''

Customize this infobox .

ro:Format:Kosovo ru:Шаблон:Косово ta:வார்ப்புரு:கொசோவோ

title: Template:Kosovo


text: User talk:Twiniestar

title: User talk:Twiniestar


text: User talk:Edge3

title: User talk:Edge3


text: User talk:Yigalrechtman

title: User talk:Yigalrechtman


text: User talk:PopCulturalTX

title: User talk:PopCulturalTX


text: User talk:Reubenzadeh

title: User talk:Reubenzadeh


text: User talk:Luciann Mosescu

title: User talk:Luciann Mosescu


text: User talk:Hoangvu89

title: User talk:Hoangvu89


text: User talk:فهد بن علي بن العثمان

title: User talk:فهد بن علي بن العثمان


text: User talk:Getoryk

title: User talk:Getoryk


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Administrator/C628 2

Requesting adminship again after my return to the project. I'd like to know whether the community thinks I can still be trusted with the tools after the mess of the past couple of weeks, which I've been involved in. Cheers, C628 (talk) 01:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Votes

 * as you were one of the few people during the mob-lynching that were rational, and probably the most mature person there. I trust you. Tempodivalse [talk]  01:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * — Welcome back. Gopher65talk 01:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * --Diego Grez return fire 02:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * — Mike moral  ♪♫  02:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 *  — fetch · comms  02:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Usually I am somewhat opposed to people resigning and then suddenly coming back and wanting their privs back (resigning should mean something), but in this case, everyone got a little heated, and I am very happy to see you want to come back. strong support. Bawolff ☺☻ 02:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I see your point, this was a lot sooner than I expected to be be back, but I felt that I couldn't just stand on the sidelines for this. C628 (talk) 02:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

 * The de-sysop nomination may or may not turn out badly, but it was done with thought and integrity, and the more admins we have with those, the better. --Pi zero (talk) 02:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * - I'm not sure if I have standing here, but if so, please register this as a support. This message is left in my capacity as a volunteer and editor, not as a staff member of the Wikimedia Foundation.  Philippe (talk) 05:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * —welcome back! Δεν δοδγε  τ\c 10:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm very glad to see that you have not been driven away entirely. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 10:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * We all get a little heated sometimes - it's good you have seen sense -- Sken   my talk 13:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I see you've chosen to reenter the Dark Side. Welcome back! :D Benny the mascot (talk) 14:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * , now pick your monocle out your soup. --Brian McNeil / talk 01:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Welcome back. Pmlineditor discuss 10:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it is safe to say the community approves. -- Shakata Ga Nai ^_^ 22:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Removal/NuclearWarfare (reviewer)

NuclearWarfare
Could someone please remove the reviewer flag from my account? Although I rarely edit here, I do not feel comfortable editing here at all at this time. NuclearWarfare (talk) 01:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

 * ✅ Tempodivalse [talk]  01:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


text: Category:Successful requests for de-reviewership


text: User talk:Triesno

title: User talk:Triesno


text: User talk:Matren555

title: User talk:Matren555


text: User talk:Asdalol

title: User talk:Asdalol


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Removal/Brian McNeil (admin/bureaucrat)

Withdrawn by nominator. No consensus in any event. 7 support, 5 oppose, 7 abstain. Gopher65talk 15:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to desysop and decrat
Per recent actions that I think have been overly dramatic and inflammatory, I would like to submit to the community a proposal to revoke Brian McNeil's administrative and bureaucrat privileges. His actions have been unbecoming of Wikinews, and only serve to inflame emotions further, at a time when that is the last thing we need. His actions in the Matthewedwards fiasco and in more recent events showed extremely poor judgement, and directly lead to the departure of several contributors, both permanent and temporary. I open this proposal to community discussion. C628 (talk) 19:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments and questions

 * Enjoy your witch hunt guys. I do indeed regret What I did with Matthew Edwards' talk page. I do not regret what I did when I, much earlier than the block and image issue, removed his accreditation and email address. If Matthew is going to rant away below about the publication of emails - from which I removed personal email addresses and phone numbers - then someone else should have the nerve to publish IRC logs, and go over what happened there. There is an abundance of blame to go round; I've been this project's lightning-rod in the past, but it would seem I will cease to be such on, or after, the third of next month. --Brian McNeil / talk 00:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

 * I thought I might change my vote, in light of points that have been brought up in the discussion (despite the astounding levels of hypocrisy by some of the parties making those points), but it has become crystal clear that this proceeding no longer has anything remotely to do with Brian. This is now only about the same mob that did the blocking and has never disbanded.  It continues to gather momentum, and if allowed to run its course it will burn Wikinews to the ground until there is nothing left to burn.  The mob doesn't care about Wikinews, one way or another; it doesn't care who its victims are, as long as it has a steady supply of them.  I actually experienced a (relatively small scale) near-riot once, from the inside; the atmosphere felt like this, and afterward I concluded that perfectly rational remarks I had made to those around me had been amplified and fed back into that situation.  Reread the comments here; some are reasonable, others amplify those and make new points that would seem perfectly reasonable if they were made differently.  Notice the hypocrisy (about the only thing Brian did or was accused of that hasn't been done here is use images of death).  Think about it.  And keep thinking about it in the days ahead.  Whether you decide you agree with me isn't important; what matters is that the more we stubbornly insist on thinking, the harder it will be for a mob to exist.  --Pi zero (talk) 02:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope you won't mind a comment from someone with fairly extensive experience in complex user dispute resolution, who's on the outside looking in here. From my perspective, I see a good chunk of the Wikinews community going off the rails here, not simply one particular administrator/crat/checkuser. I look at the history of User:Matthewedwards' userpage, and I see quite a few names on the list, several of them admins editing through protection, for example. How you, as an independent community, decide to address the behaviour of specific individuals is strictly your call. I'll just suggest to you that removing the permissions of one individual does not mean that your community has actually solved the cultural problem that led to the behaviour we see here. I appreciate the fact that Wikinews has been striving to develop a more professional presentation, and that part of that professionalism is holding users to account if they are granted special permissions such as credentials. I cannot help wondering, however, why anyone would consider it professional to include of images of tombstones, guillotines and swinging corpses into block messages. Apologies to the user on the receiving end of such behaviour are entirely reasonable; however, if the apologies are user-specific, and there is no cultural shift away from the mentality that exacerbated what should have been a relatively straightforward and calm block discussion, you as a community will be here again. Risker (talk) 03:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC) For the record, this entire incident came to my attention because I am a listadmin for the Checkuser mailing list, and had to address certain issues following the removal of checkuser permissions
 * well said. I personally think that this current debate has very little to do with Matthew, and much to do with how we as a community define professionalism. Bawolff ☺☻ 03:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, this is embarrassing...Upon thought, someone withdraw this proposal, for reasons cited by numerous people below—it's only prolonging drama at a time when such is the last thing we need. My nomination has been described as "spurious," and I don't deny that that there may have been an element of that in there.  However, I still stand by my comments about Brian's actions, just no longer strongly enough to keep this nomination open. Now, the embarrassing part here is that I have not the slightest idea how to go about closing said discussion, so assistance would be appreciated...Regards, C628 (talk) 15:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Votes

 * —I hate to have to say this, and it comes from a heavy heart, but I believe Brian mis-handled the situation, and has been acting in a matter unbefitting of an administrator. De-sysopping him seems, reluctantly, to be necessary due to recent events. However, I would be one of the first to jump at the opportunity to re-sysop him in a few weeks, when everybody has cooled down a bit. Sorry, Brian! Δεν δοδγε  τ\c 19:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Brian's always been a bit irascible —certainly since I've been here, anyway— and yeah, his nose has been out of joint over recent events ('nuff said). We as a community were collectively no longer comforable giving him checkuser, and he voluntarily relinquished it.  But checkuser is a really phenomenally delicate power to wield, absurdly easy to abuse just by looking at it funny.  Abusing the admin and crat bits would be a whole different sort of thing, and I don't think that of him.  --Pi zero (talk) 19:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * See my above.  --Pi zero (talk) 02:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a quick clarification - are you striking your comment, or the vote as well? If it's the latter, then you probably should indent it and strike that out too. If the former, never mind ... Tempodivalse [talk]  02:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * My vote stands. I should have said that explicitly here; apologies.  --Pi zero (talk) 02:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Bit late, but whatever...support as nominator, for the record. C628 (talk) 19:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 *  He acted like an idiot, but I don't think we should be doing this. Everything is going from bad to worse. Stop the drama. --Diego Grez return fire 19:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So what would you suggest? He just goes ahead acting like an idiot?  Awesome. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * After considering this, I'm sorry but I have to this. Brian did very idiotic things. He abused his position of authority, and his actions seem very biased. Brian has done a very good job in the past, but he needs to take an obliged break. His grandmother died. We didn't knew his side. I feel like a fool too by supporting that idiotic community ban. --Diego Grez return fire 23:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * enough with the crucifictions. Shit happened, he fucked up.  he's already been bitch slapped a few times.  -- Shakata Ga Nai  ^_^ 19:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What I saw in the past few days from Brian was, sadly, a display well below the standards I would expect every user to adhere to - especially an Administrator and Bureaucrat. The way that he handled Matthew's block and surrounding controversy - the hanging image, and especially the rude way in which he treated an IP, who was the only user smart enough to figure out what really was going on - would have been very easily a blockable offence had anyone else committed it. That only served to inflame an already bad, drama-infested situation. I appreciate Brian's ability to be blunt when required - sometimes you have to tell people things directly at the risk of hurting their feelings - but as of late, it appears he is no longer able to distinguish the line between when it is appropriate, and when it is flat-out, uncalled-for rudeness. As a direct result of this, several users have been deterred from the project and our image amongst the WMF, already poor, has been further spoiled. In response to Pi zero's comment above - no, I don't think he'd really abuse the tools per se, but an important characteristic any administrator needs to have is to be able to interact with other people reasonably well, and I'm not sure I see this here. Sorry Brian. I appreciate your work, but I just don't have much faith in your ability to act correctly anymore. Tempodivalse [talk]  19:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Changed now to . I still feel upset and very uncomfortable about Brian's actions and behaviour, but at the same time am glad to see there's been some acknowledgment from him that things need to change, that he was wrong about Matthew, and that he's actively trying to propose new ideas. This has indeed turned to something of a witch-hunt; I think we need some time to cool down and reflect on whether we really needed this. Tempodivalse [talk]  12:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Now we're just looking for scapegoats? Let's put all this crap behind us and move on and report the news like we are supposed to be doing. — Mike moral  ♪♫  19:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. -  Amgine | t 20:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * , he didn't abuse the tools and there are heated editors all about the project. I agree with Mikemoral's scapegoat sentiment. Removing his flags won't solve anything; can't we just put this behind us already? Blurpeace  20:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * , per . Brian has clearly learned nothing from this incident. Blurpeace  23:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Strongest support possible, obviously. Hey may not have abused the "tools", but he did abuse his position.
 * Every single post McNeil made at WN:AAA served to humiliate and damn me, and fuel the lynching mob.
 * He published private emails that no doubt everybody has seen by now at User talk:Brian McNeil/Tour of California. He knew he shouldn't because he said he "will publish [the emails] and be damned". As a crat, and as an admin, he should know that he is not allowed to publish private emails. Not only did he publish mine, which included naming the city I live in, but he also published Taya Varnuchpun's, the media rep from the event. How is this acceptable? He did not even publish all the emails. He published those that apparently proved his case in how awful and deceptive I am in an attempt to discredit me further.
 * If he did "waste hours writing emails", why is it he tells me, "For me, the fun's been writing some semi-outrageous bullshit to get you in. :D If you'd want to do the 2011 one too, then keep in touch with this promoter guy. The Wikinews Cabal would help sweet-talk him" and "Oh, and please make sure I get further opportunities to concoct outrageous bluffs."? He has lied and cheated his way to seeing me blocked because he feels he's been "taken for a ride". That is unacceptable behaviour for an admin and crat.
 * He vindictivly posted several images of death to my user page in a clear attempt to humiliate me: 1, 2, 3. This is not the behaviour of a well balanced individual who can be trusted to be an admin or crat.
 * Not only that, but he is obviously unaware of the policies and guidelines he is supposed to uphold as an admin. Surely he should know that this is block evasion, posting images of death one someone's userpage is not within Etiquette, emails are private and copywritten.
 * I won't get into the abuse of checkuser, because that's been handled already (but does anyone know if he checkusered me? Because I'm sure he believed that IP was me), but if anybody else had done what he has, they would be blocked. If they were an admin, they would be de-sysopped. But because McNeil has for so long been allowed to bully and stomp his way around here like an Editor in chief, and is under the disillution that he is a "senior editor", he feels he does not have to follow the rules. As a rule enforcer, he is one of the first who should follow them.
 * My actions did not damage this project. His did. Matthewedwards (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * According to the checkuser log, checkuser was not run on your user account. --Cspurrier (talk) 21:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Matthewedwards (talk) 21:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * User abstains Benny the mascot (talk) 04:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Support it's really not about abusing his tools, but he appears to be the godhead around here, and his recent actions have undermined the very thin integrity that Wikinews has. Keeping him as the figurehead of the project is a joke, and would make this project the same.  Even supporters are saying "he fucked up" and "He acted like an idiot".  But then the same supporters are happy for him to carry on carrying on.  Joke.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been following the drama here and just wanted to provide an outsider opinion. I will remain neutral as a !vote however I am inclined to agree with the above post. As a bureaucrat he is supposed to maintain professionalism and he did some things that truly are unbefitting of such a position which reflects negatively on Wikinews as a whole. At the same time, he has done some outstanding things for this project that should also be taken into account, plus we shouldn't let this become yet another lynch mob, otherwise we haven't really learned from our mistakes the first time. If there should be any consequences I would suggest removing the crat rights but cut him some slack on the admin bit as a compromise maybe. -- OlEnglish (talk) 05:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * : The edits to User:Matthewedwards were some pretty shameful shit. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * — I see no reason to either de-admin or de-bureaucrat Brian. — Sorry. Gopher65talk 23:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * regretfully, per Blurpeace. I didn't think this would get worse, but obviously I've been proved wrong for the umpteenth time.  — fetch · comms  01:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * -- enough with the witch hunt. I have suggested to Brian that he take a break to collect himself and would add that if any one doen't get over this thing, I will swing the ban hammer --RockerballAustralia c 02:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * . — μ 13:00, June 7 2010 (UTC)
 * Basically per Blurpeace. Benny the mascot (talk) 14:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Benny the mascot (talk) 05:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * --Per my piece on the Water Cooler.    Tris   14:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And please read what Pi Zero and Risker say above-it makes sense.    Tris   14:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


text: User talk:P 40E

title: User talk:P 40E


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Removal/Brian McNeil (CheckUser)

Rights removed as per user request; not much else to do here. Tempodivalse [talk]  17:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

de-checkuser
It's only with a heavy heart - and after consulting with other checkusers and administrators - that I put up this request for the de-checkusering of Brianmc. While he's been a very helpful user for Wikinews, and I appreciate his contributions helping promote the project, his recent actions involving the Matthewedwards scandal, primarily the threat of checkuser and poor treatment of other people, have IMHO been most unbefitting of any Wikinewsie, let alone one who is a bureaucrat, ArbCom member, and checkuser.

My biggest concern is with this edit, in which Brian, in no uncertain terms, threatened to checkuser an IP who disagreed with him. It turns out the check actually was carried out. Brian says it was carried out for non-personal reasons - namely that there was suspicion the IP was a persistent troll. The user was in fact was the same person commenting with rather poorly-thought out opinions on the talk page of our recent Gaza story. However, his comments at AAA, despite being unpopular, were quite logical and rational, in comparison to some of the other madness going on there, and nothing he did constituted trolling - which in my mind makes the justifications behind the check rather iffy. Regardless, the very act of threatening to use CU is unacceptable by itself. Checkuser says: "The tool should not be used for political control; to apply pressure on editors; or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute."

I might have been more forgiving had there been some acknowledgment from Brian that all this was inappropriate; however, such has not been forthcoming and it doesn't appear it ever will. The ensuing drama from something like this, of course, shall be quite unpleasant, but I'm honestly not sure I can trust Brian to act appropriately anymore, and I don't know through what other venues this can be addressed. Tempodivalse [talk]  17:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments

 * According to the CU log, Brian ran a checkuser on the ip and /20 and /24 blocks at 01:13, 1 June 2010, 11 minutes before he posted his comment.--Cspurrier (talk) 19:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes.
 * However, as this was posted by an IP, much of the same information could have been inferred by absolutely anyone.
 * Community's choice. Not the best times to have done as requested; not the best of reactions – albeit in the face of someone who seemed policy-savvy, but otherwise unknown, wading into that debate. Nor, I would say, the right time to be taking this decision; but, I will leave it at that. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If I'm correctly understanding you, I don't think it was particularly suspicious that the IP posted at AAA. He had been active before, and was probably one of those people taking a causal interest in wiki projects, but not enough to register (i've seen quite a few). Still, the main point I'm trying to push here is that the threat, and the whole overall attitude, is the thing to de-CU over, not as much the actual check. Tempodivalse [talk]  20:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually don't disagree with the check itself. I was suspicious of that user too — I actually thought it might be Matthewedwards himself, anonymously editing in his own defense. I didn't think "not logging in before posting" constituted an offense (although it was rude in this case), so I didn't say much, but I was suspicious, just like some of the others.

 * What I disagreed with was the use of checkuser as a *threat*. However Brian meant that comment to come across, to me it sounded like "I disagree with the content of your statement, so back off or I'll use my powers against you". I don't know who that anon user was, and I don't know exactly what Brian was thinking when he made that statement, but that's how it came off to me. And I do not like it when admins (or whoever) threaten to use their powers over content disputes. It reminds me too much of adrenaline junkie cops in the real world, tasering the helpless just because they think they can get away with it. Gopher65talk 00:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Per my remark below, please consider this my request that CheckUser be removed from my privileges in short order. Please point a steward at the diff containing this comment, get it done now, and put this sordid mess into an archive so the community can get over this horror story instead of tearing itself up anymore. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Request made here. Sorry, Benny, didn't see your diff. Griffinofwales (talk) 15:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries. Benny the mascot (talk) 15:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

 * , rights were removed by a steward. I'm closing this since there doesn't seem to be anything else to do here. Tempodivalse [talk]  17:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Votes

 * as nominator. Tempodivalse [talk]  19:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Checkuser isn't a big deal, in my opinion. And I don't think he misused it. --Diego Grez return fire 17:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would argue that it is a big deal. Unlike adminship, which relatively speaking is harmless as everything they do can be undone, checkuser-ship is a totally different bird. It's only given out to people above the age of eighteen for a reason: it allows users to get into very personal information, frequently without any supervision or oversight from anyone else. (Of course, as to whether Brian's actions constitute abuse is a different matter). Just my two pence. *shrug* Tempodivalse [talk]  17:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * checkuser is a very big deal. There is a large difference between your personal wiki and wikinews. Bawolff ☺☻ 20:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Checkuser is a big deal. I find Brian's threat completely inappropriate. Checkuser should never be used as a threat. I consider threatening its use in such a way to be an abuse worthy of removing the right. The CU itself is problematic as well. There is nothing wrong with an IP commenting on a community discussion. Even suspicion of trolling should not be enough to run a CU. We would need to suspect that the person was abusing multiple accounts for the CU to be appropriate. While I can understand Brian's anger, his behaviour throughout has been way below the standard we should expect of any Wikinewsie, much less one with his list of rights. In the interests of minimising drama and in light of the circumstances, I would support ignoring the massive WN:E violations throughout (all of which on their own could justify a block or rights removal). The checkuser abuses though are much to serious to ignore. I think removal of the checkuser bit is necessary as I do not think I can trust Brian to use the tool appropriately. --Cspurrier (talk) 19:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * , grossly inappropriate actions made by an ArbCom member. Brian, you are an indispensable part of this community. However, after reviewing your actions, I no longer trust you with CheckUser access. Indeed, CheckUser is a big deal. Sincerely, Blurpeace  20:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I do believe brianmc was out of line in his comment to the ip. With that being said, I believe the attitude of the community was a contributing factor. The mob mentality can be hard to resist, but a check-user should know when to step back, and not get swept up in the heat of things. A lot of people feel uncomfortable with the recent events, and we must be careful not to turn brianmc into a scrapgoat, as he is by no means the only one to blame. Bawolff ☺☻ 20:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I could not find where in Wikinews policy where you are allowed to blatantly CheckUser an IP for disagreeement even if they were trolling. What was your "valid reason to check a user?" Look at Meta's CheckUser policy. I find that misuse of a powerful tool is grounds for revocation of access. — Mike moral  ♪♫  21:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As stated on WN:AAA, a request by an established contributor. To reiterate the above, anyone - even someone not logged in could have gleaned 90% or so of the same information I did regarding edits elsewhere on the project from other IPs in the same range. Review what was said where, by who, and which pages ended up fully protected.
 * Personally, I was actually expecting someone to be incomprehensibly dickish about me posting correspondence - not this. So, go ahead, vote. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If you look at what Craig posted, you used CheckUser before you even threatened the anon. A full 11 minutes between the time you used the tool at 1:13 and your comment at 1:24. — Mike moral  ♪♫  22:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

 * If you look at where I was nasty/curt with the IP, it was not to CheckUser him here, but to request checkuser elsewhere. Now, is there anyone else who does not read things carefully enough? --Brian McNeil / talk 22:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I don't think it matters much if the threat was for you to checkuser, or for you to get someone else to checkuser. At the end of the day, a threat was made by someone with checkuser privileges that the ip would be checkusered if he continued saying what he was saying. How the threat would be carried out beyond that it would involve checkusering is not that relevant imho. Bawolff ☺☻ 22:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And threatening any user, new or experienced, with CheckUser is both unethical and against policy. You should not threaten someone for disagreeing with you which is what seems to have happened. — Mike moral  ♪♫  22:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me get this straight... A community member, in good standing, requests I perform a CheckUser; I do so, and a blacklist turns up a reported range containing the IP (a /14 incidentally). I widen the check on the IP up to /24, then /20; and, I hit someone wading into an article on the Israel/Palestine conflict, assuming we treat the project like Wikipedia and publish any old crap hoping someone cleans it up. That article is now protected, and I doubt it was ever properly reviewed in the first place; at least, when you look at the eventual removal of sources in response to my criticism, and then to the sighting of a revision.
 * However, if I'm to lose checkuser, so should everyone else who holds it due to highly erratic recent contribution histories; more often than not you are going to have to refer cases to Stewards. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Brian, that part about CU inactivity isn't exactly true. Skenmy and Cirt are quite active with the tool, from what I'm told (the former is easily accessible thru IRC), and now that Craig's returned to more or less full activity, we should have enough to cover the gap. I still have to disagree the IP was a troll and especially with the way he was treated; as far as the Gaza article went, he simply wasn't familiar with our modus operandi and the publishing policy; at AAA, he was presenting a logical, although unpopular argument. And just because a community member requests a CU be performed doesn't mean one is obliged to fulfill it; ultimately the checkuser himself must ascertain that it is appropriate to perform the check. Tempodivalse [talk]  22:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I was called a liar. No "proof"? I believe I just posted the aforementioned in my userspace.
 * Get on with it. Quote the diff containing this edit - you do have to ask a steward to toggle the bit, and they're more than welcome to than have you dickishly tear the project apart. Incidentally, nine times out of ten it is not skenmy you see in IRC, but an IRC bot. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know Skenmy uses a BNC. But I'm always able to ping him and get a response when I need something in the afternoon-evening UTC.
 * Seriously though, if people can't question another user's actions or provide a dissenting (but constructive) viewpoint without being replied to in such a manner, we are not going to have a good rep at all. While the IP's comments may have been somewhat upset (rightly or not), I don't see any real personal attack or outright rude comment that he made, either to you or anyone else. Tempodivalse [talk]  00:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm saddened that you consider me trying to tear apart the project; that is completely not the case. I dislike drama in general, I think it is divisive; but there are times when there's no avoiding it, and some problems simply need to be addressed upfront. It would be a sorry day indeed if we could not question or express concern about the actions of other users. If there's one thing about me, I'll always stand up for what I think is right or necessary for the project, even if it is unpopular. I'm honestly sorry if this has unduly angered or upset you; but I feel it has to be done. Tempodivalse [talk]  01:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

 * per Cspurrier and Tempo. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

 * — per Bawolff. More than enough blame to go around, and, indeed, humans are wired for easy manipulation by a mob mentality (and the peer pressure that goes along with that mentality) (sorry, incorrect turn of phrase there). Gopher65talk 00:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll note that even though I was, at the start, unfamiliar with the situation, and eventually I was the only one who voted to oppose the block, I still felt the pull of the mob on me. When I first hit AAA that day I almost went and voted support automatically, without thought, due to nothing more than the draw of the mob hive-mind. Once a mob is started, it is truly hard to resist its ferocious pull. Gopher65talk 00:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

 * , noting the wise comment by User:Bawolff, above. Will defer to outcome of community consensus regarding this issue. -- Cirt (talk) 00:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * and remind that polls are evil. --Thunderhead (t - e - c) 04:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * - It is with great sadness that I feel I must support this motion. I count Brian as a personal friend, having met him IRL I know that he is a sane, rational human being. However, the conduct he has displayed recently is not befitting of someone who is in such a restricted and limited position of power. When Tempodivalse first spoke to me about it I spent some time going through CU policies and the Foundation's Privacy Policy to see if Brian truly had broken the rules - and unfortunately it seems he has - in two separate, individually power-removing cases. Brian has threatened the use of the CU tool in an attempt to pressure an editor. This is inexcusable, and warrants removal of access. Brian has used the tool without a valid reason - I quote from the CU log: "disruption of community process". This is, in itself, not inexcusable - the mob mentality and "peer pressure" arguments come in to play here - however combined with the threat that was issued after the use of the tool, I cannot see how I can, with a clear conscience and keeping the policies and guidelines we work by in mind, oppose this motion. -- Sken   my talk 07:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * - Unfortunately, this case is a blatant violation of checkuser policies, which warrants removal of the tools. It is a shame that we must do this to one of our most valued community members, but these actions have caused me to not trust him with checkuser and the great deal of power involved with it. It saddens me that I must vote in this, but this again was a very serious violation of policy. Tjc 6  09:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Whilst I do not think that any valid concerns should ever be "swept under the carpet" I question the timing of this request whilst emotions are clearly still charged. Also per Thunderhead. --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 11:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * basically for all of the reasons given above. I'll flag a steward down on meta. Benny the mascot (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


text:
Researcher claims solution to P vs NP math problem

August 11, 2010

Vinay Deolalikar, a mathematician who works for, claims to have proven that. The problem is the greatest unsolved problem in theoretical computer science and is one of seven problems in which the has offered million dollar prizes to the solutions.

The question of whether P equals NP essentially asks whether there exist problems which take a long time to solve but whose solutions can be checked quickly. More formally, a problem is said to be in P if there is a program for a Turing machine, an ideal theoretical computer with unbounded amounts of memory, such that running instances of the problem through the program will always answer the question in polynomial time — time always bounded by some fixed polynomial power of the length of the input. A problem is said to be in NP, if the problem can be solved in polynomial time when instead of being run on a Turing machine, it is run on a non-deterministic Turing machine, which is like a Turing machine but is able to make copies of itself to try different approaches to the problem simultaneously.

Mathematicians have long believed that P does not equal NP, and the question has many practical implications. Much of modern cryptography, such as the and the, rests on certain problems, such as factoring integers, being in NP and not in P. If it turned out that P=NP, these methods would not work but many now difficult problems would likely be easy to solve. If P does not equal NP then many natural, practical problems such as the are intrinsically difficult.

In 2000, the Clay Foundation listed the "Clay Millenium Problems," seven mathematical problems each of which they would offer a million dollars for a correct solution. One of these problems was whether P equaled NP. Another of these seven, the, was solved in 2002 by who first made headlines for solving the problem and then made them again months later for refusing to take the prize money.

On August 7, mathematician Greg Baker noted on his blog that he had seen a draft of a claimed proof by Deolalikar although among experts a draft had apparently been circulating for a few days. Deolalikar's proof works by connecting certain ideas in computer science and finite model theory to ideas in statistical mechanics. The proof works by showing that if certain problems known to be in NP were also in P then those problems would have impossible statistical properties. Computer scientists and mathematicians have expressed a variety of opinions about Deolalikar's proof, ranging from guarded optimism to near certainty that the proof is incorrect. Scott Aaronson of the has expressed his pessimism by stating that he will give $200,000 of his own money to Deolalikar if the proof turns out to be valid. Others have raised specific technical issues with the proof but noted that the proof attempt presented interesting new techniques that might be relevant to computer science whether or not the proof turns out to be correct. Richard Lipton, a professor of computer science at Georgia Tech, has said that "the author certainly shows awareness of the relevant obstacles and command of literature supporting his arguments." Lipton has listed four central objections to the proof, none of which are necessarily fatal but may require more work to address. On August 11, 2010, Lipton reported that consensus of the reviewers was best summarized by mathematician, who expressed the view that Deolalikar's paper probably did not give a proof that P!=NP even after major changes, unless substantial new ideas are added.


text: User talk:Alexander perez acevedo

title: User talk:Alexander perez acevedo


text: User talk:DMY

title: User talk:DMY


text: User talk:Smattnc

title: User talk:Smattnc


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Administrator/Diego Grez 2

Hello. This is my second time on this side of the wiki, and I would like to throw myself to the lions --AlexandrDmitri  because:
 * 1) I feel capable to handle blocks on vandals after some time.
 * 2) Delete spam (common thing on Wikinews).

And the most important reason, I'm running a customized version of a bot, named Pitsilemu (maybe you all know but it is extremely derivative from another bot). The main reason I need adminship, will benefit others as well. The bot handles blocks and deletions, in admin mode. I would set permissions to trusted users to delete pages by themselves. The bot is currently running on #pitsilemu@irc.freenode.net and you can test deletions on flaggedrevs_labswikimediawiki. I feel I have had enough time here and have written many articles too. I have done a good job with reviews too. In addition that I keep patrolling the recent changes on IRC (irc://irc.wikimedia.org/#en.wikinews, for instance). Thanks in advance. --Diego Grez return fire 22:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments

 * Your bot should not run under your own account. If you want to use the bot in admin mode (which sounds slightly scary...), you should make a separate request for the bot. Bawolff ☺☻
 * Lolno. It is a manual bot (it just goes to the special page and handles the block/deletion). It recognizes you by your cloak "wikimedia/Bawolff", "wikinews/Tempodivalse", etc. --Diego Grez return fire 22:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it edit/blocks/etc, it should do so from its own account. Bawolff ☺☻ 22:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You know, you have tested it, it is completely safe and it is half a bot ;) --Diego Grez return fire 23:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

 * IRC logging is forbidden. =P --Thunderhead (t - e - c) 01:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * * Topic for #pitsilemu is: This is the channel of the greatest bot of Freenode... Pitsilemu! | SourceForge project: http://bit .ly/bZ6t30 | Homepage: http://pitsilemu.sourceforge.net | Public logging allowed | Check out #wikinews too. --Diego Grez return fire 01:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * People that gets in my channel should read the topic ;) --Diego Grez return fire 01:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, per suggestions by people that I really trust, I've decided to not run the bot, anyway :) --Diego Grez return fire 22:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Votes

 * I only got back to Wikinews from a break less than 24 hours ago and you've only been truly active since the 4th March. It's a neutral from me but keep up the good work! --James Pain (talk) 23:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * for now. I much appreciate the work you've been doing here - it has helped the project immensely - but, to be honest, I don't feel I can have sufficient trust in your overall judgment or knowledge of what to do in certain situations. For instance: retiring and unretiring in the period of half an hour is a bit disconcerting (even if it was made on a sudden impulse of anger), and not the sort of thing I'd like to see in an admin. Also, publishing an article, then changing your mind ten minutes later to unpublish it is of some concern to me as well. One other note, having a bot handle deletions thru IRC isn't really a good idea (what's wrong with going on-wiki and doing the admin action yourself?), especially when it's not running on its own separate bot account. No hard feelings, and nothing personal, i'm just not totally comfortable with this at present. Tempodivalse [talk]  23:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. For sure that won't happen anymore ;) But OK again. It's your opinion, and I appreciate it. --Diego Grez return fire 23:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've changed this to "weak oppose" per Diego's use of rollback to undo non-vandalism edits, for instance: . TBH, I just don't think this user knows what the appropriate course of action is for certain situations. Tempodivalse  [talk]  23:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

 * It should be noted by the closer that I have a pre-existing friendship with Diego from WP and that I'm far from a veteran editor here, but I just wanted to get my 2 pence worth in. I think he can handle it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?   22:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Not under any circumstance. A) The bot should not be attached to your personal account.  B) IRC != Wiki and as such bots on IRC should not be able to manipulate the wiki in such a way  C) An IRC bot is wayyyyyyyy too easy to abuse/break D) You're not even writing the bot code, you're running vanilla what other people are writing.   -- Shakata Ga Nai  ^_^ 22:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm not running the bot then. :) It was just a suggestion (for me being too lazy :P). --Diego Grez return fire 22:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No comment on the RFA itself, but we run this bot on Simple English Wikipedia (a version of the bot, not Diego's bot). It works fine without problems. We allow it to be used as long as the admin in question takes full responsibility for actions taken by the bot. Griffinofwales (talk) 21:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * regrettably. This user is enthusiastic, and generally seems to want to work for the projects' good, but xe needs to take the spurs off and hide the cowboy boots. We've been through bot madness, and so on. We've had people in early teens take adminship, and do not too bad. Bed in with the project a good deal more before requesting this privilege, please. --Brian McNeil / talk 00:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

 * Per Brian's comment, and the people that has voted, and by myself. I have been thinking about this, and yes, I have to stay a little longer to ask for this mad right. Thank you all and this will help me become a better editor. At its due time, I'll certainly get this, but I think, and I agree with the people above, that this is not the time. :) --Diego Grez return fire 00:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


text: User talk:Aminulloh

title: User talk:Aminulloh


text:
Thread:Comments:FBI asks Wikimedia Foundation to remove seal from websites, Wikimedia declines/Wikimedia penny wise and pound foolish/reply (3)

What are you talking about? All works of the US government are public domain by law.


text: User talk:Alolitas

title: User talk:Alolitas


text: User talk:Wiljon odi

title: User talk:Wiljon odi


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Administrator/C628

Closed as successful with unanimous support, congratulations. --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 12:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure why Alexandr closed this as he's not a 'crat and can't actually promote C628 ... but whatever; request is obviously successful so I'll bring out the sysop bits in a moment - don't think any potential COI is a problem here. Congrats. Tempodivalse [talk]  14:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like to nominate C628 for adminship here. He's been active for a little over two months now, has demonstrated his trustworthiness by being a prolific reviewer, and has written plenty of newsworthy articles. I think he'll do well with the sysop bits. Tempodivalse [talk]  14:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm honored by Tempo's trust in me, and humbly accept his nomination. Thank you, C628 (talk) 19:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments and questions

 * Do you accept this nomination? Tempodivalse [talk]  14:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Accepted - see above. --Thunderhead (t - e - c) 17:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

 * What's the meaning of life, the universe, and everything? --Thunderhead (t - e - c) 17:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 42, of course. Cheers, C628 (talk) 18:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Votes

 * as nominator. Tempodivalse [talk]  14:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Tempo beat me to the nom. -- Mike moral  ♪♫  14:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Bawolff ☺☻ 19:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course. Pmlineditor discuss 17:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * -- Shakata Ga Nai ^_^ 18:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 20:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * --Thunderhead (t - e - c) 20:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * With all the articles you have made I assumed you were a admin so you deserve this! Irunongames  •  play  21:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * PSD27 (talk) 22:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * - Active consistently and no major issues. – Juliancolton  | Talk 02:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * why not. --Diego Grez let's talk 02:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * -- the wub "?!"  19:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Administrator/Benny the mascot

Closed as promoted, per unanimous support, congratulations. Tempodivalse [talk]  01:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I've been here since November, and I think my contributions to my 25 articles (mostly dealing with my home state of Illinois) make me a trustworthy editor here at Wikinews. If the community agrees that I deserve adminship, then I plan to focus on maintaining categories and dealing with the occasional vandal. Thanks in advance for your commentary. Benny the mascot (talk) 00:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments

 * While my very narrow focus on Illinois news may seem a bit selfish at times, I've always thought that a steady flow of closely-related articles is better than a slowly-growing, broad range of articles. Let's say, for example, that from now on I decided to cover news over a rotation of all 50 US states. For many states, that basically means one article for every 50 days, and readers wouldn't be impressed by Wikinews's inactivity, would they? But if I at least dedicate all of my efforts to Illinois news, as I have done, then at least Illinois readers might be more inclined to come back in the future. Therefore, I feel that my coverage of Illinois news isn't necessarily hurting the project. Feel free to comment. Benny the mascot (talk) 01:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)\
 * We've already been over that; nothing really came of it, but I'm not particularly excited about the prospect of doing it all over again. Anyway, I don't think it's particularly relevant here; what you write about shouldn't affect your actions as an admin. Cheers, C628 (talk) 01:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with C628, the scope of your articles shouldn't effect the vote here. There are varying opinions on if local news should be on the main page, but i don't think anyone feels it is hurting the project. Anyways, not really relevant. Bawolff ☺☻ 01:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

 * Well, you can look at it several ways, I suppose. That's one view on it. My personal opinion is that, because our userbase is quite lacking, we should focus on only the most important topics both at the country and global level. That way, we'll have coverage that is relevant to more people overall, and will garner us more casual readers and perhaps contributors. To try and draw a parallel: if I were a random reader browsing through Google News' listings, and saw a story about a relatively small city on the other side of the world I'd never heard about, I wouldn't likely be inclined to click and read it. On the other hand, if the story was of national or international-importance, chances are it might affect/be relevant to me, so I'd want to read on and see what it's about.

 * Let's face it: if we take mostly micro-local stuff from a few small areas, that's basically an exercise in randomness. We'd be writing things that almost nobody would care about. Of course, if we were like Wikipedia, and had hoards of editors from all over the world, local news would make much more sense, because we could cover it *comprehensively*, and not just with a (somewhat undue) focus on two or three small, specific areas. Anyways, just my two pence. Cheers. Tempodivalse [talk]  01:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Votes

 * Bawolff ☺☻ 00:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course, yeah! --Diego Grez let's talk 00:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Trusted. I was intending to nom you earlier, but kinda forgot ... I'd personally wish you had a broader scope of articles that you covered, but that doesn't reflect on your ability to be a good admin. Tempodivalse [talk]  01:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm in agreement with Tempo; articles on more topics would be good, but I can't see how that would affect your actions as an admin. C628 (talk) 01:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent work as an article writer and reviewer. Pmlineditor discuss 07:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I could have sworn you already have the sysop rights. -- Mike moral  ♪♫  19:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I could have, too. (per Mikemoral) --Thunderhead (t - e - c) 18:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Cocoaguytalkcontribs‽ 23:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * the wub "?!"  00:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I 100% agree with what Tempo & C628 said. PSD27 (talk) 22:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hell ya Irunongames  •  play  00:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Administrator/Pmlineditor

User promoted per unanimous support, congratulations. Tempodivalse [talk]  21:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I am Pmlineditor. I have been contributing to Wikinews for some time now and have written over 40 articles. I have participated in some community discussions such as DRs, FACs etc. I understand my edit count is quite low, but I could help in archiving and deleting/blocking spammers if the community has the necessary trust in me. FWIW, I am an admin in some other WMF wikis. If the community does not have enough trust in me, I will continue with my article work anyways. Thank you for your consideration. Pmlineditor discuss 17:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC) Also, sorry for the short nom statement.

Votes

 * You've been an excellent contributor. Benny the mascot (talk) 17:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Trusted user. I actually was considering nominating you for adminship, but forgot. Tempodivalse [talk]  17:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * -- Mike moral  ♪♫  18:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Great contributer, always making the RSS for reviews break Irunongames  •  play  18:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * without hesitation --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 18:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Certainly. C628 (talk) 21:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * - Does some good work. – Juliancolton  | Talk 00:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * of course. --Thunderhead (t - e - c) 18:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Cocoaguytalkcontribs‽ 23:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * the wub "?!"  00:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * PSD27 (talk) 22:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Administrator/Diego Grez

Closing as not successful. -- Mike moral  ♪♫  23:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit afraid of doing this. I have been for over 2 months there and have written many articles (mainly related to the Chile earthquake). I know I have not the editor privs, but I would like to help deleting spam and blocking those trolls when there's no one around or these kind of situations. If I don't get it, I'll try to improve the points you give me. Thanks in advance. :-S --Diego Grez let's talk 04:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments

 * Do you plan to appeal your blocks on the other projects? That could be helpful in rectifying any past faults. Benny the mascot (talk) 19:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have appealed my blocks on the English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, and both were lifted, although I have to obbey some restrictions on the English Wiki. The Spanish Wikipedia is left :-P --Diego Grez let's talk 20:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I didn't notice that! This could be very helpful in cross-wiki coordination/editing. Benny the mascot (talk) 20:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Should I ask for editor privs first or not? Also, I'm gonna withdraw this after someone replies me. --Diego Grez let's talk 21:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Votes

 * (mildly) meh... not really active till the beginning of March, Not yet at the two months mark.  Also I think the user needs more time around first. -- Shakata Ga Nai  ^_^ 04:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * for the above reasons. I'm more worried about assimilation into the community rather than policy, though. Give it some more time and you'll have my support. --Thunderhead (t - e - c) 04:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll have to disagree with both the above comments. The amount of work in January and February is sufficient I think --RockerballAustralia Rockerball is my sport, not me. 04:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * per Thunderhead, mainly. You're a good contributor, and I know you have a fair knowledge of policy, but I'd be comfortable with a little more time around first, say a month or two. Sorry. Tempodivalse [talk]  13:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * He has already written 25 articles. I think he knows the rules quite well. Benny the mascot (talk) 19:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * He has written a lot of articles, but I still think he needs more time then 2 months. Also he has been blocked from other projects (IE: Wikipeida) Irunongames  •  play  19:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see a blocked account by my name currently (except es.wikipedia under the name of MisterWiki). --Diego Grez let's talk 20:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I'd like to note he's been conditionally unblocked on en.wiki/ -- Mike  moral  ♪♫  20:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

 * Sorry, but I'd honestly like maybe one more month of activity before I can give my full support. -- Mike moral  ♪♫  20:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. --Diego Grez let's talk 20:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I trust you, but too soon. Agree with mike. Bawolff ☺☻ 20:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Essentially per Mikemoral. C628 (talk) 21:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Your inflammatory comment crossed a line in my book. --William Saturn (talk) 22:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


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

Promoted after seven days and no objections; congratulations! Tempodivalse [talk]  13:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's see, see my last request for info on where I stand on a few things. Only diff is my agreemnt on the non-negotionable self publishing. --RockerballAustralia Rockerball is my sport, not me. 10:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments

 * The answer to life, the universe and everything? --Thunderhead (t - e - c) 19:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Life is unfair, live with it; I live on a rock floating around some gas so I don't know; and I'm not s giant brain--RockerballAustralia Rockerball is my sport, not me. 00:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Votes

 * I think you're trustworty and will be able to help the project a lot more once you get the admin privs. Benny the mascot (talk) 11:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've seen you around a lot, and I've no reason to not trust you. :-) --Thunderhead (t - e - c) 19:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I trust you. :) --Diego Grez let's talk 14:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you're ready, and I think (recalling Blood Red Sandman's remark last go around) you won't abuse the privileges. --Pi zero (talk) 15:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Could do a good job with it. Pmlineditor discuss 17:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems ok, I trust you and you seem to have developed a good knowledge of policy. Tempodivalse [talk]  17:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Go for it. -- Mike moral  ♪♫  18:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, why not? C628 (talk) 21:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * - Even if you do make some mistakes (who doesn't?), you're obviously willing to improve, listen to advice, and seem to be genuinely interested in helping. No foreseeable deliberate abuse of tools. – Juliancolton  | Talk 00:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


text: User talk:Kamil1250

title: User talk:Kamil1250


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Administrator/William Saturn

I've been editing WikiNews since May 2008, and have written numerous articles. I have also conducted three high profile interviews, which I believe proves my "trustworthiness." I'd like to do some work with categorization, specifically for election articles. Thank you for your time. --William Saturn (talk) 03:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Votes

 * 1) I do not trust you. 2) I never see you around. Otherwise I would have supported you. --Diego Grez let's talk 03:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I do trust you (or at the very least do not think your evil), and you have been around for a while, I don't feel that you're active enough. For example, you've only made 42 edits (I swear I'm not making that number up, thats actually what i counted) this year. Bawolff ☺☻ 03:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Basically what bawolff said. -- Mike moral  ♪♫  03:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * for now. Your article work is much appreciated, don't get me wrong (and I really liked your interview with the US prez candidate), but I have several concerns about this: firstly, as Diego and Bawolff mention above, I've seen you participate only very intermittently. You only have 154 edits to the project and, while I'm aware that edit count isn't always a good indicator of experience, in this case it is simply too low for me to form an accurate judgment of your knowledge of policy or ability to positively interact with other users. We generally don't have high standards for adminship, though - if you can continuously participate with the project for several weeks to two months (and by that i mean making at least a few edits a week, and participating in community discussion and/or content work), I would gladly reconsider. In any case, please don't get discouraged if this RFA turns out poorly - it is not a reflection on your value as an editor, it's just too soon. Cheers, Tempodivalse [talk]  03:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Administrator/The wub

has been registered with Wikinews for several years now, and has been active for the past few months. I think he has shown that he knows site policy well and can be trusted with the admin bits. Tempodivalse [talk]  21:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments and questions

 * Do you accept the nomination? Tempodivalse [talk]  21:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I accept. the wub "?!"  22:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Votes

 * as nominator. Tempodivalse [talk]  21:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * —I can find no reason to distrust this user (no matter how hard I try... it's so annoying!) Den dodge  T\C 22:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Benny the mascot (talk) 01:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * active user and knows the ropes --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 22:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * - Offered to nominate him a while back, and still think he'd be a good sysop. – Juliancolton  | Talk 22:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * and I'm not just saying that because he gave me a google wave invite. Seems like he will make a great admin. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 22:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * because he fits the Wikinews team and knows the ropes. A quiet, but positive, addition to the cabal . --Brian McNeil / talk 23:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * - admit it, how many people mistakenly thought that was an oppose? *grins in a suitably evil manner*. Will be a welcome addition to the world domination crack janitor squad. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 23:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * . No worries, Cirt (talk) 10:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Very good contributor.    Tris   22:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


text: User talk:Baskey

title: User talk:Baskey


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Administrator/RockerballAustralia 2

I am failing this as no consensus. I would encourage Rockerball to stick WN out, and give another RfA ago in a few weeks. Improve the project some more. And I am sure you will pass next time Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 21:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm nominating so I can get round to doing some on site house keeping instead of requesting all of the time. --RockerballAustralia (talk) 10:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments and questions

 * Here's my question: Why are you here? What motivates you to contribute to the project (almost) everyday? Benny the mascot (talk) 22:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A - to contribute news, B - to see the project grow, and C - Theres nothing better to do (I work nights) --RockerballAustralia (talk) 00:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You can continue to contribute news without the adminship priveleges. How do you imagine this project will improve if you become an admin? Benny the mascot (talk) 23:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There will be a primary focus on adding categories to archived pages. An example would be adding Category:Gippsland Football League to Australian rules football: West Gippsland Latrobe Football League Finals week one results. A secondary focus might be issuing artice corrections should they arrise and handling deletion requests.

Still a bit concerned about the incident in October. Do you feel you've got an adequate and comprehensive understanding of policy now? – Juliancolton  | Talk 02:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes--RockerballAustralia (talk) 03:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you elaborate, please? My initial support was founded on a premise of good faith, but your short answer makes me feel slightly uneasy. In what ways have you matured? What have you learnt from your mistake? Den dodge  T\C 00:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. I've learnt to be more patient. You'll remember that I self published an article a while back. I've since had an article I wrote wait for review longer than that self publish. A couple now I think about it. --RockerballAustralia (talk) 04:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Expanded response - I self-published Australian rules football: West Gippsland Latrobe Football League Grand Final on September 19 (this diff). I've not self published since. Before i mentioned i waited for another article longer than the self publish. The artcle, Wikinews interviews Zahra Stardust about the upcoming by-election in the Bradfield electorate of the Australian parliament, was waiting for review for 44 hours give or take a few minutes (page history). Any other details just ask--RockerballAustralia (talk) 03:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

What are, in your view, the relative merits/demerits of these two situations: (1) an editor self-publishes an article;  (2) an article is deleted without publication because no-one reviewed it until after it had gone stale. --Pi zero (talk) 19:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a line somewhere where someone with editor privs can self-publish but I imagine it's very hard to get to. There would need to some very strict rules on that. There needs to be proper oversight on each article.
 * Articles that are put up for review sould not IMHO go stale let alone be deleted because of that. Letting an article go stale while waiting for review is bad because, the way I see it, we could scare off mewbies before the get a firm grip on what's going on.--RockerballAustralia (talk) 21:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with these concerns but, independent review has to, in my opinion, be a non-negotiable point. I'm not totally happy at the basis of some of the below oppose votes; as far as editing goes it should be work towards the good of the project. Certainly, there's a need in your writing to take the international audience more into account and for sports stuff to minimise jargon and emotive terms. I voted support because I think you've matured enough to be given this chance. I do see where you can improve your writing and editing further. I think most Wikinewsies would agree that if you can master the news format it will serve you well in a wide variety of other places. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Votes

 * —I think you've made up for your previous mistake with some good work in the last couple of months, and see no harm in giving you the bit. Your expanded answer makes me feel slightly better about supporting, but I'm not sure if you have our trust just yet. I'll assume good faith and stick with weak support for now. Den dodge  T\C 09:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I personally have nothing against you, but I'm concerned that you might not have the trust of the community (which is really the most important criteria of adminship). Sorry. Bawolff ☺☻ 22:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * - Sorry, but I'm not quite convinced you're ready. Your answer to my question is, unfortunately, painfully brief and vague. "Yes" is the obvious answer. I was hoping for an explanation and description of how you feel you've matured on wiki. – Juliancolton  | Talk 23:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * - I haven't been a part of this community long enough, so I feel that I'm not qualified to comment on your incident a few months ago. However, I have read the archived discussions here, and I see no reason to believe that you have regained the community's trust. I have nothing personal against you, but I'm just feeling really queasy about this request for adminship. Benny the mascot (talk) 00:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * - Thank you for your detailed answers to our questions. I feel that you're ready for adminship now. Benny the mascot (talk) 02:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * --I'm slightly confused as you don't seem very keen to show how you have improved since last time. I think you might be fine, and so would be willing to change to support if you can improve on your answers.     Tris   08:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * - Basically agree with . Cirt (talk) 13:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly happy the self-publish issue has got through to this user; no need to further berate and stigmatise for an expression of frustration on this issue. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you haven't learned the right lesson (from which I infer that you aren't ready yet). Self-publication isn't something that should only be done under dire circumstances, it's something that shouldn't even be considered under any circumstances, because it's contrary to the integrity of the project.  --Pi zero (talk) 06:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * - A quick scan of your talk page archives worries me. There are quite a few negative comments on there regarding your ability to make the right choice. You have done splendid work over the past couple of months but trust takes a long time to rebuild and not having it with the rest of the admins could cause problems. --James Pain (talk) 12:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll point out Brians comment above. I've losoked through my talk archives and the last major issue was the self publish. There have been some minor things between Brian and my self but they've been work out between us --RockerballAustralia (talk) 02:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I just quickly scanned your contribs and found this and this. These were 3-4 weeks ago, quite recently in my books. I'm quite edgy about what gets published since it gets pushed to other websites when it gets put on the homepage, after that if we edit it, it doesn't get reflected onto the other sites. Since writing and publishing seems to be your chosen path, I say master that first before you go further. Also I'm still sticking to the point that you need to gain the trust and support of the other admins in order to have a nice easy time. --James Pain (talk) 12:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Bawolff and, to some extent, James Pain. Don't get me wrong - I do appreciate your contributions to Wikinews - but having the trust of the community and fellow admins is a must for new sysops, and I'm not sure I see that here, seeing as a sizeable portion of the community has expressed concern over some of your actions and ability to make the right decision. I, personally, don't see any convincing reason to oppose (the self-publish issue was long ago, and should already have been forgiven), but some of the above concerns make me slightly unsure about this RfA, so I'll stick with neutral. Tempodivalse [talk]  17:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Since I haven't been here for a while, it's probably not appropriate for me to vote, but based on the other comments, and a look at your talk page, I'd have to oppose for now. --Thunderhead 05:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The key point: Do I think you'll abuse it? No, I trust you not to, so I'm happy to stick my neck out and support. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 20:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Administrator/AlexandrDmitri

Unanimous support after one week, closed as pass. Congrats Tempodivalse [talk]  21:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought I'd throw my hat into the ring and offer myself up to the lions for adminship. I've been around for just over two months when I wrote my first article. Since then, I've gone on to write a further 38 and since receiving Editor status, have reviewed a number of articles for the community. Why am I offering my soul services? Because sometimes I don't have the time to write a full-blown article, but I think I'd be pretty handy with the dustpan and brush helping out with administorial duties, such as archiving, making edits to protected articles and any other admin duties you care to throw at me, such as looking after friendly trolls who pop up with interesting usernames. I'm not a nerd computer whizz-kid, but I generally learn quickly. With the hopeful increase in production around here when the writing competition starts, I would be available to help out with the less glamorous stuff that goes on behind the scenes, but is essential to keep any house in order. Any questions, and I'll be more than happy to answer them. --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 19:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments and questions

 * You are an accredited reporter. Could you please give us an example of your best OR work? Benny the mascot (talk) 19:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Work as an accredited reporter is hardly relevant to an application for admin privileges. --Brian McNeil / talk 00:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Correct, but his request for acccreditation was granted three weeks ago, yet he has submitted no OR articles that I could find. If he won't use his accreditation that much, then why should I believe that he will use his adminship abilities frequently and effectively? Benny the mascot (talk) 01:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Original reporting can be something that takes time to get into. Admin tasks can be a second or two's work from a look at Recent Changes. I've made very irregular use of my OR credentials – the same applies to several others. --Brian McNeil / talk 01:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As long as AlexandrDmitri can give a good, thoughtful statement on his OR work, then I will consider that when I vote. OR work isn't an absolute requirement in my mind. Benny the mascot (talk) 01:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough question concerning original reporting as an accredited reporter. OR requires a significant amount of time, as well as—as far I am personally concerned—a strong desire to report on the topic. A couple of ideas for articles have been floating around in my mind since I received accreditation, but only one so far has got off the starting blocks. That, alas, failed to come to fruition as the press officer did not reply to my email, the subject was quickly 'old news' and above all, a decent article was written by someone else, based on reports filed on other sites. I'm working on a couple of ideas in my head, but I need a little more time before my first OR piece will be published. It should also be noted that I live in Morocco, and that local OR is harder because of the language barrier (interviews would have to be in French, making my notes less comprehensible for reviewers), and that I planned to do most of my OR by email. This is an extension of how I have reported as a journalist since I joined the site; out of all of the articles written, only one has been about Morocco, as I prefer to write international news. Finally, I believe that admin duties and accredited reporter writing are two different ways that I can contribute to the site and that it is important to disassociate the two: the former will allow me to contribute when I have half an hour to spare which is every day and is a housekeeping job; the latter is a more important investment of time, will happen less frequently and is a way to enter into different realms of journalism. --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 08:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Which Admin tasks would you use the mop and bucket for? --Brian McNeil / talk 01:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The areas I see myself working in are the housekeeping duties such as archiving, protecting articles, making edits to protected pages where necessary (such as adding new categories, changes requested via the template), deleting pages per policy (either standard or speedy), checking recent changes for vandalism and creation of inappropriate usernames, blocking where appropriate and assigning the Editor flag if consensus is clear to do so. --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 08:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Votes

 * No concerns at all. A very trustowrthy user. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 19:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * , well worthy. – Juliancolton  | Talk 19:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Intelligent and valuable contributor who seems to have good grasp of policies. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * —I'm pretty sure this user can be trusted. Den dodge  T\C 20:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Was considering nominating you for adminship, but you beat me to it. :-) Very competent user who caught on to key project policies quickly, plus he writes real news articles (not that entertainment fluff! :-P). I'm sure he'll do well with the sysop bits. Tempodivalse [talk]  21:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Certainly. the wub "?!"  22:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Good user, will make a good admin. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 04:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Bawolff ☺☻ 08:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * --Thunderhead 10:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Very thoughtful responses to our questions. Very intelligent and active user. Benny the mascot (talk) 14:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well...it's pretty much safe to say that I'll enjoy working with you. --James Pain (talk) 14:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. Cary Bass (talk) 06:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * , no worries. Cirt (talk) 17:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Good candidate to me. --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 01:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Removal/Eloquence (admin/bureaucrat/editor)

 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for de-adminship/cratship/editorship that did not gain concencuss to remove. Please do not modify it.

Eloquence was one of the original contributors who helped get Wikinews set up. However, he's now moved on to better things and is the Deputy CEO of the WMF. This is somewhat of a conflict of interest akin to the Director General of the BBC having an editorial say in the running of BBC News.

As I understand it, all staff have privileges on any wiki to take "office action"; that would generally be items such as enforcing a court order against the WMF. That is required for the good functioning and governance of the WMF, but privileged access outside such scope conflicts with Wikinews' perceived impartiality.

Thus I am nominating Eloquence to have Bureaucrat and Administrator privileges removed to maintain a clear appearance of editorial independence. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments

 * Despite making this nomination I have not as yet voted. I would prefer some discussion towards consensus on this first. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As Dendodge noted, Eloquence is a steward. Wouldn't he therefore still have the same powers as administrators and bureaucrats? Benny the mascot (talk) 20:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, so he doesn't need to be a 'crat. This is more to maintain an appearance of neutrality than anything. Den dodge  T\C 20:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not exactly, a steward has significant restrictions on what they are allowed to do. (more or less they are only allowed to act if someone is repeatedly vandalizing pages, and there are no local admins around to stop them.) Bawolff ☺☻ 20:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

 * For those interested, previous decrat nom in jan 2008. Bawolff ☺☻ 20:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to note, I've notified Eloquence of this vote. Tempodivalse [talk]  21:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Does Eloquence has editor/reviewer priveleges at the moment? Where can I go to check this? Benny the mascot (talk) 22:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Eloquence at the moment has editor privs, but not reviewer. (All admins get editor status by default.) See Special:Listusers/Eloquence for a full list of rights. Tempodivalse [talk]  22:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Any administrator may "technically" grant themselves Editor privilege. Any 'crat can grant/revoke Reviewer privilege. I believe Eloquence has done neither – if in fact he's made any edits since Flagged Revisions was instituted. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've asked for the removal of his editor priveleges here. Benny the mascot (talk) 22:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

 * I'm probably missing something obvious, but I don't completely understand the COI argument. My first thought was: So what if Eloquence is a staff member? How would it bias him against us? I suppose the reasoning is that he won't be a neutral party to articles that have negative information against the WMF (e.g. Former Chief Operating Officer of Wikimedia Foundation is convicted felon), but won't other editors have similar COI issues as well? And none of Eloquence's edits, AFAIK, have raised COI concerns so far; i don't agree with removing the bits "preemptively" when there's been no sign of trouble. Open to thoughts. Tempodivalse [talk]  00:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Could someone email Erik about this? It's only fair that he have a chance to respond. I pinged him at his talk page here, but I don't think he checks it regularly. Tempodivalse [talk]  00:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As can be seen on the previous discussion, Erik is leaving this up to the community. I trust him not to interfere, even were Wikinews reporting on him in a bad light. However, it is the appearance that he has the ability to do so I see as the issue. There is not a real need for a lot of 'crats here but I do feel that those we have should exhibit signs of life on-wiki, even if that does not extend to using 'crat rights. The switch to Flagged Revisions and institution of a review process with various helper gadgets has caught out a few admins who've not realised what's going on behind the scenes for Google News. I expect Wikinews to continue changing on issues like that, processes will evolve and perhaps be sub-optimally documented. I would not use the term "probation", but any prior contributor of any level should go through some sort of reacclimatisation if they've been away for a long period. --Brian McNeil / talk 01:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've emailed him, because to be honest, its really not fair to have a de-adminship request going on without his knowledge. Well he's previously said that he won't be offended if the community removes his privs, i think it would be very impolite not to at least tell him that a vote is going on. Bawolff ☺☻ 06:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Eloquence has been notified. response on talk page. Bawolff ☺☻ 07:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

 * I would have thought, with the Martin nonsense in the press calling the Wikimedia Foundation a protosocialist backed organisation people would understand that, while someone like Erik can fully be expected to work within the rules (He'd not be on-staff otherwise) it is indeed a matter of appearance. There are, and I speak from a sysadmin perspective, security concerns with long-term inactive privileged accounts. On any well-managed system you automatically close any privileged account that is, and will continue to be, inactive for a prolonged period. ShakataGaNai might be better able to testify the lengths gone to and level of persistence crackers will put in on a known high-value target. Even a quite modest botnet could make 100+ password guesses a day without ever using the same originating IP and thus triggering normal intrusion detection measures. That is one of my main reasons for supporting the inactive policy; it is an eminently sensible policy which minimises the available attack surface. It isn't barring the doors and raising the drawbridge; it's sensible precautions. I would fully support a fast-track back to privileges for anyone who loses them through inactivity, once they've demonstrated they are reacclimatised to current policy and conventions. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Lots of people here would have these "perceived" conflicts of interst. Like User:Bastique, who's also on the Staff, and user:Skenmy, who's with the UK WMF chapter. I'm sure there are many others with COIs to other organisations. We're not going to de-admin them as well just for "appearance", are we? How many casual readers do you think would notice that Erik has 'crat privs here (probably very few to none, considering he doesn't edit frequently and has a low profile here), or even care? Would it really damage our credibility that much? If we're worried about trying to appear more credible in the eyes of our readers, then we should be working more on lowering our correction percentages and reporting more accurately, not this. Cheers, Tempodivalse [talk]  14:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I hardly think we should worry about Martin (link for those unaware). He's most likely to view any action as confirming his suspicions. As for security, I'm sure Erik has a strong password, after all, he is WMF staff and something of a techie. And in the very unlikely event of his account being hacked, he's a steward - so taking away his privileges here will do nothing for security. the wub "?!"  14:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

 * This has been open for more almost two weeks now and most of the active users have opined. Could an uninvolved 'crat please close the request as appropriate? I'm saying "uninvolved" because this is a close vote, so it's probably best to have someone more impartial. Tempodivalse [talk]  02:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Votes
Move to amend by requesting that Eloquence's editor priveleges be removed as well. Participants in this discussion are asked to revote. (Initial request withdrawn) Benny the mascot (talk) 04:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Further note on that. Eloquence was given editor rights by Cirt during the give everyone we think is trusted editor status phase of flagged revisions deployment. Eloquence made two edits since receiving editor status, neither of which content edits (One was an edit to a system message to purge its cache, the other was a broken link report). It is quite likely that Erik is not even aware that he has editor status. Bawolff ☺☻ 06:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * -- Shakata Ga Nai ^_^ 20:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Avoiding structural changes for COI is simply good hygeine. -81.100.247.174 (talk) 20:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * with no comment on user's ability. We should try to avoid giving members of WMF staff privileges beyond editor. Most of them are stewards anyway, so this would not really have any effect beyond appearance. Den dodge  T\C 20:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC) Moved to oppose, see below

 * Note, though, that stewards do not automatically get "free reign" across all wikis, while they are technically able to make admin/crat actions globally, they can, barring an emergency, only use them on wikis where they have been approved by the local community. (e.g.: a steward shouldn't close RfAs or deletion requests on wikis where they don't have the appropriate permissions granted locally.) Tempodivalse [talk]  04:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * based on user's inactivity. – Juliancolton  | Talk 20:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Doesn't actually need much discussion IMO. User has the power to perform office actions with or without these rights; they are no longer needed by Eloquence. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I support this per the grounds of the much vented inactive policy Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 21:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Benny the mascot (talk) 21:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * removal of bureaucrat, administrator, and editor priveleges. Benny the mascot (talk) 04:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sufficiently convinced by the COI arguments. As I've said in my comment above, he's never shown his COI in our articles to-date, and I have no reason to believe he will in the future. Besides, adminship (at least ideally) isn't supposed to carry any additional editorial influence. "Just so it looks good" doesn't strike me as particularly good reasoning. The only reason i would support the de-admining of someone is if I no longer trusted them to use the tools appropriately; that's not the case here. Tempodivalse [talk]  02:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * COI issues aside, they've made 50 edits in about three years. Surely that's reason enough to remove the bits? – Juliancolton  | Talk 02:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Eh, I don't really agree with WN:IP; I don't see a compelling enough reason to de-admin based solely on inactivity. Tempodivalse [talk]  03:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

 * No reason to suspect that he will not step back from any issue that he has a COI in. He has been in WMF for two years and at no point has this been issue. I have no idea why this is coming up now since there are several other WMF staff and we are not applying the same rule to them, for example User:Bastique. Also i'm somewhat uncomfortable where this might take us. Will we ban officers of local Wikimedia chapters? Like Tempo, I've always opposed the inactivity policy. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 04:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Strongly per Tempodivalse. Also, WN:IP is a proposed policy, and if I remember correctly, there was some heavy debate on it. --Thunderhead 06:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with removing rights for inactivity. Nor am I convinced by the conflict of interest claims. Many of us have external associations or views which could potentially present a COI if we became involved with an article on them. In that case we should take special care not to unduly influence, and possibly avoid the article altogether. But the vast majority of our articles can still be worked on with no issues. the wub "?!"  10:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but in this case Eloquence is essentially our boss. He shouldn't have the same editing priveleges that we do. Benny the mascot (talk) 17:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My view on this is: so what that he has extra privileges? He'll still be our "boss", so to speak, regardless of whether he has +sysop here or not, being on the staff and all that. IMO, this RfDa is suggesting that staff members should not have extra rights anywhere on WMF wikis, which kinda limits their ability to contribute to projects, and it implies that admins have extra authority over other editors, which shouldn't be (Adminship not being "a big deal" and all that). This actually seems a bit counterproductive to me - for instance, by the same reasoning, we should demote all other paid employees of the WMF, some of which are quite useful editors (such as user:Bastique), and be depriving ourselves of extra help. Tempodivalse [talk]  19:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

 * --As the Wub has said above almost perfectly.    Tris   12:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have struck my support above as Tempo has convinced me I was wrong on that front. However, I am going to leave myself supporting as a user that inactive and out of touch does not have the support of the local community; although I'd be prepared to reconsider if I discovered Eloquence had been keeping an eye on developments here. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * —all the above arguments have convinced me to switch from support. Nobody is likely to care, or even notice, that Eloquence is a 'crat, and if we can't trust him, who can we trust? Den dodge  T\C 11:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Oversight/Mister man

Mister man
I requested oversightship; I sysop on two projects. And I speake this job. Vote, please. --Mr. manTalk 18:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Votes

 * , only a dozen edits to this project, can't tell if this would make a good oversighter due to lack of contributions to the project. Recommend speedy close. Tempodivalse [talk]  18:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You have made a bare handful of edits, and yet you honestly expect to walk in here and be granted access to the single tool on the project that requires the most trust of any? Have you considered psychiatry? Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Closed - Damn tempo and his EC's! Anyways, closed as this user has zero main page edits, not even an op and seems to lack a solid grasp of the english language. -- Shakata Ga Nai ^_^ 18:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


text: Category:Failed requests for oversight

title: Category:Failed requests for oversight


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Administrator/RockerballAustralia

'''Unfortunately it is fairly clear that this will not pass. Votes were 5 oppose/1 neutral, and that would require more than 15 supports votes. While I don't think anyone wants to spite Rockerball's attempts, he has been Editor'd and de-editor'd twice, the last of which was January 22. Try not to be discouraged though, it is obvious the community still has hope for you yet. -- Shakata Ga Nai ^_^ 20:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC) '''

This requeswt is basically the same reaseons as my previous request (and my past editor requests). House keeping and similar --RockerballAustralia (talk) 05:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments and Questions

 * You don't even have editor status now after being de-editored by the community about a month ago. All but one of our admins have Editor status; perhaps it would be wiser to try and regain that tool first, before proceeding to this? Tempodivalse [talk]  15:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Can I amend this request to include Editor privs?--RockerballAustralia (talk) 22:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose, although that would be rather unconventional... Might be easier and better just to do them separately though, to avoid confusion. Tempodivalse [talk]  23:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Votes

 * , concerns about the user being de-editored by the community recently. This does not seem like the right time to be going for adminship consideration. Cirt (talk) 16:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * --SVTCobra 23:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have nothing against Rockerball, but still am a bit uncomfortable about this request. I'd rather that he tried requesting Editor status first, and try to regain some trust of the community, and not jump directly to an admin. If this were an editor nom, I'd gladly support, but admins need to have full support of the community to avoid conflicts, IMO, and I'm not sure I see that here. Tempodivalse [talk]  23:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I must agree with Tempo here. -- Mike moral  ♪♫  23:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with TDV. Pmlineditor    ∞    13:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * sorry, but i think it'd be best if you worked back up the ladder step by step. I'll support you if you start a request for editor. Bawolff ☺☻ 19:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Administrator/Cocoaguy

Closed as successful after one week per unanimous support. Tempodivalse [talk]  02:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I've been an active user and editor on Wikinews for about three months now. I have extensive article writing experience with 40 under my belt so far. Cocoaguytalkcontribs‽ 01:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Votes

 * Trusted user, see no reason that he'd misuse the tools. Great article work as well. Tempodivalse [talk]  01:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * – Juliancolton  | Talk 04:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * . --Brian McNeil / talk 06:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * -- No worries, Cirt (talk) 16:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * --SVTCobra 23:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * -- Mike moral  ♪♫  23:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not? Pmlineditor    ∞    13:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * -- the wub "?!"  17:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * -- PSD27 (talk) 21:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Bawolff ☺☻ 22:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Benny the mascot (talk) 01:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 17:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * --Cspurrier (talk) 23:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Administrator/The New Mikemoral

Closed as successful, user promoted by. Tempodivalse [talk]  03:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to nominate Mikemoral for adminship. He's been around for a long time, and been consistently active for the last few months. In my opinion, he's a responsible, trustworthy user who could do well with the extra bits. Tempodivalse [talk]  03:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Questions and comments

 * Do you accept this nomination? Tempodivalse [talk]  03:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you for the nomination. -- Mike moral  ♪♫  03:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

 * What are your plans for world domination? --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 17:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't thought that far through yet, but when the time comes, the world will be mine. -- Mike moral  ♪♫  21:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Votes

 * as nominator. Tempodivalse [talk]  03:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I swear i was just about to nominate him. Bawolff ☺☻ 06:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Planning to nominate as well!    Tris   08:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * User is trusted enough by community, would not misuse the tools Cocoaguytalkcontribs‽ 02:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * – Juliancolton  | Talk 04:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * . --Brian McNeil / talk 06:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * -- No worries, Cirt (talk) 16:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * --SVTCobra 23:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. Pmlineditor     ∞    13:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * -- the wub "?!"  17:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * -- PSD27 (talk) 21:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Benny the mascot (talk) 01:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 17:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * --Cspurrier (talk) 23:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)