text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Bureaucrat/Brian New Zealand

Brian New Zealand (Bureaucrat)
Okay, Fellow Wikinewsies,

Bureaucrats turn regular users into sysops; perform username changes and bot flagging..

I believe that Wikinews's bureaucrat needs have at times been going unfulfilled, and I have been interested in running for bureaucratship for a while now, thus I think we could use some more, and after talking to people in IRC, I would like to humbly submit my name. I like to feel that I have shown dedication to this project, I have been a user here now for nearly 2 years, with most of that time active.

Please, feel free to ask any questions, and rest assured, what every the outcome, I’m here to stay :) Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 12:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Support: DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 12:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * support JoshuaZ 14:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Adambro 15:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support, a long time in the making. Brian already has checkuser, a much more senstitive tool, and has proven that he's 100% trustworthy with it. I see no reason why giving him bureaucrat tools would cause any negative effects on Wikinews.  Daniel  01:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support, does seem to be a need for more 'crats. –Doldrums(talk) 13:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support, BrianNZ is one of the well-respected and trusted contributors around here. I'd trust him with the powers. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Jacques Divol 20:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Thunderhead - (talk) 06:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * About Bloody Time --Skenmy(t•c•w•i) 06:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support --SVTCobra 09:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Someone I have complete trust and faith in - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 10:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * what's a bureucrat? -sp? -Edbrown05 11:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There's some information at Meta. Basically, they can technically promote other users to administrator status, change usernames, and grant bot flags. Cheers,  Daniel  11:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * so the pecking order is: in order of importance starting from 1st to last: editor: accreditted user: administrator: arbcom: steward: bureaucrat: -BNZ is flip likeme -Edbrown05 11:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If there is a "pecking order", stewards are certainly higher than bureaucrats (Meta), and I'd strongly argue that ArbCom is as well. However, as we all know, being an x or a y affords one no more power in debating an issue or anything else. It's merely a technical ability, like what administrators get, to perform maintenance tasks.  Daniel  11:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Now I know better than to provide a vote rationale. -Edbrown05 11:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * But the wierd thing is, it goes from squeamish to a report in no time. I know BNZ supports that. -Edbrown05 12:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Support - a very trustworthy user here on Wikinews. --Nzgabriel | Talk 06:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support I back Brian 100%, he deserves this. --TUFKAAP 17:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support —Zachary talk 16:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support -- Alastor Moody (T + C) 21:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support --Jcart1534 14:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Administrator/Messedrocker

Messedrocker
I'm not sure if this requires the full seven days, but in any case I would like to re-apply for the following reasons: If that is good enough, please reconsider re-instating my adminship. MessedRocker (talk) 11:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * To revert large scale vandalism. I've seen two large scale vandalism episodes recently which took a while to stop because no admins were around to block the IPs, even though I was online and of no help unfortunately. When I was an admin, I was typically able to end pagemove vandalism and the like rather quickly, and I'd like to be able to do that again.
 * To maintain WN:CV, especially during the migration to the system I proposed (if it gets approved)
 * Support. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support --Brian McNeil / talk 15:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Not even sure why you don't have it now. Nyarlathotep 15:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Because I resigned and this is my way of getting it back. MessedRocker (talk) 17:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Welcome back :) DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 15:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support I appreciate the point that Messedrocker makes about the frustration of seeing vandalism ongoing and not being able to stop it as this is a point I made in accepting my nomination, although I think, based upon the history, it is appropriate to leave this to run for the full seven days. I've looked at the context in which you stepped down and I am in some ways disappointed that you did that and then returned, in some ways I feel your resignation could appear to be an unnecessarily disruptive way of making a point. I am supporting you on the understanding that you have thought carefully about this and would think very carefully before resigning any privileges in the future. I think the community would be much less tolerant of any future problems. Despite these concerns, I've not seen any problems in your contributions and so support your request. Adambro 15:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is the pretext: at the time of my resignation, Wikinews had been a boring experience for the last several months, so I decided that I would eventually resign. The image controversy was mainly what provoked me to make that moment sooner, but really it's an inaccuracy to say that I resigned to make a scene or that I was embroiled in controversy. MessedRocker (talk) 17:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - -- Cometstyles 15:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * $support++ —Zachary talk 17:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolute Support but I don't think you need the full seven days since you willingly resigned your admin status, and there was no controversy. Thunderhead - (talk) 19:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

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


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Administrator/Adambro

Adambro
has been one of the more active 'newsies, contributing to articles as well as doing wiki maintenance - deletion, implementing the new fair use policy, vandalism watch. he has a good deal of Wiki experience, being an admin on WP and commons and i find him well informed on policy matters in discussions. i think it's time to give him the tools. –Doldrums(talk) 12:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

 * I accept this nomination. I am grateful to be considered for adminship and look forward to hearing the opinions of other editors, which, regardless of the outcome of this RfA, I am sure will help me further develop as a Wikinews contributor.

 * Since joining the project, I have been active in a number of areas, from writing articles to dealing with more mundane, behind the scenes tasks like dealing with image issues. I feel this has given me a good understand of the project and how it differs from the other Wikimedia project I am involved with. One of the major differences is of size, articles like the Chris Benoit death did much to raise the profile of Wikinews but it remains a small project in comparison to many other. Despite this, the project still suffers from the same problems faced elsewhere such as vandalism. On a number of occasions I have watched vandalism ongoing and been unable to contact an administrator to deal with it promptly. This has left me frustrated and I would welcome admin rights to enable me to respond to incidents like this when I spot them.

 * I will be happy to answer any questions anyone may have but would warn that as I am to start a new job next Monday which will involve moving house, I might not be able to respond later in the week. Adambro 12:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Note that Adambro was temporarily sysopified to deal with ongoing vandalism on en.wikinews.

Questions

 * As always, what is the meaning of life? Thunderhead - (talk) 07:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The Meaning of Life is a 1983 film from the Monty Python team which presents the meaning of life in the form of a gold wrapped booklet at the end, described as "nothing very special".

Votes

 * Easy Strong Support Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 19:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. --Nzgabriel | Talk 21:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support --Brian McNeil / talk 15:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 15:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - -- Cometstyles 15:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * $support++ —Zachary talk 17:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support --Cspurrier 22:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Thunderhead - (talk) 07:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support --Jcart1534 10:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support --SVTCobra 11:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Anyone who won't harass the n00bs should have a mop. Nyarlathotep 23:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * troppuS Pilotguy roger that  00:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


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

User:Ironiridis, for the third time
I, ironiridis, hereby nominate myself for adminship once again. I do this while reflecting on the frustration and difficulty that ended my previous position as an admin. For those of you who aren't aware, I was nominated (twice, actually) and "elected" into this position over a year ago. Due to continuous bickering and eventually all-out wheel wars, I elected to have myself blocked for 30 days, and eventually to have my sysop flag removed from my account.

I'm choosing, grudgingly, to attempt to return to the position for one reason: I wish only to have the power to fight vandalism without asking for assistance. Deleting articles. Issuing short, temporary blocks. Eliminating copyright violations from history logs.

Having learned well from the Neutralizer debacle, and having learned a thing or two about maintaining civility in the time since, I feel I am ready and willing to become a janitor once again. I am opting, if I am chosen by the community to return to my previous post, to place this template at the top of my user page.

In light of being informed that I might be able to simply be "re-instated", I'd like to indicate that I'd prefer a vote on this. I want to have the support of the community on this. As such, please put this to a vote.

 * (And, as a formality, I accept my self-nomination.) irid:t 03:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Questions

 * 1) What is the meaning of life? Thunderhead - (talk) 04:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Are you a janitor open to recall? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Answers

 * 1) The acquisition of knowledge, the observance of beauty, and the extollence of the virtues of love, honesty, and dedication. irid:t 04:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Without a doubt, I am. I voluntarily listed myself for de-admin the last time around because I felt I wasn't doing my job; I am more than happy to be held to community scrutiny at any time. irid:t 20:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Votes

 * Support He has certainly calmed down, to be honest, I never knew he existed and was a prior admin. --TUFKAAP 04:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Active IRC user too :-) Thunderhead - (talk) 04:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support –Doldrums(talk) 14:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Always very helpful & supportive! Herb 14:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Based on what I've seen of him, he's perfectly trustworthy enough for the role. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 16:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Jacques Divol 17:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support --Jcart1534 03:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Support It was very crazy times back them, hell most the users involved are no longer involved here. Ironiridis was never involved in the warring, instead, he chose (unwisely in hindsight) to intervene to try and stop the situation getting worst. Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 21:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support This user should never have left the admin "corps", I am glad that we have not seen disruption like then since and think we now have a team that could avoid those problems. Irid would make a good addition to that team (again). --Brian McNeil / talk 22:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support I'm new here, but I've got a few thousand edits in at en.wiki so I know what's up. Constructive, helpful and friendly editor. Lara  ♥ Love 02:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 05:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 00:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support A fantastic user, no issues. Plenty of experience. TheFearow 02:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support ~  Wi ki her mit  03:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support —Zachary talk 03:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Administrator/TheFearow

TheFearow
Hey veryone, i'm TheFearow or better known (maybe not on here) as Matt. I'm from New Zealand, and I love the wiki system. I used to be mostly active on my enwiki account, with over 3K edits. I decided to come here as it's a smaller wiki with an actual community, and its possible to make decisions without being hunted by an angry mob. I do a lot of maintenance work, but I have written a few articles. I have done a lot of work on Larry Craig, as well as New Zealand and related areas. I am constantly finding things I need an admin to do, so becoming a sysop would allow me to take care of those myself. I know a lot about wikisyntax, mediawiki, and programming, as can be demonstrated by several things I have developed, such as the Ticker and my dynamic quiz system. Since all my systems end up complexish, ironiridis created WTF for me, which I use on systems that are still in development and not in real use or on pages about them that are not viewed a lot.
 * This has been a tough RfA to call; TheFearow only has 69% support, thus I am closing this as No consensus. And Would invite TheFearow to apply again in a months time. Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 20:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC) Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 19:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You can see what my opinions of admin tools etc are at this page, but to summarise it, I believe things should only be done after consensus (meeting the CSDs etc counts as consensus), and I believe in second chances. I do not like indefblocking unless necessary or obvious socks/VOA's.

No matter how this turns out, I will keep contributing heavily, and my work can only get better. I will happily request reconfirmation if any user in good standing requests it. If I make any mistakes, I will happily fix and apologise, as well as improve. If you oppose please tell me how I can improve, and if you support, tell me what i'm doing good so I can do more of it!

Thanks, Matt. TheFearow 01:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

 * To make an addendum; I will likely respond to all opposes, I have some of my best and most interesting conversations with people that disagree with me. If you don't want me to reply, just say so. TheFearow 03:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Questions

 * What is the meaning of life? Thunderhead - (talk) 01:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 42. TheFearow 01:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Clearly that's wrong, because that's the meaning of life, the universe, and everything... --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 08:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If that was a bit broad, the more specific answer is 14. (Instead of being of the life, the universe, and everything, its a third, so only the life part). TheFearow | userpage|contribs 23:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Would you be an admin open to recall? irid:t 03:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 100%. If any user in good standing suggests I go for reconfirmation, I definately will. TheFearow 03:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Can you give examples of things you are "constantly finding ... I need an admin to do"? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 08:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Mainly biographies and such, and I do see a lot of half-archived pages etc (tagged as archived but not protected, or the opposite). TheFearow | userpage|contribs 23:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As an admin will you continue to write articles or focus more on tech/admin tasks? --Jcart1534 01:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Definately continue to write articles. I will use my admin actions where appropriate, and luckily tasks that need admin tools only come along occasionally, although should be handled promptly. The admin tasks usually are important, but there are few enough that they can be handled without influencing article work. TheFearow | userpage|contribs 03:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Why do you feel the time rule, "You've done at least two month's work on Wikinews", should be bent for you? Jcart1534 11:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression it was a guideline, as other RfAs have passed with less than two months work. I also believe I have done a lot of good work, and I can be more helpful as an admin. TheFearow | userpage|contribs 23:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Without the consideration of past RfAs, from what in the official policy above are you extrapolating that the two criteria for adminship are guidelines? If the policy is unclear, perhaps it needs to be rewritten to reflect the community's wishes (guideline or mandatory rule). What are your feelings on this? --Jcart1534 01:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The way the header is worded, they appear to be guidelines. If they are not, that needs to be much more specific, and I would adivse a discussion on it as they have been treated as guidelines in the past as well as lately. I believe they should be guidelines, but not rules, however I do not mind either way. TheFearow | userpage|contribs 03:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

 * You give the impression that you find Wikinews attractive because it is a smaller community, and you feel less like a "guppy in an ocean" whereas Wikipedia has grown beyond that. What opportunities do you see for us to recruit other Wikipedians into our community? --Brian McNeil / talk 13:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I can imagine various ways to recruit Wikipedia members, and I believe the key ways would be to make ourselves more known, and target people who actively contribute to things such as w:Portal:Current Events and w:Template:In the News. The main part is showing how open we are, and how much of a community we have. Showing everyone that we're like the small village, whereas wikipedia is Tokyo. I also believe that many active users of Wikipedia would want to do some work on wikinews, even if it doesn't become their most active wiki. TheFearow | userpage|contribs 23:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Votes

 * Absolutely Support. Great contributer. Awesome geek. irid:t 01:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Support for Wikinewsies everywhere. Thunderhead - (talk) 01:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Good user, good edits, total geek!  —FellowWiki Newsie 02:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Support: Has done and continues to do incredible work for Wikinews. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 02:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. While I think that TheFearow's technical contributions are wonderful, and I really appreciate having him here as a contributor, I feel that less than one month of mainly-technical contributions is not enough for adminship. I would prefer to wait a month or two in order to further see how the user handles editing tasks over this longer time.  If it wasn't for the time/edits, I would support this nomination. -- IlyaHaykinson 02:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I would like to point out I have done a lot of writing - Idaho senator arrested for disorderly conduct, Hurricane Felix now Category 5, Hurricane Felix strengthens to Category 4, New Zealand ATM gives out double the money, Republican leaders accused of double standard after Larry Craig's resignation, John Key admits to visiting strip clubs, and I know there is more. I also do a lot of minor editing of articles and cleaning up etc. TheFearow 03:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that you've made good contributions on these articles. But the first day you touched the article namespace was August 20th, which is 17 days before you applied for an admin position. I simply feel that's not enough time. -- IlyaHaykinson 15:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ahh ok. I have made one or two spelling corrections as an anon, but my first proper contribution was august 20th. TheFearow | userpage|contribs 03:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Oppose - While I do hope you stay true to your word and do continue to stay on here at Wikinews, I have to oppose your request do to the fact that you only started editing around a month ago. You do have the support and the trust of this community, I feel that you haven't been here long enough. Try joining the New Zealand cabal later. --Nzgabriel | Talk 05:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure. Where's the signup form for that? On a related topic, I did sort of expect a few oppose votes due to my time here - I know it is a bit short however I am a fast learnner and I know a lot of the policies from enwiki. TheFearow | userpage|contribs 05:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, some people may realise I am being hypocritical opposing TheFearow, while I was only around for about a month before getting my accrediation, but I have done some growing up since then. --Nzgabriel | Talk 05:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Support. Has written nice stories here, 3K edits on enwiki and great RfA statement. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 08:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral. A good tech but a bit new on Wikinews. You could do many things without admin flag. Anyway not a place for frustrated wikipedian (^-^) Jacques Divol 12:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral. Simply too early I think, but this is a user I would support when he's been with us a bit longer. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Although you are relatively new to our community, I would be a hypocrite if I said no when I became an admin in less than a month. :P Hope to see some fun new stuff from you in the future! —Zachary talk 13:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * To be accurate, Zachary, your first try for adminship (just shy of 1 month) did not succeed as people thought you were too new, even though they felt you would be a great addition. Your second Rfa did succeed, but you were just days away from 2 months. Jcart1534 13:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, I stand corrected, though my register date and the date I actually started making contributions are two different things. Registered on March 14, first non-userpage edit was April 2, and I became an admin May 20, so it was about one and a half months. Still shy of the two month "guideline", though. —Zachary talk 15:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I assume work means working on articles/maintenance/policy/etc, so it would be since first non-userspace edit. TheFearow | userpage|contribs 23:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Support --Jcart1534 04:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to the concerns highlighted above and also because I'm not happy with the nonsense that is WTF that this user seems happy to be associated with. As with brianmc, I would be happy to reconsider my views in a future RfA. Too new for adminship just yet. The user states their opinions about adminship at User:TheFearow/AdminToolOpinions. I feel this is entirely redundant since policy already sets out where action should be taken. I want admins to follow these policies not their own versions. Adambro 15:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * WTF is a joke - if you don't like it, i'd have no objection to it being deleted. Those are my opinions, which I would use if it was up to my discretion, or policy did not state what to do. I would follow policy unless there is a VERY good reason to do so, and if I ever did do something against policy I would happily explain my actions and discuss it further. TheFearow | userpage|contribs 02:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I created WTF as a joke. I also put it on one of his tools. I'm sorry that your primary point of opposition is related to what is essentially a userbox. Also, I should point out that the policies state that any admin should exercise their own judgment. For example, the policy on speedy deletion has no provision for articles created that clearly aren't news, yet have meaningful content, like the series of biographical stubs we've been getting recently. We speedy them anyway. I am clearly violating policy when I do that, but to what end should we follow policy? Develop a news story about somebody's 11-year-old turning 12? I support the idea that someone should make their personal stance on the policies (especially when they fall short) clear and public. irid:t 23:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I personally have noticed that common admin actions/traditions dictate policy, policies don't dictate actions. (With exception to core policies, like npov, privacy policy, etc). Some policies arn't fully followed all the time, some all almost totally ignored (cough, userbox policy. however that is mostly because it tried to change actions instead of document traditions, plus it was a compromise no one really liked, and most people probably are not even aware of its existence). Most policies have a bit of leeway in them as well. they often say you should do blah, you may do blah. In the end, I think common sense and good faith in all actions is what is important. Bawolff ☺☻ 03:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with you - common sense is common sense - if something policy says seems rediculous, pointless, or wrong in a particular situation, bend the rules. As long as its helpful, done in good faith (although this is not necessary if its helpful), and doesnt violate very important policies, I agree with using common sense and/or IAR. TheFearow | userpage|contribs 03:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Support Of course. ~  Wi ki her mit  18:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * neutral Sorry, I just don't know you well enough to say support yet. However from what I've seen so far, you're well on your way. Bawolff ☺☻ 00:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * oppose I'm opposing with a similar reason with IlyaHaykinson above. I felt your contributions to wikinews are great, just I would like to see more first. terinjokes | Talk 23:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 19:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments

 * Comment Please reply to all criticism. Unless it's a five page dissertation, criticism is constructive and informative, and discussion is the key. :) irid:t 03:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Update For those of you keeping score at home, we currently have 8 supports, 4 opposes, and 3 neutrals. irid:t 03:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd like to say - before someone closes this vote - that I'm happy with the result. The user is likely going to pass in 3-4 weeks time when they apply again; they'll be a tad more level-headed about it having spent time tagging things that need admin action (hint! hint! If you see something that should be speedied, flag it to say "I could have done that").
 * Part of the delay before you're likely to get your hands on the admin tools is getting to know the people who already have them. We do not want wheel wars. So, learn where other admins (and users!) have specific interests. If you get into a conflict on something you think they're biased on then do your best to see the other side. Ask questions before making accusations. We share a common goal - the success of Wikinews. We should be able to achieve that regardless of our individual political affiliations. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Administrator/Matt

Matt
Otherwise known as TheFearow, Matt's done a lot of work around here, and I see absolutley no reason why he shouldn't have the mop. He's also been helping us quite a bit with our bots, and has adminship on MediaWiki.org, so he's not a new administrator. I think that Matt certainly deserves the tools without question.

Questions

 * What is the meaning of life?
 * 14. Matt | userpage|contribs 05:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What will you do with the admin tools given that they are provided to you? --Nzgabriel | Talk 01:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Primarily work on cleaning up vandalism, deleting speedy deletion stuff, and blocking vandals/trolls/etc. I'd also like to help clean up the archiving backlog, which should be done ASAP. All generic admin tasks :) Matt | userpage|contribs 21:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Votes

 * as nom Thunderhead - (talk - email - contributions) 05:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * --Brian McNeil / talk 08:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 *  —Fellow Wiki  Newsie 15:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * support This user has demonstrated he is an asset to the wikinews comunity. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * ~  Wi ki her mit  02:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * --Jcart1534 17:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with the answer provided to my question. But as a side note, don't you think we have too many admins...? --Nzgabriel | Talk 03:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No such thing, IMO. Administrator is a status given to trusted users, and we can never have too many trusted users. Thunderhead - (talk - email - contributions) 00:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thunderhead is quite correct here. Admin is as much an indication of community trust as a requirement to help maintain the wiki. If you think back to before you had the priv bit I'm sure you recall intermittent frustration that you couldn't delete vandalism articles and the like. As a normal user you run up against a wall where you're using things like notnews to alert admins that stuff needs zapped. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

 * again —Zachary talk 00:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * --Mark Talk to me 15:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm familiar with Matt from en.wp, and he fits the description of "trusted user" quite well. EVula // talk // 18:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 10:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Grimlock 12:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments

 * Earlier RfA under the username TheFearow can be found in the archive.

 * I'm currently in the process of studying Matt's contributions in order to ensure I make a fair judgment of this user and have a small criticism to make. Looking through Matt's user talk page, I see a lot of other users who appear to be talking to themselves. I suspect this is because the user is replying to comments elsewhere. Doing this makes it very difficult for anyone else to follow the discussions and I would strongly discourage this practice. It might be appropriate in some instances to notify a user on their talk page that you have replied to ensure that they are aware as of course they may not be watching the page where they left the message. Adambro 15:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Some people prefer to reply on the talk page of others because it gets the new message flag and you have a high degree of confidence they've seen your response. We can't enforce "I respond on my talk and notify you", but it may be a better approach to keeping discussions less fragmented.
 * For adminship and any investigation of a user's contributions you do want to see what they write on other people's talk pages, but you're more interested in "have they avoided or - better yet - defused disputes?", have they "borrowed" a mop and bucket and cleaned up vandalism? Adminship should be "ask not what the wiki can do for you (i.e. give you the priv bit) but what you can do for the wiki". What an admin can do for the wiki is help keep it a place where good-faith contributions are welcomed. There are discussions elsewhere on us being curt or rude with newcomers, this should be extended to potential admins. Zach and I had a run-in with a very rude admin on Wiktionary (?IIRC?) I don't want us having the same rep. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I reply on their talk page, especially with new users, as I find it much easier to keep track of replies. When I started on enwiki, I waited over a month for a reply before going to their page to ask for them to reply, and realising they replied on their page already. If someone asks me to reply on my talk page, I will. Also, if there are more than two people communicating (unless one is a new user) then I will keep it on one page. Matt | userpage|contribs 09:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Administrator/David Shankbone

 * Candidate withdrew request for adminship.

David Shankbone
Believe it or not, our star interviewer isn't an admin yet. I think he's earned enough respect and trust to fix that problem. David's done a lot of great work for us, and clearly know's our policies well.

Candidate: Do you accept?

Questions

 * What is the meaning of life? Thunderhead - (talk - email - contributions) 04:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * To learn the balance between risk-taking and stability so that life is neither too boring nor too chaotic. Also, 42.  --David Shankbone 13:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Whew! For a second there I thought you weren't going to get the joke. (Although it should be mentioned that 42 is the Answer to life the universe and everything, not just life). Bawolff ☺☻
 * I live to give, and answer, 110%. --David Shankbone 00:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Will you be an admin open to recall?
 * Sure. --David Shankbone 00:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

 * What is your greatest flaw with regards to adminship?
 * I'm sensitive. --David Shankbone 00:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

 * What makes for a good admin on Wikinews?--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Haha - to not be sensitive? --David Shankbone 00:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

 * How do you feel about possibly having the most questions asked of you out of all the adminship requests (that i remember)
 * I don't mind questions (@#&*@$^*&@$#@!!) --David Shankbone 00:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Do you feel that your experience as an interviewer has helped prepared you for these questions? Is it different asking the questions and being asked them? Bawolff ☺☻ 22:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * My interviewees often turn my interviews around on me and I answer their questions honestly, which I hope makes for more honest exchanges. I just don't often include those aspects of the interviews -- be glad!  I might not have been put forth for admin-ship! --David Shankbone 00:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Joke questions for you just to add a few more - dont take these (or me!!) seriously
 * Will you hang out with us more on IRC??
 * What's IRC? :-)  --David Shankbone 00:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

 * And per the IRC - !q Is this a question? --Mark Talk to me 22:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

 * What do you make of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone/Proposed_decision?
 * I think it was funny. I was the one who asked for the Arb, knowing I pursued Ted Frank too diligently, but also knowing that being taken to task for that was not nearly as important as exposing him.  If there was absolutely nothing wrong with what he was doing, then it would have taken an ArbCom to show me that.  Instead, I was proven right.  My main problem going into the ArbCom was that, after a year on Wikipedia, I never had cause to figure out the seemingly endless forums for resolving various strains of disputes (COI, Admin Noticeboard, Water Pump, RfC, et. al.)  That and my frequent use of Ted Frank's name (mainly right after he changed his User name from TedFrank to THF) were seen as my problems.  There are things I could have done better, but in the end, I felt vindicated.  --David Shankbone 05:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Votes

 * as nom. Thunderhead - (talk - email - contributions) 04:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Jacques Divol 06:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 *  —Fellow Wiki  Newsie 16:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC) I crossed out my vote because what's the point of a person becoming admin after saying that "Wikinews is not fun" and "I simply don’t find the community on here enjoyable." David, if you really don't want to become admin withdraw this admin request.  —Fellow Wiki  Newsie 22:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * About time. JoshuaZ 17:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)> Changing to neutral now due to SVTCobra's concerns. JoshuaZ 16:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course :) A fantastic interviewer who will be fantastic as an admin. *Matt/TheFearow | userpage|contribs 20:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * , I think "hey man! Dalai Lama!", mail David and he's pretty much already lined up an interview with his U.S. representative. So... David as an admin? He's demonstrated a good understanding of our policies, he works within them and isn't one of those people who tests their bounds. So... I'd trust him with the buttons. We don't set the bar too high on Wikinews, there are a number of issues that constrain what you can do if you are not an admin so we have a high user/admin ratio. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Vote struck due to high drama surrounding threat to leave project. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * , David had done a fantastic job around here recently and I'm sure he will use the mop and bucket with great consideration and good effect. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * obvious support Bawolff ☺☻ 22:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * ~  Wi ki her mit  02:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * -- Jcart1534 18:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a no-brainer! --TUFKAAP 22:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * - Not to be a contrarian, but I would like to see David spend some more time here before gaining Adminship. There are still policies and practices with which David should become more familiar. For instance, today he published an article that was still up for DR . And recently, David uploaded an image from a competing news outlet, claiming fair-use WN:DR. Don't get me wrong, the interviews are fantastic and I have complimented him on them. David also seems earnest in his pursuits. I just would like to see him spend some more time here before gaining Adminship. --SVTCobra 21:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: The article was published because he found it worthwhile; there was no need for there to have been a deletion request on it in the first place. --Jigsaw (Talk) 14:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Abstain irid t i [mailto:ironiridis@gmail.com e]  22:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * - whats IRC??..hehe..good all-round editor..-- Cometstyles 13:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * - I appreciate the work David has done here and I'm disappointed that it seems he is going to take a Wikibreak as he is becoming disgruntled with Wikinews but I'm not happy with him branding JoshuaZ's decision to change his vote to neutral in response to the concerns outlined by SVTCobra as "jumping on the bandwagon". David should respect that people might not unnecessarily agree with him or support this RfA. His attitude towards this issue makes me oppose this RfA and I suggest those who have already voted should reconsider their position in response to his recent comments. Adambro 16:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * - David does not seem like the kind of person who wants Admin privileges, let alone be trusted with them. While I appreciate the work he has put into the site, I do not believe admin privileges are fitting at this time. --Skenmy(t•c•w•i) 18:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been reading your interviews! Great work! I'm even jealous :) - Jurock (reply) 18:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The New Zealand incident from the main page is a bit fresh in my mind, and at this point adding a temperamental administrator is something I don't think Wikinews needs. TheCustomOfLife 18:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Administrator/JoshuaZ

JoshuaZ
I would like to nominate JoshuaZ for adminship. He has a decent list of well-written articles, has been actively editing here for more than a year and has a solid grasp on the policies and workings of Wikinews. I was impressed with his edits and comments on this article. He offered patient and level-headed suggestions in what was a fairly contentious debate. In addition, there are times when he could have helped out with vandalism, if he had "the buttons". Jcart1534 23:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

 * JoshuaZ, do you accept the nomination? Yes. Thank you very much. JoshuaZ 23:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions

 * Would you be an admin open to recall?

 * Yes. JoshuaZ 13:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

 * What do you plan to do as an admin?

 * Four activities: 1) Dealing with vandals. It has been somewhat frustrating when we have a page-move or other vandal running around and I'm stuck reverting his changes but can stop the vandal itself. 2) Speedy deletions (I've lost track of how many times I've had to nominate something for speedy rather than do it myself) 3) Correct categories, MOS and spelling/grammar for archived articles. I've had to make a lot of requests and this should be simplify that. 4) Possibly helping out archiving. JoshuaZ 13:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

 * What would be your biggest strength and your biggest weakness as an admin?
 * I'm not sure. People on Wikipedia who think I'm a good admin there say that I keep a cool head during drama and don't get angry when insulted. Thankfully, Wikinews is a much nicer place all around and so those qualities won't matter as much. So I guess the next biggest strength is that I'm often online so will be paying attention to help out with needed admin tasks. Biggest weakness is easy- I've spent much more time on Wikipedia than I have on Wikinews, and we do many things very differently here. I suspect that every now and again I'll end up running into an issue where I might take a more Wikipedian rather than a more Wikinewsian approach. I hope that if that occurs, people will kindly revert whatever I did and let me know what I did incorrectly. JoshuaZ 13:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 12:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Votes

 * as nominator. --Jcart1534 23:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * , he's also an admin on WP apparently.Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 12:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * , obvious. --David Shankbone 13:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * --SVTCobra 03:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Jacques Divol 08:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've had to speedy a few this user has tagged, so he's running into the limits where he starts to need the buttons. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Support per interaction on other Wikimedia projects and also the good work he's done here.  Daniel  10:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Support I've never really interacted with JoshuaZ that much, but I have seen him around the various projects where he and I are both active. I think he'd be a good admin here. EVula // talk // 19:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


text: User talk:MatthewT024

title: User talk:MatthewT024


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Administrator/Prasuk

 * Request closed early by Adambro in the interests of all parties as this request is bound to fail. I would encourage Prasuk to take time to look through the archives of past requests to understand what is expected for a successful RfA. Adambro 22:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Prasuk
I'm able user in projects Wikimedia Fundation - polish Wikinews(nickname:Prasuk historyk), Commons(nickname:Tramman) and english wikipedia. I wants to become administrator en wikinews, because IMO I must to have sysop administrators, to fight vandalism.Prasuk 21:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Votes

 * - Need to build trust up on this wiki IMO - only 20 edits and only 2 of these are in the namespace - also you can fight vandalism without the sysop rights --Mark Talk to me 22:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This user vandalised my userpage twice with this IP. You can fight vandalism without the admin tools. I think this user was trying to make an excuse to get adminship on Wikinews. For that, I cannot trust this user. And this user is waaay too new.  —Fellow Wiki  Newsie 16:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Removal/PVJ59 (admin 2)

PVJ59

 * I am closing this has successful, I have refrained from commenting, So am closing it: as a Bcrat, and 2, as a netural party, I have never had any disputes to my knowledge with this user. Will list on meta Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 04:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is time to test the Inactive Policy and de-admin this user. His departure from the project was in the midst of a de-admin vote due to conflict and wheel-warring. The user discarded respect for other's opinions and battled on-wiki. I believe on more than one occasion he unblocked himself.

Comments

 * Comment - WN:IPOL is not policy only a proposal. --SVTCobra 13:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Has user been notified, as the proposed policy suggests? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I would vote to de-admin PVJ for the other reasons mentioned above and my own past observations of PVJ behavior, but I cannot do so here because the nomination implies that such a vote is a test of WN:IPOL (now also WN:IP), a proposed policy, the text of which was just added on November 13. This seems backwards. Vote on the policy first, then you can use it to de-admin someone using it. --SVTCobra 02:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe it is appropriate to test the policy with a case such as this. I believe we need to prove we have a mechanism in place to remove privileges. I appreciate WN:IP is proposed policy, my point here is to test it in a case where the user also had other issues with co-contributors. Yes, the user needs informed and I would appreciate if someone else would undertake that duty. I had my run ins with him and don't want to open old conflicts. I do, on the other hand, want to see WN:IP or something similar become official policy. My belief is that we learn more by doing so applying it here will allow us to see if what has been proposed will work. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've contacted PVJ59 via Wikinews user page email and on his talk page. I found no account with an identical name on Wikipedia or Meta, and nothing turned up on Google. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * We do have a mechanism for removing privileges, it is this de-admin procedure which is usually undertaken for abuse of said privileges. If this de-admin passes as a test of WN:IP then it provides a precedent and suggests that all the other inactive admins should be automatically de-admin'ed as well. It would be bad form to selectively de-admin people for inactivity if that's not the real reason that we are doing it. Do you also want to de-admin User:CGorman or User:NGerda? PVJ has more recent edits than they do, why not "test" WN:IP on them first? I think you are stacking the deck by picking someone you know is unpopular. --SVTCobra 22:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that this doesn't seem a fair test. PVJ59 left on a bad note, and the inactive policy is proposed to de-admin the people who everyone liked (Like NGerda) but is not here. Note: My opinion on this on a plain and simple de-adminship request would be that he lost his last de-adminship request, taking an extended wikibreak doesn't change that and he should not have his +sysop flag at this point in time. Bawolff ☺☻ 00:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Votes

 * Support de-admin, per nom --Brian McNeil / talk 11:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Support  —Fellow Wiki  Newsie 17:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Support as per WN:IP Thunderhead - (talk - email - contributions) 01:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * supporting per repeated conflict, wheelwarring and possible POV pushing. I don't have any opinion on whether the Inactivity Policy should be adopted. JoshuaZ 02:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * , this user has become inactive and shouldn't have admin rights, but I had no problem with him as a Wikinewsie, and I don't support this based on WN:IP, although I support that proposal. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * but it's not easy Jacques Divol 08:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't care It's true, I really don't care.  I don't foresee it impacting anything, ever.  ;)  Nyarlathotep 20:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It is only a proposal (which I disagree with) and he is not causing any harm by being inactive, if he has broken other policies (as suggested by other users) I might change my vote but for now I think we should keep him as admin.
 * Support, though this is a very poor test of WN:IP, a user without the problems he has had would have made a better test.--Cspurrier 20:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Administrator/Blood Red Sandman

Blood Red Sandman
I've often seen it said around here that we do not have enough admins here on Wikinews; particularly for tasks like archiving. As I have been around here for a while, and feel I have picked up all the policies etc here, I would like to offer my services with a mop. Please see my successful RfA on Wikipedia, in October, for evidence that I am trusted with the tools. Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 22:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Questions
--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 09:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Will you put yourself into Category:Admins open to recall?
 * What is your greatest strength and your greatest weakness as an admin?
 * Is it difficult for you to divide your time between Wikipedia and Wikinews? What are your thoughts on how the two projects should relate?
 * Is there anything you would change about the Wikinews policies?
 * What is the meaning of life? Thunderhead - (talk - email - contributions) 23:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Responses

 * Yes, I will add myself to Category:Admins open to recall. It is important not just to gain the community's support, but to ensure one maintains it.
 * My greatest strength: Probably high tolerance both to boring, menial, repetitive tasks and to vandalism that would deeply offend others. My greatest weakness: Poor ablity to spot my own mistakes; normally just typos, etc, but I would benefit from more rechecks of things before commiting them to apear for eternity.
 * Your greatest flaw is typos? You are pretty fantastic then! But I was trying to find out more about your personality and such... --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, no, my greatest flaw usualy only manifests itself in the form of a large number of typos compared to others. But it's worth considering that I am known to misread things etc before giving me the ability tocause a whole lot of damage. One Wikipedia admin recently misread something another had posted, and mistakenly arranged for the latter to be desysoped. Ouch. Personality-wise, although as yet I think I've kept a level head on-wiki, I do tend to have an ability to quite fiercely defend my point of view in the real world, which, whilst ok in itself, does not bode well for a position in which I need to listen to criticisms carefuly before rejecting it. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 19:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, dividing my time is more awkward than I thought it would be. In all honesty, I probably should try and spend a bit more time over there, as I ave projects in mind to complete there, too. As to interproject relations, that's quite topical right now. I do think greater co-operatio would be good, to ensure info on both agrees where it is repeated, and that all relevant info from each project finds it's way accross to the other.
 * Do you understand how the GFDL versus the Creative Commons license hinders cross-project cooperation with Wikipedia? What would you do if an admin from Wikipedia came here and copied a news-style article that was erroneously posted on Wikipedia? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am all too familiar with this issue. My response would be to first mark it as a copyvio as with any other such article, then inform the admin of his mistake, and then ask the original author if they would mind relicensing their contributions. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 19:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's anything majorly wrong with the policies here. As with aything else on a wiki, they just require twiddled and amended as time goes on, and that's how it should be. They do their job just fine as is. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 13:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

 * I believe you will find that the meaning of life is 42. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 23:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If you had looked through the archives, you would know that that is the meaning of life, the universe and everything. But hey, close enough. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Votes

 * Trustful, knows what he's doing, I always thought he should've became an admin.  —Fellow Wiki  Newsie 22:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Tons of great articles and knows his way around. I'm going to hold you to the offer of archiving! --Jcart1534 22:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Bawolff ☺☻ 04:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well we need more regular admins. If the inactive policy is upheld, then we may lost quite a few. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 04:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Trustworthy and capable with great contributions. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 09:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutley. He knows what he's doing with the tools. Besides, the Adminmobile is gathering dust Thunderhead - (talk - email - contributions) 23:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Jacques Divol 09:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Adambro 19:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Greeves (talk • contribs) 22:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments

 * Could you enable email on your account so users can contact you off wiki. Also, could you consider creating a userpage to tell other users a little bit about yourself or detail other WMF projects where you are active. Adambro 22:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: note that neither of the two are required, but are encouraged. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 22:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have sorted both. Apologies about the email problem - I thought I had enabled it! In reality, I had only done so on my Wikipedia account. Ah, well. Done now, anyway. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 22:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Administrator/ArchiveBot

ArchiveBot (Temporary Bot Admin)
In order to carry out the automatic archival of the ~3000 articles per recent discussion on WN:AAA, this bot needs the admin flag. This will be a temporary adminship - I do not expect the job to last any longer than 1 month. The alternative to adminising the bot is to use my user account for the process - which is *highly* undesirable as it will flood RC with the changes made, and ArchiveBot already has a bot flag.

Votes

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


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Bureaucrat/Brianmc

Brianmc (Bureaucrat)
Brianmc has been an active user on Wikinews for just over three years and in that time has racked up over 19000 edits. He is an admin, accredited user with oversight, check user and a member of the Arb Com. He has also shown utter dedication to the project with many hours spent around the project, on IRC, going to places to represent wn and also wikinewsie.org. he also never seems to sleep and therefore is pretty much around all the time but really all this doesn't matter, Brian doesn't need this rubbish intro, he talks for himself :-)
 * Accepting nomination, there's little B'Crat-specific work although finishing cleaning out the de-admin would be nice. If people ask me to close off things like Admin votes I'll get to them as soon as I can. Despite Markie's checking in IRC and alleging I'm a robot almost good enough to pass the Turing test I think my warped sense of humour proves that wrong.
 * If I had to say what I thought was the worst Admin action I've taken in the last six months-year it would be blocking our Scientologist friend Misou who any admin without WN:CU privs can probably guess with reasonable certainty edited from axiom28.scientology.net without being logged in. Google "Axiom 28" and you'll see it is their propoganda wing. I regret this because (a) The Clams will hide and (b) There was a &*@% of a lot more troll-baiting mileage in that user. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * Support per nom, this is long deserved and i hope to see you around still in the future as a b'crat :-)--Mark Talk to me 17:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * from me - perfect candidate for b'crat. --Skenmy(t•c•w•i) 17:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * not sure we need another, but Brianmc is a good choice regardless. --Cspurrier 17:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Couldn't think of a better candidate for B'crat —Zachary talk 17:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Great user who has recognised in his statement my only concern about his judgement and as such I'm sure he'll learn from the experience. Adambro 18:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * . --Jcart1534 18:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 *  —Fellow Wiki  Newsie 20:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * - No doubt! Greeves (talk • contribs) 04:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Bawolff ☺☻ 05:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Wilhelm 10:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * --David Shankbone 15:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * ? ? You can't handle the ! Thunderhead - (talk - email - contributions) 20:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * McNeil is like a Bureaucrat already --SVTCobra 00:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * - Cometstyles 00:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Very good candidate. TheCustomOfLife 00:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Jacques Divol 10:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Brian should be "editor-in-chief", honorary that is, he does so much for the community. --TUFKAAP 07:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't need more, but seems fine anyway. :)  Btw, bureaucrats can not de-admin people, afaik.  Nyarlathotep 13:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Even if they could I wouldn't de-admin without community consensus and we don't seem to be reaching that on the vote I started about Eloquence. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

 * I agree we don't need another one, but handy to have all the same. Couldn't have a better condidate, either. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments
I'm not going anywhere soon, unless I vanish off the face of the planet totally. :-) I'm almost embarrassed at the support this has garnered - and nobody has grilled me on it. I am open to questions in this section - I think we can do better than presidential debates and learn more about candidates for positions. --Brian McNeil / talk 00:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll toss one across the plate for you. If you had to choose between Sheik Yerbouti and Joe's Garage, which would it be and why? --Jcart1534 00:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That is probably the hardest question I'll get thrown at me... I'd chose the Joe's Garage option because I have more chance of convincing aspiring musicians to try it. --Brian McNeil / talk 00:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I got a really hard question that is way better than any of the presidential debate questions, well here it is: What is the answer to life?  —Fellow Wiki  Newsie 00:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no answer to life, there is an answer to "life the universe and everything" - which is 42. Pretty pointless if you don't know more of the specifics about the question. --Brian McNeil / talk 00:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

 * What no more questions? --Brian McNeil / talk 18:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Allright, you know 'the answer' is 42. Perhaps you can tell us something else, then. What is the question? Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm Brianmc, not Deep Thought --Brian McNeil / talk 22:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Worth a try... Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 07:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Removal/Long term inactive administrators (December 2007)

Long term inactive administrators
All of the administrators listed below have been inactive for a significant period of time and it is on this basis I propose the rights are removed. Whilst noting all these users have this in commons, there may be other things to take into consideration for each user so I've kept them separate rather than grouping them. Adambro 21:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

 * Has an attempt been made to contact these users? --SVTCobra 00:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

 * None whatsoever. For what reasons would you consider it worth attempting to contact them? Of the users listed below we have The bellman who has been inactive for 423 days all the way up to User:DouglasGreen who has been inactive for 884 days. I consider it unlikely that they are going to suddenly reappear and if they did, would it really be appropriate to step back into an admin role, would their knowledge of the current Wikinews situation really permit them to preform this role effectively? Whether it's just over a year or nearly two and a half, they clearly aren't on a short wikibreak. If they do return, and I certainly don't think reminding them they have admin rights is the right way to get them back, they should return under their own steam, the community can consider whether to reinstate the rights. Until then, we should remove the rights so as to try to get the number of users with admin rights down to a number that actually reflects the number of users who might actually use the rights. Adambro 12:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

 * It seems that you are essentially running a test of proposed policy, WN:IP, which requires that they be contacted. Also, these users were not around when this policy was proposed, so they cannot reasonably be assumed to realize that their inactivity would result in loss of privileges. --SVTCobra 14:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

 * This is not a test run of WN:IP and I'd ask that this isn't consider so, rather it is an attempt to begin to solve this issue in the most straightforward way possible which I consider this request to be. It would be ludicrous for any of these users to return after more than a year away expecting the status quo to have been maintained in that time. I don't consider it appropriate or necessary in this case to contact these users due to the length of time they've been absent as I've outlined above. Admin rights are granted not as some reward for hard work but as a tool that should be utilised. I don't see what contacting them would gain and would invite any suggestions as to why this should be done. Adambro 14:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Regardless, an attempt should be made to contact them. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

 * Come on Jason, I've outlined a number of reasons why contacting might be pointless and/or unwise so don't just come along and say that they should be contacted. As I said in my comment above, I'd welcome any suggestions as to why contacting them would be useful despite the issues I've noted. Adambro 19:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Look we have policies and procedures. And we follow them. And IMO, until ALL admins have been contacted or an attempt to truly contact them has been made, then no voting should even commence. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

 * We do indeed have policies and procedures, although they say little about this situation, hence the proposed policy related to this. You are welcome to your opinion DF but this request is perfectly valid without contacting these users and the community are free to have their say and vote. Again, since no suggestions as to why we should contact these admins has been put forward I still don't consider it necessary or appropriate. Adambro 20:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

 * Yes, but several of your colleagues have vastly different opinions, so you're welcome to dig your head out of the sand and come up with some sort of effort to address this issue. Surely you have heard of E-mail? Pilotguy roger that  21:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

 * I welcome any comments and suggestions about how to proceed with this issue but whilst I note the two users suggesting I should contact these admins, I've not seen any justification for doing so to address the concerns I've already outlined. It is on this basis that I maintain my position. Adambro 21:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

 * Regarding this diff, I am not going to feel forced into contacting these admins simply because my request is not receiving support. If anyone would put forward some reasons why these admins should be contacted then my thinking might be influenced. It is ridiculous that some members of the community consider it more important to remind these users who haven't participated for over a year that they have admin rights rather than putting the WN project, and its current contributors first. If this request fails because I don't contact them then so be it, I've made clear my concerns and no one has provided reasons for ignoring them. There needs to be some reviewing of priorities going on here. Adambro 23:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I have always been under the impression we contact them. It is very simple: Leave a message on their talk page and e-mail them through Wikinews. I refuse to and will not vote on any de-admin unless an effort to contact them has been made. Since I have been around that's how we do it and I see no reason why it needs to change now. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

 * You're welcome to choose not to vote if you wish but I'm not going to go against my thinking on this issue simply because "that's how we do it". For a start, my understanding is that "we" haven't done anything about this issue in the past so I'm not sure how we can really have established a procedure. Policies or guidelines, conventions or traditions, they are all open to question and not set in stone. As I've stated, I have a number of concerns about contacting these inactive users and until some justification for contacting them is put forward my position will remain unchanged. I keep asking for this but no suggestions are forthcoming and still the "we must contact them" persists. If we were to contact these users, what would we say? Are we going to wait for some kind of reply? Adambro 19:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

 * Life can be so simple sometimes... I just took 3 minutes to email User:The bellman and User:Karen through wiki-mail, the others don't have it activated and their pages don't list email addresses, plus they're not on WN:CV (were a lot of emails can be found). So, reasonable attempt made, no give them some reasonable time to respond. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

 * I can give you one good reason: These people are who took WN off the ground and made it what it is today. Without them there would not have been a Wikinews. And to simply take away their admin-ship because they may have personal issues or busy with other things is ridiculous. I am not concerned with a reply. I am more concerned with letting them know whats going on. They have that right, and so far as I know no one is required to sit in front of their computer and monitor every detail happening on WN and contributing to it. If it were difficult to contact them, I would agree with you. But in this case its very very easy. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

 * In response to Steven's message: I'm very disappointed that you'd choose to go behind my back as it were and choose to contact them despite the concerns I've outlined. The decision was not based on whether or not it would be possible to email them, I'm perfectly familiar with how to email a user. So now what do we do Steve? Are we supposed to sit around waiting for some kind of reply? Adambro 19:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

 * Yes...a reasonable time frame. We don't have to wait weeks if that's what you are implying. But it was rather simple to contact them and if you were refusing to contact them, then I see no reason why someone else should not make that attempt. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 20:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

 * I've never suggested that there was any real problem with trying to contact these users, rather that it would be unwise to do so or not necessary worth doing. It should be plainly obvious that ignoring the concerns I've outlined is somewhat impolite. I've still yet to hear any reasons for contacting them despite this having taken place. Still, we can't change the past so perhaps Steve could at least provide us with a copy of the message he has sent so we can begin to consider what sort of response we might expect. There is plenty of time for them to respond now as the request won't be closed for a good while I'd think. In the meantime, I see nothing which prevents anyone from voting or otherwise commenting on these users and I don't see what response from these users would impact on the process. Unless of course they state on wiki that they wish for their rights to be removed which would speedy things up. Adambro 20:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

 * I'm not going behind your back, I'm doing what is commonly done, i.e. informing users they're being voted on. I'd say wait at least a week. I simply sent them a short message inviting them to come here and comment if they want. I think that if they would, it could change some votes (mine at least). I didn't mean to insult you and if I have, I apologise, but it was not my intention. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm putting a message on the talk page of any admin listed below who hasn't been contacted. They might still watch us, just not contribute. Anyways, the way I see it is that this is a public process, and the people being voted on should know about it. I don't expect that they're are going to come back, all I expect them to do is maybe leave a note on top of there request at most. The way I see it is it is common courtesy to tell them what is happening. I wouldn't want this to happen to me without even an attempt at telling me. Bawolff ☺☻ 09:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have emailed ronline and Cgorman, as well left messages on their 'pedia talk page where they have edited recently. That just leaves DouglasGreen unknowing of this. Bawolff ☺☻ 11:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Bawolff for the email. You can remove my adminship status, no vote needed. I enjoyed writing here in the early days, and may some time return; however, for the moment, life is too busy for me to commit to this project. Good luck all. → CGorman (Talk) 12:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The above response is exactly why these people should be contacted. Where the response is "I don't have time but might come back" phrased such as this we've been fair and civil. If there is no response then that may prejudice people if they come back at some point looking to have the same privileges.
 * I object to the entrenched positions that a couple of contributors have taken on this issue. Neither of those advocating either extreme have backed up their assertions with valid reasons. On one side we have "OMG! They were here in the beginning, we must apply a procedure I imagine we have" versus "OMG! You invited them back? What if they take you up on the offer and we can't de-admin?" --Brian McNeil / talk 12:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * CGorman no longer has admin rights following his comment that he is happy for it to be removed. Adambro 13:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There are neglected pages on this very issue - WN:SL. If we're going to do things right I'd think the first people that the stop-loss should be applied to are inactive admins. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Removal/The bellman (admin)

User:The bellman
No longer active. Last edit was 1 November 2006, last admin action was on 5 May 2005. Adambro 20:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments

 * This was the person who helloed me. Bawolff ☺☻ 21:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow. That must be a weird feeling, to see them up for desysoping per inactivity... Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 22:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

 * I still do read the front page from time to time, but I haven't edited for a long time. I do however keep thinking to myself that I should get around to doing some editing again. If the community feels I should be de-admined, then I have no problem with that. ~The bellman | Smile 00:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I note a number of users have changed their minds and now oppose this deadminship request in response to the comment above from the user in question, justifying this decision on the basis that the user is active. I'd very much disagree, the proof of the pudding is in the eating as they say and this doesn't really suggest to me that this user is active. Adambro 18:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I really don't want to be the cause of any tension in the community. I'm not really an active editor as my edit history shows, however I do still keep an eye on what is going on. I am one of the few people who takes an interest in wikinews who remembers the start of wikinews, (or even what Brian recently referred to on the email list as the first generation, which was really actually the second generation). One of the reasons that I stick around (even if it is passively) is because I think not losing that institutional knowledge is important. Now i do not need admin powers to do that, however as i have already said, I do keep thinking I should get involved again (and in fact this whole little episode might just be the spark that I need), and it is up to you guys to decide if I should be treated as a new user again or as an admin. Either way, I don't really mind. ~The bellman | Smile 02:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * Support User apears to have left the project entirely. For the record, the same aplies for the others below. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Changed to oppose per the response above confirming this user is still active and has remained so more or less continuously. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 00:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 00:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as admin. No need to remove privileges. --+Deprifry+ 12:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * removal of privs. Not sure if I can even recall this individual editing while I have been active. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as admin. Nyarlathotep 08:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * privilege removal. --Skenmy
 * - user is active. --Skenmy(t•c•w•i) 17:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Since being contacted, expressed interested in helping out. Haven't seen any edits yet though. --Jcart1534 20:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: This de-admin request wasn't a community effort. I wanted no part in it. I am glad to see you responded. As I see it, if you were welcome that long ago, you are still welcome to edit and be a part of the community. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 00:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course The bellman is welcome to return and edit and be part of the community but at the current time neither is the case. Not sure why DragonFire1024 feels the need to try to distance himself from this request, since when were adminship requests "a community effort", the whole idea is that this is raised by a user for the community to discuss and consider. We don't have discussions about whether we're going to have discussions. Suggesting users who haven't edited in years have admin rights removed is hardly the crime of the century, regardless of whether these people are contacted, although I appreciate that this could be seen as courteous. However, it is important to realise that we give users the rights to serve the community not as some kind of reward so I don't consider is necessary to inform users that haven't been around for ages that they might be de-admined, I would suggest that these should realise that if they do ever return that things will have changed. Adambro 07:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Though my standard rationale has been "if you're not around to use the tools, you don't need them anymore", The bellman is obviously still somewhat active (as evidenced by the fact that he posted here... kind of definitive...). Though I'd prefer some more activity, any activity is more ideal than none, and his willingness to step down if the community doesn't want him as an admin just makes me want him as an admin. :) EVula // talk // 21:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * . Changed vote due to some recent activity. --Jcart1534 00:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


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

User:DouglasGreen
No longer active. Last edit was 28 July 2005, last admin action was never according the log. Adambro 20:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments

 * Note: This is the only admin who has not been contacted. We have gone through a reasonable effort to find him, and we have not. Bawolff ☺☻ 04:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * Support from Blood Red Sandman per this diff.
 * Neutral. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 00:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as admin. No need to remove privileges. --+Deprifry+ 12:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * removal of privs. Not sure if I can even recall this individual editing while I have been active. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral 5 month edit history.  Nyarlathotep 08:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * privilege removal. --Skenmy(t•c•w•i) 17:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're not around to use the tools, you don't need them anymore. This doesn't reflect poorly on the candidate in the least. (also, somewhat ironic that his userpage says that he comes here every day...) EVula // talk // 21:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Can always reapply for adminship if needed. --Jcart1534 20:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't have a clue who this guy is. --TUFKAAP 07:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


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

User:CGorman
No longer active. Last edit was 8 August 2006, last admin action was on 27 August 2005. Adambro 20:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments

 * This is the user that hello'd me. User was instrumental in early wikinews development. --Chiacomo (talk) 23:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * Support from Blood Red Sandman per this diff.
 * Neutral. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 00:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as admin. No need to remove privileges. --+Deprifry+ 12:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * removal of privs. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as admin. Nyarlathotep 08:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


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

User:Ronline
No longer active. Last edit was 30 July 2006, last admin action was on 11 May 2005. Adambro 20:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Votes

 * Support from Blood Red Sandman per this diff.
 * Neutral. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 00:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as admin. No need to remove privileges. --+Deprifry+ 12:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * removal of privs. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep as admin. Never knew the guy, but his edit history spans quite some time.  Nyarlathotep 08:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * privilege removal. --Skenmy(t•c•w•i) 17:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're not around to use the tools, you don't need them anymore. This doesn't reflect poorly on the candidate in the least. EVula // talk // 21:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Can always reapply for adminship if needed. --Jcart1534 20:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


text:
Thread:Comments:Poll: Arabs discouraged by US policies, back nuclear-armed Iran/Odd/reply (3)

Little-known fact: There is no word in the Afghan langauge for "nuclear weapon". They do, however, have nineteen separate words for "dirt clod".


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

User:Karen
No longer active. Last edit was 11 July 2006, last admin action was on 10 July 2006. Adambro 20:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments
I was without access for awhile, excepting public terminals. When my personal access was restored, I did fail to return to making edits. However I am currently involved in a publishing project that will be released in the next few months that may even be news-worthy. At the time I joined as an admin, it was because there were too few active admins, but I believe that situation has since changed for the better. I recommend trying to retain inactive admins by notifying them. Karen 21:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you plan to return to editing? --Skenmy(t•c•w) 21:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * Support from Blood Red Sandman per this diff.
 * Neutral. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 00:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as admin. No need to remove privileges. --+Deprifry+ 12:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * removal of privs. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as admin. Nyarlathotep 08:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * privilege removal. --Skenmy(t•c•w•i) 17:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're not around to use the tools, you don't need them anymore. This doesn't reflect poorly on the candidate in the least. EVula // talk // 21:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Can always reapply for adminship if needed. --Jcart1534 20:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

Comments

 * Do not attempt to link this with recent events, or Erik being among the project founders. I would prefer this be no popularity or conspiracy contest. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Erik has not contributed to the community for almost a year. He has made no attempt to get involved with us or our projects on WN. It seems, in all fairness, that Erik has abandoned Wikinews IMHO. So regardless of being founder of Wikinews, he should have been given the same treatment, at the same time as the users above. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 22:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you consider is different with the cases above where the period of inactivity is much greater but you've not supported yet you support this request? Adambro 22:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing...if you want to do this based on inactivity, he should have been up here with the rest. Either way it does not change the fact that he is non-representative of this community. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 02:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd note that I didn't list everyone who I'd say is inactive and should have their admin rights removed, that would be a long list, rather a selection of those who are at the most extreme end that I thought would be the least controversial to gauge community feeling towards my feeling that users should use or loose these rights. Eloquence fell outside this. Adambro 06:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Although I understand why you'd rather not link it to his position, I think he deserves special consideration because of his position for the board as founder (position in wmf is another matter, which i don't have a good opinion on). CoI doesn't really work, because i'm sure theres areas where others have conflicts of intresets, and they just don't edit those articles (as well mindspillage is an admin, and has equal conflicts). If I was basing my vote on if he was inactive, I would say remove. Bawolff ☺☻ 22:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

 * I am afraid I do not understand the reasons for not contacting User:Eloquence. Do you think Erik will object and raise hell? If so won't he be even angrier if he were to discover it was done without his knowledge? That said, Erik seems to be the type that gladly acquiesce with a de-adminship, given his new position. I'd see this as only a COI issue since the inactivity is far shorter than many others (and six months is not almost a year). --SVTCobra 00:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

 * i don't see much of a COI issue with adminship, which is supposed to confer no extra editorial influence. admin actions are publicly logged and can be reviewed in full by any other administrator. to my knowledge, there's been no suggestion that Eloquence's admin actions has raised COI concerns and i certainly don't see a need for a "pre-emptive" removal of admin status. –Doldrums(talk) 08:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Per some of the comments here I have emailed Erik (CC Sue Gardner/Florence Devouard). Links to this section here and WN:COI were provided. IIRC This isn't the first time I've asked for input on WN:COI. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Quick comments: --Eloquence 21:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Do whatever you think is best; my feelings won't be hurt. :-)
 * I'd advise you to read up a bit about the meaning of conflicts of interests in non-profits; there are a lot of misunderstandings regarding what a COI is and isn't in our community.
 * Whether on Wikinews or elsewhere, I've never believed in de-adminning people for inactivity; I think labeling inactive admins is generally sufficient, unless there's reason to believe that their accounts might be compromised or they might actively do damage. It's just process overhead with little obvious benefit and potential downsides (i.e., you reduce the number of people you could reach out to if you had to).
 * I'd be happy to withdraw the RfDA if you want to stand for reconfirmation. That would be less controversial. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

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

 * I don't buy your COI argument for numerous reasons. Btw, doesn't the COI argument violate your comment?  Anyway people should vote how they like for their own reasons.  If those reasons don't convince others to vote accordingly, fine.  fyi, not contacting seems like a general violation of etiquette.   :)  Nyarlathotep 20:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)  ps, Once upon a time we tried not to be the source for news *about* wikipedia, not that this view was ever used constructively, but its a historical point.
 * Can you strike and subsequently remove your comment to move to the comments section? I would like to carry on a discussion on this but you offer insufficient information to do so. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

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


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Administrator/Anonymous101

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

Questions / Comments

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

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

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

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

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Will you put yourself into Category:Admins open to recall?
 * What is your greatest weakeness as an administrator?
 * Do you believe in non-admin rollback?

 * Answer to question 1: I will definately add myself to Admins open for recall. Anonymous101 Talk 06:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Answer to question 2: This isn't a weakness that will change if I become an admin but my I think biggest weakness is my lack of imagination, which means I won't be the one to come up with this amazing new design or this radical new idea that will improve Wikinews. (On a side note - the new main page design is brilliant).   --Anonymous101 Talk 15:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

 * What is the meaning of Life and the universe (but not everything)? Bawolff ☺☻ 05:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I was wondering when I would get this question. There is no answer to life and the universe (not everything) ,but the answer to "life, the universe and everything" is [[Image:Answer to Life.png|20px]].--Anonymous101 Talk 07:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * - Not yet made up my mind on this, I'm don't feel particularly comfortable with linking this RfA from their signature. Adambro - (talk) 17:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OK --Anonymous101 Talk 20:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * - Longtime contributor, excellent contributions, and we can use more help. --David Shankbone - (talk) 21:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * : adminship should not be a big deal. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems a solid and trustworthy candidate. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 07:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Active and apparently mature. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No reason why not. --Skenmy(t•c•w) 10:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I was wondering how long t'll I would see his name here. Obvious support. Bawolff ☺☻ 05:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems sensible. Adambro - (talk) 17:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


text:
Juan Montoya wins second career NASCAR Sprint Cup race

August 10, 2010