Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Administrator/Wackywace

Closed as successful. Diego Grez return fire 14:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

- Admin
Wackywace is a hardworking user, has written many articles of a great quality, clueful and knows what to do. He is exactly the kind of user I'd be happy to nominate for the mop. What do you guys think? Diego Grez return fire 19:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please accept this nomination here: I accept this nomination.  wacky wace  20:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments

 * 1) As an admin, would you uphold and enforce the etiquette policy? 2) Do you agree with the concept of assuming good faith? Why or why not? Tempodivalse [talk]  19:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I will certainly enforce the etiquette policy. I believe it is one of the most important policies we have as a community, because without it we would be disjointed and nothing get done. For example, I believe in being polite, and believe others should do too. If people are not prepared to be polite, they are quite welcome to write articles but shouldn't expect to be welcomed by the community.
 * I realise the policy of AGF has caused some controversy on Wikinews in recent months, but I believe in it. Lots of people come along to Wikinews not realising what we do and thus create articles promoting their companies, or copied from other websites in violation of copyright, and this is bound to happen. When a new user does this, I will welcome them and inform them of their mistake. I do take exception to the rule in some cases, however. If a user repeatedly spams, or repeatedly breaches copyright, I will warn them and, if necessary, block them.  wacky wace  20:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Excellent response, thank you. This bolsters my confidence in your ability to be a good admin. Tempodivalse [talk]  20:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that while I have no problem with assuming that the intentions of a new contributer are good, I don't think that principle should apply to the content people generate. People can be handled softly, but content should be dealt with harshly. As an example of what I mean, if someone posts an article that is blatant advertising, that doesn't necessarily mean they should be insta-banned (though it depends on the specific content of the page. Bots and spammers aren't always obvious, but they often are). As long as it doesn't look like bot-behaviour, and as long as it's just one time, a warning on their usertalk page is probably enough. But the content? It should be instantly deleted, with no warning (with the explanation on their usertalk page).


 * Ditto with copyright violations. If the copyright violation is so bad that the content of the page needs to be blanked with a copyvio template, then it would be less effort to rewrite the article properly than it would be to fix the copyvioed one. Delete, and explain. There is no need to create extra red tape in the process. IE, blank the copyvio, insert a template, wait 1 day, then delete. For serious things like copyvios, just skip to the last step. After all, in the absolute worst case scenario you make a mistake and delete something that shouldn't be deleted. But it is just as easy to undelete something as it is to delete it. And the best part is that because you were nice and left a warning on their talk page, they know who to go to for the undelete should it be required! Gopher65talk 02:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Votes

 * Trusted user, I'm sure he'll do fine. Tempodivalse [talk]  19:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OMG, I forgot to do this. Per my reasoning above. Diego Grez return fire 19:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 20:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Good to have some fresh blood as admins. Bawolff ☺☻ 02:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Gopher65talk 02:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * — Mike moral  ♪♫  05:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Tyrol5 (talk) 19:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think he'll do good :) --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 19:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * per comment below. This is not meant as a comment on the user's ability to do the job, but on their willingness to give a 'desired answer' to a disingenuous question. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Trusted user. theMONO 00:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * sure, they've been around for a long time. Kayau (talk &middot; contribs) 14:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Good at news.  — fetch · comms  03:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * — μ 13:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you elaborate? Neutrals/abstains are not particularly useful if there is no comment attached to them that could help other people decide. Tempodivalse [talk]  21:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)