Herda05, welcome to Wikinews! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these!

Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews:

There are always things to do on Wikinews:

By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes (~~~~), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! → CGorman (Talk) 21:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

User: Rcameronw has been blocked for requesting de-admin vote and alleged "trolling"Edit

Just wanted to let people know that, following yesterday's discussion, user rcameronw has been blocked for 24 hours. It was decided that rcameronw's request for a de-admin vote constituted "site disruption". (see article talk page for more info:[1])

No, no. It's fine to use my talk page. I'm just wondering what information you mean about the sockpuppets? --Wolfrider 16:21, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Administrative rationaleEdit

Thank you for thanking me! My only interest as an administrator is to keep the wiki running smoothly -- I think that is Amgine's goal as well. As you have rightly pointed out, sometimes the choices one must make in defense of the wiki can be difficult and certainly controversial. Amgine did post a message to WN:ALERT to notify other administrators (and the community) why he had blocked rcameronw. I think, overall, the issue has been resolved amicably and correctly. I've not seen a specific statement by rcameronw about sockpuppetry -- perhaps you can point me to that statement. Sockpuppets themselves are not bad/wrong/evil -- only when they're used to circumvent blocks or manipulate policy or are used in bad faith in some other way is there really a problem. They are, of course, frowned upon because it makes record keeping difficult and because they are so often abused.

Rcameronw did initiate the request for de-adminship -- at least he is the person who made the request on WN:A. Reading back on the talk page of the article, I see he may not have been the ultimate instigator. Requests for de-adminship are touchy things, of course, and they should not be brought without evidence of abuse of admin power -- without such evidence, they are disruptive and verge on personal attacks (in my opinion). Of course, a good faith request for de-adminship (with or without evidence) should be taken seriously as it points out (again, whether properly grounded or not), a problem in the community. I've noticed that it's much harder to be de-admined than to gain adminship; I'm not exactly sure why this is so. As a whole, Wikinews admins are a pretty laid back and approachable bunch of editors -- please remember that we too are human and are just as susceptible as anyone else to fits of emotion. Please feel free to contact me with any concerns or questions you may have as concerns policy (or tradition, which is almost as important), or wiki philosophy in general. If I can't supply a suitable answer, I'll find someone who can. --Chiacomo (talk) 03:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


Hi - just a note to say that I'm not, nor have I ever been, a "sockpuppet"! I should probably not have reacted so flippantly to the idea of wikinews users "coming under attack from sockpuppets", but it just struck me as ridiculous, particularly as I had, at the time, absolutely no idea of what it was supposed to mean. Another user had (I kid you not) been repeatedly accusing MM of being a secret agent sent by the US government to infiltrate wikinews, which seemed even more ridiculous. I was trying to make the point that it was all starting to seem a bit mad, but I think my comments probably only made things worse. At least it all seems to have been sorted out now. Thanks for your thoughts! Rcameronw 08:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Rcameronw 08:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)