Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Archive 2
(Redirected from Wikinews:Administrators/Archive 2)
|
January 2005
editFebruary 2005
edit
March 2005
editApril 2005
editMay 2005
edit
July 2005
editSeptember 2005
editOctober 2005
edit- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
I would like to nominate Bawolff for adminship. Bawolff is a long-time Wikinews community member, first as a reader and then as an editor. Bawolff is particularly active with the Portal:Brampton, Ontario and articles related. Other areas which have been of interest and therefore expertise include topic categories and portals in general; expertise which will be very useful as an admin. - Amgine / talk 23:04, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
- Accept Bawolff. However I'd like to mention I have only made 2 edits to the Brampton portal and havn't looked at it or any associated articles in the last 2 months. I'd also like to thank Amgine for nominating me. Bawolff 23:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
- Support --Deprifry|+T+ 08:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- Support
Can I have a list of the contributions he's made to Wikinews? As he himself has stated that he only made 2 edits to the Brampton portal.Thanks for the list Bawolff. Definately a good contributer to the community. I'm all for it. --Wolfrider 18:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC) - Support --Mrmiscellanious 19:52, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- Support. -Edbrown05 20:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- Support Neutralizer 20:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- Support --Cspurrier 17:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Comments
- I'm not very good at stories so i've stayed away from that, however i've made many contributations to categories/topic pages and things like that. Some notable one's
- Started wikinews:Mirrors and forks (still working on)
- fixed up many topic pages including
- Space (just added pretty pict)
- Food
- Spam
- Mozilla
- Apple Computer
- Microsoft
- Internet
- Category:P2P
- Games
- Category:Belarus
- Music
- and others
- fixed up some of the religion cats
- added tons of categories to pages
- Fixed up Wikinews:Shortcuts
- Fixed up WN:IB
- Created a couple infoboxes
- template:RIAA Infobox
- template:Hurricane 2005 Infobox
- fixed up others
- Created templates:
- template:DPL
- Made other more minnor ones
- created {{Wiktionarypar}} and {{Wikisourcepar}}
- Uploaded quite a few images
- Participated in m:Wikinews design contest
- had a really cool idea about template:Topic header that no ones looked at. (see template talk:Topic header)
- and more
Contribs: [14] Image contribs: [15]
- Hope thats enough.Bawolff ☺☻
]] 19:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
I would like to nominate Borofkin for adminship. Borofkin is one of the oldest contributors on wikinews, and the most active editor from Australia who I know of. Oceania is a particular interest, but also all developing articles as a dedicated copyeditor. Borofkin has been involved in several policy discussions, and has a good sense for wikinews community issues. Having a strong admin in the Australian timezone would be an excellent asset for Wikinews. - Amgine / talk 03:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Accept. And in support of my nomination I would like to draw your attention to this masterpiece, my first article and the one of which I am most proud. It even made it through the review process! - Borofkin 03:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- If user accepts, I Support. --Mrmiscellanious 03:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- Obviously Support. One of the finest original reporters we have. --Deprifry|+T+ 07:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- Support Great work. --Wolfrider 10:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- Strongly Support-- consistent contributor of good, balanced edits/articles and he seems to get along well with everybody. Neutralizer 14:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- Support Bawolff ☺☻ 22:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- Support - another very good story today. Rcameronw 13:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
- Support --Cspurrier 17:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
I would like to nominate Cllewr as an admin. Cllewr is a regular on the main page templates, and helps keep article headlines direct, active, and succinct. Cllewr's assistance in copyediting, fact checking, graphic finding, and general article and site support are legendary, even if ou does tend to use the "minor edit" check box so often the modesty is nearly unseemly. Cllewr is one of the many quiet contributors who keep Wikinews up, running, and looking good. - Amgine / talk 21:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
- I accept. Thanks for the nomination! Cllewr 22:00, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
- Support Agreed. Great contributor. --Wolfrider 22:09, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
- Support - Borofkin 23:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
- Support I think I've seen this guy "admin" a number of times - with subtltey and effectiveness. We need more people that can discourage inappropriate contribs without putting people off WN altogether. I welcome someone who can be subtle. Brianmc 00:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Respectfully oppose. While I agree that Cllewr is a fantastic contributor, I feel that recently Cllewr has become fairly inactive as a contributor, aside from a few edits. Although not a requirement, I believe administrators should be alert for vandalism and other issues by regularly editing and watching edits. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 01:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)- Support. User shows exceptional administrator qualities. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 21:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support --Deprifry|+T+ 14:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support --Cspurrier 22:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support -- IlyaHaykinson 06:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
- support Bawolff ☺☻ 23:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support I almost missed checking in on this page, but have not over-looked the nominee's contributions to WN. -Edbrown05 04:45, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
November 2005
edit- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Deprifry is a great Wikinewie. He has done a great deal of vandal and spam fighting. He has also successful mediated several disputes. --Cspurrier 22:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support -- Agreed. He's like the Buddha, only not as old or as popular. But we love him anyway! --Wolfrider 23:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support I thought you already were one. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:25, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Great contributer, showed me by example how to compromise and stay constructive in heated situations (although he might not be aware of that...). And great to get German news here! --vonbergm 05:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Thought he already was an admin. :) Brianmc 11:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support
Rcameronw 14:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- Strongly Support; I like the way he communicates; clear and to the point. Neutralizer 15:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- Abstain from voting on nominee. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 22:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support - Amgine / talk 00:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support - Borofkin 03:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
User has unilaterally blocked Cspurrier, Amgine and myself for an automatic two weeks, citing the following explanation: "repeated blocking against community consensus - community needs time to talk about you guys". Not only were the blocks done in violation of the blocking policy, as seen in the block log, I did not block Neutralizer during the discussion period. As the user has been inactive since May, and in my opinion came back here with intent to misuse his sysop status, I hereby request that Simeon's sysop status be deactivated. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 23:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: The specific reasons for this vote were violations from the user in the following section of the blocking policy (items bolded to include violations from Simeon):
Quote
Use of blocks to gain advantage in a content dispute is prohibited. Likewise, users should not block those with whom they are currently engaged in conflict.
Admins should not block themselves (to enforce a "vacation" on themselves, for instance) because the resultant "autoblock" may affect other users (see Effects of being blocked, below), unless they know what they're doing (i.e., they have a static IP).
- In addition to these violations, the blocking policy does not state a user may block another for a "bad block", other than disruption. However, as the other admins were collaborating on the issue with others, and Simeon disrupted that community conversation, he is the only one that I can see is a valid case of disruption on the site. Such a user who has violated policy in these ways should be seriously considered for de-adminship. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 00:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Abstain - I think everybody should have a nice cup of tea and a sit down. - Borofkin 23:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)- Support - I've had my cup of tea, and I now support. Everyone voting should remember that the only thing we are voting on is Simeon, not the wider dispute. If you think that any other administrator has abused privileges, violated policy, etc, then list them here. Simeon, I encourage you to continue contributing to the resolution of this dispute, and Wikinews in general, because I think your contributions are exceedingly worthwhile. Wikinews has been worse-off for your absence over the past few months. - Borofkin 02:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- Comment - I cannot in conscience vote in this RfdA, having been one of the persons targeted by User:Simeon. However I also feel I cannot fail to note that this is a clear example of administrative powers abuse, which is precisely what the Request for de-Adminship policy is for. To be blunt: if we do not remove an admin's powers who has clearly violated Wikinews policy, when would we do so? - Amgine / talk 00:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- Many people are arguing that all administrators involved in this dispute have violated policy or otherwise acted innapropriately. Phrases such as "clearly violated Wikinews policy" are very quickly losing their meaning. The dispute appears to be over whether certain actions are violations of policy. - Borofkin 00:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- I have specifically argued, here, in favour of my being listed for RfdA when there was a question of if I had abused admin privilege. Similarly, you do not say User:Simeon did not abuse admin privilege. The question becomes whether the admins can do whatever they like, or if the community has any ability to check them for abuse. - Amgine / talk 01:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- Many people are arguing that all administrators involved in this dispute have violated policy or otherwise acted innapropriately. Phrases such as "clearly violated Wikinews policy" are very quickly losing their meaning. The dispute appears to be over whether certain actions are violations of policy. - Borofkin 00:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- Comment - How has Simeon violated the rule against blocking those with whom he is in conflict? Surely being inactive for so many months makes him more impartial than anyone else? - Borofkin 00:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- Reply: There was a conflict already brewing on the Water cooler as a result of the blocks, and Simeon automatically took sides without discussion to block the users. That is why the violation is noted as such. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 00:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I'm changing my vote to abstain while I have that cup of tea. - Borofkin 01:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- Reply: There was a conflict already brewing on the Water cooler as a result of the blocks, and Simeon automatically took sides without discussion to block the users. That is why the violation is noted as such. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 00:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose - Let he who is without admin-abuse cast the first stone... I would have thought there was a rather stronger case for de-adminning the admin who tried unilaterally to ban our friend Neutralizer for six million years on spurious charges... But actually I don't think we should be banning or de-adminning anyone over this. I support, by the way, the proposal that we all have a nice cup of tea and a sit down. [rcameronw]
- I agree with rcameronw. Lots of people did a lot of bad things over the neutrilizer issue and we should all just sit down and talk. However
I choose to abstain from this vote. Bawolff ☺☻
00:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose - I think we are loosing sight of the proportions here. What deeply troubles me is the game outlined in the IRC-channel 'leak'. This is what we should focus on. --vonbergm 01:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- I believe User:Simeon clipped that from my logs of the event. They should still be available on Pleonasm, and will give far more depth to that event than User:Simeon would like. The brief description is there was a temper-loss, and two admins engaged in a revert war/blocking war. One of them requested both involved be de-admined; that would be me. - Amgine / talk 01:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: I am going to ask the above users how they believe that Simeon should remain an administrator after his actions. Administrators should be trusted by the community - and as a member of the community, I do not feel I can trust him with sysop status based on the actions. However, I am asking for a more detailed collaboration on reasons why to keep him as a sysop - as far as I'm concerned, the users above have either not read the violations nor the blocking policy, but have acted purely out of influence from other on-going discussions. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 01:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: I think I agree pretty broadly with Ilya's observation. I think Simeon did what he did through sheer frustration over perceived unreasonableness on the part of the 3 admins he blocked, and, crucially, the consequences were minimal. All 3 got unblocked very quickly, as Simeon knew would happen anyway. What he did was, in essence, a gesture. Inasmuch as there were very minimal consequences to his action, it was a very minor action. I think we could also describe it as rash and whimsical. Inasmuch as it was technically a violation of the rules as I understand them, it was a minor violation. Now it may be that we hold our admins to such high standards that even a rash, whimsical and minor violation can constitute grounds for "de-adminning". But it's my observation that Wikinews does not de-admin people for minor, whimsical violations of the rules. I've seen no evidence that Wikinews even de-admins admins for serious, ongoing violations and abuses. In law, I think this would be called a "customary policy" - ie. it's an unwritten rule that Admins are never de-adminned for minor, whimsical violations. Therefore, in my view, to de-admin Simeon over this would actually be contrary to our unwritten rules and customary policy. I think there's also a customary policy, if not a written rule, to the effect that when looking at how to deal with violations of the rules, we should take into account the user's general contribution to Wikinews. I've seen arguments elsewhere on this page to the effect that Simeon has made substantial valuable contributions (as an admin and an editor), which would seem, I think, further to mitigate against the wisdom of de-adminning him. I think it's important that we are constitute both in our rules and in our APPLICATION of the rules.
- Support This was a clear violation of blocking policy (and a bizarre violation at that) that in no way assisted the community. I do find it interesting, however, that MrM has found a reason to complain about admins keeping their sysop status after extended leave. I seem to recall him opposing Neut's proposal in regards to that issue on the water cooler. I believe Neut's statement was: "We're talking about exactly what has already happened...people quitting and coming back whenever the mood strikes them...and holding onto their admin powers throughout." --Wolfrider 02:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- I still oppose that proposition, but have found reasoning as to why others support it now. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 02:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- Strongly Oppose; I urge all to go back through the history of Simeon's work on wikinews and please read the edits where this seemingly very diligent and considerate hard worker was viciously attacked and driven away. I have gone back through the old edits and saw absolutely terrible and abusive treatment of Simeon. I urge everyone to go back and have a look; it's quite an eyeopener. Simeon was once a very active contributor and administrator, in Australia, holding down the fort when everybody else was asleep, and fighting vandals like a hero, until he was driven away by the exact same crowd that is being so disruptive right now. Believe me, it took all of my self discipline not to put my accuser up for de-admin. but I figured the community needs time to heal and move forward collaboratively and let bygones be bygones. I am extremely angry that this point in time was chosen to attack Simeon and and even more angry at the target. Simeon,from my reading of his contributions has been one of the truely gentleman leaders and hard workers of wikinews. I am really hopeful that everyone will vote "opposed" in a sign of support for this good person,Simeon, who so gallantly came to my rescue when I was being wrongfully exiled without a hearing. Simeon; please come back; we need you. I also think it is wrong for the same people to keep making comment after comment in this discussion trying to wear down the people who may not agree with them. Neutralizer 03:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. Simeon's actions were rash, and I don't much agree with finger-pointing on this site anyway (are we here to argue about user rights, or to publish news articles?). If the user continues to block people in violation of blocking policy, I'll support this. As a single-incident abuse of powers, I think he should see this as a warning. -- IlyaHaykinson 03:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: The above incident occurred to three people, which I would consider to be three events. In order to get back to writing articles, we need a reform here. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 03:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. Whilst what Simeon did was perhaps wrong, it was exactly the sort of gesture required to deal with an out of control situation. Blocking himself was definitely wrong, but was needed to close off the tit-for-tat that was being engaged in. Brian McNeil / talk 07:54, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. While the methods might not be right, Simeon's intentions were noble... end the nonsense. -Edbrown05 01:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. The action taken does not make me lose trust in Simeon. - McCart42 (talk) 05:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
vote 4-7-1, de-adminship failed - Amgine 19:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
I'd like to nominate Brianmc -- he's a wonderful editor, mediator, and all around nice guy. --Chiacomo (talk) 17:49, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Nomination accepted. :-) Brian McNeil / talk 18:24, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support --Cspurrier 17:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Strongly support --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 18:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: This user is a very strong editor who not only understands the policies of this website, but also understands the need to educate new users in our policies. He is also, as many others would say, a fantastic mediator. Even though a few users who have only been here a few edits are trying to throw FUD at this nomination, I encourage all users to view Brianmc's edits - you'll see there is a solid editor dedicated to the cause. I highly suggest all who oppose this nomination would give a good reason that isn't based on one or two possibly bad edits. We're all human; we make mistakes sometimes. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 01:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
- Support (assuming Brian is finally willing to accept the nomination, of course.) - Amgine | talk 18:34, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Opposed;Well, I see within the first 45 minutes what Mr.M calls a "posse" has ridden in with their votes; but I won't be swept away by the tide. I am willing to reconsider my vote if Brian will respond to my concerns; there's no doubt you have potential; but at this point you often don't read the edits before overreacting to the edits and issuing false accusations of a personal nature; as these two recent edits of yours show; [16][17]
- This is a very bad trait for someone who has blocking authority; and since you are relatively new here; perhaps a bit more seasoning might be called for. Brian, can you,perhaps, promise that you would take a bit more time digesting other contributors' edits before reacting to them in the future? In addition; I noticed you voted on MrM.'s talk page for him to retain his adminship. Could you please share with us why you believe MrM. is a net asset to the community? This is not a question meant to put MrM on the spot but rather to see how Brian evaluates this project and the contributions people make.Neutralizer 19:43, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Neutralizer, you should be ashamed of yourself of trying to hijack this RfA into a statement against me. If you would have read the disclaimer, the vote means absolutely nothing and users who participate in it are not required to comment on their votes. Similarly, the vote is rendered null-and-void if users were trying to seek anything out of the poll, or to use it to make a point (as you have). I have undeleted the talk page which confirm this. I do not think that I am up for discussion here. So, I would respectfully ask that you keep anything about me out of association with this RfA. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 20:18, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- This is relevant to see how Brian evaluates this project and the contributions people make. Obviously,the nominee's views about what is acceptable behavior here is relevant; that's not rocket science. Neutralizer 20:52, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- This is irrelevent to the RfA. Plain and simple; not one sentence above had to do with Brianmc at all, other than your accusations of him being in my (non-existant) "posse". If you want to rant about me, do it on my talk page. I'll even give you a link: MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 20:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- This is a very bad trait for someone who has blocking authority; and since you are relatively new here; perhaps a bit more seasoning might be called for. Brian, can you,perhaps, promise that you would take a bit more time digesting other contributors' edits before reacting to them in the future? In addition; I noticed you voted on MrM.'s talk page for him to retain his adminship. Could you please share with us why you believe MrM. is a net asset to the community? This is not a question meant to put MrM on the spot but rather to see how Brian evaluates this project and the contributions people make.Neutralizer 19:43, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support I think hes ready. Bawolff ☺☻ 20:04, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. --Deprifry|+T+ 20:04, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. In response to an edit meant for Boud; this nominee mistakenly thought the edit was meant for him and launched into a personal attack full of assumptions that had no basis of fact whatsoever; including...your crusade to get Wikinews to insinuate GWB is a Nazi...I think this "fly off the handle",only partially reading edits, overpowering and threatening approach may be one that many of the current administrators might find acceptable or even praiseworthy; but there is no doubt in my mind that many of the other contributors here might be kind of sick and tired of having to deal with it constantly. Let's see how the vote turns out; as always, I will abide by the will of the community...but NOT by the will of bosses.Our guidelines say our admins are supposed to be "janitors" not "junta" and I do not see any janitorial tendancies in this nominee. Neutralizer 20:52, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose for now - i am concerned that Brian seems to feel that his own beliefs are more important than a published statement by the most cited living arts/humanities author of the 1980's - he wrote: the quote itself is targetting the US administration and the reference to Nuremberg is just used to elicit an emotional response. i have nothing against Brian becoming an admin sometime in the future, but at the moment i feel that someone who wants to become an admin ought to make errors less often than this. i was also concerned (same article) about Brian's claim that a quote is a copyright violation, though he later explained that he was referring to what he alleges is copyright violation on an external website (my guess is that probably the page on the external site is consistent with copyright under fair use, anyway, that's getting off-topic here) - see details here Talk:60th_anniversary_of_Nuremberg_trials_marked#NPOV, despite the fact that the quote was clearly labelled as a quote and two sources were given. Boud 21:37, 25 November 2005 (UTC) - updated Boud 15:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose for now - Especially lately, Brian has made many entries on talk pages has have alienated users (see comments above) or even driven users away from wikinews (see Talk:Indictment of Jose Padilla avoids Supreme Court and contains none of original charges). Even though his concerns may have been justified, he did not manage to communicate them successfully. Although I have experienced Brian open minded at times (he gave some good initial suggestions on how to fix up the "pre-war intelligence infobox", he has failed to provide a consistent position on how to proceed with it and watched the project he first proposed and I invested energy being driven down the drain. Brian's comments and initiatives are often sporadic and lack the seriousness and long-term vision that I expect from an administrator. This is not saying that all (or even the majority) of Brian's edits are of that form. In fact, I have enjoyed many articles that Brian made significant contributions to.
- An important part of the role of administrators is to calm down and help mediate conflicts, not create them. Especially when it comes to dealing with new users as in the incient linked above, Brian should take more time to learn how to handle these appropriately and focus his energies. --vonbergm 23:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose for now - Brian seems to have a pattern of using the "it's emotional" argument to brush off ideas he may not like, doesn't want to hear or let others see, to justify his censorship and cover up his lack of ability to give constructive criticism. I feel that he and Amgine used their power abusively to shutdown the publication of an article on a very important and very controversial topic: Jose Padilla. Saying someone has "an axe to grind" is not constructive criticism. I understand that Brian may be very busy; and I know he made no attempt to assist me or answer my requests for comment besides referring me to the NPOV pages. As the guidelines say, it is not wrong to express a point of view, as long as it is not presented as fact, worded appropriately: and actually the point is to present as many points of view as possible, and to label them as such. I call on all administrators to try to understand that there will many times be "emotive" elements to peoples writing, especially when the topic concerns a crime against humanity or society, and it is the job of the wikinews community to present all the emotive states there are around an issue; that is where Brian could have expressed his emotional POV in the article instead of just blocking the entire reality of the Jose Padilla case with an unqualified npov mark. I would warn the wikinews community, that while I only have this one experience on being in the clutches of this person, be very wary of his judgement and willingness to communicate positively for ideas he does not agree with or that shock his point of view. Holon67 03:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
- For the record, I'd like to add that I felt a bit tricked, verify for yourself at Talk:Indictment of Jose Padilla avoids Supreme Court and contains none of original charges. At first Brian requests a simple addition with the justification that people in his country don't know who this Padilla could be, and that the sources are missing. After I make these corrections, he blank blocks the publication with quite the emotive response and no serious constructive criticism "This has been written by someone with an axe to grind, please look at other articles that are not disputed to get an idea of the "tone" a piece on Wikinews should have. It isn't a court of law, and we certainly aren't trying to prosecute the government." None of my requests for followup were answered. Holon67 03:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
- Here is the blocked article that received no constructive criticism, but was replaced by another article by another author http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Indictment_of_Jose_Padilla_avoids_Supreme_Court_and_contains_none_of_original_charges who I know nothing about. That article contained everything that is here. Please note that the guidelines even use the word "shocking" in the examples as a valid pov -- was this my error, I'll never know -- as long as it is presented that way. Please read the guidelines you ask others to follow and practice writing some povs of your own so you know what other writers have to play balance with. Holon67 04:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
- It wasn't replaced. The other article was there first. And it is way more comprehensive than the article you started --Deprifry|+T+ 12:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
- I think it is very disingenuous and unethical of you, Deprifry, to manipulate the facts, and offer an opinion on quality on top of the manipulation, i.e. the article you refer to was just a stub for all of the 23rd, and since my article was censored, it didn't have the ability to get further input. Further, one could argue that mine influenced the second since it had more comprehension first. Mine also had more sources. The two should have been combined for the best of everyone, not one censored. Holon67 18:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
- Excuse me. Manipulation? Censorship? Disingenuous? Those are big words and IMO you should be careful before you accuse people of it. And this is a stub? It was better in its first revision then many published articles. And what exactly prevented you from participating in the development of this article? --Deprifry|+T+ 18:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you for allowing me to explain yet again: First, it was my mistake that I did not improve upon the original; I did not see it, I admit. Second, I was told to fix my article, then, after the fix, it was unconditionally blocked by Brian and Amgine, call that what you will; I think it is an indication that these persons should be, for the record, on careful watch, but, of course, that is my humble opinion; I call it censorship since there was no feedback. I believe Brian just doesn't like what I wrote, which isn't so far-fetched, so he found some reason to block it; the first attempt failed when I did not go away, so he tried harder and with more authority. I find that really disturbing. Third, the other article may have been first afterall, but it was not originally more comprehensive, and on the day the event happened, was not improved upon, so your criticism could be construed, IMO, as disingenuous since you made no mention of that fact, but merely stated that it was first and more comprehensive, regardless of timing. Even with what you just said, you are in denial. Holon67 00:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Ah, I was quite confused here for a moment. You're the user who removed the tags without addressing any of the issues raised on the talk page. I thought I'd actually been involved in this article or something. Glad to see I was mistaken. - Amgine | talk 02:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Excuse me. Manipulation? Censorship? Disingenuous? Those are big words and IMO you should be careful before you accuse people of it. And this is a stub? It was better in its first revision then many published articles. And what exactly prevented you from participating in the development of this article? --Deprifry|+T+ 18:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
- I think it is very disingenuous and unethical of you, Deprifry, to manipulate the facts, and offer an opinion on quality on top of the manipulation, i.e. the article you refer to was just a stub for all of the 23rd, and since my article was censored, it didn't have the ability to get further input. Further, one could argue that mine influenced the second since it had more comprehension first. Mine also had more sources. The two should have been combined for the best of everyone, not one censored. Holon67 18:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
- It wasn't replaced. The other article was there first. And it is way more comprehensive than the article you started --Deprifry|+T+ 12:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
- Here is the blocked article that received no constructive criticism, but was replaced by another article by another author http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Indictment_of_Jose_Padilla_avoids_Supreme_Court_and_contains_none_of_original_charges who I know nothing about. That article contained everything that is here. Please note that the guidelines even use the word "shocking" in the examples as a valid pov -- was this my error, I'll never know -- as long as it is presented that way. Please read the guidelines you ask others to follow and practice writing some povs of your own so you know what other writers have to play balance with. Holon67 04:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support After looking carefully at the concerns other users have raised against Brianmc I see no legitimate complaint that should prevent him from achieving administrator status. It seems to me that these complaints originate more from the American Left/Right divide than anything else. However, I would caution Brianmc to not allow his bias to get in the way of editing articles, as you've approached some issues with far more vitriol than what should be acceptable for an administrator. Try to be more polite. That said, I still think you'd make a good admin. --Wolfrider 23:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose for now.
I think there is problem with (well, parts of) the present staff of administrators so untill that is solved i guess its best to wait. Brianmc will probably be a good administrator but above I read objections enough to give it a wait some time.International 15:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose for now.--Whywhywhy 12:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
December 2005
edit- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
1.Abused administrative privilege by protecting a page in which he was emgaged in a dispute http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Talk:Alleged_Bush-Blair_Al-Jazeera_bombing_transcript_leaked
http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alleged_Bush-Blair_Al-Jazeera_bombing_transcript_leaked&diff=168006&oldid=168005 2.Constantly disrupting the site with article tags which he places on articles and insists against consensus that they remain until he gives the ok.
http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Neutralizer&oldid=172702#Running_List (over 95% of these are by mrmiscellanious)
2;A He never removes the tag himself 2;B He uses threats of using his administrative blocking power of blocking as intimidation agianst others removing his article tags.
Perhaps others can provide links to the many edits where Mrmiscellanious has threatened blocking while engaged in edit wars with the editors he threatens.
Paulrevere2005 18:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
returned edits I made yesterday after I had logged off by mistake.Paulrevere2005 22:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Second link is now inactive, here is the following historical archive of the requested page: http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Neutralizer&oldid=172702#Running_List --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 03:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment:
The protection was necessary, otherwise at least three editors would have been blocked for violating the 3RR.Tags are brought by editors. Administrators aren't the only ones who can tag an article. And they were actionable complaints - which were, thankfully, addressed. Forgive me for being blunt on some of my discussions, but I think looking for vandalism is much more important than observing what should be fairly obvious (to me) objections.Neutralizer's running list is of edits he doesn't like, which show that he is unwilling to work with his POV problem and Wikinews. Over 95% of my edits there are because of my opinions and values, which he distastefully disagrees with. I have no problem with it, I suppose I set myself up for that when I posted my beliefs on my user page. But de-admin'ing a user because you don't agree with them politically is not only in bad taste, it could show that Wikinews itself has a group of biased users, and that NPOV stories are not welcome again to the wiki to some.
I highly hope that with good faith all users making comments here would prove a stronger case of admin abuse, otherwise you want to contact Simeon or another admin to ban me. Nothing I see here is of substantial reasoning for de-admin'ing, as represented by the previous RfdA of Simeon not having enough substantial creditation. I welcome back your return, Paulrevere2005 - but I don't look forward to you acting like other users which have shown themselves as disruptive of the wiki and posting another of these frivolous votes. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 17:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Support removal of adminship
edit- Support de-admin. There is a right way and a wrong way to nudge articles towards improvement. I don’t support MrM’s methods, nor do I know the right way to do it either. But the holier-than-thou-art attitude, the one I sense from this administrator, doesn’t work for me. I don't think holier-than-thou-art types will modify their behavior, otherwise MrM would already have made changes to his manner of dealing with Wikinews. -Edbrown05 01:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
- Support - for reasons previously stated - an admin should be a janitor, not a junta. Happy to see him reinstated after a period of time subject to community re-endorsement, but I do now think we need to apply some kind of sanction.
Rcameronw 16:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
- Support, but not until he returns MrM does engage in a "pattern of abuse" & does "game the system". More seriously, I feel he discourages & drives off new editors, instead of drawing them in. And I feel he should ultimately be removed. As Cspurrier said, individual incidents are minor and forgivable, but it seems Neutralizer's list provides the critical mass to deadmin for many small infractions. As International said, we are proposing a less confrontational way to address such issues (see RfDA-CB), but again Neutralizer's list begins to resemble the desired discussion forum.
- However, I do not want to see anyone removed via other "games to the system", so my vote is to be counted as an abstension until he has returned, at which point you may count it as support. If the voting ends before he returns, sorry bad timing to run your RfDA. Nyarlathotep 00:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
- Alright, I've seen him about the site, you may count it.
- Support - After reading Mrm:s respons I changed my mind. I wrote "a fair warning" his only respons was indignation about that I threated him. Threated to use my userprivileges. No respons to my argumentation. Guess this guy didnt listen. Guess this guy wont listen to critic and argument in the close future and just waste my energy in atempts to create a construtive structure to solve things like this. Dont matter if he do alot of other good work here. There are good persons who understand that Wiki News administrators are not same as vigilantes in comic books. The best way now is to remove him as a administrator for the best of the Wiki News.International 00:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment: I will not listen to those who threaten or accuse me. It's disrespectful, so I will not extend any courtesies back to them. If it makes me a bad person, so be it. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 01:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
- Support - Removal of adminship is not the end of the word and i believe the above evidence is more then reason to procced. It appears that MrM makes not appologies for his "patterns of abuse" and will continue abusing his status, fair warning has been given.Adminship can always be reinstated later if earned. --Whywhywhy 01:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Support i do not have confidence that mrm will interpret and apply wikinews policy fairly, in an unbiased way to improve wikinews. his action has violated policy. further, he has repeatedly made edits which disrupt but do not improve articles. imo, he has not accomplished his stated aim of upholding "high" standards by his foreman/worker model of collaboration, but has provoked conflict, disrupted article creation and led to questionable admin actions. as mrm himself has been stringent in applying sanctions on users and in the absence of any "lesser" sanction that can be applied for his error, i recommend de-admin. Doldrums 07:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Permabanned 67.165.217.42 (thus ignoring the 24-hour convention) without warning him [18] and under a dubious charge of vote forging, even though the votes were simply tallied in a certain place and had already been placed against Amgine [19]. Jyrse 02:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: (Sorry, Edbrown05, but I had to respond to this one) The user claimed he was a user of Wiktionary, therefore knew that forging votes on a consensus poll was a no-no. A nomination for an RfdA does not count as a vote in support of the removal. I would also like it noted that this is Jyrse's first edit to Wikinews. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 02:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Support:While I agree with Eloquence arguments, I don't believe that there is any williningness to improve on MrM's part. --vonbergm 18:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Oppose removal of adminship
edit- Oppose, but I agree that MrMiscellaneous has abused administrator privileges in some cases; an edit war is only with a specific person — when it's with a group, it might just mean pluralism. The problem with protecting a page when you disagree with other editors on content and policy, especially when it's not very clear that there's a violation, is that the version that gets "frozen" is your version; the others have no recourse other than to appeal to other administrators. I don't support de-admining now, but will if such protection / blocking incidents continue. -- IlyaHaykinson 18:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose- While he did debatable abuse his admin privileges somewhat, the abuse was very minor and the page was quickly unprotected and reprotected by an uninvolved person. I believe the primary reason for this RfDA and the other attacks on MrM are not his actions on the site but that he holds an unpopular and somewhat odd :) political view --Cspurrier 23:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose - Article was unprotected 7 minutes after being protected in a potentially abusive manner, but then reprotected by an uninvolved third admin due to the edit warring. It was the right decision, but MrMiscellanious should have asked an outside person to implement it. - Amgine | talk 02:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose - Why it appears that MrM did abuse admin privliages, who hasn't been accused of abusing them before. Also, the page was later re-protected by a third party not invovled. --TUFKAAP 17:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose - If there is to be a punishment for such an abuse of admin privileges, in my opinion it should be a block rather than de-admin. De-admin should only be used for repeated abuse of admin privileges. - Borofkin 01:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose --Chiacomo (talk) 02:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Other/Comments
edit- Comment(former abstain, I support RfDA now) There is new policy and tools for constructiv problemsolving growing in watercooler.
Thats why I suggest us too hold our horses a litle. But I agree that Mrm have missused his powers and edit in a confrontational way that is not acceptable for a administrator or anyone else. International 23:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC) - Comment It is my opinion that MrM tries to hold Wikinews to a far higher standard than many people are happy with. I have looked at a number of articles that I believe are amongst those people do things like keep "running lists" on, and either by the time I've seen the article the concerns have been addressed, or MrM does indeed have a point — which may have been put a little bluntly. There's faults on both sides here, in that some people don't like facing their prejudices that MrM may highlight. Sometimes the result is a really good article, other times it is like something that was originally written to crucify one party and filled with "allegedly" in a weasly attempt to address criticism that may have been brought. I guess we need something really well written that can get people to see when a particular way of writing something changes it from a report into an editorial, as this lies at the heart of this dispute. If Wikinews is NPOV news, we have no opinion, sorting out what is fact you don't like and opinion that doesn't belong is difficult but a required part of participating in Wikinews. I think MrM tries harder than a lot of those who seem set on removing him from the position of administrator to deal with this, and if it is coloured by his politics I think other administrators with different political background would be a better balance than a long-running campaign to de-admin. Brian McNeil / talk 19:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
- Abstain. I'm really on the fence about this. On one hand, as Brian McNeil pointed out he does an amazing job. On the other he has oversteped (IMO) his position as an Admin (not too much, but oversteped them none the less).
My biggest concern, which I would like his opinion on why he did this, is his flat out refusal to go through dispute resolution with neutrilizer — "I refuse to take place in this event. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 21:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)" [20]. We're supposed to try to fix users (to put it bluntly) not ban them. I think that is the most problamatic part of this, everything else is realitivly minor. Wikinews is represented by its Admins (even though they suposadly don't have any special representational powers, they do) and we should be activly trying to reform users who don't understand our policies, and our admins should especially be at the forfront of this effort. If their is some reason that Mr.M didn't whish to go through the dispute resolution, I'd be intreasted in hearing it and will proably change my vote.
I whish not to participate in this vote Bawolff☺☻ 06:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment: I do not like to bicker about other users. I feel all contributors here deserve more respect than to see two of their fellow contributors accusing each other of being 'mean' or 'unfair'. If there was a better solution to the problem, then it should have presented itself. However, I do not agree with the current mediation process. Preventing further disputes doesn't mean bringing up 'points' for a 'neutral party' to decide which one has a better point, it means working with the two users to settle their dispute. And having a long-run war with someone and letting only one person decide what should be done isn't fair to the rest of the community. So, if there were suggestions by all users of the community to solve the dispute, it would be welcomed by this party. But I do not like having a neutral party taking any sides. There should be more than one opinion on the outcome. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 17:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Isn't it a little unfair to hold this vote well he's on vacation? Bawolff ☺☻ 06:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
- Abstain I won't be voting because I'm on vacation myself, but I would like to add that I do believe it is unfair that the vote is taking place while he's gone. --Wolfrider 15:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment: I have now returned, so please continue this RfdA - however, please reset the '7-day' counter to today, the 10th. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 16:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
- Seems like a good idea. Nyarlathotep 23:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think MrM should be participating in this conversation. -Edbrown05 02:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
- Very well. I shall strike out my comments (except for this one). --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 02:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
- I dissagree, An RFDa is as much about wether the user should be an admin, as to reasoning for the users action(IMHO). Could you please explain what you mean, (Edbrown05) futher? Bawolff ☺☻ 02:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
- I dissagree, An RFDa is as much about wether the user should be an admin, as to reasoning for the users action(IMHO). Could you please explain what you mean, (Edbrown05) futher? Bawolff ☺☻
- Yeah, I was second guessing myself on that. I think you have to take the crap dished here without comment. Until it is over. I don't read "pepper-posts" anyway so why try influencing what is said about yourself until others have had their say. -Edbrown05 02:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
- I see what you're saying. I'll continue to keep my comments striked out. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 02:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
- whats the point of striking what you have written when people can still read it? I have no problem with MrM refuting arguments( it would be a bit silly not to) just do it in your own vote or maybe a blurb at the start of "opposed". --Whywhywhy 01:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Very well. I shall strike out my comments (except for this one). --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 02:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
- Abstain - —MESSEDROCKER (talk) refuses to participate in this consensus poll. 04:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Abstain and comment: I'm not a big fan of de-adminship rituals, for the simple reason that I generally believe people are trying to do the right thing. Removing another editor's adminship status is a fairly strong signal from the community, and in many cases, will cause the person in question to leave the project. It should only be done if it is necessary to prevent futher abuse.
While I have had conflicts with MrM in the past and I do think his tendency to tag other people's stories and thereby delay publication (often without working on the article in question directly), is problematic, I would rather not send such a strong message of community disapproval at this point in time. His actions here justify a warning, to be sure. His editorial practices are largely (if not completely) unrelated to his adminship, so they should not be judged here (which does not mean that they are beyond judgment).
What I do feel is that we need more instruments than just "de-adminship". I think even many of the complainants would be happy if they felt that our policies were being enforced in some way. For this reason I support the idea of a judicial body appointed in a consensus process by the community, an arbitration committee similar to the English Wikipedia's. Such a committe would have many more instruments - warnings, injunctions against particular behavior, and so on - and could look at the issue in question in an unbiased and even-handed manner. It would avoid many accusations of sock-puppetry and excessive public fighting.
I'm not going on the record with a strong oppose vote, since this request is not going through anyway without consensus, and I do feel it should be clear to MrM that protecting a page in this manner is unacceptable, period. Admins do not have special editorial privileges.--Eloquence 03:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment Any page lock or ban by an admin involved in a dispute is inherently unjustified. It doesn't matter if another uninvolved admin comes along later & agrees to it. The admin has discredited the process merely by using admin powers in a dispute. Eloquence, a "lighter touch" solution would be for other admins to simply refuse to support the admin abusing his powers, or just lock the page in the other parties state, usually published. It might increase conflicts among the admins, but it would almost certainly decrease overall conflicts. Sadly, people usually side with the familiar face. Nyarlathotep 14:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Question Mr.M has stated he feels that Dispute resolution is unfair [21] he has also stated that he doesn't like the proposed arbcom[22]. My question is what form of Dispute resolution would he prefer?
Quote
So, if there were suggestions by all users of the community to solve the dispute, it would be welcomed by this party. But I do not like having a neutral party taking any sides. There should be more than one opinion on the outcome.
How he envissions this is something I'd like to hear more about. Bawolff ☺☻ 20:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
I wish to propose that a vote be taken to remove Amgine's administrator status on the following grounds:
- Deletes relevant news [23] stating WN is not a place for PR, or incitement for riot instead of suggesting that it be merged into another article as requested by another administrator when I reposted the article.
- Upon reading the user's talk page, the above seems to happen quite often (premature deletion)
- Ignores requests to explain reasons for the above. New users may wish to know why their articles were deleted
- The greatest hyocrisy is after stating WN is not the place for PR, Amigne signs his discussions with a link to journowiki. The most recent I can locate is seen here [24]. I think it is inappropriate for an administrator of this site to be advertising their own site and using WN for personal gain.
Cartman02au 00:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- At the time of this request I believed that RfDA was the most reasonable course of action for these issues. After Chiacomo's messages I am preparing to put my issues to Dispute resolution Cartman02au 01:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Support. I had a run in with him on Wiktionary. He refused to accept two citations as adequate evidence that the word existed (one was a definition [25] and another that said it was in Merriam-Webster's Unabridged [26]). He then threatened to block me [27]. I later won the dispute [28]. Further, on the RFV page, I actually caught him lying [29] in order to get the entry deleted. Primetime 00:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Forgive me for being harsh, but what does that have to do with Amgine's role at Wikinews? After all, we're not Wikitionary. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 00:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- It shows that he's willing to lie and threaten to block in order to get his way. It also shows that he can't admit it when he's wrong, even in the face of overwhelming evidence and even if it means that a legitimate entry could be deleted from a dictionary. Primetime 00:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: The above IP editor (signing his name manually, apparently) has threatened to use open proxies and sock puppets on other wiki projects -- and has, in fact, been involved in a dispute with Amgine elsewhere. What is a non-editor without even a local username doing voting in a Wikinews RfDA anyway? --Chiacomo (talk) 01:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Reply to Wikipedia user Primetime: I'm still failing to see how his actions apply here. If you could explain why he should be de-admin'ed for WIKINEWS, please comment. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 01:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Ad hominem (Chiacomo) & red herring. Administrators should have more character than regular users because they have the ability to abuse their power so much. Amgine has shown a lack of character and a tendency to abuse his power. Primetime 01:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: You're into Wikitionary again. This vote is about his position on Wikinews. If you cannot provide sufficient evidence of abuse on Wikinews, I suggest that you retract your vote, as it is improperly placed on the wrong wiki. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 01:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- There is no double standard for Wikinews. Both of the wikis in question were created by Jimbo Wales and his rules prevail. In any case, I strongly encourage you to click on my links, as I think that they speak for themselves. Primetime 01:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: You're into Wikitionary again. This vote is about his position on Wikinews. If you cannot provide sufficient evidence of abuse on Wikinews, I suggest that you retract your vote, as it is improperly placed on the wrong wiki. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 01:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: The above IP editor (signing his name manually, apparently) has threatened to use open proxies and sock puppets on other wiki projects -- and has, in fact, been involved in a dispute with Amgine elsewhere. What is a non-editor without even a local username doing voting in a Wikinews RfDA anyway? --Chiacomo (talk) 01:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- It shows that he's willing to lie and threaten to block in order to get his way. It also shows that he can't admit it when he's wrong, even in the face of overwhelming evidence and even if it means that a legitimate entry could be deleted from a dictionary. Primetime 00:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Reply: I do not, in good faith, support your vote, as you have not edited on Wikinews and are acting, perhaps in a smear campaign, against the person in question. If you provided reasoning on WIKINEWS and not any other site, I would acknowledge your vote. However, being that this is a continuation of a dispute on another wiki with the user, I respectfully ask again that you retract your vote or provide specific reasoning for it here. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 02:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- UPDATE: The above user has been PERMANENTLY BANNED from Wikinews for impersonating Paulrevere2005 and Cartman02au. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 03:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Forgive me for being harsh, but what does that have to do with Amgine's role at Wikinews? After all, we're not Wikitionary. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 00:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Support. See Other Comments below, Paulrevere2005 01:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Amgine, you seem very conscientious and active as an admin, but I would prefer you to be less of an admin, and more of an author. I think that a disciplinarian approach such as exhibited by the clique of admins of which you are a central member is counterproductive in any public domain, such as wikinews is. This is not to say that you are responsible for the contributions of the people you align with, but by the same token, I think you need to allow yourself to become less responsible for the contributions of those you align against. -- Simeon 00:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- Support: Not because of my own RfDA but because of Amgine's meat puppet allegation, which goes along with your request. If someone is going to accuse people of being a meat/sock puppet simply because they disagree with them that person should not be an administrator. I joined this site only on Monday and have not been influenced by others now or in the past. Prior to writing an article here I have had no discussions with anyone. I have also not dropped my RfDA at this stage.
Weak Support - Amgine is forgetting that this is supposed to be a place to post news. When was the last time he's done anything to help progress the progress (no pun intended) of Wikinews? Also, the clincher: he states it himself, he's left, yet he is one of the most active contributors (on the water cooler and such, where it could be in more, better places). While removal of adminship may be a bit harsh, it may work. —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 12:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)I withdraw my assertion. —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 21:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)- Comment: I left a message on Messedrocker's page, but we should examine Amgine's contributions to the main name space before accepting such a blanket statement. --Chiacomo (talk) 15:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: MessedRocker is correct in his observation that the vast majority of Amgine's edits on the main namespace are not helping "progress the progess". As Ciacomo points out, this has changed in the last week, and I see this as a positive development. I strongly support MessedRocker's reasoning (as I read it): There needs to be a healthy balance between simply taging articles (for whatever reason), and active development of wikinews articles. Wikinews is a community project and does not need a police separate from the contributors. I am hopeful that Amgine's very recent change in behaviour, although maybe motivated by the RdfA, will continue beyond the lifetime of this poll.
- Comment: I left a message on Messedrocker's page, but we should examine Amgine's contributions to the main name space before accepting such a blanket statement. --Chiacomo (talk) 15:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Reply: Your edit counts if you're a contributor. So far you have failed to provide sufficient information that you are a contributor to WIKINEWS. We are not universal - Wikipedia and Wikinews are not the same. Amgine's RfdA is applicable only at Wikinews, so if you wish to participate in Wikinews' community polls, you must start to actually become a member of Wikinews. Not Wikipedia. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 04:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- If your not a user, why do you care. As for Amgines sig, thats been discussed recetly, basicly s/hes more active there. (dig through talk pages and dispute res.) Bawolff ☺☻ 10:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Ok, thats fine. (IMHO others may have problems) just bear in mind that people may not care because this vote should be about his/her actions here and not elsewhere. Bawolff ☺☻ 11:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Please remember, this is not a vote about personality: not bugging the crap out of people on other projects is not a criteria for being an administrator on Wikinews. This vote is only about policy violations on this project. -- IlyaHaykinson 11:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. And, my reasoning:
Article should have been deleted, albeit the description should've been changed. The talk page shows that the originating user (the only contributor) was OK with the deletion (and, therefore, was aware and compliant with the decision).- I am unsure how you can claim that I was compliant when I created another article with similar content. Another administrator (more curteous) suggested that I merge it with another article. According to Amgine the article was "PR and incitement". Cartman02au 00:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- The article in question was a very controversial article. The content was very shady, in my own opinion, and it really should have been deleted in the method that Amgine described - after all, the information was repetitive and was already present in at least one other article. Second of all, let me read off the text at its last revision:
- It certainly sounds like an advertisement/press release to me. Furthermore, the message was posted on the talk page from the 'organization'. The article was hardly newsworthy on its own, and I can understand Amgine's concern of it being a PR. It should also be noted that the user's other article was shown as such of being a dupe/should be merged with another article, and contained the same content this did (as well as the corresponding talk page).
- We've been over this before, there is no site policy which states you can't leave a link to your most-visited talk page, no matter where it is hosted. I see it no different than pointing to an email form. Leave your comment and go, it's not like you actually have to venture all the way into Journowiki, click 700 links, and leave a message.
- This RfdA shouldn't happen, because there is no reasoning for it other than the user's dissent for Amgine. I would sincerely hope that users start a new method of rules for de-admin'ing a sysop, otherwise this is going to become ridiculous. It already has, especially when users of only a few edits are asking for de-sysop's on users after one occurrance. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 00:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- comment Where does the talk page say that the originating user was okay with deletion? The person who created the article is the person who has raised this RfDA request. - Borofkin 00:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Reply: That was on the other article this user created, I apologize for that. Strike-out. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 00:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- comment ::::I am unsure how you can claim that I was compliant when I created another article with similar content. Another administrator (more curteous) suggested that I merge it with another article. According to Amgine the article was "PR and incitement". Secondly, there is no dissent, Amgine should have responded to my request for a proper explanation. Any decent Admin would have done so Cartman02au 00:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose - I don't think the article should have been deleted - it should have gone to deletion requests. However, Amgine does an enormous amount of admin (cleaning things up, etc) on Wikinews, and if we are going to raise an RfDA request every time he does something someone doesn't like, we'll never get anything else done. The correct response should have been for Cartman02au to put it on Wikinews:Admin action alerts and try and get another administrator to restore the deleted page. - Borofkin 00:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- comment I didnt know about Admin action alerts, but I am still offended by his arrogance and signature. Thanks again Borofkin, you always seem to assist me Cartman02au 00:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: You are OFFENDED by his signature? May I ask why? --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 01:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: It's complete hyocrisy - he complains that an article I write is PR then PR's his own site.
- Reply: I would agree if he was linking to the home page. But he's not, only to his talk page and user page their. After all, that is where he is most of the time. I am not seeing the PR in that. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 01:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: I still fail to see how the article was PR. It may not have been worthy of it's own article, but how is reporting on it PR? You could say the same for the Racially motivated SMS's surface on the Gold Coast Cartman02au 01:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose - not sufficient evidence of abuse of adminship -, but I would have preferred it if the the article had been listed at Wikinews:Deletion requests.--Eloquence 01:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. I don't know what the content of the article was (except for the exerpt by MrM above). But even if Amgine grossly missed on this one, I still wouldn't support his de-admin over a highly charged and on-going news issue being pushed by a new contributor here. -Edbrown05 02:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Sorry for not noting it earlier, but that was the full text of the article, not an excerpt. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 02:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: I do not believe that statement to be true (I may be incorrect here though). I certainly know the second article was not that brief.Cartman02au 03:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Reply: That is the full text, sans Original template and sans-categories, sans-date, sans-sources. If willing, another admin can confirm this if need be. --MrMiscellanious
- Comment':New contributors should not have the same rights as anyone else? Does that mean that new blood is not as valuable to the community? Cartman02au 03:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Reply: Every user is valuable here, however veteran users are more likely to be informed about site policy and conduct rather than the new users. Just one of those curses :). --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 03:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Reply": I would like to be better informed about site policy and conduct, but some of these are very hard to locate. Thanks to a few kind users I have become better informed, but there is still much to learn. Cartman02au 03:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose - correct response to wrongful deletion is to ask for undeletion, not nominate for de-adminship. -- IlyaHaykinson 06:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: When the administrator ignores communication and fails to follow site policy there is reason to nominate for de-adminship. Cartman02au 08:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose: Amgine's work as an administrator is very valuable to the project, a few disagreements are to be expected when we have people who don't seem to quite get NPOV. Brian McNeil / talk 18:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose Not enough for de-admin. Bawolff ☺☻ 19:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. This page certainly isn't the right place to settle a dispute such as this one. --Deprifry|+T+ 19:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose and comment:Although the concerns raised by Cartman02au and Primetime are valid (and I have some other concerns that I could add to the list), I do not believe that they warrent an RfdA. At this stage I believe that there is still room for resolving these issues differently. --vonbergm 07:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. There seems to be some sort of campaign against Amgine by a small handful of users, spanning over several Wikimedia projects, like a witch-hunt of some sort. Jon Harald Søby 16:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Notes, not votes, for support for removal
editHow are "What is a non-editor without even a local username doing voting in a Wikinews..." valid? I'm not even a user of wikinews, never mind an editor. But My vote does not count, I'm told. "...failing to see how his actions apply here": Amgine's history in this & other wiki communities should count.. Not only by the vote, but by the citation. Basically, I concur 100% with Primetime, Which is exactly why I stopped paying attention to Amgine, but here, my vote doesn't count. Until these issues with his adminship came up... Also, check out these citations:[30].
Actually, I flat-out said I was not a contributor (Editor), nor even a user.
And what's with Amgine's use of exo-wiki >user: links]?? GRYE
I care, because this editor bugs the cr@p out of me on wikitionary and elsewhere. This vote was brought to my attention. I am here to bring Amgine's other wiki behavior to light. It is relevant to any wiki. & sorry, that's totally legit, yer right. I had it confused with his other [user signings] to an other [exowiki]. & finally, I'll cross out anything that seems a vote from me or about my voting.
I just disbelieve that his actions on other wikis have no bearing here, especially by wikinews, which probably relies on wikipedia & wiktionary more than any wiki references any other wiki, by several factors. That said, I'm over it. Good luck. GRYE
Oppose removal
editQuote
Following the unrest in Sydney on Sunday night, many are already turning to text messaging and usenet to plan their next day of action.<br\><br\>
A group calling themselves Action For Australia is planning a rally on Australia Day, 2006 in Lakemba, a suburb where many people of middle-eastern origin call home. Action for Australia is claiming that they managed to rally 5,000 people in a week and believe that they can rally many more for the march through the streets of Lakemba.
(talk) (contribs) 03:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for the support, Jhs, but it's really only 3 people, one or more of whom are using sockpuppets. - Amgine | talk en.WN 19:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. I think the mediation has been the right course of action.--Whywhywhy 12:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. With regards to the Amgine block on me... it was quickly lifted. And in defense of Amgine's action, the record does indicate that I manipulated another person's post, even though the MediaWiki software mangled and merged my post in what was probably an edit conflict mix up. But more than that, an admin has got to make a call, which is pretty much guaranteed to be unpopular with some party to a story when any controversy is involved, and I've always pretty much found that Amgine offers up reasoning for actions. That probably alone is good enough to make and keep some person as an administrator. Even if the parties to the disagreement agree to disagree, which is also probably guaranteed among newsie hotheads. -Edbrown05 03:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. I admit to following this debate from the perimeter, so this is more a character reference than anything else. Amgine is a conscientious, vigilant contributor to many wikis and posesses some of the best judgment I have seen in anyone, anywhere. Or de-sysop him if you prefer. He'll have more time to help us over at Wiktionary. --Dvortygirl 06:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Please see votes above, all of this is one RfdA.
- Oppose. --Cspurrier 01:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
He's done way more then a month and seems like a nice person. He's been on almost everyday for the last two months (look at contribs) and I feel him to be pretty trustwrothy. Also there's not enough new admins recently. I belive he'd make a good admin. Bawolff ☺☻ 17:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
- Support. --Deprifry|+T+ 18:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
- Support.--Cspurrier 18:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
- Support. International 18:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
- Support good contributions. - Amgine | talk en.WN 04:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
- Respectfully oppose. While user shows great contributions, I feel there are too many administrators at its current state. --MrMiscellanious – Merry Christmas – 00:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
- Out of curiosity, whats wrong with having lots of admins. I heard a quote once - "Adminship should be no big thing" (or something like that; don't know who said it). I always thought of adminship as giving the tools that ideally everyone should have, but if WoW or another Vandal got them, we'd be in BIG trouble. Bawolff ☺☻ 05:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
- It was Jimbo Wales, the quote is here. The only question I think you need to ask of a potential admin is "do I trust him?". User:Dan100 (Talk) 10:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
- Reply: I don't agree with whatever Jimbo says, with all due respect. So quotes won't work on me. There is an opposition group in the community against all administrators, which will undoubtedly grow less civil with a recent event, which is why I don't want to drag anyone into any of this at this time. We're keeping up on the spam and vandalism, which is after all the only thing administrators are actually required for. --MrMiscellanious – Happy Hanukkah – 22:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- It was Jimbo Wales, the quote is here. The only question I think you need to ask of a potential admin is "do I trust him?". User:Dan100 (Talk) 10:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
- Out of curiosity, whats wrong with having lots of admins. I heard a quote once - "Adminship should be no big thing" (or something like that; don't know who said it). I always thought of adminship as giving the tools that ideally everyone should have, but if WoW or another Vandal got them, we'd be in BIG trouble. Bawolff ☺☻
- I wasn't asking you to agree, I was just sourcing the quote for Baw's benefit :-), although it's a concept I subscribe to wholeheartedly. Although I won't be voting as I don't know Nyarlathotep. User:Dan100 (Talk) 00:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- Bah, well get back here so you can get to know the new members better! :P --MrMiscellanious – Happy Hanukkah – 00:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- support - Borofkin 00:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose - User believes that articles about some countries should have the name in the title while some others do not. He/she will not respect a NPOV or global audience. --MateoP 23:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
- BTW, Here is the debate in question ( see also ). MateoP wanted to use the title "Some candidates for president may be involved in drug trafficking", which is about a national election, but does not identify the nation. I'm not really sure what I could have done diffrently to encourage wikipeace. Nyarlathotep 10:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not referring to that, I changed the title, didn't I? I'm referring to when you said, quote, "I might not even read an article on a poll about two names I'd never heard of before, but I would read an article about a presidential race in Haiti. So it may be to your advantage to identify Haiti while saying "British Prime Minister Tony Blair ..." may just bore people into not reading the article." The implication is that leaders / important people of some countries do not need to identify what country they are from while some others do. You are pushing a policy of eurocentrism on Wikinews and that goes against the idea of wikis. Oppose changed to strong oppose. --MateoP 18:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
- Another point, if you will notice here, user Nyarlathotep linked to discussion on my talk page that had nothing to do with the issue (he was not even involved). This was nothing but an attempt to discredit me personally. An admin should not resolve issues by trying to discredit users. An admin should be looking for a resolution that fits with policy and accomodation. Using ad hominem logical fallacies should not be part of being an admin. So even in his nomination post, user Nyarlathotep shows why he is not qualified. I highly recommend that people reconsider their support and future people to consider whether this is the type of person who should have this specific responsibility. --MateoP 18:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
- Also notice here; Talk:2003 National Adult Literacy Survey Released that this title is as vague as the one user Nyarlathotep had a problem with, and although Nyarlathotep clearly read and contributed in peer review of the article, he did not have a problem with its title. Again, referring back to the above, Nyarlathotep does not believe that Wikinews is a global website. He believes that some countries have different standards for titles than others. --MateoP 18:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
- Titles should be as unique as possible. As for the National adult litracy survey released, whats stopping you from renaming it? Bawolff☺☻ 21:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- I have renamed things but User Deprifry makes messages on my talk page demanding that I fix redirects. That's a lot of work for someone have to do when it is someone else's fault that the name is incorrect. The policy is stacked to discourage participation. This isn't about me, i'm not requesting adminship. This is about user Nyarlathotep, who as I've demonstrated, has a eurocentric bias and doesn't agree that Titles should be as unique as possible, for example he says that Tony Blair of the United Kingdom and George W. Bush of the United States do not need their country's in titles while other non-western leaders do. See here: User talk:MateoP#Eurocentrism. He also showed himself to be a bit of an out-there extremist in that discussion, but I guess that's likely not relevant. As you have clearly demonstrated, user Nyarlathotep would not be reliable to enforce policy because he disagrees with it. --MateoP 22:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- Where did I "demand" that you fix redirects? --Deprifry|+T+ 22:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- Irrelevant to the discussion of adminship for user Nyarlathotep. Wikinews:administrators is not a discussion board. Ask in user talk pages, thanks. --MateoP 22:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- Nobody's perfect. Its not like he told you to not rename it without the country. I bet you don't check every title published on wn to see if there's country bias in it. Bawolff ☺☻ 05:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- 1)I'm not requesting adminship. 2)Him not checking every article is not my problem. He specifically said that it is ok for some figures to not have country's named and some it's not ok. Specifically the western figures don't need to be named by country and others do. That's eurocentrism and a violation of the spirit of a global wikinews and arguably NPOV. Any eurocentric admin should be denied, without a doubt. --MateoP 05:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- He never said that "western figures" doesn't need be named by country. He said that people like Tony Blair or George W. Bush, who is probably the most famous living person, don't need to be named because they are known globally. And he also said OTOH, the U.S. speaker of the house Dennis Hastert clearly needs to be identified, as at least an american representative, since nobody knows who he is, dispite the fact that he occupies what is maybe the most important position for a U.S. representative. [31]. So you are, misleadingly, omitting key parts of his point. --Deprifry|+T+ 11:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- I don't remember claiming that he said "all western figures" can be omitted. The point is that he thinks titles don't have to be consistent, and as a result he supports a eurocentric main page. That's wrong, and anyone who feels that way should not be admin. People here's willingness to ignore it shows that they have no values themselves. --MateoP 15:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- Nobody's perfect. Its not like he told you to not rename it without the country. I bet you don't check every title published on wn to see if there's country bias in it. Bawolff ☺☻
- Irrelevant to the discussion of adminship for user Nyarlathotep. Wikinews:administrators is not a discussion board. Ask in user talk pages, thanks. --MateoP 22:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- I'm a little bit tired right now, but I don't see that anywhere. Could you please provide linky? Bawolff ☺☻ 06:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- Here's 2 quotes, "So it may be to your advantage to identify Haiti while saying 'British Prime Minister Tony Blair ...' may just bore people into not reading the article." from Talk:Some candidates for president in Haiti may be involved in drug trafficking#Article title and "Everyone has heard of some people, not everyone has heard of some others. Sorry, that is just reality. Blair is clearly a special case, as he made an ass of himself & Britian alongside the U.S. & Bush for a long time." from User talk:MateoP#Eurocentrism. Clearly an example of ethnocentrism parroted as everyone has heard of this person from my culture, no one has heard of people from yours or another. Name the country for that "other" culture, please. --MateoP 15:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- Where did I "demand" that you fix redirects? --Deprifry|+T+ 22:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- I have renamed things but User Deprifry makes messages on my talk page demanding that I fix redirects. That's a lot of work for someone have to do when it is someone else's fault that the name is incorrect. The policy is stacked to discourage participation. This isn't about me, i'm not requesting adminship. This is about user Nyarlathotep, who as I've demonstrated, has a eurocentric bias and doesn't agree that Titles should be as unique as possible, for example he says that Tony Blair of the United Kingdom and George W. Bush of the United States do not need their country's in titles while other non-western leaders do. See here: User talk:MateoP#Eurocentrism. He also showed himself to be a bit of an out-there extremist in that discussion, but I guess that's likely not relevant. As you have clearly demonstrated, user Nyarlathotep would not be reliable to enforce policy because he disagrees with it. --MateoP 22:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- BTW, Here is the debate in question ( see also ). MateoP wanted to use the title "Some candidates for president may be involved in drug trafficking", which is about a national election, but does not identify the nation. I'm not really sure what I could have done diffrently to encourage wikipeace. Nyarlathotep 10:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
- Support - Sinblox 08:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
- Support - Don't usually agree with him; but he does seem trustworthy. Neutralizer 14:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose - I am happy to agree with Mrmiscellanious when I can. -Edbrown05 18:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- Support --vonbergm 13:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.