Wikinews:Dispute resolution/Brian New Zealand and Amgine

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Statement of dispute by Amgine

04:16, 28 May 2006 Brian New Zealand blocked "Amgine (contribs)" with an expiry time of 15 minutes (WP:POINT)

This is the fourth occasion Brian has blocked me in the past two months; and I have no problem with the previous three blocks. However, the fourth block regards the deletion (and undeletion) of Wikinews:Administrators/Mass Request for Deadminship, 2006, a page created after the removal of the same collection of Requests for de-Adminship on the Administrators page.

There are three policy problems with this block:

It is frivolous. This is a misuse of administrative privileges.
It has no policy basis. It cites WP:POINT, which is not a policy on Wikinews, but were it policy on Wikinews the block would itself be a violation of that policy.
The admin undeleted out of process, and engaged in a conflict with me regarding this deletion, and therefore should not then have personally blocked but instead should have asked another admin to examine the situation and do so.

There are additional issues regarding this particular event which are not related to the above abuses of privilege. These range from a lack of communication (no attempt to communicate before either undeleting or blocking) to a failure to assume good faith. The rush to start wheel warring without looking for other methods of defusing a situation is particularly troubling, and I have begun to lose my trust in this admin regarding this facet of adminship.

I trust and respect Brian's editing and committment to the community; I also happen to like him an awful lot. But I am questioning his actions as an administrator. Were I not the target of this particular action I would apply a block of 30 days for abuse of admin privilege; I feel admins should be held to the highest standard when using their privileges, and this has been my position and response previously.

Response by Brian New Zealand

You abused your admin priv by the keep deleting of the article, how hard would it have been for another admin to speedy. One could even say that you are deleting anything you disagree with. It is nothing personal, I respect you as an editor.

Statement of dispute by Brian New Zealand

Response by Amgine

Mediator

This comes as a half request/half volunteer participation. Pending both users' approval, I will contact both of you within the first 24 hours of this request. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 01:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm going to have to withdraw, sorry. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 03:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I definitely agree that this 15 minute block was pointless and without basis in policy. Besides, when you want to make a block that small, you may as well simply talk to the user and tell them that you disagree with their actions. Did it serve an actual purpose that Amgine couldn't edit the site for 15 minutes? If so, I don't see it. The matter of the de-admin requests was generally dealt with, and was closed. There was no ongoing disruption of the site (except for the continuing disruption by Jason on various pages and on IRC). Blocking is not a substitute for communication.--Eloquence 10:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amgine deleted the Rfda page without concensus. He also deleted it while voting was taking place, therefore null and voiding all votes. BrianNewZealand undeleted the so called "article" within policy as it was deleted against policy. I agree with BrianNZ. Amgine has a habit of deleting pages to which he does not agree with and doing so without any concensus whatsoever. Jason Safoutin 12:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support both Brian NZ and Dragen as Amgine has been vury disruptive http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Former_chaplain_at_Guatanamo_tells_about_abuse_and_underage_prisoners&diff=259225&oldid=259224 in past month, frum my veiw. He was at arbcom and seemed to get wurse after arbcom from edits I looked back at. Yrtsihpos 01:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just some general comments:

Amgine you are a bit too quick to delete contravertial stuff. No one would mind if you followed 1RR with page deletion more. But you get into more admin revert wars than anybody else. After your deletion was contested by Brian, you could have easily listed the page for deletion at WN:DR.
Brian, I'm fairly confident that deletion resolved the issue more quickly. Its just as easy to list a page for undeletion at WN:DR as to list it for deletion, and you can always temporarily undelete for viewing after a few normal users get interested. I'm really serious about this Brian, we'd have babel boxes today if I'd have immediately listed them for undeletion after Amgine deleted, but I was stupid, waited until an arbcom case started, and undeleted them myself.
Everyone, If you know an action or reversion will be contested by other admins, the most efficent strategy is to just gather wider support for your position. Such things are tricky with blocks & such, but they are compeltely trivial for page deletion, just use WN:DR.

Nyarlathotep 13:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.