Wikinews

Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Administrator/Dan100 1

< Wikinews:Requests for permissions | Administrator
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Dan100

edit

I (Amgine) would like to nominate Dan100 for administrator. Dan100 is a tireless editor, and is passionate about news. He is an aggressive new article creator. He has created and maintains Wikinews Latest News at blogspot to provide a temporary RSS feed of the latest articles. (I should also add, if he wishes the adminship. If not, he is free to remove this nomination.) - Amgine 00:13, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Accept, thanks Amgine. Dan100 (Talk) 12:34, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Update: After seven days, there were three votes in support (Amgine, Ilya and CGorman) and one in opposition (Paulrevere2005). As it says just above, these votes last for seven days. So I'd like my adminship. Dan100 (Talk) 12:59, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • For the record, there were only 6 days of "nothing but support votes"(2 votes) from the time of Dan100's acceptance(Feb.26th)until the first "opposed" vote(mine) came in on March 5th. I believe a fortnight is 14 days. Paulrevere2005 17:38, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I note that other admins were given their status with at least one objection. Dan100 (Talk) 09:24, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • It doesn't say votes only last 7 days, it just says "after 7 days" a decision is reached which means at least 7 days must elapse. Please don't try to manipulate the voting results which is currently 3 support, 3 opposed and 1 support with reservation.Paulrevere2005 13:06, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support. Dan100 is a great contributor whose initiative in improving Wikinews is visible in everything he's done. Even if he just does RC patrol on heavy days he'd be a great administrator. -- IlyaHaykinson 18:20, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC) removed vote of support - see comments. -- IlyaHaykinson 22:40, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support. Absolute work horse - never stops working for the good of the wiki. CGorman 20:02, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support with reservation Dan100's is tireless, and he's done a great job improving the site. My reservation is that in my experience, Dan100 sometimes makes big changes without explanation or taking more drastic actions than necessary. An example is Datrio's addition here. Dan100 rv'd the article, but gave no explanation other than "rv." While I don't particularly like the edits that Datrio made, I assume they took some time and effort. If I were Datrio, I would feel alienated and discouraged by Dan100's rv.
    You're quite right, I screwed up there. I'd opened the page history in a tab and not refreshed it for a long while, so missed Datrio's edit. Dan100 (Talk) 17:58, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    A second example is the deletion request that Paulrevere2005 mentions above. I believe that Paulrevere2005 is correct that "[h]is reasons for deletion were outside Wikinews guidelines." The reason stated was "Pure opinion piece," and that's not under the Wikinews:Policies_and_guidelines/Deletion_guidelines
    I suspect that making Dan100 an admin would be overall a good thing, but I fear that we would see more of what I have cited above. Pingswept 00:11, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support: I've taken so long to express an opinion on this becuase ive been doing a lot of thinking about it. Nobody can doubt that dan is a good faith contributor, and that he has done a lot of good things for the site, but he also tends to 'shot from the hip', and i think that i would probably object to his adminship on the 'pedia because of this, but here on wikinews where an article which is a day old is past its useby date, we need quick action, as a consequence sometimes with the benifit of hindsight the action will prove to have been wrong, but such is the price we pay for having a news site. The bellman 04:32, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose. Dan100 is ,unfortunately, nowhere near ready to have such power. This was demonstrated when he showed especially terrible judgment in putting the story "U.N. reports Afghan opium production is up again." up for deletion even after an administrator had worked on it.His reasons for deletion were outside Wikinews guidelines and ,in my opinion,contrived to justify the deletion request.The result was the story was stuck in the deletion section for 7 days and AP was able to scoop the story(or at least the details of the story). Add to the questionable judgment his expressed desire to be involved in policing the site "I'm always keen to combat vandals (who isn't?!)",which would require the greatest level of judgment, and you have a double negative;which in this case does not produce a positive. The answer has to be NO!Paulrevere2005 Date?!
  2. Oppose. Dan100 has crossed an important line in the sand, by mischaracterizing another contributor's posting as vandalism and summarily deleting it. I can't endorse giving Dan100 access to the rollback powers given to Administrators, which he could use to more quickly rollback anything he perceives to be vandalism, when he mischaracterizes other contributor's postings in this manner. If Dan100 can think twice about his actions in this matter and makes it clear that he recognizes he has made a mistake in this matter, I will be happy to remove my objection. — DV 08:04, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    I also quote Dan100 in his own words: "We also have, frankly, plenty of admins. We don't need anymore right now." I agree, although I like to put it this way, "Tribe with too many chiefs gets little work done." — DV 14:23, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oppose: This was a hard decision since Dan100 is such a tireless contributor. But Dan100 has not consistently displayed the dispassionate even-handed tempermant essential to being a Wikiproject administrator. He also is a little too quick to judge: [1], recently removed a nomination for deletion without explanation [2] and is intolerant of opinions that diverge from his own: [3]. -- Davodd | Talk 09:05, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
lol, upholding the style guide is 'opinion' now is it? Dan100 (Talk) 12:48, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The objection is not to the result of the actions, but for choosing to abandon the collaborative process. -- Davodd | Talk 08:42, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I thought the style guide was a collaboration. Dan100 (Talk) 09:48, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This generality does not address the issues I raised above. -- Davodd | Talk 14:48, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comments

  • Comment;please check this for yourselves as I may have missed something, but it appears that Dan100 inserted the folowing comments in today's Sgrena story "The Multinational Iraq Force has stated that Sgrena's car approached a check-point at high speed (a common tactic of suicide bombers) and that they had no choice but to open fire."

with the source being http://www.mnf-iraq.com/media-information/March/050304h.htm

  • when I go to that url I see nothing about "no choice" or "common tactic of suicide bombers".If I'm wrong,I apologize; if I'm right, Dan100 is fabricating news by attributing his words to the source; "The Multinational Iraq Force has stated...that they had no choice but to open fire." Paulrevere2005 03:14, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Indeed I did get that wrong. Thank goodness this is a wiki and others can correct me (although a note somewhere politely pointing out my mess-up never goes amiss). But I'd also like to highlight the fact that I've made hundreds of other such edits and not got them wrong! Dan100 (Talk) 17:58, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • That was the only one of Dan100's sources I checked; simply because it sounded so outrageous. How do we know how many others he "got wrong" ?..incidently, I'm only saying "got wrong" out of courtesy; I don't know how"they had no choice but to open fire" could have accidently been attributed to the MIF when those words were nowhere to be found in their press release.

I think it was an intentional fabrication of news to support a POV; and unless someone can prove otherwise, to give Dan100 more power would be irresponsible...especially since his subsequent remarks are so lacking of a committment not to do it again. Paulrevere2005 21:20, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It helps if you provide a link to the edit in question.
I happen to agree that Dan100 should be called to account for this edit, but how is this related to the Admin vote? Administrators still have to justify their edits just like anyone else, so I'm afraid you have a distorted impression of what powers are granted when someone is given administrative rights on this site.
I've been contributing here on Wikinews since it was still on demo.wikinews, without administrative rights, and aside from the sitewide notice, there is little I can't edit without administrative privileges.
I am concerned about Dan100's apparent plans to change the main page layout if he is granted Admin status, one of the few things I can't do on Wikinews as a non-Admin. If he becomes an Admin, I hope he will first build a consensus before he changes the main page layout, but I won't oppose his nomination on that basis because I'm biased in favor of the weather reports appearing on the main page, so I'm not an impartial observer on that score. — DV 03:34, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
While Paulrevere2005 is correct that Dan100's quote is not supported by the link provided, I agree with DV that this is irrelevant. Dan100 can do that sort of thing regardless of his admin status. The decision should be made around the powers that Dan100 would gain-- article deletion, article protection, editing of protected pages, and user blocking. (Did I miss anything?) Pingswept 05:08, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Adminship isn't a big deal for me (note that I was nominated by a third party, I didn't self-nominate). My number one priority will always be presenting the news of the world in a cool, unbiased, npov way (to the extent that it was I who brought an adapted version of the npov policy here from Wikipedia). My second is growing the site. I don't need adminship for either, although I'd happily accept it and use the powers where needed (see answers to questions, below). If anyone has a problem with a particular edit of mine, this is not the place to discuss it. Please use the appropiate article talk page. Dan100 (Talk) 07:32, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I removed my vote of support from Dan100's nomination. I highly value Dan100's contributions and think he makes a great Wikinewsie, but what makes a good admin is support of community, consistency of such support, and ability to resolve conflict. I think that this nomination process has shown that at this point Dan100 is probably not the right candidate for adminship. Given Dan100's initial position of "Adminship isn't a big deal for me" and his current "I want my adminship", I think it's best to take some time off of this debate, and let everyone who voted No regain their trust in Dan100 via his good edits. -- IlyaHaykinson 22:40, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Questions for the candidate A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What admin chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with?

A. To be brutally honest, none right now. I try to spend time working on new articles rather than RC patrols or checking WN:RFD/CSD. I'm always keen to combat vandals (who isn't?!), although I've only encountered one instance so far. (I expect WN vandalism will rapidly increase with time).

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikinews, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. The overhaul of the article creation process that I did on the weekend of January 8/9. I made creating new articles a much simpler, more coherent, and easier-to-find/follow process. You can see the results here, as the number of articles jumped after that weekend. Since then I've written many articles and also ported the npov policy from WP, and worked on minor enhancements such as the Heath Robinson RSS feed and Wikinews:Reporter's tools.

3. Do you have any particular plans if you gain adminship?

A. I'd be very, very tempted to cut down the all-pages message box, as I think it's way too big right now, but if someone rv'd me I wouldn't mind. I won't be making big changes to the Main Page as my ideas for how it should work are too different from the accepted status quo. I won't be making major changes elsewhere either. Update: I've just begun working on a 'local' portal, and would hope to highlight it as a flagship project on the front page.


  • Dan100 withdrew his name for consideration on March 16th. "therefore, I now decline Amgine's nomination (thanks though mate)." Dan100 (Talk) 12:48, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC.

His full comment was as follows;

    • Update: After nearly three weeks here, with nothing but support votes for the first fortnight (note: Admin request votes are only supposed to last for a week), this seems to have become a play-ground for the PoV pushers. So therefore, I now decline Amgine's nomination (thanks though mate). Dan100 (Talk) 12:48, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Lately (beginning with his Revision as of 09:48, 25 Mar 2005)he has been editing out his withdrawal as well as deleting portions of my follow up comment.
  • Dan100 is now vandalizing the record of his nomination, in my opinion. New viewers of this page should know he declined the nomination, in my opinion. Paulrevere2005 19:43, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • He is allowed to change his mind if he wants to do so. -- Davodd | Talk 02:59, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed,but shouldn't new visitors to the nomination page be able to see (without searching the history) that he flip-flopped ? Especially if they wish to add to the discussion? Paulrevere2005 12:48, 30 Mar 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews:Requests_for_permissions/Administrator/Dan100_1&oldid=1074486"