Wikinews

Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Archive 2

< Wikinews:Requests for permissions
By date
2004  |  2005
2006  |  2007
2008  |  2009
2010  |  2011
2012-20
2021
By type


January 2005 edit

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Davodd (self-nomination) edit

I am what's left of a professional journalist after 20 years of grinding away in newsrooms. I am hopeful that like Wikipedia, Wikinews can establish a community of passionate volunteers and create a product that carves a new niche and sets a new standard in news coverage. Here are user pages for other WikiMedia projects:

Basically, I would like to be an admin to do similar tasks that I do as a Wikipedia admin - which is basically do nothing "powerful" unless housekeeping needs done or vandalism needs dealt with. I figure with my journalism experience and my wiki community understanding, I can help add perspective to the Wikinews product regardless of admin status, but seeing only 4 admins officially listed, I fear that we're in need of as many hands as possible. If you look at my recent efforts, they range from writing content, to compiling community guides for newbie writers. - Davodd | Talk 02:37, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Support:

  • Thanks for volunteering to help out as an Admin. — DV 07:08, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    I should also note that Davodd has done a great job organizing the water cooler. I think this work shows he has the best intentions for Wikinews. — DV 15:00, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Davodd has only been on Wikinews for a short time, but in that time he has been very productive and helpful. Also supporting on the strength of his contributions to Wikipedia. -- IlyaHaykinson 20:57, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Excellent contributions, involved in many different areas. - Amgine 22:29, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Yep, no objections. Dan100 23:59, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

  • User listed 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami for cut-n-paste vandalism, did not apparently check page history? doesn't know how to revert? - Amgine 21:10, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your concern on this topic and for the IRC chat to resolve it. -- Davodd | Talk 21:31, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Amgine, has this issue been addressed to your satisfaction well enough that you can withdraw your objection? — DV 07:08, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Withdraw objection. Davodd is a tireless contributor and fabulous resource. I still worry about thoroughness of examining articles, speed to judgement, but that's become merely a personal opinion and is far over-shadowed by user's value.
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.

IlyaHaykinson edit

I am nominating myself. My goals as administrator are simple: to help process resolved deletion requests, make it easier to deal with vandalism, and help update the few protected pages given consensus. I am committed to maintaining NPOV, and will not abuse any privileges to further any agenda. I hope that my contributions here will speak for themselves.

I am also an infrequent contributor to Wikipedia, having done negligible edits there as well. My username is the same: w:User:IlyaHaykinson. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by IlyaHaykinson (talk • contribs) 01:11, 2 January 2005‎

Support:

  • Davodd | Talk 01:16, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC) - Good attitude and good ideas.
  • 68.85.91.55 01:21, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC) (<-- request this user to login for votes)
  • Thanks for volunteering to help out as an Admin. — DV 07:08, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I have read his comments and suggestions on Wikinews. I think he has many good ideas, demonstrating that he understands basics of Wikinews well. I also think he listens to others/ ask others' opinions - good quality for an administrator. Tomos 07:50, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

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.

Amgine edit

I would appreciate the opportunity to serve as an admin on the project. I currently spend a fair amount of time doing so. Lately my primary contributions have been in technical and editing, but I've also been helping out with welcoming, infrastructure (and outright recruiting!) - Amgine 19:00, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  1. Support. Thanks for volunteering! Amgine is a dedicated Wikinewsie. -- IlyaHaykinson 09:54, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support. Thanks for all of your efforts to improve Wikinews. Wikinews will benefit from your services as an Administrator. Good luck! — DV 10:02, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support. need i say more? The bellman 05:42, 27 Jan 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.

The bellman edit

(441 edits since 15 NOV 04) AS OF: 21:09, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to be an admin, because this experiment needs people who are awake when Aussies are (basicly when the rest of the english speaking world (save NZ) is asleep). I have never been in a flame war, edit war, revert war, etc. anywhere on any wiki. My first (or maybe second) post to the foundation list was a little rude, but was not meant to be, and i am sorry that brion vibber (i think) took it as an insult towards devs. i have since developed (i think) a good relationship with various devs. Other than this i am not aware of ever having caused offence to anyone (in relation to wikis). Ive written quite a few articles on wikinews and edited a whole heap more. I also created the original research template, because i thought it would be interesting. As an admin (and a user), i would be willing to lend my support to any idea that seemed inovative or interesting (obviously this is sujective). The bellman 05:54, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)


  • Support User is a regular contributor, has been editing since at least November, and may be painfully honest... - Amgine 23:33, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, sorry. User doesn't like creating articles with geographically-specific headlines, which is annoying, and seems to be trying to run the site on Australian time rather than UTC. Neither suggests that the user has the depth of understanding of the site that I feel an admin needs. Dan100 (Talk) 12:19, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Withdrawn in light of comments below. Now neutral (personally I see no current need for new admins, but that's not a reason to object). Dan100 (Talk) 20:47, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • G'day, to your first objection, the titles of the Australian articles you changed the names of today were not named by me. However in the case of Paedophile forced to flee Australian town, although i wrote the article the title was chosen by Borofkin not myself, maybe i should have changed it, but in all honesty i barely even looked at the title. To be fair i have created some articles about australian events with out 'Australian' in the title but when i noticed that these were all being changed on RC to include the word 'Austrlian', i thought. yep. cool, i can accept that and decided that i would include some mention that it was aussie in the future. Honestly it was an oversight on my behalf the first few times, one which i am trying not to repeat. As for the second objection, i strongly feel that the news should not be reported in UTC or AEST, but in local time. If an event happens somewhere on the second of feb (for example), i feel it should be reported as feb 02, even though UTC could well still be feb 01. Equally even if UTC is Feb 02 and something newsworthy happens somewhere where it is Feb 01, then it should be reported in Feb 01 not Feb 02. If this is not the opinion of the rest of the community im cool with that, and i will bow to consensus, but from my discussions on #wikinews about the subject i am not acting outside the consensus. I hope i have answered you concerns The bellman 12:51, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • After having thought about the time issue further, and having discussed it with others, i now support the use of UTC. The bellman 00:03, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Trustworthy and would be nice to have a pair of eyes in his time zone. -- Davodd | Talk 06:52, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Candidate is incapable of answering a few simple questions regarding his reasons and intentions regarding his request for adminship. I cannot possibly support (nor trust) someone who can't provide such basic information. Sorry! Dan100 (Talk) 21:28, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC) Dan100 (Talk) 12:43, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • What? i answered the questions, that were posted here, then davodd (i think) got rid of them, then amgine (i think) moved them back here, then they were moved again, and now they are on my talk page. I didnt have anything to do with the moving of them, but i did answer them. I will move them back here, and ask that anyone who wants to have a debate about whether they should be here or not, have it on the talk page. I personaly think its a bit over the top to have them on such a small project, where all the active users, know the other active users. The bellman 03:09, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks like The bellman will be mainly engaged in RC patrolling and blocking vandals, good stuff. Dan100 (Talk) 13:23, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

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

A. RC patrol (which ill be starting again in a couple of days anyway, when i manage to get gaim working so i can lurk on IRC).

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

A. Nepal's King names new cabinet, cause it was wikinews' first featured article.
I didn't know we had featured articles... Dan100 (Talk) 01:34, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
well, what ever we want to call the main article on the front page, it was the first (due more to luck than anything else) The bellman 02:45, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

A. Write a better set of questions for potential admins...? Try and deal with vandalism mostly.
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.

February 2005 edit

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Pingswept edit

(302 edits since 9 JAN 05) AS OF: 17:37, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think that I will be involved with Wikinews for a while, so I'd like to do what I can to keep the vandalism down and things generally well organized. I definitely care about Wikinews; I think I can be trusted to handle administration in a mature and sensitive fashion. Pingswept 06:37, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Support. Quickly becoming a role model for the ideal Wikinewsie. -- Davodd | Talk 07:01, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent work. (and fast copyedits!) - Amgine 17:54, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. IlyaHaykinson 06:28, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support a great little wikignome, adding to the general quality of wikinews The bellman 03:18, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Pingswept clearly wants to engage in controlling vandals (although I haven't noticed much, mind you); good stuff. Dan100 (Talk) 13:25, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd like to know a little more about why Pingswept wants adminship and what he wants to do with it:

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. Erasing vandalism, blocking vandals, and your basic housekeeping tasks.

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

A. No. I have mostly contributed spelling and grammar corrections, which are not very interesting. The few articles that I have started have not been particularly good.
That's not true! The G7 article was of great interest to me, anyway. Dan100 (Talk) 13:25, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

A. No. I have the following vague plan, also found above: "I'd like to do what I can to keep the vandalism down and things generally well organized." This is the same as the plan I will follow if I do not gain adminship, but I expect I'll be less effective.

Pingswept is free to decline to answer these basic questions. They are in no way part of the selection process, I'd just like to know the answers before voting. Dan100 (Talk) 21:28, 17 Feb 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.

CGorman edit

(341 edits since 17 NOV 04) AS OF: 22:00, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I registered an account with Wikinews back in November - but did'nt do much for quite a while as I was working on getting a few articles on Wikipedia up to featured article status (Economy of the Republic of Ireland, Celtic Tiger and Ryanair). I have since returned to work on the Economy and business section of Wikinews. I've made over 2000 edits to the Wikipedia and earnt 1 barnstar. I was never involved in a revert war or flame war on Wikipedia (or anywhere else!) Here at Wikinews i've written many articles, and worked as a sort of "editor" of the Economy and Business section for the past number of weeks. I admitably had a brief disagreement with Ronline about Romanian bias, but we sorted things out quickly to cater for all audiences. If given Admin status I will continue to work hard in the Economy and Business section, and hopefully help restructure other sections in need of attention. CGorman 15:12, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

PS. I've decided to take the Sports section as my second area of work on Wikinews - I hope to inject a bit of life into it like the Business section. CGorman 16:20, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • <str>Comment</str>: CGorman's work which I've seen has been of excellent quality, and if he can bring the sports section to life I will be very pleased! A few more edits/familiarity for full support. - Amgine 17:58, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Support Time continues to tell... - Amgine 23:49, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, CGorman has clearly put a lot of thought into why he wants adminship and how he'll use the privileges. Dan100 (Talk) 13:01, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


I'd like to know a little more about why CGorman wants adminship and what he wants to do with it: Q1). What admin chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with?

A2) My main regular tasks on Wikinews involve (and will continue to involve) keeping the Sports, Economy and business and perhaps Europe pages up to date and well presented. I hope to also participate fully in policy discussions and changes. I have also recently joined the Welcommitte - hopefully I can help new users settle in to the Wikinews way of doing things. Althought I can do all of the above without Admin status, Admin status would be a boost if I ever participate as a ref or independent third party in POV disputes among other users. Admin staus would of course also give me the ability to block vandals and protect pages in the case of consistant damage from such vandals, althought I hope never to have to use these powers, they would be a valuable tool for me in my stewardship of the Sports, Economy and business and Europe pages.

Q2) Of your articles or contributions to Wikinews, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A2) I've concentrated mostly on page restructure so far, but yes there is a story im particularly pleased with. I was so happy with it I posted a note on the discussion page of economy & business under the title Personal Triumph!, the text of that post was as follows:

This morning after an RTE (the national tv station) story and a press release about Yahoo's investment in Dublin, I wrote Yahoo chooses Dublin as location of new European Headquarters - at the time the article went live on Wikinews - only 3 other places on the net carried the story - two being press releases, the other RTE. This evening there are literally dozens of stories about the move - in Australia, the UK, the US, on reuters, all over the place - it feels great to actually be first - to break the story! CGorman 23:20, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I noticed that too. Good scoop! Dan100 (Talk) 13:01, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Q3) Do you have any particular plans if you gain adminship?

A3) As stated above I hope to keep the Sports, Economy and business and Europe pages up to date. I also wish to do a once off aesthetic update of all topic pages and region pages to reflect the sort of changes i've made to the afore-mentioned pages. I also hope to - eventually - build sub pages into the Europe section for UK & Ireland, Germany, France (and possibly Romania) - these are the countries with the most news on the Europe page. I hope to similierly add sub pages for football and other major sports to the sports page as soon as article volumes and frequency increase to a reasonable level (at least one new story a day/2 days). CGorman 22:13, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

CGorman is free to decline to answer these basic questions. They are in no way part of the selection process, I'd just like to know the answers before voting. Dan100 (Talk) 21:28, 17 Feb 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.

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.


March 2005 edit

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for bureaucratship. Please do not modify it.

Bureaucrat: User:IlyaHaykinson edit

I would like to nominate Ilya as a bureaucrat and hope he accepts. Bureaucrats turn regular users into sysops. Since I'm the only bureaucrat right now, I think we could use some more, and Ilya would be an excellent choice. He stays cool when the editing gets hot and has shown an incredible dedication to this project.--Eloquence 09:56, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Accept. Thanks for the nomination. If the community supports the nomination, I will try to handle the bureaucrat tasks when you're absent as well as you've handled them so far. -- IlyaHaykinson 17:18, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. No one is more deserving than Ilya's for the job. He's shown a great commitment to this project. → CGorman (Talk) 15:01, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Stong Support - for too many reasons to enumerate. -- Davodd | Talk 03:19, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. ~The bellman | Smile 13:12, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - Ilya's comments always make sense. Paulrevere2005 23:14, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Thanks for volunteering. — DV 09:04, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Of course. Pingswept 14:23, 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 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.

DV edit

I, ( The bellman ) would like to nominate DV for adminship. He's been around for ages (2000 and something edits), is a generally nice bloke, and seems to have the trust of most of the community. ~The bellman | Smile 13:22, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Strong Support. Just look at his userpage! His commitment to this project is unquestionable. → CGorman (Talk) 16:07, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support He(and others) made me feel welcome + he seems to be a master computer mason. Paulrevere2005 23:14, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support I've only known DV's work for a few days, but that's enough for me. Does he realize what a thankless job this is? Heh... --Alan J. Franklin 00:47, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support ~The bellman | Smile 08:43, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. DV seems to make great leaps of logic in debates, seems to support some very odd PoV (unless stating that Pr2005 had "opened his eyes" was a joke), and has several times been highly critical of the project. I'd prefer admins to be for the project they might become an admin for! We also have, frankly, plenty of admins. We don't need anymore right now and admin privileges aren't something to be handed out like sweets. Dan100 (Talk) 12:49, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Dan100. I was waiting for you to post before I said anything. Your opposition provides some important context to my response.
With great respect for The bellman, I concur with Dan100's sentiment that Admin isn't a prize to be handed out for making a lot of edits, or even for being a good reporter!
Also, athough I have been on Wikinews since shortly after it started, I have not yet been prevented from contributing in any way I wanted for lack of Admin privileges.
I agree with Dan100's point that we don't need more Admins. The other Admins, especially the ones who are active these days (you know who you are), have been very responsible about following up on every one of my requests on the Admin request page.
I've been able to contribute to the design of the Main Page even though it is protected, because most of it is in templates, and I have only occasionally had a reason to ask an Admin to change something that is obviously broken and doesn't require building a consensus with the community anyways.
On a personal note, I am more interested in reporting on food safety or the other topics which interest me, than volunteering to help out with Administrative duties.
Sure, I would enjoy volunteering as an Administrator, but there simply aren't enough hours in the day for me to fulfill the responsibilities that come with those privileges, while still contributing in the other ways I find interesting.
As a matter of fact, I am thinking about giving up contributing as a reporter and going back to developing software for Wikinews exclusively, as I think I would be much more valuable in that role. I need to "finish" WeatherChecker. Also, Wikinews needs developers to help add missing features that will make life easier for the reporters.
As for Dan100's other points (which are somewhat moot, but I'll humor him), I believe he is mistaken when he mixes up being highly critical of Wikinews with not being for Wikinews.
Sure, I have a particular fondness for "appallingly bad straw man arguments" and I also exercise my right to be highly critical of this project. I will say something sucks if I see it that way. Perhaps it's not a good idea for me to be an Admin for those reasons.
But I wouldn't be contributing so many stories (or working on WeatherChecker and Wikinews TV) if I was against Wikinews.
Dan100 says I am a POV pusher. Well, I hope I have confined all of my expressions of Point of View to user talk and article discussion pages, and that the stories I have written have been NPOV and well-written. But I freely admit that I have a political agenda as well. If I see the little guy getting screwed, I will select the story that highlights the little guy's plight. Sure, I will include 'the other side' to respect the NPOV rule on this site. But check out the stories I choose to write to see what I mean. I think anyone who won't admit their political biases is fooling themselves. I freely admit mine. That alone could also disqualify me from being an Admin. So be it.
Thanks to The Bellman for the nomination! And thanks to Dan100 for keeping this site interesting!
I respectfully decline the invitation to volunteer to help out with Administrative chores.
I sincerely appreciate the votes of support given above. (Paulrevere2005's vote was especially touching.)
I will repay everyone's compliments in other ways than volunteering as an Admin.
— DV 14:15, 29 Mar 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.

April 2005 edit

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Simeon edit

Simeon has been quietly working away on articles, policies and categories. As far as I can tell, he has remained calm in debates and gets along well with the rest of the community. I think he would make an excellent admin.--Eloquence 11:12, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Oppose Having been an administrator before with CNN in a very active live chat, and being responsible for training other Chat Cops, one thing about Simeon has saddened me: I don't believe he knows that what he is doing is wrong.

Either that or he has no concern about getting away with doing questionable things.

The third possibility concerns a man's ethics, and I don't know him, and no one knows me, well enough to take that into account.

I have only had two experiences with Simeon since coming onboard a few short weeks back. Both experiences were very negative, although I was the first to say the last one was a mistake. Simeon had simply gone into a story being edited by me and pasted his comments over the top. Then when I asked him nicely not to do that and to please wait, Simeon went into MIRC and cried on some shoulders. He greeted my arrival at MIRC with a WTF WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT...remember that Simeon?

And his name had not even been brought into the discussion!!

All I could think was, that if the shoe fit, Simeon was certainly tying the laces already!

So my objection to Simeon and my request for others is--take a look underneath the mask. There you might find a different Simeon. One who is biding his time waiting for the chance to use newfound Admin powers to bully people.

Look under that mask for the WTF!!! Simeon. I think he goes out of control quite easily and then tries to make believe it was "just a joke." (remember you said that, too...Simeon?)

I strongly oppose Simeon for any adminship until some more time passes and these issues resolve themselves. There are many people who do edits and quietly help out and are not admins. As DV and others have said before, we may not need any more admins now.

A day or two ago I would have had a very neutral attitude about Simeon regardless of his blow up in MIRC or our first unhappy encounter. But I read somewhere, "Know a man by his acts." And now I must ask that his nomination be reconsidered. --HiFlyer 15:47, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Neutral please change my vote in the interest of community unity. Let's shake and make it work, Simmo.

--HiFlyer 22:14, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • support; When perusing his user page links, his dedication to the online collaboration process comes through loud and clear. Paulrevere2005 12:31, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support; same reasons as eloquence. ~The bellman | Smile 14:20, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support We don't really need admins now, but assuming my crazy prophecies are fulfilled we will need several dozen! → CGorman (Talk) 14:30, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Crazy? Since when has scheming for world domination been crazy? Have faith man. ~The bellman | Smile 11:32, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, nothing personal, I just think we have plenty of admins already and not every good editor needs to be an admin. Dan100 (Talk) 17:35, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
comment; nothing personal, but as recently as March 31st., Dan100 inserted onto this page "I'd like my adminship"; so,if Dan100 thought more admins were needed 3 days ago,perhaps he was correct then. Paulrevere2005 02:37, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I have to point out that I find this reasoning not actionable. I think actionable reasons (e.g. reasons pertaining to the user's behavior, or duration of stay) should be brought up to oppose any adminship.--Eloquence 03:01, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
As Jimbo says (although in reference to the 'pedia rather than wikinews) adminship is no big deal. It's not some secret society that has any great power. Anything that an admin can do can be undone. The only reason that everyone doesnt have admin powers is cause they could be abused by vandals or misused by newbies. Really its just a couple more tabs at the top of the page, which in time of emergency (such as an attack by vandals) it is good to have as many trusted users as possible to have. If there isnt much admin work to go around and lots of admins, all the better since that means that we arent likely to see the kind of exushtion that some admins on the 'pedia feel. ~The bellman | Smile 03:20, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
OK, well I accept on this basis ;) Thanks for the nice comments. - Simeon 09:21, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Excellent reporter, editor, with a knack for witty headlines. - Amgine 03:30, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. In light of The bellman's convincing argument in support of this nomination, I am moved to support Simeon for Administrator, even though I agree with Dan100's assessment that we have enough of 'em. It also doesn't hurt that Eloquence was the one who made the nomination. I trust Simeon to do the right thing. — DV 13:10, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - Need admins who are awake when Europe and the Americas are sleeping. :-) -- Davodd | Talk 04:55, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • And when the other token aussie admin is sleeping because of his strange sleeping habits... :P ~The bellman | Smile 06:39, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Good thinking Davodd... but I never sleep! → CGorman (Talk) 20:30, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • By checking my history, it seems I only sleep during work hours. -- Davodd | Talk 06:43, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Need admins 24/7 these days. - Amgine 21:04, 13 Apr 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.

Amgine edit

Well, I guess I'm re-applying for adminship... I have been an admin previously, and was planning to reduce my Wikinews involvement in preparation for a sabbatical, but I am finding myself just as involved, and occasionally in need of admin abilities regarding deletion and blocks. If the community considers me responsible enough, I'd be interested in picking up my bucket and mop again. - Amgine 21:04, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Support, of course. But this time you'll have to keep it :-).--Eloquence 06:18, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong support. --HiFlyer 16:22, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Its a tough one... Amgine was a very bad admin before... nah, im just kiddin, of course i'll support. → CGorman (Talk) 20:17, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • OK - Simeon 06:15, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. -- Davodd | Talk 15:46, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. -- IlyaHaykinson 17:52, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Today I was really surprised Amgine is not now an admin. --Aphaia 22:57, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Very nice to talk to + very helpful. Although I highly doubt Amgine needs the vote of a less-than-one-week-old Wikinewsie! --Grinnblade 23:06, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Dan100 (Talk) 14:21, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Paulrevere2005 04:07, 21 Apr 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.

Dan100 edit

Self-nomination with the intention of purely combating vandalism, which is suddenly spiking. Now there's more vandalism, there's a case for more admins. Dan100 (Talk) 14:21, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Strongly Oppose. My opinion is that Dan100's divisive comments and actions over the past few months; including his abrasive approach and demanding tone during his last run for the office(which was still going on about a month ago)are precisely the opposite traits desired of an administrator. Paulrevere2005 04:17, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Strongly support Dan100's tireless efforts as a wikignome, contributor, and innovator have shown a strong development trend. And, as Wikinews has developed into a target for vandalism, we have had nearly constant running battles for going on two weeks; CGorman and the other european contributors need support in the early part of the day in combating vandalism. (Special mention made here of CGorman and Romihaitza's single-handed combats with the WoW vandal.) - Amgine 04:25, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Dan100 has indeed made divisive comments and actions in the past; but despite backlash, a failed nomination (for admin) and a lot of wikistress; Dan100 has pressed on to become a better editor who genuinely takes other people's opinions into account. Most people in his position would have left in face of the afore-mentioned, but Dan100 has stayed and proved his worth many times since. His intentions are undoubted and another set of eyes against vandalism is badly needed. → CGorman (Talk) 20:30, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Vandalism has indeed been on the increase. ~The bellman | Smile 00:39, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Dan100 has addressed a lot of the concerns that Wikinewsies had during the previous nomination process, and has continued to be a dedicated contributor with a (critical) eye for changes. -- IlyaHaykinson 05:33, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Dan100 has been here for a long time, he was the one who invited me to Wikinews, so I think he's a good promoter of the project, has worked a lot for it and therefore deserves to be admin. Ronline 08:22, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comment; Its disturbing that the need for vandalism control is the primary reason being given to support this nomination for administrator. When practicality starts trumping quality, an organization's integrity suffers. Paulrevere2005 02:45, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is not the primary reason given, but yet another reason why this contributor, who puts in a lot of hours and efforts already, could be asked to take on additional duties and responsibilities. I think you may be under the mistaken opinion that adminship is something people want to do for the prestige or something - it's basically more work to do, and less time to actually work on things like journalism or editing.
Personally, I'm getting tired of hovering over the recent changes, watching for the next bout of edits for POVioring or vandalism. - Amgine 02:52, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Power corrupts, we all know this, but Paul admins really dont have that much extra power. There is nothing that can be done by an admin that cant be undone by another admin, and if anyone is doing things which are getting undone by other admins, then thats a great reason for unadmining someone. Except in cases of striaght out vandalism (things about eating asspuss for breakfast for example *shudder*) then admins are expected only to act as directed to by the community. If i started deleating or protecting pages which the community hadnt said should be deleated/protected, then i would be dealt with by the other admins just as any other vandal. Wiki philosophy dictates that the more trusted people who have admin powers, the better, since it means that there is a more even distribution of power; in fact some people have suggested (on c2) that all users should have admin powers. Finnaly a quote from Jimbo "Adminship is no big deal" ~The bellman | Smile 06:21, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Paul, the ability to control vandalism is the only major ability an admin has, he/she gains no significant extra editorial abilities other than to edit protected articles - which is generally only done on a consensus basis after dialogue with the community. → CGorman (Talk) 09:16, 23 Apr 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.

Ronline edit

Self-nomination: for combating vandalism, mainly, but also for deleting my articles if I use a mistaken name or I find that I can't complete them. I usually come on in the morning in Romania, which is also the morning in UTC, when not many users are around. So, that's about it - I'm admin on the Romanian Wikipedia and the Romanian Wikitravel - my page at ro.wiki is here. I also contribute to ro.wikinews, lately. Ronline 08:12, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Strong Support Roline in my view is in the top five or so Wikinews writers. I've enjkoyed many discussions with him in the past and he has always come across as a genuine, honest, and incrediably likeable character. He has contributed literally dozens of well writen stories and always shown respect for wikinews standards and policy. It would also be hugely valuable to have someone in his timezone with admin status. → CGorman (Talk) 09:13, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Ronline has the experience and collaborative mentality to be one of the best. Paulrevere2005 13:17, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support And yes, Ronline, we did notice your battle with the vandal the other day... THANK YOU! - Amgine 03:50, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Support The day that Ronline gets in an edit war will be the day that wikis cease to work. ~The bellman | Smile 12:32, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - has caught many vandals-in-progress before now, this user needs to be given powers to block! Dan100 (Talk) 00:14, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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.

May 2005 edit

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

NGerda edit

My works include:

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by NGerda (talk • contribs) 00:06, 11 May 2005‎

Just too soon, I'm afraid. We really need to get to know you over a few months before we can make you an admin. Don't be put off though - no-one has been made an admin without contributing for some months first. Further, being an admin is no big deal. It really isn't. All they can do is delete and protect pages (but only after consensus with others), and block vandals. You can list stories on Latest news etc yourself right now. Dan100 (Talk) 12:32, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This user is much to new. --Cspurrier 20:34, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. → CGorman (Talk) 21:20, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well, I'll try again in a few months. Thanks for being honest guys. NGerda 22:38, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To me, the issue in these decisions is whether a user can be entrusted with the additional tools that administrators have. After using transclusion instead of renaming at Croatian election results, and then replacing a redirect with a transclusion at Results of 2005 Croatian local government elections despite this explanation, this help page, and this edit history comment, it is clear that this user needs more experience with the ordinary editing tools and more knowledge of the basic mechanics of wikis before being let loose with more powerful tools. The user is clearly well-intentioned, and wants to impove Wikinews. But at the moment there's too great a risk of similar mistakes being made when wielding the administrator toolset. Oppose. Uncle G 13:48, 16 May 2005 (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.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

DouglasGreen edit

I, (Amgine) would like to nominate DouglasGreen as an admin candidate. DouglasGreen has been a hyper-energetic copyeditor and factchecker, has developed a slick infobox to illustrate articles such as Turbolinux adopted by China's largest bank, and has been involved in vandal-fighting as well. (pending the user's official acceptance, of course). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amgine (talk • contribs) 00:36, 11 May 2005‎

Support, if he wants it Dan100 (Talk) 07:26, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Lyellin 13:36, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support.Good edits and articles. Paulrevere2005 18:47, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Cspurrier 20:12, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. → CGorman (Talk) 21:20, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Edbrown05 02:26, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - / 21:36, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I'd be happy to be an administrator. Thank you all for your support. DouglasGreen 23:57, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Uncle G edit

It says above that 'admins should be trusted by the community'. Well, I trust him! Dan100 (Talk) 12:58, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support! Lyellin 13:36, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. at this time. The technical work was great re; the election. I think its just too soon (less than 2 months here)+ from his user talk page; maybe too opinionated(pushy?) for administrator. I think we need some more really mellow people at this point in time. I would certainly reconsider my vote in a month. Paulrevere2005 19:15, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support; Its been about a month and I now support Uncle G for administrator. Paulrevere2005 12:23, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support --Cspurrier 19:23, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. → CGorman (Talk) 21:20, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support, under the condition that Uncle G creates a user page (currently User:Uncle G is a red link), even if just a stub; I find it to be a useful trust building measure, and it also makes the access to the talk page more obvious.--Eloquence 03:16, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. That is not a stated condition of being made an admin, it's not even important, and as you can see Uncle G has clear consensus to be sysopped. Dan100 (Talk) 07:02, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Erik (sorry Dan!), it drives me insane seeing the red link every day for Uncle G, even if he had one sentence on his page explaining his interest in wikinews or whatever it would be greatly appreciated. → CGorman (Talk)
Thanks UG, nice tidy userpage. → CGorman (Talk) 11:46, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) 20:43, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There used to be another regular user who had a red link for a user page, and i got so annoyed by it one day that i edited the page to be just a single space, just so it would come up as blue on rc. But now, for the life of me, I can't remember who it was... ~The bellman | Smile 10:32, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support - / 21:35, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
Support. -- Davodd | Talk 08:29, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, he has not been around this community for long enough. Andrew pmk 01:30, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Just wanted to point out that he's been at Wikinews since Mar 15, 2005. NGerda 01:33, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
He also has been on the other Wikis for a long time --Cspurrier 01:34, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support ~The bellman | Smile 10:28, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support - Wiktionary:Wonderfool Cos he's a sysop on wiktionary innit
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.

Cspurrier edit

I (Amgine) would like to nominate Cspurrier for adminship. Craig is an excellent copyeditor and writer, and has been extremely active sorting the submissions and developing them to full articles; he may very well have officially started more articles than any other contributor! He has fought vandals and helped out on Dr, and is an asset to the community. - / 20:34, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I accept, thanks --Cspurrier 21:43, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Ryan524 edit

Ryan524 is an active RC patroller, and vandal reverter. Ryan524 has been around quite a while, and has recently become a very valuable front line defence, and active in other maintenance and projects as well. - / 17:23, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Thankyou Amgine, I accept.--Ryan524 17:24, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. If Amgine went to the lenght of actually giving you my awful looking medal for fighting vandels - you must be good! → CGorman (Talk) 18:13, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Although Ryan can be a little harsh at times, he's just what Wikinews needs for an administrator. NGerda 18:32, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
Support. We need more Jedi to fight the attack of the clones errmm I mean vandals. - Borofkin 07:19, 2 Jun 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.

NGerda edit

I am not the only one who works hard on wikinews, NGerda is another good example, he does some work with anti-vandalism as wella as contributes alot to wikinews articles.--Ryan524 18:34, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Ryan524. I accept. If elected, I plan to use my powers wisely, for the better good of Wikinews. NGerda 18:40, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
Support NGerda has been actively working to expand Wikinews, especially excellent work toward Audio Wikinews, as well as new articles, editing old, and main page maintenance. - / 18:55, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Oppose Ngerda is a great writer, and his work on Audio Wikinews is excellent. I however do not think he understands enough of the Wikinews polices, to have the extra powers of an admin. He has been here for less then a month, with another month or two of experience he will make an excellent admin.--Cspurrier 13:33, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've found NGerda to be very helpful in reviewing articles and assistance and encouragement to new members. Also, after watching Amgine do battle with a vandal the other day I think we need plenty Administrators. - Borofkin 02:25, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can corroborate Borofkin's comment, and from my interaction w/him on mirc, he seems well-tempered for the job, which is always my biggest concern. - Kevin Baastalk 06:20, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. NGerda seems to have joined the world of wikis only recently, and I would like him to gain more experience before giving him the tools of adminship. That doesn't mean that he isn't doing great work, of course.--Eloquence 06:44, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm almost on the bench about this, but I do feel NGerda needs to wait a while longer. If his enthusiasim for both the wiki and Admin status holds up for another month, i'd be delighted to support him - but at the moment, it is just too soon. → CGorman (Talk) 09:03, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
SupportAfter seeing NGerda's work this morning fighting vandels; I think he deserves my support - we really need someone at their computer early in the morning (UTC) when Amgines away. → CGorman (Talk) 09:43, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thank you very much, CGorman. I propose that there be an simple list of admins and the time frame, in UTC, they are available. That way, vandal fighters can easily contact the admin who is available at the moment, and we can figure out which time slots we need to fill in.
I was thinking the same thing the other day. Why don't the admin post in /timeframes when they are available? That way, we can also try and get some admins for the timeframes that are left open. -- Redge (Talk) 20:02, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The only problem with this is it gives vandals a list of what times are best for them to attack. --Cspurrier 23:10, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
But it will help us see and fill in those gaps. NGerda 23:11, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Yes it seemed like a good idea until Cspurrier's excellent point - it would let the vandels know when to attack. I think now we are fairly well covered - we have Simeon and the bellman in Australia; Pingswept and Amgine in North America, Ronline in Romania, Dan100 in the UK and myself in Ireland. The biggest problem is when someone goes on holidays! → CGorman (Talk) 09:23, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support I've found NGerda to be a very capable individual and as stated in the above posts, well-tempered. Jedimastermactreebeard 22:30, 1 June 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support NGerda's a great contributor, his special reports are equally outstanding. Audio Wikinews was a sinking ship before he came along and salvaged it for another run, he as also attempted on many occasions to cut back spam and vandalism occuring to Wikinews' articles. I have no doubt he would be a great administrator who would help Wikinews out in any way possible. --Mrmiscellanious 00:37, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Supportfor all the reasons above Paulrevere2005 11:35, 3 Jun 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.

July 2005 edit

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

De-adminship: User:NGerda edit

NGerda has shown an on-going unwillingness to listen to or respect the views of the community, despite many attempts to reason with him by several editors. He breaks site policy at will, including breaking the 3RR, and has lost the trust of the community. NGerda has also broken site policy on the use of admin powers, when he unilaterally unblocked a username that broke our policy on such matters.

Therefore, this request for de-sysopping is being made. This, of course, does not affect his ability to write articles or fully contribute to Wikinews in other ways. Dan100 (Talk) 5 July 2005 22:38 (UTC)

  • He simply never respects the wishes of the community. Look at the Water cooler and it's archives - it's almost entirely NGerda arguing with everyone else.
  • He Reverted Template:Lead article six times [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]
  • His twelfth edit was nominating himself for adminship (he lost)
  • Two weeks later he was nominated by Ryan524. He received two oppose votes and five support votes.
I actually recieved 7 support votes. --NGerda July 7, 2005 05:25 (UTC)
  • He has blocked many users/vandals beyond what is allowed by the blocking policy, with blocks of a month or more being given. Including to ip address. At least one of these was a dynamic ip (User:142.32.208.232) with a history of good edits.
You ignore Ryan524's multiple indefinite blocks to IP addresses. -- NGerda July 7, 2005 05:25 (UTC)

--Cspurrier 6 July 2005 00:05 (UTC)

Support de-sysoping edit

  • Cspurrier 6 July 2005 00:05 (UTC)
  • Although I hate it came to this, I simply don't have enough trust in NGerda to be comfortable with his privileges. I have to note that I do in some respects agree with Davodd, but the fact that there are other people who perhaps need to appear on this list is not a "saving grace". --Dcabrilo 6 July 2005 00:12 (UTC)

Oppose de-sysoping edit

  • Oppose. I cannot - in good conscience - vote to remove admin status from anyone when the person nominating him/her is just as guilty of some the charges being laid upon the accused. It is obvious from the article history that User:Dan100 also violated the 3-revert rule in the same article he accuses NGerda of over-editing. If NGerda is to be de-admined, then the nominating party should be someone who is neutral to the situation; not someone currently involved in an argument with him. Because of surrounding circumstances, this nomination, on its face, looks petty and vindictive. Using the logic of the above argument and taking into consideration the past administrative power abuses and the established pattern of attacks upon fellow admins with which he disagrees, User:Dan100 also should be listing himself for de-adminship, just to be fair. As for the 3RR violations, BOTH users should temporarily be de-admined and blocked from the site for 24 hours for a cool-down period. Admins should be setting an example of good behavior and community building - even when concerning those who do not share their views - but they should definitely not be engaging in what appears to be petty finger-pointing and back-biting. This is not a social clique, we do not all have to "fit in" and, that said, sometimes we each must learn to accept publication of factually accurate stories or photos contributed by others, even when they are not to our own personal taste. -- Davodd | Talk 5 July 2005 23:50 (UTC)
Dan100's first two edits were not reverts they were just edits to the page.Those were updating the lead and shrinking the photo. Dan100 made three reverts after that.--Cspurrier 6 July 2005 00:05 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I remember being in almost opposition to Dan100's request for adminship, and what a tremendous asset he has been to Wikinews. I tried to warn NGerda against seeking adminship, now here we are, and what a tremendous asset he NGerda has been to Wikinews. This process being undertaken upon NGerda's 'prviledges' as an administrator should not be taken lightly by him. -Edbrown05 6 July 2005 00:31 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While I think that NGerda needs to play better with others (and that means backing off when editing gets hot), I think that he hasn't done anything that hasn't been recently done by other admins. We all need to stop arguing and write some news articles. -- IlyaHaykinson 6 July 2005 04:55 (UTC)
Comment: I'd like to note that Ilya and Davodd contribute comparatively infrequently to the site. If you had to deal with NGerda like we do, you wouldn't be voting this way. For those who are trying to operate the site on a day to day basis, I can't tell you how much of a drain on everyone NGerda's constant bickering is. Dan100 (Talk) 6 July 2005 07:16 (UTC)
Thats not quite fair - you don't know how often they visit for example i've visited and checked out the rc everyday this week but have not made more than one or two edits; perhaps davodd and ilya are the same. → CGorman (Talk) 6 July 2005 11:33 (UTC)
Perhaps you guys could make a little more input into the community? It would be very helpful - the same debates between the same people don't get us far. Dan100 (Talk) 6 July 2005 11:43 (UTC)
I'm often put off by the back and forth that folks at Wikinews tend to have on a ton of issues. I read the Water Cooler, monitor RC when I can, and look at policy changes, but really only comment when I feel that my perspective is unrepresented. If I had more time, I'd spend it writing code or writing news stories: bickering about proper wording is something I have no time for, when I am busy, and definitely no desire. So if someone is really against some idea that I have, well, I guess it won't be implemented then. So don't take my quiet as a sign that I'm happy with the way things are, or don't know enough — I definitely see the tension between users. Tension is a normal part of pluralism, though, and has to be accepted. -- IlyaHaykinson 6 July 2005 17:19 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Dan expected me to vote with him not against. I thought about it, but decided no - I often wish NGerda would slow down, I hate a lot of the things he has done, but more for the speed at which he works than the actually fundemental ideas. I don't think removing admin status would be productive - it would upset him and possibly lead to him quitting wikinews - a very big loss if he does. I don't like many of the things he has done; but he is a genuine person (or at least does an excellent job of projecting that image) who wants to do his best. Dan im sorry to disappoint you, but I don't think this is the right road for you to follow. → CGorman (Talk) 6 July 2005 11:33 (UTC)
No, you haven't disappointed me at all. I value your judgement very highly; that's why I perosnally invited you to vote! I had no pre-conceptions. Dan100 (Talk) 6 July 2005 11:43 (UTC)

Wow! Nobody told me about this! If we really want to get technical about this, Breaking the 3RR is not' a violation of admin powers, but using the rollback tool to revert good-faith edits is, which both Dan100 and Amgine violated, and I don't see their names listed for de-sysoppization. -- NGerda July 7, 2005 05:23 (UTC)

Things are, or were, going your way here and then you roll in with an observation like the above. I question your maturity. -Edbrown05 7 July 2005 06:33 (UTC)
in a place where you opinion isn't even relevant. -Edbrown05 7 July 2005 06:35 (UTC)
and I question your sincerity. -Edbrown05 7 July 2005 06:41 (UTC)
  • Comment; this comment is not directed to an individual; it'S directed to all of us..like myself too.

This morning's news out of London tells me we have all got to quit bickering and start appreciating each other's efforts here...this product is more important. We all know how much Ngerda and Dan100 have contributed and we should also expect them to be human with human emotional reactions.....so I propose we simply all start looking at the contributions of each other rather than the areas for improvement.We can each be thinking ourselves about how we can improve ourselves.As Jesus said; "Don't look at the speck in your neighbor's eye,look at the log in your own." Paulrevere2005 7 July 2005 11:25 (UTC)

Well said. You know i've had problems getting on with you before Paul; but by God I could'nt agree more with you on this. Lets all bury the hatchets and get back to work! → CGorman (Talk) 7 July 2005 12:09 (UTC)

One other thing I'd like o note is why am I getting all of the blame for the unilateral switch to DPL? It was Dan100 who switched both Developing stories and Latest news without full community support. Quote from Dan100: I've DPL'ed the day page and Developing stories. -- NGerda July 7, 2005 20:14 (UTC)

  • Oppose: Since joining last month (under AutisticPsycho), NGerda helped me with the conflict over that name. I do not believe that NGerda has committed anything major enough to lose his adminship. I do agree with what others are saying and that Dan100 has done the same stuff as NGerda. Though I do believe NGerda may get hostile at sometimes, this is rarely though. I believe that this can hopefully be resoloved. Also, I believe that issue has been overblown.

How about I propose this: let's stop bickering about every little thing someone does wrong. I promise to not harp on Dan100 for attacking me for stuff he does, if he promises to lay off and if he has a problem to discuss things appropriately. Let's get back to what we're all here for: journalism. -- NGerda July 8, 2005 01:18 (UTC)

I promise to not harp on Dan100 for attacking me for stuff he does, - Dan, frame this and put it up on your wall or at least your userpage! → CGorman (Talk) 8 July 2005 11:24 (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.

Chiacomo edit

I trust him. Hopefully he'll accept this! Dan100 (Talk) 8 July 2005 16:00 (UTC)

I accept, I suppose.. Thank you for your trust. (You should note however that I've not yet been here a month -- almost but not quite). --Chiacomo (talk) 8 July 2005 19:26 (UTC)
  • Support Chiacomo is just the kind of person we need as an admin here.--Ryan524 8 July 2005 19:36 (UTC)
  • Support. Chiacomo has been here over a month and if he wants it, I'm sure he'd be one of our best admins. --RossKoepkeTalk 23:17, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose You seem to be a good wikinewsie with good intentions but you are not here even 30 days. Im sorry to oppose you know - you have my support if you are re-apply in one or two months time - but not now. → CGorman (Talk) 19:44, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Chiacomo is a good contributor, who needs a bit more time in the community. This additional time will let others see how the user deals with NPOV disputes, how well the user adheres to site policy, how the user deals with serious conflict — things that contribute to people's opinions when deciding on adminship. -- IlyaHaykinson 20:53, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. My original vote was based on time. The additional few days of Chiacomo's work have shown him to be a good, responsible editor, willing to participate in cleanup tasks. I now support his administration bid. -- IlyaHaykinson 03:28, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Chiacomo, you truly are a great contributor to Wikinews, and I value your contributions greatly. What you have to decide right now is do you want to be an admin?. You statement above displays a sense of reluctance, and I think it's important to decide if this is even what you want. There are many policies and rules, and the administrators' main function is to enforce those policies. I'm just warning you that it's a very important and somewhat daunting task, and if an administrator is what you want to be, you have my support, just promise to study and understand the Policies and guidelines! Best regards, NGerda 07:32, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
Response: I thank you for your support, NGerda. As we discussed earlier today, I feel that an administrator's main function is to do the will of the community. The policies are fairly straight forward and my hope is (and thus far, my hopes have been justified) that most of the community will abide by the policies of Wikinews. I am confident I can uphold the policies of Wikinews as desired by the community. The role of an administrator is only as daunting and difficult as he or she makes it. I know that administrators are exposed to more conflict than most regular editors, and while I don't seek conflict, I respond well to criticism and am an able mediator. I firmly believe that being an administrator is "no big deal" -- an administrator is and should be nothing more than an editor who has gained the trust of the community and consequently has a few extra "buttons". --Chiacomo (talk) 02:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think Chiacomo would be a great admin --Cspurrier 16:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If, as NGerda suggested, there was any reluctance in my acceptance of this nomination, that reluctance was based on my own knowledge that, at the time I was nominated, I had not yet been a contributor for the requisite 30 days (I have now). As some actors say of their nomination for an Academy Award, I'm honored to be considered! I take very seriously the role of administrators, but, as I've said, I also believe it should be "no big deal". Thank you for at least considering me -- I believe in the goals of Wikinews and its mission to provide a free, neutral point of view new source based in community participation and decision making and, regardless of the outcome of this nomination, will continue to do what I can to promote, contribute to, and further the aims of Wikinews. --Chiacomo (talk) 02:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support User is active, supportive, and fulfilling the best ideals of the community. - Amgine/talk 04:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Comment;The vote directly above comes from a site called "Sailwiki"[[10]]..."wiki.saewyc.net/User_talk:Amgine talk". Maybe it's from "our" Amgine; I don't know. Paulrevere2005 12:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is "our" Amgine, you can tell by looking the history. Sailwiki is his wiki. --Cspurrier 15:48, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
cool. Paulrevere2005 01:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Chiacomo is a great and active WN editor, his article edits are exactly what this project needs, and he is a very trustworthy being who deserves this spot. He is on IRC constantly for those who need help or for those who are wishing to propose something new. I strongly support his nomination. --Mrmiscellanious 02:35, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I simply did think it would make a more interesting (and comprehensive) story if there were pre-invasion figures available to compare with those cited in the report. As stated, I suspect there are no records available -- whether due to a failure in record keeping on the former government's part or due, perhaps, to a loss of or destruction of records since/during the invasion. I'm not certain how this is manipulative... --Chiacomo (talk) 17:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably not(manipulative).Your comments just do a good job of deflecting thought away from the facts of the story. As I say,it's likely just my own pov showing up in that interpretation.sorry. Paulrevere2005 19:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify whether you oppose or support now?--Eloquence 02:29, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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.

RossKoepke edit

I was opposed to becoming an admin because I didn't want to deal with all the political crap. However, a 45-minute long A-s P-s vandal attack at 3:30 in the morning changed my ideas on that. Thanks to Bo_Bluxo for that one. Anyways, we need more admins to fight vandals, especially at late night when most/all admins are gone, and there's no one to ban them. --RossKoepkeTalk 07:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support --Dejan Čabrilo 07:54, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'm not so much involved and normarlly only browsing, but RossKoepke seems to be a good candidate at my glance. And his fight agaisnt Blaxo in this day was really admirable. [Night, hmmm, it is just evening for me. You would like to recruit more Oceania/East Asia Wikinewsies...] --Aphaia 07:57, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. While we need admins for vandal fighting, we cannot forget the power of the privileges adminship bestows. Ross, for me, has not yet demonstrated that he fully understands, supports, and upholds our site policies, which any admin must. Dan100 (Talk) 12:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    You know, it's not important whether it's me or someone else, but we do need an admin who we'll be able to contact in the "off-hours". I fully accept your opposal, but it would be a great help if you found someone who met your criteria who was around in the off-hours ;-) --RossKoepkeTalk 15:36, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    We already have 24 hour coverage. We need admins who have a track record of upholding the policy of NPOV, not winners of popularity contests. If you feel you have defended the NPOV at some point and I've just missed it, please tell me! Dan100 (Talk) 12:30, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Sorry Ross, I completely trust you and all, but knowing the rules and powers are extremely necessary for adminship. Admins have serious responsibilities, and I really don't think you are ready for it, or even want the responsibilities, from what I've heard. I like your proposition about a late-night-US-time or far-away-timezone admin, but they have to be trusted, know the rules, and want to be an admin. Ross, you are a great asset to Wikinews. -- NGerda 16:21, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Before CraigSpurier voted, he asked me an extremely important question that I think I need to answer for everyone. He asked me "Ross, before I vote, what do you belive admins are for?". Without hesitation I gave him this response: "Admins are around to fulfill multiple roles. Primary of which is acting as a tool for the community to enforce their consensus generated rules. In addition, they're here to provide extra guidance to new users; but mainly admins are a tool of the community. Basically Wiki's are based on government by consent of the governed - the community makes rules through consensus, and in doing so, give their consent to admins to enforce their rules. Sometimes I feel the USA has moved away from government by consent of the governed, and more towards a government by consent of the elite. This is something that would destroy WikiNews. Wikis aren't meant to be governed by admins. Admins are simply here to be used by the community as whatever tool is needed, be it a mop for cleaning, shredder for sensitive documents, or handcuffs for those who break the rules enacted by the community". I just want to be what the community needs - which a few nights ago, was a pair of handcuffs for one rogue member of our society. --RossKoepkeTalk 03:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Mrmiscellanious edit

He has been here since April. He is an active user who has written several great stories including a few with original reporting. He is very open about his opinions, but does not try to push his pov into stories. I believe he will make a great admin. --Cspurrier 20:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I accept this nomination, in hopes of helping Wikinews out even more than I have in the past few months. --Mrmiscellanious 20:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Mrmiscellanious is a trusted member of this community and would make a great addition to the admin team.--Ryan524 21:03, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; What happened? What changed your mind(from the "do not wish" list)? I changed my vote but don't know how to cross out the old one. I think this great contributor has too much POV (like myself) to be a good admin.(see below) + his reference above to "helping Wikinews out even more than I have in the past few months." I don't think any of us are "helping" wikinews. Wikinews is helping us by providing a platform for our questionable and unproven talents. More importantly, I don't like this edit[[12]] which censors out 2 wiki links of nothing more than information which some readers may find worthwhile reading. That edit also censors an important reference to who Bonifaz is and why Bonifaz's own statements are,perhaps, pov. The last thing we need are thought censors with administrative powers. Paulrevere2005 21:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • We all have POV of some type - I have no problem expressing my opinions. Now if you actually had proof of an instance where I incorporated any of my POV into an article, I would view it as an issue that I would have to address (and would subsequently withdraw my name from this nomination). However, that edit above with the links removed was for the following reasons: a) because the WP link to Resolution of Inquiry article didn't exist, and b) the link to the other site was that of a POV site without any disclaimer stated in the article - which some might view as an endorsement from Wikinews. I would like to express this certain edit in a case where I am trying to defeat the POV issues with Wikinews. I felt as if it were biased, so as a user - I attempted to neutralize it. --Mrmiscellanious 21:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Guys, get off the 'automatic suspicion bandwagon. The people who know this guy are supporting him. If you don't know him, feel free to abstain/oppose on the grounds of not knowing him, but don't come up with possible reasons that aren't yet illustrated through their actions.--RossKoepkeTalk 01:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- NGerda 02:03, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Because anybody who is willing to come out with their opinion is okay in my book. -Edbrown05 03:09, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment;Just read the candidate's first line comment on this page [[13]]; if that's not enough, continue reading to find wrongful assumptions and conclusions as well as a lack of knowledge about when unilateral deletion is permitted. Paulrevere2005 12:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dan has unilaterally deleted the talk page referred to above which was crucial to this nomination. On that talk page this candidate condoned Dan's unilateral deletion of a non-vandelous article from the developing story section and this candidate also felt "clearance" from someone is necessary to put an article on the developing page. "Did you get an ok for this article?" he asked; he doesn't seem to realize that articles don't belong to anyone and that anyone can edit them or put them up for deletion request. Paulrevere2005 13:31, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I backtracked and found some of the text I refer to above;
"Did you get an OK for this article? --Mrmiscellanious 02:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
An okay? -Edbrown05 02:51, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Dan100 was deleting this article at least 3 times earlier tonight, and banned Paul for submitting an article with a similar headline --Mrmiscellanious 03:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Comment; that unilateral deletion without discussion should be what Mr.miscellanious(and all of us) should be concerned about. I didn't even realize an administrator was hovering with his "finger over the button" as Dan has referenced his powers before. I thought there was some kind of edit conflict knocking out the article. Paulrevere2005 11:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
I find it a factual and provoking account. -Edbrown05 03:54, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Is that against a NPOV policy? Maybe so. So can Wikinews report provoking news.... -Edbrown05 04:02, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
I don't think it is NPOV, and it is more or less a duplicate article of this one: Armed police shoot man dead on London Underground. But the fact that he was specifically asked not to restart the article and that he was even briefly banned made me think that he was making this edit just for the fact that Dan turned in for the night. --Mrmiscellanious 04:08, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I guess I do hold a certain affection for the zeal of the liberal media and their resulting point-of-views. I think this story weighs in with a viewpoint that gone unreported here, leaves a sanitized version of news at WN that is exclusive, rather than inclusive. "Factual" being my premise of this particular news story, I really must retire from any argument and slink off. I have been subject too in my own attempt to load up a story at a time the content was deemed by "whomever" to be too controversial to be dealt with in what I consider a "public forum" (I hear tank treads :}) -Edbrown05 04:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Shown himself to be a defender of the policy of the NPOV (as you can read right above), which is a vital quality in an admin. Dan100 (Talk) 14:03, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support --Chiacomo (talk) 03:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support --Dejan Čabrilo 06:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support For 2 Reasons: 1. Admin is no big deal, to quote Jimbo. 2. Because even though he may have deeply held and strong personal views on life that are diametrically opposed to other Wikinewsies (including me), he has the ability to work with those peple in a collaborative NPOV way. He also has a history of being able to know when to step back when personal feelings may preclude "professional distance" - a skill we all need to adopt. I don't think passion for personal ideals should be a stumbling block to admin status (which is little more than janitorial duty, anyay) :-). -- Davodd | Talk 23:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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.

September 2005 edit

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

TUFKAAP edit

I have been here about 3/4 months. I was planning on requesting adminship in Novemeber and with the sudden departure of Davodd, and the almost departure of MrM and NGerda being out for a weeks, I felt like this whole project I have come to love so much was going collapse in front of my whole eyes. Also, there have been insistances where I have seen article up for speedy delete that meet the reason stated and such, and it seems hard to point it out on #wikinews, especially when everyone is idle. But, I also I got feeling I might not be ready, but I want to take that chance, and I want to find out what people think about if I was to be an admin, so, I maybe be able to improve myself should I be declined and decided to request another or if someone nominates me. --TUFKAAP 02:46, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. I'd hate to lose probably my favorite writer here to adminship if it means he won't write stories as much. But anything less than fair and unassuming coming from TUFKAAP is unimaginable to me. -- Edbrown05 20:52, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. TUFKAAP will make a great admin! -- NGerda 20:33, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Very active user, shows excellent admin capabilities. --Mrmiscellanious 20:37, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Active contributor, works hard to work well with others. - Amgine
  • Support. IlyaHaykinson 07:02, September 12, 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.

October 2005 edit

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

User:Bawolff edit

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  1. Support --Deprifry|+T+ 08:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 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)[reply]
  3. Support --Mrmiscellanious 19:52, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. -Edbrown05 20:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Neutralizer 20:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support --Cspurrier 17:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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
  1. Started wikinews:Mirrors and forks (still working on)
  2. fixed up many topic pages including
    1. Space (just added pretty pict)
    2. Food
    3. Google
    4. Spam
    5. Mozilla
    6. Apple Computer
    7. Microsoft
    8. Internet
      1. Internet/Topics
    9. Category:P2P
    10. Games
    11. Category:Belarus
    12. Music
    13. and others
    14. fixed up some of the religion cats
  3. added tons of categories to pages
  4. Fixed up Wikinews:Shortcuts
  5. Fixed up WN:IB
  6. Created a couple infoboxes
    1. template:RIAA Infobox
    2. template:Hurricane 2005 Infobox
    3. fixed up others
  7. Created templates:
    1. template:DPL
    2. Made other more minnor ones
  8. created {{Wiktionarypar}} and {{Wikisourcepar}}
  9. Uploaded quite a few images
  10. Participated in m:Wikinews design contest
  11. had a really cool idea about template:Topic header that no ones looked at. (see template talk:Topic header)
  12. and more

Contribs: [14] Image contribs: [15]

Hope thats enough.Bawolff ☺☻ ]] 19:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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.

User:Borofkin edit

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

User:Cllewr edit

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)[reply]
Support Agreed. Great contributor. --Wolfrider 22:09, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Borofkin 23:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Support. User shows exceptional administrator qualities. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 21:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Deprifry|+T+ 14:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cspurrier 22:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IlyaHaykinson 06:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
support Bawolff ☺☻  23:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.

User:Deprifry edit

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Rcameronw 14:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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:Simeon edit

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Abstain - I think everybody should have a nice cup of tea and a sit down. - Borofkin 23:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)
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]
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)[reply]
Fair enough. I'm changing my vote to abstain while I have that cup of tea. - Borofkin 01:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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 successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

User:Submarine edit

I'd like to take the opportunity to nominate Submarine for the position of Admin. Submarine is a an active wikimedian, and serves as an administrator on two other Wikimedia Foundation projects (fr.wikipedia and common.wikimedia.) He has also manages to make time in his schedule to contribute to Wikinews, both as a photojournalist and as an article creator. - Amgine 07:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Nomination accepted. Submarine 07:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Seeing all the vandalism lately, we could use all the help we can get. And he has done some excellent reporting too. --Deprifry|+T+ 11:35, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I've seen Submarine making positive contributions. Brian McNeil / talk 12:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain from this and all further votes on this page until further notice. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 03:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am particularly impressed with Submarine's experience as Amgine mentioned; "serves as an administrator on two other Wikimedia Foundation projects". Neutralizer 13:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wolfrider 14:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rcameronw 22:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Keep us informed about the French perspective! --vonbergm 04:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dive! Dive! Dive! - Borofkin 23:10, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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:Brianmc edit

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)[reply]

Nomination accepted. :-) Brian McNeil / talk 18:24, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)
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)[reply]
  • 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)[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.


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.

Mrmiscellanious edit

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)[reply]

returned edits I made yesterday after I had logged off by mistake.Paulrevere2005 22:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:
  1. The protection was necessary, otherwise at least three editors would have been blocked for violating the 3RR.
  2. 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.
  3. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Oppose --Chiacomo (talk) 02:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

Comment: Isn't it a little unfair to hold this vote well he's on vacation? Bawolff ☺☻  06:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
I don't think MrM should be participating in this conversation. -Edbrown05 02:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Very well. I shall strike out my comments (except for this one). --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 02:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I see what you're saying. I'll continue to keep my comments striked out. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 02:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[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.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Deadminship: Amgine edit

I wish to propose that a vote be taken to remove Amgine's administrator status on the following grounds:

  1. 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.
  2. Upon reading the user's talk page, the above seems to happen quite often (premature deletion)
  3. Ignores requests to explain reasons for the above. New users may wish to know why their articles were deleted
  4. 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)[reply]

====Support for removal====
    1. 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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]
    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]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    UPDATE: The above user has been PERMANENTLY BANNED from Wikinews for impersonating Paulrevere2005 and Cartman02au. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 03:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Support. See Other Comments below, Paulrevere2005 01:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    2. 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)[reply]
    3. 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.
    4. 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)[reply]
    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]
    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.
    Notes, not votes, for support for removal edit

    How 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].

    GRYE

    • 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)[reply]

    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

    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)[reply]

    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.

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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 edit

    1. 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)[reply]
    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:
    Quote
    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.
    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)[reply]
    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]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    1. 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    1. 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)[reply]
    2. 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)[reply]
    • 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

    (talk) (contribs) 03:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]
    1. Oppose - correct response to wrongful deletion is to ask for undeletion, not nominate for de-adminship. -- IlyaHaykinson 06:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    1. 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)[reply]
    2. Oppose Not enough for de-admin. Bawolff ☺☻  19:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    3. 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)[reply]
    4. 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)[reply]
    5. 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)[reply]
  1. Oppose. I think the mediation has been the right course of action.--Whywhywhy 12:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 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)[reply]
  3. 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)[reply]

Please see votes above, all of this is one RfdA.

  1. Oppose. --Cspurrier 01:01, 20 December 2005 (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.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

user:Nyarlathotep edit

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Where did I "demand" that you fix redirects? --Deprifry|+T+ 22:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews:Requests_for_permissions/Archive_2&oldid=4559491"