Wikinews

Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Archive 3

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


January 2006 edit

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

User:Brianmc edit

I'd like to nominate brianmc for adminship. He's a tireless researcher, working on in-depth articles (such as the ongoing research about Greg Lloyd Smith) and covering a topic extensively (such as the Southern Thailand insurgency and here). He has done a lot of copyediting and working on community pages as well as great RC-patroling. I believe he would be a good asset for the community. - Amgine | talk en.WN 20:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted. I know there were a few concerns last time round, but I think if those minor cases are taken in the context of an entire year's editing, then I've demonstrated I can make a positive contribution as an Administrator. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC) (and I'm human, notice the spelling mistake I had to correct.)[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:Elliot K edit

I would like to nominate Elliot K for adminship. We don't have many who write such in-depth and thoroughly researched articles, and who carefully attend to the details. - Amgine | talk en.WN 04:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted: Thanks for the nomination. I accept.--elliot_k 09:58, 21 January 2006 (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:Brian New Zealand edit

I'd like to nominate the "other" Brian for admin status, I think his edits over the past couple of months have demonstrated a dedication to the project and a good understanding of the goals. I think he would make a good administrator, and he would be an asset to the community. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I accept. Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 22:15, 27 January 2006 (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.

February 2006 edit

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

Karen edit

Karen has been a quiet wikignome for months, quietly racking up copyedits and article fixes. Such diligence should be rewarded with tools for doing even more work on the site! <grin> I would like to nominate Karen for adminship. - Amgine | talk en.WN 03:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I accept Amgine's nomination. Somehow I thought there were more admins than there are.
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.

Jacques Divol edit

Jacques is a dedicated admin on fr.Wikinews, yet still manages to find time to do vandal patrolling and editing on en.wikinews! I think we can offer him a couple more tools to continue helping here, as well as continue to collaborate on articles on both editions. - Amgine | talk en.WN 01:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accept: thanks for the proposal ! Cross language collaboration is vital ! And may I add ? : if you write french, we are deadly in need of wikinewsiens on the french side of wikinews ! Jacques Divol 09:07, 14 February 2006 (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.

Sfullenwider edit

An excellent reporter with a lot of original reporting, sfullenwider also has a breadth of knowledge about financial topics, a good ear for copyediting and writing, and has spent more time than he should have cleaning up vandalism and other maintenance work on the site. He'd make a great admin, I think. - Amgine | talk en.WN 01:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accept, If it is the users' pleasure I'll be an admin. --Sfullenwider 02:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, that's your second vote here ;) --Deprifry|+T+ 17:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OH NOES!!111 Recout! :P --TUFKAAP 19:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lets go for a record... Everyone vote twice (: Bawolff ☺☻  03:52, 22 February 2006 (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.

Cartman02au edit

A careful editor and researcher, Cartman02au has also shown a respect for the community processes and has looked carefully into them. He's a prolific editor, and should be a valuable addition to the community with additional responsibilities. - Amgine | talk en.WN 02:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accept: Thankyou for considering me to become an admin. I shall leave it for the community to decide.
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.

Ral315 edit

I thought I'd put myself up here. I haven't done a whole lot here, but I pop in for important stuff (I wrote the 2006 State of the Union article while watching the Address, and helped with the Tookie Williams execution article.) I also conducted an interview with Jimbo Wales for the Wikipedia Signpost, which was dual-licensed and published here. I'm an administrator on the English Wikipedia, and if I were given adminship, would gladly help out with other tasks. Ral315 00:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. You've done at least a month's work on Wikinews.
2. You are trusted by the community.
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.

March 2006 edit

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

Jason Safoutin edit

Jason (a.k.a DragonFire 1024) already does some adinistrative type functions. I have observed him marking articles, welcoming new users and tidying up around the place. He is a valuable member of the community and I feel he would be a valuable addition to our administration team - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 02:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I gladly accept nomination :) Jason Safoutin 02:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I withdrawl my request for admin. due to the fact that some administrators believe their voice is more important than the community's. Until some admins. can learn to work with the community, then I will gladly accept any nomination. Jason Safoutin 02:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure I understand your definition of "self-serving". He's covering an issue in depth that no other news outlet is covering; isn't that kind of the point? irid:t 17:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...it is original research, can you say from his declaration what conflict-of-interest he may have in the story? StrangerInParadise 22:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I see clear improvements, but there is still some ways to go before I can trust that he will make a good administrator. --vonbergm 17:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regrettably Oppose I think Jason is still too quick to anger when a dispute arises. He is, however, an excellent contributor who, should he grow a thicker skin, and a less sharp tongue, would make an excellent administrator. Jason, I got knocked back first time too so don't take this as sufficient discouragement to leave the project. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Lack of trust.--Eloquence 04:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Jason has done a great deal of work on Wikinews. He has focused on original reporting and represents the cornerstone of what the goal of independant media is; quality reporting on events and issues the mainstream media is not interested in. He is ready and able to be responsible for ensuring quality articles on Wikinews. irid:t 16:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Jason has a great history of writing articles for Wikinews, especially that Buffalo hotel series he's be writing about: that's signs of a good journalist! I think he can handle administrative duties, but I'm worried that it'll decrease the amount of time he has for writing. —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 20:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. Very enthusiastic, but needs to develop better judgement and tact to be a worthy admin IMO. -- Avenue 02:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support no specific comments about him Jacques Divol 13:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of the Admin's page or the talk page of the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a withdrawn request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

User:ironiridis edit

Ironiridis edits have established that he/she has an enthusiasm to wikinews and a good acceptance of the goals. I think he/she would be an asset to the community by been an admin. Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 01:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I skeptically accept, with much appreciation. irid:t 01:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am withdrawing my nomination pending a 15 day waiting period to satisfy existing policy of a 30 day waiting period from account creation. Thank you for your support and criticism. irid:t 05:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "He". ;) As a clarification, I have been around for a long time anonymously, however, that is largely unprovable and shouldn't count specifically towards my nomination. For the purposes of this discussion, perhaps it is best to focus only on my actions and experience for the last 17 days. irid:t 22:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, 234 edits in the first 17 days is quite an acomplishment. Bawolff ☺☻  00:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The guidelines state that you're eligible probably eligible if you meet that criteria, not that you're ineligible if you don't. ;) irid:t 05:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; now I'm more content with my vote. The last thing we need is another admin. who breaks the spirit of policies and then argues some technical pseudo-legalize to justify the breech. Neutralizer 05:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutralizer, the spirit of the guidelines is that they aren't concrete. They are worded specifically to be vauge, not to be an endless string of "except" "otherwise" "unless" nonsense. They are left to interpretation, and you are free to interpret. I am not here te break the spirit of the policies. See above; if what you are implying is true, then the policies should have been worded "No user with an account with fewer than 30 days of age shall be allowed Administrator nominations", because that is the "spirit" you're inserting into it. irid:t 05:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the discussion portion of this over here. irid:t 06:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can neither support this user's administratorship (due to the thirty day guideline) but I can also not deny the request due to their work on the site. Having looked at their mainspace edit history they have been tagging articles, fixing mistakes, etc - something that would be valuable to the administration team. If the same request is made when the time has passed I will have no hesitation to support it - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 11:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Less then 30 days is much to short, however Ironiridis seems to understand the guidelines and policies fairly well. --Cspurrier 15:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Has done some good work and has made a lot of good edits. Good grasp of the NPOV Policey and seems to know a good deal amount about policy. Jason Safoutin 16:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While I like what I have seen of Ironiridis so far, it does not strike me as that extraordinary that I would not want to observe the user for a little longer. What's the rush anyway? --vonbergm 05:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You know, I agree. Can I withdraw for a period of 15 days or so? irid:t 05:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of the Admin's page or the talk page of the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.


April 2006 edit

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

User:ironiridis2 edit

Well, Ironiridis just had his 1-month anniversary yesterday. Check nom below, I agree with everything BrianNZ said. Let's try this again, shall we? ReporterFromAfar3136 20:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I accept this nomination, with bewilderment. You people are nuts. ;) Thanks! irid:t 02:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on the condition Ironiridis accepts this second nomination. - Amgine | talk en.WN 21:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as well as user accepts also. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 21:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose,Ironiridis's edits have decreased substantially since he withdrew his last nomination. That is unfortunate as we have less available activity upon which to make a decision than otherwise might be the case. I truly do not understand the need to rush(imo) an admin nomination through as we have quite a stable of janitors as it is. I spent some time reviewing the Nominee's edits since the withdrawal and I see nothing in the way of contributions which makes a compelling case for adminship. To the contrary, I am concerned that some edits appear to be rather opinionated,controlling and nippish; e.g.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] which, imo, are not the traits of an admin. that could benefit our project at this time. Neutralizer 21:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm not seeing what you are trying to say with any of those links. What I see is a user who is trying to maintain peace in the community, and some users who are ripping him out for it. Perhaps some users like that unstability, I don't know. But those examples above show one of the strongest reasons why he should become an admin. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 01:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:I did not know that users were not allowed to take breaks or vacations. Jason Safoutin 01:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Karen 22:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC) I read all of the edits Neutralizer mentions above and will look at other edits later. Once Ironiridis accepts, I reserve now claim the right to change my vote; by then I will have read enough to form an opinion. His resemblance (See people's exibit # [8]) to the protagonist on My Name is Earl may indicate good karma. 22:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Suspicious that a user named Earl would give him trouble after my comments. 01:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC))

Comment Neutralizer, I will respectfully ask you to be respectful of others at this point. You have made some very personal remarks in the last hour that were absolutely unjustified in their tone. Please find a different way to voice your opinion. irid:t 01:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; No. This shows your true colors as there is nothing personal being said at all. Every comment I made is related to editing behavior and each comment is debatably correct. The fact you want to exagerate about an "hour" when it's been about 10 minutes and you want to censor what someone is saying in relation to your own nomination shows what we can expect from you as a stalking admin. Neutralizer 01:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You just stated that any admins who votes "yes" on Dragon should not be an admin. That is an attack. How would you like it if I stated, "If you agree with Neutralizer, you should be blocked"? You're aware of the policies. Start following them. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 16:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No.MrM's analogy is twisted and false as are 100% of his attempts; correct one would be "any user who supports Neutralizer for admin. at this point in time does not have enough good judgement themselves to be an admin. or else they enjoy the silliness." I can agree with that too as I would be a terible admin.; along the lines of MrM, perhaps. Neutralizer 11:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Neutralizer I advise you to read over WN:NOT. This is not a theatre of war and you are currently attacking MrM, Me, and Ironiridis. You voted, and your attacks are not need here or anywhere else on Wikinews. Jason Safoutin 11:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: He's done more in a month than some have in a year. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 16:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am comfortable with the idea of using a length of time rather than a has/hasn't done judgement. He's justified in saying that 30 days is not sufficient. I welcome that kind of criticism. irid:t 03:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Certainly some will be wary because of the time factor. However, actions speak louder than time, especially in these cases. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 03:26, 9 April 2006 (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.

Mindspillage edit

Clearly trustworthy: en.wikipedia & meta.wikimedia admin, en.wikipedia arbitration committee twice, follows 1RR, knows stuff, gets stuff resolved, and generally a nice person. Admittedly, shes not always around soo much, as heavily committed elsewhere, but that doesn't seem problematic. Nyarlathotep 16:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind nomination. I am warning that as mentioned I won't be particularly active as an admin, but nonetheless I accept. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not trying to derail anything here, I better understand the system at this point, and I'm no longer concerned with this vote. irid:t 03:22, 11 April 2006 (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.

DragonFire1024 edit

I am renominating myself as I did run before. I have made considerable contributions to Wikinews in the areas of both Original Reporting and Photojournalism. I have also contributed to and or published nearly 100 articles here and here. I also send welcome messages to new users and users that do not have accounts, in hopes they will sign up :) I also try to print out a Wikinews print edition when there are hot story(s). I tend to write more along the lines of big breaking news, and sometimes the little ones count too. I hope to do many more local stories as well. Jason Safoutin 23:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Enthusiastic, active contributor. Has a large knowledge of policy, and has proven this in many cases. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 23:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Great user, no objections. ReporterFromAfar3136 23:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. As before, incredibly persistent contributer. Covers stories nobody else covers, lots of OR, works very hard. irid:t 23:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose; I did not vote when he was nominated before; his withdrawal remarks(re; his last nomination) less than 2 weeks ago; "I withdrawl my request for admin. due to the fact that some admind believe their voice is more important than the community's. Until some admins can learn to work with the community, then I will gladly accept any nomination. Jason Safoutin 02:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)"} say it all; arrogant,combative and childish. Neutralizer 01:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Uh, I think you need to be logged in there, buddy. Thank you. irid:t 02:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I do not feel I can trust this user. - Amgine | talk en.WN 01:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - reading the votes and also Jason's acceptance, it seems like we are using the adminstrator duties as a "reward" for good reporting, lots of reporting, etc. Everything Jason says are things any editior can do, not just an admin. I'm cautious to be handing out lots of adminships which may or may not be needed. Lyellin 02:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agreed that an adminship is not a reward. It does, however, indicate that he is willing to work on the site considering a lack of substatial reward. A user that contributes so much original work with research and photography and interviews is not simply here to play games; he's serious about Wikinews. irid:t 02:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't disagree at all. I am cautious giving users adminship though, in almost any case. Do we need more? Are we suffering from a backlash of vandalism/deletion requests/etc that the current admins can't handle it? This goes for all the people being voted on, not just Jason. I completely respect Jason's work - for instance today on the Scotland bird flu article. Lyellin 02:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ah, you have a point. We don't need a ton of admins right now. I figure, however, it doesn't hurt to empower members of the community that are willing to do the work. That way, more admins can focus on writing articles, rather than screwing around with administrative tasks. I don't think it hurts to have too many admins. I am willing to bet someone will disagree with me here. irid:t 02:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I am disturbed by this sequence of edits on the Arbcom workshop page: [9] [10]

[11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] In my opinion this is a classic example of an attempt to "steamroller" discussion by repeatedly and forcefully asserting opinion as fact. Such activity has caused me to lose trust in this user. - Borofkin 02:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Actually my beef is simple: Admins get voted in by the community, and they get voted out by the community. That is the right of the users on this Wiki. Jason Safoutin 02:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Your beef is certainly simple. My issue is that you feel the need to state it, over and over again. Everyone knows that you think Arbcom shouldn't have the power to de-admin. To state that opinion, over and over again, is steamrollering. The comment you have made here is another example. - Borofkin 03:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, by that same philosophy, Borofkin, that means we are not allowed to dissent? I'll say it, heck, I'll scream it: I... HATE... ARBCOM! I'm finding your statement above extremely troubling. If voicing your opinion over and over again is a crime, than I know a bunch of admins who need to be re-evaluated by your standards. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 01:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by "crime". It certainly isn't against policy, although I'd prefer to see some rational discussion rather than repeatedly stating the same thing. I only mention it here because it is the reason that I have opposed adminship. - Borofkin 01:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And, I've seen nothing but the same, generic, monotonous message from users who accept the Arbcom. Inquiries are not supposed to be forced - they are provided at the will of the user. Perhaps, if you ask nicely, it will be returned. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 01:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean by "inquiries are not supposed to be forced". I attempted to discuss the issue with Jason on his talk page. Take a look at my inquiries, and his reponses. You will see that even though I acknowledged his opinion on Arbcom, and was actually asking about something else, he felt it necessary to state and restate his position, in a repetitive way. Such behaviour demonstrates a difficulty engaging and collaborating with other users. - Borofkin 01:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's a little too bad on your views. I did not see one thing in the requirements that stated he must do those things. And, to get a vote, I wouldn't. You are criticizing him for letting his opinion be heard - although, you haven't an issue bringing yours up here. That is disrespectful. Perhaps you don't see it that way, but I see no issue with him restating his case. It's fair game for discussion. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 01:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are opinionated and vocal, (I like both those qualities), but you haven't been around long enough for the community measure the impact you would have, that makes you a wild card. -Edbrown05 03:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not around long enough: I support Iron to be an admin, but your statement contradicts itself. He has not been around as long as I. Jason Safoutin 10:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not enough trust. --vonbergm 04:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support : he seems to have good will. we need goodwill to build wikinews Jacques Divol 12:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm sorry. But someone who wants to be admin this much, should not be given it. DF, hang, wait, write and let someone nominate you when the time and the community trust in you is right. In my humble opinion, you seem to get too upset too easily. In my dealings with you, you have occassionally steam-rolled the conversations and admins must be patient and willing to hear the other side of the coin. I'm sorry, but when you were nominated before I offered the same advice to hang back and get some time in with the community. Please reconsider this again now. -Drew 23:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Not enough trust. StrangerInParadise 23:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I find it striking, and appalling, that some users say they cannot trust this user. That, to me, is a more personal issue rather than a leadership issue. This user has shown nothing but utmost devotion to the community, which is why he opposes Arbcom - his comments on the pages as of now show that he doesn't want anything or anyone telling the community what to do. That to me shows leadership. He was not afraid, even though many users have hassled him, for voting no on it (Yes, he was one of only two - the other was myself). He voiced his opinion and showed that he would not let anything or anyone become superior to the community on this website. He has a great wealth that I wish all users will someday obtain - the understanding and knowledge of this site's policies and guidelines, which ensure that this wiki keeps its eyes on the ball. If I could say that about every single administrator on this site as of now, I probably would go along with others and say we don't need another admin. But we do. He's active enough, he dedicates time almost daily to helping this wiki in various fashions - writing excellent articles, reverting spam, marking bad pages for speedy deletion or a DR request, etc. So, why not? He's qualified. He can be trusted. Look not at who nominated them. Look at the one being nominated. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 01:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • support I have umed and hared over this; taken in all users opinions, however I have to agree with MrM on this, so Support Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 12:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Dragonfire is not good as admin for now. His editing exept contribution to newsmaking reminds of Mrm. International 07:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anymore personal attacks you would like to add? Jason Safoutin 10:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This reminds me about Dragonfires some oversensetivity to critic. An administrator must have the ability to remain calm. If Dragonfire think this respons help him to get my support it is one more reason to oppose his nomination.International 21:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am calm. You are not. I am sick of your attacks. Read WN:NOT. You voted, now please stop with the attacks. Jason Safoutin 01:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dragon, you will never get to be an administrator if you can't learn to control yourself. Eventually you'll make it if you can just learn to control yourself a bit to earn more community trust. I think you have done better this time haven't you? Don't be discouraged. Neutralizer 03:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just so everyone is aware, this user has made eight edits to the Wiki. S/he was also the user who voted against Arbcom one minute after creating an account. - Borofkin 03:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Matter why? btw, is misread the arbcom poll, it not what i thought it was Joann 21:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its generally considered suspicious if you do only specific non-article tasks (i.e. vote). Some people also believe that if you're new/have made little edits, you probally don't understand what you're voting on (I'm not saying this is true or not, but thats how many people may see it. However I've noticed you've been to a couple articles, so it looks like your trying, so I think your vote is valid.) Actually the turnout of users is quite intreasting. Bawolff   22:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not entirely. Maybe for those who create an account just to vote, but remember we have a large readership that does not necessarily edit articles. I'm sure they've been keeping tallies on the contributors here. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 16:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for obvious reasons. (I'm sure now I'll be a target by "others" here, but so be it) Cowicide 06:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, doesn't understand the NPOV. Can't have admins who don't understand that. Dan100 (Talk) 14:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Already does admin-like stuff behind the scenes, lets give him the button and see hoe he goes! - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 22:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant Supporteration: Indeed, Jason would make a fine and dandy administrator. I'm not that sure, however, because performerating in administrative activitities may take up the time he has to write articles about how Buffalo, NY is about to get pwnerated by a hotel, when Super Restauranteur comes to rescuation. All in all, Mr. Sah-Foo-Tahn deserves admination. MESSEDROCKER (talk) 20:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think that POV is nearly impossible to be removed from any individual, by external or internal factors. I think that this particular potential admin may even out a few of the imbalances that wikinews currently has. This can be witnessed even during this voting, if one looks up a few votes. I have spoken with the user on how he would handle himself and I think that as long as he does what he says he will do he will be fine. True this will cause some fighting, but, I am starting to wonder if that is simply unavoidable or if the only other alternative is NPOV by claim and biased by votes. --Sfullenwider 22:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Support>
I support because i believe that everyone has something to learn, DragonFire2410 didn't know how to use memoserv and openly asked for help. Admins should be the same way, open to new suggestions and ideas. They must also help out in the community<rant>unity. <For example I've announced many times that I'm working on the Hurricane Portal and the Hurricane Season infobar, and its been known for over a month now, with only two exceptions, no one has helped in any way with both. </rant> (unsigned by user: Terinjokes).

Final Count: Support: 12, Oppose:10 - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 23:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose I don't usually oppose such stuff, but if this is a request for more votes. I'll basically vote support for anyone who I believe will follow 1RR with the buttons, but I'd need real reasons to vote support otherwise. Nyarlathotep 19:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of the Admin's page or the talk page of the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.


May 2006 edit

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

Frankie Roberto edit

After reading this, I'd like to put myself forward for 'adminship'. If people don't think I've been here long enough/done enough, then that's cool, but I'd like to help if I can. I'm an 'accredited reporter' if that counts for anything... Frankie Roberto 19:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm considering my vote (I like to look in to things for a little bit before making a descision. in the end I'll proably vote support.) I just wanted to make sure you knew that theres more then just speedy deletion. I also wanted to ask you, If there was one thing you could change about wikinews - what would it be? (Muhuhuh! Even worse then thoose old stupid standard questions). Bawolff ☺☻  23:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair dos. According to this page, admins 'can edit pages in the MediaWiki: namespace (system messages), block users, delete pages, and protect pages', all of which I'd do in strict accordance with the site policy. There's plenty of things I'd like to change about Wikinews, but not many of them are relevant to being an admin. I'd like to see improved RSS feeds (with article extract), an improved homepage, and better collaboration over things like creating and sourcing photos and graphics to go with news articles. Frankie Roberto 09:49, 8 May 2006 (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.

DragonFire1024 (Third nom) edit

Vote tally:(8/8/1)

DF is a Enthusiastic, active contributor. Has a large knowledge of policy, and has proven this in many cases, and is a incredibly persistent contributer. Covers stories nobody else covers, lots of OR, works very hard Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 12:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I accept this nomination :) Jason Safoutin 12:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by that? I'm just a little bit confused. Flipbaywood 20:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I find this comment seriously degrading, personally. There's one thing to oppose based on actions, but to oppose because you disagree with an alleged bias which you don't even have the strength to prove is just, in my eyes, a very weak argument. Obviously, this user above is not looking out for the best intentions of the wiki for making that type of argument, and is instead voting for his personal preference of users to become administrators. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 01:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on comment: *Huomourus mode off* Now, who are you to tell that I am not looking out for the best intentions of the Wikinews. What a crap. And you of all here is not famous for motivating yourself. You and Dragon found each other for sure. Maybe you are to blame for telling Dragon how to act here. Corrupting good Wikinewsie material...Bad! *Good mode on, for rest of weekend*
  • Comment. I've only known DragonFire1024 to be a good editor via the IRC channel. Obviously, there have been some worries about him enacting policy. Might I suggest that DragonFire1024 request adminship with the caveat that he can't make any blocks for the first three months or so, at which time he has to make a second request to try and receive blocking privileges? Ral315 (talk) 17:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • unfourtanatly oppose. Your a great contributer, don't take this the wrong way, but I share similiar concerns as Brofkin. When I've observed you in a dispute with other people, I've noticed you seem to have a tendency to not listen to them, no matter what they say. You seem to not to try and resolve the problem, or figure out what their issue is, but instead just repeat your point. I'm sorry, as it saddends me very much, as you're a fantastic contributor, but I can't support this. However Ral315's idea is acceptable to me, or a condition that you can't block any user you're in conflict with (by conflict, I mean argument, not deleting a page, like the world's ending in aprox. 10 minutes or similiar non-sense, but actually having an argument with someone (ala you and neut)) , even if they're WoW, until such a time as Ral suggests. 20:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC) User:Bawolff
  • Support. Oppose. Jason has made so many excellent contributions to Wikinews, but his response to Doldrums' vote below is unacceptable for an admin. Flipbaywood 20:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; its hard to oppose a contributor with so much spunk and energy; but the maturity level and objectivity are just not where they need to be, DF's blind(imo) allegiance to MrM(imo) is certainly not something that works to the benefit of the project. Neutralizer 22:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, user does not have my trust. - Amgine | talk en.WN 22:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, MrM, Amgine's comment "user does not have my trust" is straightforward and to the point; any elaboration could be construed as a personal attack and it may be best to not be pushing for more details from anyone if you really want to help DF get his fingers on the big buttons. I suggest we just let the contributors all vote without so much extra comments about each vote. Neutralizer 03:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't want to hear from you. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 19:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Others do want to hear from you. -Edbrown05 05:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose DF is an enthusiastic and prolific contributor, but i think he needs more experience with and better understanding of policies and wiki functioning (eg. [26]) before assuming admin responsibilities. Doldrums 08:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So I make one mistake? Im not perfect. Jason Safoutin 19:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of the Admin's page or the talk page of the nominated user). 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.

PVJ59(Contributions) (Created Articles) edit

Vote count (13/3/0)

I have been active on Wikinews since April 2006. Since then I have made over 200 edits, over half of which are to main-space, and around 20 of which are newly written articles. I'm not very prominent among the Community (which is probably why I nominated myself) because I spend most of my time here workin on articles as opposed to talk pages. This is not to say that I am opposed to discussion, it's just that I prefer to spend what little time I get to edit on creating new articles. I have voted in a few Deletion Requests and RfA's and have a good knowledge of Wikinews policy. I have created several India (or rather SAARC) related articles, thereby giving the Subcontinent a greater level of representation on Wikinews. I hope that the Community will allow me to become an Administrator and thereby help the project further. Thank you. PVJ   (Talk) 14:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Enormously weak oppose I have looked at your edit history and everything looks good exept that it is quite short in time. If you wait one or two month and RFA again it will, if you continue as now, for sure be accepted. At least from my side. These RFA from short time Wikinewsies is usually only acceted for wellknown Wikipedia (or other Wikiproject) users. Dont be discouraged of this, my little carefull approach to RFA. (btw I might change my mind if Nyarlathotep:s question for referenses fall out) international 17:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose User should be a little more familiar with Wikinews. Get a feel for things. Jason Safoutin 23:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions; 1. How much time per week can you contribute over the next 6 months? 2. Do you feel that western governments sometimes intentionally put out misleading and false information through western media? 3. What contribution to Wikinews that you have made so far are you the most satisfied with?(provide link,diff). 4. What is the most newsworthy story on Wikinews today and why? Neutralizer 12:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentPVJ, you do not have to answer any of those questions if you choose not too. Its not a requirement to answer them. I also don't see how the question in regards to "western media" has to do with anything. Neutralizer, if you truely feel that way, then I don't understand how you plan to get along with a great portion of the users on this Wiki. Again PVJ you are not required to answer any of those questions as I think you have been put in a positiuon that you may feel obliged to do so. Jason Safoutin 12:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Answers I'll take Jason's advice. I'm not really sure about the significance of questions 2) and 4) with regard to this RfA. As for question 1) I'm not sure about the amount of time I can contribute, but I'm pretty sure I'll be able to write between 8-10 articles a week. 3) I don't have any in particular because I'm not sure what crieteria to look at whilest judging the value of my articles. However in terms of significance, I guess it would be BJP leader Pramod Mahajan shot at in Mumbai. I hope that you will excuse me for choosing not to answer two of the questions. PVJ   (Talk) 13:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To choose an admin based on political beliefs is a bad idea, as well as a slipery slope. (IMHO) Bawolff ☺☻  00:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Questions of this nature on RfA are trolling, pure and simple.--Eloquence 00:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think questions of this nature are best left to individual user's talk pages. If they address concerns with another user's faith in a potential administrator they are possibly valid - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 12:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Great contributor to the site - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 09:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I have explained here, I published that article in the condition in which it was because it had been written by a newcomer and I did not want to discourage him by telling him his article was unfit for publishing. I did however, tag it as a stub and add a suitable explanation on the talk-page. PVJ   (Talk) 03:14, 30 May 2006 (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.

June 2006 edit

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

User:Chiacomo- Bureaucrat edit

I would like to nominate this user for bureaucrat. This person (IMHO) is probaly one of our most valuable admins, and I think he would make a good bureaucrat. He is very responsible and keeps tracks of everything that everyone else like me always seems to forget. His first edit was [27] almost a year ago, and since then has managed to stay out of the wheel wars, and silly politics. He's been a fair, great, admin, and I believe he'd make a great bureaucrat. Bawolff ☺☻  03:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words and your nomination. There aren't many responsibilities, but if selected I'll do my best. --Chiacomo (talk) 05:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the main reason for me nominating Chiacomo is not that we need more, but in Ral315's words — "I think extraordinary users who are trustworthy, and who are willing to help out, deserve to be made bureaucrats.". Bawolff ☺☻  21:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*Strongly Oppose - Chiacomo and CSpurrier now have Checkuser power. Both of them supported MrM's admin status and thereby showed they are not in tune with the mood or views of the community at large. This additional power is giving even more power to what seems to be a "posse" of 3. Redman 12:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Sock puppet of blocked user. - Amgine | talk en.WN 06:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Abstain for now Im not sure that I like to give Chiacomo more official authority withhout being sure on his view in handeling unwanted power concentrations above community. Hes defending of ArbComs selection of CheckUser authorised users is not a good sign so I wait some time international 13:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support* I guess Chiacomo is a good user and trustable. Though I have some concerns but they are not focused on Chiacomos person. international 11:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; I trust Chiacomo. For me it's not a question of need. I think extraordinary users who are trustworthy, and who are willing to help out, deserve to be made bureaucrats. Ral315 (talk) 17:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The point of having bureaucrats is to make up people to administrator, there is very little leeway for selective use of the powers that come with the office. We don't particularly need new bureaucrats, but this is a case where I think it would make zero difference to the day-to-day running of the wiki, despite some user's comments --Brian McNeil / talk 17:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentI do not subscribe to Neut.'s conspiracy theories at all (note my user page). However, I do think the edit history which I have reviewed shows that CSpurrier,Chiacomo and Amgine share a similar pov which can be shown with edit references if need be AND which is often NOT the pov of the community at large; E.g.; they were about the only active contributors who did not vote at all on MrM's deadmin. When Amgine was accused of racism, it was Chiacomo and CSpurrier who advised us of the "Princess Bride" source...point being, the facts show they tend to lean the same way on important matters and support each other when necessary. If Chiacomo and CSpurrier had voted similar to the other ArbCom members on Amgine's case, there would have been a completely different remedy situation, my review shows. Bottom Line; Amgine is Wikinews' boldest policy maker. All 3 are admins, 2 are now Checkusers, and this vote could make 2 of them our most active bureaucrats. Does the community want this much power concentrated in the hands of these 3 individuals? Is it necessary? Does it makes sense? What's best for Wikinews? Redman 17:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Sock puppet of blocked user. - Amgine | talk en.WN 06:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps existing Bureaucrats should indicate whether they think they need help? I suspect they do not. --Chiacomo (talk) 21:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, if they needed help, they would have asked for it. And perhaps, your question in that regard, could (and should) have been asked before accepting the nomination. Redman 22:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Sock puppet of blocked user. - Amgine | talk en.WN 06:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The vote is 8:2. thats 80%, and I think thats a majority. Since its past seven days, if no one objects, I'll ask the stewards to complete the task. Bawolff ☺☻  20:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.

July 2006 edit

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

User:FellowWikiNews edit

I would like to nominate myself for adminship. I've been here long enough, and know how everything works. Well...that's how I feel. Mabie other people think opposite?!? I'd like to help if I can. I'm particularly active with Portal:Canada, and articles related.

I accept. FellowWikiNews (W) 00:17, 7 July 2006 (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:MyName edit

After being blocked all last week for someting I did not do, I would like to see if the community has trust in me. I have been contributing for about a month. The main reason I would like to become an admin is to be able to block vandals before they do their damage. I have witnessed many times when I was on wikinews and a vandal was reeking havoc and no admin was there to stop them. Had I been an admin the damage would have been prevented.

I accept! MyName 20:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On his user page he says "I used to be a vandal.” --Cspurrier 15:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of the Admin's page or the talk page of the nominated user). 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.

Doldrums edit

Since joining in October of last year, Doldrums has amassed a total of 2663 edits, which is more than most admins have. When he's not busy fighting vandalism, welcoming newbies or copyediting countless articles he's writing comprehensive stories himself; most recently for example International bodies express concern over Israel-Hezbollah conflict. Therefore, I'd like to nominate him for the adminship. --Deprifry|+T+ 17:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, i accept. :) Doldrums 17:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
<sob> that's the most beautiful thing anyone's ever said to me. Doldrums 08:47, 25 July 2006 (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.

August 2006 edit

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

Nzgabriel edit

I would like to nominate Nzgabriel.‎ I think his edits over the past months have demonstrated a dedication to the project and a good understanding of the goals (well over 60 articles published). He is a valuable member of the community and I feel he would be a valuable addition to our administration team Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 08:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accept nomination - thanks. nzgabriel 08:10, 23 August 2006 (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.

DragonFire1024 edit

This Wikinewsie has been a great assistance to Wikinews, contributing to hundreds of stories, including an entire series of articles, since he first joined. His last RFA was three months ago, and I'm sure he's definitely learned from his mistakes by now. I would be honored if this user could serve Wikinews as an administrator. —this is messedrocker (talk) 00:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept or reject nomination here:
Accept. Jason Safoutin 15:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And what have I done to that would be distrustful? You have always said that but have yet to state a reason as to why. Jason Safoutin 15:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That was not the reason for that and I think you are well aware of that. Jason Safoutin 17:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that with the exception of one block all were overturned almost immediately. Jason Safoutin 15:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I have been away for a while, but before I left I had noticed that my objections from last time seemed to no longer be true, and was considering renominating him/her myself sometime in the near future, I think DragonFire has learned from his/her mistakes, assuming nothing derastic has happened when I was away, would be a great admin. Bawolff ☺☻  04:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. —a word about the admin de-admin incident that was mentioned above (which I'm assuming was in response to the arbcom and mrm thing, correct me if I'm wrong). I disagreed with that strongly (de-admining everyone), (and still do) however we all make mistakes, and I don't think an isolated incident a while ago, is enough to stop you from becoming an admin. Bawolff ☺☻  04:16, 24 August 2006 (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 2006 edit

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

User:Crimson edit

User:Crimson has been editing on Wikinews since the beginning of August and has contributed a number of well-written articles, covering local stories from Canada as well as synthesis articles from around the world since then (eg. New Democrats score upset in Ontario's Parkdale-High Park by-election, Scottish Socialist Party to split as Sheridan launches new party, 5 killed as bus from New York City to Montreal crashes, see user page for a fuller list). He became an accredited reporter on August 31.

I find User:Crimson a valuable contributor to articles and helpful and knowledgable in discussions. I would like to nominate him for adminship. Doldrums 17:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I accept with thanks. Crimson 17:45, 20 September 2006 (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.

October 2006 edit

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

User:Stevenfruitsmaak edit

I would like to nominate user Stevenfruitsmaak for administrator. Contributes regularly, and gives the impression of being someone who can be trusted with the extra buttons. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I accept. I don't promise to be the most user-blocking, article-deleting, archiving, using-the-mop-and-bucket person around, I still prefer just to write, and will probably request accreditation some day. However, since I'm a wikiholic who hates leaving things messy and unfinished, I'll probably use the buttons from time to time.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and Comment - Yea! I'm your first. By the way, since you were talking about this, could you take a look at Template:Archive? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thunderhead (talk • contribs) 19:14, 11 October 2006
  • Neutral The question is if we make this user admin will he ever use his admin tools? I truly do not understand the need to rush an admin nomination through as we have quite a stable of janitors as it is, imo. FellowWikiNews (W) 21:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll probably use them from time to time once I would have them, but I'm not an RC-patroller etc. I agree that there seems to be no lack of maintenance at the moment.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikinews Admin's arent that scare, but I'll still support. I spend like 1 hour per day on WN:RC. lol Thunderhead(talk) 22:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would gladly respond to any WN:ALERTs you post while patrolling RC.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:34, 12 October 2006 (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:Thunderhead edit

Not to be standoffish, but I am nominating myself for Adminship. I don't really expect complete support, since I've only been here for a while, but I feel that I have made quite significant edits to the wiki, and that I have been marking articles for quite a while. I have launched the Wikinews Humor project, and I have made anon edits at work, school, and home. I also admin the Ace Combat Wikia on w:Wikia, so I have some knowledge of the admin tools. Thunderhead(talk) 22:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC) I was once known as User:Urameshi2[reply]

Accept Just in case nomination doesn't count. Thunderhead(talk) 22:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions edit

I know I'm doing something more wikipedia-like but I don't think a little structure can harm.

I'm a bit confused by your account rename, that's why I have some questions, to make sure that I understand your level of experience here correctly.

  1. How long have you been on Wikinews? Have you been on other Wikimedia projects as well (besides wikia)?
  2. Which articles have you started or made major contributions too? Any ones you're particularly proud of, or that show your understanding of Wikinews and how it works?
  3. Have you ran into any conflicts with other users before? How was the problem resolved?
  4. What sysop chores would you like to do?
  5. What are your strong sides and your pitfalls here on WikiNews?

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! I'd be happy to answer your questions!
  1. At least a year, with my recent edits being in the past two months.
  2. Yes, I am on Wikipedia, Wiktionary, and Wikibooks, although I have not made major edits except on News or 'Pedia.
  3. Check here. I have started Wikinews:Humor, and I have been a Wikignome for most of my career here.
  4. Nope. No conflicts ever. :)
  5. I would just like to be able to help Wikinews in the best way I can, and I have found that I would like to be an administrator to help with my gnome edits.
  6. Well, I have always tried my best to be helpful, I haven't really run in to any problems, and I have alot of knowledge of Mediawiki I also consider myself to be polite.. My pitfalls are that I tend to ask fairly obvious questions sometimes, and that I have occasionally copy/pasted before I was reminded to not to do so.

Any other questions? Go ahead! Thunderhead(talk) 20:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Exactly what stories have you written as an anon? It's hard to find if the ip-address changes a lot... Although you have some confirmed. And which did you start when you where logged in, only the latest Al-Qaeda 9/11 story?
  2. Do you still make anon edits? Why is that?

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Well, my last logged-in was the latest FDA E. coli (I think), although a few were deleted for Template:copyvio, although I did write a temp article. I never recieved anything on that. Another one I wrote is US Air Force chief proposes using non-lethal military weapons domestically, and Sharapova takes U.S. tennis title. One more I wrote is Child abuse case in West Virginia ends in jail time
  2. My school does not allow us to login to anything, so I have to make anon edits on WN at school, although i will say unlogged @ school on mine.

Comments edit

Support edit

Neutral edit

  • neutral, yes, i feel more neutral for that case,i don't agree with some PVJ actions but i do not think it's the solution. PVJ59 shown us something we must manage. But he must also understand that categories, that are usefull and meaningfull as topics used to describe articles, are not involved to insult or critics anyone. Have you read phylosophe Terry Pratchett Discworld books ? The last (or something) called "Thud!" is about war between Trolls and Dwarves, about racial intolerance (and coppers and Where's my cow™). But to understand it fully you'ld read the 29th previous!!! :) Jacques Divol 20:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thank you for the comments. Trust me, I will be applying for adminship later (because I sure won't get it now :P). Thanks again! Thunderhead(talk) 21:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i apologies very much. I write my comment on the wrong place, it was about PVJ59, not you, sorry ... Jacques Divol

Oppose edit

Can I ask what I did wrong? I understand that we have alot of Admins, but what did I do wrong? Thunderhead(talk) 13:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would not be comfortable revealing exactly what you did to influence my opinion of you in this manner. However I can tell you that I do not think that users who go "behind the backs" of other users should be allowed to have Administrator privileges. Transperency is a must on Wikinews, as anywhere else. Best of luck with your RfA. PVJ(Talk)(Articles I have written)   14:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you for telling me that. I will do my best to "be bold" on Wikinews. Thanks! Thunderhead(talk) 17:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PVJ...and you're the pot calling the kettle black. Jason Safoutin 21:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm, I've seen a lot of people (basicly almost every admin, besides well, Karen is the only exception I can think of. Note I'm including myself in that list.) go behind peoples back at one time or another (I'm not saying Everyones done major stuff behind someone elses back, but most people have dones something minnor at one point.) I know you don't want to reveal specifics, but I'm really curious as to what happened Bawolff ☺☻  02:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was just my personal judgement that if he is given sysop access, he may use it in a way that is not compatible with the level of openness that we except from our Administrators, especially when dealing with blocks of users. PVJ(Talk)(Articles I have written)   02:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Bawolff ☺☻  03:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: This user has obvious good qualities: humour, friendly, helpful, knows MediaWiki... Although I'm sure this is admin material because he loves gnome edits, this user has a such a high level of those edits with very few (only one? I'll change my opinion if I'm mistaken here) story he started. I believe you learn how this place works by writing news stories, which might explain the "obvious questions". Also, usage of edit summary seems rather low, which I think is a kind of Good Admin Practice. I really don't want to sound pretentious since I'm quite the newbie-admin, but maybe it's better to wait a month and a few stories?--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you for your comments! Thunderhead(talk) 20:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Stevenfruitsmaak has it down exactly. Thunderhead has alot of good qualities, but also a lack of any major story writing. With no real urgent need for adminship, I think it is best to wait a bit. --Cspurrier 01:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why thats such a problem. Lets look at Admin tasks: Fixing images that commons deleted, Gnome like edits to archiving, Archiving, Deleting, protecting edit war zones, Blocking. These Are all Matinance/Gnome like tasks. Also Some other admins, have made very few articles (my grand total is 2 - which wern't very good, I don't think Karen has made very many either (don't quote me on that)) Bawolff ☺☻  03:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A lack of story writing can be made up for by a lot on talk pages or community pages, by a urgent need for new admins (iirc when you became an admin we were still getting off hour vandalism) or by am overwhelming amount Gnome tasks (like Karen). Since Thunderhead has not done any of these, I can not say I know him well enough to trust him with adminship.--Cspurrier 17:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you for your comments! Thunderhead(talk) 20:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, no real criticisms but try again when you've more edits and given people time to build a better picture of you as a contributor. I don't think we should refuse on the grounds of "enough administrators", but less than 100 edits in the Main namespace isn't enough to form an opinion. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you for your comments! Thunderhead(talk) 20:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, I don't want to discourage you as a contributor because you do useful work. However, I want to see you being more involved by doing things like rescuing poorly sourced articles instead of tagging them. Best summed up as, "Practice random acts of kindness". Nobody can do it all the time, and some things just need tagged, but contributing at a level where you get more feedback on - or more viewing of - your contributions will build people's trust. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks for the advice. I am pretty sure I'm not going to get it this time, although I do see that I have earned the trust, and support from many contributors (including some who oppose). I will try again in a while, but until then, thanks for the advice. Thunderhead(talk) 16:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, based on [28]. Why the hell is there a) a need for a NS wikia when there's already an individual NationStates wiki, and b) a need to advertise this RFA there? NSLE 05:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about, and how can you base a decsision off that? Wikia is an entirely seperate Wiki, and has nothing to do with my Wiki status here. Thunderhead(talk) 05:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think desicions for this should be allowed to be based on actions at other wikis, unless it directly has to do with Wikinews. Bawolff ☺☻  17:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of the Admin's page or the talk page of the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for de-adminship. Please do not modify it.

De-adminship: User:PVJ59 edit

Ended with user leaving project. User returned to project . As much as I appreciate PVJ's efforts to make Wikinews more neutral, I can't say that I can trust him as an admin. Admins are expected to be civil, yet PVJ in the whole Category talk:Israel debacle made very intimidating comments towards people of Israel. In fact, a contributor from Israel pointed out these highly incivil comments he has made. Additionally, PVJ has violated 3RR too many times (for an administrator), and has at one time unblocked himself so he could make a comment. I would still like PVJ59 to be a contributor, but I think he should spend some time without his admin tools so he can regain the trust of the community. —this is messedrocker (talk) 17:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PVJ59 has posted a message regarding this RfDA.  — Doldrums(talk) 18:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If my contributions to Wikinews are repaid in the form of my Admin access being withdrawn, I will quit the project. In case the RfDA passes, I ask that my user and user-talk pages be deleted. Thank you. PVJ(Talk)(Articles I have written)   03:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In light of the several messages I am getting regarding my decision to leave if this RfDA passes, I though I should clarify my stand on this matter. Most of the concerns raised by MessedRocker (whose judgement I trust) seem to have more to do with my status as as editor, than as a sysop. Hence, I think that the best way to address those concerns would be to either change my behaviour a bit (that might be tough, but I'm willing to try) or quit (that's pretty much a surefire solution). The part about my temporary unblocks do concern my Administrator status, and I understand why they may be cause for me to lose Admisistratorship-but, like I said, losing sysop status will lead me to (regretfully) retire from Wikinews. Just, in case I do have to leave (i.e if this RfDA passes)I would just like to state that I bear no ill-will to anyone I have worked with on this project, and have no cause to regret a moment of the last six months I have been around here. It truly has been fun-both through the good times and the not-so-good ones. PVJ(Talk)(Articles I have written)   16:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have decided to quit the project with immediate effect. PVJ(Talk)(Articles I have written)   09:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions edit

  • Question: What other possibilities are there? "At their discretion, lesser penalties may also be assessed against problematic administrators, including the restriction of their use of certain powers or placement on administrative probation." 1 Is this an option?--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 00:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In certain cases, Wikipedia policy is transwikied to Wikinews. We are permitted to use their policies where ours is lacking. In this case, however, there doesn't appear to be any facility to implement administrative probation unless the ArbCom becomes involved. --Chiacomo (talk) 05:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

  • Comment: Since it always is an issue in RfDAs, remember Support means remove adminship and Oppose means he should keep his adminship. Also this is PVJ's second RfDA, his first one ended with 6 opposes and 2 supports. --Cspurrier 17:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Note that PVJ59 is currently blocked and will not be able to respond on this page.  — Doldrums(talk) 17:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I generally oppose the RfDA process and will not vote, but will comment. I also think that PVJ's stance on Adminship being a requirement for his editing is unfortunate. Adminship is supposed to be about duties of cleanup, maintaining policy, and being a trusted user to take care of some tasks that we don't want to offer to every editor. It is not supposed to be a function to help a user edit on Wikinews. -- IlyaHaykinson 05:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: After I get about ten support votes (or a difference of ten in favour of me being de-sysoped), I shall retire from the project. I do not, however, wish to imply that I am quitting (it is only a matter of time now) out of any ill-will toward my fellow contributors. It is just that I do not wish to burden Wikinews with my presence if the community does not wish to have me on as an Administrator. I once again urge the community to vote as they please-remember that my departure will not have any catastrophic impact on the project, and thus there is no need for the voters to exercise any sort of restraint while voicing their opinion in this regard. I hope that this unpleasant business will be sorted out quickly so that we may all go back to doing what needs to be done. PVJ(Talk)(Articles I have written)   16:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please reconsider that stance, I'm afraid tha the RfDA should make it clear to you that there are a number of people who are losing trust in you using administrative powers appropriately. I count at least 2 times you've unblocked yourself and two times you've blocked yourself, I'm not going to look for other breaches but I suspect they exist. You can't do that, if you're going to breach the rules you must not breach the ones that normal editors can't. In addition to that, you should only break the rules when you're prepared to take the consequences. It better be a hell of a good point you're trying to make.
Right now you probably still have a good degree of sympathy for some aspects of the POV you've expressed, were you to bring the Israeli recognition issue to any article involving one of the countries that does not recognise it, then you'd get sympathy for working the detail into the story. Beyond that you're questioning the right of the majority of contributors to defer to Wikipedia on the status of Israel. I'm not going to reach for analogies, they been beaten to death in an effort to get you to accept the reasonableness of using a category Israel. As you are repeatedly reminded, the countries who wish it didn't exist have to refer to it in some way, and they frequently use "Israel" with choice adjectives.
Finally, there are ways to express your POV on Wikinews and stay within project guidelines. Through your choice of story submissions you may express your POV, provided that each story is within the project guidelines. So, you ignore U.S. "propaganda" and concentrate on reports from other countries. That way you can look for news that relates to what you consider the under-reported POV and bring them to light alongside the more mainstream coverage that you may not be so happy with. You may have to live with what other contributors add, but if you can't work with that you shouldn't be on a wiki. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have breached the rules before but I believe that it was a combination of circumstances and bad judgement that made me do so. I did not breach policy to harm the project or the community.
The POV of the 24 countries that do not recognise Israel does not necessarily mirror my own. I was only trying to achieve NPOV (perhaps at the cost of hurting some sentiments) in the truest sense of the term. The fact that the Israel issue has led to this point saddens me very deeply.
I keep the "activist" side of me seperate from the "writer" side of me. I do not and will not write articles with the express purpose of representing POVs. PVJ(Talk)(Articles I have written)   18:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean report to represent a POV, but to highlight its existence. As an example, the Canadian story has no congruence with the 24 states that don't recognise Israel, so most people think it is wholly inappropriate there. But the Israel-Lebanon conflict involved Hezbollah, who you've quoted, and was commented on by a lot of countries. Israeli government officials even brought up the non-recognition issue relating to where peacekeepers might come from. I'm sure some of those points should've been given more prominence, so try and stick around and calmly represent that when these issues invariably surface again. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment; Is this really happening? An admin. (MR) who just admitted to facilitating/advising Neutralizer on how to evade a block [29] is now starting an RfDA another admin for evading a block? Is there sense of fairness whatsoever on this page? 70.48.204.32 00:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Technically speaking it's allowed -- it's one of the loopholes of being banned. Also, it wasn't Neutralizer, and I have since withdrew the deal. —this is messedrocker (talk) 00:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is it not true you thought it was Neut you were helping? Isn't helping someone evade a total ban worse than evading a short term block? Give me a break. 70.48.204.32 00:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not at all. He came out, admitted it, and we thanked him for admitting it. You know, you sound alot like Neut, from what I've heard. Thunderhead(talk) 01:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Any non-biased person would feel that an admin who is advising/helping a troll get around a permanent ban is committing a much worse offense than an admin who unblocks himself once or twice which, as you know, many admins did here on a wheel unblocking war awhile back. Any new user who had witnessed that wheel war of admins unblocking themselves would not be supporting this RfDA. MR I am very surprised that you would start this RfDA on such a minor infraction which ,imo, is much less of an infraction than your own. 70.48.204.32 01:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, know I know it's you. Put it this way: MR has his opinions, and you have yours. Leave it at that. Thunderhead(talk) 01:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • MR is an honest guy; I'm sure he'll change his mind about this RfDA once he has some time to think about it; or else, he'll quit himself; to do neither would be quite hypocritical and MR is not a hypocritical guy; period.

03:01, 20 April 2006 Chiacomo (Talk | contribs) unblocked User:Chiacomo (contribs) (Blech)

03:02, 20 April 2006 Chiacomo (Talk | contribs) unblocked Chiacomo (contribs) (Blech)

09:05, 14 April 2006 Brian New Zealand (Talk | contribs) unblocked Brian New Zealand (contribs)

06:32, 19 April 2006 Karen (Talk | contribs) unblocked Karen (contribs) . 70.48.204.32 02:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

02:59, 20 April 2006 Mindspillage (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Chiacomo (contribs)" with an expiry time of infinite (wheel-warring... er, I mean, testing.)

02:59, 20 April 2006 Mindspillage (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "User:Chiacomo (contribs)" with an expiry time of infinite (wheel-warring... er, I mean, testing.) If you look at the log a bit more you will find the reason for the blocks of Chiacomo was testing, unblocking himself in this case was ok --Cspurrier 12:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't we set arbcom up to stop this deadmin crap deadminships? I would suggest this goes to Arbcom, and arbcom member’s recluse themselves if there’s a conflict of interest Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 05:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and the last case, dealing with MrM, got thrown back into this forum: Admin or deAdmin -Edbrown05 06:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I have already mentioned on Messed's talk, most of the concerns raised seem to be related to my comments about Israel, and my habit of temporarily unblocking myself. First, about the temporary unblocks, I (erroneously) though that unblocking myself for a few minutes to make a comment was not too serious an offence, and did not do so with malicious intent. This has been the first time that I havebeen warned that temporary unblocks constitute block-evasion, and I ask that I be given another chance in this regard. As for the fact that the way I express myself is sometimes a bit too direct, that is something that I shall find difficult to change, since it is part of my personality-even in real-life (I have recieved more than my share of black eyes and cut lips). In this case, I was very straight forward in my comments on Israel. But, had I been campaigning againt a "Palestinian recognition POV", I would have been just as direct, and would (I am sure) have made very clear my views on the existence of Palestine. The same applies to any POV that I might have held, and it is a matter of my own behaviour rather than a case of my being intentionally disrespectful in my comments. Yes, sometimes I am too direct in my criticism, but am just as open with my praise. I have never (intentionally) used POV disputes to hurt users and have always been on good terms even with editors who disagree with me on certain issues. The fact is that if this RfDA passes (which seems likely) I shall retire from the project (that is a certainty). However, I would hate to quit just as much as I would hate to lose my sysop status. Hence, I ask that some alternative be proposed (if possible) to this RfDA. Again, I realise that it is almost certain that I will not be here as an Administrator after the 28th, and would not hold any grudge against those who initiated this process or supported it, do not hold them, in any way, responsible for my departure. PVJ(Talk)(Articles I have written)   13:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support edit

This user has personally attacked me on many occasions, has recently joined Wikinews with the declared intention of "joining a fight" and has contributed close to nothing to the project. If it will not affect the result, I ask that his vote be discounted. PVJ(Talk)(Articles I have written)   19:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I tend to agree in this aspect and is very suspicious like. Has the user been checkusered? Jason Safoutin 22:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What you think he is Neutralizer or MyName? I doubt it. You don't just "checkuser someone" unless you have a reason. Nyarlathotep 10:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't been paying attention. Blueline did nothing wrong or suspicious at all and she was checkusered and permanently banned. Checkuser is now being played with like a power tool. 65.95.151.190 21:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's with all of this Neutralizer or MyName stuff? Do you all fail to see that Neutralizer IS MyName? 148.233.159.57 21:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. PVJ59 is a prolific and valuable contributor to this project and i appreciate the articles he's written, bringing expanded coverage of events around the world and his attempt to broaden the range of povs Wikinews articles present. I do, however, find his use of administrator powers violate policies too frequently (see below) and i see too little an attempt to change it to overlook them.
  • user has been blocked 4 times (7 July, 16 July, 21 September, 19 October) in the last 4 months for violating 3RR.
  • unblocked himself 5 times (20 October, (22:38) 19 October 2006, 21 September, (18:11) 8 July, (12:27) 8 July) for either either not agreeing to the block or to post alerts, apparently does not appear to know or appear to care that the same result can be obtained by posting to his talk page, e-mailing an admin or getting on IRC, which doesn't involve breaking policy.
  • unblocked himself and then blocked user he was involved in editorial dispute with:
22:31, 20 October 2006 PVJ59 (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Doldrums (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR-see WN:ALERT)
13:35, 20 October 2006 PVJ59 (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked PVJ59 (contribs) (I was not "avoiding" anything, please reblock with a proper reason)
11:58, 17 October 2006 PVJ59 (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Islamic Republic Government Banned Internet" (Nonsense article, should have been speedied.)
  • another speedy which was subsequently restored, sourced, expanded and published.
20:51, 13 June 2006 PVJ59 (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Feminist Gathering in Tehran Violently Interrupted by the Police" (No sources.)
  • protected an article he was involved in a dispute in
21:31, 12 October 2006 PVJ59 (Talk | contribs | block) protected "Small aircraft crashes into NYC building - Alert to remain unchanged" (Prevent unilateral POV-pushing by IP vandal. [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])
  • edited article (more pov dispute) after unblocking himself.
14:19, 20 October 2006 PVJ59 (Talk | contribs | block) (Rv POV-pushing)
13:35, 20 October 2006 PVJ59 (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked PVJ59 (contribs) (I was not "avoiding" anything, please reblock with a proper reason)
01:28, 20 October 2006 Cspurrier (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "PVJ59 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week (replaced 'Block avoidance' block)

i am prepared to consider alternatives to da-admining him if i am convinced that there won't be continued infractions from this administrator. i do note, though, that even as this RfDA is underway, he has twice blocked a user he is in dispute with, apparently for echoing his own comment about "annihilation", despite saying "I will also not threaten users with blocks except in cases of obvious violations".

09:05, 25 October 2006 PVJ59 (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Daniel575 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Persists in being incivil and attacking the community and individual users despite several warnings)
19:01, 24 October 2006 PVJ59 (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Daniel575 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 3 hours (Continued personal attacks and incivility despite multiple warnings)
I only blocked this user beacuse of his allegations of "anti-Semitism" against certain users. PVJ(Talk)(Articles I have written)   09:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral edit

  • yes, i feel more neutral for that case,i don't agree with some PVJ actions but i do not think it's the solution. PVJ59 shown us something we must manage. But he must also understand that categories, that are usefull and meaningfull as topics used to describe articles, are not involved to insult or critics anyone. Have you read phylosophe Terry Pratchett Discworld books ? The last (or something) called "Thud!" is about war between Trolls and Dwarves, about racial intolerance (and coppers and Where's my cow™). But to understand it fully you'ld read the 29th previous!!! :) Jacques Divol 20:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several of PVJ’s actions have bothered me greatly. His many violations of the 3rr show a disrespect for the community. His unblocking himself and his many threats of blocks for those he fights with, are both also highly inappropriate for an admin. However, PVJ’s editor related contributions are many and quality. I would hate to see us lose PVJ. If he is willing to commit to stop violating the 3rr and stop threatening users with blocks, I would be willing to change this vote to oppose (keep adminship). --Cspurrier 20:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did not mean to disrespect the community or the project by violating 3RR, and did so in the heat of the moment. I assure you that it will not happen again. I will also not threaten users with blocks except in cases of obvious violations. PVJ(Talk)(Articles I have written)   03:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose edit

* Oppose- seems overreactive to me. Blueline 16:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC) to explain; I believe in forgiveness and peaceful solutions to disagreements so I do not want him to be kicked off the administrative job. A sports arena is a good place for fights but I do not see his actions as being very different from several other administrators so I think they are all doing good work for no money so I want them all to stay as long as they want. Blueline 16:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC) sock of Neutralizer --Cspurrier 17:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Oppose-By DeAdmining PVJ we risk losing him, as he stated. If this happens, Wikinews will stray to an even further pro-western bias than it already has. This would be detrimental to Wikinews. Remember how Wikinews' popularity falls when Neutralizer is banned? The same loss of popularity will occur when PVJ resigns because of this. Think people think. Tohstsalstuen 17:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC) New user using an open proxy, using a sock and is a probbaly sock of Neutralizer --Cspurrier 17:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • OpposeMessed and Cspurrier supported MrM and Amgine when they committed much worse and more frequent misuse of their admin powers.This is simply an attempt to silence the one administrator who is willing to fight the anglo-american pov which is (perhaps unknowingly) being pushed by many of our admins. It would be very harmful to the Wikinews project if this indirect form of censorship is successful. Paulrevere2005 17:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
COmment: Have those users been added to the list of Neutralizer socks? Jason Safoutin 22:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IDemand that Cspurrier use checkuser on Tohstsalstuen or else withdraw his allegation that it is"probably" a sock of Neut. Also, Cspurrier when supporting MR said it's ok for banned users to come back if they behave [31] yet he bans Blueliner when she did nothing wrong at all. This seems like selective rule enforcement which should not be allowed here,imo. 70.48.204.32 00:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There was a CheckUser. It matched. And stop pretending to not be Neutralizer, Neutralizer. You've been banned. —this is messedrocker (talk) 00:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NO ask Cspurrier; he'll tell you he did NOT do a checkuser on Tohstsalstuen which showed him to be a sock of Neut. That's just not true....so it is wrong for him to say above it is "probably" a sock of Neut's. 70.48.204.32 01:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above referenced user was editing from an open proxy. See M:WM:NOP for more information on the prohibition against editing from an open proxy. This is not the proper venue for this discussion. WN:ALERT might be better. --Chiacomo (talk) 05:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Giveus a break; it was Cspurrier who brought the false accusation that Tohstsalstuen is a sock of Neut's into this discussion andyour(Chiacomo)'s unblocking of yourself twice with no penalty at all is certainly part of this discussion;

- 03:01, 20 April 2006 Chiacomo (Talk | contribs) unblocked User:Chiacomo (contribs) (Blech) - - 03:02, 20 April 2006 Chiacomo (Talk | contribs) unblocked Chiacomo (contribs) (Blech) 67.71.121.73 10:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you'll look at the block log you'll see that we were testing block behavior -- the actual blocks say things like "test" and "testing". I've never been blocked "for cause" on Wikinews -- only to test features. --Chiacomo (talk) 22:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SInce being unblocked in June my only socks are: User:Neutralizer and User:MyName. ANY MORE QUESTIONS? 148.233.159.57 21:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of the Admin's page or the talk page of the nominated user). 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:Skenmy edit

Current Count: 6/2/2

I am nominating myself for en:Wikinews adminship as I feel that I would be able to make a good contribution to the community in the admin field, whether it be helping with chores, menial tasks, or vandal-fighting (although we thankfully get very little vandalism compared with Wikipedia, where I am primarily a vandal fighter).

I was originally drawn to Wikinews by a link on the Wikipedia homepage. I have no idea why I have chosen to stay - but I love the project and what it provides and offers, and I hope that this somewhat shows through my contributions. I am especially proud of the articles I have written, all the way back from my very first article at Pelicans held on suspicion of being drunk up to my most recent article (published today) at Two children killed by carbon monoxide poisoning in Corfu. I have also dipped into the Original Reporting pool with my article PDPC President Rob Levin has died. My full article list is available here on my User page.

While my edit count is not high by any means (at sub 200 edits at just over 200 edits at just over 300 edits) I feel proud that every one of my edits has been constructive, and I, to my knowledge, have never done anything detrimental to the Wikinews community, such as become involved in article wars. I feel that my previous experience on en:Wikipedia, as well as on my own three wikis that I administrate (using the MediaWiki software), will assist me in assisting the Wikinews community in any way I can and/or am called to do so.

I ask that you vote truthfully, and give reasons for your vote. I will gladly accept any Oppose votes with any constructive criticism of myself or my articles, and/or with suggestions on how to improve for the future so that one day I may renominate myself for adminship. Various links that may assist you in voting are placed after this statement. --Skenmy(t•c•w•i) 10:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Contributions • Edit Count)

Accept as nominator - just in case nomination doesn't count. --Skenmy(t•c•w•i) 10:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Brianmc mutters something about reading tea leaves and personally needing another 266 edits. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:30, 2 November 2006 (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 2006 edit

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

User:Zanimum edit

I would like to nominate Nicholas Moreau, Zanimum (talk · contribs), for adminship. I thought he already was one, and I feel this is an overall level-headed, well-established and respected user.

Zanimum is an accredited reporter with experience as a local journalist who has written 72 105 articles according to his user page (making him a staff lead reporter), mainly since August 2005 and somehow linked to Category:Culture and entertainment (he has an interest in art). His contributions are both original, based on press releases and compiled from news articles. Recently he was appreciated for his interviews on the Regional Council elections in Canada with a trophy and barnstar. His edit count tells us he has over 1200 edits in main, and edits across all namespaces totalling near 2000 edits (when I wrote this). He discusses the project and proposes new ideas, such as meta:Scheduled attendance for Wikinews or Commons. His usage of edit summary seems low but I'm sure this could be improved in the future.

Reading his talk page, I get the impression he is a well appreciated community member who collaborates nicely and never had troubles with anyone.

He's an admin on the English Wikipedia and a member of the Wikimedia Foundation's Communications Committee. He's been active on Wiki's since 2004. For some more impressive facts about Zanimum on pedia, see w:User:Zanimum/archive. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stevenfruitsmaak (talk • contribs) 17:59, 11 November 2006

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. -- Zanimum 21:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

  1. Have you ran into any conflicts with other users before? How was the problem resolved? One user has scheduled to do original reporting on an event of national significance to Canada. The event was televised, and could be reported on from home, provided the user had cable or (legal) satellite service. What was ultimately needed was a photographer. I only found out they were going to event, after emailing the organizers asking to attend as a photographer. The user didn't even end up going in the end. As a result, I've created the "Scheduled attendance for Wikinews or Commons" page on Meta.
  2. What sysop chores would you like to do? Deleting spam, retro-adding categories to archived articles.
  3. What are your strong sides and your pitfalls here on Wikinews? I am a professional copyrighter for a website, as of last Monday, so I am actively brushing up on my literary ability. My article sometimes are too focused in interest, like ad industry and feminists, prairie newsjunkies, and talk show viewers.
  4. If you become a sysop, do you plan to use your admin powers often as you edit, or not as often? Why? Well, as often as I see spam come along, or I create a category that seems to be warranted due to a volume of articles. (recently I have created the category "World record" and the subcat "Elections in Canada".

Votes and Comments

  1. Support as nom.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --Cspurrier 18:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support  — Doldrums(talk) 18:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support, assuming candidate accepts. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support, Not able to fully comprehend the answers to the questions but seems like a good user. --Skenmy(t•c•w•i) 18:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. support Definitly should be an admin. Bawolff ☺☻ 20:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Looks like I gotta Support! Man, everyone is RFAing! Thunderhead(talk)(Check out my RFA test) 21:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. -- IlyaHaykinson 22:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Jacques Divol 09:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support, a well-established user on wikinews. Shyam (T/C) 09:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Thought he was one already. Zeest(Talk)(Newpages)   10:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support per PVJ. —FellowWikiNews (W) 17:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Crimson 01:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support --Nzgabriel | Talk 00:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I'm running for adminship after this one is done. Thunderhead(talk)(Check out my RFA test) 00:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. --Nearly Headless Nick 11:54, 17 November 2006 (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:Thunderhead edit

I am going to nominate myself for another RFA as per my RFA test.

I may not have written but a few articles, however I feel that my contributions to Wikinews have been significant enough that you may trust me with administrative privlages. I missed consensus by two votes which were both oppose. I have, however worked things out with PVJ. I feel that Wikinews may not be short on administrators, that we need to continually maintain anti-vandal administrators so that we can continually fight the War on Vandalisim. I hope that the Wikinews community will recognize Special:Contributions/Thunderhead my contributions to the project. If I do not recieve adminship this time, I will try again in February 2007. To avoid confusion, my previous username was User:Urameshi2. Questions are always welcome. Thunderhead(talk)(Check out my RFA test) 23:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Support There is nothing bad to say about you or your edits. I trust you to be admin. FellowWikiNews (W) 23:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I wrote on your test Good luck in February, since this is not February. I implied that I would support you in February (since that's when you said you would run again). You lied Thunderhead! In case you don't know it, this is November, February is 3 months away. I stand by my decision on your test. Good luck in February terinjokes User Page / Talk 03:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support-- Zeest(Talk)(Newpages)   07:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral - I honestly believe that the user needs to place far less importance on becoming an admin (per RfA Test, Peer Review, previous nominations) and slow down - concentrate on getting some more good articles done before ladening yourself with admin tasks. I would support a nomination in February. --Skenmy(t•c•w•i) 09:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support--Nearly Headless Nick 16:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. Thunderhead has been an enthusiastic contributor, particularly active in discussions. but i don't see contributions to articles, project pages or discussions that highlight his understanding of policies (have i missed something?). the user's relatively low proportion of contributions to main and project space and relatively high prop. on user and user talk pages has also weighed in my take on this. perhaps the user can point out contributions he feels are notable or demonstrate his ability to use the buttons well.  — Doldrums(talk) 15:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
some rather odd edits as well, [32], [33], [34].  — Doldrums(talk) 15:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose : to early, need some months of fun on wikinews !Jacques Divol 09:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of the Admin's page or the talk page of the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.


December 2006 edit

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

User:Terinjokes edit

In honour of Brian New Zealand being up for adminship over on wikipedia. I've decided to nominate myself for adminship. I've been a Wikinews contributor for about 2 years, with an undisclosed amount of user edits (well, the tool is currently offline...) Terinjokes is a major supporter of Audio Wikinews and Wikinews Network projects, even creating Audio Wikinews Newsline (currently looking for someone to host an asterisk server, contact me on my talk if your interested!) Terinjokes would be a great addition to the Wikinews Admin Team. terinjokes User Page / Talk 07:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has come to my attention Craig Spurrier is up for Stewart as well terinjokes User Page / Talk 20:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Steven Fruitsmaak:

  1. Is Terinjokes going to list himself in Category:Admins open to recall?
  2. What does Terinjokes think about User:Mrmiscellanious/Admin Code of Conduct? What would he add to it? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answers 21:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

  1. Since I strive for teamwork, as well as trust, I'll gladly add myself (not like anyone would actually need to put me up for reconfirmation). Again, if anyone has any has any comments for me (reguarding, well anything) there are many ways of contacting me. I'm always open to what other people think, and treat each one with the respect it deserves.
  2. Most of the Admin Code of Conduct make natual sense. The only one I disagree with is Enjoy editing Wikinews, and have plenty of WN:TEA. The first part I totally agree to; however, not so certain about the second half. I would probably add a suggestion for people to visit the WikiBistro.
Terinjokes deems that too boring. terinjokes User Page / Talk 20:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • definite support. He's been behind the scences forever, which means he know's the project well. I think he'd make an excellent admin. Bawolff ☺☻ 06:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Should probably sign posts though.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose(Bawolff crossed out this oppose, as Fellowwikinews is opposing twice, and he has one vote. This is to make sure the votes don't get miscounted. Please see his entry near the bottom. the user is still opposing.) Some disturbing comments have been made towards my user page and how it bothers him "Every freaking time". It is a violation of WN:E for a user to nominate my user space for speedy deletion. It is more appropriate to discuss it on my talk page than nominate my own user space for speedy deletion. There are many other reasons why I am voting oppose. Also, I believe this may be too early of a nomination for the user as he does not have enough article edits, for me. I have reviewed all of his edits. In the future I might vote Neutral or even Support. —FellowWikiNews (W)   23:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Today, December 11th, 2006. I, Terinjokes made a few irrational decisions while sugar high.
One of these decision resulted in offending a fellow wikinews user, FellowWikiNews. 

After visiting FellowWikiNews's user talk to leave a comment in response to Wikinews:Administrators,
I was informed that I had new messages, or so I thought.
Turns out I, again, fell pray to FellowWikiNews's practical joke. In a rather dry response,
I sarcastically nominated one of FellowWikiNews's user pages for speedy deletion.
Despite not using the official template, and removing the categories,
I still realise that I broke some Wikinews policies, and breaking the trust of FellowWikiNews.
Its the latter that saddens me more.

It takes a long time to gain the trust of a community, and it hurts me to lose the trust of FellowWikiNews.
My tasteless joke backfired, destroying the very thing I made the joke upon.

I hope FellowWikiNews excepts my apology, as I prepare for the long road of regaining his trust.
I, after breaking policy and vandalising another user's userpage,
deserve whatever consequences I've brought against myself.
terinjokes User Page / Talk
Comment I believe we all need a quick review on our Etiquette terinjokes User Page / Talk 03:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to have to disagree with your statement there Thunderhead. Being admin material ≠ large edit counts. Some of the best admins don't edit like crazy. Yes, they edit. But edit count is only one part. Pulling RfA out of the archives, Amgine was elected an administrator to Wikipedia, despite not editing for almost an entire year! And even with that, a low edit count. I've been here for 2 years; whereas digging through the archives here, Amgine nominated MessedRocker only after 3 months of being a user! terinjokes User Page / Talk 03:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Honestly, I found that your decision making while on "sugar high" were inappropriate and your appoligy reminded me of a six year old trying to get out of trouble. It's irresponcible decision making and shouldn't be rewarded by you receiving adminship. Momodamonkey 01:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is truth to what you write. It was a very inappropriate decision. However my apology came from the heart. I'm not the type of person to make such irrational decisions, as I believe anyone who knows me knows. I'm probably one the the best people for the job; some of the Admins here consider me (and have for awhile) Admin material. Yes I made a stupid decision, of which I'm paying the consequences for. However, that is not who I am, it was one mistake, one that I regret. But don't we all make a mistake every once in a while? We're all humans, now aren't we? terinjokes User Page / Talk 03:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I've seen much worse from people who were already admins. This is one isolated incident, he said he was sorry, he sounded very sinceer in his apology, I don't think he's going to do it again. Often times people say things, hit save, and it ends up being a lot harsher then they meant to say it. (90% of people misinterpet what they read online article comes to mind) I honestly think theres been a bit of an overreaction. Bawolff ☺☻ 06:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh thank you for pulling that out of the archives! My first Orginal Reporting, and almost killed too... :D terinjokes | Talk | Come visit the WikiBistro 10:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose Right after offending me by nominating my user space for speedy deletion you insult me again by putting "Interesting twist on OR". Please do not accuse me of "twisting with the rules". FYI, I have done more OR than you have done. Morning polling causes late students is your first OR article, it is a very short article especially when it comes to OR. I would exept more from you because you are an accredited reporter. I truly belive that you are not sutable yet to be admin. There are many other reasons why I am voting oppose. —FellowWikiNews (W)   22:37, 12 December

2006 (UTC)

Feel free to elaborate on those reasons, so we can form our own opinion on that.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I too support the elaborations, in my response to Stevenfruitsmaak's question I wrote: "I'm always open to what other people think, and treat each one with the respect it deserves." (bawolff has this really cool template he uses for quoting...might have to ask how he does it). I continue to stand by my words, in which I stand by here on WikiNews, over on Wikipedia, to the Trillian Discussion Boards, back to the Wikinews IRC, it even extends into real life. I always like to hear what others think of me, so I'd rather have them said to my face, so I may make neccessary changes, then whispered behind my back. terinjokes | Talk | Come visit the WikiBistro 20:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, thats MrM's template, and its template:quote. Other alternitives are template:q and template:cquote (In wikipedia style). Bawolff ☺☻ 00:34, 14 December 2006 (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_3&oldid=4559492"