text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Administrator/Simeon

Simeon
Simeon has been quietly working away on articles, policies and categories. As far as I can tell, he has remained calm in debates and gets along well with the rest of the community. I think he would make an excellent admin.--Eloquence 11:12, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose Having been an administrator before with CNN in a very active live chat, and being responsible for training other Chat Cops, one thing about Simeon has saddened me: I don't believe he knows that what he is doing is wrong.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A day or two ago I would have had a very neutral attitude about Simeon regardless of his blow up in MIRC or our first unhappy encounter. But I read somewhere, "Know a man by his acts." And now I must ask that his nomination be reconsidered. --HiFlyer 15:47, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC) --HiFlyer 22:14, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral please change my vote in the interest of community unity. Let's shake and make it work, Simmo.

 * support; When perusing his user page links, his dedication to the online collaboration process comes through loud and clear. Paulrevere2005 12:31, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Support; same reasons as eloquence. ~The bellman | Smile  14:20, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Support We don't really need admins now, but assuming my crazy prophecies are fulfilled we will need several dozen! → CGorman (Talk)  14:30, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Crazy? Since when has scheming for world domination been crazy? Have faith man. ~The bellman | Smile  11:32, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose, nothing personal, I just think we have plenty of admins already and not every good editor needs to be an admin. Dan100 (Talk) 17:35, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * comment; nothing personal, but as recently as March 31st., Dan100 inserted onto this page "I'd like my adminship"; so,if Dan100 thought more admins were needed 3 days ago,perhaps he was correct then. Paulrevere2005 02:37, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I have to point out that I find this reasoning not actionable. I think actionable reasons (e.g. reasons pertaining to the user's behavior, or duration of stay) should be brought up to oppose any adminship.--Eloquence 03:01, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * As Jimbo says (although in reference to the 'pedia rather than wikinews) adminship is no big deal. It's not some secret society that has any great power. Anything that an admin can do can be undone. The only reason that everyone doesnt have admin powers is cause they could be abused by vandals or misused by newbies. Really its just a couple more tabs at the top of the page, which in time of emergency (such as an attack by vandals) it is good to have as many trusted users as possible to have. If there isnt much admin work to go around and lots of admins, all the better since that means that we arent likely to see the kind of exushtion that some admins on the 'pedia feel. ~The bellman | Smile  03:20, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * OK, well I accept on this basis ;) Thanks for the nice comments. - Simeon 09:21, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Support Excellent reporter, editor, with a knack for witty headlines. - Amgine 03:30, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. In light of The bellman's convincing argument in support of this nomination, I am moved to support Simeon for Administrator, even though I agree with Dan100's assessment that we have enough of 'em. It also doesn't hurt that Eloquence was the one who made the nomination. I trust Simeon to do the right thing. — DV 13:10, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Support - Need admins who are awake when Europe and the Americas are sleeping. :-) -- Davodd | Talk 04:55, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * And when the other token aussie admin is sleeping because of his strange sleeping habits... :P ~The bellman | Smile  06:39, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Good thinking Davodd... but I never sleep! → CGorman (Talk)  20:30, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * By checking my history, it seems I only sleep during work hours. -- Davodd | Talk 06:43, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Need admins 24/7 these days. - Amgine 21:04, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Administrator/Amgine 2

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

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

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Administrator/Dan100 2

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

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

Comment; Its disturbing that the need for vandalism control is the primary reason being given to support this nomination for administrator. When practicality starts trumping quality, an organization's integrity suffers. Paulrevere2005 02:45, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * This is not the primary reason given, but yet another reason why this contributor, who puts in a lot of hours and efforts already, could be asked to take on additional duties and responsibilities. I think you may be under the mistaken opinion that adminship is something people want to do for the prestige or something - it's basically more work to do, and less time to actually work on things like journalism or editing.
 * Personally, I'm getting tired of hovering over the recent changes, watching for the next bout of edits for POVioring or vandalism. - Amgine 02:52, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Power corrupts, we all know this, but Paul admins really dont have that much extra power. There is nothing that can be done by an admin that cant be undone by another admin, and if anyone is doing things which are getting undone by other admins, then thats a great reason for unadmining someone. Except in cases of striaght out vandalism (things about eating asspuss for breakfast for example *shudder*) then admins are expected only to act as directed to by the community. If i started deleating or protecting pages which the community hadnt said should be deleated/protected, then i would be dealt with by the other admins just as any other vandal. Wiki philosophy dictates that the more trusted people who have admin powers, the better, since it means that there is a more even distribution of power; in fact some people have suggested (on c2) that all users should have admin powers. Finnaly a quote from Jimbo "Adminship is no big deal" ~The bellman | Smile  06:21, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Paul, the ability to control vandalism is the only major ability an admin has, he/she gains no significant extra editorial abilities other than to edit protected articles - which is generally only done on a consensus basis after dialogue with the community. → CGorman (Talk)  09:16, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Administrator/Ronline

Ronline
Self-nomination: for combating vandalism, mainly, but also for deleting my articles if I use a mistaken name or I find that I can't complete them. I usually come on in the morning in Romania, which is also the morning in UTC, when not many users are around. So, that's about it - I'm admin on the Romanian Wikipedia and the Romanian Wikitravel - my page at ro.wiki is here. I also contribute to ro.wikinews, lately. Ronline 08:12, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Support Roline in my view is in the top five or so Wikinews writers. I've enjkoyed many discussions with him in the past and he has always come across as a genuine, honest, and incrediably likeable character. He has contributed literally dozens of well writen stories and always shown respect for wikinews standards and policy. It would also be hugely valuable to have someone in his timezone with admin status. → CGorman (Talk)  09:13, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Support Ronline has the experience and collaborative mentality to be one of the best. Paulrevere2005 13:17, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Support And yes, Ronline, we did notice your battle with the vandal the other day... THANK YOU! - Amgine 03:50, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Support The day that Ronline gets in an edit war will be the day that wikis cease to work. ~The bellman | Smile  12:32, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Support - has caught many vandals-in-progress before now, this user needs to be given powers to block! Dan100 (Talk) 00:14, 1 May 2005 (UTC)


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Administrator/DouglasGreen

DouglasGreen
I, (Amgine) would like to nominate DouglasGreen as an admin candidate. DouglasGreen has been a hyper-energetic copyeditor and factchecker, has developed a slick infobox to illustrate articles such as Turbolinux adopted by China's largest bank, and has been involved in vandal-fighting as well. (pending the user's official acceptance, of course).
 * Support, if he wants it Dan100 (Talk) 07:26, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Lyellin 13:36, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Support.Good edits and articles. Paulrevere2005 18:47, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. --Cspurrier 20:12, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. → CGorman (Talk)  21:20, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Edbrown05 02:26, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Support - /undefined 21:36, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

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


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Administrator/NGerda 1

NGerda
My works include:

 * Scouring the NASA Image Database to find the right image of Opportunity stuck in a sand dune for this article, which then was picked up by several big-name news sources (See Space.com and Discovery Channel).
 * Making this satellite image from NASA to Satellite imagery shows viewing stand for North Korean nuclear test.
 * Frequent updates to Lead Articles
 * Adding the new Special Report image.
 * Currently working on fulfilling this request by translating this article from Portuguese to English, here

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


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Administrator/BarkingFish

BarkingFish
[ Express your view on this user ] (comments) Nominated on 22:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

– BarkingFish has been more than helpful in my opinion. He's an accredited reporter, and he just wouldn't be capable to fuck up with the tools. Pure admin material. Diego Grez return fire 22:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination: Accepted, with appreciation for the thought. BarkingFish (talk) 22:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Notable works

World's first double arm transplant undertaken in Munich

Icelandic Internet bank suspends UK accounts

Magnitude 7.0 earthquake hits New Britain, Papua New Guinea (OR)

Papua New Guinea Culture and Tourism minister charged with attempted murder

British actor John Inman dies at 71 (As my original username, Tmalmjursson)

General comments
RfAs for this user:
 * Links for BarkingFish:

''Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting. Unhelpful comments or votes may be removed at any time.''

Discussion

 * Editing stats posted at |talk page. Diego Grez return fire 22:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Support

 * 1)  as nom. Diego Grez return fire 22:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Perhaps a little low on the editcount (we all know what an accurate judge that is), but he's clueful and works hard, and I trust him.  — fetch · comms   00:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Trusted user. — Mike  moral  ♪♫  04:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) user knows what xe's doing.  Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) support --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 22:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Bawolff ☺☻ 22:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


text:
Wikinews talk:Requests for permissions/Administrator/BarkingFish

Editing stats from Soxred's tool. No extended edit statistics available. Diego Grez return fire 22:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC) Username:	BarkingFish User groups:	editor First edit:	Jul 25, 2008 15:20:43 Unique pages edited:	78 Average edits per page:	4.33 Live edits:	303 Deleted edits:	35 Total edits (including deleted):	338

Namespace Totals

Article	131	43.23% Talk	33	10.89% User	48	15.84% User talk	29	9.57% Wikinews	43	14.19% Wikinews talk	3	0.99% File	4	1.32% Template	3	0.99% Thread	2	0.66% Comments	7	2.31% Namespace Totals Pie Chart


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Administrator/Cspurrier

Cspurrier
I (Amgine) would like to nominate Cspurrier for adminship. Craig is an excellent copyeditor and writer, and has been extremely active sorting the submissions and developing them to full articles; he may very well have officially started more articles than any other contributor! He has fought vandals and helped out on Dr, and is an asset to the community. - /undefined 20:34, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I accept, thanks --Cspurrier 21:43, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Support. Amgine has said it all. → CGorman (Talk)  20:13, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Support. Let's not forget about Wikinews Print Edition! → NGerda 00:33, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

 * Support ; Paulrevere2005 15:46, 21 May 2005 (UTC)


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Administrator/Ryan524

Ryan524
Ryan524 is an active RC patroller, and vandal reverter. Ryan524 has been around quite a while, and has recently become a very valuable front line defence, and active in other maintenance and projects as well. - /undefined 17:23, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Thankyou Amgine, I accept.--Ryan524 17:24, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. If Amgine went to the lenght of actually giving you my awful looking medal for fighting vandels - you must be good! → CGorman (Talk)  18:13, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Although Ryan can be a little harsh at times, he's just what Wikinews needs for an administrator.  NGerda 18:32, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. We need more Jedi to fight the attack of the clones errmm I mean vandals. - Borofkin 07:19, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Administrator/NGerda 2

NGerda
I am not the only one who works hard on wikinews, NGerda is another good example, he does some work with anti-vandalism as wella as contributes alot to wikinews articles.--Ryan524 18:34, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much Ryan524. I accept.  If elected, I plan to use my powers wisely, for the better good of Wikinews.  NGerda 18:40, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

 * Support NGerda has been actively working to expand Wikinews, especially excellent work toward Audio Wikinews, as well as new articles, editing old, and main page maintenance. - /undefined 18:55, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose Ngerda is a great writer, and his work on Audio Wikinews is excellent. I however do not think he understands enough of the Wikinews polices, to have the extra powers of an admin. He has been here for less then a month, with another month or two of experience he will make an excellent admin.--Cspurrier 13:33, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Support I've found NGerda to be very helpful in reviewing articles and assistance and encouragement to new members. Also, after watching Amgine do battle with a vandal the other day I think we need plenty Administrators. - Borofkin 02:25, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Support I can corroborate Borofkin's comment, and from my interaction w/him on mirc, he seems well-tempered for the job, which is always my biggest concern. - Kevin Baastalk 06:20, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose for now. NGerda seems to have joined the world of wikis only recently, and I would like him to gain more experience before giving him the tools of adminship. That doesn't mean that he isn't doing great work, of course.--Eloquence 06:44, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose I'm almost on the bench about this, but I do feel NGerda needs to wait a while longer. If his enthusiasim for both the wiki and Admin status holds up for another month, i'd be delighted to support him - but at the moment, it is just too soon. → CGorman (Talk)  09:03, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * SupportAfter seeing NGerda's work this morning fighting vandels; I think he deserves my support - we really need someone at their computer early in the morning (UTC) when Amgines away. → CGorman (Talk)  09:43, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, CGorman. I propose that there be an simple list of admins and the time frame, in UTC, they are available.  That way, vandal fighters can easily contact the admin who is available at the moment, and we can figure out which time slots we need to fill in.
 * I was thinking the same thing the other day. Why don't the admin post in /timeframes when they are available? That way, we can also try and get some admins for the timeframes that are left open. -- Redge (Talk) 20:02, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The only problem with this is it gives vandals a list of what times are best for them to attack. --Cspurrier 23:10, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * But it will help us see and fill in those gaps. NGerda 23:11, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes it seemed like a good idea until Cspurrier's excellent point - it would let the vandels know when to attack. I think now we are fairly well covered - we have Simeon and the bellman in Australia; Pingswept and Amgine in North America, Ronline in Romania, Dan100 in the UK and myself in Ireland. The biggest problem is when someone goes on holidays! → CGorman (Talk)  09:23, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Support I've found NGerda to be a very capable individual and as stated in the above posts, well-tempered. Jedimastermactreebeard 22:30, 1 June 2005 (UTC)

 * Support NGerda's a great contributor, his special reports are equally outstanding. Audio Wikinews was a sinking ship before he came along and salvaged it for another run, he as also attempted on many occasions to cut back spam and vandalism occuring to Wikinews' articles.  I have no doubt he would be a great administrator who would help Wikinews out in any way possible.  --Mrmiscellanious 00:37, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Supportfor all the reasons above Paulrevere2005 11:35, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Administrator/Uncle G

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

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


text:
Thread:Comments:Apple sells two million iPads in two months/Should Apple support Adobe Flash on the iPad and iPhone?

I understand Adobe Flash does not run on the iPad or the iPhone. Will this ultimately hurt Apple? Google with their Chrome browser and operating system does support Adobe Flash.

Jeff


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Administrator/Chiacomo

Chiacomo
I trust him. Hopefully he'll accept this! Dan100 (Talk) 8 July 2005 16:00 (UTC)
 * I accept, I suppose.. Thank you for your trust. (You should note however that I've not yet been here a month -- almost but not quite). --Chiacomo (talk) 8 July 2005 19:26 (UTC)

 * Support Chiacomo is just the kind of person we need as an admin here.--Ryan524 8 July 2005 19:36 (UTC)
 * Support. Chiacomo has been here over a month and if he wants it, I'm sure he'd be one of our best admins. -- Ross Koepke Talk 23:17, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose You seem to be a good wikinewsie with good intentions but you are not here even 30 days. Im sorry to oppose you know - you have my support if you are re-apply in one or two months time - but not now. → CGorman (Talk) 19:44, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Chiacomo is a good contributor, who needs a bit more time in the community. This additional time will let others see how the user deals with NPOV disputes, how well the user adheres to site policy, how the user deals with serious conflict — things that contribute to people's opinions when deciding on adminship. -- IlyaHaykinson 20:53, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. My original vote was based on time. The additional few days of Chiacomo's work have shown him to be a good, responsible editor, willing to participate in cleanup tasks. I now support his administration bid. -- IlyaHaykinson 03:28, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Chiacomo, you truly are a great contributor to Wikinews, and I value your contributions greatly. What you have to decide right now is do you want to be an admin?.  You statement above displays a sense of reluctance, and I think it's important to decide if this is even what you want.  There are many policies and rules, and the administrators' main function is to enforce those policies.  I'm just warning you that it's a very important and somewhat daunting task, and if an administrator is what you want to be, you have my support, just promise to study and understand the Policies and guidelines!  Best regards, NGerda 07:32, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Response: I thank you for your support, NGerda. As we discussed earlier today, I feel that an administrator's main function is to do the will of the community. The policies are fairly straight forward and my hope is (and thus far, my hopes have been justified) that most of the community will abide by the policies of Wikinews. I am confident I can uphold the policies of Wikinews as desired by the community. The role of an administrator is only as daunting and difficult as he or she makes it. I know that administrators are exposed to more conflict than most regular editors, and while I don't seek conflict, I respond well to criticism and am an able mediator. I firmly believe that being an administrator is "no big deal" -- an administrator is and should be nothing more than an editor who has gained the trust of the community and consequently has a few extra "buttons". --Chiacomo (talk) 02:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Support I think Chiacomo would be a great admin --Cspurrier 16:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: If, as NGerda suggested, there was any reluctance in my acceptance of this nomination, that reluctance was based on my own knowledge that, at the time I was nominated, I had not yet been a contributor for the requisite 30 days (I have now). As some actors say of their nomination for an Academy Award, I'm honored to be considered! I take very seriously the role of administrators, but, as I've said, I also believe it should be "no big deal". Thank you for at least considering me -- I believe in the goals of Wikinews and its mission to provide a free, neutral point of view new source based in community participation and decision making and, regardless of the outcome of this nomination, will continue to do what I can to promote, contribute to, and further the aims of Wikinews. --Chiacomo (talk) 02:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Support User is active, supportive, and fulfilling the best ideals of the community. - Amgine/talk 04:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment;The vote directly above comes from a site called "Sailwiki"[]..."wiki.saewyc.net/User_talk:Amgine talk". Maybe it's from "our" Amgine; I don't know. Paulrevere2005 12:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * This is "our" Amgine, you can tell by looking the history. Sailwiki is his wiki. --Cspurrier 15:48, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * cool. Paulrevere2005 01:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Support -- Davodd | Talk 05:38, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, based on his comments and view of adminship. --Dejan Čabrilo 07:55, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Support --Mrmiscellanious 23:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Chiacomo is a great and active WN editor, his article edits are exactly what this project needs, and he is a very trustworthy being who deserves this spot. He is on IRC constantly for those who need help or for those who are wishing to propose something new.  I strongly support his nomination.  --Mrmiscellanious 02:35, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose manipulative?[]maybe not;hope not;probably just my pov. Paulrevere2005 17:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I simply did think it would make a more interesting (and comprehensive) story if there were pre-invasion figures available to compare with those cited in the report. As stated, I suspect there are no records available -- whether due to a failure in record keeping on the former government's part or due, perhaps, to a loss of or destruction of records since/during the invasion. I'm not certain how this is manipulative... --Chiacomo (talk) 17:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It's probably not(manipulative).Your comments just do a good job of deflecting thought away from the facts of the story. As I say,it's likely just my own pov showing up in that interpretation.sorry. Paulrevere2005 19:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify whether you oppose or support now?--Eloquence 02:29, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Support Paulrevere2005 12:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


text: User talk:Jdjackson920

title: User talk:Jdjackson920


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Administrator/RossKoepke

RossKoepke
I was opposed to becoming an admin because I didn't want to deal with all the political crap. However, a 45-minute long A-s P-s vandal attack at 3:30 in the morning changed my ideas on that. Thanks to Bo_Bluxo for that one. Anyways, we need more admins to fight vandals, especially at late night when most/all admins are gone, and there's no one to ban them. -- Ross Koepke Talk 07:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Support --Dejan Čabrilo 07:54, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Support I'm not so much involved and normarlly only browsing, but RossKoepke seems to be a good candidate at my glance. And his fight agaisnt Blaxo in this day was really admirable. [Night, hmmm, it is just evening for me. You would like to recruit more Oceania/East Asia Wikinewsies...] --Aphaia 07:57, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. While we need admins for vandal fighting, we cannot forget the power of the privileges adminship bestows. Ross, for me, has not yet demonstrated that he fully understands, supports, and upholds our site policies, which any admin must. Dan100 (Talk) 12:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * You know, it's not important whether it's me or someone else, but we do need an admin who we'll be able to contact in the "off-hours". I fully accept your opposal, but it would be a great help if you found someone who met your criteria who was around in the off-hours ;-) -- Ross Koepke Talk 15:36, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * We already have 24 hour coverage. We need admins who have a track record of upholding the policy of NPOV, not winners of popularity contests. If you feel you have defended the NPOV at some point and I've just missed it, please tell me! Dan100 (Talk) 12:30, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose. Sorry Ross, I completely trust you and all, but knowing the rules and powers are extremely necessary for adminship.  Admins have serious responsibilities, and I really don't think you are ready for it, or even want the responsibilities, from what I've heard. I like your proposition about a late-night-US-time or far-away-timezone admin, but they have to be trusted, know the rules, and want to be an admin.  Ross, you are a great asset to Wikinews.  -- NGerda 16:21, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Before CraigSpurier voted, he asked me an extremely important question that I think I need to answer for everyone. He asked me "Ross, before I vote, what do you belive admins are for?". Without hesitation I gave him this response: "Admins are around to fulfill multiple roles. Primary of which is acting as a tool for the community to enforce their consensus generated rules. In addition, they're here to provide extra guidance to new users; but mainly admins are a tool of the community. Basically Wiki's are based on government by consent of the governed - the community makes rules through consensus, and in doing so, give their consent to admins to enforce their rules. Sometimes I feel the USA has moved away from government by consent of the governed, and more towards a government by consent of the elite. This is something that would destroy WikiNews. Wikis aren't meant to be governed by admins. Admins are simply here to be used by the community as whatever tool is needed, be it a mop for cleaning, shredder for sensitive documents, or handcuffs for those who break the rules enacted by the community". I just want to be what the community needs - which a few nights ago, was a pair of handcuffs for one rogue member of our society. -- Ross  Koepke Talk 03:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Before CraigSpurier voted, he asked me an extremely important question that I think I need to answer for everyone. He asked me "Ross, before I vote, what do you belive admins are for?". Without hesitation I gave him this response: "Admins are around to fulfill multiple roles. Primary of which is acting as a tool for the community to enforce their consensus generated rules. In addition, they're here to provide extra guidance to new users; but mainly admins are a tool of the community. Basically Wiki's are based on government by consent of the governed - the community makes rules through consensus, and in doing so, give their consent to admins to enforce their rules. Sometimes I feel the USA has moved away from government by consent of the governed, and more towards a government by consent of the elite. This is something that would destroy WikiNews. Wikis aren't meant to be governed by admins. Admins are simply here to be used by the community as whatever tool is needed, be it a mop for cleaning, shredder for sensitive documents, or handcuffs for those who break the rules enacted by the community". I just want to be what the community needs - which a few nights ago, was a pair of handcuffs for one rogue member of our society. -- Ross  Koepke Talk 03:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Support. -- NGerda 01:51, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. I witnessed and assisted to some extent the vandal attacks last evening and the night before that. An admin can block the persistance of the attacks. That is the reason given RossKoepke. I support that. -Edbrown05 17:33, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. This guy's a leader and will lead.No matter what happens with this vote. Paulrevere2005 19:49, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. --Mrmiscellanious 13:27, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. An active, very helpful user, will make a great admin --Cspurrier 02:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Support. As Craig said, very active and very helpful. I think he deserves it. --TUFKAAP 04:35, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. We need more admins around here and RossKoepke seems like a perfect canidate for the job.--Ryan524 20:08, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Support. Ross has provided me with a series of links that demonstrate both an understanding of the NPOV and effort to keep articles properly referenced. This is the kind of person we need as admins. (There's a lesson for me and maybe others too here: I should have asked Ross for evidence before voting, but it would not harm future nominees if they pro-actively provided links.) Dan100 (Talk) 22:07, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Support --Chiacomo (talk) 03:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Administrator/Mrmiscellanious

Mrmiscellanious
He has been here since April. He is an active user who has written several great stories including a few with original reporting. He is very open about his opinions, but does not try to push his pov into stories. I believe he will make a great admin. --Cspurrier 20:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I have userpages at English Wikinews, English Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons, Wikimedia Meta and Simple English Wikipedia. Listed from most active in to less active in (at the current time).  --Mrmiscellanious 15:03, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I accept this nomination, in hopes of helping Wikinews out even more than I have in the past few months. --Mrmiscellanious 20:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Support. Mrmiscellanious is a trusted member of this community and would make a great addition to the admin team.--Ryan524 21:03, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose; What happened? What changed your mind(from the "do not wish" list)? I changed my vote but don't know how to cross out the old one. I think this great contributor has too much POV (like myself) to be a good admin.(see below) + his reference above to "helping Wikinews out even more than I have in the past few months." I don't think any of us are "helping" wikinews. Wikinews is helping us by providing a platform for our questionable and unproven talents. More importantly, I don't like this edit[] which censors out 2 wiki links of nothing more than information which some readers may find worthwhile reading. That edit also censors an important reference to who Bonifaz is and why Bonifaz's own statements are,perhaps, pov. The last thing we need are thought censors with administrative powers. Paulrevere2005 21:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * We all have POV of some type - I have no problem expressing my opinions. Now if you actually had proof of an instance where I incorporated any of my POV into an article, I would view it as an issue that I would have to address (and would subsequently withdraw my name from this nomination).  However, that edit above with the links removed was for the following reasons: a) because the WP link to Resolution of Inquiry article didn't exist, and b) the link to the other site was that of a POV site without any disclaimer stated in the article - which some might view as an endorsement from Wikinews.  I would like to express this certain edit in a case where I am trying to defeat the POV issues with Wikinews.  I felt as if it were biased, so as a user - I attempted to neutralize it.  --Mrmiscellanious 21:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Support. Guys, get off the 'automatic suspicion bandwagon. The people who know this guy are supporting him. If you don't know him, feel free to abstain/oppose on the grounds of not knowing him, but don't come up with possible reasons that aren't yet illustrated through their actions.-- Ross Koepke Talk 01:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Support -- NGerda 02:03, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Because anybody who is willing to come out with their opinion is okay in my book. -Edbrown05 03:09, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment;Just read the candidate's first line comment on this page []; if that's not enough, continue reading to find wrongful assumptions and conclusions as well as a lack of knowledge about when unilateral deletion is permitted. Paulrevere2005 12:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Paul, if you have issues on how I view POV as, please direct them to my talk page. --Mrmiscellanious 16:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Dan has unilaterally deleted the talk page referred to above which was crucial to this nomination. On that talk page this candidate condoned Dan's unilateral deletion of a non-vandelous article from the developing story section  and this candidate also felt "clearance" from someone is necessary to put an article on the developing page. "Did you get an ok for this article?" he asked; he doesn't seem to realize that articles don't belong to anyone and that anyone can edit them or put them up for deletion request. Paulrevere2005 13:31, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * If you want the talk page back temporarily, you only have to ask... Dan100 (Talk) 14:27, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I backtracked and found some of the text I refer to above;

 * "Did you get an OK for this article? --Mrmiscellanious 02:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

 * An okay? -Edbrown05 02:51, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Dan100 was deleting this article at least 3 times earlier tonight, and banned Paul for submitting an article with a similar headline --Mrmiscellanious 03:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Comment; that unilateral deletion without discussion should be what Mr.miscellanious(and all of us) should be concerned about. I didn't even realize an administrator was hovering with his "finger over the button" as Dan has referenced his powers before. I thought there was some kind of edit conflict knocking out the article. Paulrevere2005 11:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I find it a factual and provoking account. -Edbrown05 03:54, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Is that against a NPOV policy? Maybe so. So can Wikinews report provoking news.... -Edbrown05 04:02, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't think it is NPOV, and it is more or less a duplicate article of this one: Armed police shoot man dead on London Underground. But the fact that he was specifically asked not to restart the article and that he was even briefly banned made me think that he was making this edit just for the fact that Dan turned in for the night. --Mrmiscellanious 04:08, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, I guess I do hold a certain affection for the zeal of the liberal media and their resulting point-of-views. I think this story weighs in with a viewpoint that gone unreported here, leaves a sanitized version of news at WN that is exclusive, rather than inclusive. "Factual" being my premise of this particular news story, I really must retire from any argument and slink off. I have been subject too in my own attempt to load up a story at a time the content was deemed by "whomever" to be too controversial to be dealt with in what I consider a "public forum" (I hear tank treads :}) -Edbrown05 04:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Support. Shown himself to be a defender of the policy of the NPOV (as you can read right above), which is a vital quality in an admin. Dan100 (Talk) 14:03, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Support --Chiacomo (talk) 03:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Support --Dejan Čabrilo 06:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Support For 2 Reasons: 1. Admin is no big deal, to quote Jimbo. 2. Because even though he may have deeply held and strong personal views on life that are diametrically opposed to other Wikinewsies (including me), he has the ability to work with those peple in a collaborative NPOV way. He also has a history of being able to know when to step back when personal feelings may preclude "professional distance" - a skill we all need to adopt. I don't think passion for personal ideals should be a stumbling block to admin status (which is little more than janitorial duty, anyay) :-). -- Davodd | Talk 23:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)


text:
Thread:Comments:Apple sells two million iPads in two months/Should Apple support Adobe Flash on the iPad and iPhone?/reply

One other thing! According to Apple, they sold 3 million iPads during their first 80 days on the market. This has exceeded what many were projecting. Can they keep this momentum going after all of the Android products hit the market?

Jeff


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Removal/NGerda (admin)

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

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

 * He simply never respects the wishes of the community. Look at the Water cooler and it's archives - it's almost entirely NGerda arguing with everyone else.
 * He Reverted Template:Lead article six times
 * His twelfth edit was nominating himself for adminship (he lost)
 * Two weeks later he was nominated by Ryan524. He received two oppose votes and five support votes.
 * I actually recieved 7 support votes. --NGerda July 7, 2005 05:25 (UTC)

 * He has blocked many users/vandals beyond what is allowed by the blocking policy, with blocks of a month or more being given. Including to ip address. At least one of these was a dynamic ip (User:142.32.208.232) with a history of good edits.
 * You ignore Ryan524's multiple indefinite blocks to IP addresses. -- NGerda July 7, 2005 05:25 (UTC)

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

Support de-sysoping

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

Oppose de-sysoping

 * Oppose. I cannot - in good conscience - vote to remove admin status from anyone when the person nominating him/her is just as guilty of some the charges being laid upon the accused. It is obvious from the article history that User:Dan100 also violated the 3-revert rule in the same article he accuses NGerda of over-editing. If NGerda is to be de-admined, then the nominating party should be someone who is neutral to the situation; not someone currently involved in an argument with him. Because of surrounding circumstances, this nomination, on its face, looks petty and vindictive. Using the logic of the above argument and taking into consideration the past administrative power abuses and the established pattern of attacks upon fellow admins with which he disagrees, User:Dan100 also should be listing himself for de-adminship, just to be fair. As for the 3RR violations, BOTH users should temporarily be de-admined and blocked from the site for 24 hours for a cool-down period. Admins should be setting an example of good behavior and community building - even when concerning those who do not share their views - but they should definitely not be engaging in what appears to be petty finger-pointing and back-biting. This is not a social clique, we do not all have to "fit in" and, that said, sometimes we each must learn to accept publication of factually accurate stories or photos contributed by others, even when they are not to our own personal taste. -- Davodd | Talk 5 July 2005 23:50 (UTC)
 * Dan100's first two edits were not reverts they were just edits to the page.Those were updating the lead and shrinking the photo. Dan100 made three reverts after that.--Cspurrier 6 July 2005 00:05 (UTC)

 * Oppose. I remember being in almost opposition to Dan100's request for adminship, and what a tremendous asset he has been to Wikinews. I tried to warn NGerda against seeking adminship, now here we are, and what a tremendous asset he NGerda has been to Wikinews. This process being undertaken upon NGerda's 'prviledges' as an administrator should not be taken lightly by him. -Edbrown05 6 July 2005 00:31 (UTC)
 * Oppose. While I think that NGerda needs to play better with others (and that means backing off when editing gets hot), I think that he hasn't done anything that hasn't been recently done by other admins. We all need to stop arguing and write some news articles. -- IlyaHaykinson 6 July 2005 04:55 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'd like to note that Ilya and Davodd contribute comparatively infrequently to the site. If you had to deal with NGerda like we do, you wouldn't be voting this way. For those who are trying to operate the site on a day to day basis, I can't tell you how much of a drain on everyone NGerda's constant bickering is. Dan100 (Talk) 6 July 2005 07:16 (UTC)
 * Thats not quite fair - you don't know how often they visit for example i've visited and checked out the rc everyday this week but have not made more than one or two edits; perhaps davodd and ilya are the same. → CGorman (Talk) 6 July 2005 11:33 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you guys could make a little more input into the community? It would be very helpful - the same debates between the same people don't get us far. Dan100 (Talk) 6 July 2005 11:43 (UTC)
 * I'm often put off by the back and forth that folks at Wikinews tend to have on a ton of issues. I read the Water Cooler, monitor RC when I can, and look at policy changes, but really only comment when I feel that my perspective is unrepresented. If I had more time, I'd spend it writing code or writing news stories: bickering about proper wording is something I have no time for, when I am busy, and definitely no desire. So if someone is really against some idea that I have, well, I guess it won't be implemented then. So don't take my quiet as a sign that I'm happy with the way things are, or don't know enough — I definitely see the tension between users. Tension is a normal part of pluralism, though, and has to be accepted. -- IlyaHaykinson 6 July 2005 17:19 (UTC)

 * Oppose: Dan expected me to vote with him not against. I thought about it, but decided no - I often wish NGerda would slow down, I hate a lot of the things he has done, but more for the speed at which he works than the actually fundemental ideas. I don't think removing admin status would be productive - it would upset him and possibly lead to him quitting wikinews - a very big loss if he does. I don't like many of the things he has done; but he is a genuine person (or at least does an excellent job of projecting that image) who wants to do his best. Dan im sorry to disappoint you, but I don't think this is the right road for you to follow. → CGorman (Talk) 6 July 2005 11:33 (UTC)
 * No, you haven't disappointed me at all. I value your judgement very highly; that's why I perosnally invited you to vote! I had no pre-conceptions. Dan100 (Talk) 6 July 2005 11:43 (UTC)'''

 * 0pposePaulrevere2005 6 July 2005 14:31 (UTC)

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

 * Things are, or were, going your way here and then you roll in with an observation like the above. I question your maturity. -Edbrown05 7 July 2005 06:33 (UTC)
 * in a place where you opinion isn't even relevant. -Edbrown05 7 July 2005 06:35 (UTC)
 * and I question your sincerity. -Edbrown05 7 July 2005 06:41 (UTC)

This morning's news out of London tells me we have all got to quit bickering and start appreciating each other's efforts here...this product is more important. We all know how much Ngerda and Dan100 have contributed and we should also expect them to be human with human emotional reactions.....so I propose we simply all start looking at the contributions of each other rather than the areas for improvement.We can each be thinking ourselves about how we can improve ourselves.As Jesus said; "Don't look at the speck in your neighbor's eye,look at the log in your own." Paulrevere2005 7 July 2005 11:25 (UTC)
 * Comment; this comment is not directed to an individual; it'S directed to all of us..like myself too.
 * Well said. You know i've had problems getting on with you before Paul; but by God I could'nt agree more with you on this. Lets all bury the hatchets and get back to work! → CGorman (Talk) 7 July 2005 12:09 (UTC)

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

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

How about I propose this: let's stop bickering about every little thing someone does wrong. I promise to not harp on Dan100 for attacking me for stuff he does, if he promises to lay off and if he has a problem to discuss things appropriately. Let's get back to what we're all here for: journalism. -- NGerda July 8, 2005 01:18 (UTC)
 * I promise to not harp on Dan100 for attacking me for stuff he does, - Dan, frame this and put it up on your wall or at least your userpage! → CGorman (Talk) 8 July 2005 11:24 (UTC)


text: Category:Failed requests for de-adminship


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Administrator/TUFKAAP

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

 * Support. I'd hate to lose probably my favorite writer here to adminship if it means he won't write stories as much. But anything less than fair and unassuming coming from TUFKAAP is unimaginable to me. -- Edbrown05 20:52, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Oh trust me. I won't stop writing. I'll write when ever I get the chance (depending on how much homework I have from school and such)--TUFKAAP 10:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Support. TUFKAAP will make a great admin!  -- User:NGerda 20:33, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Very active user, shows excellent admin capabilities. --Mrmiscellanious 20:37, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Active contributor, works hard to work well with others. - Amgine
 * Support. IlyaHaykinson 07:02, September 12, 2005 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Southern Sudan's defence minister among those killed in major plane crash

Very important question.
What's the name of the dauther cuz I receive a mail from her, saying that she's in troubles, just the name my mail is krostypal@gmail.com


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Bureaucrat/Cspurrier

Bureaucrat: User:Cspurrier
Since both Ilya and I aren't on the site that often anymore, I'd like to nominate Craig Spurrier to be a bureaucrat, so he can take care of adminships. Craig is balanced and reliable, and I think perfect for the role.--Eloquence 13:24, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Wow, thank you. I accept the nomination. --Cspurrier 15:08, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Support. -- IlyaHaykinson 13:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Mega SUPPORT GO CRAIG!!!!!!!!1 --TUFKAAP 23:26, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Support :D Bawolff 00:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Strongly Support. There is no one that I can think of who would be better suited for this position.  --Mrmiscellanious 00:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong support - Amgine/talk 00:45, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Support - Of course Craig would be perfect for this role. --Chiacomo (talk) 02:09, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Support --Deprifry | +T+ 14:49, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Strongly Opposed- Terrible choice! I think he and Mrmiscellanious may be overt or covert U.S. government agents (tagteam) and the loss of Wikinews' audience []since they became major contributors;imo.censors; shows that this person's pro-western government bias is detrimental to the project. If you need specific links to show how he has selectively sanitized,neutered and censored stories that are not US and UK Government "friendly", just say so and I will provide them; but if you care about this project, you'll take 20 minutes and do the research yourself. Wake up. Neutralizer 19:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: The person above is not a contributor.  Contributors contribute something to this project.  As seen by his edits, "Neutralizer" has done nothing but complain about Wikinews and it's policies, and tries to exploit the people who try to enforce them.  Wake up call to Neutralizer: we're not changing the project for you.  You don't care about this project - you just care about making its editors irritated.  Excuse my comments, but I feel as if they are necessary in this poll if the user above continues to make conspiracy theories and attacks on the true members of the project on a community-consensus poll.  Neutralizer, you take 20 minutes and look up the policies and rules of this project.  --Mrmiscellanious 20:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * [User's comment removed as personal attack, see history. - Amgine/talk 00:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)]

 * Temporarily Opposed and Comment Neutralizer sent me an email which he/she said he/she sent to all the administrators. He said that when one clicks on Amgine's name and "talk" links above one is taken off of the wikinews site...that seems to be true. He said that Amgine blocked him and Amgine is not on the administrator list; that seems to be true. He also provided these links to support assertions he makes above. I provide them here ;[][][][][][][][][]

for information purposes and also to make a statement that this is an open site where links to wikinews edits at this location can not be seen as being a "personal attack". I would also suggest that you read the "history" link Amgine has above to see if you feel that information should have been removed as a "personal attack". Also, may I humbly suggest that important discussions like this have a link on the main page so that avid readers-retired contributors like me will know what in the heck is going on. I am going to take up Neutralizer's challenge to review the edits of the two contributors mentioned above before I vote re; this important posting. Hopefully a 1 or 2 day extension will be allowed since there has been so little voting activity thus far,considering this is for the important Bureaucrat position. Again, all the best to everyone. Paulrevere2005 14:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Hello, thank you for your comments. I have not received any e-mails from Neutralizer, though it is entirely possible that he did not include me in his list of admins to e-mail :). Amgine chose to have his user page and talk page on the project he most active on. This is fairly common on users who are active on multiple projects, it is hard to check a dozen different sites for new messages so users often redirect user pages and talk pages to the project they are most active on. Amgine is not on the administrator list because you removed his name from the list, unless an admin asks a developer to remove the admin status they remain technically an admin. Once a user has been made an admin they do not lose the status unless they request its removal or the status is voted to be removed. Unfortunately only two of the links you posted work, so I am unable to comment on them. If you fix the lins I will be glad to try and explain my reasons for each action. --Cspurrier 16:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I as well have not recieved such a message (but, as Craig says above, there may be a similar reason for that :D). --Mrmiscellanious 21:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Support, natch. Dan100 (Talk) 15:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Administrator/Bawolff

User:Bawolff
I would like to nominate Bawolff for adminship. Bawolff is a long-time Wikinews community member, first as a reader and then as an editor. Bawolff is particularly active with the Portal:Brampton, Ontario and articles related. Other areas which have been of interest and therefore expertise include topic categories and portals in general; expertise which will be very useful as an admin. - Amgine / talk 23:04, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Accept Bawolff. However I'd like to mention I have only made 2 edits to the Brampton portal and havn't looked at it or any associated articles in the last 2 months. I'd also like to thank Amgine for nominating me. Bawolff 23:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

 * 1) Support --Deprifry | +T+ 08:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Can I have a list of the contributions he's made to Wikinews? As he himself has stated that he only made 2 edits to the Brampton portal. Thanks for the list Bawolff. Definately a good contributer to the community. I'm all for it. --Wolfrider 18:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --Mrmiscellanious 19:52, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. -Edbrown05 20:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Neutralizer 20:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Support --Cspurrier 17:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments

 * I'm not very good at stories so i've stayed away from that, however i've made many contributations to categories/topic pages and things like that. Some notable one's

Contribs: Image contribs:
 * 1) Started Mirrors and forks (still working on)
 * 2) fixed up many topic pages including
 * 3) Space (just added pretty pict)
 * 4) Food
 * 5) Google
 * 6) Spam
 * 7) Mozilla
 * 8) Apple Computer
 * 9) Microsoft
 * 10) Internet
 * 11) Internet/Topics
 * Category:P2P
 * 1) Games
 * Category:Belarus
 * 1) Music
 * 2) and others
 * 3) fixed up some of the religion cats
 * 4) added tons of categories to pages
 * 5) Fixed up Shortcuts
 * 6) Fixed up WN:IB
 * 7) Created a couple infoboxes
 * 8) template:RIAA Infobox
 * 9) template:Hurricane 2005 Infobox
 * 10) fixed up others
 * 11) Created templates:
 * 12) template:DPL
 * 13) Made other more minnor ones
 * 14) created and
 * 15) Uploaded quite a few images
 * 16) Participated in Wikinews design contest
 * 17) had a really cool idea about template:Topic header that no ones looked at. (see template talk:Topic header)
 * 18) and more
 * Hope thats enough.Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]]]] 19:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Administrator/Borofkin

User:Borofkin
I would like to nominate Borofkin for adminship. Borofkin is one of the oldest contributors on wikinews, and the most active editor from Australia who I know of. Oceania is a particular interest, but also all developing articles as a dedicated copyeditor. Borofkin has been involved in several policy discussions, and has a good sense for wikinews community issues. Having a strong admin in the Australian timezone would be an excellent asset for Wikinews. - Amgine / talk 03:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Accept. And in support of my nomination I would like to draw your attention to this masterpiece, my first article and the one of which I am most proud. It even made it through the review process! - Borofkin 03:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

 * If user accepts, I Support. --Mrmiscellanious 03:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Obviously Support. One of the finest original reporters we have. --Deprifry | +T+ 07:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Great work. --Wolfrider 10:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Strongly Support-- consistent contributor of good, balanced edits/articles and he seems to get along well with everybody. Neutralizer 14:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 22:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support - another very good story today. Rcameronw 13:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support --Cspurrier 17:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Administrator/Cllewr

User:Cllewr
I would like to nominate Cllewr as an admin. Cllewr is a regular on the main page templates, and helps keep article headlines direct, active, and succinct. Cllewr's assistance in copyediting, fact checking, graphic finding, and general article and site support are legendary, even if ou does tend to use the "minor edit" check box so often the modesty is nearly unseemly. Cllewr is one of the many quiet contributors who keep Wikinews up, running, and looking good. - Amgine / talk 21:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I accept. Thanks for the nomination!  Cllewr 22:00, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Agreed. Great contributor. --Wolfrider 22:09, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support - Borofkin 23:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support I think I've seen this guy "admin" a number of times - with subtltey and effectiveness. We need more people that can discourage inappropriate contribs without putting people off WN altogether.  I welcome someone who can be subtle. Brianmc 00:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Respectfully oppose. While I agree that Cllewr is a fantastic contributor, I feel that recently Cllewr has become fairly inactive as a contributor, aside from a few edits.  Although not a requirement, I believe administrators should be alert for vandalism and other issues by regularly editing and watching edits.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 01:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. User shows exceptional administrator qualities.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 21:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Support --Deprifry | +T+ 14:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Support --Cspurrier 22:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Support -- IlyaHaykinson 06:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * support Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 23:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Support I almost missed checking in on this page, but have not over-looked the nominee's contributions to WN. -Edbrown05 04:45, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Administrator/Deprifry

User:Deprifry
Deprifry is a great Wikinewie. He has done a great deal of vandal and spam fighting. He has also successful mediated several disputes. --Cspurrier 22:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Support -- Agreed. He's like the Buddha, only not as old or as popular. But we love him anyway! --Wolfrider 23:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Rcameronw 14:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Support I thought you already were one. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 23:25, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Great contributer, showed me by example how to compromise and stay constructive in heated situations (although he might not be aware of that...). And great to get German news here! --vonbergm 05:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Thought he already was an admin. :) Brianmc 11:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Support
 * Strongly Support; I like the way he communicates; clear and to the point. Neutralizer 15:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Abstain from voting on nominee. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 22:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Support - Amgine / talk 00:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Support - Borofkin 03:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Removal/Simeon (admin)

User:Simeon
User has unilaterally blocked Cspurrier, Amgine and myself for an automatic two weeks, citing the following explanation: "repeated blocking against community consensus - community needs time to talk about you guys". Not only were the blocks done in violation of the blocking policy, as seen in the block log, I did not block Neutralizer during the discussion period. As the user has been inactive since May, and in my opinion came back here with intent to misuse his sysop status, I hereby request that Simeon's sysop status be deactivated. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 23:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: The specific reasons for this vote were violations from the user in the following section of the blocking policy (items bolded to include violations from Simeon):

 * In addition to these violations, the blocking policy does not state a user may block another for a "bad block", other than disruption. However, as the other admins were collaborating on the issue with others, and Simeon disrupted that community conversation, he is the only one that I can see is a valid case of disruption on the site.  Such a user who has violated policy in these ways should be seriously considered for de-adminship.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 00:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Abstain - I think everybody should have a nice cup of tea and a sit down. - Borofkin 23:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Support - I've had my cup of tea, and I now support. Everyone voting should remember that the only thing we are voting on is Simeon, not the wider dispute. If you think that any other administrator has abused privileges, violated policy, etc, then list them here. Simeon, I encourage you to continue contributing to the resolution of this dispute, and Wikinews in general, because I think your contributions are exceedingly worthwhile. Wikinews has been worse-off for your absence over the past few months. - Borofkin 02:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Comment - I cannot in conscience vote in this RfdA, having been one of the persons targeted by User:Simeon. However I also feel I cannot fail to note that this is a clear example of administrative powers abuse, which is precisely what the Request for de-Adminship policy is for. To be blunt: if we do not remove an admin's powers who has clearly violated Wikinews policy, when would we do so? - Amgine / talk 00:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Many people are arguing that all administrators involved in this dispute have violated policy or otherwise acted innapropriately. Phrases such as "clearly violated Wikinews policy" are very quickly losing their meaning. The dispute appears to be over whether certain actions are violations of policy. - Borofkin 00:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I have specifically argued, here, in favour of my being listed for RfdA when there was a question of if I had abused admin privilege. Similarly, you do not say User:Simeon did not abuse admin privilege. The question becomes whether the admins can do whatever they like, or if the community has any ability to check them for abuse. - Amgine / talk 01:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - How has Simeon violated the rule against blocking those with whom he is in conflict? Surely being inactive for so many months makes him more impartial than anyone else? - Borofkin 00:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Reply: There was a conflict already brewing on the Water cooler as a result of the blocks, and Simeon automatically took sides without discussion to block the users. That is why the violation is noted as such.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 00:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'm changing my vote to abstain while I have that cup of tea. - Borofkin 01:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Let he who is without admin-abuse cast the first stone... I would have thought there was a rather stronger case for de-adminning the admin who tried unilaterally to ban our friend Neutralizer for six million years on spurious charges... But actually I don't think we should be banning or de-adminning anyone over this. I support, by the way, the proposal that we all have a nice cup of tea and a sit down. [rcameronw]
 * I agree with rcameronw. Lots of people did a lot of bad things over the neutrilizer issue and we should all just sit down and talk. However

I choose to abstain from this vote. Bawolff ☺☻ 00:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose - I think we are loosing sight of the proportions here. What deeply troubles me is the game outlined in the IRC-channel 'leak'. This is what we should focus on. --vonbergm 01:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe User:Simeon clipped that from my logs of the event. They should still be available on Pleonasm, and will give far more depth to that event than User:Simeon would like. The brief description is there was a temper-loss, and two admins engaged in a revert war/blocking war. One of them requested both involved be de-admined; that would be me. - Amgine / talk 01:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Comment: I am going to ask the above users how they believe that Simeon should remain an administrator after his actions. Administrators should be trusted by the community - and as a member of the community, I do not feel I can trust him with sysop status based on the actions.  However, I am asking for a more detailed collaboration on reasons why to keep him as a sysop - as far as I'm concerned, the users above have either not read the violations nor the blocking policy, but have acted purely out of influence from other on-going discussions.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 01:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Comment: I think I agree pretty broadly with Ilya's observation. I think Simeon did what he did through sheer frustration over perceived unreasonableness on the part of the 3 admins he blocked, and, crucially, the consequences were minimal. All 3 got unblocked very quickly, as Simeon knew would happen anyway. What he did was, in essence, a gesture. Inasmuch as there were very minimal consequences to his action, it was a very minor action. I think we could also describe it as rash and whimsical. Inasmuch as it was technically a violation of the rules as I understand them, it was a minor violation. Now it may be that we hold our admins to such high standards that even a rash, whimsical and minor violation can constitute grounds for "de-adminning". But it's my observation that Wikinews does not de-admin people for minor, whimsical violations of the rules. I've seen no evidence that Wikinews even de-admins admins for serious, ongoing violations and abuses. In law, I think this would be called a "customary policy" - ie. it's an unwritten rule that Admins are never de-adminned for minor, whimsical violations. Therefore, in my view, to de-admin Simeon over this would actually be contrary to our unwritten rules and customary policy. I think there's also a customary policy, if not a written rule, to the effect that when looking at how to deal with violations of the rules, we should take into account the user's general contribution to Wikinews. I've seen arguments elsewhere on this page to the effect that Simeon has made substantial valuable contributions (as an admin and an editor), which would seem, I think, further to mitigate against the wisdom of de-adminning him. I think it's important that we are constitute both in our rules and in our APPLICATION of the rules.

 * Support This was a clear violation of blocking policy (and a bizarre violation at that) that in no way assisted the community. I do find it interesting, however, that MrM has found a reason to complain about admins keeping their sysop status after extended leave. I seem to recall him opposing Neut's proposal in regards to that issue on the water cooler. I believe Neut's statement was: "We're talking about exactly what has already happened...people quitting and coming back whenever the mood strikes them...and holding onto their admin powers throughout." --Wolfrider 02:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I still oppose that proposition, but have found reasoning as to why others support it now. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 02:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Strongly Oppose; I urge all to go back through the history of Simeon's work on wikinews and please read the edits where this seemingly very diligent and considerate hard worker was viciously attacked and driven away. I have gone back through the old edits and saw absolutely terrible and abusive treatment of Simeon. I urge everyone to go back and have a look; it's quite an eyeopener. Simeon was once a very active contributor and administrator, in Australia, holding down the fort when everybody else was asleep, and fighting vandals like a hero, until he was driven away by the exact same crowd that is being so disruptive right now. Believe me, it took all of my self discipline not to put my accuser up for de-admin. but I figured the community needs time to heal and move forward collaboratively and let bygones be bygones. I am extremely angry that this point in time was chosen to attack Simeon and and even more angry at the target. Simeon,from my reading of his contributions has been one of the truely gentleman leaders and hard workers of wikinews. I am really hopeful that everyone will vote "opposed" in a sign of support for this good person,Simeon, who so gallantly came to my rescue when I was being wrongfully exiled without a hearing. Simeon; please come back; we need you. I also think it is wrong for the same people to keep making comment after comment in this discussion trying to wear down the people who may not agree with them. Neutralizer 03:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Simeon's actions were rash, and I don't much agree with finger-pointing on this site anyway (are we here to argue about user rights, or to publish news articles?). If the user continues to block people in violation of blocking policy, I'll support this. As a single-incident abuse of powers, I think he should see this as a warning. -- IlyaHaykinson 03:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Comment: The above incident occurred to three people, which I would consider to be three events. In order to get back to writing articles, we need a reform here.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 03:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose. Whilst what Simeon did was perhaps wrong, it was exactly the sort of gesture required to deal with an out of control situation. Blocking himself was definitely wrong, but was needed to close off the tit-for-tat that was being engaged in. Brian McNeil / talk 07:54, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose. While the methods might not be right, Simeon's intentions were noble... end the nonsense. -Edbrown05 01:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Support. Violation of the blocking policy. - Kookykman|(talk)

 * Oppose. The action taken does not make me lose trust in Simeon. - McCart42 (talk) 05:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

vote 4-7-1, de-adminship failed - Amgine 19:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Administrator/Submarine

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

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

 * Support. Seeing all the vandalism lately, we could use all the help we can get. And he has done some excellent reporting too. --Deprifry | +T+ 11:35, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Support. I've seen Submarine making positive contributions. Brian McNeil / talk 12:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Abstain from this and all further votes on this page until further notice. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 03:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Support I am particularly impressed with Submarine's experience as Amgine mentioned; "serves as an administrator on two other Wikimedia Foundation projects". Neutralizer 13:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Support --Wolfrider 14:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Support --Rcameronw 22:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Keep us informed about the French perspective! --vonbergm 04:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Dive! Dive! Dive! - Borofkin 23:10, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Administrator/Brianmc 1

User:Brianmc
I'd like to nominate Brianmc -- he's a wonderful editor, mediator, and all around nice guy. --Chiacomo (talk) 17:49, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Nomination accepted. :-) Brian McNeil / talk 18:24, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Support --Cspurrier 17:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Strongly support --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 18:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: This user is a very strong editor who not only understands the policies of this website, but also understands the need to educate new users in our policies. He is also, as many others would say, a fantastic mediator.  Even though a few users who have only been here a few edits are trying to throw FUD at this nomination, I encourage all users to view Brianmc's edits - you'll see there is a solid editor dedicated to the cause.  I highly suggest all who oppose this nomination would give a good reason that isn't based on one or two possibly bad edits.  We're all human; we make mistakes sometimes.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 01:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Support (assuming Brian is finally willing to accept the nomination, of course.) -  Amgine | talk 18:34, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Opposed;Well, I see within the first 45 minutes what Mr.M calls a "posse" has ridden in with their votes; but I won't be swept away by the tide. I am willing to reconsider my vote if Brian will respond to my concerns; there's no doubt you have potential; but at this point you often don't read the edits before overreacting to the edits and issuing false accusations of a personal nature; as these two recent edits of yours show;
 * This is a very bad trait for someone who has blocking authority; and since you are relatively new here; perhaps a bit more seasoning might be called for. Brian, can you,perhaps, promise that you would take a bit more time digesting other contributors' edits before reacting to them in the future? In addition; I noticed you voted on MrM.'s talk page for him to retain his adminship. Could you please share with us why you believe MrM. is a net asset to the community? This is not a question meant to put MrM on the spot but rather to see how Brian evaluates this project and the contributions people make.Neutralizer 19:43, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Neutralizer, you should be ashamed of yourself of trying to hijack this RfA into a statement against me.  If you would have read the disclaimer, the vote means absolutely nothing and users who participate in it are not required to comment on their votes.  Similarly, the vote is rendered null-and-void if users were trying to seek anything out of the poll, or to use it to make a point (as you have).  I have undeleted the talk page which confirm this.  I do not think that I am up for discussion here.  So, I would respectfully ask that you keep anything about me out of association with this RfA.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 20:18, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * This is relevant to see how Brian evaluates this project and the contributions people make. Obviously,the nominee's views about what is acceptable behavior here is relevant; that's not rocket science. Neutralizer 20:52, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * This is irrelevent to the RfA. Plain and simple; not one sentence above had to do with Brianmc at all, other than your accusations of him being in my (non-existant) "posse".  If you want to rant about me, do it on my talk page.  I'll even give you a link: MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 20:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Support I think hes ready. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 20:04, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. --Deprifry|+T+ 20:04, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. In response to an edit meant for Boud; this nominee mistakenly thought the edit was meant for him and launched into a personal attack full of assumptions that had no basis of fact whatsoever; including...your crusade to get Wikinews to insinuate GWB is a Nazi...I think this "fly off the handle",only partially reading edits, overpowering and threatening approach may be one that many of the current administrators might find acceptable or even praiseworthy; but there is no doubt in my mind that many of the other contributors here might be kind of sick and tired of having to deal with it constantly. Let's see how the vote turns out; as always, I will abide by the will of the community...but NOT by the will of bosses.Our guidelines say our admins are supposed to be "janitors" not "junta" and I do not see any janitorial tendancies in this nominee. Neutralizer 20:52, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose for now - i am concerned that Brian seems to feel that his own beliefs are more important than a published statement by the most cited living arts/humanities author of the 1980's - he wrote: the quote itself is targetting the US administration and the reference to Nuremberg is just used to elicit an emotional response. i have nothing against Brian becoming an admin sometime in the future, but at the moment i feel that someone who wants to become an admin ought to make errors less often than this. i was also concerned (same article) about Brian's claim that a quote is a copyright violation, though he later explained that he was referring to what he alleges is copyright violation on an external website (my guess is that probably the page on the external site is consistent with copyright under fair use, anyway, that's getting off-topic here) - see details here Talk:60th_anniversary_of_Nuremberg_trials_marked, despite the fact that the quote was clearly labelled as a quote and two sources were given. Boud 21:37, 25 November 2005 (UTC) - updated Boud 15:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose for now - Especially lately, Brian has made many entries on talk pages has have alienated users (see comments above) or even driven users away from wikinews (see Talk:Indictment of Jose Padilla avoids Supreme Court and contains none of original charges). Even though his concerns may have been justified, he did not manage to communicate them successfully. Although I have experienced Brian open minded at times (he gave some good initial suggestions on how to fix up the "pre-war intelligence infobox", he has failed to provide a consistent position on how to proceed with it and watched the project he first proposed and I invested energy being driven down the drain. Brian's comments and initiatives are often sporadic and lack the seriousness and long-term vision that I expect from an administrator. This is not saying that all (or even the majority) of Brian's edits are of that form. In fact, I have enjoyed many articles that Brian made significant contributions to.
 * An important part of the role of administrators is to calm down and help mediate conflicts, not create them. Especially when it comes to dealing with new users as in the incient linked above, Brian should take more time to learn how to handle these appropriately and focus his energies. --vonbergm 23:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose for now - Brian seems to have a pattern of using the "it's emotional" argument to brush off ideas he may not like, doesn't want to hear or let others see, to justify his censorship and cover up his lack of ability to give constructive criticism. I feel that he and Amgine used their power abusively to shutdown the publication of an article on a very important and very controversial topic: Jose Padilla. Saying someone has "an axe to grind" is not constructive criticism. I understand that Brian may be very busy; and I know he made no attempt to assist me or answer my requests for comment besides referring me to the NPOV pages. As the guidelines say, it is not wrong to express a point of view, as long as it is not presented as fact, worded appropriately: and actually the point is to present as many points of view as possible, and to label them as such. I call on all administrators to try to understand that there will many times be "emotive" elements to peoples writing, especially when the topic concerns a crime against humanity or society, and it is the job of the wikinews community to present all the emotive states there are around an issue; that is where Brian could have expressed his emotional POV in the article instead of just blocking the entire reality of the Jose Padilla case with an unqualified npov mark. I would warn the wikinews community, that while I only have this one experience on being in the clutches of this person, be very wary of his judgement and willingness to communicate positively for ideas he does not agree with or that shock his point of view. Holon67 03:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * For the record, I'd like to add that I felt a bit tricked, verify for yourself at Talk:Indictment of Jose Padilla avoids Supreme Court and contains none of original charges. At first Brian requests a simple addition with the justification that people in his country don't know who this Padilla could be, and that the sources are missing. After I make these corrections, he blank blocks the publication with quite the emotive response and no serious constructive criticism "This has been written by someone with an axe to grind, please look at other articles that are not disputed to get an idea of the "tone" a piece on Wikinews should have. It isn't a court of law, and we certainly aren't trying to prosecute the government." None of my requests for followup were answered. Holon67 03:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Here is the blocked article that received no constructive criticism, but was replaced by another article by another author http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Indictment_of_Jose_Padilla_avoids_Supreme_Court_and_contains_none_of_original_charges who I know nothing about. That article contained everything that is here. Please note that the guidelines even use the word "shocking" in the examples as a valid pov -- was this my error, I'll never know -- as long as it is presented that way. Please read the guidelines you ask others to follow and practice writing some povs of your own so you know what other writers have to play balance with. Holon67 04:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It wasn't replaced. The other article was there first. And it is way more comprehensive than the article you started --Deprifry|+T+ 12:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it is very disingenuous and unethical of you, Deprifry, to manipulate the facts, and offer an opinion on quality on top of the manipulation, i.e. the article you refer to was just a stub for all of the 23rd, and since my article was censored, it didn't have the ability to get further input. Further, one could argue that mine influenced the second since it had more comprehension first. Mine also had more sources. The two should have been combined for the best of everyone, not one censored. Holon67 18:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Excuse me. Manipulation? Censorship? Disingenuous? Those are big words and IMO you should be careful before you accuse people of it. And this is a stub? It was better in its first revision then many published articles. And what exactly prevented you from participating in the development of this article? --Deprifry|+T+ 18:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for allowing me to explain yet again: First, it was my mistake that I did not improve upon the original; I did not see it, I admit. Second, I was told to fix my article, then, after the fix, it was unconditionally blocked by Brian and Amgine, call that what you will; I think it is an indication that these persons should be, for the record, on careful watch, but, of course, that is my humble opinion; I call it censorship since there was no feedback. I believe Brian just doesn't like what I wrote, which isn't so far-fetched, so he found some reason to block it; the first attempt failed when I did not go away, so he tried harder and with more authority. I find that really disturbing. Third, the other article may have been first afterall, but it was not originally more comprehensive, and on the day the event happened, was not improved upon, so your criticism could be construed, IMO, as disingenuous since you made no mention of that fact, but merely stated that it was first and more comprehensive, regardless of timing. Even with what you just said, you are in denial. Holon67 00:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, I was quite confused here for a moment. You're the user who removed the tags without addressing any of the issues raised on the talk page. I thought I'd actually been involved in this article or something. Glad to see I was mistaken. -  Amgine | talk 02:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Support After looking carefully at the concerns other users have raised against Brianmc I see no legitimate complaint that should prevent him from achieving administrator status. It seems to me that these complaints originate more from the American Left/Right divide than anything else. However, I would caution Brianmc to not allow his bias to get in the way of editing articles, as you've approached some issues with far more vitriol than what should be acceptable for an administrator. Try to be more polite. That said, I still think you'd make a good admin. --Wolfrider 23:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I think there is problem with (well, parts of) the present staff of administrators so untill that is solved i guess its best to wait. Brianmc will probably be a good administrator but above I read objections enough to give it a wait some time.International 15:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now.

 * Oppose for now.--Whywhywhy 12:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)