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

Mrmiscellanious
1.Abused administrative privilege by protecting a page in which he was emgaged in a dispute http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Talk:Alleged_Bush-Blair_Al-Jazeera_bombing_transcript_leaked

http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alleged_Bush-Blair_Al-Jazeera_bombing_transcript_leaked&diff=168006&oldid=168005 2.Constantly disrupting the site with article tags which he places on articles and insists against consensus that they remain until he gives the ok.

http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Neutralizer&oldid=172702#Running_List (over 95% of these are by mrmiscellanious)

2;A He never removes the tag himself 2;B He uses threats of using his administrative blocking power of blocking as intimidation agianst others removing his article tags.

Perhaps others can provide links to the many edits where Mrmiscellanious has threatened blocking while engaged in edit wars with the editors he threatens.

Paulrevere2005 18:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

returned edits I made yesterday after I had logged off by mistake.Paulrevere2005 22:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Second link is now inactive, here is the following historical archive of the requested page: http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Neutralizer&oldid=172702#Running_List --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 03:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment:
 * The protection was necessary, otherwise at least three editors would have been blocked for violating the 3RR.
 * Tags are brought by editors. Administrators aren't the only ones who can tag an article.  And they were actionable complaints - which were, thankfully, addressed.  Forgive me for being blunt on some of my discussions, but I think looking for vandalism is much more important than observing what should be fairly obvious (to me) objections.
 * Neutralizer's running list is of edits he doesn't like, which show that he is unwilling to work with his POV problem and Wikinews. Over 95% of my edits there are because of my opinions and values, which he distastefully disagrees with.  I have no problem with it, I suppose I set myself up for that when I posted my beliefs on my user page.  But de-admin'ing a user because you don't agree with them politically is not only in bad taste, it could show that Wikinews itself has a group of biased users, and that NPOV stories are not welcome again to the wiki to some.

 * I highly hope that with good faith all users making comments here would prove a stronger case of admin abuse, otherwise you want to contact Simeon or another admin to ban me. Nothing I see here is of substantial reasoning for de-admin'ing, as represented by the previous RfdA of Simeon not having enough substantial creditation.  I welcome back your return, Paulrevere2005 - but I don't look forward to you acting like other users which have shown themselves as disruptive of the wiki and posting another of these frivolous votes.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 17:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Support removal of adminship

 * Support de-admin. There is a right way and a wrong way to nudge articles towards improvement.  I don’t support MrM’s methods, nor do I know the right way to do it either.  But the holier-than-thou-art attitude, the one I sense from this administrator, doesn’t work for me. I don't think holier-than-thou-art types will modify their behavior, otherwise MrM would already have made changes to his manner of dealing with Wikinews. -Edbrown05 01:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Rcameronw 16:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support - for reasons previously stated - an admin should be a janitor, not a junta. Happy to see him reinstated after a period of time subject to community re-endorsement, but I do now think we need to apply some kind of sanction.

 * Support, but not until he returns MrM does engage in a "pattern of abuse" & does "game the system". More seriously, I feel he discourages & drives off new editors, instead of drawing them in.  And I feel he should ultimately be removed.  As Cspurrier said, individual incidents are minor and forgivable, but it seems Neutralizer's list provides the critical mass to deadmin for many small infractions.  As International said, we are proposing a less confrontational way to address such issues (see RfDA-CB), but again Neutralizer's list begins to resemble the desired discussion forum.
 * However, I do not want to see anyone removed via other "games to the system", so my vote is to be counted as an abstension until he has returned, at which point you may count it as support. If the voting ends before he returns, sorry bad timing to run your RfDA.  Nyarlathotep 00:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Alright, I've seen him about the site, you may count it.

 * Support - After reading Mrm:s respons I changed my mind. I wrote "a fair warning" his only respons was indignation about that I threated him. Threated to use my userprivileges. No respons to my argumentation. Guess this guy didnt listen. Guess this guy wont listen to critic and argument in the close future and just waste my energy in atempts to create a construtive structure to solve things like this. Dont matter if he do alot of other good work here. There are good persons who understand that Wiki News administrators are not same as vigilantes in comic books. The best way now is to remove him as a administrator for the best of the Wiki News.International 00:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I will not listen to those who threaten or accuse me. It's disrespectful, so I will not extend any courtesies back to them.  If it makes me a bad person, so be it.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 01:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Support - Removal of adminship is not the end of the word and i believe the above evidence is more then reason to procced. It appears that MrM makes not appologies for his "patterns of abuse" and will continue abusing his status, fair warning has been given.Adminship can always be reinstated later if earned. --Whywhywhy 01:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support i do not have confidence that mrm will interpret and apply wikinews policy fairly, in an unbiased way to improve wikinews. his action has violated policy. further, he has repeatedly made edits which disrupt but do not improve articles. imo, he has not accomplished his stated aim of upholding "high" standards by his foreman/worker model of collaboration, but has provoked conflict, disrupted article creation and led to questionable admin actions. as mrm himself has been stringent in applying sanctions on users and in the absence of any "lesser" sanction that can be applied for his error, i recommend de-admin. Doldrums 07:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Permabanned 67.165.217.42 (thus ignoring the 24-hour convention) without warning him and under a dubious charge of vote forging, even though the votes were simply tallied in a certain place and had already been placed against Amgine . Jyrse 02:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: (Sorry, Edbrown05, but I had to respond to this one) The user claimed he was a user of Wiktionary, therefore knew that forging votes on a consensus poll was a no-no.  A nomination for an RfdA does not count as a vote in support of the removal.  I would also like it noted that this is Jyrse's first edit to Wikinews.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 02:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Support:While I agree with Eloquence arguments, I don't believe that there is any williningness to improve on MrM's part. --vonbergm 18:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose removal of adminship

 * Oppose, but I agree that MrMiscellaneous has abused administrator privileges in some cases; an edit war is only with a specific person — when it's with a group, it might just mean pluralism. The problem with protecting a page when you disagree with other editors on content and policy, especially when it's not very clear that there's a violation, is that the version that gets "frozen" is your version; the others have no recourse other than to appeal to other administrators. I don't support de-admining now, but will if such protection / blocking incidents continue. -- IlyaHaykinson 18:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose- While he did debatable abuse his admin privileges somewhat, the abuse was very minor and the page was quickly unprotected and reprotected by an uninvolved person. I believe the primary reason for this RfDA and the other attacks on MrM are not his actions on the site but that he holds an unpopular and somewhat odd :) political view --Cspurrier 23:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Article was unprotected 7 minutes after being protected in a potentially abusive manner, but then reprotected by an uninvolved third admin due to the edit warring. It was the right decision, but MrMiscellanious should have asked an outside person to implement it. -  Amgine | talk 02:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Why it appears that MrM did abuse admin privliages, who hasn't been accused of abusing them before. Also, the page was later re-protected by a third party not invovled. --TUFKAAP 17:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose - If there is to be a punishment for such an abuse of admin privileges, in my opinion it should be a block rather than de-admin. De-admin should only be used for repeated abuse of admin privileges. - Borofkin 01:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose --Chiacomo (talk) 02:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Other/Comments

 * Comment(former abstain, I support RfDA now) There is new policy and tools for constructiv problemsolving growing in watercooler. Thats why I suggest us too hold our horses a litle . But I agree that Mrm have missused his powers and edit in a confrontational way that is not acceptable for a administrator or anyone else. International 23:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment It is my opinion that MrM tries to hold Wikinews to a far higher standard than many people are happy with. I have looked at a number of articles that I believe are amongst those people do things like keep "running lists" on, and either by the time I've seen the article the concerns have been addressed, or MrM does indeed have a point — which may have been put a little bluntly.  There's faults on both sides here, in that some people don't like facing their prejudices that MrM may highlight.  Sometimes the result is a really good article, other times it is like something that was originally written to crucify one party and filled with "allegedly" in a weasly attempt to address criticism that may have been brought. I guess we need something really well written that can get people to see when a particular way of writing something changes it from a report into an editorial, as this lies at the heart of this dispute.  If Wikinews is NPOV news, we have no opinion, sorting out what is fact you don't like and opinion that doesn't belong is difficult but a required part of participating in Wikinews.  I think MrM tries harder than a lot of those who seem set on removing him from the position of administrator to deal with this, and if it is coloured by his politics I think other administrators with different political background would be a better balance than a long-running campaign to de-admin. Brian McNeil / talk 19:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I whish not to participate in this vote Bawolff☺☻ 06:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Abstain. I'm really on the fence about this. On one hand, as Brian McNeil pointed out he does an amazing job. On the other he has oversteped (IMO) his position as an Admin (not too much, but oversteped them none the less). My biggest concern, which I would like his opinion on why he did this, is his flat out refusal to go through dispute resolution with neutrilizer — "I refuse to take place in this event. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 21:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)"  . We're supposed to try to fix users (to put it bluntly) not ban them. I think that is the most problamatic part of this, everything else is realitivly minor. Wikinews is represented by its Admins (even though they suposadly don't have any special representational powers, they do) and we should be activly trying to reform users who don't understand our policies, and our admins should especially be at the forfront of this effort. If their is some reason that Mr.M didn't whish to go through the dispute resolution, I'd be intreasted in hearing it and will proably change my vote.
 * Comment: I do not like to bicker about other users. I feel all contributors here deserve more respect than to see two of their fellow contributors accusing each other of being 'mean' or 'unfair'.  If there was a better solution to the problem, then it should have presented itself.  However, I do not agree with the current mediation process.  Preventing further disputes doesn't mean bringing up 'points' for a 'neutral party' to decide which one has a better point, it means working with the two users to settle their dispute.  And having a long-run war with someone and letting only one person decide what should be done isn't fair to the rest of the community.  So, if there were suggestions by all users of the community to solve the dispute, it would be welcomed by this party.  But I do not like having a neutral party taking any sides.  There should be more than one opinion on the outcome.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 17:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Isn't it a little unfair to hold this vote well he's on vacation? Bawolff ☺☻ 06:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Abstain I won't be voting because I'm on vacation myself, but I would like to add that I do believe it is unfair that the vote is taking place while he's gone. --Wolfrider 15:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Comment: I have now returned, so please continue this RfdA - however, please reset the '7-day' counter to today, the 10th. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 16:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Seems like a good idea. Nyarlathotep 23:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think MrM should be participating in this conversation. -Edbrown05 02:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Very well. I shall strike out my comments (except for this one).  --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 02:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I dissagree, An RFDa is as much about wether the user should be an admin, as to reasoning for the users action(IMHO). Could you please explain what you mean, (Edbrown05) futher? Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 02:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was second guessing myself on that. I think you have to take the crap dished here without comment. Until it is over. I don't read "pepper-posts" anyway so why try influencing what is said about yourself until others have had their say. -Edbrown05 02:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I see what you're saying. I'll continue to keep my comments striked out.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 02:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * whats the point of striking what you have written when people can still read it? I have no problem with MrM refuting arguments( it would be a bit silly not to) just do it in your own vote or maybe a blurb at the start of "opposed". --Whywhywhy 01:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Abstain - —M ESSED R OCKER (talk) refuses to participate in this consensus poll. 04:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Abstain and comment: I'm not a big fan of de-adminship rituals, for the simple reason that I generally believe people are trying to do the right thing. Removing another editor's adminship status is a fairly strong signal from the community, and in many cases, will cause the person in question to leave the project. It should only be done if it is necessary to prevent futher abuse.

While I have had conflicts with MrM in the past and I do think his tendency to tag other people's stories and thereby delay publication (often without working on the article in question directly), is problematic, I would rather not send such a strong message of community disapproval at this point in time. His actions here justify a warning, to be sure. His editorial practices are largely (if not completely) unrelated to his adminship, so they should not be judged here (which does not mean that they are beyond judgment).

What I do feel is that we need more instruments than just "de-adminship". I think even many of the complainants would be happy if they felt that our policies were being enforced in some way. For this reason I support the idea of a judicial body appointed in a consensus process by the community, an arbitration committee similar to the English Wikipedia's. Such a committe would have many more instruments - warnings, injunctions against particular behavior, and so on - and could look at the issue in question in an unbiased and even-handed manner. It would avoid many accusations of sock-puppetry and excessive public fighting.

I'm not going on the record with a strong oppose vote, since this request is not going through anyway without consensus, and I do feel it should be clear to MrM that protecting a page in this manner is unacceptable, period. Admins do not have special editorial privileges.--Eloquence 03:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment Any page lock or ban by an admin involved in a dispute is inherently unjustified. It doesn't matter if another uninvolved admin comes along later & agrees to it. The admin has discredited the process merely by using admin powers in a dispute. Eloquence, a "lighter touch" solution would be for other admins to simply refuse to support the admin abusing his powers, or just lock the page in the other parties state, usually published. It might increase conflicts among the admins, but it would almost certainly decrease overall conflicts. Sadly, people usually side with the familiar face. Nyarlathotep 14:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

How he envissions this is something I'd like to hear more about. Bawolff ☺☻ 20:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Question Mr.M has stated he feels that Dispute resolution is unfair he has also stated that he doesn't like the proposed arbcom. My question is what form of Dispute resolution would he prefer?


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

Deadminship: Amgine
I wish to propose that a vote be taken to remove Amgine's administrator status on the following grounds: Cartman02au 00:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Deletes relevant news  stating WN is not a place for PR, or incitement for riot instead of suggesting that it be merged into another article as requested by another administrator when I reposted the article.
 * 2) Upon reading the user's talk page, the above seems to happen quite often (premature deletion)
 * 3) Ignores requests to explain reasons for the above. New users may wish to know why their articles were deleted
 * 4) The greatest hyocrisy is after stating WN is not the place for PR, Amigne signs his discussions with a link to journowiki. The most recent I can locate is seen here . I think it is inappropriate for an administrator of this site to be advertising their own site and using WN for personal gain.
 * At the time of this request I believed that RfDA was the most reasonable course of action for these issues. After Chiacomo's messages I am preparing to put my issues to Dispute resolution Cartman02au 01:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Support for removal

 * 1) Support. I had a run in with him on Wiktionary. He refused to accept two citations as adequate evidence that the word existed (one was a definition and another that said it was in Merriam-Webster's Unabridged ). He then threatened to block me . I later won the dispute .  Further, on the RFV page, I actually caught him lying  in order to get the entry deleted. Primetime 00:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Forgive me for being harsh, but what does that have to do with Amgine's role at Wikinews? After all, we're not Wikitionary.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 00:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It shows that he's willing to lie and threaten to block in order to get his way. It also shows that he can't admit it when he's wrong, even in the face of overwhelming evidence and even if it means that a legitimate entry could be deleted from a dictionary. Primetime 00:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: The above IP editor (signing his name manually, apparently) has threatened to use open proxies and sock puppets on other wiki projects -- and has, in fact, been involved in a dispute with Amgine elsewhere. What is a non-editor without even a local username doing voting in a Wikinews RfDA anyway? --Chiacomo (talk) 01:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Reply to Wikipedia user Primetime: I'm still failing to see how his actions apply here. If you could explain why he should be de-admin'ed for WIKINEWS, please comment.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 01:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Ad hominem (Chiacomo) & red herring. Administrators should have more character than regular users because they have the ability to abuse their power so much. Amgine has shown a lack of character and a tendency to abuse his power. Primetime 01:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: You're into Wikitionary again. This vote is about his position on Wikinews.  If you cannot provide sufficient evidence of abuse on Wikinews, I suggest that you retract your vote, as it is improperly placed on the wrong wiki.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 01:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * There is no double standard for Wikinews. Both of the wikis in question were created by Jimbo Wales and his rules prevail. In any case, I strongly encourage you to click on my links, as I think that they speak for themselves. Primetime 01:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Reply: I do not, in good faith, support your vote, as you have not edited on Wikinews and are acting, perhaps in a smear campaign, against the person in question. If you provided reasoning on WIKINEWS and not any other site, I would acknowledge your vote.  However, being that this is a continuation of a dispute on another wiki with the user, I respectfully ask again that you retract your vote or provide specific reasoning for it here.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 02:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: The above user has been PERMANENTLY BANNED from Wikinews for impersonating Paulrevere2005 and Cartman02au. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 03:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

 * 1) Support. See Other Comments below, Paulrevere2005 01:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Amgine, you seem very conscientious and active as an admin, but I would prefer you to be less of an admin, and more of an author. I think that a disciplinarian approach such as exhibited by the clique of admins of which you are a central member is counterproductive in any public domain, such as wikinews is. This is not to say that you are responsible for the contributions of the people you align with, but by the same token, I think you need to allow yourself to become less responsible for the contributions of those you align against. -- Simeon 00:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support: Not because of my own RfDA but because of Amgine's meat puppet allegation, which goes along with your request. If someone is going to accuse people of being a meat/sock puppet simply because they disagree with them that person should not be an administrator. I joined this site only on Monday and have not been influenced by others now or in the past. Prior to writing an article here I have had no discussions with anyone. I have also not dropped my RfDA at this stage.
 * 4) Weak Support - Amgine is forgetting that this is supposed to be a place to post news. When was the last time he's done anything to help progress the progress (no pun intended) of Wikinews? Also, the clincher: he states it himself, he's left, yet he is one of the most active contributors (on the water cooler and such, where it could be in more, better places). While removal of adminship may be a bit harsh, it may work. —M ESSED R OCKER  (talk) 12:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC) I withdraw my assertion. —M ESSED R OCKER  (talk) 21:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I left a message on Messedrocker's page, but we should examine Amgine's contributions to the main name space before accepting such a blanket statement. --Chiacomo (talk) 15:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: MessedRocker is correct in his observation that the vast majority of Amgine's edits on the main namespace are not helping "progress the progess". As Ciacomo points out, this has changed in the last week, and I see this as a positive development. I strongly support MessedRocker's reasoning (as I read it): There needs to be a healthy balance between simply taging articles (for whatever reason), and active development of wikinews articles. Wikinews is a community project and does not need a police separate from the contributors. I am hopeful that Amgine's very recent change in behaviour, although maybe motivated by the RdfA, will continue beyond the lifetime of this poll.

Notes, not votes, for support for removal
How are "What is a non-editor without even a local username doing voting in a Wikinews..." valid? I'm not even a user of wikinews, never mind an editor. But My vote does not count, I'm told. "...failing to see how his actions apply here": Amgine's history in this & other wiki communities should count.. Not only by the vote, but by the citation. Basically, I concur 100% with Primetime, Which is exactly why I stopped paying attention to Amgine, but here, my vote doesn't count. Until these issues with his adminship came up... Also, check out these citations:|Amgine.

GRYE

 * Reply: Your edit counts if you're a contributor. So far you have failed to provide sufficient information that you are a contributor to WIKINEWS.  We are not universal - Wikipedia and Wikinews are not the same.  Amgine's RfdA is applicable only at Wikinews, so if you wish to participate in Wikinews' community polls, you must start to actually become a member of Wikinews.  Not Wikipedia.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 04:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I flat-out said I was not a contributor (Editor), nor even a user.

And what's with Amgine's use of exo-wiki >user: links]?? GRYE

 * If your not a user, why do you care. As for Amgines sig, thats been discussed recetly, basicly s/hes more active there. (dig through talk pages and dispute res.) Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 10:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I care, because this editor bugs the cr@p out of me on wikitionary and elsewhere. This vote was brought to my attention. I am here to bring Amgine's other wiki behavior to light. It is relevant to any wiki. & sorry, that's totally legit, yer right. I had it confused with his other [user signings] to an other [exowiki]. & finally, I'll cross out anything that seems a vote from me or about my voting.
 * Ok, thats fine. (IMHO others may have problems) just bear in mind that people may not care because this vote should be about his/her actions here and not elsewhere. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 11:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Please remember, this is not a vote about personality: not bugging the crap out of people on other projects is not a criteria for being an administrator on Wikinews. This vote is only about policy violations on this project. -- IlyaHaykinson 11:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I just disbelieve that his actions on other wikis have no bearing here, especially by wikinews, which probably relies on wikipedia & wiktionary more than any wiki references any other wiki, by several factors. That said, I'm over it. Good luck. GRYE

Oppose removal

 * 1) Oppose. And, my reasoning:
 * Article should have been deleted, albeit the description should've been changed. The talk page shows that the originating user (the only contributor) was OK with the deletion (and, therefore, was aware and compliant with the decision).
 * I am unsure how you can claim that I was compliant when I created another article with similar content. Another administrator (more curteous) suggested that I merge it with another article. According to Amgine the article was "PR and incitement". Cartman02au 00:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The article in question was a very controversial article. The content was very shady, in my own opinion, and it really should have been deleted in the method that Amgine described - after all, the information was repetitive and was already present in at least one other article.  Second of all, let me read off the text at its last revision:

 * It certainly sounds like an advertisement/press release to me. Furthermore, the message was posted on the talk page from the 'organization'.  The article was hardly newsworthy on its own, and I can understand Amgine's concern of it being a PR.  It should also be noted that the user's other article was shown as such of being a dupe/should be merged with another article, and contained the same content this did (as well as the corresponding talk page).
 * We've been over this before, there is no site policy which states you can't leave a link to your most-visited talk page, no matter where it is hosted. I see it no different than pointing to an email form.  Leave your comment and go, it's not like you actually have to venture all the way into Journowiki, click 700 links, and leave a message.
 * This RfdA shouldn't happen, because there is no reasoning for it other than the user's dissent for Amgine. I would sincerely hope that users start a new method of rules for de-admin'ing a sysop, otherwise this is going to become ridiculous.  It already has, especially when users of only a few edits are asking for de-sysop's on users after one occurrance.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 00:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * comment Where does the talk page say that the originating user was okay with deletion? The person who created the article is the person who has raised this RfDA request. - Borofkin 00:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Reply: That was on the other article this user created, I apologize for that. Strike-out.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 00:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * comment ::::I am unsure how you can claim that I was compliant when I created another article with similar content. Another administrator (more curteous) suggested that I merge it with another article. According to Amgine the article was "PR and incitement". Secondly, there is no dissent, Amgine should have responded to my request for a proper explanation. Any decent Admin would have done so Cartman02au 00:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

 * 1) Oppose - I don't think the article should have been deleted - it should have gone to deletion requests. However, Amgine does an enormous amount of admin (cleaning things up, etc) on Wikinews, and if we are going to raise an RfDA request every time he does something someone doesn't like, we'll never get anything else done. The correct response should have been for Cartman02au to put it on Admin action alerts and try and get another administrator to restore the deleted page. - Borofkin 00:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * comment I didnt know about Admin action alerts, but I am still offended by his arrogance and signature. Thanks again Borofkin, you always seem to assist me Cartman02au 00:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: You are OFFENDED by his signature? May I ask why?  --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 01:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: It's complete hyocrisy - he complains that an article I write is PR then PR's his own site.
 * Reply: I would agree if he was linking to the home page. But he's not, only to his talk page and user page their.  After all, that is where he is most of the time.  I am not seeing the PR in that.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 01:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I still fail to see how the article was PR. It may not have been worthy of it's own article, but how is reporting on it PR? You could say the same for the Racially motivated SMS's surface on the Gold Coast Cartman02au 01:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

 * 1) Oppose - not sufficient evidence of abuse of adminship -, but I would have preferred it if the the article had been listed at Deletion requests.--Eloquence 01:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. I don't know what the content of the article was (except for the exerpt by MrM above). But even if Amgine grossly missed on this one, I still wouldn't support his de-admin over a highly charged and on-going news issue being pushed by a new contributor here. -Edbrown05 02:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Sorry for not noting it earlier, but that was the full text of the article, not an excerpt. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 02:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I do not believe that statement to be true (I may be incorrect here though). I certainly know the second article was not that brief.Cartman02au 03:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Reply: That is the full text, sans Original template and sans-categories, sans-date, sans-sources. If willing, another admin can confirm this if need be.  --MrMiscellanious

(talk) (contribs) 03:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment':New contributors should not have the same rights as anyone else? Does that mean that new blood is not as valuable to the community? Cartman02au 03:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Reply: Every user is valuable here, however veteran users are more likely to be informed about site policy and conduct rather than the new users. Just one of those curses :).  --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 03:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Reply": I would like to be better informed about site policy and conduct, but some of these are very hard to locate. Thanks to a few kind users I have become better informed, but there is still much to learn. Cartman02au 03:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

 * 1) Oppose - correct response to wrongful deletion is to ask for undeletion, not nominate for de-adminship. -- IlyaHaykinson 06:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: When the administrator ignores communication and fails to follow site policy there is reason to nominate for de-adminship. Cartman02au 08:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Please see votes above, all of this is one RfdA.
 * 1) Oppose: Amgine's work as an administrator is very valuable to the project, a few disagreements are to be expected when we have people who don't seem to quite get NPOV. Brian McNeil / talk 18:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Not enough for de-admin. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 19:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. This page certainly isn't the right place to settle a dispute such as this one. --Deprifry|+T+ 19:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose and comment:Although the concerns raised by Cartman02au and Primetime are valid (and I have some other concerns that I could add to the list), I do not believe that they warrent an RfdA. At this stage I believe that there is still room for resolving these issues differently. --vonbergm 07:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. There seems to be some sort of campaign against Amgine by a small handful of users, spanning over several Wikimedia projects, like a witch-hunt of some sort. Jon Harald Søby 16:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support, Jhs, but it's really only 3 people, one or more of whom are using sockpuppets. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 19:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. I think the mediation has been the right course of action.--Whywhywhy 12:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. With regards to the Amgine block on me... it was quickly lifted. And in defense of Amgine's action, the record does indicate that I manipulated another person's post, even though the MediaWiki software mangled and merged my post in what was probably an edit conflict mix up. But more than that, an admin has got to make a call, which is pretty much guaranteed to be unpopular with some party to a story when any controversy is involved, and I've always pretty much found that Amgine offers up reasoning for actions. That probably alone is good enough to make and keep some person as an administrator. Even if the parties to the disagreement agree to disagree, which is also probably guaranteed among newsie hotheads. -Edbrown05 03:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. I admit to following this debate from the perimeter, so this is more a character reference than anything else.  Amgine is a conscientious, vigilant contributor to many wikis and posesses some of the best judgment I have seen in anyone, anywhere.  Or de-sysop him if you prefer.  He'll have more time to help us over at Wiktionary.  --Dvortygirl 06:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. --Cspurrier 01:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

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


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Administrator/Nyarlathotep

user:Nyarlathotep
He's done way more then a month and seems like a nice person. He's been on almost everyday for the last two months (look at contribs) and I feel him to be pretty trustwrothy. Also there's not enough new admins recently. I belive he'd make a good admin. Bawolff ☺☻ 17:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. --Deprifry|+T+ 18:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support.--Cspurrier 18:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. International 18:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support good contributions. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 04:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Respectfully oppose. While user shows great contributions, I feel there are too many administrators at its current state.  --MrMiscellanious – Merry Christmas – 00:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, whats wrong with having lots of admins. I heard a quote once - "Adminship should be no big thing" (or something like that; don't know who said it). I always thought of adminship as giving the tools that ideally everyone should have, but if WoW or another Vandal got them, we'd be in BIG trouble. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 05:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It was Jimbo Wales, the quote is here. The only question I think you need to ask of a potential admin is "do I trust him?". User:Dan100 (Talk) 10:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Reply: I don't agree with whatever Jimbo says, with all due respect. So quotes won't work on me.  There is an opposition group in the community against all administrators, which will undoubtedly grow less civil with a recent event, which is why I don't want to drag anyone into any of this at this time.  We're keeping up on the spam and vandalism, which is after all the only thing administrators are actually required for.  --MrMiscellanious – Happy Hanukkah – 22:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I wasn't asking you to agree, I was just sourcing the quote for Baw's benefit :-), although it's a concept I subscribe to wholeheartedly. Although I won't be voting as I don't know Nyarlathotep. User:Dan100 (Talk) 00:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Bah, well get back here so you can get to know the new members better! :P --MrMiscellanious – Happy Hanukkah – 00:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

 * support - Borofkin 00:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose - User believes that articles about some countries should have the name in the title while some others do not. He/she will not respect a NPOV or global audience.  --MateoP 23:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * BTW, Here is the debate in question ( see also ). MateoP wanted to use the title "Some candidates for president may be involved in drug trafficking", which is about a national election, but does not identify the nation.  I'm not really sure what I could have done diffrently to encourage wikipeace.  Nyarlathotep 10:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not referring to that, I changed the title, didn't I? I'm referring to when you said, quote, "I might not even read an article on a poll about two names I'd never heard of before, but I would read an article about a presidential race in Haiti. So it may be to your advantage to identify Haiti while saying "British Prime Minister Tony Blair ..." may just bore people into not reading the article."  The implication is that leaders / important people of some countries do not need to identify what country they are from while some others do.  You are pushing a policy of eurocentrism on Wikinews and that goes against the idea of wikis.  Oppose changed to strong oppose.  --MateoP 18:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Another point, if you will notice here, user Nyarlathotep linked to discussion on my talk page that had nothing to do with the issue (he was not even involved). This was nothing but an attempt to discredit me personally.  An admin should not resolve issues by trying to discredit users.  An admin should be looking for a resolution that fits with policy and accomodation.  Using ad hominem logical fallacies should not be part of being an admin.  So even in his nomination post, user Nyarlathotep shows why he is not qualified.  I highly recommend that people reconsider their support and future people to consider whether this is the type of person who should have this specific responsibility.  --MateoP 18:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Also notice here; Talk:2003 National Adult Literacy Survey Released that this title is as vague as the one user Nyarlathotep had a problem with, and although Nyarlathotep clearly read and contributed in peer review of the article, he did not have a problem with its title. Again, referring back to the above, Nyarlathotep does not believe that Wikinews is a global website.  He believes that some countries have different standards for titles than others.  --MateoP 18:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Titles should be as unique as possible. As for the National adult litracy survey released, whats stopping you from renaming it? Bawolff☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 21:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I have renamed things but User Deprifry makes messages on my talk page demanding that I fix redirects. That's a lot of work for someone have to do when it is someone else's fault that the name is incorrect.  The policy is stacked to discourage participation.  This isn't about me, i'm not requesting adminship.  This is about user Nyarlathotep, who as I've demonstrated, has a eurocentric bias and doesn't agree that Titles should be as unique as possible, for example he says that Tony Blair of the United Kingdom and George W. Bush of the United States do not need their country's in titles while other non-western leaders do.  See here: User talk:MateoP.  He also showed himself to be a bit of an out-there extremist in that discussion, but I guess that's likely not relevant.  As you have clearly demonstrated, user Nyarlathotep would not be reliable to enforce policy because he disagrees with it.  --MateoP 22:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Where did I "demand" that you fix redirects? --Deprifry|+T+ 22:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant to the discussion of adminship for user Nyarlathotep. Wikinews:administrators is not a discussion board.  Ask in user talk pages, thanks.  --MateoP 22:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Nobody's perfect. Its not like he told you to not rename it without the country. I bet you don't check every title published on wn to see if there's country bias in it. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 05:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1)I'm not requesting adminship. 2)Him not checking every article is not my problem.  He specifically said that it is ok for some figures to not have country's named and some it's not ok.  Specifically the western figures don't need to be named by country and others do.  That's eurocentrism and a violation of the spirit of a global wikinews and arguably NPOV.  Any eurocentric admin should be denied, without a doubt.  --MateoP 05:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * He never said that "western figures" doesn't need be named by country. He said that people like Tony Blair or George W. Bush, who is probably the most famous living person, don't need to be named because they are known globally. And he also said OTOH, the U.S. speaker of the house Dennis Hastert clearly needs to be identified, as at least an american representative, since nobody knows who he is, dispite the fact that he occupies what is maybe the most important position for a U.S. representative. . So you are, misleadingly, omitting key parts of his point. --Deprifry|+T+ 11:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't remember claiming that he said "all western figures" can be omitted. The point is that he thinks titles don't have to be consistent, and as a result he supports a eurocentric main page.  That's wrong, and anyone who feels that way should not be admin.  People here's willingness to ignore it shows that they have no values themselves.  --MateoP 15:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm a little bit tired right now, but I don't see that anywhere. Could you please provide linky? Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 06:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Here's 2 quotes, "So it may be to your advantage to identify Haiti while saying 'British Prime Minister Tony Blair ...' may just bore people into not reading the article." from Talk:Some candidates for president in Haiti may be involved in drug trafficking and "Everyone has heard of some people, not everyone has heard of some others. Sorry, that is just reality. Blair is clearly a special case, as he made an ass of himself & Britian alongside the U.S. & Bush for a long time." from User talk:MateoP. Clearly an example of ethnocentrism parroted as everyone has heard of this person from my culture, no one has heard of people from yours or another.  Name the country for that "other" culture, please.  --MateoP 15:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Support - Sinblox 08:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support - Don't usually agree with him; but he does seem trustworthy. Neutralizer 14:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I am happy to agree with Mrmiscellanious when I can. -Edbrown05 18:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support --vonbergm 13:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


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

User:Brianmc
I'd like to nominate brianmc for adminship. He's a tireless researcher, working on in-depth articles (such as the ongoing research about Greg Lloyd Smith) and covering a topic extensively (such as the Southern Thailand insurgency and here). He has done a lot of copyediting and working on community pages as well as great RC-patroling. I believe he would be a good asset for the community. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 20:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Accepted. I know there were a few concerns last time round, but I think if those minor cases are taken in the context of an entire year's editing, then I've demonstrated I can make a positive contribution as an Administrator. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC) (and I'm human, notice the spelling mistake I had to correct.)

 * Support--Cspurrier 20:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support--SonicR 21:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support --Deprifry|+T+ 22:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. He already assumes some of the cleaning responsibility :).  --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 22:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - Has done good work. Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 23:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Vocal and straight-forward. -Edbrown05 23:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support --vonbergm 23:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - sinblox (talk) 03:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support --TUFKAAP 15:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Nyarlathotep 15:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - Hey, he does the business! :-) Spum 10:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Does more admin work then some of the admins. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 21:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Of course!--Eloquence 22:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. -- IlyaHaykinson 06:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - sinblox (talk) 00:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


text: User talk:Sminchionello

title: User talk:Sminchionello


text:
Comments:Spreading floods in Pakistan worsen, at least 1600 dead

History of Sindhu RIVER and SINDHU Sanskruti is ancient. And it goes back to Vedic times. People living near those rivers are aware of those all History, facts and believes.

SINDHI is pronounced as INDUS but actually is SAPTA SINDHU RIVER. And SAPTA SINDHU Avrohan (descend from Himalaya) is not just any of Mythology but perfect science fact.

What is SAPTA SINDHU RIVER? As we count those rivers as SINDHU (INDUS) originates from west KAILASH region. And drain to Kashmir valley to PANJAB it meets with other five rivers of Punjab named as RAVI, CHINAB, JELUM SATLAJ and BIYAS.

But that’s the 1+5 =6 ONLY then why SEVAN RIVERS of SAPTA SINDHU? The seventh was SARASVATI which now dried river bed as a remnant as GAGGAR HAKARA river of Rajasthan. As land area of the river bed has been uplifted and diverted the water flows to other channels. So it was SAPTA SINDHU (seven rivers).

Peoples staying on the river banks are aware of all the facts and reality and also with mythology. It has been said that the SAPTA SINDHU is a pious river and it has descended to clear all dirt and SINs to make the land pious and fertile and free of SINs and sinners.

Scientific fact is that as river NILE, GANGA- YAMUNA and Brahmputra, SAPTA SINDHU – Indus is also givers a fertile lands, washes up all dirt and Sins to make land pious and fertile.

Nature and weather all are scientific and are natural phenomenon of god to make the all river to fulfil all that are supposed to do with cleaning the dirt’s and sins from there and make them pious and fertile for those pious people.


text: User talk:Drsrisenthil

title: User talk:Drsrisenthil


text: User talk:Davemck

title: User talk:Davemck


text: User talk:DH2010

title: User talk:DH2010


text: User talk:Ol619646

title: User talk:Ol619646


text: User talk:Timotheus Canens

title: User talk:Timotheus Canens


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Administrator/Elliot K

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

 * Accepted: Thanks for the nomination. I accept.--elliot_k 09:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Support - Elliot has written many quality in-depth articles and has demonstrated a willingness to consider differnet POV's and work with the community to resolve disputes. - Borofkin 05:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support --vonbergm 07:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support I am somewhat concerned with the conflict xe has had with MrM, however I trust Elliot enough to think xe will not abuse adminship --Cspurrier 14:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support --Brian McNeil / talk 21:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose for observations based on his collaboration with others. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 21:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC) (Unfair vote)
 * Support --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 03:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Support. Mops for everyone!--Eloquence 22:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. -- IlyaHaykinson 06:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. --Deprifry|+T+ 06:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Nyarlathotep 15:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - sinblox (talk) 00:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 22:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Administrator/Brian New Zealand

User:Brian New Zealand
I'd like to nominate the "other" Brian for admin status, I think his edits over the past couple of months have demonstrated a dedication to the project and a good understanding of the goals. I think he would make a good administrator, and he would be an asset to the community. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I accept. Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 22:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Support trigger-happy noms... iow, you beat me to it! -  Amgine | talk en.WN 22:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Excellent editor, deserves it. --TUFKAAP 22:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support great editor. Neutralizer 23:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Ultra-mega huge Support has fixed all objections on previous nomination (which someone forgot to archive). Great editor. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 00:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support --Deprifry|+T+ 10:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * S --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 19:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Glad someone decided to nominate him, I kept meaning to ask and forgetting :) --Cspurrier 20:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support vonbergm 20:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Happy to support. sinblox (talk) 02:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - Borofkin 03:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support -- IlyaHaykinson 06:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support --elliot_k 06:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support --Always finds the time to help others, always fair and insightful -Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 09:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Administrator/Cartman02au

Cartman02au
A careful editor and researcher, Cartman02au has also shown a respect for the community processes and has looked carefully into them. He's a prolific editor, and should be a valuable addition to the community with additional responsibilities. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 02:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Accept: Thankyou for considering me to become an admin. I shall leave it for the community to decide.

 * Support --Cspurrier 02:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Nyarlathotep 02:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 03:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - Borofkin 03:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Opalus 03:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support --Deprifry|+T+ 06:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 06:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Neutralizer 12:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support --Brian McNeil / talk 12:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Quite disturbing comments have been made on his account about administrators in general, making it obscure for me to support such a candidate. Also, I belive this may be too early of a nomination for the user.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 04:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Clearly willing to follow policy and be accountable. StrangerInParadise 07:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support -Edbrown05 07:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support --vonbergm 23:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Fully Rock. Fair Dinkum. --elliot_k 17:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support I don't see anything wrong with him. --TUFKAAP 19:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Administrator/Divol

Jacques Divol
Jacques is a dedicated admin on fr.Wikinews, yet still manages to find time to do vandal patrolling and editing on en.wikinews! I think we can offer him a couple more tools to continue helping here, as well as continue to collaborate on articles on both editions. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 01:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Accept: thanks for the proposal ! Cross language collaboration is vital ! And may I add ? : if you write french, we are deadly in need of wikinewsiens on the french side of wikinews ! Jacques Divol 09:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Support --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 02:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Nyarlathotep 02:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC) Plus, he'll need to edit the fr: wikilinks of protected pages.
 * Support --Cspurrier 02:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 03:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Opalus 03:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - Borofkin 03:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support --Deprifry|+T+ 06:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 06:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Neutralizer 12:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support --Brian McNeil / talk 12:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support --vonbergm 23:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Oui. Je pourrais avoir pris à Français à l'école cette année mais je pas .  Stupide je. Ainsi  faisons à Divol un admin! --TUFKAAP 19:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Administrator/Sfullenwider

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

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

 * Support, if user accepts. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 02:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 02:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Nyarlathotep 02:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support --Cspurrier 02:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 03:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - Borofkin 03:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Opalus 03:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support --Deprifry|+T+ 06:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Neutralizer 12:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support --Brian McNeil / talk 12:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support --vonbergm 23:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support --TUFKAAP 01:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support  Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 02:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Eh, that's your second vote here ;) --Deprifry|+T+ 17:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * OH NOES!!111 Recout! :P --TUFKAAP 19:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Lets go for a record... Everyone vote twice (: Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 03:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Administrator/Karen

Karen
Karen has been a quiet wikignome for months, quietly racking up copyedits and article fixes. Such diligence should be rewarded with tools for doing even more work on the site! I would like to nominate Karen for adminship. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 03:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Accept Karen 08:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I accept  Amgine 's nomination. Somehow I thought there were more admins than there are.

 * Support Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 03:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Nyarlathotep 03:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Opalus 04:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support -Edbrown05 07:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support --Brian McNeil / talk 08:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support --Deprifry|+T+ 06:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 02:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support --Cspurrier 02:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - Borofkin 03:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 06:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Neutralizer 12:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support --Brian McNeil / talk 12:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support --vonbergm 23:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support She deserves it. Hell, I didn't even know she was here! --TUFKAAP 19:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Administrator/Ral315

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

 * Opposed; sorry; not active enough yet. Neutralizer 02:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support -- Karen 19:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC) due to involvement with Wikipedia and first Wikinews contribution 29 December 2004 being consistent with guidelines:
 * 1. You've done at least a month's work on Wikinews.
 * 2. You are trusted by the community.

 * Support- I was on IRC when the user wrote the State of the Union article. Good work Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 03:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support--Cspurrier 20:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support--MrMiscellanious (talk) – 21:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support--elliot_k 18:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support more mops! --Brian McNeil / talk 19:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support -  Amgine | talk en.WN 19:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Administrator/DragonFire1024 1

Jason Safoutin
Jason (a.k.a DragonFire 1024) already does some adinistrative type functions. I have observed him marking articles, welcoming new users and tidying up around the place. He is a valuable member of the community and I feel he would be a valuable addition to our administration team - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 02:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I gladly accept nomination :) Jason Safoutin 02:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I withdrawl my request for admin. due to the fact that some administrators believe their voice is more important than the community's. Until some admins. can learn to work with the community, then I will gladly accept any nomination. Jason Safoutin 02:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Oppose The user has a history of disruptive disputes, difficulties with collaborative editing. I do not feel I could trust this user, personally. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 02:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose I cannot support the user at this time. Perhaps in a few months when he has had more time to become known by the community as a calm and level headed administrator. He is simply to new to Wiki. -Drew 03:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Already shows a great knowledge of policy, probably more than even some current administrators.  Is a strong editor, which is what we need more of in the administrator field.  Also is a great asset helping out our vandalism issues right now, and doing an awesome job in his Original Reporting field.  By far, one of the best newcomers I have ever seen here on this wiki.  He's ready.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 03:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Very poor grasp of NPOV. StrangerInParadise 07:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. --SonicR 22:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. International 22:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Support. I think he might be ready... might be.. the issues brought up are true, maybe they can be worked out. --TUFKAAP 22:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support hes done some very good things. I have to agree with mrm - By far, one of the best newcomers I have ever seen here on this wiki. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 23:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Self-serving promotion of stories produced largely by his own efforts will end in... promotion of wiki-goals? -Edbrown05 09:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not sure I understand your definition of "self-serving". He's covering an issue in depth that no other news outlet is covering; isn't that kind of the point? irid:t 17:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * ...it is original research, can you say from his declaration what conflict-of-interest he may have in the story? StrangerInParadise 22:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Oppose. I see clear improvements, but there is still some ways to go before I can trust that he will make a good administrator. --vonbergm 17:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Regrettably Oppose I think Jason is still too quick to anger when a dispute arises.  He is, however, an excellent contributor who, should he grow a thicker skin, and a less sharp tongue, would make an excellent administrator.  Jason, I got knocked back first time too so don't take this as sufficient discouragement to leave the project. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Lack of trust.--Eloquence 04:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Jason has done a great deal of work on Wikinews. He has focused on original reporting and represents the cornerstone of what the goal of independant media is; quality reporting on events and issues the mainstream media is not interested in. He is ready and able to be responsible for ensuring quality articles on Wikinews. irid:t 16:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - Jason has a great history of writing articles for Wikinews, especially that Buffalo hotel series he's be writing about: that's signs of a good journalist! I think he can handle administrative duties, but I'm worried that it'll decrease the amount of time he has for writing. —M ESSED R OCKER (talk) 20:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Very enthusiastic, but needs to develop better judgement and tact to be a worthy admin IMO. -- Avenue 02:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support no specific comments about him Jacques Divol 13:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


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

User:ironiridis
Ironiridis edits have established that he/she has an enthusiasm to wikinews and a good acceptance of the goals. I think he/she would be an asset to the community by been an admin. Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 01:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I skeptically accept, with much appreciation. irid:t 01:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I am withdrawing my nomination pending a 15 day waiting period to satisfy existing policy of a 30 day waiting period from account creation. Thank you for your support and criticism. irid:t 05:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Support. Great work.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 19:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Hesitantly support - I think s/he's a great editor, however s/he's just been here for a total of 17 days as of this writing. (started mar 2, todays mar 19 - 234 edits). However s/he definitly knows policy, so I'm unsure. Then again acording to his/her user page s/he was an IP for a little while. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 22:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment "He". ;) As a clarification, I have been around for a long time anonymously, however, that is largely unprovable and shouldn't count specifically towards my nomination. For the purposes of this discussion, perhaps it is best to focus only on my actions and experience for the last 17 days. irid:t 22:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, 234 edits in the first 17 days is quite an acomplishment. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 00:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Support. Doldrums 05:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It's a helluva lot easier to get them in than it is to get them out. I'm not voting for anybody who has been here less than a month. Neutralizer 05:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The guidelines (above) indicate that you must have been here a month. This is no barrier to an RfA, I don't think, but, were I a bureaucrat, I wouldn't actually create this user an Administrator until xe's been here a month. --Chiacomo (talk) 05:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The guidelines state that you're eligible probably eligible if you meet that criteria, not that you're ineligible if you don't. ;) irid:t 05:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment; now I'm more content with my vote. The last thing we need is another admin. who breaks the spirit of policies and then argues some technical pseudo-legalize to justify the breech. Neutralizer 05:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutralizer, the spirit of the guidelines is that they aren't concrete. They are worded specifically to be vauge, not to be an endless string of "except" "otherwise" "unless" nonsense. They are left to interpretation, and you are free to interpret. I am not here te break the spirit of the policies. See above; if what you are implying is true, then the policies should have been worded "No user with an account with fewer than 30 days of age shall be allowed Administrator nominations", because that is the "spirit" you're inserting into it. irid:t 05:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I've moved the discussion portion of this over here. irid:t 06:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Comment I can neither support this user's administratorship (due to the thirty day guideline) but I can also not deny the request due to their work on the site. Having looked at their mainspace edit history they have been tagging articles, fixing mistakes, etc - something that would be valuable to the administration team. If the same request is made when the time has passed I will have no hesitation to support it - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 11:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral Less then 30 days is much to short, however Ironiridis seems to understand the guidelines and policies fairly well.  --Cspurrier 15:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Has done some good work and has made a lot of good edits. Good grasp of the NPOV Policey and seems to know a good deal amount about policy. Jason Safoutin 16:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose While I like what I have seen of Ironiridis so far, it does not strike me as that extraordinary that I would not want to observe the user for a little longer. What's the rush anyway? --vonbergm 05:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment You know, I agree. Can I withdraw for a period of 15 days or so? irid:t 05:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


text: User talk:דוד

title: User talk:דוד


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

User:ironiridis2
Well, Ironiridis just had his 1-month anniversary yesterday. Check nom below, I agree with everything BrianNZ said. Let's try this again, shall we? ReporterFromAfar3136 20:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I accept this nomination, with bewilderment. You people are nuts. ;) Thanks! irid:t 02:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Support on the condition Ironiridis accepts this second nomination. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 21:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, as well as user accepts also. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 21:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose,Ironiridis's edits have decreased substantially since he withdrew his last nomination. That is unfortunate as we have less available activity upon which to make a decision than otherwise might be the case. I truly do not understand the need to rush(imo) an admin nomination through as we have quite a stable of janitors as it is. I spent some time reviewing the Nominee's edits since the withdrawal and I see nothing in the way of contributions which makes a compelling case for adminship. To the contrary, I am concerned that some edits appear to be rather opinionated,controlling and nippish; e.g. which, imo, are not the traits of an admin. that could benefit our project at this time. Neutralizer 21:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm not seeing what you are trying to say with any of those links. What I see is a user who is trying to maintain peace in the community, and some users who are ripping him out for it.  Perhaps some users like that unstability, I don't know.  But those examples above show one of the strongest reasons why he should become an admin.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 01:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment:I did not know that users were not allowed to take breaks or vacations. Jason Safoutin 01:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

(Suspicious that a user named Earl would give him trouble after my comments. 01:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC))
 * Support Karen 22:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC) I read all of the edits Neutralizer mentions above and will look at other edits later. Once Ironiridis accepts, I reserve now claim the right to change my vote; by then I will have read enough to form an opinion. His resemblance (See people's exibit # ) to the protagonist on My Name is Earl may indicate good karma. 22:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support User had decreased edits due to vacations and trips and user has great potential. Jason Safoutin 00:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support--Cspurrier 02:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Looked at Neutralizers list don't see any major problem. I might disagree with some edits (like #7 e.g.), but people differ. Overall I see a solid contributer, that is engaged and open minded in discussion. --vonbergm 03:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Doldrums 05:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Damn straight Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 10:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Jacques Divol 10:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support A couple minor tiffs with SiP are no big deal. Very amused by Karen's comments about User:Earl too.  Nyarlathotep 14:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Yeah, Earl will be ok. --Sfullenwider 01:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Sure we've disagreed on some things (e.g. #7), but I feel he was really trying to find a consensus solution. I think he'll make a good admin. -- Avenue 11:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Absolute. Good solid head.  Mostlty calm and collected.  Would make a good addition -Drew 16:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support How could I forget? Or is it an automatic support? ReporterFromAfar3136 22:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support I was going to abstain, until I read the links posted by Neutralizer. I agree with MrM, those links demonstrate why he should be an administrator. - Borofkin 22:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment; Imo, any user who supports Dragonfire for admin. at this point in time does not have enough good judgement themselves to be an admin. or else they enjoy the silliness; either way, I will now add the word "strongly" to my vote. Neutralizer 01:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Neutralizer, I will respectfully ask you to be respectful of others at this point. You have made some very personal remarks in the last hour that were absolutely unjustified in their tone. Please find a different way to voice your opinion. irid:t 01:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment; No. This shows your true colors as there is nothing personal being said at all. Every comment I made is related to editing behavior and each comment is debatably correct. The fact you want to exagerate about an "hour" when it's been about 10 minutes and you want to censor what someone is saying in relation to your own nomination shows what we can expect from you as a stalking admin. Neutralizer 01:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You just stated that any admins who votes "yes" on Dragon should not be an admin. That is an attack.  How would you like it if I stated, "If you agree with Neutralizer, you should be blocked"?  You're aware of the policies.  Start following them.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 16:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No.MrM's analogy is twisted and false as are 100% of his attempts; correct one would be "any user who supports Neutralizer for admin. at this point in time does not have enough good judgement themselves to be an admin. or else they enjoy the silliness." I can agree with that too as I would be a terible admin.; along the lines of MrM, perhaps. Neutralizer 11:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, Neutralizer I advise you to read over WN:NOT. This is not a theatre of war and you are currently attacking MrM, Me, and Ironiridis. You voted, and your attacks are not need here or anywhere else on Wikinews. Jason Safoutin 11:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Oppose. One month does not establish enough history. -Edbrown05 03:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: He's done more in a month than some have in a year. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 16:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I am comfortable with the idea of using a length of time rather than a has/hasn't done judgement. He's justified in saying that 30 days is not sufficient. I welcome that kind of criticism. irid:t 03:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply: Certainly some will be wary because of the time factor. However, actions speak louder than time, especially in these cases.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 03:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Support --Brian McNeil / talk 15:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. What's his name again? --Deprifry|+T+ 14:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose I like to wait some time to see how this user act in some quite "comunity splitting" issues. International 07:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


text:
Thread:Comments:Oil spill reported in Gulf of Mexico/Comments from feedback form - "It was horrible! I hated it. i..."

It was horrible! I hated it. i bet it will get rated as the most horrible essay in the world. It's name should be "This is a Stupid Article."


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Administrator/Mindspillage

Mindspillage
Clearly trustworthy: en.wikipedia & meta.wikimedia admin, en.wikipedia arbitration committee twice, follows 1RR, knows stuff, gets stuff resolved, and generally a nice person. Admittedly, shes not always around soo much, as heavily committed elsewhere, but that doesn't seem problematic. Nyarlathotep 16:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the kind nomination. I am warning that as mentioned I won't be particularly active as an admin, but nonetheless I accept. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Support w00t! first POST! Er, in other news, an incredibly intelligent and skilled wiki citizen. Wonderful to work with in my (brief) experience. I'd love to see her block me some day. irid:t 22:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support unmakeable minds are sometimes the best minds. --Sfullenwider 22:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Something about this users' name tells me they'll be perfect as a "janitor". :P --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 23:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. This is a real administrator. Neutralizer 01:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support on the condition the user accepts this nomination.  -  Amgine | talk en.WN 01:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. She couldn't be better vetted. -Edbrown05 03:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. --vonbergm 04:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Opp Support of couse :) Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 11:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support i hope she's not an adminship collector Jacques Divol 12:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support --Brian McNeil / talk 15:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Jason Safoutin 05:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Overqualified. Also, she's getting paid for wikiing? How cool is that? --Deprifry|+T+ 14:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support ! That Guy, From That Show! 02:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Not trying to derail anything here, I better understand the system at this point, and I'm no longer concerned with this vote. irid:t 03:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Support. International 07:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. --Cspurrier 14:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support --TUFKAAP 02:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support with the caveat that she not take time away from Wikipedia for this project. ;) KillerChihuahua 16:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. — The KMan talk 17:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support — Karen
 * Support - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 22:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - Soufron She's cool !


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Administrator/DragonFire1024 2

DragonFire1024
I am renominating myself as I did run before. I have made considerable contributions to Wikinews in the areas of both Original Reporting and Photojournalism. I have also contributed to and or published nearly 100 articles here and here. I also send welcome messages to new users and users that do not have accounts, in hopes they will sign up :) I also try to print out a Wikinews print edition when there are hot story(s). I tend to write more along the lines of big breaking news, and sometimes the little ones count too. I hope to do many more local stories as well. Jason Safoutin 23:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Enthusiastic, active contributor.  Has a large knowledge of policy, and has proven this in many cases.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 23:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Great user, no objections. ReporterFromAfar3136 23:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. As before, incredibly persistent contributer. Covers stories nobody else covers, lots of OR, works very hard. irid:t 23:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose; I did not vote when he was nominated before; his withdrawal remarks(re; his last nomination) less than 2 weeks ago; "I withdrawl my request for admin. due to the fact that some admind believe their voice is more important than the community's. Until some admins can learn to work with the community, then I will gladly accept any nomination. Jason Safoutin 02:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)"} say it all; arrogant,combative and childish. Neutralizer 01:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Uh, I think you need to be logged in there, buddy. Thank you. irid:t 02:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Oppose. I do not feel I can trust this user. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 01:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - reading the votes and also Jason's acceptance, it seems like we are using the adminstrator duties as a "reward" for good reporting, lots of reporting, etc. Everything Jason says are things any editior can do, not just an admin. I'm cautious to be handing out lots of adminships which may or may not be needed. Lyellin 02:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Agreed that an adminship is not a reward. It does, however, indicate that he is willing to work on the site considering a lack of substatial reward. A user that contributes so much original work with research and photography and interviews is not simply here to play games; he's serious about Wikinews. irid:t 02:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Comment I don't disagree at all. I am cautious giving users adminship though, in almost any case. Do we need more? Are we suffering from a backlash of vandalism/deletion requests/etc that the current admins can't handle it? This goes for all the people being voted on, not just Jason. I completely respect Jason's work - for instance today on the Scotland bird flu article. Lyellin 02:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Ah, you have a point. We don't need a ton of admins right now. I figure, however, it doesn't hurt to empower members of the community that are willing to do the work. That way, more admins can focus on writing articles, rather than screwing around with administrative tasks. I don't think it hurts to have too many admins. I am willing to bet someone will disagree with me here. irid:t 02:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

               In my opinion this is a classic example of an attempt to "steamroller" discussion by repeatedly and forcefully asserting opinion as fact. Such activity has caused me to lose trust in this user. - Borofkin 02:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I am disturbed by this sequence of edits on the Arbcom workshop page:
 * Comment Actually my beef is simple: Admins get voted in by the community, and they get voted out by the community. That is the right of the users on this Wiki. Jason Safoutin 02:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Your beef is certainly simple. My issue is that you feel the need to state it, over and over again. Everyone knows that you think Arbcom shouldn't have the power to de-admin. To state that opinion, over and over again, is steamrollering. The comment you have made here is another example. - Borofkin 03:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * So, by that same philosophy, Borofkin, that means we are not allowed to dissent? I'll say it, heck, I'll scream it: I... HATE... ARBCOM!  I'm finding your statement above extremely troubling.  If voicing your opinion over and over again is a crime, than I know a bunch of admins who need to be re-evaluated by your standards.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 01:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "crime". It certainly isn't against policy, although I'd prefer to see some rational discussion rather than repeatedly stating the same thing. I only mention it here because it is the reason that I have opposed adminship. - Borofkin 01:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * And, I've seen nothing but the same, generic, monotonous message from users who accept the Arbcom. Inquiries are not supposed to be forced - they are provided at the will of the user.  Perhaps, if you ask nicely, it will be returned.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 01:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean by "inquiries are not supposed to be forced". I attempted to discuss the issue with Jason on his talk page. Take a look at my inquiries, and his reponses. You will see that even though I acknowledged his opinion on Arbcom, and was actually asking about something else, he felt it necessary to state and restate his position, in a repetitive way. Such behaviour demonstrates a difficulty engaging and collaborating with other users. - Borofkin 01:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, that's a little too bad on your views. I did not see one thing in the requirements that stated he must do those things.  And, to get a vote, I wouldn't.  You are criticizing him for letting his opinion be heard - although, you haven't an issue bringing yours up here.  That is disrespectful.  Perhaps you don't see it that way, but I see no issue with him restating his case.  It's fair game for discussion.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 01:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Oppose. Enough trouble exists already with figuring out how to reign in adminstrative "inappropriateness" without putting a new wild card in play. -Edbrown05 02:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Please explain your comment...as it seems a bit rude and a bit "personal, IMO. Jason Safoutin 02:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You are opinionated and vocal, (I like both those qualities), but you haven't been around long enough for the community measure the impact you would have, that makes you a wild card. -Edbrown05 03:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Not around long enough: I support Iron to be an admin, but your statement contradicts itself. He has not been around as long as I. Jason Safoutin 10:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Oppose Not enough trust. --vonbergm 04:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support : he seems to have good will. we need goodwill to build wikinews Jacques Divol 12:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm sorry. But someone who wants to be admin this much, should not be given it.  DF, hang, wait, write and let someone nominate you when the time and the community trust in you is right.  In my humble opinion, you seem to get too upset too easily.  In my dealings with you, you have occassionally steam-rolled the conversations and admins must be patient and willing to hear the other side of the coin.   I'm sorry, but when you were nominated before I offered the same advice to hang back and get some time in with the community.  Please reconsider this again now. -Drew 23:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not enough trust. StrangerInParadise 23:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I find it striking, and appalling, that some users say they cannot trust this user. That, to me, is a more personal issue rather than a leadership issue.  This user has shown nothing but utmost devotion to the community, which is why he opposes Arbcom - his comments on the pages as of now show that he doesn't want anything or anyone telling the community what to do.  That to me shows leadership.  He was not afraid, even though many users have hassled him, for voting no on it (Yes, he was one of only two - the other was myself).  He voiced his opinion and showed that he would not let anything or anyone become superior to the community on this website.  He has a great wealth that I wish all users will someday obtain - the understanding and knowledge of this site's policies and guidelines, which ensure that this wiki keeps its eyes on the ball.  If I could say that about every single administrator on this site as of now, I probably would go along with others and say we don't need another admin.  But we do.  He's active enough, he dedicates time almost daily to helping this wiki in various fashions - writing excellent articles, reverting spam, marking bad pages for speedy deletion or a DR request, etc.  So, why not?  He's qualified.  He can be trusted.  Look not at who nominated them.  Look at the one being nominated.    --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 01:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * support I have umed and hared over this; taken in all users opinions, however I have to agree with MrM on this, so Support Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 12:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Dragonfire is not good as admin for now. His editing exept contribution to newsmaking reminds of Mrm. International 07:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Anymore personal attacks you would like to add? Jason Safoutin 10:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * This reminds me about Dragonfires some oversensetivity to critic. An administrator must have the ability to remain calm. If Dragonfire think this respons help him to get my support it is one more reason to oppose his nomination.International 21:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I am calm. You are not. I am sick of your attacks. Read WN:NOT. You voted, now please stop with the attacks. Jason Safoutin 01:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Dragon, you will never get to be an administrator if you can't learn to control yourself. Eventually you'll make it if you can just learn to control yourself a bit to earn more community trust. I think you have done better this time haven't you? Don't be discouraged. Neutralizer 03:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Support. I am some what concerned about his response to the arbcom, but I think he will make a fine admin --Cspurrier 14:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Fine by me, plus, I just want this to go to rest. If he's this enthuisatic about being admin, let him be one. --TUFKAAP 02:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support User:TUFKAAP tells it as it is. Joann 03:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Just so everyone is aware, this user has made eight edits to the Wiki. S/he was also the user who voted against Arbcom one minute after creating an account. - Borofkin 03:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Matter why? btw, is misread the arbcom poll, it not what i thought it was Joann 21:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Its generally considered suspicious if you do only specific non-article tasks (i.e. vote). Some people also believe that if you're new/have made little edits, you probally don't understand what you're voting on (I'm not saying this is true or not, but thats how many people may see it. However I've noticed you've been to a couple articles, so it looks like your trying, so I think your vote is valid.) Actually the turnout of users is quite intreasting. Bawolff [[image:smile.png]] 22:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Not entirely. Maybe for those who create an account just to vote, but remember we have a large readership that does not necessarily edit articles.  I'm sure they've been keeping tallies on the contributors here.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 16:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Support> I support because i believe that everyone has something to learn, DragonFire2410 didn't know how to use memoserv and openly asked for help. Admins should be the same way, open to new suggestions and ideas. They must also help out in the community unity. <For example I've announced many times that I'm working on the Hurricane Portal and the Hurricane Season infobar, and its been known for over a month now, with only two exceptions, no one has helped in any way with both. (unsigned by user: Terinjokes).
 * Oppose for obvious reasons. (I'm sure now I'll be a target by "others" here, but so be it) Cowicide 06:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose, doesn't understand the NPOV. Can't have admins who don't understand that. Dan100 (Talk) 14:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support: Already does admin-like stuff behind the scenes, lets give him the button and see hoe he goes! - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 22:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Reluctant Supporteration: Indeed, Jason would make a fine and dandy administrator. I'm not that sure, however, because performerating in administrative activitities may take up the time he has to write articles about how Buffalo, NY is about to get pwnerated by a hotel, when Super Restauranteur comes to rescuation. All in all, Mr. Sah-Foo-Tahn deserves admination. M ESSED R OCKER (talk) 20:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support I think that POV is nearly impossible to be removed from any individual, by external or internal factors. I think that this particular potential admin may even out a few of the imbalances that wikinews currently has.  This can be witnessed even during this voting, if one looks up a few votes.  I have spoken with the user on how he would handle himself and I think that as long as he does what he says he will do he will be fine.  True this will cause some fighting, but, I am starting to wonder if that is simply unavoidable or if the only other alternative is NPOV by claim and biased by votes.  --Sfullenwider 22:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Final Count: Support: 12, Oppose:10 - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 23:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Final counts are only done by bureaucrats or stewards, which signal the end of an RfA.  As of now, this RfA is still open to more votes.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 04:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Oppose I don't usually oppose such stuff, but if this is a request for more votes.  I'll basically vote support for anyone who I believe will follow 1RR with the buttons, but I'd need real reasons to vote support otherwise.  Nyarlathotep 19:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Administrator/Frankie Roberto

Frankie Roberto
After reading this, I'd like to put myself forward for 'adminship'. If people don't think I've been here long enough/done enough, then that's cool, but I'd like to help if I can. I'm an 'accredited reporter' if that counts for anything... Frankie Roberto 19:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. --Deprifry|+T+ 19:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Why not? --Flipbaywood 22:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Abstain. Before voting, I'd like to see a little more of an explanation of why this user would want to become an administrator. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 23:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure - He appears to be a good editor and besides, administrator status is no big deal. — THIS IS M ESSED [[Image:R with umlaut.png]] OCKER (TALK) 23:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm considering my vote (I like to look in to things for a little bit before making a descision. in the end I'll proably vote support.) I just wanted to make sure you knew that theres more then just speedy deletion. I also wanted to ask you, If there was one thing you could change about wikinews - what would it be? (Muhuhuh! Even worse then thoose old stupid standard questions). Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 23:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair dos. According to this page, admins 'can edit pages in the MediaWiki: namespace (system messages), block users, delete pages, and protect pages', all of which I'd do in strict accordance with the site policy. There's plenty of things I'd like to change about Wikinews, but not many of them are relevant to being an admin. I'd like to see improved RSS feeds (with article extract), an improved homepage, and better collaboration over things like creating and sourcing photos and graphics to go with news articles. Frankie Roberto 09:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Sounds good. Support. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 21:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Neutralizer 12:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support I see Frankie's edits when I sneak a look at recent changes during work hours, I think he'd benefit from the extra buttons. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment; I don't think that the idea is for the administrator to benefit from the extra buttons. Neutralizer 11:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Support A-ok with me. --TUFKAAP 01:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Nyarlathotep 11:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Jacques Divol 20:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support international 08:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support excellent reports, good history of cleaning up. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 22:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Aloha, KeithH (talk) 08:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support: Frankie already does alot of work here, no harm in giving him admin status - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 00:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)