Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Archive 2

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!

Jump to:navigation, search

Contents

[edit] User:Elliot K

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

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)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of the Admin's page or the talk page of the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.


[edit] User:Brian New Zealand

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

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... <grin> 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 ☺☻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)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of the Admin's page or the talk page of the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.


[edit] Cartman02au

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

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 ☺☻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)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of the Admin's page or the talk page of the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.


[edit] Jacques Divol

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

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)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of the Admin's page or the talk page of the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.


[edit] Sfullenwider

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

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)

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 ☺☻Smile.png 03:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of the Admin's page or the talk page of the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.


[edit] Karen

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

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

  • Accept Karen 08:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I accept Amgine's nomination. Somehow I thought there were more admins than there are.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of the Admin's page or the talk page of the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.


[edit] Ral315

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

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.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of the Admin's page or the talk page of the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.


[edit] Jason Safoutin

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

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 ☺☻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. —MESSEDROCKER (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)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of the Admin's page or the talk page of the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.


[edit] User:ironiridis2

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

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.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] which, imo, are not the traits of an admin. that could benefit our project at this time. Neutralizer 21:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Support Karen 22:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC) I read all of the edits Neutralizer mentions above and will look at other edits later. Once Ironiridis accepts, I reserve now claim the right to change my vote; by then I will have read enough to form an opinion. His resemblance (See people's exibit # [8]) to the protagonist on My Name is Earl may indicate good karma. 22:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

(Suspicious that a user named Earl would give him trouble after my comments. 01:21, 5 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)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of the Admin's page or the talk page of the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.


[edit] User:ironiridis

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

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 ☺☻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 ☺☻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)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of the Admin's page or the talk page of the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.


[edit] Mindspillage

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

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. <chortles, laughs, giggles, rofl, and otherwise indicates extreme enjoyment of this> - 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)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of the Admin's page or the talk page of the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.


[edit] DragonFire1024

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

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)
  • Oppose - I am disturbed by this sequence of edits on the Arbcom workshop page: [9] [10]

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

  • 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 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)
  • 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. MESSEDROCKER (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)


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

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

  • 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)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of the Admin's page or the talk page of the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.


[edit] Frankie Roberto

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

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 MESSEDR with umlaut.pngOCKER (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 ☺☻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 ☺☻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)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of the Admin's page or the talk page of the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.


[edit] DragonFire1024 (Third nom)

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
Vote tally:(8/8/1)

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

I accept this nomination :) Jason Safoutin 12:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 18:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Jacques Divol 20:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Frankie Roberto 20:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose This user is an excellent contributor and an asset to Wikinews. However, I believe that his understanding of policy is poor, and I have serious doubts about his ability to apply policy in an unbiased way, and therefore I do not trust him to be an administrator. - Borofkin 23:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not enough trust. --vonbergm 06:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean by that? I'm just a little bit confused. Flipbaywood 20:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Great asset to wikinews Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 06:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose After last mess when he was involved in persuing Messedrocker to block me and his die hard support of mrm:s actions, how wrong and confrontative they sometimes be, it should be obvious for everyone that Dragonfire is not suitable for Wikinews administration. USpov and 'Irc cabal' is strong enough among admin here without him. international 08:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I find this comment seriously degrading, personally. There's one thing to oppose based on actions, but to oppose because you disagree with an alleged bias which you don't even have the strength to prove is just, in my eyes, a very weak argument. Obviously, this user above is not looking out for the best intentions of the wiki for making that type of argument, and is instead voting for his personal preference of users to become administrators. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 01:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment on comment: *Huomourus mode off* Now, who are you to tell that I am not looking out for the best intentions of the Wikinews. What a crap. And you of all here is not famous for motivating yourself. You and Dragon found each other for sure. Maybe you are to blame for telling Dragon how to act here. Corrupting good Wikinewsie material...Bad! *Good mode on, for rest of weekend*
  • Comment. I've only known DragonFire1024 to be a good editor via the IRC channel. Obviously, there have been some worries about him enacting policy. Might I suggest that DragonFire1024 request adminship with the caveat that he can't make any blocks for the first three months or so, at which time he has to make a second request to try and receive blocking privileges? Ral315 (talk) 17:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • unfourtanatly oppose. Your a great contributer, don't take this the wrong way, but I share similiar concerns as Brofkin. When I've observed you in a dispute with other people, I've noticed you seem to have a tendency to not listen to them, no matter what they say. You seem to not to try and resolve the problem, or figure out what their issue is, but instead just repeat your point. I'm sorry, as it saddends me very much, as you're a fantastic contributor, but I can't support this. However Ral315's idea is acceptable to me, or a condition that you can't block any user you're in conflict with (by conflict, I mean argument, not deleting a page, like the world's ending in aprox. 10 minutes or similiar non-sense, but actually having an argument with someone (ala you and neut)) , even if they're WoW, until such a time as Ral suggests. 20:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC) User:Bawolff
  • Support. Oppose. Jason has made so many excellent contributions to Wikinews, but his response to Doldrums' vote below is unacceptable for an admin. Flipbaywood 20:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose; its hard to oppose a contributor with so much spunk and energy; but the maturity level and objectivity are just not where they need to be, DF's blind(imo) allegiance to MrM(imo) is certainly not something that works to the benefit of the project. Neutralizer 22:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, user does not have my trust. - Amgine | talk en.WN 22:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Instead of just stating you don't trust him, I think it would be respectable to state why you don't trust this user to be a sysop on this wiki. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 01:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, MrM, Amgine's comment "user does not have my trust" is straightforward and to the point; any elaboration could be construed as a personal attack and it may be best to not be pushing for more details from anyone if you really want to help DF get his fingers on the big buttons. I suggest we just let the contributors all vote without so much extra comments about each vote. Neutralizer 03:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I don't want to hear from you. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 19:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Others do want to hear from you. -Edbrown05 05:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I dont now if I vote when I nomed him, but I trust this user, Ral's proposal looks good through 00:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. How can I not support someone this enthusiastic about WN? He has a love for WN and the guts to 'get the story.' He definitely has passion, which in its extreme form can take the form of the overzealousness and stubbornness that concerns others. As long as he stays on this side (and doesn't cross over to the "dark side"--heh heh), I think he'd make a great admin. Aloha, KeithH (talk) 07:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Nyarlathotep 11:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Abstain --Brian McNeil / talk 18:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Can't hurt Joann 02:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose DF is an enthusiastic and prolific contributor, but i think he needs more experience with and better understanding of policies and wiki functioning (eg. [26]) before assuming admin responsibilities. Doldrums 08:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
So I make one mistake? Im not perfect. Jason Safoutin 19:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Albeit with some reservations. PVJFlag of India.svg 13:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of the Admin's page or the talk page of the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.


===PVJ59(Contributions) (Created Articles)===

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

Vote count (13/3/0)

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

  • Support Maybe young (age & edits) but all seems quite well. Can you please post a link to contributions on another project or Yahoo? Nyarlathotep 15:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

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

  • Support Ok, nothing talking against PVJ so why not. international 04:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
    • For reference, our current time minimum is one month, which PVJ meets. I understand if there's some other reason you don't trust him yet, but I'd like to caution against subtle "criteria creep", i.e. making it harder now to be an admin than it was 6 months ago. There's no need for that.--Eloquence 20:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Seems to be level-headed, and care about wikinews. Bawolff ☺☻Smile.png 22:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Abstain I'd like to check the user's edits so far, but from what I've already seen, there is no reason right now why this vote is not a support, other than me wanting to be thorough ;). --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 22:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose User should be a little more familiar with Wikinews. Get a feel for things. Jason Safoutin 23:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Questions; 1. How much time per week can you contribute over the next 6 months? 2. Do you feel that western governments sometimes intentionally put out misleading and false information through western media? 3. What contribution to Wikinews that you have made so far are you the most satisfied with?(provide link,diff). 4. What is the most newsworthy story on Wikinews today and why? Neutralizer 12:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
CommentPVJ, you do not have to answer any of those questions if you choose not too. Its not a requirement to answer them. I also don't see how the question in regards to "western media" has to do with anything. Neutralizer, if you truely feel that way, then I don't understand how you plan to get along with a great portion of the users on this Wiki. Again PVJ you are not required to answer any of those questions as I think you have been put in a positiuon that you may feel obliged to do so. Jason Safoutin 12:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Answers I'll take Jason's advice. I'm not really sure about the significance of questions 2) and 4) with regard to this RfA. As for question 1) I'm not sure about the amount of time I can contribute, but I'm pretty sure I'll be able to write between 8-10 articles a week. 3) I don't have any in particular because I'm not sure what crieteria to look at whilest judging the value of my articles. However in terms of significance, I guess it would be BJP leader Pramod Mahajan shot at in Mumbai. I hope that you will excuse me for choosing not to answer two of the questions. PVJ Flag of India.svg (Talk) 13:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
To choose an admin based on political beliefs is a bad idea, as well as a slipery slope. (IMHO) Bawolff ☺☻Smile.png 00:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Questions of this nature on RfA are trolling, pure and simple.--Eloquence 00:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I think questions of this nature are best left to individual user's talk pages. If they address concerns with another user's faith in a potential administrator they are possibly valid - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 12:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Support: Great contributor to the site - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 09:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support --Brian McNeil / talk 16:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. User seems to be involved in DR, and other administrative cleanup duties. Also, it's great to have an admin from India. -- IlyaHaykinson
  • Support. Prolific writer, and probably more so since we're battling it out for that third spot in the IWWC, and very active. He'll be great. Aloha, KeithH (talk)
  • Support. Productive and responsible editor.--Eloquence 18:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose- Mind changed by copyright violation http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Activists_in_Tunisia_thrashed_by_police "members of the Tunisian National Organisation for Lawyers have begun a hunger strike in protest against the law of the Supreme Bar Institute that was endorsed by the Tunisian parliament. The lawyers accuse the Ministry of Justice of seeking to control the lawyers' syndicate. The government says it is committed to democracy and respects human rights, adding it has no political prisoners and that it has not jailed anyone for expressing their opinions." and other article not NPOV http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli_Air_Force_attacks_militant_bases_in_Lebanon&oldid=259022 I will supprt PVJ59 after he has more WIKINEWS expereince. Yrtsihpos 02:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Copyright violation? Can you produce the original copyrighted article? Aloha, KeithH (talk) 09:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
      • You're right, it does look like just those sentences were copied verbatim from the article, not the whole article. Will audit some of the articles against the sources. Aloha, KeithH (talk) 09:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Took a look at about half a dozen created articles and I don't see any pattern of plagiarism. Aloha, KeithH (talk) 09:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Good editor Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 06:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. --Deprifry|+T+ 10:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support'. Good work. Frankie Roberto 19:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support --vonbergm 19:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment; what is the rush to make this very new and very young contributor an administrator? Should this article have been published in this condition (as he did?) Obviously this 16 year old has great potential; but should he have the buttons this week? I am truly confused about how Wikinews will benefit from such a hurried adminship.64.229.184.222 22:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
As I have explained here, I published that article in the condition in which it was because it had been written by a newcomer and I did not want to discourage him by telling him his article was unfit for publishing. I did however, tag it as a stub and add a suitable explanation on the talk-page. PVJ Flag of India.svg (Talk) 03:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose PVJ59's Above explanation and the article which this fine young potential admininistrator published reveal too little experience and good judgement to be an administrator right now. 64.229.30.162 05:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of the Admin's page or the talk page of the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.


[edit] User:Chiacomo- Bureaucrat

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

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

Thank you for your kind words and your nomination. There aren't many responsibilities, but if selected I'll do my best. --Chiacomo (talk) 05:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
By the way, the main reason for me nominating Chiacomo is not that we need more, but in Ral315's words — "I think extraordinary users who are trustworthy, and who are willing to help out, deserve to be made bureaucrats.". Bawolff ☺☻Smile.png 21:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, of course. Responsible, dedicated, and thoughtful. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    • FWIW, I don't think there is a pressing need for more, but if anyone new is to be made bureaucrat, Chiacomo is a fine choice. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I support and trust this user completely, but I was unaware that Wikinews's bureaucrat needs were going unfulfilled? Unless there is a need, I do not support additional bureaucrats. If there is a need, I would immediatly support Chiacomo for such a position. - Amgine | talk en.WN 06:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment per amgine, if there is a need, I would strongly support Chiacomo Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 06:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Without a doubt the most reasonable person on this wiki. --Deprifry|+T+ 07:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
*Strongly Oppose - Chiacomo and CSpurrier now have Checkuser power. Both of them supported MrM's admin status and thereby showed they are not in tune with the mood or views of the community at large. This additional power is giving even more power to what seems to be a "posse" of 3. Redman 12:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Sock puppet of blocked user. - Amgine | talk en.WN 06:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

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

  • Support* I guess Chiacomo is a good user and trustable. Though I have some concerns but they are not focused on Chiacomos person. international 11:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support; I trust Chiacomo. For me it's not a question of need. I think extraordinary users who are trustworthy, and who are willing to help out, deserve to be made bureaucrats. Ral315 (talk) 17:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support The point of having bureaucrats is to make up people to administrator, there is very little leeway for selective use of the powers that come with the office. We don't particularly need new bureaucrats, but this is a case where I think it would make zero difference to the day-to-day running of the wiki, despite some user's comments --Brian McNeil / talk 17:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • CommentI do not subscribe to Neut.'s conspiracy theories at all (note my user page). However, I do think the edit history which I have reviewed shows that CSpurrier,Chiacomo and Amgine share a similar pov which can be shown with edit references if need be AND which is often NOT the pov of the community at large; E.g.; they were about the only active contributors who did not vote at all on MrM's deadmin. When Amgine was accused of racism, it was Chiacomo and CSpurrier who advised us of the "Princess Bride" source...point being, the facts show they tend to lean the same way on important matters and support each other when necessary. If Chiacomo and CSpurrier had voted similar to the other ArbCom members on Amgine's case, there would have been a completely different remedy situation, my review shows. Bottom Line; Amgine is Wikinews' boldest policy maker. All 3 are admins, 2 are now Checkusers, and this vote could make 2 of them our most active bureaucrats. Does the community want this much power concentrated in the hands of these 3 individuals? Is it necessary? Does it makes sense? What's best for Wikinews? Redman 17:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Sock puppet of blocked user. - Amgine | talk en.WN 06:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps existing Bureaucrats should indicate whether they think they need help? I suspect they do not. --Chiacomo (talk) 21:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps, if they needed help, they would have asked for it. And perhaps, your question in that regard, could (and should) have been asked before accepting the nomination. Redman 22:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Sock puppet of blocked user. - Amgine | talk en.WN 06:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral I do not think we need more bureaucrats, but I trust Chiacomo and do not see any harm in making him a bureaucrat --Cspurrier 23:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose then, for the circumstances cited by Cspurrier, otherwise a quick 'support'. -Edbrown05 08:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: I see no harm in making Chiacomo a bureaucrat. He would be one of the users on this site that I trust the most - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 05:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: Jacques Divol 08:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Frankie Roberto 08:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


The vote is 8:2. thats 80%, and I think thats a majority. Since its past seven days, if no one objects, I'll ask the stewards to complete the task. Bawolff ☺☻Smile.png 20:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of the Admin's page or the talk page of the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.


[edit] User:FellowWikiNews

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

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

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of the Admin's page or the talk page of the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.


[edit] User:MyName

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

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

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

  • Oppose - I trust that you're a good editor, but I don't see you as very experienced on Wikinews. —this is messedr͏ocker (talk) 20:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral - Good point about fighting vandals; we need lots of mops; but I guess I need to do an edit review as I don't know what Craig is referring to. Neutralizer 14:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
On his user page he says "I used to be a vandal.” --Cspurrier 15:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - You seem to know how everything works around here. FellowWikiNews (W) 16:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose I can not trust a user who has been a vandal in the past with adminship. --Cspurrier 17:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment : a bit green Jacques Divol 21:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Your efforts so far on Wikinews do not engender a sense of trust. - Amgine | talk en.WN 05:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral Good editor, but still a little concerned about his past history. PVJ(Talk)Flag of India.svg 05:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Question Many times, vandals get away with their actions due to the fact that there are no Administrators online at the time to stop them. In that regard, would you mind telling us which timezone you edit from so that we can know when you are most likely to be online? PVJ(Talk)Flag of India.svg 05:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose User has written too few articles and has not been at wikinews long enough for me to have a sound judgement on the matter. Ealturner 15:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Jason Safoutin 16:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose at this time - needs a bit more time under their belt I believe --R2b2 20:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Guess my vote --Deprifry|+T+ 18:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Nothing defends what you did to the newsroom page. --Jambalaya 18:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I can not trust a user who has been a vandal. FellowWikiNews (W) 18:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose terinjokes User Page / Talk 19:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Need to see more and consistent constructive contributions to trust this user. --vonbergm 20:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This user also applied to become an Administrator at Wikipedia. FellowWikiNews (W) 15:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of the Admin's page or the talk page of the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.


[edit] Doldrums

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

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

thanks, i accept. :) Doldrums 17:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Clear on policy, does an excellent job keeping articles NPOV by spotting problems (no matter which flavor of political bias they originate in) and helping to fix them. --vonbergm 17:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, Doldrums seems to get the policies and I'd trust him to enforce them fairly. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support international 20:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • SUpport, I though he WAS an admin :) MyName 21:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support no complaints from me... --R2b2 21:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Jacques Divol 21:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I thought those vendor people on the side of the road might be getting over on me after I went for their half-dozen ears of corn for $2.50. The grocery market, FoodLion, has 6 ears of yellow corn on sale for a dollar... and FoodLion can keep it. Did, ? , yeah. -Edbrown05 03:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
<sob> that's the most beautiful thing anyone's ever said to me. Doldrums 08:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of the Admin's page or the talk page of the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.


[edit] Nzgabriel

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

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

Accept nomination - thanks. nzgabriel 08:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of the Admin's page or the talk page of the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.


[edit] DragonFire1024

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

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

Please accept or reject nomination here:
Accept. Jason Safoutin 15:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support as nominator. —this is messedrocker (talk) 00:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Great contributions to Wikinews. If the user is happy to serve in the custodial role, great! -- IlyaHaykinson 01:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Great contributor, energetic, a welcome addition to the administration team - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 05:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Contributor's history does not inspire trust. - Amgine | talk en.WN 06:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
And what have I done to that would be distrustful? You have always said that but have yet to state a reason as to why. Jason Safoutin 15:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support PVJ(Talk)Flag of India.svg 12:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
That was not the reason for that and I think you are well aware of that. Jason Safoutin 17:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Note that with the exception of one block all were overturned almost immediately. Jason Safoutin 15:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I have been away for a while, but before I left I had noticed that my objections from last time seemed to no longer be true, and was considering renominating him/her myself sometime in the near future, I think DragonFire has learned from his/her mistakes, assuming nothing derastic has happened when I was away, would be a great admin. Bawolff ☺☻Smile.png 04:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
P.S. —a word about the admin de-admin incident that was mentioned above (which I'm assuming was in response to the arbcom and mrm thing, correct me if I'm wrong). I disagreed with that strongly (de-admining everyone), (and still do) however we all make mistakes, and I don't think an isolated incident a while ago, is enough to stop you from becoming an admin. Bawolff ☺☻Smile.png 04:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support because a Wkinewsian. -Edbrown05 07:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Jacques Divol 08:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - I trust this user to be an admin. FellowWikiNews (W) 17:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose sorry DF, but as you know, I oppose the nominations of most editors.I was really on the borderline about voting for you this time though; irregardless, this time, as Meatloaf once said about sex in a car by the dashboard light; "Oh my God, I think he's gonna' make it!" Neutralizer 22:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 19:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Nzgabriel | My RfA | Talk page 04:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of the Admin's page or the talk page of the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Requests_for_permissions/Archive_2"
Navigation
Wikinews
Regions
Toolbox