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 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)
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 220.127.116.11 (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, 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)
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)
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.
I whish not to participate in this vote Bawolff☺☻ 06:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
I dissagree, An RFDa is as much about wether the user should be an admin, as to reasoning for the users action(IMHO). Could you please explain what you mean, (Edbrown05) futher? Bawolff ☺☻ 02:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
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 - —MESSEDROCKER (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)
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?
So, if there were suggestions by all users of the community to solve the dispute, it would be welcomed by this party. But I do not like having a neutral party taking any sides. There should be more than one opinion on the outcome.
How he envissions this is something I'd like to hear more about. Bawolff ☺☻ 20:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)----
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.