Ended with user leaving project.User returned to project . As much as I appreciate PVJ's efforts to make Wikinews more neutral, I can't say that I can trust him as an admin. Admins are expected to be civil, yet PVJ in the whole Category talk:Israel debacle made very intimidating comments towards people of Israel. In fact, a contributor from Israel pointed out these highly incivil comments he has made. Additionally, PVJ has violated 3RR too many times (for an administrator), and has at one time unblocked himself so he could make a comment. I would still like PVJ59 to be a contributor, but I think he should spend some time without his admin tools so he can regain the trust of the community. —this is messedrocker(talk) 17:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
In light of the several messages I am getting regarding my decision to leave if this RfDA passes, I though I should clarify my stand on this matter. Most of the concerns raised by MessedRocker (whose judgement I trust) seem to have more to do with my status as as editor, than as a sysop. Hence, I think that the best way to address those concerns would be to either change my behaviour a bit (that might be tough, but I'm willing to try) or quit (that's pretty much a surefire solution). The part about my temporary unblocks do concern my Administrator status, and I understand why they may be cause for me to lose Admisistratorship-but, like I said, losing sysop status will lead me to (regretfully) retire from Wikinews. Just, in case I do have to leave (i.e if this RfDA passes)I would just like to state that I bear no ill-will to anyone I have worked with on this project, and have no cause to regret a moment of the last six months I have been around here. It truly has been fun-both through the good times and the not-so-good ones. PVJ(Talk)(Articles I have written) 16:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Question: What other possibilities are there? "At their discretion, lesser penalties may also be assessed against problematic administrators, including the restriction of their use of certain powers or placement on administrative probation." 1 Is this an option?--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 00:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
In certain cases, Wikipedia policy is transwikied to Wikinews. We are permitted to use their policies where ours is lacking. In this case, however, there doesn't appear to be any facility to implement administrative probation unless the ArbCom becomes involved. --Chiacomo(talk) 05:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Since it always is an issue in RfDAs, remember Support means remove adminship and Oppose means he should keep his adminship. Also this is PVJ's second RfDA, his first one ended with 6 opposes and 2 supports. --Cspurrier 17:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Note that PVJ59 is currently blocked and will not be able to respond on this page. — Doldrums(talk) 17:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I generally oppose the RfDA process and will not vote, but will comment. I also think that PVJ's stance on Adminship being a requirement for his editing is unfortunate. Adminship is supposed to be about duties of cleanup, maintaining policy, and being a trusted user to take care of some tasks that we don't want to offer to every editor. It is not supposed to be a function to help a user edit on Wikinews. -- IlyaHaykinson 05:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment: After I get about ten support votes (or a difference of ten in favour of me being de-sysoped), I shall retire from the project. I do not, however, wish to imply that I am quitting (it is only a matter of time now) out of any ill-will toward my fellow contributors. It is just that I do not wish to burden Wikinews with my presence if the community does not wish to have me on as an Administrator. I once again urge the community to vote as they please-remember that my departure will not have any catastrophic impact on the project, and thus there is no need for the voters to exercise any sort of restraint while voicing their opinion in this regard. I hope that this unpleasant business will be sorted out quickly so that we may all go back to doing what needs to be done. PVJ(Talk)(Articles I have written) 16:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Please reconsider that stance, I'm afraid tha the RfDA should make it clear to you that there are a number of people who are losing trust in you using administrative powers appropriately. I count at least 2 times you've unblocked yourself and two times you've blocked yourself, I'm not going to look for other breaches but I suspect they exist. You can't do that, if you're going to breach the rules you must not breach the ones that normal editors can't. In addition to that, you should only break the rules when you're prepared to take the consequences. It better be a hell of a good point you're trying to make.
Right now you probably still have a good degree of sympathy for some aspects of the POV you've expressed, were you to bring the Israeli recognition issue to any article involving one of the countries that does not recognise it, then you'd get sympathy for working the detail into the story. Beyond that you're questioning the right of the majority of contributors to defer to Wikipedia on the status of Israel. I'm not going to reach for analogies, they been beaten to death in an effort to get you to accept the reasonableness of using a category Israel. As you are repeatedly reminded, the countries who wish it didn't exist have to refer to it in some way, and they frequently use "Israel" with choice adjectives.
Finally, there are ways to express your POV on Wikinews and stay within project guidelines. Through your choice of story submissions you may express your POV, provided that each story is within the project guidelines. So, you ignore U.S. "propaganda" and concentrate on reports from other countries. That way you can look for news that relates to what you consider the under-reported POV and bring them to light alongside the more mainstream coverage that you may not be so happy with. You may have to live with what other contributors add, but if you can't work with that you shouldn't be on a wiki. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I have breached the rules before but I believe that it was a combination of circumstances and bad judgement that made me do so. I did not breach policy to harm the project or the community.
The POV of the 24 countries that do not recognise Israel does not necessarily mirror my own. I was only trying to achieve NPOV (perhaps at the cost of hurting some sentiments) in the truest sense of the term. The fact that the Israel issue has led to this point saddens me very deeply.
I keep the "activist" side of me seperate from the "writer" side of me. I do not and will not write articles with the express purpose of representing POVs. PVJ(Talk)(Articles I have written) 18:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't mean report to represent a POV, but to highlight its existence. As an example, the Canadian story has no congruence with the 24 states that don't recognise Israel, so most people think it is wholly inappropriate there. But the Israel-Lebanon conflict involved Hezbollah, who you've quoted, and was commented on by a lot of countries. Israeli government officials even brought up the non-recognition issue relating to where peacekeepers might come from. I'm sure some of those points should've been given more prominence, so try and stick around and calmly represent that when these issues invariably surface again. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment; Is this really happening? An admin. (MR) who just admitted to facilitating/advising Neutralizer on how to evade a block  is now starting an RfDA another admin for evading a block? Is there sense of fairness whatsoever on this page? 184.108.40.206 00:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Technically speaking it's allowed -- it's one of the loopholes of being banned. Also, it wasn't Neutralizer, and I have since withdrew the deal. —this is messedrocker(talk) 00:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Is it not true you thought it was Neut you were helping? Isn't helping someone evade a total ban worse than evading a short term block? Give me a break. 220.127.116.11 00:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Not at all. He came out, admitted it, and we thanked him for admitting it. You know, you sound alot like Neut, from what I've heard. Thunderhead(talk) 01:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Any non-biased person would feel that an admin who is advising/helping a troll get around a permanent ban is committing a much worse offense than an admin who unblocks himself once or twice which, as you know, many admins did here on a wheel unblocking war awhile back. Any new user who had witnessed that wheel war of admins unblocking themselves would not be supporting this RfDA. MR I am very surprised that you would start this RfDA on such a minor infraction which ,imo, is much less of an infraction than your own. 18.104.22.168 01:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, know I know it's you. Put it this way: MR has his opinions, and you have yours. Leave it at that. Thunderhead(talk) 01:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
MR is an honest guy; I'm sure he'll change his mind about this RfDA once he has some time to think about it; or else, he'll quit himself; to do neither would be quite hypocritical and MR is not a hypocritical guy; period.
09:05, 14 April 2006 Brian New Zealand (Talk | contribs) unblocked Brian New Zealand (contribs)
06:32, 19 April 2006 Karen (Talk | contribs) unblocked Karen (contribs) . 22.214.171.124 02:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
02:59, 20 April 2006 Mindspillage (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Chiacomo (contribs)" with an expiry time of infinite (wheel-warring... er, I mean, testing.)
02:59, 20 April 2006 Mindspillage (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "User:Chiacomo (contribs)" with an expiry time of infinite (wheel-warring... er, I mean, testing.) If you look at the log a bit more you will find the reason for the blocks of Chiacomo was testing, unblocking himself in this case was ok --Cspurrier 12:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Didn't we set arbcom up to stop this deadmin crap deadminships? I would suggest this goes to Arbcom, and arbcom member’s recluse themselves if there’s a conflict of interest Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 05:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, and the last case, dealing with MrM, got thrown back into this forum: Admin or deAdmin -Edbrown05 06:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
As I have already mentioned on Messed's talk, most of the concerns raised seem to be related to my comments about Israel, and my habit of temporarily unblocking myself. First, about the temporary unblocks, I (erroneously) though that unblocking myself for a few minutes to make a comment was not too serious an offence, and did not do so with malicious intent. This has been the first time that I havebeen warned that temporary unblocks constitute block-evasion, and I ask that I be given another chance in this regard. As for the fact that the way I express myself is sometimes a bit too direct, that is something that I shall find difficult to change, since it is part of my personality-even in real-life (I have recieved more than my share of black eyes and cut lips). In this case, I was very straight forward in my comments on Israel. But, had I been campaigning againt a "Palestinian recognition POV", I would have been just as direct, and would (I am sure) have made very clear my views on the existence of Palestine. The same applies to any POV that I might have held, and it is a matter of my own behaviour rather than a case of my being intentionally disrespectful in my comments. Yes, sometimes I am too direct in my criticism, but am just as open with my praise. I have never (intentionally) used POV disputes to hurt users and have always been on good terms even with editors who disagree with me on certain issues. The fact is that if this RfDA passes (which seems likely) I shall retire from the project (that is a certainty). However, I would hate to quit just as much as I would hate to lose my sysop status. Hence, I ask that some alternative be proposed (if possible) to this RfDA. Again, I realise that it is almost certain that I will not be here as an Administrator after the 28th, and would not hold any grudge against those who initiated this process or supported it, do not hold them, in any way, responsible for my departure. PVJ(Talk)(Articles I have written) 13:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Sadly gotta Support removal of adminship too. He was blocked for these infractions, but RfdA is the more adult & appropriate venue. However, a double wammy is no good. So I'm unblocking him. And this support vote is conditional upon him not being reblocked for these specific infractions. Nyarlathotep 02:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Support. (attack removed) --Daniel575 18:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
This user has personally attacked me on many occasions, has recently joined Wikinews with the declared intention of "joining a fight" and has contributed close to nothing to the project. If it will not affect the result, I ask that his vote be discounted. PVJ(Talk)(Articles I have written) 19:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I tend to agree in this aspect and is very suspicious like. Has the user been checkusered? Jason Safoutin 22:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
What you think he is Neutralizer or MyName? I doubt it. You don't just "checkuser someone" unless you have a reason. Nyarlathotep 10:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
You haven't been paying attention. Blueline did nothing wrong or suspicious at all and she was checkusered and permanently banned. Checkuser is now being played with like a power tool. 126.96.36.199 21:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
What's with all of this Neutralizer or MyName stuff? Do you all fail to see that Neutralizer IS MyName? 188.8.131.52 21:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Support. PVJ59 is a prolific and valuable contributor to this project and i appreciate the articles he's written, bringing expanded coverage of events around the world and his attempt to broaden the range of povs Wikinews articles present. I do, however, find his use of administrator powers violate policies too frequently (see below) and i see too little an attempt to change it to overlook them.
user has been blocked 4 times (7 July, 16 July, 21 September, 19 October) in the last 4 months for violating 3RR.
unblocked himself 5 times (20 October, (22:38) 19 October 2006, 21 September, (18:11) 8 July, (12:27) 8 July) for either either not agreeing to the block or to post alerts, apparently does not appear to know or appear to care that the same result can be obtained by posting to his talk page, e-mailing an admin or getting on IRC, which doesn't involve breaking policy.
unblocked himself and then blocked user he was involved in editorial dispute with:
22:31, 20 October 2006 PVJ59 (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Doldrums (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR-see WN:ALERT)
13:35, 20 October 2006 PVJ59 (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked PVJ59 (contribs) (I was not "avoiding" anything, please reblock with a proper reason)
protected an article he was involved in a dispute in
21:31, 12 October 2006 PVJ59 (Talk | contribs | block) protected "Small aircraft crashes into NYC building - Alert to remain unchanged" (Prevent unilateral POV-pushing by IP vandal. [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])
edited article (more pov dispute) after unblocking himself.
13:35, 20 October 2006 PVJ59 (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked PVJ59 (contribs) (I was not "avoiding" anything, please reblock with a proper reason)
01:28, 20 October 2006 Cspurrier (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "PVJ59 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week (replaced 'Block avoidance' block)
i am prepared to consider alternatives to da-admining him if i am convinced that there won't be continued infractions from this administrator. i do note, though, that even as this RfDA is underway, he has twice blocked a user he is in dispute with, apparently for echoing his own comment about "annihilation", despite saying "I will also not threaten users with blocks except in cases of obvious violations".
09:05, 25 October 2006 PVJ59 (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Daniel575 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Persists in being incivil and attacking the community and individual users despite several warnings)
19:01, 24 October 2006 PVJ59 (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Daniel575 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 3 hours (Continued personal attacks and incivility despite multiple warnings)
I only blocked this user beacuse of his allegations of "anti-Semitism" against certain users. PVJ(Talk)(Articles I have written) 09:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
yes, i feel more neutral for that case,i don't agree with some PVJ actions but i do not think it's the solution. PVJ59 shown us something we must manage. But he must also understand that categories, that are usefull and meaningfull as topics used to describe articles, are not involved to insult or critics anyone. Have you read phylosophe Terry Pratchett Discworld books ? The last (or something) called "Thud!" is about war between Trolls and Dwarves, about racial intolerance (and coppers and Where's my cow™). But to understand it fully you'ld read the 29th previous!!! :) Jacques Divol 20:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Several of PVJ’s actions have bothered me greatly. His many violations of the 3rr show a disrespect for the community. His unblocking himself and his many threats of blocks for those he fights with, are both also highly inappropriate for an admin. However, PVJ’s editor related contributions are many and quality. I would hate to see us lose PVJ. If he is willing to commit to stop violating the 3rr and stop threatening users with blocks, I would be willing to change this vote to oppose (keep adminship). --Cspurrier 20:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I did not mean to disrespect the community or the project by violating 3RR, and did so in the heat of the moment. I assure you that it will not happen again. I will also not threaten users with blocks except in cases of obvious violations. PVJ(Talk)(Articles I have written) 03:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
* Oppose- seems overreactive to me. Blueline 16:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC) to explain; I believe in forgiveness and peaceful solutions to disagreements so I do not want him to be kicked off the administrative job. A sports arena is a good place for fights but I do not see his actions as being very different from several other administrators so I think they are all doing good work for no money so I want them all to stay as long as they want. Blueline 16:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC) sock of Neutralizer --Cspurrier 17:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
* Oppose-By DeAdmining PVJ we risk losing him, as he stated. If this happens, Wikinews will stray to an even further pro-western bias than it already has. This would be detrimental to Wikinews. Remember how Wikinews' popularity falls when Neutralizer is banned? The same loss of popularity will occur when PVJ resigns because of this. Think people think. Tohstsalstuen 17:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC) New user using an open proxy, using a sock and is a probbaly sock of Neutralizer --Cspurrier 17:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
OpposeMessed and Cspurrier supported MrM and Amgine when they committed much worse and more frequent misuse of their admin powers.This is simply an attempt to silence the one administrator who is willing to fight the anglo-american pov which is (perhaps unknowingly) being pushed by many of our admins. It would be very harmful to the Wikinews project if this indirect form of censorship is successful. Paulrevere2005 17:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
COmment: Have those users been added to the list of Neutralizer socks? Jason Safoutin 22:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
IDemand that Cspurrier use checkuser on Tohstsalstuen or else withdraw his allegation that it is"probably" a sock of Neut. Also, Cspurrier when supporting MR said it's ok for banned users to come back if they behave  yet he bans Blueliner when she did nothing wrong at all. This seems like selective rule enforcement which should not be allowed here,imo. 184.108.40.206 00:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
There was a CheckUser. It matched. And stop pretending to not be Neutralizer, Neutralizer. You've been banned. —this is messedrocker(talk) 00:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
NO ask Cspurrier; he'll tell you he did NOT do a checkuser on Tohstsalstuen which showed him to be a sock of Neut. That's just not true....so it is wrong for him to say above it is "probably" a sock of Neut's. 220.127.116.11 01:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
The above referenced user was editing from an open proxy. See M:WM:NOP for more information on the prohibition against editing from an open proxy. This is not the proper venue for this discussion. WN:ALERT might be better. --Chiacomo(talk) 05:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Giveus a break; it was Cspurrier who brought the false accusation that Tohstsalstuen is a sock of Neut's into this discussion andyour(Chiacomo)'s unblocking of yourself twice with no penalty at all is certainly part of this discussion;
If you'll look at the block log you'll see that we were testing block behavior -- the actual blocks say things like "test" and "testing". I've never been blocked "for cause" on Wikinews -- only to test features. --Chiacomo(talk) 22:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
SInce being unblocked in June my only socks are: User:Neutralizer and User:MyName. ANY MORE QUESTIONS?18.104.22.168 21:40, 24 October 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.