Wikinews:Administrators

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This page is a list of administrators, as well as a place to request the granting and removal of admin status.

Admins have no special editorial rights. They can edit pages in the MediaWiki: namespace (system messages), block users, delete pages, and protect pages. Blocking, deletion, and protection are all governed by site policy.

  • Requesting adminship: We are currently rather liberal in handing out administrator status, provided that the following conditions are true:
  1. You've done at least a month's work on Wikinews.
  2. You are trusted by the community.
  • Requesting de-adminship: Stewards are the only users who can remove administrator privileges. They will not de-admin unless there is community consensus for this to happen.


Current administrators are:

Inactive administrators are: (No edits in the past 30 days)

People who do not wish to be admins:

Admin action required

See Wikinews:Admin action alerts. Please put all alerts there.

Requests for adminship

After seven days, a bureaucrat or steward will turn those users into sysops who have consensus support from the community.

See /Archive for old requests.


Requests for de-adminship

Mrmiscellanious

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

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

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

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

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

Paulrevere2005 18:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

returned edits I made yesterday after I had logged off by mistake.Paulrevere2005 22:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment:
  1. The protection was necessary, otherwise at least three editors would have been blocked for violating the 3RR.
  2. 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.
  3. Neutralizer's running list is of edits he doesn't like, which show that he is unwilling to work with his POV problem and Wikinews. Over 95% of my edits there are because of my opinions and values, which he distastefully disagrees with. I have no problem with it, I suppose I set myself up for that when I posted my beliefs on my user page. But de-admin'ing a user because you don't agree with them politically is not only in bad taste, it could show that Wikinews itself has a group of biased users, and that NPOV stories are not welcome again to the wiki to some.
I highly hope that with good faith all users making comments here would prove a stronger case of admin abuse, otherwise you want to contact Simeon or another admin to ban me. Nothing I see here is of substantial reasoning for de-admin'ing, as represented by the previous RfdA of Simeon not having enough substantial creditation. I welcome back your return, Paulrevere2005 - but I don't look forward to you acting like other users which have shown themselves as disruptive of the wiki and posting another of these frivolous votes. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 17:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Support removal of adminship

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

Rcameronw 16:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Support, but not until he returns MrM does engage in a "pattern of abuse" & does "game the system". More seriously, I feel he discourages & drives off new editors, instead of drawing them in. And I feel he should ultimately be removed. As Cspurrier said, individual incidents are minor and forgivable, but it seems Neutralizer's list provides the critical mass to deadmin for many small infractions. As International said, we are proposing a less confrontational way to address such issues (see RfDA-CB), but again Neutralizer's list begins to resemble the desired discussion forum.
However, I do not want to see anyone removed via other "games to the system", so my vote is to be counted as an abstension until he has returned, at which point you may count it as support. If the voting ends before he returns, sorry bad timing to run your RfDA. Nyarlathotep 00:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Alright, I've seen him about the site, you may count it.
  • Support - After reading Mrm:s respons I changed my mind. I wrote "a fair warning" his only respons was indignation about that I threated him. Threated to use my userprivileges. No respons to my argumentation. Guess this guy didnt listen. Guess this guy wont listen to critic and argument in the close future and just waste my energy in atempts to create a construtive structure to solve things like this. Dont matter if he do alot of other good work here. There are good persons who understand that Wiki News administrators are not same as vigilantes in comic books. The best way now is to remove him as a administrator for the best of the Wiki News.International 00:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment: I will not listen to those who threaten or accuse me. It's disrespectful, so I will not extend any courtesies back to them. If it makes me a bad person, so be it. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 01:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - Removal of adminship is not the end of the word and i believe the above evidence is more then reason to procced. It appears that MrM makes not appologies for his "patterns of abuse" and will continue abusing his status, fair warning has been given.Adminship can always be reinstated later if earned. --Whywhywhy 01:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support i do not have confidence that mrm will interpret and apply wikinews policy fairly, in an unbiased way to improve wikinews. his action has violated policy. further, he has repeatedly made edits which disrupt but do not improve articles. imo, he has not accomplished his stated aim of upholding "high" standards by his foreman/worker model of collaboration, but has provoked conflict, disrupted article creation and led to questionable admin actions. as mrm himself has been stringent in applying sanctions on users and in the absence of any "lesser" sanction that can be applied for his error, i recommend de-admin. Doldrums 07:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Permabanned 67.165.217.42 (thus ignoring the 24-hour convention) without warning him [1] 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 [2]. Jyrse 02:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: (Sorry, Edbrown05, but I had to respond to this one) The user claimed he was a user of Wiktionary, therefore knew that forging votes on a consensus poll was a no-no. A nomination for an RfdA does not count as a vote in support of the removal. I would also like it noted that this is Jyrse's first edit to Wikinews. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 02:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support:While I agree with Eloquence arguments, I don't believe that there is any williningness to improve on MrM's part. --vonbergm 18:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose removal of adminship

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

Other/Comments

  • Comment(former abstain, I support RfDA now) There is new policy and tools for constructiv problemsolving growing in watercooler. Thats why I suggest us too hold our horses a litle. But I agree that Mrm have missused his powers and edit in a confrontational way that is not acceptable for a administrator or anyone else. International 23:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment It is my opinion that MrM tries to hold Wikinews to a far higher standard than many people are happy with. I have looked at a number of articles that I believe are amongst those people do things like keep "running lists" on, and either by the time I've seen the article the concerns have been addressed, or MrM does indeed have a point — which may have been put a little bluntly. There's faults on both sides here, in that some people don't like facing their prejudices that MrM may highlight. Sometimes the result is a really good article, other times it is like something that was originally written to crucify one party and filled with "allegedly" in a weasly attempt to address criticism that may have been brought. I guess we need something really well written that can get people to see when a particular way of writing something changes it from a report into an editorial, as this lies at the heart of this dispute. If Wikinews is NPOV news, we have no opinion, sorting out what is fact you don't like and opinion that doesn't belong is difficult but a required part of participating in Wikinews. I think MrM tries harder than a lot of those who seem set on removing him from the position of administrator to deal with this, and if it is coloured by his politics I think other administrators with different political background would be a better balance than a long-running campaign to de-admin. Brian McNeil / talk 19:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • 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)" [3]. 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☺☻Smile.png 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 ☺☻Smile.png 06:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Abstain I won't be voting because I'm on vacation myself, but I would like to add that I do believe it is unfair that the vote is taking place while he's gone. --Wolfrider 15:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have now returned, so please continue this RfdA - however, please reset the '7-day' counter to today, the 10th. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 16:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Seems like a good idea. Nyarlathotep 23:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't think MrM should be participating in this conversation. -Edbrown05 02:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Very well. I shall strike out my comments (except for this one). --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 02:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
I dissagree, An RFDa is as much about wether the user should be an admin, as to reasoning for the users action(IMHO). Could you please explain what you mean, (Edbrown05) futher? Bawolff ☺☻Smile.png 02:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I was second guessing myself on that. I think you have to take the crap dished here without comment. Until it is over. I don't read "pepper-posts" anyway so why try influencing what is said about yourself until others have had their say. -Edbrown05 02:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
I see what you're saying. I'll continue to keep my comments striked out. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 02:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
whats the point of striking what you have written when people can still read it? I have no problem with MrM refuting arguments( it would be a bit silly not to) just do it in your own vote or maybe a blurb at the start of "opposed". --Whywhywhy 01:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstain - —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 [4] he has also stated that he doesn't like the proposed arbcom[5]. My question is what form of Dispute resolution would he prefer?
Quote

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 ☺☻Smile.png 20:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Amgine

I wish to propose that a vote be taken to remove Amgine's administrator status on the following grounds:

  1. Deletes relevant news [6] stating WN is not a place for PR, or incitement for riot instead of suggesting that it be merged into another article as requested by another administrator when I reposted the article.
  2. Upon reading the user's talk page, the above seems to happen quite often (premature deletion)
  3. Ignores requests to explain reasons for the above. New users may wish to know why their articles were deleted
  4. The greatest hyocrisy is after stating WN is not the place for PR, Amigne signs his discussions with a link to journowiki. The most recent I can locate is seen here [7]. I think it is inappropriate for an administrator of this site to be advertising their own site and using WN for personal gain.

Cartman02au 00:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

  • At the time of this request I believed that RfDA was the most reasonable course of action for these issues. After Chiacomo's messages I am preparing to put my issues to Dispute resolution Cartman02au 01:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

====Support for removal====

    1. Support. I had a run in with him on Wiktionary. He refused to accept two citations as adequate evidence that the word existed (one was a definition [8] and another that said it was in Merriam-Webster's Unabridged [9]). He then threatened to block me [10]. I later won the dispute [11]. Further, on the RFV page, I actually caught him lying [12] in order to get the entry deleted. Primetime 00:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Forgive me for being harsh, but what does that have to do with Amgine's role at Wikinews? After all, we're not Wikitionary. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 00:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    • It shows that he's willing to lie and threaten to block in order to get his way. It also shows that he can't admit it when he's wrong, even in the face of overwhelming evidence and even if it means that a legitimate entry could be deleted from a dictionary. Primetime 00:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    Comment: The above IP editor (signing his name manually, apparently) has threatened to use open proxies and sock puppets on other wiki projects -- and has, in fact, been involved in a dispute with Amgine elsewhere. What is a non-editor without even a local username doing voting in a Wikinews RfDA anyway? --Chiacomo (talk) 01:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    Reply to Wikipedia user Primetime: I'm still failing to see how his actions apply here. If you could explain why he should be de-admin'ed for WIKINEWS, please comment. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 01:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Ad hominem (Chiacomo) & red herring. Administrators should have more character than regular users because they have the ability to abuse their power so much. Amgine has shown a lack of character and a tendency to abuse his power. Primetime 01:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    Comment: You're into Wikitionary again. This vote is about his position on Wikinews. If you cannot provide sufficient evidence of abuse on Wikinews, I suggest that you retract your vote, as it is improperly placed on the wrong wiki. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 01:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    There is no double standard for Wikinews. Both of the wikis in question were created by Jimbo Wales and his rules prevail. In any case, I strongly encourage you to click on my links, as I think that they speak for themselves. Primetime 01:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    Reply: I do not, in good faith, support your vote, as you have not edited on Wikinews and are acting, perhaps in a smear campaign, against the person in question. If you provided reasoning on WIKINEWS and not any other site, I would acknowledge your vote. However, being that this is a continuation of a dispute on another wiki with the user, I respectfully ask again that you retract your vote or provide specific reasoning for it here. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 02:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    UPDATE: The above user has been PERMANENTLY BANNED from Wikinews for impersonating Paulrevere2005 and Cartman02au. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 03:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    1. Support. See Other Comments below, Paulrevere2005 01:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    2. Weak Support - Amgine is forgetting that this is supposed to be a place to post news. When was the last time he's done anything to help progress the progress (no pun intended) of Wikinews? Also, the clincher: he states it himself, he's left, yet he is one of the most active contributors (on the water cooler and such, where it could be in more, better places). While removal of adminship may be a bit harsh, it may work. —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 12:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC) I withdraw my assertion. —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 21:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    Comment: I left a message on Messedrocker's page, but we should examine Amgine's contributions to the main name space before accepting such a blanket statement. --Chiacomo (talk) 15:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    Comment: MessedRocker is correct in his observation that the vast majority of Amgine's edits on the main namespace are not helping "progress the progess". As Ciacomo points out, this has changed in the last week, and I see this as a positive development. I strongly support MessedRocker's reasoning (as I read it): There needs to be a healthy balance between simply taging articles (for whatever reason), and active development of wikinews articles. Wikinews is a community project and does not need a police separate from the contributors. I am hopeful that Amgine's very recent change in behaviour, although maybe motivated by the RdfA, will continue beyond the lifetime of this poll.
    Notes, not votes, for support for removal

    How are "What is a non-editor without even a local username doing voting in a Wikinews..." valid? I'm not even a user of wikinews, never mind an editor. But My vote does not count, I'm told. "...failing to see how his actions apply here": Amgine's history in this & other wiki communities should count.. Not only by the vote, but by the citation. Basically, I concur 100% with Primetime, Which is exactly why I stopped paying attention to Amgine, but here, my vote doesn't count. Until these issues with his adminship came up... Also, check out these citations:[13].

    GRYE

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

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

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

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

    I care, because this editor bugs the cr@p out of me on wikitionary and elsewhere. This vote was brought to my attention. I am here to bring Amgine's other wiki behavior to light. It is relevant to any wiki. & sorry, that's totally legit, yer right. I had it confused with his other [user signings] to an other [exowiki]. & finally, I'll cross out anything that seems a vote from me or about my voting.

    Ok, thats fine. (IMHO others may have problems) just bear in mind that people may not care because this vote should be about his/her actions here and not elsewhere. Bawolff ☺☻Smile.png 11:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    Please remember, this is not a vote about personality: not bugging the crap out of people on other projects is not a criteria for being an administrator on Wikinews. This vote is only about policy violations on this project. -- IlyaHaykinson 11:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

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

    Oppose removal

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

    Following the unrest in Sydney on Sunday night, many are already turning to text messaging and usenet to plan their next day of action.<br\><br\> A group calling themselves Action For Australia is planning a rally on Australia Day, 2006 in Lakemba, a suburb where many people of middle-eastern origin call home. Action for Australia is claiming that they managed to rally 5,000 people in a week and believe that they can rally many more for the march through the streets of Lakemba.
    It certainly sounds like an advertisement/press release to me. Furthermore, the message was posted on the talk page from the 'organization'. The article was hardly newsworthy on its own, and I can understand Amgine's concern of it being a PR. It should also be noted that the user's other article was shown as such of being a dupe/should be merged with another article, and contained the same content this did (as well as the corresponding talk page).
    We've been over this before, there is no site policy which states you can't leave a link to your most-visited talk page, no matter where it is hosted. I see it no different than pointing to an email form. Leave your comment and go, it's not like you actually have to venture all the way into Journowiki, click 700 links, and leave a message.
    This RfdA shouldn't happen, because there is no reasoning for it other than the user's dissent for Amgine. I would sincerely hope that users start a new method of rules for de-admin'ing a sysop, otherwise this is going to become ridiculous. It already has, especially when users of only a few edits are asking for de-sysop's on users after one occurrance. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 00:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    comment Where does the talk page say that the originating user was okay with deletion? The person who created the article is the person who has raised this RfDA request. - Borofkin 00:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    Reply: That was on the other article this user created, I apologize for that. Strike-out. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 00:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    comment ::::I am unsure how you can claim that I was compliant when I created another article with similar content. Another administrator (more curteous) suggested that I merge it with another article. According to Amgine the article was "PR and incitement". Secondly, there is no dissent, Amgine should have responded to my request for a proper explanation. Any decent Admin would have done so Cartman02au 00:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Oppose - I don't think the article should have been deleted - it should have gone to deletion requests. However, Amgine does an enormous amount of admin (cleaning things up, etc) on Wikinews, and if we are going to raise an RfDA request every time he does something someone doesn't like, we'll never get anything else done. The correct response should have been for Cartman02au to put it on Wikinews:Admin action alerts and try and get another administrator to restore the deleted page. - Borofkin 00:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    comment I didnt know about Admin action alerts, but I am still offended by his arrogance and signature. Thanks again Borofkin, you always seem to assist me Cartman02au 00:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    Comment: It's complete hyocrisy - he complains that an article I write is PR then PR's his own site.
    Reply: I would agree if he was linking to the home page. But he's not, only to his talk page and user page their. After all, that is where he is most of the time. I am not seeing the PR in that. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 01:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    Comment: I still fail to see how the article was PR. It may not have been worthy of it's own article, but how is reporting on it PR? You could say the same for the Racially motivated SMS's surface on the Gold Coast Cartman02au 01:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Oppose - not sufficient evidence of abuse of adminship -, but I would have preferred it if the the article had been listed at Wikinews:Deletion requests.--Eloquence 01:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Oppose. I don't know what the content of the article was (except for the exerpt by MrM above). But even if Amgine grossly missed on this one, I still wouldn't support his de-admin over a highly charged and on-going news issue being pushed by a new contributor here. -Edbrown05 02:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Sorry for not noting it earlier, but that was the full text of the article, not an excerpt. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 02:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: I do not believe that statement to be true (I may be incorrect here though). I certainly know the second article was not that brief.Cartman02au 03:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Reply: That is the full text, sans Original template and sans-categories, sans-date, sans-sources. If willing, another admin can confirm this if need be. --MrMiscellanious

    (talk) (contribs) 03:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

    • Comment':New contributors should not have the same rights as anyone else? Does that mean that new blood is not as valuable to the community? Cartman02au 03:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Reply: Every user is valuable here, however veteran users are more likely to be informed about site policy and conduct rather than the new users. Just one of those curses :). --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 03:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Reply": I would like to be better informed about site policy and conduct, but some of these are very hard to locate. Thanks to a few kind users I have become better informed, but there is still much to learn. Cartman02au 03:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Oppose - correct response to wrongful deletion is to ask for undeletion, not nominate for de-adminship. -- IlyaHaykinson 06:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    Comment: When the administrator ignores communication and fails to follow site policy there is reason to nominate for de-adminship. Cartman02au 08:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Oppose: Amgine's work as an administrator is very valuable to the project, a few disagreements are to be expected when we have people who don't seem to quite get NPOV. Brian McNeil / talk 18:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Oppose Not enough for de-admin. Bawolff ☺☻Smile.png 19:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Oppose. This page certainly isn't the right place to settle a dispute such as this one. --Deprifry|+T+ 19:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Oppose and comment:Although the concerns raised by Cartman02au and Primetime are valid (and I have some other concerns that I could add to the list), I do not believe that they warrent an RfdA. At this stage I believe that there is still room for resolving these issues differently. --vonbergm 07:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Oppose. There seems to be some sort of campaign against Amgine by a small handful of users, spanning over several Wikimedia projects, like a witch-hunt of some sort. Jon Harald Søby 16:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
      Thanks for the support, Jhs, but it's really only 3 people, one or more of whom are using sockpuppets. - Amgine | talk en.WN 19:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Oppose. I think the mediation has been the right course of action.--Whywhywhy 12:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

    Other/Comments

    Support RfdA

    1. Support: Not because of my own RfDA but because of Amgine's meat puppet allegation, which goes along with your request. If someone is going to accuse people of being a meat/sock puppet simply because they disagree with them that person should not be an administrator. I joined this site only on Monday and have not been influenced by others now or in the past. Prior to writing an article here I have had no discussions with anyone. I have also not dropped my RfDA at this stage.

    Oppose RfdA

    Oppose. With regards to the Amgine block on me... it was quickly lifted. And in defense of Amgine's action, the record does indicate that I manipulated another person's post, even though the MediaWiki software mangled and merged my post in what was probably an edit conflict mix up. But more than that, an admin has got to make a call, which is pretty much guaranteed to be unpopular with some party to a story when any controversy is involved, and I've always pretty much found that Amgine offers up reasoning for actions. That probably alone is good enough to make and keep some person as an administrator. Even if the parties to the disagreement agree to disagree, which is also probably guaranteed among newsie hotheads. -Edbrown05 03:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

    Oppose. I admit to following this debate from the perimeter, so this is more a character reference than anything else. Amgine is a conscientious, vigilant contributor to many wikis and posesses some of the best judgment I have seen in anyone, anywhere. Or de-sysop him if you prefer. He'll have more time to help us over at Wiktionary. --Dvortygirl 06:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

    Please see votes above, all of this is one RfdA.