Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Administrator/Dan100 2

Dan100
Self-nomination with the intention of purely combating vandalism, which is suddenly spiking. Now there's more vandalism, there's a case for more admins. Dan100 (Talk) 14:21, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Strongly Oppose. My opinion is that Dan100's divisive comments and actions over the past few months; including his abrasive approach and demanding tone during his last run for the office(which was still going on about a month ago)are precisely the opposite traits desired of an administrator. Paulrevere2005 04:17, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Strongly support Dan100's tireless efforts as a wikignome, contributor, and innovator have shown a strong development trend. And, as Wikinews has developed into a target for vandalism, we have had nearly constant running battles for going on two weeks; CGorman and the other european contributors need support in the early part of the day in combating vandalism. (Special mention made here of CGorman and Romihaitza's single-handed combats with the WoW vandal.) - Amgine 04:25, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Dan100 has indeed made divisive comments and actions in the past; but despite backlash, a failed nomination (for admin) and a lot of wikistress; Dan100 has pressed on to become a better editor who genuinely takes other people's opinions into account. Most people in his position would have left in face of the afore-mentioned, but Dan100 has stayed and proved his worth many times since. His intentions are undoubted and another set of eyes against vandalism is badly needed. → CGorman (Talk)  20:30, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Vandalism has indeed been on the increase. ~The bellman | Smile  00:39, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Dan100 has addressed a lot of the concerns that Wikinewsies had during the previous nomination process, and has continued to be a dedicated contributor with a (critical) eye for changes. -- IlyaHaykinson 05:33, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Dan100 has been here for a long time, he was the one who invited me to Wikinews, so I think he's a good promoter of the project, has worked a lot for it and therefore deserves to be admin. Ronline 08:22, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comment; Its disturbing that the need for vandalism control is the primary reason being given to support this nomination for administrator. When practicality starts trumping quality, an organization's integrity suffers. Paulrevere2005 02:45, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * This is not the primary reason given, but yet another reason why this contributor, who puts in a lot of hours and efforts already, could be asked to take on additional duties and responsibilities. I think you may be under the mistaken opinion that adminship is something people want to do for the prestige or something - it's basically more work to do, and less time to actually work on things like journalism or editing.
 * Personally, I'm getting tired of hovering over the recent changes, watching for the next bout of edits for POVioring or vandalism. - Amgine 02:52, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Power corrupts, we all know this, but Paul admins really dont have that much extra power. There is nothing that can be done by an admin that cant be undone by another admin, and if anyone is doing things which are getting undone by other admins, then thats a great reason for unadmining someone. Except in cases of striaght out vandalism (things about eating asspuss for breakfast for example *shudder*) then admins are expected only to act as directed to by the community. If i started deleating or protecting pages which the community hadnt said should be deleated/protected, then i would be dealt with by the other admins just as any other vandal. Wiki philosophy dictates that the more trusted people who have admin powers, the better, since it means that there is a more even distribution of power; in fact some people have suggested (on c2) that all users should have admin powers. Finnaly a quote from Jimbo "Adminship is no big deal" ~The bellman | Smile  06:21, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Paul, the ability to control vandalism is the only major ability an admin has, he/she gains no significant extra editorial abilities other than to edit protected articles - which is generally only done on a consensus basis after dialogue with the community. → CGorman (Talk)  09:16, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)