Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Administrator/DragonFire1024 2

DragonFire1024
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)

               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)
 * Oppose - I am disturbed by this sequence of edits on the Arbcom workshop page:
 * 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 [[image: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)

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 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. (unsigned by user: Terinjokes).
 * 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. M ESSED R OCKER (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)

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)