Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Administrator/Ironiridis 2

User:ironiridis2
Well, Ironiridis just had his 1-month anniversary yesterday. Check nom below, I agree with everything BrianNZ said. Let's try this again, shall we? ReporterFromAfar3136 20:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I accept this nomination, with bewilderment. You people are nuts. ;) Thanks! irid:t 02:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Support on the condition Ironiridis accepts this second nomination. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 21:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, as well as user accepts also. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 21:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose,Ironiridis's edits have decreased substantially since he withdrew his last nomination. That is unfortunate as we have less available activity upon which to make a decision than otherwise might be the case. I truly do not understand the need to rush(imo) an admin nomination through as we have quite a stable of janitors as it is. I spent some time reviewing the Nominee's edits since the withdrawal and I see nothing in the way of contributions which makes a compelling case for adminship. To the contrary, I am concerned that some edits appear to be rather opinionated,controlling and nippish; e.g. which, imo, are not the traits of an admin. that could benefit our project at this time. Neutralizer 21:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm not seeing what you are trying to say with any of those links. What I see is a user who is trying to maintain peace in the community, and some users who are ripping him out for it.  Perhaps some users like that unstability, I don't know.  But those examples above show one of the strongest reasons why he should become an admin.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 01:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment:I did not know that users were not allowed to take breaks or vacations. Jason Safoutin 01:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

(Suspicious that a user named Earl would give him trouble after my comments. 01:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC))
 * Support Karen 22:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC) I read all of the edits Neutralizer mentions above and will look at other edits later. Once Ironiridis accepts, I reserve now claim the right to change my vote; by then I will have read enough to form an opinion. His resemblance (See people's exibit # ) to the protagonist on My Name is Earl may indicate good karma. 22:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support User had decreased edits due to vacations and trips and user has great potential. Jason Safoutin 00:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support--Cspurrier 02:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Looked at Neutralizers list don't see any major problem. I might disagree with some edits (like #7 e.g.), but people differ. Overall I see a solid contributer, that is engaged and open minded in discussion. --vonbergm 03:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Doldrums 05:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Damn straight Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 10:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Jacques Divol 10:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support A couple minor tiffs with SiP are no big deal. Very amused by Karen's comments about User:Earl too.  Nyarlathotep 14:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Yeah, Earl will be ok. --Sfullenwider 01:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Sure we've disagreed on some things (e.g. #7), but I feel he was really trying to find a consensus solution. I think he'll make a good admin. -- Avenue 11:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Absolute. Good solid head.  Mostlty calm and collected.  Would make a good addition -Drew 16:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support How could I forget? Or is it an automatic support? ReporterFromAfar3136 22:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support I was going to abstain, until I read the links posted by Neutralizer. I agree with MrM, those links demonstrate why he should be an administrator. - Borofkin 22:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment; Imo, any user who supports Dragonfire for admin. at this point in time does not have enough good judgement themselves to be an admin. or else they enjoy the silliness; either way, I will now add the word "strongly" to my vote. Neutralizer 01:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Neutralizer, I will respectfully ask you to be respectful of others at this point. You have made some very personal remarks in the last hour that were absolutely unjustified in their tone. Please find a different way to voice your opinion. irid:t 01:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment; No. This shows your true colors as there is nothing personal being said at all. Every comment I made is related to editing behavior and each comment is debatably correct. The fact you want to exagerate about an "hour" when it's been about 10 minutes and you want to censor what someone is saying in relation to your own nomination shows what we can expect from you as a stalking admin. Neutralizer 01:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You just stated that any admins who votes "yes" on Dragon should not be an admin. That is an attack.  How would you like it if I stated, "If you agree with Neutralizer, you should be blocked"?  You're aware of the policies.  Start following them.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 16:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No.MrM's analogy is twisted and false as are 100% of his attempts; correct one would be "any user who supports Neutralizer for admin. at this point in time does not have enough good judgement themselves to be an admin. or else they enjoy the silliness." I can agree with that too as I would be a terible admin.; along the lines of MrM, perhaps. Neutralizer 11:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, Neutralizer I advise you to read over WN:NOT. This is not a theatre of war and you are currently attacking MrM, Me, and Ironiridis. You voted, and your attacks are not need here or anywhere else on Wikinews. Jason Safoutin 11:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose. One month does not establish enough history. -Edbrown05 03:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: He's done more in a month than some have in a year. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 16:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I am comfortable with the idea of using a length of time rather than a has/hasn't done judgement. He's justified in saying that 30 days is not sufficient. I welcome that kind of criticism. irid:t 03:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply: Certainly some will be wary because of the time factor. However, actions speak louder than time, especially in these cases.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 03:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Support --Brian McNeil / talk 15:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. What's his name again? --Deprifry|+T+ 14:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose I like to wait some time to see how this user act in some quite "comunity splitting" issues. International 07:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)