Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Administrator/Mrmiscellanious

Mrmiscellanious
He has been here since April. He is an active user who has written several great stories including a few with original reporting. He is very open about his opinions, but does not try to push his pov into stories. I believe he will make a great admin. --Cspurrier 20:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I have userpages at English Wikinews, English Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons, Wikimedia Meta and Simple English Wikipedia. Listed from most active in to less active in (at the current time).  --Mrmiscellanious 15:03, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I accept this nomination, in hopes of helping Wikinews out even more than I have in the past few months. --Mrmiscellanious 20:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Support. Mrmiscellanious is a trusted member of this community and would make a great addition to the admin team.--Ryan524 21:03, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose; What happened? What changed your mind(from the "do not wish" list)? I changed my vote but don't know how to cross out the old one. I think this great contributor has too much POV (like myself) to be a good admin.(see below) + his reference above to "helping Wikinews out even more than I have in the past few months." I don't think any of us are "helping" wikinews. Wikinews is helping us by providing a platform for our questionable and unproven talents. More importantly, I don't like this edit[] which censors out 2 wiki links of nothing more than information which some readers may find worthwhile reading. That edit also censors an important reference to who Bonifaz is and why Bonifaz's own statements are,perhaps, pov. The last thing we need are thought censors with administrative powers. Paulrevere2005 21:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * We all have POV of some type - I have no problem expressing my opinions. Now if you actually had proof of an instance where I incorporated any of my POV into an article, I would view it as an issue that I would have to address (and would subsequently withdraw my name from this nomination).  However, that edit above with the links removed was for the following reasons: a) because the WP link to Resolution of Inquiry article didn't exist, and b) the link to the other site was that of a POV site without any disclaimer stated in the article - which some might view as an endorsement from Wikinews.  I would like to express this certain edit in a case where I am trying to defeat the POV issues with Wikinews.  I felt as if it were biased, so as a user - I attempted to neutralize it.  --Mrmiscellanious 21:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Support. Guys, get off the 'automatic suspicion bandwagon. The people who know this guy are supporting him. If you don't know him, feel free to abstain/oppose on the grounds of not knowing him, but don't come up with possible reasons that aren't yet illustrated through their actions.-- Ross Koepke Talk 01:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Support -- NGerda 02:03, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Because anybody who is willing to come out with their opinion is okay in my book. -Edbrown05 03:09, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment;Just read the candidate's first line comment on this page []; if that's not enough, continue reading to find wrongful assumptions and conclusions as well as a lack of knowledge about when unilateral deletion is permitted. Paulrevere2005 12:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Paul, if you have issues on how I view POV as, please direct them to my talk page. --Mrmiscellanious 16:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Dan has unilaterally deleted the talk page referred to above which was crucial to this nomination. On that talk page this candidate condoned Dan's unilateral deletion of a non-vandelous article from the developing story section  and this candidate also felt "clearance" from someone is necessary to put an article on the developing page. "Did you get an ok for this article?" he asked; he doesn't seem to realize that articles don't belong to anyone and that anyone can edit them or put them up for deletion request. Paulrevere2005 13:31, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * If you want the talk page back temporarily, you only have to ask... Dan100 (Talk) 14:27, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I backtracked and found some of the text I refer to above;


 * "Did you get an OK for this article? --Mrmiscellanious 02:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * An okay? -Edbrown05 02:51, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Dan100 was deleting this article at least 3 times earlier tonight, and banned Paul for submitting an article with a similar headline --Mrmiscellanious 03:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment; that unilateral deletion without discussion should be what Mr.miscellanious(and all of us) should be concerned about. I didn't even realize an administrator was hovering with his "finger over the button" as Dan has referenced his powers before. I thought there was some kind of edit conflict knocking out the article. Paulrevere2005 11:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I find it a factual and provoking account. -Edbrown05 03:54, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Is that against a NPOV policy? Maybe so. So can Wikinews report provoking news.... -Edbrown05 04:02, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think it is NPOV, and it is more or less a duplicate article of this one: Armed police shoot man dead on London Underground. But the fact that he was specifically asked not to restart the article and that he was even briefly banned made me think that he was making this edit just for the fact that Dan turned in for the night. --Mrmiscellanious 04:08, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, I guess I do hold a certain affection for the zeal of the liberal media and their resulting point-of-views. I think this story weighs in with a viewpoint that gone unreported here, leaves a sanitized version of news at WN that is exclusive, rather than inclusive. "Factual" being my premise of this particular news story, I really must retire from any argument and slink off. I have been subject too in my own attempt to load up a story at a time the content was deemed by "whomever" to be too controversial to be dealt with in what I consider a "public forum" (I hear tank treads :}) -Edbrown05 04:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Support. Shown himself to be a defender of the policy of the NPOV (as you can read right above), which is a vital quality in an admin. Dan100 (Talk) 14:03, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Support --Chiacomo (talk) 03:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Support --Dejan Čabrilo 06:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Support For 2 Reasons: 1. Admin is no big deal, to quote Jimbo. 2. Because even though he may have deeply held and strong personal views on life that are diametrically opposed to other Wikinewsies (including me), he has the ability to work with those peple in a collaborative NPOV way. He also has a history of being able to know when to step back when personal feelings may preclude "professional distance" - a skill we all need to adopt. I don't think passion for personal ideals should be a stumbling block to admin status (which is little more than janitorial duty, anyay) :-). -- Davodd | Talk 23:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)