Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Removal/Amgine (admin)

Deadminship: Amgine
I wish to propose that a vote be taken to remove Amgine's administrator status on the following grounds: Cartman02au 00:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Deletes relevant news  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 . I think it is inappropriate for an administrator of this site to be advertising their own site and using WN for personal gain.
 * 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 and another that said it was in Merriam-Webster's Unabridged ). He then threatened to block me . I later won the dispute .  Further, on the RFV page, I actually caught him lying  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) Support. Amgine, you seem very conscientious and active as an admin, but I would prefer you to be less of an admin, and more of an author. I think that a disciplinarian approach such as exhibited by the clique of admins of which you are a central member is counterproductive in any public domain, such as wikinews is. This is not to say that you are responsible for the contributions of the people you align with, but by the same token, I think you need to allow yourself to become less responsible for the contributions of those you align against. -- Simeon 00:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) 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.
 * 4) 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. —M ESSED R OCKER  (talk) 12:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC) I withdraw my assertion. —M ESSED R OCKER  (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:|Amgine.

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 ☺☻[[image: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 ☺☻[[image: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

 * 1) 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:


 * 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)


 * 1) 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 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: You are OFFENDED by his signature? May I ask why?  --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 01:01, 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)


 * 1) Oppose - not sufficient evidence of abuse of adminship -, but I would have preferred it if the the article had been listed at Deletion requests.--Eloquence 01:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) 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)


 * 1) 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)

Please see votes above, all of this is one RfdA.
 * 1) 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)
 * 2) Oppose Not enough for de-admin. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 19:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) 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)
 * 4) 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)
 * 5) 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)
 * 1) Oppose. I think the mediation has been the right course of action.--Whywhywhy 12:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) 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)
 * 3) 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)
 * 1) Oppose. --Cspurrier 01:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)