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

De-adminship: User:NGerda
NGerda has shown an on-going unwillingness to listen to or respect the views of the community, despite many attempts to reason with him by several editors. He breaks site policy at will, including breaking the 3RR, and has lost the trust of the community. NGerda has also broken site policy on the use of admin powers, when he unilaterally unblocked a username that broke our policy on such matters.

Therefore, this request for de-sysopping is being made. This, of course, does not affect his ability to write articles or fully contribute to Wikinews in other ways. Dan100 (Talk) 5 July 2005 22:38 (UTC)


 * He simply never respects the wishes of the community. Look at the Water cooler and it's archives - it's almost entirely NGerda arguing with everyone else.
 * He Reverted Template:Lead article six times
 * His twelfth edit was nominating himself for adminship (he lost)
 * Two weeks later he was nominated by Ryan524. He received two oppose votes and five support votes.
 * I actually recieved 7 support votes. --NGerda July 7, 2005 05:25 (UTC)


 * He has blocked many users/vandals beyond what is allowed by the blocking policy, with blocks of a month or more being given. Including to ip address. At least one of these was a dynamic ip (User:142.32.208.232) with a history of good edits.
 * You ignore Ryan524's multiple indefinite blocks to IP addresses. -- NGerda July 7, 2005 05:25 (UTC)

--Cspurrier 6 July 2005 00:05 (UTC)

Support de-sysoping

 * Cspurrier 6 July 2005 00:05 (UTC)
 * Although I hate it came to this, I simply don't have enough trust in NGerda to be comfortable with his privileges. I have to note that I do in some respects agree with Davodd, but the fact that there are other people who perhaps need to appear on this list is not a "saving grace". --Dcabrilo 6 July 2005 00:12 (UTC)

Oppose de-sysoping

 * Oppose. I cannot - in good conscience - vote to remove admin status from anyone when the person nominating him/her is just as guilty of some the charges being laid upon the accused. It is obvious from the article history that User:Dan100 also violated the 3-revert rule in the same article he accuses NGerda of over-editing. If NGerda is to be de-admined, then the nominating party should be someone who is neutral to the situation; not someone currently involved in an argument with him. Because of surrounding circumstances, this nomination, on its face, looks petty and vindictive. Using the logic of the above argument and taking into consideration the past administrative power abuses and the established pattern of attacks upon fellow admins with which he disagrees, User:Dan100 also should be listing himself for de-adminship, just to be fair. As for the 3RR violations, BOTH users should temporarily be de-admined and blocked from the site for 24 hours for a cool-down period. Admins should be setting an example of good behavior and community building - even when concerning those who do not share their views - but they should definitely not be engaging in what appears to be petty finger-pointing and back-biting. This is not a social clique, we do not all have to "fit in" and, that said, sometimes we each must learn to accept publication of factually accurate stories or photos contributed by others, even when they are not to our own personal taste. -- Davodd | Talk 5 July 2005 23:50 (UTC)
 * Dan100's first two edits were not reverts they were just edits to the page.Those were updating the lead and shrinking the photo. Dan100 made three reverts after that.--Cspurrier 6 July 2005 00:05 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I remember being in almost opposition to Dan100's request for adminship, and what a tremendous asset he has been to Wikinews. I tried to warn NGerda against seeking adminship, now here we are, and what a tremendous asset he NGerda has been to Wikinews. This process being undertaken upon NGerda's 'prviledges' as an administrator should not be taken lightly by him. -Edbrown05 6 July 2005 00:31 (UTC)
 * Oppose. While I think that NGerda needs to play better with others (and that means backing off when editing gets hot), I think that he hasn't done anything that hasn't been recently done by other admins. We all need to stop arguing and write some news articles. -- IlyaHaykinson 6 July 2005 04:55 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'd like to note that Ilya and Davodd contribute comparatively infrequently to the site. If you had to deal with NGerda like we do, you wouldn't be voting this way. For those who are trying to operate the site on a day to day basis, I can't tell you how much of a drain on everyone NGerda's constant bickering is. Dan100 (Talk) 6 July 2005 07:16 (UTC)
 * Thats not quite fair - you don't know how often they visit for example i've visited and checked out the rc everyday this week but have not made more than one or two edits; perhaps davodd and ilya are the same. → CGorman (Talk) 6 July 2005 11:33 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you guys could make a little more input into the community? It would be very helpful - the same debates between the same people don't get us far. Dan100 (Talk) 6 July 2005 11:43 (UTC)
 * I'm often put off by the back and forth that folks at Wikinews tend to have on a ton of issues. I read the Water Cooler, monitor RC when I can, and look at policy changes, but really only comment when I feel that my perspective is unrepresented. If I had more time, I'd spend it writing code or writing news stories: bickering about proper wording is something I have no time for, when I am busy, and definitely no desire. So if someone is really against some idea that I have, well, I guess it won't be implemented then. So don't take my quiet as a sign that I'm happy with the way things are, or don't know enough &mdash; I definitely see the tension between users. Tension is a normal part of pluralism, though, and has to be accepted. -- IlyaHaykinson 6 July 2005 17:19 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Dan expected me to vote with him not against. I thought about it, but decided no - I often wish NGerda would slow down, I hate a lot of the things he has done, but more for the speed at which he works than the actually fundemental ideas. I don't think removing admin status would be productive - it would upset him and possibly lead to him quitting wikinews - a very big loss if he does. I don't like many of the things he has done; but he is a genuine person (or at least does an excellent job of projecting that image) who wants to do his best. Dan im sorry to disappoint you, but I don't think this is the right road for you to follow. → CGorman (Talk) 6 July 2005 11:33 (UTC)
 * No, you haven't disappointed me at all. I value your judgement very highly; that's why I perosnally invited you to vote! I had no pre-conceptions. Dan100 (Talk) 6 July 2005 11:43 (UTC)'''


 * 0pposePaulrevere2005 6 July 2005 14:31 (UTC)

Wow! Nobody told me about this! If we really want to get technical about this, Breaking the 3RR is not' a violation of admin powers, but using the rollback tool to revert good-faith edits is, which both Dan100 and Amgine violated, and I don't see their names listed for de-sysoppization. -- NGerda July 7, 2005 05:23 (UTC)


 * Things are, or were, going your way here and then you roll in with an observation like the above. I question your maturity. -Edbrown05 7 July 2005 06:33 (UTC)
 * in a place where you opinion isn't even relevant. -Edbrown05 7 July 2005 06:35 (UTC)
 * and I question your sincerity. -Edbrown05 7 July 2005 06:41 (UTC)

This morning's news out of London tells me we have all got to quit bickering and start appreciating each other's efforts here...this product is more important. We all know how much Ngerda and Dan100 have contributed and we should also expect them to be human with human emotional reactions.....so I propose we simply all start looking at the contributions of each other rather than the areas for improvement.We can each be thinking ourselves about how we can improve ourselves.As Jesus said; "Don't look at the speck in your neighbor's eye,look at the log in your own." Paulrevere2005 7 July 2005 11:25 (UTC)
 * Comment; this comment is not directed to an individual; it'S directed to all of us..like myself too.
 * Well said. You know i've had problems getting on with you before Paul; but by God I could'nt agree more with you on this. Lets all bury the hatchets and get back to work! → CGorman (Talk) 7 July 2005 12:09 (UTC)

One other thing I'd like o note is why am I getting all of the blame for the unilateral switch to DPL? It was Dan100 who switched both Developing stories and Latest news  without full community support. Quote from Dan100: I've DPL'ed the day page and Developing stories. -- NGerda July 7, 2005 20:14 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Since joining last month (under AutisticPsycho), NGerda helped me with the conflict over that name. I do not believe that NGerda has committed anything major enough to lose his adminship. I do agree with what others are saying and that Dan100 has done the same stuff as NGerda. Though I do believe NGerda may get hostile at sometimes, this is rarely though. I believe that this can hopefully be resoloved. Also, I believe that issue has been overblown.

How about I propose this: let's stop bickering about every little thing someone does wrong. I promise to not harp on Dan100 for attacking me for stuff he does, if he promises to lay off and if he has a problem to discuss things appropriately. Let's get back to what we're all here for: journalism. -- NGerda July 8, 2005 01:18 (UTC)
 * I promise to not harp on Dan100 for attacking me for stuff he does, - Dan, frame this and put it up on your wall or at least your userpage! → CGorman (Talk) 8 July 2005 11:24 (UTC)