Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2005-12/User:Amgine

Amgine
Hello, I want to nominate Amgine for being sysop because he always has a watchful eye on this wiktionary and is online on IRC. He has already done a lot against vandalism on en.wiktionary. --Spacebirdy 20:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the nomination; I accept. - Amgine/talk 21:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

For

 * 1) --Spacebirdy 20:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) --Jon Harald Søby 21:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) --SemperBlotto 22:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Amgine is already an admin on Wikinews and elsewhere, watches RecentChanges vigilantly, and has done stand-in sysopping and vandal cleanup here when nobody was around.  He has my wholehearted trust and support for adminship on Wiktionary. --Dvortygirl 06:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) --Gerard Foley 03:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) He deals well with vanadalism, and he's quite responsive on IRC, level-headed and sure. If only for the last 2 months. &mdash; Fudoreaper 17:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Cute seeing votes against him...does this mean the vandals are scared of him?  --Connel MacKenzie T C 03:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC) That's not why I'm voting for him, BTW, just a note for my amusement.  --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) \Mike 11:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) --Cspurrier 05:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) --Tohru 14:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Kipmaster 20:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC) I'm confident about him (He wants to learn French, so he must be nice :p )
 * 12) I'll wager that I know Amgine better than most, and I think he'll be a perfectly good admin. Dan100 00:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) --Pill 13:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) --If I was still one, I'd not vote for him, but, alas, tis not to be --Wonderfool 22:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Against

 * 1) Primetime
 * 2) Grye
 * 3) Methodology
 * 4) Crink
 * 5) Neutralizer-I also think he is a mega troll; delighting in conflict and disruption. Why else would his user page say this obvious lie;in spite of the evidence to the contrary months after being asked to stop the confusion: "Oppose. That said, Amgine, please change your user page, it's confusing. -- IlyaHaykinson 06:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)", "Oppose, thanks for letting me know about this vote Neutralizer. Although Amgine really needs to update his user page to reflect his curreny activity level. Dan100 (Talk) 08:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)"


 * Comment; appears someone vandalized Cartman's vote by deleting it with no comment? Methodology 22:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Apparently the deleter feels the vote was not Cartman. I have asked the deleter to please check this out with Cartman BEFORE deleting the vote. Methodology 22:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

  He's either a jerk or really irrational--I'm not sure which. In my case, he insisted that my entry pseudologue was not a real word, even though I gave two references--both available online (one with a definition [ and another that said it was in Merriam-Webster's Unabridged ). He then threatened to block me . If he had been an administrator, he would have been able to do that even though I later won the dispute! He would have done more than just waste a great deal of my time. It later turned out that there was even a third source--answers.com. Further, on the RFV page, I actually caught him lying in order to get the entry deleted. We can't allow people like this to be in charge. Whether he's your buddy or not is irrelevant because he obviously is unable to make reasoned decisions. [[User:Primetime|Primetime]] 05:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) *I consider myself neutral in this case (having no affiliation to either part), and as far as I can see, Amgine has done nothing wrong. It was simply you who were unfamiliar with the rules of Wiktionary. The blocking "threat" was also deserved, given this edit on Amgine's talk page. Jon Harald Søby 13:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, that comment was made at 00:13, long after he threatened to block me at 00:03. Primetime 15:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Reminding you what the rules are if you are in the process of breaking them should be seen as a friendly gesture rather than a threat to block you. Besides, Amgine is not an administrator, so he could not possible be able to block you. Jon Harald Søby 16:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * "While I do some work on en.wikt, I am currently on the site for vandal patrol along with several other sites I am monitoring . . . You have now reverted my application of the tag three times. Please do not violate the 3RR." Could you explain why you think he mentioned that he was on vandal patrol? We weren't talking about vandal patrolling, and it seems especially threatening given that he also mentioned the 3RR. I'm not a very subtle person (as you can tell), but his threat was pretty obvious to me. Primetime 17:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Your social behaviour suggested to me you are not very familiar with wiki communities and their collaborative/cooperative nature. So I felt I should ask you not to violate the policy, in case you were unaware of it. (Saying I was on vandal patrol was to explain why I was on Wiktionary at all, and in part why I was not editing your entry.) - Amgine/talk 18:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

 No Way Grye 11:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Can I vote NO twice, since I got 2 invitations to vote? We'd be very pleased...Grye
 * I find it very suspicious that you got "invitations to vote". This seems very dubious. Jon Harald Søby 20:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No, the user really did receive invitations to vote against this RfA. Rather a number of people did so. User:Primetime has gone so far as to forge votes in an RfdA against me on Wikinews, and there's the interesting User:Gd, whose recently created user page contradicts his en.wikipedia user page but makes some great edits. - Amgine/talk 08:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I didn't forge anyone's vote on Wikinews. I was just tallying them . They had already voted against you:, see? Cartman had brought the complaint, and stated explicitly that he wanted you out:.


 * One thing many of you may notice in these discussions is that many people on Wikinews have a grudge against Amgine, many of them administrators, , , , , , . It also looks as if he is extremely eager to block users: . He will also involve you in many dispute resolutions: . It appears as if people have problems with him on Wikipedia as well. (He appartently kept subpages on people he doesn't like .)


 * This honestly isn't personal any more. I don't hold any bad feelings against Amgine. However, I honestly believe now that he shouldn't be an administrator. He's too much like me--too bitter and stubborn. He may speak softly, but he carries a big stick indeed--and uses it. Primetime 17:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Please do not edit my comments, especially do not strike-out sentences or delete elements. This implies I have changed my opinion or statement, which I have not. - Amgine/talk 17:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Amgine's activities as an administrator for en.wikinews, I have checked and double checked the information/links below and find the statements accompanying them to be true. Amgine abuses administrative authority consistently and has done so for at least 6 months. His user page comments even show he has a troll-like connection as an administrator with the project as he openly announces that he has "left the project" while being the most active in terms of conflicts and blockings; acting as a foreman or "boss" rather than in a collaborative fashion.

 Amgine displayed his arrogance by summarily rejecting the resolution,suggestions of a mediator, Ilya (a wikinews Bureaucrat) after a mediation. "I do not accept your suggestion that I limit my administrative privilege use either to "vandalism or very clear violations of objective policies only, and to explicitly let some other admin deal with Neutralizer" or "submit a self-de-admin request." 
 * Here are the examples of administrative abuse. Amgine has had multiple long lasting disputes with many editors with Neutralizer being the most recent and intense. Amgine has not hesitated to abuse his admin powers by blocking/punishing editors like Neutralizer who disagree with him; even though wikinews guidelines clearly state that an admin should NOT block an editor with whom they are having a dispute (they should,instead, allow a different admin. to apply any necessary blocks to that editor). It now seems that the wikinews contributors can not get rid of Amgine no matter how hard they try; Amgine is able to deflect and explain away his misdeeds in a fashion that puts Shakespeare's "Artful Dodger" to shame. You may expect that he will become increasingly accusatory and employ vicious attack methods to get what he wants. Re Amgine; its a lot easier to get him in power than to get him out of power. Fair Warning !

	Dan100's list. of Amgine's "bullying and poor behaviour" (Dan100 is an admin. in good standing at wikinews). 

	Apparent vendetta blocks:
 * A shows 4 of the spurious blocks Amgine levied against Neutralizer which were all later rescinded when other admins got involved.
 * B shows the last block against Neutralizer done after Amgine and he clearly were in conflict
 * 02:13, 6 November 2005 Amgine blocked "User:Neutralizer" with an expiry time of 6 months 

	Admin abuse; blocking Ed Brown for 1 month  04:27, 11 December 2005 Amgine blocked "User:Edbrown05" with an expiry time of 1 month ; Amgine soon withdrew that block as he claimed a "software problem" had been the cause of the unjustified block. This time selection of 1 month for a long standing good contributor like Edbrown shows an abusive use of blocking  	talk page blanked and frozen by Amgine ( in the middle of ongoing disputes with this same person) This is especially interesting as he did it just one hour after the talk page was made to prioritize the question of whether Amgine and another admin. are the same person. As you can see below (6); Amgine has no problem accusing others of being sockpuppets but when he stands accused? Hell; just delete the evidence.  	More Disruption by Amgine; not assuming good faith:
 * Amgine accused vonbergm of being a sockpuppet; "I do not have reason to believe you are not a sockpuppet."


 * Just a few days ago he accused Edbrown of being a sockpuppet</li></ol>

Methodology 21:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I really wish you would use my edit of this as my formatting is neater and more easily read. - Amgine/talk 03:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

<li> He calls me a "repeat vandal", so I’m going to change my vote to against. &mdash;Stephen 09:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC) &mdash;Stephen 12:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * These are excellent citations against. Can we restructure this section to have the counted votes at the top, ala for? Oh, & my other vote is "no", too, if you didn't guess.  :Grye
 * I seriously doubt that was meant for you. See this diff, it might explain more. Most likely, Amgine has had the window open in edit mode for some time, and pressed submit after you had cleaned it up. And you also see that he reverted his edit again. Jon Harald Søby 15:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It’s conceivable, but there appears to be quite a bit of time between my edit and his revert (some 15 hours). I noted the re-revert, but that doesn’t explain the remark. &mdash;Stephen 16:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC).
 * It seems pretty likely that his comment was intended for User:203.166.96.240, not you. --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Amgine says that he was not referring to me, so I am removing my against vote and will abstain in this case, leaving it to those who have more time to investigate and sort it all out. &mdash;Stephen 09:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Connel MacKenzie, watch who you call a vandal. Grye
 * Indeed. You tell him, Gyre. Primetime 13:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

<li>Opposed I am not a reglar user on englis sites. But I red and cheked against coments and am very surpise that such person has any supportr. Amgine seems like problems four sure Crink 13:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

<li>Opposed I have had a lot of dealings with Amgine. I say the same about him as he said about one of our good contributors at Wikinews; "I have no reason to believe he is not a troll." Neutralizer 05:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC) </ol>

Comments
My thoughts on this vote: Why is it possible to insult other users without consequences. What about Wikiquette (for reminding those who have never heard no word about good behaviour). Why is it possible to create accounts only for voting... --birdy (:> )= 13:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I never did learn why a person's IP address is considered private information on MediaWiki sites. But since a user's IP address is considered private, it makes it difficult to determine if the new accounts User:Primetime C, User:Methodology C and User:Grye C are (or are not) legitimate.  --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's why I am glad now (at first I was against it) that we have some rules for voting on wikt.de (more than 150 edits in main namespace, account older than 1 month, no multiple accounts,...) (wiki.de has even strikter rules I believe), best regards, --birdy (:> )= 17:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I know that on Wikipedia, administrators can check to see a user's true IP address. Thus, PierreAbbat can check out our user accounts on Wikipedia. (We have accounts there, as well.) In any case, how do we know Connel is real? Primetime 19:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Birdy, whenever Wiktionarians venture over to Wikipedia, they are overwhelmed by the layers upon layers of rules. (Not true for everyone, but a general sentiment, to be sure.)  There is significant resistance here to adding new rules for one-time events, like this.  I expect Eclecticology may simply disregard their protests since they are not genuine contributors here.


 * Connel, I expect Eclecticology to do what he feels is the best for the wiki; not for any individual or group. Obviously there is no real consensus at this point that Amgine should be an administrator. Methodology 22:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * New users: (Wiktionary)
 * User:Primetime - Special:Contributions/Primetime

not true! User:Primetime is not a "new user"; just click on the contributions link.Please correct your false statement, Connel. Methodology 00:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * User:Methodology - Special:Contributions/Methodology
 * User:Grye - Special:Contributions/Grye
 * User:Crink -Special:Contributions/Crink
 * User:Cspurrier--Special:Contributions/CSpurrier voted "FOR Amgine" Methodology 17:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * #Cartman02au -Special:Contributions/Cartman02au
 * New Users: (Wikipedia)
 * w:User:Primetime - w:Special:Contributions/Primetime

not true! w:User:Primetime has been on wikpedia since Septmber; just click on the contributions link.Please correct your false statement, Connel. Methodology 00:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * w:User:Methodology - w:Special:Contributions/Methodology
 * w:User:Grye - w:Special:Contributions/Grye
 * w:User:Crink -w:Special:Contributions/Crink
 * #Cartman02au -w:Special:Contributions/Cartman02au

not true! Cartman is not a "new user" on Wikipedia; just click on the contributions link.Please correct your false statement, Connel. Methodology 00:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Non-existant users: (WikiNews)
 * n:User:Primetime - n:Special:Contributions/Primetime
 * n:User:Methodology - n:Special:Contributions/Methodology
 * n:User:Grye - n:Special:Contributions/Grye
 * n:User:Crink -n:Special:Contributions/Crink
 * #Cartman02au-n:Special:Contributions/Cartman02au

not true! #Cartman02au is not a "non-existant user" in wikinews; just click on the contributions link.Please correct your false statement, Connel. Methodology 00:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * (edited section)--Connel MacKenzie T C 22:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * --Connel MacKenzie T C 21:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * (edited again) --Connel MacKenzie T C 19:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * <U>NOTE:</U> Someone edited this section (of course without signing) previously. --Connel MacKenzie T C 19:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Note: Methodology's links are good reading, indicating that n:User:Amgine was not in the wrong, in each of those cases (contrary to User:Methodology's assertions.) Additionally, since Amgine has written approximately 1/3 of _ALL_ Wikinews articles, I would expect (by their controvercial nature) that many many more requests for arbitration would have been levied against him.  He must have been doing something right to have about the same number as some newbie hoodlum.  User:Methodology's lies about User:Ilya are just plain weird.  --Connel MacKenzie T [[Special:Contributions/Connel

MacKenzie|C]] 19:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * User Methodology continues to edit the above section (signed by me.) Would another admin please block User:Methodology.  The plethora of misinformation is getting tiresome.  Looking at the Kate tools edit count for Amgine, it is indeed over 1/3 of the total number of entries on Wikinews.  --Connel MacKenzie T C 18:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Connel, You said above; "Amgine has written approximately 1/3 of _ALL_ Wikinews articles." Do you not know the difference between an article and an edit entry? Almost all of Amgine's edit entries have been user talk page arguments and have contributed nothing to the articles (until a little bit today..I wonder why). A lot of his "entries" are the trollish disturbances Ilya was referring to (see below) when he said to Amgine;"Issues you've created were very destabilizing to Wikinews".
 * Please do your homework,man, and where's that apology you owe for making false accusations (see below). Methodology 00:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment;I expect Connel to issue an apology (for saying this above;"Methodology's lies about User:Ilya") after he reads the next to last paragraph of this link; in item #10-"responses from Amgine" section. Amgine was responding to Ilya's attempt, as mediator, to put forward a resolution to help Amgine be a more constructive member of Wikinews; i.e. to reign Amgine in;


 * Amgine said to Ilya, and I quote; "I do not accept your suggestion that I limit my administrative privilege use either to "vandalism or very clear violations of objective policies only, and to explicitly let some other admin deal with Neutralizer" or "submit a self-de-admin request."- Amgine
 * Please Connel, do not be using the word lie toward me; it is your comments that are false. Amgine hasn't written any articles for months and if you are patient, I can even find a link to his declaration that he was only going to be using administrative powers; not contributing. Whoever told you Amgine writes 1/3 of all articles was either setting you up or is on drugs.Methodology 23:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Since Connel brought it back up, and since he seems to not want to actually read what Ilya said to Amgine; here it is;

"Amgine.You've been here long enough to know better than to do 6 month blocks without policy changes and consensus. If a person is consistently injecting bias into stories over a course of several months, you need to work to revise the blocking policy or to create other policy to deal with these situations, not block people just to have them unblocked soon afterwards. Much like Neutralizer, you accept conflict too quickly. You obviously have a problem with him, but you keep trying to justify applying the rules of the site instead of letting others in the community deal with him. If there was one rule I'd add to the blocking policy, it'd be that if you have a personal conflict with a user, don't block.

Despite my opinion that you're a great contributor to Wikinews, I have very strongly disagreed with you on a lot of things you've done here as well. I thought the Open English thing was a horrible idea, I disagreed with you on layout and other issues in the past, I've even thought that your signature and your user page were very misleading, but when the time comes for decision making, I let you walk your own path. Issues you've created were very destabilizing to Wikinews but the community continues to work with you and accept you despite that. You need to do the same with Neutralizer. Accept the fact that he is prone to creating bias. Accept the fact that he's confrontational. And accept him as you would a new user who's just not getting the NPOV: politely revert a couple of times. If he violates the 3RR, block for a day. But if you violate the 3RR on the same article too, don't be surprised if you get blocked either.

You too often try to be the sole enforcer of site policies. Perhaps you should let others do some of that, and concentrate more on the anti-vandal portion of your administrator responsibilities. I suggest that you make the commitment to self-regulate your administrator privileges to vandalism or very clear violations of objective policies only, and to explicitly let some other admin deal with Neutralizer if you run into future problems with his work. If you feel that you would be unable to self-regulate, then please submit a self-de-admin request. [edit] Closing comments I welcome your comments, below. I also urge you to accept my course of action outlined above. I again apologize for the lateness in response, and hope that you both will still allow this process to continue. -- IlyaHaykinson 19:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)"


 * Or, maybe the real question is, why do some folks prefer to resort to name calling("vandals") and innuendo about the information providers rather than discuss the information itself? The Amgine apologists have yet to give opinions on his administrative abuses and his arrogance toward wikinews Bureaucrat, Ilya and the statements of long time administrator Dan100. These are facts supported by the history so why would anyone sink to trying to dirty up the messengers of such facts? Why not just assume good faith that the messengers (myself as 1) are only interested in the well being of this wiki and why not simply discuss whether it is good for this wiki to make someone an administrator who has such a history of conflict with so many reputable contributors as well as such a history of clear abuse of administrative authority? After all, the real long term effect of aquiring this person as a new administrator will be felt more by this wiki than by any of us;imo. There have been a grand total of 6 disputes on wikinews that required step 3 mediation; Amgine has been a party in 4 of them. . Does it really matter who provides that information? Well, maybe, if someone is simply trying to sweep the information (all of #3 above) under the rug...this shift toward messenger examination looks awfully suspicious to me...this is one of Amgine's most common traits "censor the messenger and you censor the message automatically". If this is the direction this community chooses to go in, then perhaps you should have Amgine as your admin. he'd fit right in. Methodology 21:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I am not a wikinews user. I said that. & with Amgine's adminship issues over there, I will never be.
 * If you can come up with some way for me to show that I am a "legitimate user", by all means, share.
 * Speaking of legit users, Amgine has stacks of alligations of him using multiple users, & the first moment I encountered him, I felt he had similarities to some others. & I'd never thought that before.
 * If Amgine comes in here, I'm out of everything Wiki.
 * "New User" is a relative term.

Grye 08:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * This discussion is a perfect example of what's been happening on wikinews for 6 months. When anyone speaks up against Amgine, first the sweet talk is used by Amgine and his meatpuppets to get them to change their mind . Then the personal attacks led with his weasel wordings; "Your social behaviour suggested to me you are not very familiar with wiki communities and their collaborative/cooperative nature" on those who can not be manipulated into backing off.The personal attacks serve to discredit the information provided by those under attack (however provable facts they may be)and also to deflect the community's attention away from those facts.Then come the hypocrisies (complaining about newcomers voting against while bringing in new comers to vote "for" ). And all the while, Amgine's meatpuppets refuse to address the factual citations which expose how he actually operates. Absolutely amazing..he's got this locked up already. I'll be adding nothing further to this discussion...but I will say yours is collectively a shameful example of how NOT to put the wiki first. Statistically, most of you will be gone in 6 months; and this wiki will be left with Amgine and the effects of his modus operandi;Amgine Amgine[- <span style="font: italic small-caps 12pt/14pt 'Lucida Handwriting' cursive;">Amgine 03:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)].


 * Additional "Troll" indicators


 * 1. Enigma = Amgine backwards

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/enigma •nig•ma (-ngm) KEY NOUN: One that is puzzling, ambiguous, or inexplicable. A perplexing speech or text; a riddle. Anything that arouses curiosity or perplexes because it is unexplained, inexplicable, or secret: conundrum, mystery, perplexity, puzzle, puzzler, riddle.

Definition sounds a lot like a definition for "troll" to me; "puzzler,perplexing,conundrum"
 * 2. http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/User:Amgine says “left the project”


 * http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Special:Log/block shows the opposite; e.g,

04:27, 11 December 2005 Amgine blocked "User:Edbrown05" with an expiry time of 1 month (Sockpuppet use to attack, rfda. )

Methodology 14:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Mrsmisc blocked me for 6months on Wikinews, while HE's under vote for de-adminship, in subject matter in AMGINE's vote for de-adminship. Huh. Grye 05:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment. I resent the way my comments are used completely out of context in a vote against Amgine. I might disagree with him from time to time, but I find Amgine to be a good administrator. I won't vote since I'm not a big member of the Wiktionary community (I mainly read, and very rarely edit as an anon), but if I did vote it'd be a note of support. I also would like to very strongly point out that the quote of me in the "against" vote as listed by Neutralizer was in a comment for a request for de-admining Amgine that Neutralizer listed on Wikinews. I opposed the de-admining, but Neutralizer's comment here makes it seem like I opposed some vote for Amgine. -- IlyaHaykinson 08:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment. I echo Ilya - Neutralizer, please stop quoting me in your crusade against Amgine. I state here and now, that nothing I have said against Amgine in the past should be used to form an opinion about him as he is now. People change! Dan100 00:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Special:Log/block
Have a look at Amgine's unexplained and unjustified "blanket" blocks to see what you are in for with this guy. 70.48.204.35 20:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Amgine still lying
This being the most recent in a message to Dan100 accusing me of placing Gyre's edit. 65.95.151.123 15:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Note; edits being deleted; Blocking offence
Connel MacKenzie recently deleted my edit that included CSpurrier in the new user group. That is a blocking offense(deleting the edits of other contributors) Methodology 22:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Connel MacKenzie presumably deleted your addition because you edited his/her signed comment (the list), editing other users signed comments is also a blocking offense under the same rule as deleting a comment. I do not mind being on the list of new users to Wiktionary, however I am not a new user to Wikipedia as you have me listed (I have been on pedia for over a year) --Cspurrier 23:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I also find it odd Connel put me on the list. I have been editing under my user name on Wikipedia since September and anonymously since September, 2004. I have also been editing here since mid-November. Primetime 23:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Interesting little edit
Looks like Amgine didn't like what one of his supporters did (crossing out a "forged votes" accusation by Amgine); makes one wonder whether the accusation Amgine made is true or false? 70.48.207.109 15:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The person who did the crossing out was GYRE. The correct link is --Cspurrier 16:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The "forged votes" accusation is another false accusation by Amgine(like his "sockpuppet" accusation of Vonbergm. Check it out. 64.229.64.156 21:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Uhm, no it isn't. Similar to the Cartman02au vote here, which is not by Cartman02au. - Amgine/talk 22:59, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Amgine, are you still saying Vonbergm is a sockpuppet? 65.95.151.151 05:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Not commenting on any other issues, but I did, erroneously, cross out Amgine's statement. For the record. Grye 23:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, Grye, Dan100 did not make an oppose vote here, though Neutralizer did cleverly quote him out of context in order to mislead someone into thinking he had. (Dan100 was opposed to a de-admin request against me.) - Amgine/talk 07:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed that oppose vote was not me. That was Neutralizer being incredibly desperate. If *I* were an admin here, I'd have blocked him for a month for that little stunt. Dan100 00:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Dan; check out the historyplease. 70.48.204.238 03:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Dan, see your user page. The pound sign was me, but in the summery I distinctly noted what I was doing,  and that the [your] signature was suspect . Grye 07:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Decision
Provisional decision A decision on this has been deferred for one month, during which time his edits will be monitored. In coming to this decision I have exchanged views with our other bureaucrat. The final decision will depend on the nature of his contributions during that time, and his interaction with the broader community during the same time

The unseemly dispute that arose over this is perhaps in excess of what is warranted, and I find the objections raised there to be of limited value. I find that the dispute over the article pseudologue to be a one-off situation that could happen to any one of us. I also found that Amgine's edits in recent times had a limited scope, but were essentially in accordance with acceptable activity. I am also encouraged by the names of known reliable Wiktionarians who have supported Amgine.

The entire debate that was previously here has been moved to Administrators/Amgine. That archive should not be edited. Any new comments should be placed below; however, they should be limited to comments on Amgine's activities after January 2, 2006. Since there has already been ample time to comment on his behaviour before that time, any attempts to revive old arguments may be deleted. Eclecticology 11:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC) Bureaucrat.


 * Latest new additions have been poorly formatted; not even following those laid down in "A very simple example" - I was about to remove my vote. SemperBlotto 19:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Nomination withdrawn by nominee, 2006-01-12