Wikinews:Requests for permissions: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:26, 30 July 2010

This is an official policy on English Wikinews. It has wide acceptance and is considered a standard for all users to follow. Changes to this page must reflect consensus. If in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.

Shortcut:
WN:RFP WN:PERM

This page enables bureaucrats to handle requests for granting administrator, bureaucrat, checkuser, and oversight permissions, and revoking them on this wiki. Please be aware that we can only alter permissions for this wiki. To change permissions for any other wiki, check your local policies, or go to Meta.

For urgent requests, please join our IRC channel at #wikinews, and type !admin@enwikinews.

For requests for reviewer rights, use Wikinews:Flagged revisions/Requests for permissions.

Requests for adminship

Requesting adminship: You are probably qualified for adminship, provided that the following conditions are true:

You've done at least two months' work on Wikinews.
You are trusted by the community.

You can view some of the latest requests in the archive, where you can also see some common questions, comments, and objections made during the process.

Requesting de-adminship: Local project bureaucrats are able to remove administrator privileges. They, however, will not deadmin unless there is community consensus for this to happen, or at the request of the administrator in question.

After seven days, a bureaucrat will turn those users into sysops who have consensus support from the community. Do not list people as administrators who have not been granted the appropriate permissions by a bureaucrat!

See Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Archive for old requests. Don't forget to inform the Wikinews community of your RFA.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

User promoted per consensus, congrats. Tempodivalse [talk] 17:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pi zero (talk · contribs)

I've had in mind for the past several weeks that I would request adminship here; I believe that my ability to help out here would be enhanced. Admittedly, if left entirely to my own devices I would probably have waited another month or even two, due to real-world demands on my time. It has been demonstrated to me recently, though, that there are occasions when participation here becomes important enough to me that I will find time for it — and then BRS nominated me for ArbCom. It seems reasonable to move up my schedule for RFA in light of that nomination. (I do have some limited experience with adminship, by the way, as I was granted it at Wikibooks about a month ago. No, I didn't request there, either; I just didn't choose to turn down the nomination.) --Pi zero (talk) 20:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Votes

Strong Support. Great to have you. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I thought you were already. — μ 20:14, July 10 2010 (UTC)
Support Level-headed user, smart, great administrator material. Tempodivalse [talk] 20:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Definitely. —fetch·comms 00:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Has clue. I honestly thought you were one already. the wub "?!" 10:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, and, to corrupt the wub's supporting comment, has clue, groks Wikinews. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 10:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per l'Wub. Diego Grez ^{return fire} 14:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bawolff ☺☻ 20:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Benny the mascot (talk) 12:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tyrol5 (talk) 14:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per μ. —Mike moral ♪♫ 04:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per 'the wub'. Pi zero would be a great administator. --Nascar 1996 04:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support It would be kind of nice to have a non-admin candidate for ArbCom. Nevertheless, Pi zero will make a good admin, even if busy in real life for a couple of months. --InfantGorilla (talk) 08:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Someone close this up Tyrol5 (talk) 15:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit early at the moment, usually we let requests for adminship run at least a full week before closing to give everyone a chance to voice possible concerns. I don't think we need to rush atm. Tempodivalse [talk] 15:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, I wasn't thinking at the moment. I now realize that. Tyrol5 (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support without a doubt. And to think you were going to close this. :P --Thunderhead ^{(t - e - c)} 16:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Popping over to Support - I think he's a very good editor, not only here, but at WB as well, where he's an admin. Kayau (talk · contribs) 05:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Requests for bureaucratship

Requests for removal of access

Remember: For requests for de-adminship or removal of other access rights, " Support" means "support removal of access rights", and " Oppose" means "oppose removal of access rights".

Note that we have a Category:Admins open to recall, which may offer a route to a request for reconfirmation.

Brian McNeil (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

I solicit the opinion of the Wikinews community as to whether Brian McNeil should continue to hold administrator rights. In the interests of fairness, I will admit that I have just had a dispute with him in which my conduct was less than ideal. However, I believe there have been many issues regarding the way that Brian interacts with other editors here in the recent and not-quite-so-recent past. I will abstain from voting because even if I could maintain a neutral outlook, it wouldn't be perceived as such and I don't wish to appear to be settling a grudge against Brian. If I were an administrator on this project, I would put myself forward here out of fairness, but since I'm not, I've put myself up for reconfirmation of my reviewer rights. How closely the two are related, I'll allow the community to decide. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and questions

Comment Are you going to leave me with 'crat rights, but take away admin? --Brian McNeil / ^talk 00:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see no evidence of misuse of the admin/bureaucrat tools, and therefore no reason for this request. However, I am very disappointed that I see a couple of acknowledgements of bad days, accompanied by a willingness to continue the argument, with no public recognition that the recent approach can have an intimidating effect on fellow users. --InfantGorilla (talk) 09:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looking back over this, I come to the conclusion that the entire thing was badly handled from the start. On HJ Mitchell's part, some of the reviews weren't brilliant, the articles could've done with some copyediting or whatnot, but they're no worse than other one's I've seen. On Brian's part, I think the problem stems from his first comment on HJ's talk page, which while no worse than what Brian normally says, could be taken as insulting, condescending, what have you, by someone not familiar with his manner of speaking, which is obviously how HJ took it, part of the problem being that Brian sort of went halfway in fixing the article, de-publishing it (I don't agree with that, the needed changes were rather small, it's not like the entire article was a disaster, and HJ supplied the requisite third source later on) and doing some copyedits, but then failed to follow through with bringing the article back up to publishing standard. So then Brian reverts HJ's message on his talk page, which I think was the worst action possible in that situation, it just reinforces the appearance that Brian is somehow superior to others, particularly with an edit summary of "pah!" That said, HJ's note wasn't particularly within the realms of civility or etiquette (I won't even go into AGF), and was rather over the top, particularly when there's already rising tensions. (I, it must be said, didn't exactly help in calming those tensions...) Brian ends up avoiding the issue of civility in his response, which was the whole point of HJ's original message, only providing links to various diffs, which is not particularly helpful when not accompanied by an explanation. HJ's response is actually surprisingly good, given the circumstances, and I think points out the issues he has with Brian quite well. Should've been the first comment he made, not the second. Brian's response makes sense, but proceeds on the premise that it's not his responsibility to fix problems, at least as far as I can tell, which IMO is wrong, if he (Brian) sees something wrong, he should fix it, not point it out, fix something else, and go away. Then HJ goes and adds this, as well as the de-reviewer one. Makes sense, but I think jumped the gun a bit, at least this one. More discussion should have been attempted before, but given the reception HJ's comments received thus far, I can't fault him for having very little faith in discussion.

TL;DR: Brian over-reacted to the articles problems, HJ over-reacted to Brian's comment, and everything went downhill from there. C628 (talk) 14:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see a few comments here that "there has been no abuse of the tools so no reason to remove privs". That's true in some sense, but I believe there are other reasons to consider removing privileges. We select our administrators not only because we trust them not to delete the front page or obvious stuff like that, but also because we trust they have reached a certain level of maturity, know how to act appropriately, and observe site policies and guidelines. This is an exact repeat of what happened several weeks ago with a previous de-admin request and the de-checkuser request before that; a lot of people said something to the effect of "tempers flared, but it's okay now and it probably won't happen again". I find it becoming painfully obvious Brian cannot learn from any of this, and I see no evidence that further "reminders" or cautions to be more civil will have any lasting effect. Previous ones have not. Tempodivalse [talk] 15:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

Support removal. Brian's recent conduct has been completely against what I'd expect of an administrator on the project, and anyone with less clout probably would have been blocked for it. While I appreciate his ability to be straightforward when necessary, unfortunately he is no longer able to tell when he's going too far. He banned and de-opped me from our #wikinews channel a few weeks ago solely for disagreeing with him, for instance - which does not inspire confidence in his ability to use privileges appropriately. The following comments, among others are highly unbefitting of a bureaucrat: [1] [2] [3] I'd like to be more forgiving, but Brian refuses to acknowledge that his attitude is offputting, even when many other contributors in good standing have voiced concern over it. Tempodivalse [talk] 00:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose we _just_ did this. Nom sounds like a Tempo mouth piece anyways. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 00:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Did we? I've been inactive for a while. I could always put Tempo up if that will assure people i'm speaking on nbody's behalf but my own. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Really, you're dealing with a news site. Would you be comfortable were I, per ShakataGaNai's comment, to request CheckUser? I seem to have misplaced that priv bit. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 00:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And that kind of comment is exactly why ~~it was taken away from you. the wub "?!" 09:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)~~ you no longer have it. the wub "?!" 21:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was taken away from me because I requested that be done. Twice, in the middle of a particularly disruptive vote on the issue. Do not twist, or otherwise misrepresent, substantive facts. This whole nomination is a particularly dramatic WN:POINT exercise. If the people who've joined from The Other Place want their AGI and whatnot, then bring yourselves, and other new arrivals from there, up to scratch. Stop rubber-stamp reviews; consider review and publish equivalent to enWP's "Good Article" criteria. You can't fix what Google News reads once something is published; you can't retract it from twitter, Facebook, and god-only-knows how many other feeds. And, comments about the state of my mental health? That is technically in print, thus libellous. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 20:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I had misremembered that, and certainly did not mean to deliberately misrepresent the situation. (Although it would be disingenuous to suggest the vote was not heading that way). Apologies too that the remarks with my vote were perhaps a little strong, they were in the heat of the moment, and could probably have been worded better. Believe it or not I am passionate about this project too, and like you my passion sometimes gets the better of me. The intention was not to speculate on your mental health, but to highlight your paranoia and increasingly erratic behaviour on-wiki. On reflection the wording was insensitive to both you and those who do have mental health problems.
It seems almost impossible to convince you of this, but I want to improve standards on Wikinews just as much as you do. The same goes for most (I would hope all) of the people voting here. I am utterly against "rubber-stamp" reviews, and am certainly not averse to removing reviewer bits when they are misused. But the sad fact is, there is a serious lack of good writers and reviewers on Wikinews. This project is dying - and that is demonstrably not just melodrama. Why? Well there are many reasons of course, but the hostile atmosphere has to be the main one. A user who has contributed countless good articles, and who has a vast amount of respect in the community, is viciously hounded off the project for no apparent reason other than disagreeing with you. A new reporter suffers a family tragedy, and returns to find himself blocked, with a gang baying for his blood, and a picture of a gallows placed on his userpage. The mere suggestion that we should assume good intentions of people is loudly denounced as the end of Wikinews as we know it. Wikipedia is constantly berated, despite being one of our biggest sources of traffic and potential users (though I do note you seem to have acquired the Wikipedian tendency to completely misapply WP/N:POINT). What kind of message does all this send? God knows why any new user would join up today, especially when the main protagonist of this remains an administrator and a bureaucrat on the project, and shows absolutely no evidence of changing his ways, or even acknowledging a problem.
And as we fail to attract new users, and drive off old hands (not just Tempo, several other users have already left in disgust - and I doubt they will be the last) a vicious circle continues. Fewer experienced users, reviews take longer. Newbies leave because by the time their articles are published they aren't news anymore, or worse they end up unpublished as {{stale}}. Reviewers slip up under the pressure. More users burnout, become disenchanted, or are driven off. We fail to cover major news stories. Quality doesn't improve - it declines.
Brian, you have done great work here, and believe me it really is appreciated. Wikinews certainly wouldn't be where it is today without you. But you don't have all the answers, you can't just ignore people's concerns, attempt to shut off discussions, threaten people with blocks when all they are trying to do is improve Wikinews too. You aren't omniscient - and please stop being so bloody patronising.
I'm sorry this is so long, but it seems remarkably hard to get through to you. Don't worry though, this is about the last time I'll try. I don't really care what the final result of this RfP is, though I would be upset at the message it sends if you keep the rights. What really matters is that you recognise that other people can have legitimate concerns, without being out to undermine or disrupt the project. I really hope that you can, because it would be extremely difficult to revive this project without you, but it wouldn't be half as difficult as you doing it alone. the wub "?!" 21:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ: I nommed him for desysoping and decrating back in June, I think, the result was a resounding "meh." C628 (talk) 14:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I can't fully support or oppose this nomination because of the second link Tempo provided and because Brian has acknowledged that he had a bad day (even by his standard) - this diff. --RockerballAustralia c 01:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Diego Grez ^{return fire} 02:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Whee, here we go again. Support removal of both crat and sysop privileges, especially because of that diff on Mikemoral's talk page, hadn't seen it, and general unpleasantness from Brian in recent months, highly unbecoming of anyone who holds any position of power on this site. C628 (talk) 03:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (sorry this sounds a little harsh) I do not feel brianmc's comments (or at least his initial comment) to HJ were inappropriate. However with that said brianmc's constant bickering with more and more people is getting tiresome. He does very good work, but so do other people. One must be able to get along with other people in order to be more useful than harmful. Bawolff ☺☻ 04:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone has been in a sour mood as of late. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 04:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not this sort of "sour". Tempodivalse [talk] 14:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Brian's behaviour has moved well beyond "curmudgeonly" now, and into the realms of "mentally unstable". The presented diffs are good evidence of this, and I'm sure other examples could easily be found. But it's not just the outbursts (I don't care about swearing), it's his entire attitude. He is egotistical, patronising, vindictive and completely unwilling to listen to others. This is driving off new contributors and old ones, and it has to stop. the wub "?!" 08:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I see no abuse of the tools, though I will concede that some comments he has made are sub-optimal. I would strongly urge Brian to curb the somewhat irrascible posts (think twice before posting and not in the heat of the moment). I would also request that some people stop baiting him. Oh, and some of the comments/votes smack appallingly of score-settling. --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 12:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom Benny the mascot (talk) 14:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also per the Hayashi interview deletion. Brian should not have closed a contriversial deletion debate that he was heavily involved in. Admins need to remain neutral when they are using the tools. Benny the mascot (talk) 16:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Everyone was involved in that debate. Admins have discretion, and I expect all admins to use their discretion to the benefit of the project. --InfantGorilla (talk) 10:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well talk about the pot calling the kettle black. In the not-so-distant past you inappropriately used your tools when you were clearly involved. Are you going to hold yourself to your own standards of behaviour? --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 13:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Alex, Benny can be forgiven on grounds of age; but, it is good to highlight where others are standing inside glass houses. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 21:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I put myself up for reconfirmation after that incident. Benny the mascot (talk) 21:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: People who claim they are leaving the project should do what they say; not be attacking those contributors who are saying they will remain and support the project. We don't need a scorched earth practice here. Wikinews is not a battleground. - Amgine | ^t 16:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not sure if I have suffrage on this site and/or in this discussion. However, the comments above by the wub seem to be on-the-money. I'm not sure if forceful removal is necessary, though. Personally, I'd much rather see Brian simply take a break from the site for a few weeks. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just did a wee bit of research on voting policy re: permissions. I cannot find a decently declared project policy. I believe it has been traditionally held that any wikimedian voting from a registered account may vote in any poll on Wikinews, and anon IP are welcome to vote in most, with final say being given to the person closing the poll (or the election committee, if one is established.) In short, just vote MZMcBride. - Amgine | ^t 14:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've always thought that people who aren't generally part of the community are allowed to vote, but their vote would probably not be counted, except for tie breaking. Bawolff ☺☻ 21:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per MZMcBride. This is a user conduct issue, and taking away the tools doesn't help. —fetch·comms 18:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As far as I can tell, this is a long way from what Admins open to recall should be about. It should not be a beauty contest on whether a user is intimidating, egotistical or patronising: we have dispute resolution for that. I am glad that Mr McNeil is a member of the cleanup crew. --InfantGorilla (talk) 10:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Admins open to recall says he's willing to stand for reconfirmation if there's concrete evidence of misuse and enough editors in good standing ask him to. Reconfirmation is voluntary (except under extraordinary circumstances), and is a different section of the page; this is a removal proceeding. The nomination did not claim to be about misuse of the privileges, and most who mention misuse here say there hasn't been any. Also, as far as I know, he was not asked to stand for reconfirmation. --Pi zero (talk) 13:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks: I did not notice that section of the page. So, to avoid doubt, I reaffirm my statement: a removal debate should not be a beauty contest. User should keep his admin privileges. --InfantGorilla (talk) 13:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why? He's driving off editors and dragging down morale. I've nothing against him personally but his conduct is totally unbecoming anyone in any position of authority. What has he done that is so special for people to allow him to behave like this or that makes him more valuable than the editors he's driving off? If I acted like that, someone would do something and so they bloody well should. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded HJ Mitchell. And well put. He's an admin and a crat, not a God, let's not treat him like one. BarkingFish (talk) 03:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support, I think we've moved from "isolated incident" to "recurring problem". Definitely not befitting of a sysop or bureaucrat. Blurpeace 17:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support wholeheartedly - Having recently seen comments here which ultimately contributed to a user leaving the project, and other interactions he has had with users here, I don't believe that it is either right or proper for Brian McNeil to retain his privileges at this project any longer. Those kind of responsibilities entail keeping your head (and your responses) civil, something which this user has quite clearly forgotten. BarkingFish (talk) 23:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very curious how you compare/contrast this vote with your FlaggedRevs vote, edit summary "Votes: retain rights. Everyone deserves a second chance". - Amgine | ^t 03:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm happy to clarify that for you, Amgine. My vote there is one which says "sort him out, teach him the right way and let him try again." - I don't believe HJ's been with us that long, and so he may need a bit of a boost with his understanding to help him do what he's doing. Brian on the other hand has been with us long enough and had enough people tell him about his behaviour to know what he is doing is wrong, and it's well past the option of second chances. We could give him as many as we liked, and he still wouldn't get the message. The time for talking is passed, way passed. BarkingFish (talk) 15:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is a little past the second chance here, given that this is the second desysop proposal, he's only gotten messages on his talk page about a dozen times, not to mention everywhere else he's been told to stop. We blew right past the second chance ages ago. C628 (talk) 03:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose removal of admin status...or any status for that matter. I been around a long time to have to give my reasons. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 05:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because I didn't see an abuse of admin rights. Everyone deserves a second chance. How many have we gotten from him? --Thunderhead ^{(t - e - c)} 05:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thunderhead, there isn't an abuse of admin rights, there is an issue that the behaviour and comments Brian has made, and the way in which he makes them, using expletives and such, is not becoming of an administrator, or a bureaucrat for that matter. It's not an abuse of his rights, it's his conduct which is at issue - and the issue is simple. If he can't control his language, his behaviour and his fuse in such a responsible position, he shouldn't have the responsibilities which go with that position. BarkingFish (talk) 14:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tried to keep my interactions on this little wikidrama to a minimum; but, did you not also storm off in a petulant, churlish, and immature manner BarkingFish? Vowing never to contribute here while I held any position you considered one of authority? Then, you've the chutzpa to support "a second chance" for someone who reviews, and publishes, an article that could well lead to legal action against project contributors? Dan Rather did not get a second chance; good luck when it comes to begging to Mike Godwin post some other idiot publishing something libellous and facing litigation. The author, and reviewer, will be the ones in the dock. Not I, nor the Foundation. You're sadly deluded if you think "be nice" is going to make Wikinews as popular as Wikipedia. That's because it would make it as untrustworthy, and unreliable; something myself and many others have spent multiple years working to move away from. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 21:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment absolutely right, Yes I did, Brian. For those who didn't see it, here's what I posted in #wikinews late last night:

"i've just seen brianmc's comments at Tempodivalse's talk page. I think the limit of civility got pushed there. I'm not remaining on the project while he's here. We lost a perfectly good member because of you, brianmc - what you posted was downright fucking rude. I want nothing more to do with WN. See you."

I posted that because it appeared to me at first glance that your little interaction with Tempodivalse hadn't been dealt with, and I considered that absolutely bang out of order. Then someone informed me that it (and other things along with it) had attracted attention from the community, and were being discussed with a view to your being dealt with, something which should have happened imo a long time ago. That's the only reason I'm still here, because someone persuaded me to wait and see what happened here first. BarkingFish (talk) 22:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited, purely to correct indentation, your comment. It demonstrates a lack of situational awareness. Prior to the soap-opera-cum-drama on this page, Tempodivalse took our differences to dispute resolution. Xe has disengaged from that, a repetition of a habit I have become ever-increasingly frustrated with. You're free to hate me because I'm not adverse to liberal use of the Oxford English Dictionary of Unprintable Words; but I know journalism; Xe does not. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 22:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'm not around as much as I once was but I've long felt Brian's conduct is inappropriate for an admin/crat. Sure, a lot of the problems aren't specifically related to his use of those rights but those in positions of responsibility should set a good example of appropriate behaviour. As has been suggested, the recent diffs aren't an example of an isolated incident but part of a history of similar behaviour. Adambro (talk) 22:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Inactive Admins

Done Permissions were removed. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 18:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to this, the following admins have not been active in the last year (Since 2009-06-01). We should de-sysop them until the come back active again. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 22:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Lankiveil (talk · contribs)~~ Per self-request here, I removed this user's admin privs. -Tempodivalse [talk]
Stevenfruitsmaak (talk · contribs)
Nyarlathotep (talk · contribs)
Dark Squall (talk · contribs)
FellowWikiNews (talk · contribs)
Doldrums (talk · contribs)
Ral315 (talk · contribs)
Lyellin (talk · contribs)

Comments and questions

Question Has any attempt been made to contact any of these admins for comment? Tempodivalse [talk] 22:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. There is too much risk to project integrity has always been my stance on this. A "hacked account" is one point, not being up-to-date on policies is another. Our real supporters/contributors will take a period to break back in. If they care about the project, they will not complain about this.--Brian McNeil / ^talk 01:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nonetheless, it's at least a basic courtesy to inform the admins in question that their rights could be removed, give them a chance to reply. I'll ping them on talk pages and perhaps email shortly. Tempodivalse [talk] 01:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go right ahead; instead of bickering about it here. You can edit; says it on the tin. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 01:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uhuh. Pinged by talk page for now, I'll see if I can send out some emails in a bit as well. Tempodivalse [talk] 01:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment you missed one. But, that is because I would go by edits to the main namespace that are to published articles. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 01:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

Oppose as I disagree with the inactivity policy. What harm do inactive users pose to the project? Honestly, I don't see the point of desysoping these users if they're likely going to get their rights back if/when they return - seems rather a waste of energy. Tempodivalse [talk] 22:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What harm do they pose? A lot if their account is compromised - and they'd never know - cause they aren't around. As we 'crats now have the power to take admin away, this is a piece of cake. We don't have to meta anything. So it's a few clicks to take it away and if/when they come back, it's a few clicks to give it back. In the mean time we can sleep better at night knowing their accounts wont be used for evil. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 22:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - But if someone wanted to crack an admin account, surely it wouldn't be any easier for them just because the user hadn't edited recently. Any potential hackers would just move on to other accounts that still have the bit. Tempodivalse [talk] 22:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, I'm not saying that it is any easier or difficult on inactive accounts. It is all about if it will go noticed. If someone cracks my account (possibly changing my password on me) and starts fooling about on wiki - I'm gonna notice and get my account shutdown till it is sorted (Like when Brian requested all his bits be removed due to viri). If someone is inactive, they will not notice if their account is being used for evil. The hacker will just go about causing us all sorts of issues till we were forced to revoke permissions due due to misdeeds. Now that user will have to get their setup fixed up AND prove to us that they weren't in control of their own account when used to do damage. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 23:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'd think that, should someone hack into an admin account, that would be immediately obvious to everyone (i.e. funny stuff going on in recent changes, logs, etc.). Tempodivalse [talk] 23:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Going to have to agree with Shaka on this one. Bad things happen if an admin account is compromised, and knowing from first-hand experience how easy it is for 'crats to desysop and resysop people, it makes sense to me take preventative measures. C628 (talk) 22:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain I don't care very much one way or another. I don't think the risk of their account being compromised is very significant (everything can be undone, whats the worst that can happen? Well de-admining them will reduce the number of potential targets, there will always be some targets) OTOH, they are not here, who cares if they are de-admined. If they become active again they can always be re-admined. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. Agree with Shaka, and if they decide to come back, bring them the bits without further problems (a.k.a. votings). --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 23:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support For ease of counting above vote --Skenmy ^talk 17:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Simple safety measure. --Pi zero (talk) 00:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
very strong support. Who can't think of significant changes in recent months? I've no issue about a speedier re-grant of privs, but with admin comes 'editor' – or the right to grant such. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 01:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Best to take of the sysop bit until their returns, to which I wouldn't have a problem regranting rights. —Mike moral ♪♫ 07:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support — I'll support this, but with the caveat that the re-admin process be fairly easy. They already went through it once, so I see no reason to go through the whole kit and caboodle again. Gopher65_talk 14:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support periodical purges aren't a bad thing --Skenmy ^talk 17:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requests for reconfirmation

Any user in good standing may request a reconfirmation of an admin who has marked themselves open to recall here. Any administrator who would like a confirmation that he has the continued support of the community may also list themselves here. If you are requesting reconfirmation due to inactivity, click here.

Please use Support if you believe the listed administrator should retain their administrator privileges, or Oppose to vote for their removal.

Requests for CheckUser and Oversight

Confirming your identity

These rights require users to confirm their identity, and be at least 18 years old. Users requesting these permissions must make a request below, and must also submit the relevant identification to the Foundation. The request is placed on hold temporarily, until receipt has been formally confirmed by the office. All requests for CheckUser and Oversight must go through Meta, and should be made by a trusted administrator or bureaucrat following a clear successful vote.

Access and consensus for tools

Per Checkuser policy and Oversight policy at Meta, checkuser and oversight candidates must gain consensus of 70-80%, with a total of at least 25 supports, in order to be given access to the tools.
Checkuser and Oversight rights discussions should stay open for at least 2 weeks.

Requests for bot status

See Wikinews:Bots.

Requests for reviewer rights

See Wikinews:Flagged revisions/Requests for permissions. Please add requests to that page!

Requests for Wikinews:Accreditation

See Wikinews:Accreditation requests.

@@ Line 117: / Line 117: @@
 ::::I posted that because it appeared to me at first glance that your little interaction with Tempodivalse hadn't been dealt with, and I considered that absolutely bang out of order. Then someone informed me that it (and other things along with it) had attracted attention from the community, and were being discussed with a view to your being dealt with, something which should have happened imo a long time ago.  That's the only reason I'm still here, because someone persuaded me to wait and see what happened here first.  [[User:BarkingFish|BarkingFish]] ([[User talk:BarkingFish|talk]]) 22:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 ::::* I have edited, purely to correct indentation, your comment. It demonstrates a lack of situational awareness. Prior to the soap-opera-cum-drama on this page, Tempodivalse took our differences to dispute resolution. Xe has disengaged from that, a repetition of a habit I have become ever-increasingly frustrated with. You're free to hate me because I'm not adverse to liberal use of the Oxford English Dictionary of Unprintable Words; but I know journalism; Xe does not. --[[User:Brian McNeil|''Brian McNeil'']] / <sup>[[User talk:Brian McNeil|''talk'']]</sup> 22:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
+*{{support}} I'm not around as much as I once was but I've long felt Brian's conduct is inappropriate for an admin/crat. Sure, a lot of the problems aren't specifically related to his use of those rights but those in positions of responsibility should set a good example of appropriate behaviour. As has been suggested, the recent diffs aren't an example of an isolated incident but part of a history of similar behaviour. [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] ([[User talk:Adambro|talk]]) 22:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 {{archive top}}