Wikinews:Requests for permissions

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:

1. You've done at least two months' work on Wikinews.
2. 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.

---

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)

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)
• 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)
• 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)

• 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)
• Comment This would be a perfect thing to read in relation to this. Yes, I realize it's a Wikipedia page, and therefore numerous people, including the one who could use its advice best, will not open it. C628 (talk) 23:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The main difficulty (so it seems to me) when applying that essay to Wikinews isn't with the list of attributes, but with the "100%". Although the "100%" is hyperbole, "attitude" as elaborated is a much more important asset for a Wikipedia admin than procedural/technical cluefulness. On Wikinews, the relative importance of clue versus "attitude" is roughly reversed. --Pi zero (talk) 04:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

<nod with Pi zero> And one dramatically different point: this vote is not about adminship; it's about bureaucratship. IMO, it has nothing to do with thinking about/acting like an admin. That position is solely about the best interests of, and the position in the larger picture of, the Wikinews project. - Amgine | ^t 14:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The only time limitation on the RfP page is for adminship: 7 days. This has been running 10 days now. How long is this going to be allowed to be trolled? - Amgine | ^t 01:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Pretty sure I don't see anyone trolling here, but rather having an active discussion about whether someone should retain their rights. Swatjester (talk) 18:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

wikt:troll, Etym 2, Verb, sense #6. - Amgine | ^t 18:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't think any operations are being disrupted here, unless you think the entire RFP process is disruptive (in which case, its a paradox of "how can something part of normal operations be disruptive to normal operations"). But I guess we'll agree to disagree. Swatjester (talk) 18:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

If you don't consider it impertinent, how much a part of this online community do you consider yourself? - Amgine | ^t 18:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment from Philippe

As you all know well, the Wikimedia Foundation is loathe to engage in the internal decision making processes of the wikis. We've traditionally held the view that the communities govern themselves well, and without our interference. We continue to hold that view, and I'm not coming in wielding a big weapon or anything here. However, I think that sometimes the best thing I can do is to share my opinion, because I'm in the lucky position of being paid to watch and think about our projects all the time.

I am gravely concerned about some of the quotes that I'm seeing from Brian. In particular, I believe that this comment is beyond the pale. I'm embarrassed for our projects that someone in a leadership role left a message like that. While there's no meta policy for civility, there is a moral requirement that we treat each other with kindness and respect. I wish I could say that this is the first "slip up" of the type from Brian, but I can't help but see a pattern of uncivil discourse that is troubling from an acknowledged leader in this project.

I'm not going to try to tell this community how to treat it's own... but I strongly encourage you to think about how you want to be represented. These types of affairs are the ones that bubble up when people talk about bullying on our projects. These are the ones that contribute to public perception. Please know that I condemn, in the strongest possible terms, recent uncivil statements from Brian, particularly given what appears to be an ongoing and worsening problem.

Philippe Beaudette, Head of Reader Relations, Wikimedia Foundation. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 21:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• Phillipe, this is the first I've seen your comment; I have been very very busy with other things, something which has impacted how well I have worked on-wiki, and that comment was quite, quite unacceptable. I have admitted such. And, per what I am aware is being raised as drama elsewhere, I issued an apology when additional facts were brought to my attention. I would, however, refer yourself, and Swatjester – who has waded in and voted below – to WN:RFCU. I would also chide Swatjester for grossly mischaracterising my departure from the Communications Committee. How, exactly was my judgement impaired? I had, fairly quietly, complained the prior year that the fundraiser was extremely inconsiderate to projects other than Wikipedia. Trot out the phrase "cultural insensitivity" on-wiki in 2009, and *bing!*, I'm off the committee. But, I had no serious interest in remaining involved in the talking-shop for one of the top ten websites; that despite the hundreds of man-hours I devoted to trying to keep the WMF press queue cleaned up. I suggest you ask Cary for my Skype contact details should you wish to speak directly to me regarding this issue. I have seen that this issue has, by a certain party, been escalated to OTRS. I have not seen said correspondence, and it would be highly inappropriate for me to access OTRS and do so. It would also, I suspect, be a complete waste of time. I'd put good money on said correspondence coming via emails that are, effectively, untraceable. Really, is it any wonder that I lose my temper and go to pieces so fast the shrapnel hits people as I witness all the work I put into this project, and which Sandy admired enough to put me on CommComm because of, dismantled by people who put being nice, and politic, before hard, factual, non-copyright-violating news reportage? -- Brian McNeil (alt. account) /^{alt-talk • main talk} 20:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• • We hold our users to a higher standard to not lose their temper and go to pieces. If you can't control your temper, you should not be in a position where that inability can hamper the project -- either here on Wikinews or anywhere else. I could refer you to Wikinews:Etiquette. You recognize that your comment was unacceptable. Good. If you've been in situations where you are making unacceptable comments like that, you need to take a voluntary break from the project, and you ought to relinquish admin privileges until such time as your judgment and temper are stable again. Swatjester (talk) 00:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• Through use of "The Royal We", I will assume you are expressing the official position of the Wikimedia Foundation Dan. I cannot really think of anything more entertaining than youself and Mike Godwin having to fight off lawsuits, and defend the WMF in the face pf such because you've driven me off this project for losing my temper over, repeatedly, trying to avoid that happening to naiive contributors. You can't, on orders from Sue and Mike, wade into project-internal politics without seriously risking your security under safe harbour provisions. But, your choice. This vote is way overdue for closure; my advice would be to withdraw, with dignity intact; stop 'meatpuppetting' Wikipedians who might take your suggestions seriously, and realise your position, as a 'legal intern' with the WMF means you should have ran away from this particular task. The first particularly irate person with a smart lawyer who tries to sue the WMF over material published on Wikinews will, by virtue of this discussion, have excellent grounds to supoena the entire archives of the ComCom mailing list. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 18:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

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)
• Oppose we _just_ did this. Nom sounds like a Tempo mouth piece anyways. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 00:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  • 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• @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)

• 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)
• Support per nom. Diego Grez ^{return fire} 02:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

  I agree with the comments below, this is not the right way to get us rid of the drama and idiotic fights. I change my vote to Oppose --Diego Grez (alternate account) ^{alt. talk} 14:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)

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

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

• 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)
• 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)
• Support per nom Benny the mascot (talk) 14:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  • 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)

'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)

:::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)

• 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)

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

Indeed you did. You have youth on your side, unlike me at 39 years and 11 months, and my memory is not quite what it used to be. Duly struck. --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 23:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)

  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)

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)

• 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)

• Actually, I think I'll Support this. After actually further examination, this behavior has been happening for a very long time, and none of the warnings given have helped. I think Philippe summed it up above: do we want this sort of attitude in a sysop or crat? —fetch·comms 21:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

::::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) Comment struck - Enlightened by Brian, I withdraw from this debate. BarkingFish (talk) 22:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• 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)

* 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) Comment struck - Enlightened by Brian, I withdraw from this debate. BarkingFish (talk) 22:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• 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)

*::: 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)Comment struck - Enlightened by Brian, I withdraw from this debate. BarkingFish (talk) 22:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)
  • Sorry DragonFire1024, but it doesn't quite work like that. Being around for a long time doesn't mean you don't have to give reasons, or that you've earned any special right. You should know better than that. Without a reason behind your oppose, it's basically worthless. Swatjester (talk) 06:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Actually it is my right to not state a reason. I don't have to really. Being around long enough does matter. Assume good faith for one, especially a contributor that's been around for almost 5 years, and Brian even longer. With the amount of vandals, trolls, fakes and etc I have had to deal with, I can safely say that Brian is a lot more nice than ha has to be. If it were not for him and other devoted contributors, then I might not have gotten the OR I have gotten, we would not have a accredited emails, press badges, the list goes on. So put yourself in the shoes of people like him, and you can understand that its not all fun and games all the time. With that said, I could have just said a one word vote. And not given a reason. But I did, and I still stand with my vote. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 22:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
      • No, actually its not. This, like all projects, is egalitarian. Quote: "All participants are equal. If you are a good faith participant to Wikinews, your opinion counts as much as others." Wikinews:Policies_and_guidelines. There is no special privilege that being around longer means that you no longer have to explain your actions. Swatjester (talk) 00:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Dragonfire (as a user in good standing) can vote however he wants, and does not have to give reasons for his votes. Bawolff ☺☻ 00:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
• 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)

:: 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)Comment struck - Enlightened by Brian, I withdraw from this debate. BarkingFish (talk) 22:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

• 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)
• Thanks for your frankness, Brian. I've withdrawn my vote here since I feel I may have missed a shedload of what's gone here before and I am therefore in no position to make any reliable comment.BarkingFish (talk) 22:35, 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. Adambro (talk) 22:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support I can't expect an admin to use the f-word so many times in a paragraph even if he's frustrated. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support Brian does a lot of really good things for our project. However, calling another user an “arse”, “an ignorant moron”, a “useless idiot”[4], and a “fucking ignorant bastard” [5] is completely inappropriate for any user. No one should have to tolerate this sort of abuse. If this was the first time we saw this sort of thing from Brian, it could be excused as a really bad day or a mistake and he would be given a second chance. This is not the first time though. Brian has a history of massively violating WN:E and we keep ignoring it because of all of the good he does. I think we have given him enough chances to improve his behaviour. Abusing adminship is more then just misusing the technical bits. It also includes violating the responsibility an admin has to serve the community and abide by its policies and guidelines. Abusing contributors and generally creating a hostile environment from a position of trust and power is as much of an abuse of adminship as any misuse of the technical bits. --Cspurrier (talk) 03:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support Brian, your judgment is seriously impaired. Poor judgment like this was the reason you were removed resigned from the Communications Committee. And now, you're continuing to exercise poor judgment. You should not have the tools. Swatjester (talk) 06:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

  Well, that at least is a bit more honest. Here is the Wikimedia Foundation making public an effort to de-bureaucrat a project member. Glad the smoke is lifting. - Amgine | ^t 08:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

  Uh, what? I do not work for the WMF. So I don't see how your above statement is correct. Swatjester (talk) 18:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

  The ComCom is a closed, appointed-only-by-WMF-staff organization. - Amgine | ^t 00:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

  You haven't made your point yet. How is the foundation making public an effort to de-crat a member? The foundation hasn't done a thing here. Swatjester (talk) 18:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

  I was always under the impression that Brian resigned from the Communications Committee, rather than being forcibly removed. Was this incorrect? the wub "?!" 08:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

  [6] [7] are diffs where Brian painted it as a voluntary resignation. the wub "?!" 10:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

  He resigned under a cloud. It's my contention that he would have been removed anyway, but technically you are correct.. Swatjester (talk) 18:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose It would be good for the project if Brian were to express himself with less extreme drama. However, it appears to me that de-crat/sysoping him would be a net minus for the project. --Pi zero (talk) 01:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

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.