Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Removal/Brian McNeil (CheckUser)

Rights removed as per user request; not much else to do here. Tempodivalse [talk]  17:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

de-checkuser
It's only with a heavy heart - and after consulting with other checkusers and administrators - that I put up this request for the de-checkusering of Brianmc. While he's been a very helpful user for Wikinews, and I appreciate his contributions helping promote the project, his recent actions involving the Matthewedwards scandal, primarily the threat of checkuser and poor treatment of other people, have IMHO been most unbefitting of any Wikinewsie, let alone one who is a bureaucrat, ArbCom member, and checkuser.

My biggest concern is with this edit, in which Brian, in no uncertain terms, threatened to checkuser an IP who disagreed with him. It turns out the check actually was carried out. Brian says it was carried out for non-personal reasons - namely that there was suspicion the IP was a persistent troll. The user was in fact was the same person commenting with rather poorly-thought out opinions on the talk page of our recent Gaza story. However, his comments at AAA, despite being unpopular, were quite logical and rational, in comparison to some of the other madness going on there, and nothing he did constituted trolling - which in my mind makes the justifications behind the check rather iffy. Regardless, the very act of threatening to use CU is unacceptable by itself. Checkuser says: "The tool should not be used for political control; to apply pressure on editors; or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute."

I might have been more forgiving had there been some acknowledgment from Brian that all this was inappropriate; however, such has not been forthcoming and it doesn't appear it ever will. The ensuing drama from something like this, of course, shall be quite unpleasant, but I'm honestly not sure I can trust Brian to act appropriately anymore, and I don't know through what other venues this can be addressed. Tempodivalse [talk]  17:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments

 * According to the CU log, Brian ran a checkuser on the ip and /20 and /24 blocks at 01:13, 1 June 2010, 11 minutes before he posted his comment.--Cspurrier (talk) 19:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes.
 * However, as this was posted by an IP, much of the same information could have been inferred by absolutely anyone.
 * Community's choice. Not the best times to have done as requested; not the best of reactions – albeit in the face of someone who seemed policy-savvy, but otherwise unknown, wading into that debate. Nor, I would say, the right time to be taking this decision; but, I will leave it at that. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If I'm correctly understanding you, I don't think it was particularly suspicious that the IP posted at AAA. He had been active before, and was probably one of those people taking a causal interest in wiki projects, but not enough to register (i've seen quite a few). Still, the main point I'm trying to push here is that the threat, and the whole overall attitude, is the thing to de-CU over, not as much the actual check. Tempodivalse [talk]  20:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually don't disagree with the check itself. I was suspicious of that user too &mdash; I actually thought it might be Matthewedwards himself, anonymously editing in his own defense. I didn't think "not logging in before posting" constituted an offense (although it was rude in this case), so I didn't say much, but I was suspicious, just like some of the others.


 * What I disagreed with was the use of checkuser as a *threat*. However Brian meant that comment to come across, to me it sounded like "I disagree with the content of your statement, so back off or I'll use my powers against you". I don't know who that anon user was, and I don't know exactly what Brian was thinking when he made that statement, but that's how it came off to me. And I do not like it when admins (or whoever) threaten to use their powers over content disputes. It reminds me too much of adrenaline junkie cops in the real world, tasering the helpless just because they think they can get away with it. Gopher65talk 00:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Per my remark below, please consider this my request that CheckUser be removed from my privileges in short order. Please point a steward at the diff containing this comment, get it done now, and put this sordid mess into an archive so the community can get over this horror story instead of tearing itself up anymore. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Request made here. Sorry, Benny, didn't see your diff. Griffinofwales (talk) 15:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries. Benny the mascot (talk) 15:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * , rights were removed by a steward. I'm closing this since there doesn't seem to be anything else to do here. Tempodivalse [talk]  17:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Votes

 * as nominator. Tempodivalse [talk]  19:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Checkuser isn't a big deal, in my opinion. And I don't think he misused it. --Diego Grez return fire 17:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would argue that it is a big deal. Unlike adminship, which relatively speaking is harmless as everything they do can be undone, checkuser-ship is a totally different bird. It's only given out to people above the age of eighteen for a reason: it allows users to get into very personal information, frequently without any supervision or oversight from anyone else. (Of course, as to whether Brian's actions constitute abuse is a different matter). Just my two pence. *shrug* Tempodivalse [talk]  17:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * checkuser is a very big deal. There is a large difference between your personal wiki and wikinews. Bawolff ☺☻ 20:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Checkuser is a big deal. I find Brian's threat completely inappropriate. Checkuser should never be used as a threat. I consider threatening its use in such a way to be an abuse worthy of removing the right. The CU itself is problematic as well. There is nothing wrong with an IP commenting on a community discussion. Even suspicion of trolling should not be enough to run a CU. We would need to suspect that the person was abusing multiple accounts for the CU to be appropriate. While I can understand Brian's anger, his behaviour throughout has been way below the standard we should expect of any Wikinewsie, much less one with his list of rights. In the interests of minimising drama and in light of the circumstances, I would support ignoring the massive WN:E violations throughout (all of which on their own could justify a block or rights removal). The checkuser abuses though are much to serious to ignore. I think removal of the checkuser bit is necessary as I do not think I can trust Brian to use the tool appropriately. --Cspurrier (talk) 19:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * , grossly inappropriate actions made by an ArbCom member. Brian, you are an indispensable part of this community. However, after reviewing your actions, I no longer trust you with CheckUser access. Indeed, CheckUser is a big deal. Sincerely, Blurpeace  20:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I do believe brianmc was out of line in his comment to the ip. With that being said, I believe the attitude of the community was a contributing factor. The mob mentality can be hard to resist, but a check-user should know when to step back, and not get swept up in the heat of things. A lot of people feel uncomfortable with the recent events, and we must be careful not to turn brianmc into a scrapgoat, as he is by no means the only one to blame. Bawolff ☺☻ 20:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I could not find where in Wikinews policy where you are allowed to blatantly CheckUser an IP for disagreeement even if they were trolling. What was your "valid reason to check a user?" Look at Meta's CheckUser policy. I find that misuse of a powerful tool is grounds for revocation of access. — Mike moral  ♪♫  21:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As stated on WN:AAA, a request by an established contributor. To reiterate the above, anyone - even someone not logged in could have gleaned 90% or so of the same information I did regarding edits elsewhere on the project from other IPs in the same range. Review what was said where, by who, and which pages ended up fully protected.
 * Personally, I was actually expecting someone to be incomprehensibly dickish about me posting correspondence - not this. So, go ahead, vote. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If you look at what Craig posted, you used CheckUser before you even threatened the anon. A full 11 minutes between the time you used the tool at 1:13 and your comment at 1:24. — Mike moral  ♪♫  22:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If you look at where I was nasty/curt with the IP, it was not to CheckUser him here, but to request checkuser elsewhere. Now, is there anyone else who does not read things carefully enough? --Brian McNeil / talk 22:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I don't think it matters much if the threat was for you to checkuser, or for you to get someone else to checkuser. At the end of the day, a threat was made by someone with checkuser privileges that the ip would be checkusered if he continued saying what he was saying. How the threat would be carried out beyond that it would involve checkusering is not that relevant imho. Bawolff ☺☻ 22:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And threatening any user, new or experienced, with CheckUser is both unethical and against policy. You should not threaten someone for disagreeing with you which is what seems to have happened. — Mike moral  ♪♫  22:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me get this straight... A community member, in good standing, requests I perform a CheckUser; I do so, and a blacklist turns up a reported range containing the IP (a /14 incidentally). I widen the check on the IP up to /24, then /20; and, I hit someone wading into an article on the Israel/Palestine conflict, assuming we treat the project like Wikipedia and publish any old crap hoping someone cleans it up. That article is now protected, and I doubt it was ever properly reviewed in the first place; at least, when you look at the eventual removal of sources in response to my criticism, and then to the sighting of a revision.
 * However, if I'm to lose checkuser, so should everyone else who holds it due to highly erratic recent contribution histories; more often than not you are going to have to refer cases to Stewards. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Brian, that part about CU inactivity isn't exactly true. Skenmy and Cirt are quite active with the tool, from what I'm told (the former is easily accessible thru IRC), and now that Craig's returned to more or less full activity, we should have enough to cover the gap. I still have to disagree the IP was a troll and especially with the way he was treated; as far as the Gaza article went, he simply wasn't familiar with our modus operandi and the publishing policy; at AAA, he was presenting a logical, although unpopular argument. And just because a community member requests a CU be performed doesn't mean one is obliged to fulfill it; ultimately the checkuser himself must ascertain that it is appropriate to perform the check. Tempodivalse [talk]  22:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I was called a liar. No "proof"? I believe I just posted the aforementioned in my userspace.
 * Get on with it. Quote the diff containing this edit - you do have to ask a steward to toggle the bit, and they're more than welcome to than have you dickishly tear the project apart. Incidentally, nine times out of ten it is not skenmy you see in IRC, but an IRC bot. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know Skenmy uses a BNC. But I'm always able to ping him and get a response when I need something in the afternoon-evening UTC.
 * Seriously though, if people can't question another user's actions or provide a dissenting (but constructive) viewpoint without being replied to in such a manner, we are not going to have a good rep at all. While the IP's comments may have been somewhat upset (rightly or not), I don't see any real personal attack or outright rude comment that he made, either to you or anyone else. Tempodivalse [talk]  00:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm saddened that you consider me trying to tear apart the project; that is completely not the case. I dislike drama in general, I think it is divisive; but there are times when there's no avoiding it, and some problems simply need to be addressed upfront. It would be a sorry day indeed if we could not question or express concern about the actions of other users. If there's one thing about me, I'll always stand up for what I think is right or necessary for the project, even if it is unpopular. I'm honestly sorry if this has unduly angered or upset you; but I feel it has to be done. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  01:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * per Cspurrier and Tempo. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * &mdash; per Bawolff. More than enough blame to go around, and, indeed, humans are wired for easy manipulation by a mob mentality (and the peer pressure that goes along with that mentality) (sorry, incorrect turn of phrase there). Gopher65talk 00:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll note that even though I was, at the start, unfamiliar with the situation, and eventually I was the only one who voted to oppose the block, I still felt the pull of the mob on me. When I first hit AAA that day I almost went and voted support automatically, without thought, due to nothing more than the draw of the mob hive-mind. Once a mob is started, it is truly hard to resist its ferocious pull. Gopher65talk 00:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * , noting the wise comment by User:Bawolff, above. Will defer to outcome of community consensus regarding this issue. -- Cirt (talk) 00:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * and remind that polls are evil. --Thunderhead (t - e - c) 04:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * - It is with great sadness that I feel I must support this motion. I count Brian as a personal friend, having met him IRL I know that he is a sane, rational human being. However, the conduct he has displayed recently is not befitting of someone who is in such a restricted and limited position of power. When Tempodivalse first spoke to me about it I spent some time going through CU policies and the Foundation's Privacy Policy to see if Brian truly had broken the rules - and unfortunately it seems he has - in two separate, individually power-removing cases. Brian has threatened the use of the CU tool in an attempt to pressure an editor. This is inexcusable, and warrants removal of access. Brian has used the tool without a valid reason - I quote from the CU log: "disruption of community process". This is, in itself, not inexcusable - the mob mentality and "peer pressure" arguments come in to play here - however combined with the threat that was issued after the use of the tool, I cannot see how I can, with a clear conscience and keeping the policies and guidelines we work by in mind, oppose this motion. --<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif"> Sken   my talk 07:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * - Unfortunately, this case is a blatant violation of checkuser policies, which warrants removal of the tools. It is a shame that we must do this to one of our most valued community members, but these actions have caused me to not trust him with checkuser and the great deal of power involved with it. It saddens me that I must vote in this, but this again was a very serious violation of policy. <font face="calibri" size="2.5" color="green">Tjc <font face="calibri" color="black">6  09:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Whilst I do not think that any valid concerns should ever be "swept under the carpet" I question the timing of this request whilst emotions are clearly still charged. Also per Thunderhead. --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 11:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * basically for all of the reasons given above. I'll flag a steward down on meta. Benny the mascot (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)