Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Removal/Brian McNeil (admin/bureaucrat)

Withdrawn by nominator. No consensus in any event. 7 support, 5 oppose, 7 abstain. Gopher65talk 15:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to desysop and decrat
Per recent actions that I think have been overly dramatic and inflammatory, I would like to submit to the community a proposal to revoke Brian McNeil's administrative and bureaucrat privileges. His actions have been unbecoming of Wikinews, and only serve to inflame emotions further, at a time when that is the last thing we need. His actions in the Matthewedwards fiasco and in more recent events showed extremely poor judgement, and directly lead to the departure of several contributors, both permanent and temporary. I open this proposal to community discussion. C628 (talk) 19:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments and questions

 * Enjoy your witch hunt guys. I do indeed regret What I did with Matthew Edwards' talk page. I do not regret what I did when I, much earlier than the block and image issue, removed his accreditation and email address. If Matthew is going to rant away below about the publication of emails - from which I removed personal email addresses and phone numbers - then someone else should have the nerve to publish IRC logs, and go over what happened there. There is an abundance of blame to go round; I've been this project's lightning-rod in the past, but it would seem I will cease to be such on, or after, the third of next month. --Brian McNeil / talk 00:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I thought I might change my vote, in light of points that have been brought up in the discussion (despite the astounding levels of hypocrisy by some of the parties making those points), but it has become crystal clear that this proceeding no longer has anything remotely to do with Brian. This is now only about the same mob that did the blocking and has never disbanded.  It continues to gather momentum, and if allowed to run its course it will burn Wikinews to the ground until there is nothing left to burn.  The mob doesn't care about Wikinews, one way or another; it doesn't care who its victims are, as long as it has a steady supply of them.  I actually experienced a (relatively small scale) near-riot once, from the inside; the atmosphere felt like this, and afterward I concluded that perfectly rational remarks I had made to those around me had been amplified and fed back into that situation.  Reread the comments here; some are reasonable, others amplify those and make new points that would seem perfectly reasonable if they were made differently.  Notice the hypocrisy (about the only thing Brian did or was accused of that hasn't been done here is use images of death).  Think about it.  And keep thinking about it in the days ahead.  Whether you decide you agree with me isn't important; what matters is that the more we stubbornly insist on thinking, the harder it will be for a mob to exist.  --Pi zero (talk) 02:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope you won't mind a comment from someone with fairly extensive experience in complex user dispute resolution, who's on the outside looking in here. From my perspective, I see a good chunk of the Wikinews community going off the rails here, not simply one particular administrator/crat/checkuser. I look at the history of User:Matthewedwards' userpage, and I see quite a few names on the list, several of them admins editing through protection, for example. How you, as an independent community, decide to address the behaviour of specific individuals is strictly your call. I'll just suggest to you that removing the permissions of one individual does not mean that your community has actually solved the cultural problem that led to the behaviour we see here. I appreciate the fact that Wikinews has been striving to develop a more professional presentation, and that part of that professionalism is holding users to account if they are granted special permissions such as credentials. I cannot help wondering, however, why anyone would consider it professional to include of images of tombstones, guillotines and swinging corpses into block messages. Apologies to the user on the receiving end of such behaviour are entirely reasonable; however, if the apologies are user-specific, and there is no cultural shift away from the mentality that exacerbated what should have been a relatively straightforward and calm block discussion, you as a community will be here again. Risker (talk) 03:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC) For the record, this entire incident came to my attention because I am a listadmin for the Checkuser mailing list, and had to address certain issues following the removal of checkuser permissions
 * well said. I personally think that this current debate has very little to do with Matthew, and much to do with how we as a community define professionalism. Bawolff ☺☻ 03:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, this is embarrassing...Upon thought, someone withdraw this proposal, for reasons cited by numerous people below&mdash;it's only prolonging drama at a time when such is the last thing we need. My nomination has been described as "spurious," and I don't deny that that there may have been an element of that in there.  However, I still stand by my comments about Brian's actions, just no longer strongly enough to keep this nomination open. Now, the embarrassing part here is that I have not the slightest idea how to go about closing said discussion, so assistance would be appreciated...Regards, C628 (talk) 15:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Votes

 * —I hate to have to say this, and it comes from a heavy heart, but I believe Brian mis-handled the situation, and has been acting in a matter unbefitting of an administrator. De-sysopping him seems, reluctantly, to be necessary due to recent events. However, I would be one of the first to jump at the opportunity to re-sysop him in a few weeks, when everybody has cooled down a bit. Sorry, Brian! Δεν δοδγε  τ\c 19:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Brian's always been a bit irascible &mdash;certainly since I've been here, anyway&mdash; and yeah, his nose has been out of joint over recent events ('nuff said). We as a community were collectively no longer comforable giving him checkuser, and he voluntarily relinquished it.  But checkuser is a really phenomenally delicate power to wield, absurdly easy to abuse just by looking at it funny.  Abusing the admin and crat bits would be a whole different sort of thing, and I don't think that of him.  --Pi zero (talk) 19:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * See my above.  --Pi zero (talk) 02:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a quick clarification - are you striking your comment, or the vote as well? If it's the latter, then you probably should indent it and strike that out too. If the former, never mind ... Tempodivalse [talk]  02:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * My vote stands. I should have said that explicitly here; apologies.  --Pi zero (talk) 02:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Bit late, but whatever...support as nominator, for the record. C628 (talk) 19:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 *  He acted like an idiot, but I don't think we should be doing this. Everything is going from bad to worse. Stop the drama. --Diego Grez return fire 19:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So what would you suggest? He just goes ahead acting like an idiot?  Awesome. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * After considering this, I'm sorry but I have to this. Brian did very idiotic things. He abused his position of authority, and his actions seem very biased. Brian has done a very good job in the past, but he needs to take an obliged break. His grandmother died. We didn't knew his side. I feel like a fool too by supporting that idiotic community ban. --Diego Grez return fire 23:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * enough with the crucifictions. Shit happened, he fucked up.  he's already been bitch slapped a few times.  -- Shakata Ga Nai  ^_^ 19:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What I saw in the past few days from Brian was, sadly, a display well below the standards I would expect every user to adhere to - especially an Administrator and Bureaucrat. The way that he handled Matthew's block and surrounding controversy - the hanging image, and especially the rude way in which he treated an IP, who was the only user smart enough to figure out what really was going on - would have been very easily a blockable offence had anyone else committed it. That only served to inflame an already bad, drama-infested situation. I appreciate Brian's ability to be blunt when required - sometimes you have to tell people things directly at the risk of hurting their feelings - but as of late, it appears he is no longer able to distinguish the line between when it is appropriate, and when it is flat-out, uncalled-for rudeness. As a direct result of this, several users have been deterred from the project and our image amongst the WMF, already poor, has been further spoiled. In response to Pi zero's comment above - no, I don't think he'd really abuse the tools per se, but an important characteristic any administrator needs to have is to be able to interact with other people reasonably well, and I'm not sure I see this here. Sorry Brian. I appreciate your work, but I just don't have much faith in your ability to act correctly anymore. Tempodivalse [talk]  19:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Changed now to . I still feel upset and very uncomfortable about Brian's actions and behaviour, but at the same time am glad to see there's been some acknowledgment from him that things need to change, that he was wrong about Matthew, and that he's actively trying to propose new ideas. This has indeed turned to something of a witch-hunt; I think we need some time to cool down and reflect on whether we really needed this. Tempodivalse [talk]  12:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Now we're just looking for scapegoats? Let's put all this crap behind us and move on and report the news like we are supposed to be doing. — Mike moral  ♪♫  19:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. -  Amgine | t 20:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * , he didn't abuse the tools and there are heated editors all about the project. I agree with Mikemoral's scapegoat sentiment. Removing his flags won't solve anything; can't we just put this behind us already? Blurpeace  20:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * , per . Brian has clearly learned nothing from this incident. Blurpeace  23:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Strongest support possible, obviously. Hey may not have abused the "tools", but he did abuse his position.
 * Every single post McNeil made at WN:AAA served to humiliate and damn me, and fuel the lynching mob.
 * He published private emails that no doubt everybody has seen by now at User talk:Brian McNeil/Tour of California. He knew he shouldn't because he said he "will publish [the emails] and be damned". As a crat, and as an admin, he should know that he is not allowed to publish private emails. Not only did he publish mine, which included naming the city I live in, but he also published Taya Varnuchpun's, the media rep from the event. How is this acceptable? He did not even publish all the emails. He published those that apparently proved his case in how awful and deceptive I am in an attempt to discredit me further.
 * If he did "waste hours writing emails", why is it he tells me, "For me, the fun's been writing some semi-outrageous bullshit to get you in. :D If you'd want to do the 2011 one too, then keep in touch with this promoter guy. The Wikinews Cabal would help sweet-talk him" and "Oh, and please make sure I get further opportunities to concoct outrageous bluffs."? He has lied and cheated his way to seeing me blocked because he feels he's been "taken for a ride". That is unacceptable behaviour for an admin and crat.
 * He vindictivly posted several images of death to my user page in a clear attempt to humiliate me: 1, 2, 3. This is not the behaviour of a well balanced individual who can be trusted to be an admin or crat.
 * Not only that, but he is obviously unaware of the policies and guidelines he is supposed to uphold as an admin. Surely he should know that this is block evasion, posting images of death one someone's userpage is not within Etiquette, emails are private and copywritten.
 * I won't get into the abuse of checkuser, because that's been handled already (but does anyone know if he checkusered me? Because I'm sure he believed that IP was me), but if anybody else had done what he has, they would be blocked. If they were an admin, they would be de-sysopped. But because McNeil has for so long been allowed to bully and stomp his way around here like an Editor in chief, and is under the disillution that he is a "senior editor", he feels he does not have to follow the rules. As a rule enforcer, he is one of the first who should follow them.
 * My actions did not damage this project. His did. Matthewedwards (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * According to the checkuser log, checkuser was not run on your user account. --Cspurrier (talk) 21:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Matthewedwards (talk) 21:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * User abstains Benny the mascot (talk) 04:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Support it's really not about abusing his tools, but he appears to be the godhead around here, and his recent actions have undermined the very thin integrity that Wikinews has. Keeping him as the figurehead of the project is a joke, and would make this project the same.  Even supporters are saying "he fucked up" and "He acted like an idiot".  But then the same supporters are happy for him to carry on carrying on.  Joke.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been following the drama here and just wanted to provide an outsider opinion. I will remain neutral as a !vote however I am inclined to agree with the above post. As a bureaucrat he is supposed to maintain professionalism and he did some things that truly are unbefitting of such a position which reflects negatively on Wikinews as a whole. At the same time, he has done some outstanding things for this project that should also be taken into account, plus we shouldn't let this become yet another lynch mob, otherwise we haven't really learned from our mistakes the first time. If there should be any consequences I would suggest removing the crat rights but cut him some slack on the admin bit as a compromise maybe. -- OlEnglish (talk) 05:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * : The edits to User:Matthewedwards were some pretty shameful shit. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * &mdash; I see no reason to either de-admin or de-bureaucrat Brian. &mdash; Sorry. Gopher65talk 23:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * regretfully, per Blurpeace. I didn't think this would get worse, but obviously I've been proved wrong for the umpteenth time.  — fetch · comms  01:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * -- enough with the witch hunt. I have suggested to Brian that he take a break to collect himself and would add that if any one doen't get over this thing, I will swing the ban hammer --RockerballAustralia c 02:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * . — μ 13:00, June 7 2010 (UTC)
 * Basically per Blurpeace. Benny the mascot (talk) 14:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Benny the mascot (talk) 05:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * --Per my piece on the Water Cooler.    Tris   14:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And please read what Pi Zero and Risker say above-it makes sense.    Tris   14:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)