Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Removal/Brianmc (admin re-confirmation 2)

Brian McNeil
With recent issues I want the community to vote on whether I should continue in my position. I appreciate resigning everything prompts a snap election for ArbCom, but Jimmy Wales has characterised my leaking of information as unacceptable. "So, you can add me to the list of people along with Adambro who is, well, I am not "pushing for" you to resign from OTRS, but I think it would be the proper thing to do.

--Jimbo"

--Brian McNeil / talk 22:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: I think it quite unfair of Brian to selectively quote remarks I made in private in such a fashion that some good editors have interpreted this as some kind of slam by me against Wikinews. In my email I compared Wikinews favorably with the New York Times and argued that we should treat the idea of leaking private communications from 3rd parties to Wikinews as being equal to leaking them to the New York Times.  When people email us with concerns, they are owed a duty of respect and care that does NOT include our leaking things to the media, and particularly not in an ad hoc and random fashion.  I think it imperative that people keep in mind that I have not criticized Wikinews, that I have not suggested and do not support deadminship for Brianmc on Wikinews, but rather that I am saying that OTRS volunteers have a special position with respect to privacy.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

 * Brian remarked, I appreciate resigning everything prompts a snap election for ArbCom, but Jimmy Wales has characterised my leaking of information as unacceptable. I believe that secrets breed more secrets. I'm surprised Jimmy's keeping his "loose lips sink ships" ideology even after the scandals of the past year. As Marilyn McCoo would say, "Let the sunshine in!" TheCustomOfLife (talk) 22:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not have a "loose lips sink ships" ideology at all. I, too, believe that secrets breed more secrets.  At the same time, I think it is perfectly appropriate for people who email OTRS with an expectation that their complaint is made in private, deserve respect for that privacy, and that it is wrong to leak those emails to the press... including the New York Times and Wikinews.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not see how these anti-Jimmy Wales and anti-Mike Godwin comments that people are posting are helping anyone, least of all Wikinews. --SVTCobra 22:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In this case I feel Jimmy has parachuted into the discussion and will run away. I'd rather not get into a fight about that, we would not be here but for him setting the project up. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have neither parachuted in, nor am I running away. I think there is an important principle at stake here, and one that needs to be openly discussed.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll make what comments I feel are appropriate, and considering the context, it is appropriate in my view. TheCustomOfLife (talk) 06:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? There were anti-Mike-Godwin comments posted? Where? I should hope it is clear to everyone that I'm interested in legally defending the projects, including, by the way, Wikinews. MGodwin (talk) 22:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the first vote (below) as well as the first comment. --SVTCobra 00:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see how the foundation is helping us...If anything, by deleting material, NOT published nor even close to publishing, that makes Wikinews lose credibility. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 22:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you mean that you don't see how the foundation is helping us beyond providing a free website without advertisements on which to post our news stories? One that has direct links from Wikipedia? One that lets you get accredidation? --SVTCobra 23:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thaty's not fair for one. They should look at us with respect and dignity. They should think of us first when they want to publish a story. They should be completely open to defense regarding misquotes or alleged false news stories. They should be more willing to give us the stuff we need to do our jobs instead of intentionally making it harder. When your parent organization starts to censor news stories, that don't show that organization in a good light, IMO that is something to be very concerned about. After all this is an organization against supposed "censorship". But here we are...having this conversation because WMF went against the principal foundation/rule for this and all other WMF projects. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 20:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * These threads are beginning to get outside direct relevance to discussing whether or not should be reconfirmed, IMHO.  Cirt (talk) 20:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * KEEPING admin rights. This has gone on long enough. We are a news agency. If Jimbo or the board or the office staff or Godwin does not like that then they can get rid of us. I think its time they show us some respect. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 22:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * keeping the rights. I really don't horribly care what Jimmy thinks; his impact on Wikinews is rather null and void considering there's a vote to remove all his rights and it's succeeding. I think Brian is doing a good job and in this past situation, he was in the right. This is a Wikinews matter that needs to be sorted out within our community, and I'm glad Brian's taking this to a vote. I still have confidence in him and that has never been lost. TheCustomOfLife (talk) 22:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * - per . Cirt (talk) 22:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * no comments really, you speak for yourself... keep on smiling :-) --Mark Talk to me 22:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is any reason to de-sysop Brianmc. Resigning from OTRS is matter to be resolved on Meta. I will just remark that I am saddened that we lost Adambro over this. --SVTCobra 22:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't always agree with you, but we need you nonetheless. I would also like to echo SVTCobra's sentiment regarding Adambro. ~Planoneck~ 22:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey! I object to Adambro being desysopped! He and I might disagree from time to time, but that's healthy, right? --Brian McNeil / talk 22:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There's an obvious question from this... Who is going to nominate Adambro for admin? --Brian McNeil / talk 22:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems that Cspurrier speedied the de-sysop, no more than 11 minutes after Adambro made this statement diff. While I would nominate, I won't unless Adambro shows an interest in returning. --SVTCobra 22:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * made the same request on Meta, and was responding to that.  And FYI, see above,  nominated Adambro for Admin consideration, though Adambro has yet to accept.  Cirt (talk) 23:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I saw his request on the IRC StewardBot thing, after talking with him on IRC I carried out his request. I hope he remains a Wikinews editor and will reconsider adminship after things ave calmed. --Cspurrier (talk) 03:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Regrettably, Adambro has declined the nom. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've had a quick chat with Mike (TheCustomOfLife), I want to stress that me re-nomming Adambro was not meant to be "playing both sides" or opposing Mike's posted de-admin. I supported the bringing of the de-admin request as a wake up call to Adambro. I wanted him to see that the community had serious concerns over how he comported himself and that here, at least, the news trumps policy on other WMF sites (including OTRS). I expected it to be closed "no consensus" and Adambro suitable chastised. Re-nomming him was a gut reaction because - while so anal that proctologists run screaming - he is a useful contributor and this was the first serious abuse of privs I think I've seen. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * reconfirmation. And Brian can never call anyone else a drama queen again.  Make me come off my work break for this s***, sheesh.  Cary Bass (talk) 01:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What? Not even David?
 * Seriously (am I ever serious?) Jimmy has jumped into this without looking and learning. There need to be rules for disclosure and this was a case that I believed merited it. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * We should have that discussion, then. But what remains true is that you did this without asking anyone, and violated the proper expectation of privacy of a third party.  If we should have a policy under which some kinds of communications to OTRS are eligible for leaking to the press, then we should have that policy.  We should not simply do it in an ad hoc fashion.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * not sure wtf happened here, but I support you keeping admin stuff. Bawolff ☺☻ 01:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * if anything, the OTRS access may be in question, but as far as I'm concerned, adminship is not. Ral315 (talk) 02:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ral315, thank you for your support. I had talked through this with one of the OTRS admins and a short suspension of access was being discussed until Jimmy got involved. Having had a brief Skype chat with Cary this morning (I think he stayed up late to catch me) I believe Jimmy will be getting admonished for jumping in without even having read the OTRS ticket and associated article. Even the EFF are involved in this case now (my fault, I emailed Eddan Katz). There's no movement on the steps to professionalizing per stuff on wikinews-l, and that is seriously frustrating me. We need Journalistic ethics and had I remained an anonymous source I would not be in this position. Yet, I believe in fairly radical transparency and owned up to the leak. Was that wrong? --Brian McNeil / talk 08:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * . Brian abused his position as an OTRS volunteer in releasing the ticket to Cirt. He should consider whether there is a conflict of interests between his position as a reporter for Wikinews, which is generally about making information available, and an OTRS volunteer for the Foundation where information has to be kept private. As I've noted previosuly there is no real justification in releasing the ticket to Cirt, he was never going to be praised for uncovering some great scandal because there wasn't one and the exact details being open don't reallly benefit the community. I think this is simply a poor judgement on Brian's part. My behavior in releation to the DR was however inappropriate. I objected to the article before it was even written on the basis that it was an internal legal matter which we shouldn't be reporting on because it could impact on the discussions between the Foundation and the Church. This is a view which I maintain. Had I nominated the article for deletion on this basis then things would have been more straightforward. The community would have disagreed and addressed the points I raised, the article would have been kept and we'd all live happily ever after, the community with the article being kept and me having had my concerns addressed. However, my mistake was to mention my concerns about to what degree information from OTRS was used in the article. My intial comment about this was certainly not meant to accuse any particular individual of violating OTRS rules but this is how it seems to have come across to Daniel and Brian. It was unfortunate at this stage that due to being busy in real life I wasn't able to quickly clarify my comments to attempt to calm things. Due to the serious nature of OTRS, I should have raised my concerns more sensitivily and by different channels. As it became obvious that the article as whole wasn't going to be deleted I then attempted to remove the material which I considered to have been obtained from OTRS by Brian, as per his comment on the talk page that he had released the ticket to Cirt. This was of course quickly reverted however it was my view that regardless of the view of the community, the rule that OTRS information should be held privately has to be respected and this was why I continued to revert. My comments however, had not convinced anyone else and based upon discussions on IRC it became clear that I'd end up being blocked if I didn't stop and so I left the article alone. I still maintain that information obtained against WMF rules should not be included in our articles. This information wasn't leaked by a third party to us, it was leaked by us and that is completely inappropriate. Whilst much of the community might feel differently, we as a WMF project have a responsibility to play by the rules they set. Just as I'm sure if UK citizens were asked whether they wanted to pay tax anymore the answer would be no, it just isn't going to happen. There is a limit to what can be based on community consensus, we can't do as we wish simply if most people agree. If people want to do so then they can create a new Wikinews, independent of the WMF but I'm sure they'd quickly realise that the problems we have are far outweighed by the benefits we have in being part of the wider WMF family. Brian is a valuable contributor to Wikinews and it is for this reason I feel he shuld retain his admin rights. However, I don't think we can claim that he is without his flaws. His treatement of me during this incident has being as if I'm some prey that he can toy with and laugh as it dies. I've also raised concerns about his blocking of a user for, if I recall, multiple instances of 1 minute which he justified with something along the lines of it making the user look bad by having a long block log. I would suggest rather that this simply reflects badly on him, Wikinews isn't a game, as an admin he should use the tools to do the job the communiy has given not toy with users. He makes mistakes, which I would like it if people recognised, but overalll I think he makes a positive impact on the project. Whether it is appropriate for him to retain OTRS access is a matter for the admins there but I don't think there is any movement towards removal. I understand he has been warned about his behaviour and risks loosing his rights if he disregards OTRS rules again in future. Adambro (talk) 11:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This lengthy comment does not address some of the issues raised, but thank you for the support.
 * First off, does it really matter who or what we're reporting on? Should we really - as you imply - self-censor?
 * Second, yes I may well be barred from OTRS for a period to "cool off" and reflect. Had I remained an anonymous source we would not be in this position, but the article would have been less credible in the eyes of the community.
 * You accuse me of treating this like a game. This shows you don't know me as well as you might think; I believe life is a game we are all destined to lose. As my reaction to Mike's feedback on nominating you for adminship should show, I already had a position staked out. I wanted your de-admin to fail but the community be allowed its opportunity to say your choices were wrong and you too often failed to listen to criticism.
 * The one minute blocks was Symode09, better known on IRC as brown_cat. Again you throw up my actions in my face and fail to see how they might be appropriate in the case in question. I believe - again - the community would support me in that action and you would be in a minority considering it abuse of powers.
 * Obviously there is no need for us to question whether JWales is supreme overlord of this project. It's like herding cats round here and, well, even Cary took a break from his holiday to point out he opposed my de-sysop and waited up to talk to me regarding this. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Brian said, Adam is "throw[ing] up my actions in my face and fail to see how they might be appropriate in the case in question." But, Brian, that is exactly what you did to Adam at Dispute resolution/Brianmc and Adambro in your listing of CU discussions. So I don't think you can take the higher ground on that. --SVTCobra 00:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * --+Deprifry+ 12:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't say I know the specifics of the OTRS situation. But I suport you fully continuing here at Wikinews as an admin and as a b'crat even though I still don't agree with some of your decisions.--Ryan524 (talk) 16:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * To me it seems like it's the Pentagon Papers in smaller form... Brian is Daniel Ellsburg and Jimmy and Mike are like Nixon and the plumbers. I have nothing again Mike or Jimmy, but like Brian said, he's kinda parachuting into this discussion and risking turning to it into some sort of WikiWatergate. --TUFKAAP (talk) 04:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Slight typo there, it is Daniel Ellsberg and I'm flattered. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * --Skenmy(t•c•w) 12:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have deep respect for Wikinews, and think Brian does a good job. My complaint was from the OTRS side of things.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a larger issue here, which is how do we deal with things like this? WMF needs a "disclosure policy" that is more sophisticated than "Ask Mike Godwin". Secrecy is an insidious poison and to be avoided wherever possible. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Secrets are strange alive things abit like kids, very difficult to manage (soupire). Yes, a larger issue, to be discussed cool headed around a beer (or a milk, or a beaujolais, or a single malt, don't mind). A place like wikimania could be choosen but unfortunatly too few wikinewseers'ld attend. Jacques Divol (talk) 11:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)