Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Removal/Chiacomo (admin/bureaucrat)

User:Chiacomo
User made two edits in May 2008 then you have to go back to December 2007/January 2008 for a short period of editing, then one edit in September 2007, a few in March 2007, one in February 2007, then you've got to back to 2006 for any reasonably prolonged period of editing. I can't consider this level of activity to be appropriate for someone with Bureaucrat, Check user, Oversight, and Sysop rights and therefore propose all are removed. I will notify user of this discussion via email listed on their user page and their talk page. Adambro (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: - 22 July 2005 - original RfA, 23 June 2006 - Bureaucrat discussion

Comments

 * I expect Chiacomo would likely be happy to talk about having his bits removed or at least modified. Have you contacted him about this? -  Amgine | t 22:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * His talk page has a notification and the nomination explicitly states that an e-mail was sent. --SVTCobra 22:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I may still have his phone number lying about. I'll also see if I can get in touch with him. -  Amgine | t 23:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification and I'm glad to see that someone is keeping an eye on me. I browse Wikinews daily and edit almost always anonymously these days (for a variety of reasons). I would like to keep all my "bits" as I hope to be able to become more active as an administrator, bureaucrat, and checkuser. I value the Wikinews community and am proud to have been part of it for so long. I am still involved. I speak to some Wikinewsies frequently, others less so. I still maintain the Wikinews-l mailing list (the SPAM on that list ebbs and flows, there seems to be an increase right now). Several of you have my personal contact information should something urgently need attention...


 * I personally oppose the removal of privileges except in cases of mis-use. Wikinewsies who know me know that already.


 * If it is necessary that I involve myself more visibly in the workings of the community, I shall. Regardless, I'll abide, of course, by the consensus of the community. I welcome your questions and comments. --Chiacomo (talk) 03:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * No need to remove privileges.--+Deprifry+ 19:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you consider it appropriate for a user with whom the community has no real relationship should be able to delete edits with no public record using Oversight or view private information about users editing patterns using Checkuser? Adambro (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1. Checkuser and Oversight rights are bestowed by the Arbitration Committee, and not the community, so this is not the correct venue for their removal. Arbitration_Committee/CheckUser_and_oversight is and you already (unsuccessfully) attempted to request removal of his privileges. 2. I think it's inappropriate for you to suggest that someone with such a long record of service to Wikinews as Chiacomo would use these rights without cause. --+Deprifry+ 20:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * removal of Bureaucrat, Check user and Oversight but removal of sysop rights. Anonymous101   19:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * removal of Bureaucrat, however removal of sysop bit.  Cirt (talk) 20:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * removal of Oversight and CheckUser, removal of other bits. Nakon (talk) 20:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * removal of everything except adminship. TheCustomOfLife (talk) 21:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As usual, I oppose removal of privileges due to inactivity, as per my long-standing opposal of WN:IP. That said, we should—perhaps separately—consider the oversight and checkuser privileges of Chiacomo. If they were granted in order to serve on WN:ARBCOM, then it is reasonable to assume that they should expire upon completion of that service. Since they did not automatically expire, a new vote at Arbitration_Committee/CheckUser_and_oversight may be in order. Perhaps a guideline or policy on this, too, so that they automatically expire for users leaving ArbCom. --SVTCobra 23:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * deadmin per usual. Not sure how the oversight and checkuser other bits relate to past arbcom membership.  Don't care about Bureaucrat Nyarlathotep (talk) 12:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * User said he would be more active, and is in IRC as I write this. So unless he plans not to be, then he should keep his rights. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well of course the proof of the pudding is in the eating. This user can demonstrate he needs the rights by contributing, simply stating that he will do doesn't justify him keeping the rights. On a slightly different note I'd be interested to know for what reasons he has been editing anonymously as he says. Adambro (talk) 19:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Really does that matter? Anyone can edit, anonymously if they choose as well. So really, if he did or did not, I really don't think it matters. Last I checked, there was no policy or anything stating you could not edit anonymously. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 03:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No I'm not aware of any policy either but it doesn't stop it being a little strange. I don't understand the reason for doing so hence the question. Logging in is a two second job. Adambro (talk) 06:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * . Jcart1534 (talk) 02:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * . i am tired of this de-admin stuff. Jacques Divol (talk) 07:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * for obvious reasons. Chiacomo helloed me! Thunderhead 08:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * . User is still involved Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 07:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * --Skenmy(t•c•w) 11:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)