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

Policy basis
No longer active. Last edit was August 10, 2007. Last main namespace edit, June 11, 2007. Last admin action: 28 June 2007.

Introduction to reasoning
Erik's userpage hasn't been updated to reflect the fact that he has left the board for employment on the WMF staff. This - in and of itself - isn't reason to de-admin - but I can see no possibility of him being in a position to make significant contributions or patrolling activity to exercise his Admin or B'Crat powers. With his position in the Foundation he can at any time tell Brion to give him these rights back and as such, and with some of our recent coverage of WMF issues, I would prefer that be the way it is - a two person process.

I have not contacted Erik regarding this. I am of the opinion that if he promptly responds and wants to argue a case it should be a test of our inactive guidelines. (Eg do we count people who keep track of what's going on as inactive?) If I am requested to contact him I will, I have his Foundation email address. I would, at such a point, also ask the Chair to become involved and Sue Gardner - perhaps with a view to having a specific resolution on administrative involvement in the Wikinews project by staff and board. There is indeed a serious issue of COI (please help make this policy) around this and I have tried to see how we can get guidelines for us creating content, and the people making it possible for us to do it here, to set ground rules. --Brian McNeil / talk

Comments

 * Do not attempt to link this with recent events, or Erik being among the project founders. I would prefer this be no popularity or conspiracy contest. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Erik has not contributed to the community for almost a year. He has made no attempt to get involved with us or our projects on WN. It seems, in all fairness, that Erik has abandoned Wikinews IMHO. So regardless of being founder of Wikinews, he should have been given the same treatment, at the same time as the users above. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 22:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you consider is different with the cases above where the period of inactivity is much greater but you've not supported yet you support this request? Adambro 22:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing...if you want to do this based on inactivity, he should have been up here with the rest. Either way it does not change the fact that he is non-representative of this community. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 02:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd note that I didn't list everyone who I'd say is inactive and should have their admin rights removed, that would be a long list, rather a selection of those who are at the most extreme end that I thought would be the least controversial to gauge community feeling towards my feeling that users should use or loose these rights. Eloquence fell outside this. Adambro 06:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Although I understand why you'd rather not link it to his position, I think he deserves special consideration because of his position for the board as founder (position in wmf is another matter, which i don't have a good opinion on). CoI doesn't really work, because i'm sure theres areas where others have conflicts of intresets, and they just don't edit those articles (as well mindspillage is an admin, and has equal conflicts). If I was basing my vote on if he was inactive, I would say remove. Bawolff ☺☻ 22:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I am afraid I do not understand the reasons for not contacting User:Eloquence. Do you think Erik will object and raise hell? If so won't he be even angrier if he were to discover it was done without his knowledge? That said, Erik seems to be the type that gladly acquiesce with a de-adminship, given his new position. I'd see this as only a COI issue since the inactivity is far shorter than many others (and six months is not almost a year). --SVTCobra 00:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * i don't see much of a COI issue with adminship, which is supposed to confer no extra editorial influence. admin actions are publicly logged and can be reviewed in full by any other administrator. to my knowledge, there's been no suggestion that Eloquence's admin actions has raised COI concerns and i certainly don't see a need for a "pre-emptive" removal of admin status. –Doldrums(talk) 08:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Per some of the comments here I have emailed Erik (CC Sue Gardner/Florence Devouard). Links to this section here and WN:COI were provided. IIRC This isn't the first time I've asked for input on WN:COI. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Quick comments: --Eloquence 21:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Do whatever you think is best; my feelings won't be hurt. :-)
 * I'd advise you to read up a bit about the meaning of conflicts of interests in non-profits; there are a lot of misunderstandings regarding what a COI is and isn't in our community.
 * Whether on Wikinews or elsewhere, I've never believed in de-adminning people for inactivity; I think labeling inactive admins is generally sufficient, unless there's reason to believe that their accounts might be compromised or they might actively do damage. It's just process overhead with little obvious benefit and potential downsides (i.e., you reduce the number of people you could reach out to if you had to).
 * I'd be happy to withdraw the RfDA if you want to stand for reconfirmation. That would be less controversial. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Votes
''Note: support means you support removal of the candidates privileges. Keep comments in this section brief and use the above section. It is intended for discussion prior to people casting votes.


 * I don't buy your COI argument for numerous reasons. Btw, doesn't the COI argument violate your comment?  Anyway people should vote how they like for their own reasons.  If those reasons don't convince others to vote accordingly, fine.  fyi, not contacting seems like a general violation of etiquette.   :)  Nyarlathotep 20:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)  ps, Once upon a time we tried not to be the source for news *about* wikipedia, not that this view was ever used constructively, but its a historical point.
 * Can you strike and subsequently remove your comment to move to the comments section? I would like to carry on a discussion on this but you offer insufficient information to do so. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Let him stand for reconfirmation on his own grounds before we request a demotion. Thunderhead - (talk - email - contributions) 20:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * (very close to weak oppose). Bawolff ☺☻ 22:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 *  —Fellow Wiki  Newsie 00:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as admin. No need to remove privileges.--+Deprifry+ 08:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That is not the point. Rather the point is whether there is any reason to retain the rights. Adambro 01:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * privilege removal - while I appreciate and respect everything Eloquence has done for the project, it is irresponsible to have a list of admins - whom new and old users alike may wish to contact - with people who are massively inactive on it. It is not based upon his status in the community, nor his ability as an admin, more on the fact that he has not and has shown no signs of (nor can I see good reason for him to return to) editing for the project, even in a small capacity like our Bureaucrats. --Skenmy(t•c•w) 18:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support with the condition that if he returns to WN activity for a period of time, it be reinstated so as to prevent any future misuse of de-admining rivals or otherwise. But if he's not present here, an account with admin access is just a liability on having its password stolen or something similar. Sherurcij 04:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * we deadmin people because we do not think they are doing good as admins or because they have disappeared and are not likely to ever be seen again. Neither is the case here. He is without a doubt trustworthy and while not actively editing, he is certainly about. --Cspurrier 02:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * . I haven't been around long enough to know the many of the inactive admins. I see nothing wrong with contacting them to see if they are interested or not in helping the project. Eloquence has been contacted and, without saying it directly, seems to have a willingness to stay on as admin. I used the same rationale for User:The bellman. --Jcart1534 15:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * . Users like Eloquence, Jimbo, Kate etc. were mentioned in the policy discussion to have an exception status because they have vast experience, are unlike to ever abuse their powers, and their contributions are likely to benefit Wikinews. Eloquence's last edit wasn't even that long ago. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 16:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If I recall correctly, it was I that mentioned some possible exceptions to any inactivity policy however I have since reconsidered my position and would now support of removal of rights from anyone who isn't using them. Adminship is not a reward, it is a practical tool that is to be used. Eloquence is inactive and so shows no need to retain the rights. Adambro 01:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * TheCustomOfLife 00:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not agree with de-adminning for inactivity. -- IlyaHaykinson 16:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)