Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Removal/Jimbo Wales (admin/bureaucrat)

User:Jimbo Wales
User has never used the admin or bureaucrat rights he has on the project and considering the healthy number of admins we have I suspect he never will so doesn't need these rights anymore. Jimbo only edits extremely rarely here. Adambro - (talk) 19:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Votes
This user did not recieve adminship through normal processes. (I think Eloquence gave him the admin bit after he made a comment about mediawiki:Sitenotice, but don't quote me on that). Bawolff ☺☻ 22:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * removal of administrator rights, he often (on enwp) edits archives etc. to courtesy blank material per emails he recieves, and he may need that here. Better safe than sorry, really.
 * removing bureaucrat rights. Daniel (talk) 23:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * His edit history here shows no use of admin rights and this perhaps suggests it is unlikely he'll ever use them in future. If he never had cause to use them when the community was smaller then I doubt he would now. Also, I'd hope that he'd think twice before doing so and instead leave such actions to our now much more established community. He's active over on enwp and so him having admin rights there is perhaps appropriate. Admin/b'crat rights are supposed to be practical tools, Jimbo having these rights instead seems to be symbolic now. Adambro - (talk) 11:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with Adambro here. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

per Adambro. --Skenmy(t•c•w) 12:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * - changing vote. Adminship is provided here on the basis of "if you need it, and you are trusted, have it". Jimbo is a trusted person, but he does not need admin rights here. --Skenmy(t•c•w) 15:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * the removal of all admin rights. Anonymous101  14:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This isn't important for the discussion but here is Jimbo's opinion on being desysoped per inactivity: " I think automatic desysopping anyone for inactivity is a really horrible idea and should be rejected". Note that this is not my opinion.Anonymous101  14:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This is really a waste of time. Jimbo will restore his adminship when he feels like it. He exists above policy and guidelines. -- Cat chi? 14:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Has anyone actually contacted the person in question? -- Cat chi? 16:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, on his Wikipedia talk page which he often checks. Anonymous101  16:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Please email too... -- Cat chi? 16:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Why?Anonymous101  16:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This comment is transffered from the associated discussion on Wikipedia:

WikiNews rocks. Adminship is provided on the basis of necessity. It's a mop and bucket, not a badge of authority, as they say. This is great because it demonstrates a lack of favoritism. If Jimbo complains and gets sysop back, I'm going to have to eat my tongue, though. This comment by White Cat is incorrect:

&#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 15:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As does all board members. They will not hesitate to re-admin re-bcrat or re-oversight themselves should the need arises. They (Foundation) own the site and they make the rules. Just because they let us decide some issues on our own does not mean they do not reserve the right to interfere. The removal of their access is hence symbolic. -- Cat chi? 16:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I do think you should not consider board members above the policies and guidelines. Anthere - (talk) 16:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Bravo! Anthere, you continue to prove why the community's trust was well placed in putting you on the board. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * -- Per 's comment, from above. Cirt - (talk) 17:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It isn't that Jimbo is not trusted, it is that he isn't active here. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * While I oppose removal for inactivity, I support this case because the privileges were not granted by the Wikinews community. --SVTCobra 19:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * &mdash; on the grounds of not going through a normal nomination process, and retaining normal board-level rights to make changes for OFFICE reasons. -- IlyaHaykinson (talk) 07:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * removal of admin and bureaucrat rights. TheCustomOfLife (talk) 08:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 20:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments made after de-adminship discussion was closed

 * Due to recent developments, I am here more often and anticipate being here more often. Please restore my admin rights.  Also, please reconsider the policy of removing admin rights simply due to inactivity on this project, particularly as applied to people who are active throughout Wikimedia.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I would have to respectfully disagree. I mean this is a very strong consensus. Although I don't see why there couldn't be a request made for re-adminship. The vote has been going on now since may 10, ten days ago. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 04:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with this comment made by at WN:AAA, as well as comment by .  Over 10 days, 10 users commented with a sentiment one way or the other.  10 supported removal of bureaucrat rights, and 9 supported removal of sysop and bureaucrat rights, with 1 opposed to the removal of sysop rights.   also never had an initial RfA on Wikinews.  Cirt (talk) 04:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: As this de-adminship discussion was closed after 10 days, no further discussion should take place here. As  has been desysopped after community consensus, the proper procedure according to process if the user wants to become an Administrator on Wikinews would be to have a new RfA discussion.  Further discussion about this particular closed de-adminship discussion is taking place at WN:AAA.  Cirt (talk) 04:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)