Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Removal/PVJ59 (admin 2)

PVJ59

 * I am closing this has successful, I have refrained from commenting, So am closing it: as a Bcrat, and 2, as a netural party, I have never had any disputes to my knowledge with this user. Will list on meta Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 04:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is time to test the Inactive Policy and de-admin this user. His departure from the project was in the midst of a de-admin vote due to conflict and wheel-warring. The user discarded respect for other's opinions and battled on-wiki. I believe on more than one occasion he unblocked himself.

Comments

 * Comment - WN:IPOL is not policy only a proposal. --SVTCobra 13:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Has user been notified, as the proposed policy suggests? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I would vote to de-admin PVJ for the other reasons mentioned above and my own past observations of PVJ behavior, but I cannot do so here because the nomination implies that such a vote is a test of WN:IPOL (now also WN:IP), a proposed policy, the text of which was just added on November 13. This seems backwards. Vote on the policy first, then you can use it to de-admin someone using it. --SVTCobra 02:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe it is appropriate to test the policy with a case such as this. I believe we need to prove we have a mechanism in place to remove privileges. I appreciate WN:IP is proposed policy, my point here is to test it in a case where the user also had other issues with co-contributors. Yes, the user needs informed and I would appreciate if someone else would undertake that duty. I had my run ins with him and don't want to open old conflicts. I do, on the other hand, want to see WN:IP or something similar become official policy. My belief is that we learn more by doing so applying it here will allow us to see if what has been proposed will work. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've contacted PVJ59 via Wikinews user page email and on his talk page. I found no account with an identical name on Wikipedia or Meta, and nothing turned up on Google. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * We do have a mechanism for removing privileges, it is this de-admin procedure which is usually undertaken for abuse of said privileges. If this de-admin passes as a test of WN:IP then it provides a precedent and suggests that all the other inactive admins should be automatically de-admin'ed as well. It would be bad form to selectively de-admin people for inactivity if that's not the real reason that we are doing it. Do you also want to de-admin User:CGorman or User:NGerda? PVJ has more recent edits than they do, why not "test" WN:IP on them first? I think you are stacking the deck by picking someone you know is unpopular. --SVTCobra 22:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that this doesn't seem a fair test. PVJ59 left on a bad note, and the inactive policy is proposed to de-admin the people who everyone liked (Like NGerda) but is not here. Note: My opinion on this on a plain and simple de-adminship request would be that he lost his last de-adminship request, taking an extended wikibreak doesn't change that and he should not have his +sysop flag at this point in time. Bawolff ☺☻ 00:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Votes

 * Support de-admin, per nom --Brian McNeil / talk 11:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Support  —Fellow Wiki  Newsie 17:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Support as per WN:IP Thunderhead - (talk - email - contributions) 01:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * supporting per repeated conflict, wheelwarring and possible POV pushing. I don't have any opinion on whether the Inactivity Policy should be adopted. JoshuaZ 02:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * , this user has become inactive and shouldn't have admin rights, but I had no problem with him as a Wikinewsie, and I don't support this based on WN:IP, although I support that proposal. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * but it's not easy Jacques Divol 08:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't care It's true, I really don't care.  I don't foresee it impacting anything, ever.  ;)  Nyarlathotep 20:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It is only a proposal (which I disagree with) and he is not causing any harm by being inactive, if he has broken other policies (as suggested by other users) I might change my vote but for now I think we should keep him as admin.
 * Support, though this is a very poor test of WN:IP, a user without the problems he has had would have made a better test.--Cspurrier 20:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)