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


 * I feel it's clear the community continues to support this user. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 12:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

— reconfirmation
After last night's little incident with, I feel due to the slight controversy that I should see if they community wants me to retain my bureaucrat status (and possibly my admin status). So my fellow Wikinewsies, how do you feel?

Questions and comments

 * Here's my take on the whole thing. I did not plan on permanently removing Nascar's reviewer rights. If I was going to do that, I would bring it here. Instead, my attempt was to make it temporary until Nascar apologized for his behavior on IRC (racial/homophobic slurs and flooding via Wikilinker). I didn't want to swing my banhammer especially when I was not a direct witness to these events (other than the flooding, which I was present for). Plus, as we all know, banning should be done as a last resort, so I tried something novel via removing his reviewer flag/status until an apology was made to those offended. As such, upon doing so, I would have returned his flag to him. Unfortunately... it didn't work out that way and this is how we ended up here and how my talk page got more attention in one day then it has in the past six years I've been here. And that's my story. I hope this sets the record straight. --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 04:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Votes

 * . — μ 18:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * . -- Nascar 1996  (talk • contribs) 18:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Nascar, coming from you, who I did the action too, means alot to me. :) And I do hope you come back to us. You're still a good contributor, IMO. --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 19:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You didn't do anything wrong IMO. Diego Grez return fire 18:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * —you didn't do anything wrong, you simply acted, based on available information, in what you believed were the best interests of the community, with the backing of a (small, admittedly) IRC consensus. DEN  DODGE  18:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not comfortable with the way the mob was whipped up last night in IRC. Of all people, at least a bureaucrat should maintain a cool head and know what to do. The dereviewer was out of process. IRC should have no bearing on important on-wiki decisions. However, this is the first time I've seen you do something controversial, and I'm glad you decided to put yourself up for reconfirmation, so no strong opinion either way. Tempodivalse [talk]  18:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Doesn't have the feel of a mob to me. Note Nascar's vote.  --Pi zero (talk) 20:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I meant the IRC "mob" (which you didn't witness, not being an IRC user), it didn't spill over on wiki, however. I still contest the action was out of process. Tempodivalse [talk]  20:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That was what I understood you to mean. --Pi zero (talk) 20:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Nascar's vote is characteristic of his generous nature. I have found him to assume blame (even when unwarranted)  and quickly forgive others. Mattisse (talk) 20:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * --Pi zero (talk) 20:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am surprise and saddened that a block like this can be decided via comments one evening from a small group of users who have access to an IRC channel, a process that is not transparent to the community. Mattisse (talk) 20:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * - We've seen a mob once before. I part-led it, could (maybe should) have been kicked off the project. This was not a mob. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 20:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * - Nothing to do with you, not yout fault, don't eat yourself over it. I know the feeling all too well right now. BarkingFish (talk) 13:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ...and let's end drama and focus on content, please. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 13:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * &mdash; I prefer that onwiki actions be separated from offwiki actions. This seems to be our general policy regarding users who are blocked on other WMF wikis (if they didn't do anything wrong here they aren't blocked, except in cases of cross-wiki vandalism), and I think that should extend to other media as well. Do something wrong in IRC, get blocked from IRC. Do something wrong on Facebook, get blocked on Facebook. Do something wrong here, get blocked here. Only in exceptional cases would I support blocking someone here for their actions elsewhere. That said, when you have a few people who all go "yeah, go ahead, do it", that can feel like a consensus, even though that small group's opinion isn't necessarily representative of the community's consensus on the matter. So I understand why you did what you did, even though I don't agree with it. Gopher65talk 17:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * . No worries, trusted user. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Tyrol5 (talk) 21:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * to close reconfirmation I feel I have the support of the community. --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 13:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * (Last minute) . I obviously didn't see any of what occurred in IRC, but would generally concur with Gopher65 about consequences for offwiki actions. And I don't think rights should be removed without gathering an onwiki consensus, except in obvious emergency cases where the project is at risk. However this is a single lapse from a good bureaucrat, and I am not worried about Patrick repeating this in future. Also the candour in this request is admirable. the wub "?!"  18:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and close it. I was going to support, but another vote is not needed. There were faults on both sides; Nascar should, I feel, be given an opportunity to return. The key issue is it was not a mob (such a characterisation is hyperbole). And, the disagreement could, given time to fade from memory, be forgotten if not fully forgiven. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I dislike IRC but I don't see a real problem here. .  — fetch · comms  03:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)