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

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for de-adminship. Please do not modify it.

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)[reply]

I believe it is time to test the Wikinews: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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brian McNeil (talk • contribs) 11:35, 13 November 2007‎

Comments

Comment - WN:IPOL is not policy only a proposal. --SVTCobra 13:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Has user been notified, as the proposed policy suggests? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Votes

Support de-admin, per nom --Brian McNeil / ^talk 11:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support —FellowWiki Newsie 17:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per WN:IP Thunderhead - (talk - email - contributions) 01:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Support, 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)[reply]
Support but it's not easy Jacques Divol 08:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Oppose 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anonymous101 (talk • contribs) [1]
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)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.