ShakataGaNai has promoted 3 users to Editor status without consensus after the Flagged Revisions RFP policy came into force on the 10th April 2009:
17:07, 23 September 2009 ShakataGaNai (Talk | contribs | block) changed group membership for User:Shoone from (none) to Editors ? (He's trust worthy, I know him IRL. Besides, hes a VERY good c/e'r)
01:35, 21 July 2009 ShakataGaNai (Talk | contribs | block) changed group membership for User:James Pain from (none) to Editors ? (he's been around for, like, forever)
02:53, 4 June 2009 ShakataGaNai (Talk | contribs | block) changed group membership for User:Brynn from (none) to Editors ? (I know her, she's responsible.)
This is clear, consistent violation of a policy that had existed for over a month, nearly two, before the promotions were made.
ShakataGaNai is also a bit too loose with the block tool, in my opinion:
02:00, 29 September 2009 ShakataGaNai (Talk | contribs | block) blocked Rayboy8 (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 48 hours (account creation disabled) ? (Repeated Copyvio.) (unblock | change block)
Despite what ShakataGaNai has claimed on IRC, I am only able to find a *single* instance of serious, blockable copyvio before this block. The block itself was unwarranted (per WN:BLOCK - "last resort - efforts to educate must be made first, followed by warnings" - I see one education attempt that was, quite frankly, pitiful.) for the "seriousness" of the offence - a single line that looked similar: . Prove to me that the user maliciously copy and pasted this line into the article and I will concede this point. More often than not, I have studied sources, then written the article and found a few of my sentences have turned out very similar - it's simply not possible to re-write some things, and other times you get a bit of creative block.
18:04, 2 October 2009 ShakataGaNai (Talk | contribs | block) blocked Rayboy8 (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 72 hours (account creation disabled) ? (Copyvio) (unblock | change block)
This block should have been applied, as it would have been the third serious offence. But 72 hours? Very excessive. "My patience is officially done. These block times are going to start escalating rapidly after this point." is also not behaviour befitting of an admin and bureaucrat on a user's - who has contributed 55 articles - talk page.
The above blocked user is clearly a constructive, helpful user, and we should be encouraging and helpful, rather than slapping him with bans for minor offences. This kind of behaviour is exactly why we have such a notorious reputation outside of our community.
ShakataGaNai is also an extremely hostile, immature, and childish person. Pretty much anyone who has dealt with him on-wiki or on IRC can attest to this. When I brought these comments to him on IRC, with every intention of being constructive, I was met with nothing but criticism and hostility, told I had "some bug in [my] bonnet" and placed on the ignore list, effectively trumping what could have been a constructive conversation. He often posts immature comments - one that springs to mind is the "I CAN HAZ CRATZ" comment on his Bureaucratship nomination. He refers to contributors as "minions", something which makes me consider whether he is a suitable person to have the tools and abilities he has been trusted with. Even as a joke, the comments concern me. ShakataGaNai exhibits classic behavious related to a power trip - something which greatly concerns me. I will not let my home project have one person apply their own agendas here - we follow policy and procedure, not the tempers of one power-tripping admin.
I am extremely hesitant about placing this request for the removal of ShakataGaNai's privilages, and extremely willing and hopeful that I am proved incorrect in my evidence above. I do not wish to disgrace a user in high standing lightly. However, I do not feel that ShakataGaNai exhibits the basic anger management, nor the people skills required to be an administrator or bureaucrat here on Wikinews. I, therefore, request that the Administrator and Bureaucrat flags are removed from ShakataGaNai.
To the judging administrator: I request that simple support or oppose votes are discarded if they are not accompanied by a reason. "as above", or "per username" count as a reason in my opinion. I request this an no-one (including myself) will learn anything without an idea of why people vote in such a way. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Skenmy (talk • contribs) 19:03, 13 October 2009
I will revise this comment to ShakataGaNai is, in my opinion, also an extremely hostile, immature, and childish person.. Please don't spill this onto my talk page. --Skenmytalk 19:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Please don't make personal attacks against other editors. Cirt (talk) 19:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
The comment is not a personal attack, it is a reason why I do not feel SGN should hold his privileges. Where can I express this view if not openly and honestly here on my request? --Skenmytalk 19:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
It is a personal attack and it is a wholly inappropriate use of this page. Cirt (talk) 19:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Support as proposer. --Skenmytalk 19:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - I don't see any discussion whatsoever, let alone dispute resolution, that occurred on Wikinews about this. In any event, some of the points mentioned above might be grounds for approaching the individual at their user talk page on Wikinews to address these issues - and if necessary seek out dispute resolution processes - but moving straight to a desysopping of the user seems wholly inappropriate. Cirt (talk) 19:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
SGN is unwilling to engage in discussion, and therefore I am unwilling to chase him for it. Please suggest a viable method of curing SGN's disruptive and inappropriate behaviour and I will pursue it. --Skenmytalk 19:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Please read my previous comment. --Skenmytalk 19:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
All I see are vague statements unsupported by evidence or diffs of any kind whatsoever. Cirt (talk) 19:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Then please read and investigate the case before commenting. I have spent a significant amount of time on this, and it is clear you have not, with only 4 minutes between my posting and your opposal. If there is a clear indication that SGN is willing to try and change his ways then I am willing to withdraw this to a discussion. --Skenmytalk 19:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
No, the burden is on you to show evidence and diffs, especially when requesting that a respected administrator and bureaucrat on this site be desysopped with seemingly no evidence of any on-wiki discussion or attempts at dispute resolution. Cirt (talk) 19:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I am not willing to engage in a discussion with a user who is not willing to participate in it constructively. The evidence is all there, right in front of you. Diffs are lacking, I agree, but this can soon be remedied. Read it, and then comment. --Skenmytalk 19:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
The so-called "evidence" consists of copy-paste of block and promotion logs. I see zero evidence or diffs of on wiki discussion and/or dispute resolution about this of any kind, prior to this dramatic request for a desysopping. Cirt (talk) 19:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
(un-dent) Cirt, I am not an unreasonable person. Suggest how I should go about this and I am willing to reconsider my nomination and take other channels to resolve this. As I noted - this nomination was made with extreme hesitance, and I do not wish to disgrace a user unnecessarily. This is highly unconstructive. --Skenmytalk 19:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree it is "highly unconstructive". It is "highly unconstructive" and causes undue drama to request a desysopping of someone when no on-wiki attempts at discussion or dispute resolution have been made. And that is what I would have suggested. Now I would simply suggest withdrawing the use of this page for bad faith requests for desysopping and using it as one's personal forum to make unsupported attacks. Cirt (talk) 19:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Cirt, please do not even for a second consider this to be a bad faith request. I have nothing but respect for SGN and yourself, and I do not wish to disgrace users who have worked so hard for this site. Please suggest an alternative venue, and I shall reconsider my nomination. The seriousness of SGN's abuse is not something I feel I can let go, however, without proper discussion. --Skenmytalk 19:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree with Cirt. There should at least have been some attempt to resolve the issues elsewhere, before doing something like this. Couldn't you have left a note at SGNs talk page, noting your concerns? Maybe you two could have resolved it there, instead of coming here first. RfDA should be done only after all else fails, imho. Tempodivalse[talk] 19:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
As I have mentioned before, I do not believe SGN to be open to this kind of dispute resolution. As two of my peers have suggested it as an alternative, I am willing to try, as my opinion is clearly clouded. This is a withdrawal of the request - I will be moving to SGN's talk page. --Skenmytalk 19:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
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 talk page of the Admin's page or the talk page of the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.