Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Removal/Simeon (admin)

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

User:Simeon edit

User has unilaterally blocked Cspurrier, Amgine and myself for an automatic two weeks, citing the following explanation: "repeated blocking against community consensus - community needs time to talk about you guys". Not only were the blocks done in violation of the blocking policy, as seen in the block log, I did not block Neutralizer during the discussion period. As the user has been inactive since May, and in my opinion came back here with intent to misuse his sysop status, I hereby request that Simeon's sysop status be deactivated. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 23:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The specific reasons for this vote were violations from the user in the following section of the blocking policy (items bolded to include violations from Simeon):

Quote

Use of blocks to gain advantage in a content dispute is prohibited. Likewise, users should not block those with whom they are currently engaged in conflict. Admins should not block themselves (to enforce a "vacation" on themselves, for instance) because the resultant "autoblock" may affect other users (see Effects of being blocked, below), unless they know what they're doing (i.e., they have a static IP).

In addition to these violations, the blocking policy does not state a user may block another for a "bad block", other than disruption. However, as the other admins were collaborating on the issue with others, and Simeon disrupted that community conversation, he is the only one that I can see is a valid case of disruption on the site. Such a user who has violated policy in these ways should be seriously considered for de-adminship. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 00:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain - I think everybody should have a nice cup of tea and a sit down. - Borofkin 23:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I've had my cup of tea, and I now support. Everyone voting should remember that the only thing we are voting on is Simeon, not the wider dispute. If you think that any other administrator has abused privileges, violated policy, etc, then list them here. Simeon, I encourage you to continue contributing to the resolution of this dispute, and Wikinews in general, because I think your contributions are exceedingly worthwhile. Wikinews has been worse-off for your absence over the past few months. - Borofkin 02:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I cannot in conscience vote in this RfdA, having been one of the persons targeted by User:Simeon. However I also feel I cannot fail to note that this is a clear example of administrative powers abuse, which is precisely what the Request for de-Adminship policy is for. To be blunt: if we do not remove an admin's powers who has clearly violated Wikinews policy, when would we do so? - Amgine / ^talk 00:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Many people are arguing that all administrators involved in this dispute have violated policy or otherwise acted innapropriately. Phrases such as "clearly violated Wikinews policy" are very quickly losing their meaning. The dispute appears to be over whether certain actions are violations of policy. - Borofkin 00:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have specifically argued, here, in favour of my being listed for RfdA when there was a question of if I had abused admin privilege. Similarly, you do not say User:Simeon did not abuse admin privilege. The question becomes whether the admins can do whatever they like, or if the community has any ability to check them for abuse. - Amgine / ^talk 01:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment - How has Simeon violated the rule against blocking those with whom he is in conflict? Surely being inactive for so many months makes him more impartial than anyone else? - Borofkin 00:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: There was a conflict already brewing on the Water cooler as a result of the blocks, and Simeon automatically took sides without discussion to block the users. That is why the violation is noted as such. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 00:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'm changing my vote to abstain while I have that cup of tea. - Borofkin 01:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Let he who is without admin-abuse cast the first stone... I would have thought there was a rather stronger case for de-adminning the admin who tried unilaterally to ban our friend Neutralizer for six million years on spurious charges... But actually I don't think we should be banning or de-adminning anyone over this. I support, by the way, the proposal that we all have a nice cup of tea and a sit down. [rcameronw]

I agree with rcameronw. Lots of people did a lot of bad things over the neutrilizer issue and we should all just sit down and talk. However

I choose to abstain from this vote. Bawolff ☺☻ 00:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I think we are loosing sight of the proportions here. What deeply troubles me is the game outlined in the IRC-channel 'leak'. This is what we should focus on. --vonbergm 01:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe User:Simeon clipped that from my logs of the event. They should still be available on Pleonasm, and will give far more depth to that event than User:Simeon would like. The brief description is there was a temper-loss, and two admins engaged in a revert war/blocking war. One of them requested both involved be de-admined; that would be me. - Amgine / ^talk 01:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I am going to ask the above users how they believe that Simeon should remain an administrator after his actions. Administrators should be trusted by the community - and as a member of the community, I do not feel I can trust him with sysop status based on the actions. However, I am asking for a more detailed collaboration on reasons why to keep him as a sysop - as far as I'm concerned, the users above have either not read the violations nor the blocking policy, but have acted purely out of influence from other on-going discussions. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 01:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think I agree pretty broadly with Ilya's observation. I think Simeon did what he did through sheer frustration over perceived unreasonableness on the part of the 3 admins he blocked, and, crucially, the consequences were minimal. All 3 got unblocked very quickly, as Simeon knew would happen anyway. What he did was, in essence, a gesture. Inasmuch as there were very minimal consequences to his action, it was a very minor action. I think we could also describe it as rash and whimsical. Inasmuch as it was technically a violation of the rules as I understand them, it was a minor violation. Now it may be that we hold our admins to such high standards that even a rash, whimsical and minor violation can constitute grounds for "de-adminning". But it's my observation that Wikinews does not de-admin people for minor, whimsical violations of the rules. I've seen no evidence that Wikinews even de-admins admins for serious, ongoing violations and abuses. In law, I think this would be called a "customary policy" - ie. it's an unwritten rule that Admins are never de-adminned for minor, whimsical violations. Therefore, in my view, to de-admin Simeon over this would actually be contrary to our unwritten rules and customary policy. I think there's also a customary policy, if not a written rule, to the effect that when looking at how to deal with violations of the rules, we should take into account the user's general contribution to Wikinews. I've seen arguments elsewhere on this page to the effect that Simeon has made substantial valuable contributions (as an admin and an editor), which would seem, I think, further to mitigate against the wisdom of de-adminning him. I think it's important that we are constitute both in our rules and in our APPLICATION of the rules.

Support This was a clear violation of blocking policy (and a bizarre violation at that) that in no way assisted the community. I do find it interesting, however, that MrM has found a reason to complain about admins keeping their sysop status after extended leave. I seem to recall him opposing Neut's proposal in regards to that issue on the water cooler. I believe Neut's statement was: "We're talking about exactly what has already happened...people quitting and coming back whenever the mood strikes them...and holding onto their admin powers throughout." --Wolfrider 02:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I still oppose that proposition, but have found reasoning as to why others support it now. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 02:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Oppose; I urge all to go back through the history of Simeon's work on wikinews and please read the edits where this seemingly very diligent and considerate hard worker was viciously attacked and driven away. I have gone back through the old edits and saw absolutely terrible and abusive treatment of Simeon. I urge everyone to go back and have a look; it's quite an eyeopener. Simeon was once a very active contributor and administrator, in Australia, holding down the fort when everybody else was asleep, and fighting vandals like a hero, until he was driven away by the exact same crowd that is being so disruptive right now. Believe me, it took all of my self discipline not to put my accuser up for de-admin. but I figured the community needs time to heal and move forward collaboratively and let bygones be bygones. I am extremely angry that this point in time was chosen to attack Simeon and and even more angry at the target. Simeon,from my reading of his contributions has been one of the truely gentleman leaders and hard workers of wikinews. I am really hopeful that everyone will vote "opposed" in a sign of support for this good person,Simeon, who so gallantly came to my rescue when I was being wrongfully exiled without a hearing. Simeon; please come back; we need you. I also think it is wrong for the same people to keep making comment after comment in this discussion trying to wear down the people who may not agree with them. Neutralizer 03:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Simeon's actions were rash, and I don't much agree with finger-pointing on this site anyway (are we here to argue about user rights, or to publish news articles?). If the user continues to block people in violation of blocking policy, I'll support this. As a single-incident abuse of powers, I think he should see this as a warning. -- IlyaHaykinson 03:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The above incident occurred to three people, which I would consider to be three events. In order to get back to writing articles, we need a reform here. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 03:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Whilst what Simeon did was perhaps wrong, it was exactly the sort of gesture required to deal with an out of control situation. Blocking himself was definitely wrong, but was needed to close off the tit-for-tat that was being engaged in. Brian McNeil / ^talk 07:54, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. While the methods might not be right, Simeon's intentions were noble... end the nonsense. -Edbrown05 01:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Violation of the blocking policy. - Kookykman|(talk)

Oppose. The action taken does not make me lose trust in Simeon. - McCart42 (talk) 05:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

vote 4-7-1, de-adminship failed - Amgine 19:02, 16 November 2005 (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 current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.