Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship/EchoBravo, Tree Biting Conspiracy, Yegoyan, and Barliner

< Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship, request for bureaucratship, request for checkusership, or request for oversightship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

EchoBravo, Tree Biting Conspiracy, Yegoyan, and Barliner change

EchoBravo (talk • changes • e-mail • blocks • protections • deletions • moves • right changes)
Tree Biting Conspiracy (talk • changes • e-mail • blocks • protections • deletions • moves • right changes)
Yegoyan (talk • changes • e-mail • blocks • protections • deletions • moves • right changes)
Barliner (talk • changes • e-mail • blocks • protections • deletions • moves • right changes)

End date: August 13, 2009

These people had their last edit in the second half of October, 2008; Barliner last edited end of December last year. Given they have not been active in over six months, I would like to suggest their Admin flag be removed.

I proposed what should become a guideline, on simple talk: If they come back a year before their last edit, they can re-request the flag, without going through an RFA process; if they come back later, they will need to go through an RFA again.

Candidate's acceptance: Candidates are inactive, so cannot accept. --Eptalon (talk) 09:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support change

  1. As per above: These people are inactive, they do not need their flag. --Eptalon (talk) 09:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I support desysopping Yegoyan almost immediately, as he's blocked on enwiki as a sockpuppet of a banned user. The others I don't have an opinion on, as I haven't made up my mind about the whole desysopping situation. (usually I'm in favor of it, but this seems a bit haphazard) EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Block him and desysop him. No need for a RfDA. Griffinofwales (talk) 15:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    He isn't blocked on enwiki. Majorly talk 15:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    @Majorly:Yes he is. @EVula:I can't find his name at the checkuser request that was referenced. User was blocked 2 years ago which means that he was editing here while he was blocked as an admin! Do you have a reference (the block log also links to the checkuser)? Griffinofwales (talk) 15:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, he isn't. It's a different person. Majorly talk 15:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Different person? Griffinofwales (talk) 15:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Different person. Majorly talk 15:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, forget that. They are the same. However, he was banned two years ago from a different project, and as far as I can see has caused no problems here. I don't think we need to be blocking, especially as it would be completely punitive. Majorly talk 16:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Eptalon's reasons and the block. Griffinofwales (talk) 00:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    They aren't doing any work with the sysop flag and are unlikely to come back. Shappy talk 13:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - inactive users, no need for the extra tools --Peterdownunder (talk) 08:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - Per Peterdownunder. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 15:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose change

  1. Per my rationale in the other de-sysop request. →javért stargaze 09:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Please wait a year. Six months is just too quick. And this page is titled wrong. Majorly talk 13:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wait, wait, this is going very wrong. We should decide the desysop policy before these de-RfAs. Experimental deadminship is not a constructive way forward. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. It seems too soon to be desysopping. This just doesn't sit right with me. · Tygrrr... 16:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I still look in every once in awhile, never mind my feelings on the lack of need. -  EchoBravo  contribs  16:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. There is no solid agreement on how to do this. Please wait. Please also let the candidates know about this on the uer talk... this has not been done. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Instead of that, e-mail them. They are probably not watching their talk pages here. Griffinofwales (talk)
    That could be done as well, but if they aren't going to get the automated email about their talk page being modified, that's another strike against their still being part of the community proper (in my humble opinion). EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose so we can pretty much get on with something actually useful like building an encyclopedia. With about 30 changes to this Wikipedia per hour, we'd soon notice if something was amiss. Now let's all write a nice article. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose We must try to contact the editors, wait for the full year to run out, then as for an RFDA.--Gordonrox24 (talk) 00:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Per TRM. However, I'd desysop Yegoyan who's banned at enWP. Pmlineditor  Talk 17:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Should not desysop or ban folks simply because thay are banned at another project... I never got this arguement. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 18:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with NonvocalScream. He never abused the tools, so there is no reason for ban. Barras || talk 18:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The user is a sock account. I don't think you understood the reason for ban. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I do. I understand that the user has socks on the English Wikipedia. Unless the user has socks here, the user has not done anything abusive on this project. So I object to sanctions. NonvocalScream (talk) 23:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    1. The user is a sock. 2. Socking is banned here too, so should we should request a checkuser to check if socking ever occurred here related to that account? Griffinofwales (talk) 23:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be pointless because the user last edited in 2008. The user is not a sock on this project as far as I'm aware, and has never caused any problems here. Generally, banned users from enwiki are not welcome here because they carry on their silly games here. Yegoyan did not, so we make an exception. Besides, he joined two years ago way before we became stricter with banned users. Majorly talk 23:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, we should not check. Look, I gave up wikisluthing a long time ago. It is not best, I promise from personal experience. NonvocalScream (talk) 23:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
     (change conflict) But it has been proven that this user is a sock. Socks that are socks at enWP are still socks here. Are you saying it's acceptable to have a sockpuppet as an admin? @NVS: We know the user is a sock. We don't need to run a checkuser (I suggested because you seemed to think that the user might not be a sock after all). Someone has done it for us. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unless they have done something really terrible, I will not hold anyone's conduct from another project against them here. If they can contribute productively as an editor, or in an administrative capacity, I will allow that. I for one, will not turn away precious volunteer hours. We need them, and the project can not afford to be picky. Just watch the contributions here, all else is fine. NonvocalScream (talk) 23:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Where is the evidence that he has abused sockpuppets on Simple English Wikipedia? Majorly talk 23:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    He is a sock! Admins are trusted not to be socks! Are socks now allowed to be admins? Griffinofwales (talk) 23:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As long as they are not socking here... you are however free to vote your feelings on any request for adminship. NonvocalScream (talk) 23:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    How is he a sock? Please show me his sockmaster. On this project. Otherwise, he's not a sock. Majorly talk 23:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A user that is banned at a project for being a sock should not be an admin. If you read the checkuser case, the user was (apparently [not actually in the case, but it's the one that's cited]) caught because of the suspicious actions of other accounts, not because of the actions of Yegoyan. So, yes, Yegoyan probably will not cause harm to this project, but he is a sock. Are we going to tolerate socks (especially as admins?)? Griffinofwales (talk) 23:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (outdent) As long as her is not harming or disrupting this project. NonvocalScream (talk) 00:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Makes no sense to me, but OK. Griffinofwales (talk) 00:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, but it's completely irrelevant - Yegoyan is not a sockpuppet. He does not have a sockmaster, does not own any other accounts and does not abuse the policy (I say this without actually knowing for sure, but without any proof, I AGF). There's nothing to "tolerate" here, and it comes off sounding rather rude, especially as Yegoyan hasn't caused any problems here. I can't quite see what the problem is here - is there an issue with admins who are following policy and are not guilty of socking? Majorly talk 00:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Um...I don't understand. The admin is guilty of socking. That has already been proven. That proves that the admin was not following policy by socking. Question: Let's say that a checkuser is requested on EVula because of some edits by other users that support EVula's RfDs. It is accepted and it turns out that EVula is actually a sock of Fr33kman! Do we desysop the accounts and block them? Griffinofwales (talk) 00:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't deal in hypothetical. NonvocalScream (talk) 00:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please show me where the admin has been socking on Simple English Wikipedia. I couldn't give a monkeys about English Wikipedia, so please stop telling me it has been proven, because it's not been proven here. That is all that matters in this instance. Since he has caused no problems here, there is no issue. Obviously, if he was socking, he would be desysopped probably, but since he isn't... Majorly talk 00:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Why does it matter whether the socking was done here or at enWP. It was socking and an admin was involved. Griffinofwales (talk) 00:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As explained above. Now we go around in circles. NonvocalScream (talk) 00:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh, the same reason why we don't punish people on here for issues on other websites, or in their offline life. There was no socking on here, so why should he be punished twice? Majorly talk 00:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Do whatever you wish. *sigh* Pmlineditor  Talk 17:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Why was DNA blocked? There was no sockpuppetry here. Griffinofwales (talk) 17:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (outdent) Not DNA, this is Yegoyan. You're advised to see the enWP block log. Pmlineditor  Talk 17:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I did. DNA and Yegoyan were both blocked for sockpuppetry at enWP. Only one of them was blocked here, and why? Because of the sockpuppetry at enWP. Griffinofwales (talk) 17:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    DNA had other issues as well. Yegoyan behaved fine. He was made an admin. He didn't turn rogue. So he wasn't blocked. The End. Pmlineditor  Talk 17:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Blockable issues? No. Griffinofwales (talk) 18:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, he tried to QD simple talk, and refused to stop creating copyvios. This is blockable. -Djsasso (talk) 19:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Agree entirely with TRM. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I also agree with TRM completely. hmwithτ 20:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose desysopping per TRM. Razorflame 09:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. --vector ^_^ (talk) 07:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. I've heard of these people. —MC8 (b · t) 09:10, Monday August 10 2009 (UTC)
  15. Oppose per TRM and also that we pretty much agreed (with I think at least 10(?) desysops now) that we would wait a year... Goblin 12:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]
  16. Oppose —§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 12:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments change

Let's get consensus for the policy and then de-sysop them. Griffinofwales (talk) 14:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus was already achieved some time back, why are we going through another discussion? Chenzw  Talk  14:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you talking about consensus for the 1 year rule or the 6 month rule? The 6 month rule was just created. Griffinofwales (talk) 15:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We are looking at people who have not edited here for 8-10 months. No one is talking about "Oh look, that person was away for 6 months, lets take his admin tools away. Given the proposed rule, they would be able to get back their flag with one "message" to a crat. This is about limiting the potential of abuse, too, should their accounts be hacked. --Eptalon (talk) 15:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any account could theoretically be hacked; true, inactive ones are more likely to have their security compromised, but statistically it's very unlikely. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone actually show me when hacking an admin account here has ever happened? Moreover, could anyone actually show me something that could be done by a hacked account that couldn't be undone? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's happened on English Wikipedia. However, I don't believe in desysopping for the risk of security. I simply don't believe in inactive users having rights that are not used. Majorly talk 18:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It happened, and then what? en.wiki blew up? Everyone died? Or did it just cause a bit of hassle and then we all moved on? I just think that this is another excuse to get more bureaucracy here. List them as inactive. Job done. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would be better to actually remove them than having to make a list especially for them. If they aren't interested in editing, they should have no interest in being admins. It would be simpler if we didn't even vote, but just removed after a year. Majorly talk 22:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like your idea but I like 6 months better (that's negotiable of course). Griffinofwales (talk) 22:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(<-) Currently it very much looks like this request is going to fail, ie. that the people mentioned will keep their status. Is anyone interested in discussing on simple talk, so we can reach some form of consensus, and based on that some guideline to handle such cases? --Eptalon (talk) 12:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I thought we already had one...1 year...they come back they get it back... -Djsasso (talk) 12:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_de-adminship/EchoBravo,_Tree_Biting_Conspiracy,_Yegoyan,_and_Barliner&oldid=8898956"