User:Amgine/BarkingFish bits request
BarkingFish (talk · contribs) — remove SysAdmin 
BarkingFish has an admirable record as an active contributor to the project. However xe has also been involved in some conflict with community members, in particular over a quickness to block, and as often indefinitely as not. In a recent IRC conversation xe asserted the decision to indef block was solely xyr right, as it was intrinsic to being an admin.
For this reason, and solely this reason, I would prefer if xe no longer had the responsibility for blocking users.
The specific event which pushed this issue to the forefront was the indef block onfor 'trolling' in the comments namespace, a portion of Wikinews set aside for the expression of personal opinions. The users non-comments page edits are minor copy edits which improved Wikinews's articles. Prior to being indef blocked by BarkingFish the user had never been blocked, had never received a warning from any community member.
There were, until very recently, two indef blocks by BarkingFish which were not supported in policy (there may be other policy-based justifications not alluded to in the block summaries):
- WN:CU, this account is a sock puppet. as a sock puppet. There is no evidence on-wiki, including
- username policy. for an unacceptable user name (Promotional/COI). Promotional/COI is not a part of Wikinews's
These were hardly the most egregious bad blocks in the history of en.WN, but the response to them is exemplary: BarkingFish blocked without considering policy, and would have left the blocks in place forever if xe had not been called on them. Admins should be trusted to do the right thing the first time, not only when they are 'caught'. I no longer have that trust in BarkingFish's judgement for blocks. - Amgine | t 15:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Links for BarkingFish: )
- Previous requests: RfA