Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Removal/Diego Grez (admin)

I am archiving this request. User had his rights emergency-removed, and with no forthcoming explanation for actions or any indication that the account is not compromised - the pertinent action is to keep them removed! -- Sken   my talk 12:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

— remove admin
Without explanation on-wiki, Diego deleted an article from the archives &mdash; without, by the way, replacing it with a stub, as is always done when deleting a published article so as not to create a memory hole &mdash; and then, again without explanation on-wiki, hid the delete actions in the deletion log. The only remark about these actions on-wiki was to ask anyone who wants to know about it to PM him.

Had only the deletion occurred, not the log-hiding, there would still be a reasonable possibility that the deletion was at least intended to be some sort of privacy-related action, and I'd not be making this nomination just yet. However, the log-deletion doesn't appear to have any likely reason behind it except revisionism, trying to erase from history the fact that the article existed. Which is, btw, quite quite futile since there's plenty of evidence of it even on other WMF sister projects.

It's possible that Diego will have a private explanation for the action that cannot be shared publicly, in which case it might be necessary to shelve this public discussion (if the private explanation has some merit). Presumably ArbCom would then have to take up the matter privately. But there is nothing to be accomplished by not making this nomination immediately, since the existence of the article long ago became irreversible and there is nothing minor about the seeming breaches of site policy and journalistic ethics.
 * See also: Streissand effect.

--Pi zero (talk) 14:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Stats

 * Because the stats template (above) only (currently) turns up items from before a certain date, here are a couple of others possibly relevant; can't guarantee they're the only ones. --Pi zero (talk) 16:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * WN:RFP/Archive 8#Diego Grez (talk · contribs)
 * WN:RFP/Archive 9#Diego Grez (talk · contribs) — bureaucratship

Questions and comments

 * At minimum, Diego has demonstrated very poor judgement in how he went about this. The evidence suggests he doesn't understand how serious the matter is.  Those might be sufficient reasons to withdraw sysop privs regardless of the fate of the specific article.  --Pi zero (talk) 14:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What was deleted? Why was it deleted?  Why were others not consulted via e-mail such as scoop, or on IRC channels or on talk pages? Reading the comments from the failed RfAs, this sort of potential behavior seems to why there was opposition back in 2010. --LauraHale (talk) 15:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The page in question was Wikinews interviews Diego Grez, Chilean earthquake survivor, as well as its talk and comments pages. It's mentioned in an audio brief, translated into French, and duplicated around the 'net (including on NewsTrust). As is regularly said of material on the Internet, trying to delete it seems a bit... fruitless. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 15:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I was linked here from his Encyclopedia Dramatica page, probably has something to do with it, j/s


 * It is not private (but it is personal), he is hiding everything that trolls can use against him for his article]. Just FYI. AndrésSnape (talk) 21:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * About the Emergency Rights Removal: I cannot believe (neither do others, I think) that his account was compromised, his actions were perfectly rational (rational as in matching his personality, because they still were foolish/stupid), I'd like to have a CheckUser to compare the login he did for deleting those articles with some of the previous (I bet the IPs are almost the same, i.e. same subnet). And also, he was already a know sockpuppeteer, so it should be easy for him to create a sockpuppet and talk privately with Blood Red Sandman, thus tricking him deadmin him because Grez already saw his actions were bad and that he could not make a decent defense here, so he decided to, at least, deadmin him with "honour" and saying that it was a "hacked account". Clever moves. AndrésSnape (talk) 22:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * If someone could not catch my thoughts properly (as some people probably inferred, english is not my first language), just let me know here so I can rephrase those thoughts up. AndrésSnape (talk) 23:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * To be clear, the allegation is that the account was hacked after these actions. So that in itself is not a defence. A CU has been filed as a matter of course for any possible hack, and that really takes the matter out of my hands. I trust out CUs (and ArbCom, if need be) to deal with it. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 23:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hacked after? Hmm, that should probably be social engineers, although if the account was hacked after the deletes I cannot find any logical reason for someone to hack it. However, how did he contact you? (IRC, email, et cætera) AndrésSnape (talk) 23:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Looking at the rights BRS has removed on a basis this would be wise in the short-term, I note that Diego had granted xyrself bot. Since that hides edits from casual perusal in RecentChanges, this is further grounds to consider not returning these rights. --Brian McNeil / talk 06:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Snape is blocked on Wikipedia for sockpuppetry; xyr intervention here would appear an attempt to inject dramah. --Brian McNeil / talk 06:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Votes

 * as nominator. --Pi zero (talk) 14:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * On the basis of what is publically available. If Diego has details we are not party to, then I will reconsider when/if they are shared publically. If he does not wish to share something, then ArbCom will have to step in and figure out what's going on and what can and cannot be revealed. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 14:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * We are not some trashy tabloid that deletes things that people may be embarrassed about.
 * There are a wide range of options available other than deletion, and deletion of a long-archived article without at least consulting other administrators privately is unacceptable.
 * If Real-life issues, such as stalking, are a concern then the image could have been removed without deleting the text. If there are serious issues with the factual accuracy of the content, which I have no reason to believe there are, then that's something to 'fess up to rather than commit a Hari.
 * In any case, the 'rouge act' merits removal of administrative privileges unless very convincing extenuating circumstances are put forward. I am minded, following this act, to speedily remove administrator privileges and restore them should reasons to do so be found, or this vote favour retention. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd favour speedy removal of admin rights, with the option to return them if a good explanation is offered either privately or publicly. I'm also concerned about the removal/deletion of his talk page, with no explanation.  (I've deleted my own stuff but it tended to be re-directs, articles that were not going to be submitted, draft templates.)  There has been other multiple deletion of pages of his with out explanation, which I feel warrant a speedy removal with possibility of restoring rights once the story is clearly understood in order to prevent future possible abuse of tools. --LauraHale (talk) 20:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * , It has been confirmed (not only once, but several times before) that he is not prepared to be an admin because his emotional inestability and foolishness. AndrésSnape (talk) 21:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Under your current account, you aren't a Wikinewsie; while we welcome input from outsiders (well, civil input, of course :-), persons from outside this project don't get a vote in these proceedings. --Pi zero (talk) 22:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I perfectly understand, I just wanted to explicitly state the reasons he did this and my opinion about this (although I'm sure that I am not the only one who thinks like me about this issue). Thanks for your feedback. AndrésSnape (talk) 22:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not much of a leap to assume Snape is one of Diego's tormentors from ED, hence striking out all comments and votes. --Brian McNeil / talk 06:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not happy to concur, but xyr failure to respond to a "Huh??" I put on his talk page indicates (in the least) an unwillingness to justify xyz rationale. --Bddpaux (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I am opposing this until I see more interaction and/or explanation from the nominee. --Gryllida 13:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems the account was compromised. There's a good chance no such interaction/explanation will be forthcoming for a very long time.  --Pi zero (talk) 13:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)