Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Removal/Tempodivalse (admin/bureaucrat/reviewer)

Closed per user request and SNOW. Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 17:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Bureaucrat, Administrator, and Reviewer rights.

Whilst this user performed admirably in a janitorial role, youth and inexperience led them to risk the integrity of this project, it's listing on Google News, and exposure of contributors to legal action for libel.

An outstanding command of English misled me regarding Xyr age, so when treated - and cussed out - as I would a mature adult taking a ridiculous decision, we ended in dispute where Xe resigned from the project.

What upset me most over this was 'fishing' for access to accredited reporter tools & facilities. I offered best-effort credentials under a pseudonym if xe would ID with the foundation. Being informed that Mike Godwin, a former staffer with the EFF, would not be trusted was, well,... ridiculous.

I'd happily see Tempo back with current rights in four or five years; that being, provided xe will ID, xe has some experience outside the cotton wool wrapper xyr parents provide, and truly understands what xyr interpretation of AGF risks in terms of this project's mission. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Now, if this sub is hosed, someone fix it. I'm still on fieldwork.

(I've moved it to the RfD page, and somewhat adjusted the structure. --Pi zero (talk) 11:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC))

General data
RfPs for this user: 
 * Links for Tempodivalse:

Please keep discussion constructive and civil.

Comments and questions

 * To clarify: Brian McNeil made the nom. There were formatting problems, due to a state of the RfP page that there's a consensus to change but it hasn't actually gotten changed yet, and the nom kind of got lost; I just moved the nom here.  I'm not a co-nominator or something.  I'll write a separate comment about the substance of the nomination.  --Pi zero (talk) 12:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Is there an actual abuse of privileges associated with this nomination? That would, I think, be at the top of a pretty short list of valid reasons for de-crat/sysop.  Evidence of untrustworthiness without actual abuse might become a valid reason if it was strong enough.  I notice that the nomination does not suggest that privileges should be removed because the user has retired.
 * Tempo's youth isn't really a credible scapegoat for Tempo's reaction to being excoriated bluely; pretty much everyone seems to have agreed that Brian's behavior was out of line, including those who (like me) voted against de-crat/sysoping Brian for it.
 * A major argument against de-crat/sysoping Brian was that Brian hadn't actually abused privs. So if Tempo didn't abuse the privs either, Brian would seem to be in an especially weak position for this nomination.
 * It's not evident to me that Tempo's advocacy for AGF (later AGI) demonstrates the extraordinary level of bad judgment that would make it relevant here. I'm not aware that Tempo advocated imposing inappropriate aspects of AGF on Wikinews:  when I suggested calling it AGI instead of AGF, Tempo (like Brian) liked the idea.  When I added to the AGI essay explicit statements that AGI doesn't apply to things like deciding what to publish, Tempo was quite enthusiastic about it.
 * --Pi zero (talk) 15:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't buy into the view that abuse of rights is vital for a de-whatever; neither do I buy into the view that such abuse always makes such a move vital, just to get that one out the way.
 * AGF/I was an issue where I felt Tempo's judgement was bad, but on a political level - until Tempo (and others) were so keen to unblock Saki/Saqib. The result of that was.... Well, we all saw the interview. I forget if Tempo et al specifically said this was in the name of AGI/F, but that was the apparent mindset. I assume this is where Brian was going with the idea of exposing contributors to libel and risking the GNews listing.
 * Whilst I disagree with Brian that Tempo hiding xyr age was in and of itself a problem (I kept my own gob largely shut on same for a while when I showed up here), seeking access to the Wikinewsie facilities under a pseudoname, without explaining why publicly or privately (and using a questionable excuse), is a trust issue. Tempo could merely say that xe didn't wish to reveal xyr identity - a reasonable and accurate comment - and then either left it at that or opened a wider discussion on the pseudoname problem. In mitigation, Tempo may have felt trapped and pressured into making an excuse instead of recognising that xe had already had a sufficient reason to reject even the compromise offer presented.
 * To respond to Bawolff below, political disagreement comes into play, but if another user is genuinely concerned about someone's politics possibly affecting the site, then that may require action. I note that the vendetta idea is ironic, given the vendetta Tempo is waging on Wikipedia. That is, frankly, cross-wiki abuse on xyr part; I have long held that a user importing WP disputes to WN could expect rollback and/or block. The reverse should be true for WP, though of course, WP takes a gentler, slower approach to solving trouble.
 * To sum up, whilst there are issues raised that are 'valid', I doubt highly that they are strong enough (by an order of magnitude or five) to warrant removal of privs. These are political disputes; whilst I have said such can sometimes be grounds here, that is not the case. Dialogue could still, I think, have made headway. I note that Tempo, too, was guilty of walking away from dispute resolution. I also view placing Reviewer onto this nom as very unnecessary; sure, it's easy come, easy go - but is there really anything here that would require an Easy Go when the Come is so easy to regain anyway? Even if the other privs were removed, I find it hard to justify loss of Reviewer.
 * As Pi Zero mentioned briefly, the nom doesn't address the elephant in the room: this user isn't on the project any more. Bearing in mind that I support removal of privs for inactive sysops and expiry of accreditation, I'd be happy to support a nom on those grounds. I believe there may be others still with privs who retired (though they may all have resigned everything). They should also have them removed, and ideally this should be done in one big batch. They would remain users in good standing. Now... Is there to be any follow-up to this, or am I forced to oppose this nom? Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 17:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Good points. One thing I thought i should mention is that the saki interview (14 May 2010) came before saki was unblocked(19:57, 24 June 2010). Claiming that the interview was a negative result of Tempo's positions on agf is fallacious as it happened before tempo did anything. Bawolff ☺☻ 17:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I remembered it the other way around. Obviously, still an issue to my mind that such a user would be unblocked, but you're correct that the interview wasn't a consequence; rather, a circumstance. My recollection of the events was that there was a gap between publication and outcry over that article - was Saki unblocked in the lull in between? If so, the interview becomes an irrelevance to my comment. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 17:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * comment: It is considered extremely good security practice to only give those rights as are actually needed and in use, and when they are not needed or not in use to remove them. No implications for anything, just that it's best practice to reduce the number of people who have privileges to only those who need and use them. -  Amgine | t 04:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think I have sufficient standing in the community to vote and have it matter (although you probably know where I stand anyway). That said, I do have a few thoughts on this.
 * I'm wondering about the timing of this. Tempo's been gone for nearly two months, so why is it now that Brian chooses to submit this? I mean, the way the nom is worded, the only reason this is happening is because Brian disagreed with Tempo. Old news, that. But why, since Brian's disagreed/fought with Tempo for god knows how long, did he choose to bring this up now? Why not right after the alleged mistakes, 'cause that would make a lot more sense to me than bringing it up as a sort of punitive punishment. This feels to me more like kicking the guy when he's already down.
 * I also take issue with the substance of the nom, as I don't think there's anything Brian claims that's worthy of removal of priviledges.
 * I'm going to basically assume that the integrity of this project, GNews listing, and legal stuff was about the Saki interview. That, I think, is an incredible exaggeration. The interview, was, yes, a royal fuck-up on all of our parts, but at the time we published it, there was no way to know that it was anything out of the ordinary. As for Tempo's actions in response to that, I entirely fail to see how supporting Saki risked the integrity of the project.  Saki apparently screwed up the interview (Brian has not seen fit to release the tiniest part of his communications with Creative Commons, which is understandable, but means I have to make an analysis based on what he says, and after Matthewedwards, I don't trust Brian to tell us each side of the story), but there was no indication that was deliberate, and Saki was therefore deserving of our support, as long as he was trying to help the community, which I, and apparently Tempo, felt was the case. Saying that Tempo risked permenantly damaging the site is being awfully melodramatic; his only sin was trying to retain a contributor. Whatever risk to the project was possible was exclusively due to the interview, which, IIRC, Tempo had nothing to do with. (This of course brings up another question: Me and Benny both also supported Saki's unblock, so why has Brian failed to nominate us for desysopping, in my case, or...something evil, in Benny's case?)
 * As for the part about Mike Godwin, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, but it seems that Tempo didn't want to reveal his identity/age. Only thing is, he didn't want to reveal it to the foundation. That is ridiculous. There is no reason in hell why Tempo should be shot down for wanting to remain anonymous, especially if he's a minor. What is the possible relation between his anonymity and his 'crat/sysop rights?
 * Lastly, I find it highly ironic that Brian's desysop nomination failed due to a lack of abuse of the powers, not the position, of authority, and now he's nominating someone in the exact same position--no abuse of the tools, but alledged abuse of the position. I'm not entirely sure why he expects this to have a different outcome.
 * -C628 (talk) 14:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Apologies for the edit loss; this section exceeds phone browser limitations. Revert this edit and mark this nom as closed per submitter request and "SNOW". I have been advised, as mentioned below, of crosswiki stalking and vendetta. I will raise that with an enWP 'crat or admin. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Votes

 * It appears as if Brianmc has a personal vendeta against this user. This request seems to boil down to, this user politically disagreed with me, and therefor is harmful to Wikinews. As a note, the only semi-valid rationale I see here is the saying "I don't want to identify because I don't trust Mike". However, Tempo was a minor, and wished to keep this private (which is perfectly reasonable on the Internet, all identification should be voluntary). What was he supposed to say - I don't want to identify because I'm a minor? That would obviously not work to keep that aspect of his life private. Bawolff ☺☻ 15:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've seen no abuse of any rights by Tempo therefore there are no grounds for revocation of rights. — Mike moral  ♪♫  17:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Tempodivalse has not abused his tools. By contrast, he always did (and still can) do a great job on Wikinews; always enthusiastic and helpful. --Diego Grez return fire 19:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * , obviously. Those who can walk away from dispute resolution, and this project, in a petulant frenzy are most definitely not deserving of 'crat rights. I am reliably informed this user is running a 'whispering campaign'/personal vendetta against me In The Other Place. That alone should be grounds to lose rights. There are numerous sub-age-of-consent contributors here that I've backed to the hilt - they never lied to me, even as "lies of ommission". That the user in question, as noted, walked away from their only attempt at dispute resolution with myself, then promptly retired, should - I believe - be grounds enough to strip of all privs. Supporting Saki/Saqib showed a breathtaking naiveté that no 'crat on this project should have. If someone feels this is 'politically motivated' and de-priv for resignation is more appropriate, then just do it. Once Xe has some real 'life experience', I'll be happy to consider them a user in good standing for reviewer, and possibly admin. But, I would not give back 'crat rights until Xe genuinely demonstrated an understanding of this project. It is not Wikipedia, it never will be, that despite xyr strenuous efforts to make it so. The 'deception by omission' is just the icing on the cake here; calling Mike Godwin untrustworthy to hide that you're under 18 should be grounds for instant removal of privs; it is impuning the man's professional standing to hide something nobody on this project gives a damn about. --Brian McNeil / talk 01:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think concensus is current "Something someone does at The Other Place should not impact what happens here." Whether this is politically motivated, I don't care. Tempo's views on Mike Godwin are Tempo's views, enough said--RockerballAustralia c 07:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I see no abuse or misuse of the tools in this situation. red  - thunder  .  14:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * in present form. My massive deconstruction above of any real or possible faults of Tempo's leads me to conclude that the only possible one with de-everything consequences is the crosswiki vendetta. Since it's all about stuff on this site, and not on WP, I would take the view that it is relevant. However, the main substance of the nom doesn't deal with this issue. I would suggest that this nom be withdrawn, and recreated to allow us to decide if we want to 1) remove all rights as the user is retired (I do) or 2) consider his good standing lost over the crosswiki issue - which is possible, though I doubt it will happen. In the interests of openess, I'll say right now I'm about to email Brian suggesting that very outcome. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 14:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)