Wikidata

Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Administrator/WT20 2

< Wikidata:Requests for permissions‎ | Administrator

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closed as unsuccessful--Ymblanter (talk) 19:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WT20 2 edit

Vote

RfP scheduled to end after 22 February 2024 17:46 (UTC)

Hi.This is my 2nd apply I'm active on Wikidata.I am applying for sysop permission on Wikidata. I want to do more to help fight vandalism on Wikidata. I request to delete, protect and block by myself admin rights that I identify and need in my daily work here. I already did requests at WD:RFD and WD:AN and I know the policies of this tools.Thank you.WT20 (talk) 17:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Votes edit

  1.  Support Probably still a bit early, but I do not have real concerns --Ameisenigel (talk) 13:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Neutral I think I will have to second the cheerful echidna here, probably a little early still. I think I would give a supporting vote once I feel you're a tad more familiar with how things work on Wikidata. I hear doing patrolling is the fastest way to become an admin, but other experience is certainly relevant. E.g. if you help out creating properties I would vote in favor. Infrastruktur (talk) 16:54, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @InfrastrukturMy patrol 705, Also I have good experience with mediawiki because I am a freelancer mediawiki developer, also I am aware of all wikidata rules. WT20 (talk) 17:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Oppose His level of false positive in WD:RfD is too high. I'm actually skeptic this is user make the difference between a new user and a spammer. I like just warn him 5 days ago for this behaviour after he submited 13 taxons in RFD. (User talk:WT20#Taxons). Also his request in Wikidata:Requests for checkuser/Case/Vcldead two weeks ago create a whole mess as he block a study whole group. Far too early. --Fralambert (talk) 13:49, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The taxons were all empty with no data so I requested to delete them.After that as well I said on his talk page then there was a resolution through a discussion.And to the second check user I request that since their behavior and contribution was the same, it is a misunderstanding caused by the check user.Also, those users do not mention their competition in Wikidata.Although it was a check user opinion I can't say anything about it.All in all I have contributed here based on the situation.Thank you. WT20 (talk) 15:08, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Oppose this user is probably of goodwill but he confuses quality and quantity (which leads to errors as Fralambert clearly demonstrated above). My advise would be to  Wait, slow down a bit and make better edits before reapplying again (the last request for adminship was less than 2 months ago, not much has change since and rather on the bad side :/). Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 16:12, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Support Why not? To be better at wikidata. keep up the spirit to contribute constructively. Thank you for helping us. Murbaut (talk) 19:15, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Oppose per canvassing. Personal communication on Telegram, not asked for a vote, but the nomination page was sent without introducing oneself. Doǵu (talk) 20:08, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Doǵu what? I'm not WT20 (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Happened on the unofficial Wikipedia Discord server in the Wikidata channel as well. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Oppose per VIGNERON (only). Mahir256 (talk) 01:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Oppose --WikiBayer (talk) 07:52, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Neutral For now, per my comment below. I haven't really seen the context behind the "canvassing", I'm usually not really a fan of that, but, it's not the biggest reason for my vote. Now, if this does not succeed I have nothing against granting rollback. EPIC (talk) 09:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Neutral --Rzuwig► 12:12, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  11.  Oppose too many concerns per above, and the canvassing is the nail in the coffin. Queen of Hearts (talk) 19:35, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  12.  Neutral, I'm not sure about this one. There are concerns, but I believe this editor is trying to behave in good faith. I think WT20 should  Wait, demonstrate improved conduct, and then re-file. —Tomodachi94 (talk) 19:52, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  13.  Neutral – I believe that WT20 wants to contribute to the project in good faith, and am not too concerned about the lack of crosswiki activity that EPIC mentions. I feel, though, that they should slow down a bit and focus on quality rather than quantity. I picked a RFD archive at random and landed on February 12; in addition to the taxons mentioned by Fralambert, there were two other items (I Am Morbid (Q124423652) and Bernard Binetruy (Q124423505)) tagged as lacking notability that were kept as notable. I think they should focus in obtaining other rights, such as rollback, first. –FlyingAce✈hello 22:29, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  14.  Oppose per VIGNERON --Emu (talk) 08:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  15.  Oppose Multichill (talk) 20:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  16.  Oppose Has been flooding WD:RfD. Some of the requests are false positives, and some are made very soon after the item's creation. I would not trust this user with the power to delete items.--DrGavinR (talk) 20:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

  • I won't vote just yet, because I don't know what to vote, but I will list some good/less good stuff.
 Plus for being active, frequent reports on RfD (it gives me more work to do, so I'm thankful for that) and overall good work.
 Minus for sometimes a bit too quick on RfD or sometimes reporting too many items at once. It clogs up our backlog, which is already really large (we have went from 40 to 150+ reports in just a month). Therefore, sometimes consider making bulk deletion requests. And, like last time, it would be good to see some activity outside of Wikidata. That in itself is of course by itself not a reason to oppose, but considering that Wikidata is a database for all of Wikimedia wikis, a little more than one SUL edit outside of Wikidata would be good.
I don't know how to weigh in on this though and will wait a bit. EPIC (talk) 17:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two days done.I have made admin request but no one is giving any feedback my question is is no one aware

Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Administrator/WT20 2 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Requests_for_permissions/Administrator/WT20_2 WT20 (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you're trying to say which is concerning because your user page says you are fluent in english. BrokenSegue (talk) 20:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BrokenSegue: WT20 is quoting what was written in the Discord channel. - Premeditated (talk) 14:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Requests_for_permissions/Administrator/WT20_2&oldid=2084028003"