Wikidata

Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Administrator/ZI Jony

< 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.

 Withdrawn Special thanks for support me here for adminship, as many users couldn't trust me as a admin I'm windrow my request, I'm really tired with those who has came to fight and time has came to say good bye. -- Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 05:10, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ZI Jony edit

Vote

RfP scheduled to end after 14 July 2019 18:00 (UTC)

I would like to offer myself for the administrator position and request approval by the Wikidata community to service wikidata with sysop rights. I'd like to request adminship to fight against trolls and vandalism. I don't have a large amount of edits, but I have knowledge of the Wikidata policies. I am involved in many non-sysop tasks at Wikidata, I think that I am generally well prepared for this adminship. In case of a successful RfA I would thus help the administrator team to deal with everyday tasks. In general maintenance work to keep things clean and useful Wikidata this includes covi page supervision, property and property talk page maintenance. I'll also help others user at WD:AN, WD:RFD, WD:RFOR etc. Details about all my Wikimedia contribution can be found here. -- Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 18:00, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Votes edit

  1.  Support ZI Jony is a trusted user. I see no reason to think that he will misuse the sysop rights. Pamputt (talk) 18:31, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Support --Epìdosis 21:33, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Oppose I was originally going to oppose your request based on recent history of hat collecting, being kicked out of OTRS, your failed English Wikipedia rollback request, this request for adminship, this request for patroller, and many similar issues. However, I noticed something worse. You blatantly abused the flood flag. You've had it since the 28th of June, about 10 days. Every edit since then has not shown up in RecentChanges, and has not had the opportunity to have undergone patrolling or review. To me, the chances of this simply being a situation where you forgot is highly unlikely, especially considering the content you stated in your Wikidata:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=969991241 request that you wanted to work on took a matter of hours to do. After which, you did not remove your flood right as you had assured the reviewing bureaucrat, violating the trust with which you were granted the right. Every edit you have made in the last 10 days has been made under the flood flag, hidden from other editors. In fact, you even made this request with the flood right. This is against established policy and should result in your sanction, as per policy, not your elevation to administrator. Thank you, Vermont (talk) 21:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Oppose per Vermont's reasons for originally opposing your request; these reasons sound awfully similar to Rschen7754's rationale for opposing Dimon2711's second RfA (which you opposed, if not for the same reasons), and having shared Rschen7754's concerns about that RfA I have to also oppose this one. (With respect to the flood flag, I am also an admin on a smaller wiki where one of the other admins forgot to remove the flood flag for months, but it is far more serious to forget to remove it here, where edits in RecentChanges can get lost easily, than on a smaller wiki where monitoring every single edit is not nearly as difficult.) Mahir256 (talk) 23:06, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • On this project, it seems someone with the flood flag is able to remove it themselves, which isn't the case on many other projects. Not only is it more serious to forget to remove it, it's also easier to do so. Vermont (talk) 00:10, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Mahir256: I don’t have failed rights requests here. I learned about deletion, protection and property proposals and also have experience. It’s not same Dimon2711's second RfA. I believe that I'm capable to handle sysop rights on Wikidata. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 05:51, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Support--DiMon2711 11:56, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Support--Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Oppose I'm not strongly opposed if we need more admins, but I don't think this user is ready for it yet. I've reverted a few of Zi Jony's decisions regarding properties being ready for creation, as there didn't seem to have been a proper assessment of the discussion. By far the majority of Zi Jony's decisions along those lines were fine, but there was an element of sloppiness or something else there. Other instances of similar issues can be seen on the user's talk page. There is also an odd link to a missing archive page on the talk page, I don't understand what that is about. ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @ArthurPSmith: you know that those proposal could be "marked as ready" for creation and I'm ready to became a sysop. Archive page is not missing, was keep redlink to create. However, it has been fix for bot Archiver. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 15:09, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      @Zi Jony: Property proposals are supposed to be marked as ready once the raised issues are resolved, discussion has led to consensus (this requires that the closer actually read the discussion, not just count the icons), and the required time has passed. You have extremely frequently marked proposals as ready incorrectly. --Yair rand (talk) 01:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Oppose Replies to oppose votes above shows that they aren't yet ready to be sysop. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 15:25, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Opposeper the concerns raised by @Vermont: and @Mahir256: as Wikidata is a global project that effects most if not all other projects I don't feel as though the candidate is qualified to be entrusted with the sysop bit on this project, further the replies to the oppose votes do not instill much confidence either. Cameron11598 (talk) 15:46, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Oppose per Vermont and Mahir256. At xtools it is stated that you have 279 patrolled sites, this can get higher. You don't need to be an administrator to fight against trolls and vandalism. I appreciate your work on Wikidata, but I think this is a bit too early. I hope this won't be discouraged and that you continue with your contributions to Wikidata. - Premeditated (talk) 16:03, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  11.  Oppose for the reasons stated above by Vermont, Mahir256 and, particularly, 1997kB. I think ZI Jony would benefit from gaining more experience and knowledge of Wikidata before becoming an administrator. Simon Cobb (User:Sic19 ; talk page) 18:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  12.  Oppose for the reasons stated above by myself. --Rschen7754 18:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  13.  Oppose per Cameron11598 ToBeFree (talk) 16:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    and per Vermont. ToBeFree (talk) 17:05, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  14.  Oppose Per Vermont and others. I was ready to oppose before Vermont put it so eloquently but he said it better. Praxidicae (talk) 17:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  15.  Oppose per above. I remember reading your request for uploader on simple where you said you understand the policy but you actually didn't. And I see you did something similar with your Flooders flag here.--BRP ever 03:28, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  16.  Oppose per concerns above. Suggest taking an extended leave from requesting flags in the meanwhile. Hiàn (talk) 05:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  17.  Strong oppose doesn’t have a clue about what adminshup requires; not being able to properly assess community consensus in property discussions is a non-starter, as is failing to understand exactly what is problematic about asking for permissions to the point of hat collection.—Jasper Deng (talk) 07:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  18.  Strong support ZI is trusted, no reason why they will abuse these permission--JJBullet ❪✉❫ 09:39, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that JJBullet was found to have committed sockpuppetry and is now blocked indefinitely.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:35, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

  1.  Oppose per the concerns raised by @Vermont: and @Mahir256: as Wikidata is a global project that effects most if not all other projects I don't feel as though the candidate is qualified to be entrusted with the sysop bit on this project, further the replies to the oppose votes do not instill much confidence either. Cameron11598 (talk) 15:46, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Comment to people voting above, please bear in mind that this is a request for adminship at Wikidata. --- Jura 16:10, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jura1: Please point to the policy that makes my vote ineligible. Further I obviously realize this is Wikidata however are you saying that Wikidata doesn't effect other projects? Actions on Wikidata much like Commons and Meta have effects on other projects and to argue otherwise is narrow minded at best. Cameron11598 (talk) 16:16, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Please get acquainted with the project and its policies before commenting on people's adminship qualifications. --- Jura 16:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Show me the policy where the number 100 comes from. Cameron11598 (talk) 16:24, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Indentation fixed, main problem solved ToBeFree (talk) 16:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cameron11598: Read the third bullet point of Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Administrator/Header/en. Mahir256 (talk) 16:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Mahir256, the point seems to be exactly that this "third bullet point" lacks a justification so far, for example a page that documents community consensus or the poll that led to the addition of this point. ToBeFree (talk) 16:44, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Cameron11598, I think I have found it, at Special:Diff/367061628 and Wikidata:Requests for comment/RfP voting eligibility. ToBeFree (talk) 16:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    What a terrible policy for a global project. Cameron11598 (talk) 17:33, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Requiring users to at least show some evidence of understanding Wikidata's very unique local needs (for example, property creation discussions are unique to the project) before commenting on permissions requests is more than reasonable. Your ineligibility to vote in this request didn't affect the ultimate outcome so in particular I really don't see the problem here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:40, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't magically change who we are when we change the URL in our browser. Behavior is behavior, and maturity is maturity. --Rschen7754 18:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Oppose I was originally going to oppose your request based on recent history of hat collecting, being kicked out of OTRS, your failed English Wikipedia rollback request, this request for adminship, this request for patroller, and many similar issues. However, I noticed something worse. You blatantly abused the flood flag. You've had it since the 28th of June, about 10 days. Every edit since then has not shown up in RecentChanges, and has not had the opportunity to have undergone patrolling or review. To me, the chances of this simply being a situation where you forgot is highly unlikely, especially considering the content you stated in your Wikidata:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=969991241 request that you wanted to work on took a matter of hours to do. After which, you did not remove your flood right as you had assured the reviewing bureaucrat, violating the trust with which you were granted the right. Every edit you have made in the last 10 days has been made under the flood flag, hidden from other editors. In fact, you even made this request with the flood right. This is against established policy and should result in your sanction, as per policy, not your elevation to administrator. Thank you, Vermont (talk) 21:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. @Vermont, Mahir256, 1997kB, Cameron11598, Premeditated, Sic19:@Rschen7754, ToBeFree, ArthurPSmith, Yair rand, Praxidicae: I've a question to all of you, as I understand failed request validity are 3 months maximum, but all of you are talking 6 months or more also that's from others projects. why? Please explain that which taska has not done for adminship, or I've to complete something else for adminship. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 17:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to me that you think that adminship is a reward for meeting bare minimum eligibility on some arbitrary checklist. It is not. It is about trust and competence, as well as conflict resolution skills. I don't see that here. Praxidicae (talk) 18:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Praxidicae: I know that adminship is a reward and I never think that but you doesn't know about my contribution how you could say that I'm not trusted user on Wikidata. I've conflict about my resolution skills. Also for your kind information that most of your edits are automated edits. @Vermont: is a personal attacker for me because wherever he/she even has no edits but will come to involve on my request at all projects. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 18:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ZI Jony That is the exact opposite of what I said, but just supports my statement as being correct. Praxidicae (talk) 18:41, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ZI Jony, you indeed is trusted user, but I oppose the way you handled that flood flag and removed when it's brought up in this RfA. Also your reply to ArthurPSmith where you said – I'm ready to became a sysop reflect that you doesn't want to listen to community input, which I think an admin shouldn't do. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 03:57, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@ZI Jony: Adminship is not a reward or trophy, thinking of it as such will net an automatic oppose from many people including me.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:40, 11 July 2019 (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/ZI_Jony&oldid=990189191"