Wikidata

Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Oversight/Kostas20142

< Wikidata:Requests for permissions | Oversight
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 successful, in any case above 25 support votes with above 80% support rate--Ymblanter (talk) 14:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kostas20142

edit

Vote
RfP scheduled to end at 1 June 2020 14:18 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to present Kostas20142 as a candidate for oversighter on Wikidata. He is an active contributor and admin on Wikidata, also a global rollbacker and admin on Meta. Kostas20142 is also often available on IRC. He has signed the required agreements with the Foundation and understands the privacy and oversight policies and is reasonable in his actions on wikis. It's important to have active oversighters so the requests are processed quickly. His timezone is UTC+2 (+3 in summer) so he can fill some gaps. --Stryn (talk) 14:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's acceptance: It's a great honor for me to accept this nomination. Should this RfP be successful, I will mostly be available to handle requests from 06:00 UTC to 22:00 UTC either at IRC or via email --Kostas20142 (talk) 14:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

edit
  1. Support as nominator Stryn (talk) 14:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Support would be good to have another OS or two, and the candidate is trusted enough to use the tools properly. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 14:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Support --Epìdosis 14:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Support -- Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 16:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Support --Rschen7754 18:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Leaning support recent, but confident —Eihel (talk) 19:36, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support, no concerns. Competent and trustworthy. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat [ contribs | talk ] 03:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Support --Alaa :)..! 05:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Support --Sotiale (talk) 05:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Support ‐‐1997kB (talk) 06:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  11.  Support We badly need more oversighters to not overburden the existing team.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  12.  Support MisterSynergy (talk) 11:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  13.  Support --Fralambert (talk) 12:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  14.  Support Sure, no concerns.Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  15.  Support almost forgot to add me here.-BRP ever 13:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  16.  Support, thanks for volunteering! Bencemac (talk) 07:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  17.  Support Competent and trusted. Minorax (talk) 09:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  18.  Support · Sure! -- CptViraj () 13:27, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  19.  Support No concerns. ~riley (talk) 19:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  20.  Support ミラP 19:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  21.  Support Esteban16 (talk) 22:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  22.  Support - Premeditated (talk) 05:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  23.  Support Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:07, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  24.  Support--باسم (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  25.  Support Flixwito^(•‿•)^ 04:11, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. —Hasley 20:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  27.  Support --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 10:50, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  28.  Support --Nehaoua (talk) 15:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  29.  Weak oppose Kostas20142 has only been an administrator for two months and doesn't hold any privilege higher than sysop on any WMF site. While I don't place much value on Jura's comments because Jura is very good at finding fault with other editors, I think I want to see a longer period of sysop activity before endorsing Kostas as an oversighter. Deryck Chan (talk) 00:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    1.  Support Nnadigoodluck (talk) 13:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)not eligibile to vote due to less than 100 local non-automated edits.--GZWDer (talk) 07:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  30.  Oppose per user:Deryck Chan "has only been an administrator for two months" (I don't care about other WMF sites like Deryck seems to do) and per mass deletions as described by user:Jura1. MrProperLawAndOrder (talk) 07:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit
  •  Question given that OS changes the visibility of revision, can you explain why you changed the visibility of the username at [1]. Was there a request for it? Why is the connected edit still visible [2], but can't be attributed any more? --- Jura 14:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The username itself (inappropriate username, has been blocked as a known lta) was the content that fell under the scope or the revision deletion policy, but as you understand I cannot be too specific without undoing the purpose of the revdel. The actual edit or the edit summary have no such content and thus remain intact. --Kostas20142 (talk) 15:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What was "inappropriate" about the username? --- Jura 06:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The username was an attack name against a steward. It is common practice (and allowed in policy) to delete those usernames, or even suppress them, as both a way of denying recognition to the vandal and removing negative/PI-revealing statements about a user from the archived revisions and automatically-generated lists. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 14:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why is there no explanation in the log? We now have a series of edits that can't be attributed. --- Jura 15:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What? There is an explanation saying Inappropriate username. And you are worried about giving attribution to vandals? But as Ajraddatz explained this is common practice and these edits are still attribute to same vandal account but not visible to public. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The edit is now disconnected from any other edits/account. --- Jura 10:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity, you are asking about the log or the RfP? --Kostas20142 (talk) 16:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The comment given by Ajraddatz at 14:31, 19 May 2020 as you mentioned earlier (15:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC) that you can't be too specific. --- Jura 16:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ajraddatz's comment was not much more specific than Kostas20142's. Kostas' response is more than adequate.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Generally speaking, I don't feel very comfortable discussing many details on hidden content and especially in highly visible areas because it might have the opposite effect than the hide (by attracting more attention). So, since I considered the explanation adequate, I opted not to further elaborate. That doesn't mean however that Ajraddatz's explanation contains anything that shouldn't be shared per se.--Kostas20142 (talk) 07:06, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can we know who the suspected LTA/vandal is? --- Jura 10:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jura1:, what does that have to do with the revdel? The username was hidden because it was inappropirate and offensive and all the admins who read your question have probably seen and verified that. I consider it highly inappropirate that you have highlighted a username that needed to be deleted because it was considered attack on someone. So, please stop giving it more attention than it has already got.-BRP ever 12:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's explained at the beginning. The discussion is about Kostas20142 experience, suitability and reasoning relative to the permission he seeks. As I don't recall the username, I can't really mention or highlight it. As I understand it the username was deleted not because of the username of the LTA/vandal, but the because of the reference to a steward. An understandable reason, Ajraddatz explained it above. Still, I don't see why the name of the suspected vandal/LTA (which can have a different name) would be a secret. --- Jura 12:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jura1: And that's going out of scope of this right. Also we denying recognition as Ajraddatz mentioned above.-BRP ever 12:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So that point should be discussed elsewhere? --- Jura 12:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Considering someone may be offended because you are giving attention to the deleted attack on them, I recommend stopping it here. Knowing who it is doesn't make it more or less inappropirate.-BRP ever 12:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that according to Wikidata:Deletion policy, this isn't mandatory; of course the appropriate procedure can be followed to change this. Also:
  1. All my deletions on 1 May 2020 unless have another rationale were completely empty item creations.
  2. All deletions that include RfD in log use prefilled rationale provided by the template.
  3. A handful of deletions are mass deletions. If not apparent by relevant block I have been adding more details but the feature doesn't support including labels.
I am always available to provide more details about a deleted item or Lexeme at my talkpage or at WD:AN. --Kostas20142 (talk) 15:31, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can you review your approach to deletions and ensure that going forward, the log includes the label? MisterSynergy, who frequently does mass deletions, might be able to help you configure this correctly. This avoid that you suppress information that is generally thought to be useful. --- Jura 08:13, 21 May 2020 (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/Oversight/Kostas20142&oldid=1216411284"