Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Removal/Andreasmperu

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.

Not done, no consensus for removal, however, there is consensus that certain issues are real--Ymblanter (talk) 14:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andreasmperu edit

Andreasmperu (talk • contribs • new items • new lexemes • SUL • Block log • User rights log • User rights • xtools)

With my investigation of WD:AN#Ongoing disruptive behaviour from Fractaler (2), there seems to me that this Administrator did a series of censorships on label maintaining, he deleted a lot of probably overlapped items e.g. Q38791127 which haven't mention those on the creators' talk pages, and even really duplicated, he don't know merge should be done rather than delete. This sysop, until now, by reviewing his userpages on all wikis, don't have Esperanto knowledge, but also did unfair splittion of abjad (Q185087) and consonantal alphabet (Q27948966), which by emailling a girl Esperanto native user, the respond told me that they are truely same, and she will nominate merging on eowiki. Thus, and with his other lots of non-AGF behaviors, I request to remove Administrator permission of this user. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This feels premature and should be discussed on WD:AN first. --Rs chen 7754 19:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's no Esperanto knowledge required to say that a writing system and an alphabet aren't the same thing. In addition the fact that a single Wiki has two articles is also sufficient to have two Wikidata items even when the text of the two articles is similar.

The idea that the items should be mentioned on the creators talk page seems to suggest a unfamiliarity with our current deletion practice. On EnWiki that's part of the standard workflow for deletion but it isn't on Wikidata and that nothing that's specific to Andreasmperu.

I don't think the issue with Q38791127 is about overlapping. It's about Fractaler creating a lot of items based on what is in his own head. There's no good reason to spent 2 hours debating every one of hundreds of items that Fractaler created this way as he desires. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 11:59, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Liuxinyu970226: I guess your investigation also included Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive/2017/11#Fractaler_(discusión_•_contribuciones_•_registros)_and_deletion_of_non-notable_items where some of Fractaler's absurd creations were listed. As for abjad (Q185087) and consonantal alphabet (Q27948966), two sitelinks in Esperanto Wikipedia means there has to be two items in Wikidata: it is just the way it is. I made no use of any administrator tool on there, so I am a bit confused about bringing up a content issue to judge my performance as administrator. But I do support the idea of receiving feedback. If most of the community of editors agrees with you, and think that I am damaging the project instead of benefiting it, then there is no point of me using a lot of my free time performing maintenance tasks, specially if I am being called a cancer/tyrant that is going to destroy the civilization. I don't think anybody is indispensable. Andreasm ^{háblame / just talk to me} 16:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It takes two to tango. The discussion about Fractaler showed that Andreas is as trigger-happy and curt as Fractaler in imposing his world-view upon Wikidata. I have experienced this when we tried to deal with seamanship vs maritime navigation:
1. I merged the items;
2. Andreas unmerged them without discussion;
3. I left a message on Andreas's user talk to explain why I wanted them merged;
4. He didn't reply, so a few weeks later I merged the item again;
5. He unmerged the items again without engaging in discussion;
6. Eventually I brought it up at WD:PC; Andreas did not take part in the discussion at all.
The long and unproductive list of accusations between Fractaler and Andreas showed me that Andreas really is too trigger-happy for an admin. We need to remind Andreas to be more mellow and discuss things proactively when someone disagrees with him. Removal of sysop powers is probably an overkill, but I do think a discussion about Andreas's behaviour in disputes is warranted. Given that the discussion about Fractaler had resulted in a block, I would disagree with Rschen7754 here and would suggest that there had been enough prior discussion on AN to merit a specific discussion on what Andreas should work on if he wants to continue to enjoy the community's trust as a sysop. Deryck Chan (talk) 14:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After you merged seamanship (Q351363) with marine navigation (Q3337280), I checked all the articles, and realised there were two different concepts, so I undid the wrong merge. You restored that wrong merge, so I took the time to research further, and spend almost half an hour adding labels, descriptions, and statements to both items (here and here). It was my way of proving to everybody (not just you) how those two items differ from each other. A few weeks later you opened a discussion about the matter on Project Chat. The two users that took part of the discussion told you that you were mistaken, and that the two items were in fact different. If you had taken the time to do the research, or just checked the labels, descriptions, and statements that I had added after your wrong merge, you would have spared time to other users, but I guess you just wanted to be right. I prefer to use my time adding content rather than engaging in pointless discussions (I consider pointless to just reply "please check labels, descriptions, and statements" when it would the first thing to do if somebody is saying you are wrong, and also showed minimum respect to other user's work). Again, I haven't used any of the administrator's tools for this case, so how is that you are bringing it up as a case of me abusing my sysop "powers"? As for Fractaler, it is completely pointless to discuss with him, because he just drags the conversation to wherever he wants. You actually showed an example of it in seamanship vs maritime navigation: he participates only to derails the discussion to his own concerns not to address the issue. Andreasm ^{háblame / just talk to me} 16:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andreasmperu, one legitimate concern that has been raised (and I believe it has in the past before) is the length of time it takes for you to respond to legitimate concerns raised by others. Sure, some of the editors have not exactly raised them in a civil manner, but to some extent the community at large does deserve a response, especially in the event that tools are used. What do you think about this idea? --Rs chen 7754 19:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this page was about administrators abusing their tools and being detrimental to the project. So I am, in fact, curious to know if people actually think that about my work, because that would mean I should be using my time in more productive ways. Deryck Chan talks about being a sysop as some form of reward that is supposed to cause enjoyment, while I consider it more of a responsibility. Unfortunately, I have had unpleasant experiences when engaging in lengthy discussions, so I tend to avoid them at all costs, even more when incivility is present. Nevertheless, I do communicate in other ways, by explaining my edits with summaries whenever that's possible, or adding content to clarify imprecisions. And I do keep an eye on discussions about issues I have been involved, although I'd rather observe than to participate. Only when nothing else works or some further explanation is definitely needed, I'd address directly to a user talk page. Such way of communicating has to do with my personality, but it's also a personal choice to avoid escalating a conflict whenever I consider it won't reach a solution. As for the time it takes me to reply, it depends on my availability at that moment. For instance, I have been a bit absent for the past weeks, and I don't think that would change for at least a few more, but such presence or absence is easy to check with my contributions. I think the issue here has to do with a different perspective: some users feel entitle to get a reply (even an immediate one) while I never do. Actually, I consider a privilege to get one. If I have a concern, I'd try to exhaust all options before disturbing other users, because I value other people's time over mine (my concern after all not someone else's). So the question is if such way of thinking has resulted in an abuse of my administrator tools or not. Only the whole community can answer that. Andreasm ^{háblame / just talk to me} 20:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are there people besides Fractaler that didn't get answers from Andreasmperu in a reasonable timeframe where you would object? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 12:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ChristianKl: Apparently at one point you did, see [1]. --Rs chen 7754 19:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC

@Rschen7754: That happened in the context of the case of Fractaler. I don't think that the Fractaler case alone should lead us to remove the admin flag from Andreasm. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 19:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Deryck Chan: Request for removal is a last resort not a first resort IMO. The bar is not as high here as it is on Commons but discussion at AN is generally expected before a removal request. No conclusion had come of that discussion before it was prematurely sent here. --Rs chen 7754 19:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only the whole community can answer that: It would be interesting to know (own) self-esteem of removal without discussing at least the items given in the previous discussions. Fractaler (talk) 09:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, why we still can't announce this on Special:Watchlist and Special:RecentChanges by adding an entry to this on MediaWiki:Recentchangestext? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:52, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize in advance if I misunderstood something and incorrectly formulated. But I do support the idea of receiving feedback: ok, but where, how? Unfortunately, I have had unpleasant experiences when engaging in lengthy discussions, so I tend to avoid them at all costs, even more when incivility is present, I do communicate in other ways, by explaining my edits with summaries whenever that's possible, or adding content to clarify imprecisions: maybe those who first encounter such style (rules?) of communication it would be nice to somehow warn in the greeting? Maybe then the beginners would not lose time on the attempts to communicate by generally accepted standards of communication? Ok, let's play by your rules. How editor can undo, for example Q30103061 your edits? Add summaries, content and so on? some users feel entitle to get a reply (even an immediate one) while I never do. Actually, I consider a privilege to get one: where can we see your list of privileged editors? So that unprivileged editors know why you do not answer, what to do then, where to turn to prove own rightness. --Fractaler (talk) 08:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to express only a short thought. I'm very recently on Wikidata, I will have met this administrator maybe a couple of times, but it took very little to understand that his conduct and the way to manage an administration, are really far away. What I noticed, in my small, way was an activity of continuous cancellations without explanations and his talk page is often symbolically "area of the damned without answers". On Wikipedia (Italy), this would have been enough for the removal of the tools of admin, on Wikidata, however, I do not know what it entails. --Dapifer (talk) 21:32, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So @Dapifer: I provided those archives of administrator right removal requests (except admin bots) here for references:

Cycn (self removal)
John F. Lewis (failed in that time, but also later done during WMF global ban)
TBloemink (successful)

-- Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the most part, I think Andreas is right. For example, in the "seamanship" discussion we mentioned above, I found myself in the minority when I opened up the discussion on Wikidata:Project chat and gave way to Andreas's majority opinion. I also agree that discussions can become counter-productive when discussants begin to think of it as a battle to be won or lost rather than a path towards common ground.

But I think ChristianKl raised an important question: "Are there people besides Fractaler that didn't get answers from Andreasmperu in a reasonable timeframe"? I believe Liuxinyu970226, Dapifer and I landed on this discussion for exactly this reason. Andreas said that You restored that wrong merge, so I took the time to research further, and spend almost half an hour adding labels, descriptions, and statements to both items [...] It was my way of proving to everybody (not just you) how those two items differ from each other [...] I prefer to use my time adding content rather than engaging in pointless discussions (I consider pointless to just reply "please check labels, descriptions, and statements" when it would the first thing to do if somebody is saying you are wrong, and also showed minimum respect to other user's work). While I appreciate Andreas's good intentions, his approach is often misconstrued as "censorship" (as Liuxinyu970226 puts it) because his response to a message where somebody disagrees with him is to restore the edit and then add further edits on top to show he's right, without attempting to reply to the message. In a cross-cultural project like Wikidata, it is important for editors to respond meaningfully to another editor's query, especially if it's the first time a question was raised. If there is still disagreement, one shouldn't just undo the edit and add on other edits in the hope that the other editor will understand. The appropriate thing to do is to widen up discussion and invite other editors in related fields to contribute. Deryck Chan (talk) 11:15, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.