Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Removal/Tulsi Bhagat
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.
- Done, flag removed. The page says: "Requests for removal of access whose reason is other than inactivity must be supported with evidence of abusive use of the tool or other valid reason for removal." No evidence was presented, and, in fact, the user never used the flag, therefore we are talking about "other valid reason for removal", which immediately lands us into a grey zone. Some users in this discussion argue that the TA flag is potentially vulnerable and a non-trusted user can make quite some damage. Others do not find this argument convincing. Since a clear majority of users support removal, and since the question currently lacks a practical importance since the user is globally locked, I remove the flag. If Tulsi Bhagat gets unblocked and wishes to regain the flag, they may reapply and see what the community says.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tulsi Bhagat edit
Tulsi Bhagat (talk • contribs • new items • new lexemes • SUL • Block log • User rights log • User rights • xtools)
I propose removing Tulsi Bhaghat's translationadmin flag. The account is globally locked for abusing multiple accounts; while this is intended to be temporary I do believe that this indicates a lack of trust necessary for any permission on any Wikimedia site, and perhaps for editing altogether. Should they be unlocked in the future I do not think they should have access to this flag. I have just now removed the rollback flag. --Rschen7754 01:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Support removal. --Rschen7754 01:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Support removal. Geagea (talk) 02:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Support remove. MechQuester (talk) 02:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Support too many issues from this user for them to be trusted with advanced permissions here. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 05:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- This may be so, but the TA flag isn't really "advanced", it's a pretty standard editing-level flag which is only granted after review because it requires reading some documentation properly. --Vogone (talk) 05:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Support this user is not reliable. Pamputt (talk) 06:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Rschen7754: Would you mind explaining why you think it's likely he would abuse this kind of trivial flag? If we decide to block/ban this user from editing, removing the flag would be a logical measure, but unless you clarified your point, this request is plain invalid and cannot be actioned upon ("Requests for removal of access whose reason is other than inactivity must be supported with evidence of abusive use of the tool"). --Vogone (talk) 05:49, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, perhaps we shouldn't have removed the flags from TBloemink then. Also, for what it's worth, there have been complaints about his use of the flag on Meta and Commons. --Rschen7754 05:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- What does TBloemink have to do with this matter? His rights were removed upon WMF request. --Vogone (talk) 05:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The "there have been complaints" part however is relevant, perhaps you should expand on it. --Vogone (talk) 05:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, you did start the request after all... Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Removal/TBloemink. It is conduct unbecoming of someone who holds these rights. As far as this: a comment about his using the translation tags (granted, before he got the flag on Commons), and hastiness on Meta. --Rschen7754 06:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, unlike with translation admin permissions there is also a passive use aspect of ordinary admin tools, which has been abused. This aspect is not existing in this case, it's like removing autopatrolled (just in a different area). I would suggest waiting until it is clear if the community allows the user in concern to continue editing or not. We can of course leave this section here open to get some indication about the community's thoughts on this matter (concerning the TA rights), but I prefer not to act hastily until things have become clearer. --Vogone (talk) 06:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Vogone: I have also altered the language you cited, because it was not in any way supported by any request for comment or other consensus. Please don't let such loopholes in the wording get in the way of the intended effect, which is to discourage frivolous removal requests, which this is not.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, unlike with translation admin permissions there is also a passive use aspect of ordinary admin tools, which has been abused. This aspect is not existing in this case, it's like removing autopatrolled (just in a different area). I would suggest waiting until it is clear if the community allows the user in concern to continue editing or not. We can of course leave this section here open to get some indication about the community's thoughts on this matter (concerning the TA rights), but I prefer not to act hastily until things have become clearer. --Vogone (talk) 06:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, you did start the request after all... Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Removal/TBloemink. It is conduct unbecoming of someone who holds these rights. As far as this: a comment about his using the translation tags (granted, before he got the flag on Commons), and hastiness on Meta. --Rschen7754 06:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Support removal on the principle that sockpuppeteers shouldn't have advanced rights of any kind, and that this user has had a history of hat collection. @Vogone: Translation admin can be abused, especially with regard to deletion of translations and other misuse of actions that end up under FuzzyBot.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't quite see the risk with this either, but it seems they never actually used this.
--- Jura 08:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]- I irregularly do some TA activity checks and remove TAs who haven't used their permission in order to ensure all users in the TA group are still familiar with the extension (and old TAs re-familiarise before returning to activity if they haven't been using it for a very long time). If activity is the issue, don't worry, because we deal with that, anyway. --Vogone (talk) 14:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I am in agreement with the comments of Jasper Deng above, of both 12 and 16 January. There is insufficient trust to hold advance rights of any kind. The citation by Vogone on 12 January 5:49 is not supported by an rfc or consensus. I do not believe it should be used to stop a consensus for removal. - Taketa (talk) 23:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It cannot be used to "stop consensus for removal", anyway but it may give us a reason to end this discussion which is not quite necessary since translation adminship is not considered to be an advanced user right, and is entirely governed at the discretion of a bureaucrat. There are no requirements to be fulfilled to be added to that user group besides having read and understood a software documentation. Thus, this request is just as meaningful as a request to revoke autoconfirmed status from this user for no particular reason, which is why I do not see a need to act unless the community decides to revoke his editing access. --Vogone (talk) 03:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]