Wikidata

Wikidata:Requests for permissions/RfRemoval/2013

< Wikidata:Requests for permissions

March 2013 edit

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.

According to the administrator policy, 50% support is required for removal of that right. However, since there was none agreed for this right, I've decided to base the closing of this discussion based on the agreed 50%, and in that case, since there were over 12 votes and only 3 opposes, with most people in favor of removal, I'll remove the rollback right from Leemon2010. — Hazard-SJ  ✈  04:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leemon2010 edit

Leemon2010 (talk • contribs • new items • new lexemes • SUL • Block log • User rights log • User rights • xtools) In light of this ongoing discussion, I propose that Leemon2010 be stripped of his rollback privileges. (This has already been done by DangSunM, but reverted by Vogone pending discussion, which is why I'm bringing this here instead of doing it myself.) Leemon is a CU-confirmed sockmaster who used a puppet to vote on his own RFA and the RFAs of several others. The way I see it, there are two interpretations: Either he knew what he was doing was wrong, or he didn't. If the former, then he's clearly breached the community's trust, and his possession of additional tools poses a threat; if the latter, then he clearly doesn't know enough about Wikimedia projects to hold a right that requires the ability to distinguish between positive and negative contributions. Furthermore, while rights removals shouldn't be punitive, it's also important for him to know that the community condemns actions such as these, and that there are serious consequences for them (I therefore see this as preventing any incentivization toward further socking.) — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 21:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further investigation of the matter, I change my vote to   Support FrigidNinja 22:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support per Rschen7754. User rights require trust, which I do not feel Leemon2010 has any more.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support per above --Iste (D) 22:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - per Vogone essentially. Rollback is such a minor right that I don't see the need to remove it just to prove that the user had lost the confidence of the community, but at the same time, they have lost the confidence of the community. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm torn - On the one hand, how do we prevent the Big Deal Syndrome present on en.Wikipedia (and elsewhere) if we tie permissions to bad faith actions or choices which have nothing to do with them? On the other hand, there is a consensus view that trust is one of the main things necessary for any tool. Maybe the first is a question that should be asked and answered elsewhere? Thoughts? --Izno (talk) 22:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll move to a full support of removal, without prejudice to future return of the tool (keeping in mind Pink's and Moe's comments). There's just too much a stink of hat collecting right now for me to leave it at "I'm torn". If the user can show that he is active in antivandalism efforts, and chooses not to continue to use sockpuppets, I would have no problem granting the tool myself. Quite frankly, after a review of his contributions, I'm not quite sure why he was granted the tool; there's not a single vandalism revert among his nearly 1k contributions, which I suppose kind of accounts for arguments about "it's just a button". It's just a button which isn't being used, anyway. --Izno (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose as I don't see how the rollback flag for this user would harm Wikidata. Removing the rollback flag wouldn't help anyone. It's just a botton, a minor right. And I don't see how removing a right should be a better way to sanction him than a block lasting 3 days or a week. Lukas²³ talk in German Contribs 22:30, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    After having sockpupped his RfA, he wrote:
    «So, i think ,No one support to me. so sad, that, no one trust to me & said, that i have no experience :(»
    ... --Ricordisamoa 22:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rights removals shouldn't be punitive, but I can't see a rollbacker with sockpuppets... what would a Wikidata-newbie think of our community? --Ricordisamoa 22:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support with conditions. Obviously, this a huge violation of trust on the part of Leemon2010, but I don't think it should condemn him to punishment for the rest of his wiki-career. We should remove tools of trust when editors no longer have our trust, but it should be more probationary than anything. After a pre-determined period, and a guarantee he is no longer going to sock, he can be given given back his rollback tool once we trust him with it again. Obviously it will take a much longer period and a whole lot of good faith in our community to give him permissions of higher trust. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 23:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •   strong support! --Ricordisamoa 00:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. As I said, I think a main issue here is that Leemon's actions show that he really doesn't know enough about Wikimedia projects to hold this right. I sympathize with Izno's point about "big deal syndrome", but I think it's worth remembering that our distribution of rollback so far has been more or less entirely based on "cluefulness"... does the user know enough to tell good-faith from bad-faith, and constructive from unconstructive? IMHO, a user who doesn't know that sockpuppetry is bad (which is what I suspect was the case here) doesn't know enough to hold a right that can often lead to very uncomfortable situations for new users, at a time when we're trying to make our wiki as user-friendly as possible. Of course, as many have noted, it's only one less click, but just as admins can tend to view actions as taken decidedly in an administrative capacity or in a non-administrative capacity, that one missing click for rollbackers can make them a bit more cavalier about their reverts.
    All this is to say: There's a clear problem with what Leemon's done. It's a problem that I feel to be incompatible with the right he's been given. But the day Wikidata stops forgiving people easily is the day we degrade into a cesspool of drama like certain sister projects I could mention. I think if Leemon can show that he can edit constructively here over the course of the next month or two, then I'd have no problem reinstating the bit. Moe, if you'd like to propose some more formal system (e.g. automatically restoring the right after a certain amount of time if no other problems have been found), I'd be interested to hear that. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 02:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Weak support for deletion, an user is not a trusted anymore, but he hasn't used his rollback rights or anything else wrong. Just because of sock puppeting, and it's of course serious reason. --Stryn (talk) 07:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support per Rschen7754, can't be trusted to get rollbacker--DangSunM (talk) 11:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose (if I may vote) for reasons I wrote here [1]: Rollback is not a very far-reaching tool, it more or less only requires that you trust the user to rollback vandalism correctly. --MF-W 00:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

June 2013 edit

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.

Looking at the matter, there is no call for the removal of rollback as the user has not abused the right. On the socking situation, there is no evidence that the user has done this on Wikidata. Should that be confirmed that is matter for administrators here. John F. Lewis (talk) 15:52, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Makecat edit

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

Abusing "Good hand" and "bad hand" accounts, and was blocked indefinitely in zhwiki. abusing sockpuppet such as [removed] which was locked and probably oversighted.--GZWDer (talk) 11:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • For the record, I've looked at the links above and at centralauth, and while it appears that he has socked on meta, enwiki, and a few other places (though I can't tell what is CU confirmed and what is not), I don't see any evidence of him socking on Wikidata, but as I have no way of knowing that the list is exhaustive, do not read Chinese, and do not hold CU at either wiki, I can't be certain. --Rschen7754 12:17, 15 June 2013 (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/RfRemoval/2013&oldid=160083197"