Wikidata:Requests for permissions/RfRemoval/2017

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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]

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

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 Consensus on most of these requests. Some of the mentioned accounts have seperate explanation. Lymantria (talk) 06:42, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inactive bot accounts[edit]

I propose to remove bot flags from these accounts. There is no point keeping the bot-flag infinitely.

Both the bot and its operator are inactive for two years:

The bot is inactive for two years, and have no active tasks:

Other bots inactive for two years (this may be controversial)

--GZWDer (talk) 20:16, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Support for those with no tasks and with operators absent, the rest  Neutral except for SDrewthbot, MedalBot, InfoRobBot, and Chembot the revocation of whose bot-flags I  Oppose since their operators have been active on the site fairly recently (@Billinghurst, John Vandenberg, TomT0m, Snipre:. Mahir256 (talk) 21:53, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I had forgotten that I had asked for it (RL!) as I had been mostly operating with real edits with merges and repair work. I definitely should be doing any widar work with the account, rather than my main account.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:32, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For the first group of listed accounts I will probably agree with removal of rights, since both the bot and its operator are inactive for two years.
For the rest, probably it's necessary to notify also each bot operator, and after waiting several days (a week?) there can be proceeded to removal of bot rights if there are no objections from bot-ops. XXN, 11:15, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have post a message to all operators' talk pages. Right of ZaBOTka can be removed per User_talk:Zanka#ZaBOTka.--GZWDer (talk) 12:48, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to remove my Nicolas bot's permission, thanks! Syced (talk) 14:30, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
HaxpettBot's flag can be removed also, thanks. /Haxpett (talk) 08:09, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You can remove the botflag from my bot : Botapyb. Thx Pyb (talk) 08:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose removing botflags from bots where the operator is active on Wikidata. Let's define active as having done at least one edit in 2017. All the others: Sure, do the house keeping. Multichill (talk) 19:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment The DBpedia-mapper-bot goal is to map ontology terms between Wikidata and DBpedia. Since the DBpedia ontology is quite consolidated, it has no big variations over time. As such, the bot is expected to run a few times, but should not be considered as inactive. Please do not remove its bot flag, thanks. --Hjfocs (talk) 08:32, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Right of CalakBot can be removed. See User_talk:Calak#CalakBot.--GZWDer (talk) 18:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As a simple housekeeping measure, it is quite reasonable. However, the removal of the flag might discourage some operators from doing casual bot work just to avoid going through the process of requesting the flag back. --Ricordisamoa 01:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have removed bot flags from the first and second groups of bots as there is consensus to remove it and operators did not respond in over 10 days. I think for the the third group, where an operator is active or bots have active tasks, at least a longer waiting and response period is needed. Besides some people have expressed thoughts about (parts of) this group. Lymantria (talk) 06:19, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bot holders have had another two months of reaction time. I removed the bot flags when bot holders did not respond to the notification by GZWDer. Responses are included in the list above. Lymantria (talk) 06:42, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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.

Flag removed--Ymblanter (talk) 07:35, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Goo1Bot[edit]

Goo1Bot (talk • contribs • new items • new lexemes • SUL • Block log • User rights log • User rights • xtools)

This bot has been blocked for almost a year now. I don't think a botflag is appropriate anymore. Therefore I request removal of the botflag. Lymantria (talk) 13:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The flag needs to be removed--Ymblanter (talk) 13:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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.

Innocent bystander[edit]

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

I'm into a wikibreak! If it is for life or only for the rest of the year, I do not know. But I do not intend to use this account anymore! Yours! -- Innocent bystander (talk) 20:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You only have a rollbacker flag. Is this what you want to have removed?--Ymblanter (talk) 11:40, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yepp!!! -- 109.228.149.82 14:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The password of the Innocent bystander-account has been deleted, and will not be restored! If you look at the block-history of this IP at svwp, you can see that it has been verified as a puppet to Innocent bystander! -- 109.228.149.82 19:12, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done--Ymblanter (talk) 19:17, 22 November 2017 (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/2017&oldid=994885123"