Wikidata:Requests for permissions/RfRollback/March 2014

This page is an archive. Please do not modify it. Use the current page, even to continue an old discussion.

لطرش أحمد الهاشمي

لطرش أحمد الهاشمي (talk • contribs • new items • new lexemes • SUL • Block log • User rights log • User rights • xtools)

Hi, I would like to help with anti-vandalism efforts here on Wikidata, and I'm also a rollback, autopatrolled and reviewer on the arabic Wikipedia--A. Latreche ^✉ 17:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

•  Comment Some counter-vandalism activity here on Wikidata would be good. --Jakob (talk) 18:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I fix the Wikipedia pages linked In Dettmar Cramer (Journalist) and move the Wikipedia pages linked In Q3045717 to Q1276157, and I know the roles and thanks --A. Latreche ^✉ 20:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

 Not done - After a week still no reverts and no activity at all. While rollback is no big deal, I really would like to see some reverts on this project. Simply referring to another project where you are a rollbacker is not enough in my opinion. Please do some vandalism reverts and come back and I'll happily grant you the rights. TBloemink _talk 10:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

@TBloemink: According to our policy, just referring to another project is sufficient, though ... Vogone talk 17:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

@Vogone: I just removed that from the "policy", which never saw a full RfC ratifying that.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Instead of removing a part of policy that has been enacted for a year now, why not start a discussion to give legitimacy to your proposed change? I'd also like to point out that even policies subjected to an RfC only have 20 or so commenters out of 12k active users here. Ajraddatz (talk) 15:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is the wrong way to go about it. The policy was enforced for over a year already and just because one or two admins didn't follow it, apparently due to them not reading it before acting, it doesn't mean that it can be suspended without any previous discussion. Feel free to open a discussion on the talk page if you disagree with this part of the policy, though. Vogone talk 15:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

@Vogone, Ajraddatz: What's the point of giving rights to someone who shows no indication they'll use them. Sure, the current policy (which is really just a guideline) guarantees that vandals won't get the right, but it won't guarantee that they'll have any use for it. --Jakob (talk) 16:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

@Vogone, Ajraddatz: Well, admins actually haven't been following that. I have rarely seen a request granted purely because of activity on other projects, and I will repeat that this page was never a policy in the first case, and so I did not need a consensus to first perform the change. And just because an RfC does not get much attention doesn't mean it's the best sample of the community's opinion we could obtain.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

"This policy was enforced for over a year already" has no grounds at all. It hasn't been enforced. On IRC Vogone has shown no evidence that this guideline has any merit in terms of community consensus support and I still believe it should be removed.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I was going to write a long reply, but I think Vogone says it pretty well. --AmaryllisGardener (talk) 18:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

@Vogone, Ajraddatz: I never thought it was necessary but I opened Wikidata talk:Rollbackers#Removing qualification of other projects.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)