Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Administrator/Ahonc
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.
- Unsuccessful. — ΛΧΣ21 15:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Ahonc[edit]
Vote
RfP scheduled to end after 14 July 2013 12:27 (UTC)
- Ahonc (talk • contribs • new items • new lexemes • SUL • Block log • User rights log • User rights • xtools)
I made a lot of RfD and merging, and sysop tools can be useful for me. I am experienced Wikipedia user (in WP since 2005), trusted user in several wikis: sysop on Commons, in ukwiktionary, ukwikibooks, editor in ukwiki, ruwiki, dewiki (see sulutil:Ahonc). --Ahonc (talk) 12:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Votes[edit]
Support --Stryn (talk) 12:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Oppose per link given by Rschen7754 below. --Stryn (talk) 20:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC)- Support Trusted user. --Meno25 (talk) 16:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support IW 19:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose What happened here? --Rschen7754 19:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- It was years ago. And it is local community issues. In global projects, such as Wikimedia Commons or here, I have no abuses. I am sysop of Commons during more than 5 years and have no conflicts.--Ahonc (talk) 20:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- The last block was in December 2012 - that is not "years ago"! --Rschen7754 20:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- Now strong oppose due to badgering the opposes. --Rschen7754 04:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- It was years ago. And it is local community issues. In global projects, such as Wikimedia Commons or here, I have no abuses. I am sysop of Commons during more than 5 years and have no conflicts.--Ahonc (talk) 20:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. Firstly, per Rschen7754 but also due to my findings. Note: The following are all based on Ahonc's Wikimedia Commons logs. 1. The user fails to provide blocking rationales for certain blocks. They are either short term blocks or happen to be very long term/indefinite ones. 2. They usage of talk page removal and disabling email on the first block is not at all appropriate. If a blocked user misuses their talkpage or email during the block then removing them is fine but on the first block with no notice or evidence of mis use, no. 3. The user also made two blocks where they were involved. These blocks were not so urgent enough to require an involved administrator intervention nor were quite serious to receive lengths given. Ahonc did undo one block after realising but that was earlier in his sysop position. 4. Using (what I believe is Russian) in order to provide a blocking rationale to a what I understand English speaking user while not a major concern still is a concern. 5. Blocking a user for their vandalism on ukwiki while having almost constructive contributions to Commons is also not an appropriate action. While this can be warranted, the length of the block is the concern with this one. 6. As said in the above reasons, the users use of blocking length is also a concern with making a 1 day block to a user with the comment 'Harassment'. If this was really harassment a one day block will do nothing, a week or a few days at least I would see appropriate. Also users were indefinitely blocked for making one or two vandalism edits, this is not at all appropriate. 7. Blocking IPs and users for long periods of time for weak rationales such as 'tried to stole password'. While also a concern for a wiki, evidence should be given and a more developed rationale. 8. Rights promotion on Commons is also a slight concern. Giving a user rollbacker based on their uk/ruwiki work and showing no experience with it on Commons. This was pointed out to me to not be a concern but the fact a user was promoted without showing knowledge of local policies is a serious concern to me. 9. Finally, accusations of a fellow Wikimedia users abusing their sysop actions without any proof (linked logs, contribs etc.) is one thing I never expect to see out of an admin. If it was backed up this would not be mentioned. (Stewards Requests/Permissions on Meta was used here). Sorry this was so long, I may have made mistakes in the way I worded things so I will clarify if people ask me to and if people have concerns with that I said above I will also be willing to address those. John F. Lewis (talk) 21:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- Block length is based on a situation. If it is first block it may be one day, if user continue abusing after the ending of blocking the term may be longer. If user makes vandalism or upload many copyvios after warnings he may be indefblocked. 'Try to steel password' is when you receive letter with password restoration for your account in several wikis from one IP. If user is confirmed sockpuppet of blocked user, he should be blocked indefinitely. And if I give rights to trusted users without discussion, I responsible for this action, and if user abuse these rights I warn him/her and will remove if he/she continues abusing.--Ahonc (talk) 21:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- Block length is indeed based on situation and I did look into those situations before saying they were not appropriate in my opinion. You also just contradicted yourself there. There are things warranting a one day block, a few days block, a months block, a years block and indef blocks but the fact is you did not apply appropriate ones to appropriate situations. Now, passwords resets DO NOT at all warrant any type of block as nothing was done. I also looked at the Commons blocking policy with that and saw no mention of it. Which to mean shows me you are not able to follow a blocking policy thus will not be able to follow the guideline we had set out with blocks. If user is a confirmed sock then yet, blocking indefinitely is the way to go but NOT removing talkpage access or email as there is always the possibility a CheckUser has made a mistake as technical evidence is incredibly easy to mistake. I do work with technical data and I have made mis judgements but when the user pointed out to my via email it was a mistake, I checked again saw it was and immediately rectified. If I had ignored the user a good contribution would have been lost. Also yes you do give rights to trusted users without discussion but ONLY if they have experience and can show knowledge of LOCAL policies. There is no global rollback policy which affects the usage of local rollbacker. If the user does abuse it, removal is of course best but if you applied it correctly with them understanding local policies, removal due to mis use should not occur. John F. Lewis (talk) 21:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- Do you think that user should always do according block policy and never doing by his own opinion? (sorry for my not good English). Some users may use en:WP:IAR at all. And what problem with rollbacking? Is vandalism in ukwiki, vandalism on COmmons and vandalism in WikiData different? Rollback right is for reverting vandalism. And in general, blocking is not main action of sysop (as I see in block log; and it is mostly crosswiki issues or spam/vandalism, it is not difficult issues). Here in WD the main action is deletions. I mean that number of deletions is bigger than number of blockings).--Ahonc (talk) 22:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- An admin should always go by the blocking policy. Also blocks are preventative NOT punitive. You blocked to punish not to prevent. Local rollback policies do differ. Also yes. ukwiki is a Wikipedia. Commons is media repository and Wikidata is a knowledge base. All three have different vandalism methods and thus rollback should be given, differently. Also blocking is not the main action on Wikidata but blocks are handed out often. A sysop should be trusted in all sysop responsibilities. If a sysop does not block by the books then they should not have sysop as the option is always there. On commons, I can not flaw deletions since most seem to be obvious deletions but still. If a sysop can not be trusted to block correctly, they can not be trust to wield anything that allows them to block. End of. John F. Lewis (talk) 22:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- Well, if you are so experienced in sysop actions, teach me. I look at your log. And see blocks of IP-addresses with similar reasons for different period: 3 months, 6 months, 1 years. Why these periods are different? What rule of blocking policy is it? And also I see that one user was blocked for 31 hours. Why 31, and not 30 or 36?--Ahonc (talk) 22:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- My blocks? Ok. My first block (24 hours) was due to the user vandalising/creating new itmes but had some constructive element to it thus temporarily blocking the user was best. The second (indef) was due to the user creating multiple inappropriate pages which has no constructive elements and show no interest in supporting the project. The IP block was my mistake. The bot block was really an unapproved and none trialled bot operating. The mass spambot blocks. All static IPs/proxies were blocked for 6 month due to project guidelines and expected norms. Non static IPs were blocked for three months as it is likely within three months the IP owner will have changed thus no more spambot operations. The year block was due to a previous spambot block which obviously had the same owner thus advancing the block to a year was appropriate. At no stage did I ever made a punitive block, all were preventative aimed to protect the project which is expected from an administrator. John F. Lewis (talk) 22:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- Here the discussion should be on you Ahonc. For discussion of John F. Lewis's blocks there are other places to go.--Vyom25 (talk) 07:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- My blocks? Ok. My first block (24 hours) was due to the user vandalising/creating new itmes but had some constructive element to it thus temporarily blocking the user was best. The second (indef) was due to the user creating multiple inappropriate pages which has no constructive elements and show no interest in supporting the project. The IP block was my mistake. The bot block was really an unapproved and none trialled bot operating. The mass spambot blocks. All static IPs/proxies were blocked for 6 month due to project guidelines and expected norms. Non static IPs were blocked for three months as it is likely within three months the IP owner will have changed thus no more spambot operations. The year block was due to a previous spambot block which obviously had the same owner thus advancing the block to a year was appropriate. At no stage did I ever made a punitive block, all were preventative aimed to protect the project which is expected from an administrator. John F. Lewis (talk) 22:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- Well, if you are so experienced in sysop actions, teach me. I look at your log. And see blocks of IP-addresses with similar reasons for different period: 3 months, 6 months, 1 years. Why these periods are different? What rule of blocking policy is it? And also I see that one user was blocked for 31 hours. Why 31, and not 30 or 36?--Ahonc (talk) 22:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- An admin should always go by the blocking policy. Also blocks are preventative NOT punitive. You blocked to punish not to prevent. Local rollback policies do differ. Also yes. ukwiki is a Wikipedia. Commons is media repository and Wikidata is a knowledge base. All three have different vandalism methods and thus rollback should be given, differently. Also blocking is not the main action on Wikidata but blocks are handed out often. A sysop should be trusted in all sysop responsibilities. If a sysop does not block by the books then they should not have sysop as the option is always there. On commons, I can not flaw deletions since most seem to be obvious deletions but still. If a sysop can not be trusted to block correctly, they can not be trust to wield anything that allows them to block. End of. John F. Lewis (talk) 22:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- Do you think that user should always do according block policy and never doing by his own opinion? (sorry for my not good English). Some users may use en:WP:IAR at all. And what problem with rollbacking? Is vandalism in ukwiki, vandalism on COmmons and vandalism in WikiData different? Rollback right is for reverting vandalism. And in general, blocking is not main action of sysop (as I see in block log; and it is mostly crosswiki issues or spam/vandalism, it is not difficult issues). Here in WD the main action is deletions. I mean that number of deletions is bigger than number of blockings).--Ahonc (talk) 22:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- Block length is indeed based on situation and I did look into those situations before saying they were not appropriate in my opinion. You also just contradicted yourself there. There are things warranting a one day block, a few days block, a months block, a years block and indef blocks but the fact is you did not apply appropriate ones to appropriate situations. Now, passwords resets DO NOT at all warrant any type of block as nothing was done. I also looked at the Commons blocking policy with that and saw no mention of it. Which to mean shows me you are not able to follow a blocking policy thus will not be able to follow the guideline we had set out with blocks. If user is a confirmed sock then yet, blocking indefinitely is the way to go but NOT removing talkpage access or email as there is always the possibility a CheckUser has made a mistake as technical evidence is incredibly easy to mistake. I do work with technical data and I have made mis judgements but when the user pointed out to my via email it was a mistake, I checked again saw it was and immediately rectified. If I had ignored the user a good contribution would have been lost. Also yes you do give rights to trusted users without discussion but ONLY if they have experience and can show knowledge of LOCAL policies. There is no global rollback policy which affects the usage of local rollbacker. If the user does abuse it, removal is of course best but if you applied it correctly with them understanding local policies, removal due to mis use should not occur. John F. Lewis (talk) 21:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- Block length is based on a situation. If it is first block it may be one day, if user continue abusing after the ending of blocking the term may be longer. If user makes vandalism or upload many copyvios after warnings he may be indefblocked. 'Try to steel password' is when you receive letter with password restoration for your account in several wikis from one IP. If user is confirmed sockpuppet of blocked user, he should be blocked indefinitely. And if I give rights to trusted users without discussion, I responsible for this action, and if user abuse these rights I warn him/her and will remove if he/she continues abusing.--Ahonc (talk) 21:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm not sure we can take into consideration something from another wiki, but the comments above do not inspire confidence in the candidate.--Jasper Deng (alternate) (talk) 23:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose - From reading the above, I cannot support this candidate. TCN7JM 04:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose: There are an awful lot of reasons to be concerned here. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose : per Rschen7754. I see lots of blocks at ukwiki also. somebody can translate so I know why was he blocked.--DangSunM (talk) 22:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Neutral - Rschen7754's comments are slightly unsettling, but on the other hand this is not Commons (or ukwiki). --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 10:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Comments[edit]
- ...