Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Administrator/-akko

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.

Closed as unsuccessful by lack of support, considering also the CU findings. Lymantria (talk) 20:43, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

-akko[edit]

Vote

RfP scheduled to end after 16 July 2021 06:31 (UTC)

I'm -akko (former 轻语者) . I have been active here for nearly two years. Now I'm requesting to sysop for these reasons:

  1. Now Wikidata has few sysops can speak Chinese. As a native Chinese speaker and a long-term active user here, I want to help other native Chinese speakers to solve some problems that require the assistance of the administrator. For example, assign ipbe to trusted users who use proxy to access and edit wikidata.
  2. Wikidata has many spambotes, but it isn't always being someone handling in time. I think I can use the local and global monitoring spambot experience to help Wikidata clear the spam bot.
  3. WD:RFD has a lot of requests waiting to be processed, I think I have enough ability to judge which items should be deleted and which should not. So as to help reduce the backlog.

That's all. Thanks for your consideration..--(^･ｪ･^) (talk) 06:31, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Votes[edit]

  1.  Support —MisterSynergy (talk) 06:46, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Support --Epìdosis 07:21, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Support --Ameisenigel (talk) 08:36, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Support Valdemar2018 (talk) 09:02, 9 July 2021 (UTC)  Oppose by the CU's resolution. Valdemar2018 (talk) 17:29, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Support --Wolverène (talk) 09:32, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Support  Oppose per Lymantria - Premeditated (talk) 10:51, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Support Rzuwig► 11:43, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Support Oppose in light of the presented accusations and the requestor's insufficient explanations for them. Mahir256 (talk) 14:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Oppose Hardly English skills? "This user sex is a secret"... --A.Savin (talk) 13:29, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @A.Savin : What are you worried about? I think my English ability is enough for simple communication. (^･ｪ･^) (talk) 15:07, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Support English skills are not necessarily harshly considered, as soon as it can be understood, since Wikidata is a multilingual website. Nominee has done great work on monitoring tasks on Wikidata. They are one of the few zh-N users who are active on Wikidata's monitoring tasks. Sun8908 💬 14:10, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  11. {{S}} No concerns ミラP@Miraclepine 14:43, 9 July 2021 (UTC) Switching to  Oppose in light of recent developments. ミラP@Miraclepine 19:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  12.  Support --Gymnicus (talk) 08:19, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  13.  Support --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 10:29, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  14.  Support LGTM --DannyS712 (talk) 22:41, 10 July 2021 (UTC)  Oppose based on issues raised below about multiple accounts --DannyS712 (talk) 22:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  15. {{Support}}. —Hasley+ 14:58, 11 July 2021 (UTC)  Oppose, struck my vote upon further consideration; unsatisfactory response given to the concerns highlighted below. —Hasley+ 17:53, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  16.  Support --Martin Urbanec (talk) 17:37, 11 July 2021 (UTC)  Oppose I carefully checked the evidence provided here, as well as certain private non-CU evidence, and there's so many coincidents for me at this point to believe the socks accusation is not true. Also see Lymantria's comment below and 1997kB's above. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 14:08, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  17.  Support --Zabe (talk) 20:25, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  18.  Support No concern, good luck with the tool. ;) --Fralambert (talk) 22:56, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  19.  Support Yahya (talk) 07:49, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  20.  Support -❙❚❚❙❙ GnOeee ❚❙❚❙❙ ✉ 17:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  21.  Support. Regards, Bencemac (talk) 08:36, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  22. {{Weak oppose}}  Oppose Not satisfied with answer to my question. The first item they linked is wrong one and in case of second, they have wrong understanding that having musicbrainz id and youtube subscribers means notable. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 02:10, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to oppose. Reason: As Lymantria also said below, I do not see honesty in this request. The evidence strongly shows that account provided are same user, yet the user's reply shows a behaviour that I don't like to see in a sysop. If there's an issue of privacy, explain it to crats' privately. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 16:18, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Famous Studios (Q92564469) I just didn't copy the whole id (yep it's a low-level error). Speed Records (Q17145496) In my impression, the number of users that can exceed 30 million subscriptions is very small. So I think the number of youtube subscriptions in this company can verify they have notable. (^･ｪ･^) (talk) 04:43, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

@1997kB: First, I will check whether the item is related to other items which have notable, or use some well-known databases to find out whether there have information about the item (such as IMDb, Google Scholar). Then, I will use different search engines to find out if there are detailed info about the item. If these all have not information about the item, I will think that the item hasn't notable.
Answer:
  • Eutherios of Tyana (Q9256446): Its Youtube account has more than 116,000 followers, And Wikipedia has page about it. Obviously it has notable.
  • Speed Records (Q17145496): MusicBrainz has its infomation, and they Youtube account has over 36,600,000 followers. Have notable too.
(^･ｪ･^) (talk) 03:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll answer one more point later.(^･ｪ･^) (talk) 03:16, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikimedia project pages that comply with the policy can also be considered to have notable. In addition, some databases such as IMDb do not always can verify notable. During my previous patrol, I found that someone spent money to ask IMDb to create a page for himself, and he did not have notable. In this case, it is necessary to combine search engines and other methods for verification. (^･ｪ･^) (talk) 09:15, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@港九自由嘻嘻嘻: -akko (flood). Because it has never been officially used and it is easy to see the original owner of the account. Therefore, it is not marked on the user page. (^･ｪ･^) (talk) 14:49, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:-akko is that all? Any other accounts that you used? Please list all if you have other accounts.--港九自由嘻嘻嘻 (talk) 15:08, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just this one. But I have been editing on a fan wiki (non-wikimedia project, and had been closed for a long time) for a while, and I have also imitated some existing wiki projects to build my own wiki. This may answer your following question. (^･ｪ･^) (talk) 03:04, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@港九自由嘻嘻嘻: Does that answer your question? ‐‐1997kB (talk) 04:41, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@1997kB: no it does not. He fails to mention User:Catherine Laurence, which for some time was concurrently active as this account.--港九自由嘻嘻嘻 (talk) 07:34, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also "Wildly boy" was another username.--港九自由嘻嘻嘻 (talk) 07:36, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is also Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Administrator/Catherine Laurence.--港九自由嘻嘻嘻 (talk) 07:55, 16 July 2021 (UTC) and Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Administrator/Wildly boy--港九自由嘻嘻嘻 (talk) 10:33, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your vote will not be counted, but a minima, your opinion can be consulted by the community in the comments:

 Oppose I know for a fact that at least User:Catherine Laurence is also used by this user. Intentionally omitting editing history is dubious behaviour.--港九自由嘻嘻嘻 (talk) 07:32, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also "Wildly boy" was another username.--港九自由嘻嘻嘻 (talk) 07:36, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is also Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Administrator/Catherine Laurence.--港九自由嘻嘻嘻 (talk) 07:55, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
lol Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Administrator/Wildly boy...--港九自由嘻嘻嘻 (talk) 07:59, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence of using another account[edit]

Ask a Commons admin to give you the history of c:User:轻语者/commom.js. It was created shortly after registration of the new account (轻语者 / -akko), but its content is exactly the same as c:User:Catherine Laurence/common.js.

He chose to vanish the old account, but then he kept editing with the old account after vanishing, so it was moved back to the last name "Catherine Laurence". You can check the history of User_talk:Catherine_Laurence.

Editing after vanishing is also dubious.--港九自由嘻嘻嘻 (talk) 07:51, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. The facts you have identified are wrong. 2. The reason you gave is not convincing, because anyone can copy other people's js files. I want to add one more point about the origin of my js: I built my own wiki before, so I know what functions I need. So I searched c:COM:TOOLS for tools that can achieve the functions I want. Then it may lead to what you call the same. The same goes for other wikis. (^･ｪ･^) (talk) 08:42, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What is the probability that a new user chooses five different js in the same order as an old user?
To give some context for non-Commons users: not only does a new user not need importScript('User:Majora/LicenseReview.js');, which is a js reserved for c:Commons:License review, but a new user would not even know something like this exists.
LicenseReview is something unique on Wikimedia Commons. No other private wikis use this thing.--港九自由嘻嘻嘻 (talk) 08:57, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have presented the strongest evidence. I have faith in the capability of the WD community. You can take a close look at the circumstances and look for other minor details. You can take it from here. Ciao!--港九自由嘻嘻嘻 (talk) 09:34, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying all voters

@MisterSynergy, Epìdosis, Ameisenigel, Valdemar2018, Wolverène, Premeditated:--港九自由嘻嘻嘻 (talk) 10:33, 16 July 2021 (UTC) [reply]

@Rzuwig, Mahir256, A.Savin, Sun8908, Miraclepine, Gymnicus:--港九自由嘻嘻嘻 (talk) 10:33, 16 July 2021 (UTC) [reply]

@Matěj Suchánek, DannyS712, Hasley, Martin Urbanec, Zabe, Fralambert:--港九自由嘻嘻嘻 (talk) 10:34, 16 July 2021 (UTC) [reply]

@Yahya, Gnoeee, Bencemac:--港九自由嘻嘻嘻 (talk) 10:34, 16 July 2021 (UTC) [reply]

At the very least all voters should be given a chance to evaluate the fresh claims and review their votes.--港九自由嘻嘻嘻 (talk) 10:37, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I don't think the two cases where the two users edit the same page within a few minute is enough for me to believe that they are sock, therefore, I am not willing to change my vote. Please note that 港九自由嘻嘻嘻 does not meet the requirements to vote, as WD:RFA notices "Only registered users with minimum 100 local non-automated edits can vote. The edits must be acquired before the voting started." 港九自由嘻嘻嘻 only has less than 20 (locally) by now. I would rather believe in -akko which has been active for some time than a "new user" who hasn't really been active on any wiki. Sun8908 💬 14:40, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I find the JavaScript thing quite suspicious, to be honest. was created by akko when the account was a month old, and it matches [4] (note the account was courtesy-vanished by then) almost exactly. I work with newcomers quite a lot, and many of them don't even know what Commons is (it's one of the common hard-to-explain things: "why do i have to go to a different site to upload image to Wikipedia") or that MediaWiki sites support user JavaScript. Martin Urbanec (talk) 14:53, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crat discussion[edit]

@Lymantria, Vogone: It is time to close the discussion, and we normally should give the flag, as we have more than 8 vote, and more than 75% support. The only reason I am asking for your opinion are the accusations that the user previously had two other accounts, and their request for adminship were not successful. I personally do not find this argument strong - none of the accounts is blocked as far as I see, unsuccessful requests were two years ago, I do not see the strong link to the user, but ever of there we a link there is nothing wrong in applying for adminship two years after an unsuccessful attempt. So I do not see any reasons not to close this request as successful, but I am interested in your thoughts.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:22, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was to close this request as successful, but hesitated. I judge the possible use of multiple accounts more negatively than you seem to do. The requester was explicitely asked to disclose other accounts used, but did not disclose the two accounts mentioned, while some of their edits here and @commons (see 3 Jan 2020 at [5]) are suspiciously connected. It is not maliciour behaviour of these accounts that make me hesitate, but I'm not fully confident that requester has been honest. Of course there may be good reasons for lack of openness, in that case I would welcome some (private) communication, and I might misjudge as well. @Vogone:? Lymantria (talk) 11:26, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now I am inclined to take the concerns of Martin Urbanec who is also a steward seriously. Let us wait a bit more.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:21, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CU discussion[edit]

At this time, the CheckUser team is looking into the socking allegations above, and until further notice we request that no action be taken on this RfA.

Pour le moment, l'équipe CU fait investigation des allegations de faux-nez, et jusqu'un nouveau message nous requêtons de ne pas prendre d'action sur ce RfA.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be waiting the checkuser's resolution for keep or change my vote, and I request that the user 港九自由嘻嘻嘻 be investigated, too (he is not a new user, clearly). Regards Valdemar2018 (talk) 02:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lymantria, Ymblanter: Our determination is that -akko is a sock of Catherine Laurence and therefore recommend that, especially in light of the changed votes, the RfA be closed as failed.

(Nous trouvons que -akko est un faux-nez de Catherine Laurence et alors nous suggerons que, surtout avec les votes modifiés, le RfA devient fermé avec le résultat de “failed”).—Jasper Deng (talk) 15:33, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Indeed, I think given the circumstances we can not approve the request.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:12, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Jasper Deng. Closing now. Lymantria (talk) 20:43, 17 July 2021 (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/Administrator/-akko&oldid=1957354649"