Wikivoyage:User rights nominations/Archives/2022

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← 2021 User rights nominations archives for 2022 (current) 2023 →
Archives by year
2003 • 2004 • 2005 • 2006 • 2007 • 2008 • 2009 • 2010 • 2011 • 2012 • 2013 • 2014 • 2015 • 2017 • 2018 • 2019 • 2020 • 2021 • 2022 • 2023 • 2024
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Tai123.123 for administrator

Tai123.123 has over the past several months been an excellent contributor and patroller. This user has quickly learned not only the policies of this website but also taken a particular interest in maintaining site updates — such as updating the Main page — and in reverting vandalism. Given his/her record and enthusiasm for the best interests of Wikivoyage, I think the community should consider Tai123.123 for the role of administrator.

I also note this user has 2,000 contributions, a little less than usual for an admin nomination, but already has experience at patroller and template editor roles, and therefore is as well-qualified as anyone else who's been nominated for admin in the last couple years. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 19:32, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The comment "Can I speedy if there is no current", from Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/December 2021#MediaWiki:Blockedtext also gives me another concern re the deletion policy and so I'm going to go neutral for now. As I'm currently overseas, I haven't had the time to fully look at other things yet, but I'll give better feedback when I reach home. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:59, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - This time around it seems the nomination isn't going to be successful, but I just wanted to note that the reason I haven't voted for or against is I'm not familiar with Tai123.123 or their work on Wikivoyage. A longer track record (and a resumption of regular editing on my part) will surely change that this year. Having patroller rights already is an indication of good things to come.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RolandUnger for interface administrator

He's actively doing that stuff @ :de:wv, and I'd say he's more than trustworthy to do the stuff here as well, too. If he wants to take the job :) We currently only have very few active IF admins... -- andree 10:46, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He's a bureaucrat and admin (the latter probably being superfluous). I don't think he needs further permission to do interface administrator work, but if he does, I would think it would be uncontroversial, since his current status demonstrates that we consider him trustworthy, and probably does not require a nomination. Roland, do you need and would you like to also be an interface administrator? Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:01, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He said he cannot do the CSS edit himself, and I guess he didn't want to just promote himself to the IF admin (to do the edit) - hence I put him here, at least formally :)) -- andree 11:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll check after I wake up to see whether I have to take any action and whether there's any need for this nomination to take any time. Thanks, andree. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To my knowledge, he hasn't stated he needs or wants this status, and he was able to edit code without any change in his user rights. I think this thread should be slushed unless he replies. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:45, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which code? Normal admins (and even bureaucrats) cannot edit .css and .js pages under someone else's userspace and the MediaWiki namespace unless they're also interface admins. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:55, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Remember the problem that was discussed in the Pub? He successfully created a workaround and posted about it in the Pub. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:41, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Roland did create a workaround in the pub (anyone can edit code in the pub) but it was Andyrom75 who made the change. Roland couldn't have done that since it's in the Mediawiki: namespace, and as I mentioned earlier, only interface admins can edit .css and .js pages under the Mediawiki: namespace, not even bureaucrats. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's 17 days now. I think we have to slush the nomination without prejudice. Any objection? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:38, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unless, Roland replies within the next four days, I've no objection to closing this as failed. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:00, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These nominations are supposed to be up for 14 days per the text above, right? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:11, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now that it's 21 days, I think it's time to close this nomination. @Ikan Kekek:? (I cannot close this myself as I'm not a bureaucrat and it's bad practice for non-crats to close admin noms) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:42, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why couldn't you close this yourself? It is not a bad practice for any admin to close a nom. Anyway...

ThunderingTyphoons! for bureaucrat

I know I said I was going to put this off for a while, but now that our only active bureaucrat is on the road, we really need another one. They have put their hand up for the job, are very knowledgeable about Wikivoyage policies + Wikimedia principles, and I really can't see a compelling argument it. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:47, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Short statement

Thanks to SHB2000 for the nomination, which for confirmation I accept. We need at least one extra bureaucratic who's active and available at slightly different times to those in America, and while I probably wouldn't be my own first choice, I do think I'm competent and cautious enough for the job, and I care about Wikivoyage and its people.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:30, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. As nominator. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:47, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. TT! is an excellent choice for bureaucrat. Knowledgeable, conscientious, committed to the project. Ground Zero (talk) 01:57, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Using a numbered list is new for Wikivoyage.Anyway, he's a trusted user with a good temperament and has my full support and appreciation. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:51, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. TT is a good choice. AlasdairW (talk) 23:05, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I vote YES for nomination -- Matroc (talk) 05:19, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
# I support the nomination. Wikivoyage needs an active bureaucrat, and User:ThunderingTyphoons! has the experience and attitude needed to be entrusted with bureaucrat responsibilities. — Ar​ticC​ynda —The preceding comment was added by Luke905 (talk • contribs) 11:48, 11 August 2022
Struck AC sock vote. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:06, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yes from me as well. -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:52, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support, a no-brainer. Gizza (roam) 01:30, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Seems reasonable. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:38, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. –LPfi (talk) 04:36, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Yes, please. --ButteBag (talk) 23:45, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Questions

Question from SHB2000: Not an essential question, nor will your answer change my opinion, but I do have a question for you. Compared to other WMF projects, the English Wikivoyage tends to go overboard with revision deleting edits; when do you think revision deleting is essential? Additionally, how do you think this compares to with other projects in the Wikimedia world? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 02:06, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ooh, a test. Revision deletion is essential when someone is being abusive or defamatory. It may be essential in cases of doxing or accidental revelation of information, depending on what's been revealed (this may also require the intervention of outside help, i.e. Oversighters). Revdels are also useful for deterring long-term vandals, especially when used in conjunction with WV:Deny recognition, which at this point I consider a success. I wouldn't class that as essential, but certainly recommended.
With respect, I'm not going to comment on other projects, because I'm not active enough on any outside of Wikivoyage to make a credible comparison. Suffice to say I don't agree that "Wikivoyage tends to go overboard" (i.e. uses it too much). Hope that answers your question.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:55, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great answer tt! That's what I was expecting, and AFAIK, in line with most other wikis do. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:26, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

It's been 17 days now. Time to flip the switch? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 01:05, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While there have been no objections (and why would there be?), four votes isn't enough to name a bureaucrat, in my opinion. I will post in the pub. Ground Zero (talk) 02:10, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agreed with you on that. Now that we have 9, if there are no objections by tomorrow, I will flip the switch. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:42, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
10 if you include a banned user ;-). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:52, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
9 is a good number of votes. We would never include the vote of a banned user. Ground Zero (talk) 16:01, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arlolra

This is a bit of a departure from the usual process, but I'd like to suggest that we make User:Arlolra (Special:CentralAuth/Arlolra) an admin at least temporarily, for the specific purpose of taking advantage of the mw:Parsoid team's technical expertise during some upcoming work. This comment at the Pub indicates that he's willing to help us by fixing things.

Disclaimers: I'm not an admin (nor do I wish to be), and noms at this wiki normally come from other admins. Work-me has dealt with the Parsoid team off and on for the last nine years, since approximately when Arlolra was hired (he was a volunteer editor before then). His team's technical expertise on why something looks the way it does is amazing, and just out of self-interest, if we're given a choice between "the devs figure out the problem, and then we have to fix it" or "Arlolra just fixes everything for us", I prefer the latter.

(If someone would correct any formatting or other bureaucratic problems, I'd appreciate it.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:06, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: 14 days has passed and there's a 100% support rate. Could you flip the switch for three months? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:32, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pashley (removal)

This nomination might be Wikivoyage's first nomination for desysopping a user. I'd hate to do this, but I believe the time has finally come – Wednesday was the turning point (and here's the reason why). The reason for making this nomination is due to long-term misuse of tools and a lack of understanding of Wikivoyage and global policies.

Disclaimer: All information here has been gathered from previous discussions and logs. Please correct me if I've gotten anything wrong.

Pashley was nominated for admin in October 2006, almost 16 years from now. 2006 was a time when you would receive admin rights (by consensus, of course) if you did good content work, and this wasn't just on Wikitravel – this was a trend on various Wikipedias. This reflects on Pashley's editing activities today – a lot of good content, not a lot of janitorial work. All in all, Pashley is quite a good content contributor, but this comes back to the main point of "what is a sysop": being a sysop is not a reward for adding a lot of content – being a sysop is about doing janitorial work. How much of that has Pashley done? Not a lot. Even looking at their nomination, nearly all the support !votes were about their exemplary content contributions. According to Xtools, a little under 80 per cent of Pashley's edits have been in mainspace.

Now to the long-term tool misuse. I am aware this is a serious accusation, so I'll start by saying that Pashley barely uses their tools in the first place. Within the last 365 days, Pashley has only made 17 admin actions, which to be frank, is very low, with several deletes. Out of the Special:Log/delete/User:Pashley, here are all those listed, summarised:

I won't go into much detail about the blocks they've made, but you can see them for yourself at Special:log/block/User:Pashley.

Now to the misuse. I'll start out by saying that Pashley has misused rollback innumerable times. I checked their last 5000 contributions and there was not a single "undo" – anything they wanted to revert was done using rollback. This is against the spirit of what rollback is supposed to be used for: reverting vandalism or spam. While the English Wikivoyage is a bit lax in using it to revert touting, if that is done, a notice must be given on the user's talk page. Pashley has not done this. Just to give some examples, check out Special:Diff/4400723, Special:Diff/4237403, Special:Diff/4494253, Special:Diff/4232502, Special:Diff/4052306, Special:Diff/4066977 or Special:Diff/4160551 – none of those were vandalism, spam, nor touting. I understand if this was a one-off incident, but this is not – Pashley blatantly misuses rollback instead of the "undo" button. This is unacceptable behaviour from someone who's been an admin since 2006. To wrap up this paragraph, here's an excerpt from m:Help:Reverting#Rollback:

Rolling back a good-faith edit, without explanation, may be misinterpreted as "I think your edit was no better than vandalism, and reverting it doesn't need an explanation". Some editors are sensitive to such perceived slights; if you use the rollback feature other than for vandalism (for example, because undo is impractical due to the large page size), it is courteous to leave an explanation on the article's talk page or on the talk page of the user, whose edit(s) you have reverted.

Now to the final point, Pashley has a lot of trouble recognising sockpuppet and LTA behaviour. This is one of the key unspoken requirements of becoming an administrator. Firstly, they've welcomed obvious sockpuppets of banned users such as Brendan, or in a recent case, an impersonator's (likely LibMod's). Secondly, despite numerous encounters with a WMF-banned user, they chose to warn them.

Now, the key thing to note is this quote I've picked out from their talk page:

If I do welcome some vandals, that seems harmless. In future, I'll have a look at an edit or two (when I remember) before posting. However, often it is hard to tell if an edit is constructive or vandalism & I'm definitely not going to spend significant effort on recognising puppets.

This confirms that Pashley does not know the consequences of welcoming vandals and LTAs and has also displayed that they're not interested in recognising sockpuppets. As I've said before, one of the key things an admin should know is recognising sockpuppets; Pashley has demonstrated that they are incapable of keeping their tools.

So, all in all, Pashley is a good content contributor, but they are not a good administrator. To summarise in bullet points:

  • Pashley has not really been doing much admin or janitorial work – they rarely engage in community discussions or other parts of the site (such as VFD), and while this is not a reason for desysopping a user, many of their reasonings (such as the recent one in Lermoos or CIS) are non-policy based reasonings
  • Pashley has repeatedly misused the rollback feature to revert good-faith edits
  • Pashley rarely uses their tools
  • Pashley has demonstrated time and time again that they are incapable of identifying sockpuppets

I do hope that Pashley continues contributing great content, but for now, I believe they are currently unsuitable and incapable of holding sysop tools. I'll also mention that you don't need to be an admin to revert vandalism – patrollers can do the exact same thing. If Pashley does need admin rights for something such as moving a page without a redirect, deleting a spam page, or something alike, they can ask an admin for that (or by tagging {{speedy}}). That's what most patrollers (and I mean patrollers who don't abuse their tools) do.

Remove

Keep

  • I actually do not care a lot, but of course I'll say Keep. —The preceding comment was added by Pashley (talk • contribs)
    WP:JUSTAVOTE? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:15, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm reluctant to waste time on this, but if you want arguments I have some:
    First off, you are inconsistent. You complain that I don't take part in policy & VFD discussions enough, which anyone who has been paying attention should know is nonsense. Then you complain about one of my comments in a VFD discussion.
    Some of your complaints are bogus. e.g. for Special:Diff/4232502 see Talk:Canton. As for the case where "they chose to warn them", I did that after both revering their edits & blocking them.
    You complain that I do not use the admin tools much. So what? I do use them regularly (& you complain about how I use them). Sometimes I have used them a lot (albeit not recently), e.g. deleting over 100 junk articles, see Wikivoyage_talk:Deletion_policy/Archive_2004-2013#Related question.
    I could go on. Pashley (talk) 09:01, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Addressing your points:
    1. Yes, because it's true that you rarely get involved in policy discussions (you weren't even aware that "don't delete real places" policy was abolished and claimed that I shouldn't have even considered deletion). The only vfd discussions you participate are the ones where you've been involved, or if it's about a "real place" – just look at the archives. What's problematic with your second comment on Lermoos was a) it's w:WP:JUSTAVOTE and b) you're essentially implying that banned bigots are allowed to evade their ban
    2. Yes, that edit was due to be reverted, but that edit was not vandalism or spam; rollback should not have been used here
    3. Completely missed my point. My point was you should not have given attention to a user banned by the WMF (and this was so astoundingly obvious) and followed the RBI process per WV:DENY. Yes, I'm aware I like to fancy up my edit summaries with this user (on WB), but I know if I do that, they'll go off-wiki and rant about me (which is good, so they spend less time on Wikimedia). You obviously didn't do that and worded your message as if GRP was a good-faith user.
    4. If you don't use your admin tools much (properly), then you don't need them. That discussion you linked was from 2013, almost a decade ago – that doesn't change the fact that you rarely use your admin tools now.
    I'm willing to debate this because I stand by my words – I could list more examples of how you've misused your tools. As someone who resembles a WikiOtter, new users should not have to deal with admins who don't use their tools properly. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:28, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you over-interpret some of the comments you quote or link above. I don't think it is productive to have your argument here. Let's instead wait to hear what others have to say. –LPfi (talk) 10:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @LPfi: Fair enough. I'll wait for what others have to say. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:10, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless Pashley refuses to agree with the two policy points I mentioned below.
As for that "don't delete real places" policy, I didn't know it had been formed either, and I don't think any of Pashley's admin actions justify desysopping. I don't think a lack of admin activity justifies removal of the role, because almost all our admins are also regular contributors who participate in policy discussions, etc. Just because someone doesn't use the tools doesn't mean they have to be removed, unless there is a security risk, as has been identified with truly inactive accounts that have made no edits for 2 years. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 18:32, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Evidence of deliberate abuse (reason for desysopping #2 I mentioned below) doesn't seem to be there right now. If later evidence arises that contradicts me, so be it; I trust you'll make the right choice. I'm going on a break (already planned, see User:ThunderingTyphoons!#Trips), which is why my vote is very early and a bit rushed.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — As per my comments below, I don't see any evidence of deliberate abuse at this point. Any problematic issues should have been brought up to him directly on his talk page first as basic courtesy before proceeding to this step. The dog2 (talk) 19:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The unexplained, repeated, and misused rollbacks? That is something a sysop must know. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 00:23, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think bringing it up on his talk page would have sufficed, and I think that's also basic courtesy. If it continues after that then we can reconsider this, but for now I think it's premature when we haven't even raised the issue on his talk page yet. The dog2 (talk) 01:01, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We don't have robust identity verification during account creation, so it is a matter of opinion whether a new account is a block evader or somebody who shares some characteristics with the blocked user. Different admins can legitimately have different thresholds for saying that a new account is a puppet. I don't agree with some of what Pashley writes, but a different viewpoint can be good. More care with using Rollback would be welcome, but I don't think that is a big problem. AlasdairW (talk) 22:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    re "I don't think that is a big problem": It certainly is. Lazy admins who misuse rollback on new contributors (with no explanation whatsoever) throw newbies off from editing. Also see the quote from Meta I've linked above: "Rolling back a good-faith edit, without explanation, may be misinterpreted as 'I think your edit was no better than vandalism, and reverting it doesn't need an explanation'". That's how I interpreted Special:Diff/4494253. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 02:59, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep none of the rollback diffs listed below demonstrate an abuse of privileges. Some may be innapropriate or not the best way to resolve the issue in the previous edit made but as Ikan Kekek has said, other admins have made more innapropriate rollbacks in the past. Some of the rollbacks were also clearly appropriate but bad intentions have been speculated into the edit. For example reverting BJW and touting is acceptable. How can someone be so sure that the rollback was done for the wrong reasons though with the correct outcome? I also agree with the others that the lack of communication and warning on Pashley's talk page about this issue before making the nomination is concerning. If an experienced editor/another admin wishes to raise concerns about an admin's conduct or edits, a message like this should be posted on their talk page. And I don't think it needs to be codified into policy. It's just common sense and courtesy. Gizza (roam) 01:31, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Two things:
    1. Since when has rollbacking good-faith edits without an explanation become acceptable? Have a read of Special:Diff/4535311. Rollbacking touting is okay, rollback touting without leaving {{tout}} on the tout's talk page is not.
    2. re "I don't think it needs to be codified into policy": if it's not codified into policy, then you cannot expect editors to follow an unspoken policy.
    SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 02:47, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The arguments presented do not seem to warrant even a nomination. –LPfi (talk) 11:49, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Discussion

At least some of the points above are valid, but I think they should be solved by discussion and reminders. A cursory look at their user talk page shows a few users asking them not to welcome banned users, but these entries were not worded firmly enough for a last step towards a nomination like this (nor backed up by more users). I found no complains about the use of rollback.

An admin should learn our policies and best practices and keep themselves updated on changes, but it is easy to miss a thing here and another there, and people differ in how strictly they follow them; if you don't have the time to do something by the book, should you refrain from doing anything at all? Is it enough to follow the spirit of guidelines? Can you have an interpretation that is a little skewed in cases where you don't agree on the wording?

We should perhaps have more discussion in general. I assume Pashley didn't understand that these issues were seen as severe as they are seen by the nominator. Are there similar issues with the rest of us?

–LPfi (talk) 08:51, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, the bench mark is very high for misusing rollback. The bench mark for a sysop should be even higher for misusing rollback. You do make some good points, but I personally don't agree with giving nicely-worded reminders to sysops who misuse rollback. As a matter of fact, it's a sysop's responsibility for reading the policies and guidelines behind using rollback. Finger slips? Okay. Repeat offenses? Nope. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:01, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think I addressed the responsibilities. For using rollback, why do you quote the Meta help page? I don't think admins have any duty to read such pages. Our guideline (Wikivoyage:Administrators' handbook#Rollbacks) says:
"Rollbacks are a hard (and potentially insulting) measure, and should mostly be used for vandalism and spam. Good faith edits should be undone with an explanation in the edit summary."
That's more or less the same (note the "mostly" – a few of the linked rollbacks where touting), but I assume many of us regularly break some "should" in the guidelines. It should be pointed out or discussed, but it is not an "offence" until others have made it very clear it is something to avoid at all costs.
–LPfi (talk) 10:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I linked the Meta help page because Meta guidelines mostly applies globally. I agree that ours mostly says the same, though we allow rollbacks for touting. In that case, {{tout}} should've been left on the user's talk page. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Meta-Wiki's rules mostly don't apply globally, though I'm aware that a newbie went through a few pages earlier this year and marked them "global policies". (This happens from time to time and should be ignored.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That Meta page was not a rule nor a policy. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 23:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are two reasons permitted for removal of admin status (1) inactivity (2) abuse of privileges. (1) clearly doesn't apply to Pashley, so (2) must be proven to justify removal.

For me personally, "abuse of privileges" means deliberate and repeated, if not sustained, misuse of tools. It goes beyond misuse in error or out of ignorance. I realise not everyone will share this view, but that's how I personally will look at this, and encourage others to think about how they define "abuse" before coming to a decision.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:01, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My big problem with Pashley has to do with his preferred approach to problem users. I believe he thinks we should still be using only the soft methods that worked in years long before W. Frank/Alice caused such havoc, when there were a tiny number of users; treat all "new" users as worth greeting (not being interested in who is a vandal, block-evading or not); and not block anyone. I may be wrong about that, but I feel like he's been very consistent in opposing userbans of problem users, and the fact that he is now supporting the retention of articles started by a block-evading racist of the worst sort is to my mind outrageous conduct by an admin but not surprising.
But SHB2000, did you ever mention on his user talk page that you were considering broaching the idea that he be desysopped? If you never mentioned it before, going straight to a desysop nomination is not reasonable and is arguably as serious a breach of procedure as anything you're charging Pashley with.
On other issues, I would agree that routine use of rollbacks for something other than vandalism or an obvious finger slip without an explanatory user talk page message is bad, but I hadn't noticed Pashley doing that, and it has to be said that it is another admin who tends to do that routinely. He knows who he is, I've mentioned it to him a few times, and I would oppose desysopping him. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: I was trying to find the full policy of desysopping a user yesterday night, but after searching for about 20 minutes, all I could find was Wikivoyage:Administrators#Ending administrator privileges. As I've never seen the proper procedure for desysopping a user, I followed the Commons procedure (a process that I'm somewhat familiar with). I apologise if I've missed something and if I did. Could you point me to where it says a user has to be notified well in advance? (or something alike) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think discussing matters before making a nomination is obvious good manners, which admins should try to adhere to (Commons is a very different community; their practices cannot be applied directly).
The issue of not supporting policy is a different one, and one that really should have been discussed in another context. Admins should have the right to express their own view also when it doesn't conform with policy, and in most cases an admin shouldn't need to take action they don't believe in. I think trying to handle problem users in a softer way is no problem, as long as one doesn't interfere with others handling them harder (in the way consensus developed); I haven't seen Pashley reverting bans. Welcoming socks and trolls is bad, but I think that discussion should just have been continued – sorry I didn't participate.
–LPfi (talk) 12:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Admins have the right to maintain views that don't conform with policy, but in no way can they endorse behaviour that violates Wikimedia's ToU (i.e. AC who violated #4) or encourage WMF-ban evasion (i.e. as demonstrated in Special:Diff/4485037, asking GRP to start a discussion). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 13:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between inadvertently welcoming long-term abusers due to not recognising them, and deliberately allowing long-term abusers to evade bans. I think we need to prove that Pashley did the latter before I can support de-sysopping him. In former case, I think messaging him directly and telling him how to identify specific long-term abusers should be tried first. I've never seen him unilaterally unbanning people who the community has agreed to ban, so at this point I would not support this. The dog2 (talk) 17:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The reason that it seems obvious to me that the possibility of a desysop nomination should have been broached before a nomination was made is that we do that for touts and every other kind of user, other than spambots, vandals and obvious block-evaders. An obvious exception would be for immediate security risks, but that is not what we're dealing with. If there is a security risk, it's a longer-term one relating to how we deal with block-evaders. But The dog2, wouldn't leaving up articles that were started by block-evaders amount to deliberately allowing long-term abusers to evade bans? I absolutely think it does, and therefore, that for any admin to advocate that is unacceptable. But I don't think that by itself is grounds for desysopping without prior notice of such a nomination being possible. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:55, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in the same camp as those above who disagree with some of the actions this admin has taken but don't agree with this nomination. I think these issues could have been resolved through discussion before resorting to an outright desysop nomination, which feels destructive and divisive to the community. However, I think we ought to use this opportunity to achieve agreement with Pashley on two points:
1. An admin must treat problem users according to consensus and policy, regardless of whether the admin agrees with the particular user ban.
2. Rollbacks should never be used during a legitimate disagreement, and shouldn't be used in place of the undo function.
The fact AC continually returns to stir this trouble makes me increasingly glad we decided to implement a user ban in the first place. Now is the last time we should be going back on that decision. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 18:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I agree with above comments that this nomination ought to have been preceded by some more conversations with Pashley, or at least one warning. That kind of thing seems basic courtesy to me, which shouldn't need to be written down. That and the somewhat angry exchange in 'Keep' are the two most recent examples of what I can only describe as Wikivoyage becoming a less kind and more combative place than it used to be. I'm not about to dig up other examples, because it's not about pointing fingers and I'm certainly no innocent either. The general environment here isn't any one individual's fault, and let's face it in the last how many years the real world has also become increasingly fraught, but I think we on Wikivoyage can do better.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:00, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will say though that admins (and anyone else for that matter) are allowed to personally disagree with official policy, as long as they themselves don't violate the rule. The important thing is that they don't revert actions taken by other admins that are in line with the policy they disagree with. So for instance, if a user is banned for violating a particular policy one specific admin disagrees with, if that user evades the ban, an admin is not obligated to ban the new account of the banned user. The only thing is that when another admin proceeds to ban that new account, the admin who disagrees with it is not allowed to unilaterally lift the ban. And if there is a particular rule that all admins disagree with, then it's not an issue as that means there will be a consensus to repeal that rule.
So in the case of Pashley, he is not obligated to delete pages created by banned users. He is just not allowed to unilaterally reinstate them when other admins delete them. The dog2 (talk) 22:01, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I also think that admins as well as everybody else must be allowed to argue for doing something that doesn't conform to the policies. If there is a consensus supporting the policies (and the current interpretation of them), then there will be a consensus to follow them, even with that deviating opinion. If there isn't, it might be time to change the policy. The VFD page says that you should argue based on policies, but in the end most every argument can be based on ttcf, explicitly or implicitly. I'd say that even an argument starting with "I know the policies say ... but ..." must be allowed. –LPfi (talk) 13:09, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that admins are allowed to disagree with policy, but I think they are required to enforce policy if passed by consensus. That said, if vandalism occurs while an admin is active and that admin doesn't take the necessary action, said admin could easily have missed the action by not checking the recent changes log and therefore should not be judged merely by inaction. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 14:02, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Misused rollbacks

FWIW, here's a list of all rollbacks made by Pashley. I'll list all the problematic ones in order from the most recent:

Keep in mind that I've only listed all misuse of rollbacks since 2020.

Also, let's keep in mind that there was once an established user on Wikivoyage who has had their patroller status stripped without prior warning in 2020 – perfectly reasonable, IMO (they were told about their misuse of rollbacks on their talk, but Pashley was told through edit summaries and as an admin should be responsible for following up their actions). Remember, the bar for a sysop using rollback should be much higher than a patroller misusing their tools.

--SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 01:44, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get nominated to be a patroller. Who was demoted from patroller? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to out this user on a medium-traffic page so I've emailed you who it was. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 04:25, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This could just be a misunderstanding. Sometimes, people maybe just not fully understand the difference between rollbacks and reverts, in which case the issue should be brought up on their talk page first. The dog2 (talk) 20:45, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When you become an admin, you also accept the responsibilities that come with an admin. One of them is not misusing your tools. It is Pashley's responsibility to make sure they know when to use a rollback and when they should not – if they didn't know, they should have asked. m:Universal Code of Conduct#3.2 – Abuse of power, privilege, or influence says the following:
  • Abuse of seniority and connections: Using one's position and reputation to intimidate others. We expect people with significant experience and connections in the movement to behave with special care because hostile comments from them may carry an unintended backlash. People with community authority have a particular privilege to be viewed as reliable and should not abuse this to attack others who disagree with them.
In many of the misused rollbacks I listed above, Pashley has used rollback because they did not agree with the edit, especially with IPs. That means their use of rollback was against the UCoC – something that clearly outlines what is acceptable and unacceptable behaviour throughout the Wikimedia movement. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 06:11, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that undo should have been used instead in many of the rollbacks. I don't agree to desysop admins for slips in their understanding of guidelines and policies. If they choose to apply the policies selectively, that's also not a reason to desysop them, unless they cause severe disruption or lose the community's trust. The CoC doesn't say that you must be desysoped if your judgement fails. The quoted bullet doesn't even say "must not", but "should not". –LPfi (talk) 07:25, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with LPfi. No one is disputing the actions took place, but I think there's considerable disagreement with the notion that such actions justify removal of administrator privileges. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 13:48, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say violating the UCoC necessitates in removal of sysop privileges. That does not change my standpoint that it is unacceptable for an admin to blatantly violate the UCoC, which clearly outlines what is acceptable or not. I do not think anyone, especially admins, should be able to furtively get away with misusing rollback. What's even more concerning is Pashley never addressed this and still thinks that Special:Diff/4232502 was an appropriate use of rollback, citing my claim as "bogus". That is one of the reasons I think Pashley is incapable of holding such precarious privileges. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 00:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He's been put on notice that if he continues this pattern of behavior, he could be nominated for desysopping again, but I really doubt he's the worst offender, let alone the only offender in this regard. I occasionally rollback touting, leaning on others to hopefully post to the user's user talk page when I lack the time, considering the fact that I've often done that for others. I think that User:Ibaman is the worst offender on routinely using the rollback feature and then forgetting to post to users' user talk pages. There, I've said it. And I would not at all support desysopping him for that, but I do remind him about this now and then. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:07, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder how much of this concern might be based on a hardline interpretation of the English Wikipedia's rules. Our rules say "should mostly be used for vandalism and spam". Our rules don't mention anything about style, or disagreements, or anything else. What they say is not to use rollback if you want to be able to include an edit summary. If you don't, then – well, who except an expert editor will actually be able to identify which tool you used, anyway? I could understand a complaint that edit summaries aren't used, but "The admin clicked the blue button to revert me instead of using the green button to revert me" sounds like it's incorrectly focused on the process instead of the product. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:03, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Moving forward

Given how we're only going in circles, how about we agree on the following. I've partially worded this off Ikan and SelfieCity's comments.

  1. This nomination serves as an official warning to Pashley.
  2. If Pashley misuses rollback one more time, they will be renominated for desysop. If Pashley continues to misuse rollback, they will be renominated for desysop. (reworded per SelfieCity's suggestion below)
  3. Pashley should accept that their use of rollback on all diffs I've listed above were not appropriate uses of rollback.
  4. Likewise, if they continue to welcome obvious LTAs, vandals, and sockpuppets, the same will happen.
  5. Making exemplary content contributions is not a reason to keep sysop privileges.
  6. If Pashley does not know whether an account is a genuine newbie or vandal, they should steer clear and leave it for someone else to look at.

Defining what "a misuse of rollback" as referred to in point 2, it is using rollback:

  • to revert good-faith edits
  • during a legitimate disagreement
  • in place of the undo function

If everyone (though I'm not expecting ThunderingTyphoons! to agree as they're on holiday) including Pashley agree (to both this and point 3), I'm happy to withdraw this nomination. Otherwise, we can expect to go in circles until October 14. @LPfi, SelfieCity, The dog2, AlasdairW, Ikan Kekek, WhatamIdoing:, does that seem reasonable? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 00:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping to @Pashley:. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 00:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt a single, non-egregious misuse of the rollback tool would warrant a new nomination. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Finerslip? Okay. If they use rollback because disagree with the edit, that means they have not learned that rollback should only be used against vandalism, spam, or in some cases, touting. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 01:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd reword #2 to "If Pashley continues to misuse rollback" as I don't think one edit justifies desysop. But I agree with those six points in principle and would support them as a way to move forward. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 01:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Have reworded point 2. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 01:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I think this nomination should be seen as a warning, but I think even an official warning would have been premature, as the informal complaints on their talk page were not worded severely enough. Thus I expect Pashley to now understand that these issues are serious, but I don't think an official warning is warranted. If there is a consensus it is, then so be it.
  2. Anybody is free to start a nomination at any time, but I think there should be a discussion on their talk page before nomination.
  3. I haven't looked at all diffs but I think there are some borderline cases, so I am not willing to require Pashley to agree with SHB on all of them.
  4. See 2 and 6.
  5. I agree.
  6. I agree, though mistakes now and then are acceptable, as for anybody.
–LPfi (talk) 07:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are the borderline edits you're referring to Special:Diff/4416917, Special:Diff/4252158, and Special:Diff/4034285? I do agree they're borderline, but rollback shouldn't be used for borderline cases, though. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. I didn't go through all cases (and not those three) and I don't remember which ones I thought could arguably be rollbacked. I don't think it is important to establish exactly where to draw the line between perhaps good-faith and certainly not good-faith edits, and I am very much against forcing somebody to apologise for actions they think were good (even when I disagree). The important thing is that Pashley understands that the rollback function mustn't be used routinely, but only as appropriate. Let's trust his judgement for now, and use his talk page if needed. –LPfi (talk) 10:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, fair enough. No offence to Pashley, but the main reason I thought of including that point was to prevent another classic case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, which is very evident once you take a glimpse at User talk:Pashley. Pashley should still make a statement that makes it very crisp clear that they understand when and when not to use rollback, though. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Points 4 and 6 should only be applied to very obvious cases in my view. This is a matter of judgement, and given that we have only circumstantial evidence to rely on, we can't expect everyone to get it right all the time. The dog2 (talk) 16:46, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

4 and 6 relate to matters of judgement. We have to balance the risk of losing a genuine new editor with the impact of welcoming a vandal. If the vandal is a repeat offender, I don't think that their behaviour will be significantly affected by whether or not they are welcomed, indeed a welcome may be seen as "hello, I am watching you". In most cases welcoming vandals is just a waste of time. The only inappropriate welcomes that I would be bothered about would be welcomes of new spammers. I agree with the other points. AlasdairW (talk) 22:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Answering both of your points, those points were deliberately included to prevent another WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT situation. I do realise it's a matter of judgment, but an admin needs to be able to identify what is a vandal/LTA, what is a tout, and what is a good-faith user.
@AlasdairW: I thought the reason welcoming vandals is never done was it gives the vandal the attention they seek, though I agree if the vandal is a repeat offender, they're most likely not going to be bothered.
@The dog2: Nobody will always get it right, but you can expect to get it right at least 80% of the time at the very least. I don't expect Pashley to be able to identify wolves under a sheep's skin, such as the now globally-locked Basa Pulu Kokos (none of us here except Graham87 knew that this user was problematic under a different account name on enwiki, and FWIW, there was no sock to compare this user to). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 00:33, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Someone like the Fuerdai vandal is very obvious. But AC can be difficult to spot because he often makes constructive edits. Quite often, we only found out when he outed himself. The dog2 (talk) 01:58, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually very easy to identify AC edits, to be perfectly frank. Nearly all the IPs he uses geolocate to Bristol and his special areas of interest are Tyrol + surrounds and minority regions of Russia (e.g. Murmansk, Dagestan). Sock accounts will always be named something like "Luke90x". How else do you think I've made User:SHB2000/IPs? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 02:06, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Easy to get suspicious, if you know the banned users and do those checks. But if a Bristol user is doing good edits on Tyrol, what then? You need to recognise their specific style. I don't think an admin is required to know the patterns of vandals. There is a lot of admin work that doesn't require those skills, just like there is a lot of admin work that doesn't require understanding of advanced templates or abuse filter syntax.
The problem here is that welcoming newcomers requires one to have an interest in checking whether a newcomer is a good faith one. Mistakes can be made, but if you don't care, and others do, then you should leave that to the others. How careful one should be is up to discussion, but doing your own race when others complain is not acceptable.
–LPfi (talk) 09:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
100% agree with your second paragraph. Nobody can be expected to know the patterns of each and every individual LTA, but welcoming obvious LTAs such as User talk:AussieQuarantineGuy is simply unacceptable. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:15, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SHB2000: I think we discussed this before you joined the community, but we prefer not to public reveal a banned user's MO, because such users frequently read threads like this one and adjust their behavior accordingly. But I agree that in the case you outlined above, that combined with writing style would be sufficient to identify and block a banned user. We can always keep talk page open in case the user can solidly justify not being the problem user. The chance of a user from a city on side of a continent writing entirely about one small region on the other side, exactly the same as a problem user is virtually 0%. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 12:39, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've been travelling, just got back so catching up & responding.
On the list of specific points above (re-ordered for convenient response):
This nomination serves as an official warning to Pashley.
It is official? Shudder? In my view, this nomination is nonsense & as much a misuse of tools as anything it accuses me of.
Making exemplary content contributions is not a reason to keep sysop privileges.
Of course not, though some level of content contributions should be one criterion in an admin nomination.
If Pashley continues to misuse rollback, they will be renominated for desysop. (reworded per SelfieCity's suggestion below)
Pashley should accept that their use of rollback on all diffs I've listed above were not appropriate uses of rollback.
This is a good point & now that it has been called to my attention, I will use rollback less.
Likewise, if they continue to welcome obvious LTAs, vandals, and sockpuppets, the same will happen.
If Pashley does not know whether an account is a genuine newbie or vandal, they should steer clear and leave it for someone else to look at.
There are degrees of obvious.
The utterly obvious pure vandalism accounts like Fuerdai or on-wheels I just revert & block.
The single-issue obsessives like the one who turns up periodically at Smolensk#Katyń, I revert & block, but often drop a message on their talk page explaining why their edit was reverted.
In the less obvious cases like Brendan's socks, I do steer clear. Others are doing a fine job of tracking, reverting & blocking; I encourage & even admire that, but it doesn't need me. In the meanwhile, though, I will welcome some of them. I periodically make sweeps through recent changes & create a talk page for any new user without one by dropping the boilerplate welcome message on it. I also welcome new users whose edits turn up on my watch list. If that sometimes includes welcoming an LTA sock, I do not see that this does any real harm.
Pashley (talk) 00:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that whether or not I have admin privileges has precisely zero effect on whether I can put welcome messages on user talk pages. Pashley (talk) 00:39, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. I find some of your points concerning.
  1. Okay, it may not be official, but it should serve as a formal warning. Citing that "this nomination is nonsense & as much a misuse of tools as anything it accuses me of" comes out as a way of denying what you've done (and in no way am I suggesting that you are denying what you've done, but it comes out across like that)
  3. Thank you for accepting that.
  5. and 3. Thank you for accepting that those rollbacks were inappropriate.
  7. Agree with your first and third points (re: Fuerdai and Brendan). I disagree with your fourth point, and I don't think you've got the message out of the second. The second is the Smolensk guy who you're referring to is a WMF-banned user and you or anyone here has absolutely no right to overturn that ban. That means, follow the RBI process and make zero attempts at communication. For the fourth point, as I said before, gives the vandal/LTA the attention they seek.
SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 02:39, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, that guy who's obsessed with Katyn and Stalin is a really messed-up character who emails people with abuse, so he's more of a problem than most of the vandals. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:31, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I routinely revert that guy on en.wb and receive emails from that guy on a daily basis, though I think edits like b:Special:Diff/4192093 are quite obvious. Thankfully he doesn't cause too much havoc on this wiki. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 03:53, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now that we have resolved this, I'm going to withdraw this nomination. I hope Pashley will learn from this nomination. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:01, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:User_rights_nominations/Archives/2022&oldid=4824256"