Wiktionary talk:Votes/sy-2017-11/Desysopping CodeCat aka Rua

Rationale

CodeCat/Rua repeatedly performed volume non-consensual actions, showed very bad temperament for an admin in wheel warring and at least once abused their admin power. In particular:

The one recent abuse of admin power that I know of is the locking of Module:form of/templates, where I reverted a non-consensual change by CodeCat/Rua. The reverted edit is a legitimate subject of dispute, and locking the page in one's favor is not proper for an admin; instead, CodeCat/Rua should have produced evidence of consensus or at least let some other admin lock the page, if required.

Wheel warring: This took place in Module:links, in June and August 2016. The edit history of the module shows over 30 to-and-fros. A discussion that followed is at Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2016/August#wheel warring between User:Wyang and User:CodeCat -- not cool. CodeCat/Rua was desysopped as a result, and was only resysopped very recently.

Intent to continue wheel warring seems apparent from Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2017/August#Please restore my admin rights. In that discussion, some people seem to oppose re-sysopping of CodeCat/Rua. Let me quote CodeCat/Rua from there: "Without consensus, I will only accept my version." That to me is a declaration of willingness to edit war on any issue on which there is no consensus, like there is 40:60 division or something. It is a declaration of CodeCat/Rua as a sovereign to rule over anyone else on any contentious issue, that is, an issue for which no clear 2/3-supermajority exists in favor of one of the options. The linked thread contains more in that vein.

Admittedly, it is useful that CodeCat/Rua be able to edit modules. This can be achieved by lowering the protection level of the concerned modules.

--Dan Polansky (talk) 23:08, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Do you have difficulty using pronouns? —Rua (mew) 23:32, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Surely it is better than misgendering? —suzukaze (t・c) 23:41, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

True, but Dan knows my gender. —Rua (mew) 23:43, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd prefer an abbreviation: C/R. And I like C/R very much, so I'd oppose the vote. --P5Nd2 (talk) 15:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd prefer just "Rua" or "she". It's facepalm worthy that I even need to say it. —Rua (mew) 16:18, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Please do not press the point. Nothing good is likely to come of it. --Yair rand (talk) 18:50, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Template editing

Irrespective of any problems with Rua's temperament or judgement as an admin, I think we can all agree that he provides many helpful edits to templates and modules. I would just like to point out that en.wp has a template editor permission which could be created here. This would allow any user whose technical ability is trusted but who may not have the full trust of the community for actions like blocking, deleting, or locking. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

1. We have already had that here for a while. 2. It is rather obviously not a useful suggestion given that the community's lack of trust is centred on module edits and the like rather than blocking and deleting. 3. Wrong pronouns. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge: I do recall that Template Editor was added here. So let me say instead that a desysopping and then adjusting of user rights to Template Editor is an option. re: 2.): what Dan wrote above was, "[l]ocking the page in one's favor is not proper for an admin... it is useful that CodeCat/Rua be able to edit modules." Template Editors can edit modules but not lock them. And re: pronouns: the user in question doesn't state a preference for "she" or anything else on his/her/etc. userpage, so I wasn't trying to presume anything but just use "he" as a generic pronoun. It's honestly completely irrelevant to the conversation. If Rua is (e.g.) a woman, than I am thankful for her edits but maybe she is lacking some judiciousness. Whatever--my point still stands. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

@Koavf: You can install a script that lets you see genders and other information on user pages, for instance w:User:PleaseStand/userinfo.js (or User:PseudoSkull/userinfo.js, not sure the difference). — Eru·tuon 08:51, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Is a script even necessary? You can check any user's gender (if they've set it in their preferences) with {{gender:USERNAME|M|F|N}} where M is the text to return if the user is male, F is the text to return if the user is female, and N is the text to return if the user hasn't specified a gender. For example, {{gender:Rua|he|she|they}} returns "she" and {{gender:Angr|he|she|they}} returns "they". So you don't have to ask or look at someone's user page to know their preferred pronoun (provided they've specified it in their preferences). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:14, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

@Erutuon, Angr: Thanks for the hacks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:14, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I created User:Daniel Carrero/Genders with a list of a few people and their "{{gender:...}}" results. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:40, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Would you make a similar page for skin colour? Am I a "TERF" Nazi if I say that it doesn't matter and you're just fomenting trouble? Equinox ◑ 00:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I hope you are not thinking I typed the "male"/"female"/"unspecified" values myself. That page only returns whatever people typed in their settings, which is publicly accessible. Also, of course gender matters. I am prepared to call you "he" when needed. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:55, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Cool. My input to a vote about whether someone should be deopped is based on that person's work and not their genitals. Equinox ◑ 00:56, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

That seems obvious to me. Nobody says otherwise. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:01, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Incident

Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2018/February#User:Rua removing information from Portuguese entries. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:14, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Out of process template deletions

From what I remember and can find, a multitude of templates were deleted by CodeCat/Rua out of process, including {{f}}, {{physics}}, and others, etc. The deletion summary of {{f}} includes "Failed RFD, RFDO", but there is no record on Template talk:f. I cannot be sure, but I cannot find any record of RFDO or other process pertinent to the deletions. Another template that appears to be deleted out of process is {{pt-noun-form}}, and the edit sumary starts with "Deleted per RFD, RFDO".

If the above is correct rather than a consequence of deficiencies in manner of archiving, the above presents a systematic pattern of 1) out of process deletion, and 2) misrepresentation. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)