Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2007-06/User:Richardb
User:Richardb edit
- User:Richardb is a proponent of the very highly problematic Wikisaurus (WS) pages; not problematic by nature, but problematic in implementation. His "ownership" of WS has detracted significantly from it ever becoming anything more than an absurd slang synonym collection for vulgarities. Today, 6/11/2007, after vehemently countermanding community WT:VOTEs on how to reconcile WS, promoting invalid pages as policy, and numerous personal attacks, he has now escalated to attacking the MediaWiki database directly, by knowingly deleting a high-volume page because he was upset.
- (Deletion log); 03:52 . . Richardb (Talk | contribs | block) (deleted "Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others": Not staning for Connels JAck-Boot approach. I'm open to reasonable debate, not being blasted out teh water.)
- His action directly affects hundreds of pages, and restoring a page with enormous history is very likely to cause low-level MediaWiki database problems (if it can be done, at all.)
- Vote started: 10:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- Vote started by: --Connel MacKenzie 10:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Personal Explanation by Richardb edit
For my full personal explanation, please go to User:Richardb/explanation-12-Jun-2007. In brief, I felt I was being unjustly and outrageously attacked by Connel, who was wrongly quoting policy etc. I decided to delete his RFD entry. I was viewing the RFD entry, and made the innocent mistake of using the delete tab. I was wrongly thinking that the delete tab would delete only the entry I was viewing, not the whole RFD page. I am not a deletionist, and rarely use the delete tab for anything other than cleaning up my own mistakes. I was unaware I had mistakenly deleted the whole RFD page until dmcdevit had already blocked me.
You will also see some other points of view I have in User:Richardb/explanation-12-Jun-2007 about CM's behaviour, totally contradicting policies, and the nature of his constant attacks on me. I would welcome other people letting me know if I am right or wrong about these.--Richardb 12:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Support de-sysopping of User:Richardb edit
Oppose de-sysopping of User:Richardb edit
Oppose Widsith 13:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC) I don't believe he meant to delete the entire page. He acted a bit splenetically to be sure, but no more so than Connel. They're both still useful admins.- Oppose H. (talk) 14:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC) Richard’s argument is convincing for me. If it was an accident though, it should not happen again. If something similarly strange happens, this vote can be restarted.
- Oppose Atelaes 16:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC) I am willing to give Richardb the benefit of the doubt here as well (however, as Hamaryns says, I will be less likely to do so if such a mistake is repeated). Ultimately, if Wiktionary sysops were de-sysopped for incivility, I think we could wipe out.....nearly every one of us, come to think of it, and certainly Connel with ease. It is my hope that both people involved in that dispute will take a second to step back and relax. Atelaes 16:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. O.K., I just read Richardb's explanation, which seems plausible enough. —RuakhTALK 16:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment to all opposers so far: In what way is his explanation of the accident acceptable? Why should any of us find it acceptable that an administrator of the site, who ought to have better judgment, was intending to delete the nomination for deletion of his own page. Obviously, while it is a bad idea to revert good faith deletion nominations in general, it is not acceptable to revert ones in which you are involved, instead of discussing. Treading the "explanation", can anyone find an explanation for his rash of personal attacks? They seem to make up the majority of his edits now, and, in fact, the "explanation" itself was laced with them (th whole thing is a sustained ad hominem, like "And now I can see Connel’s even immediately called for de-sysoping me ! (Wouldn’t be surprised if he’s already done it, without waiting for a vote !)" and even going so far as "I suggest we log CM's bowdlerisations at Wiktionary:Monitoring CM"). In fact, rather than addressing the issue, it seems that he has accused myself of assuming bad faith as well. Desysopping or not (it was not my proposal, but I am concerned about the consequences of a free pass if a failed proposal means we drop the issue), can we, as a community, do something about this? Dmcdevit·t 19:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Seeing as, at the time that he deleted the nomination, no had commented yet, and it really looked like the nomination was just Connel MacKenzie's attempt to escalate the situation, I think it's understandable. Not 100% acceptable, but understandable. As for "doing something about it": I don't see what we can do besides censure him, and I don't see what censuring would accomplish that the existence of this vote and the accompanying discussions won't. —RuakhTALK 21:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not talking about needing formalities, I'm just talking about how this vote doesn't convey the message the he was still in the wrong, and Richard clearly still doesn't get it, so it would be nice if the message was somehow communicated to him to stop the battleground tactics. Dmcdevit·t 21:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Which was the greater wrong. For me to delete an RFD immediately it was placed, before any discussion had taken place. OR CM placing the RFD on a Policy Page without following Voting procedure. I was rectifying CM's blatant abuse of policy by taking the appropriate direct action. As to me stopping battleground tactics, bear mind that it was CM who attacked my good faith work first, completely unprovoked. Always is. And as to my "rash of personal attacks", please point out any instance when it has not been in repsonse to overzealous administration by CM. I find it hard not to retaliate to CMs continuous over-the-top autocratic administration. Whereas you seem to think the greater offence is for me to have accused him of a "jackboot" approach. "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me". All I did was call C<s action for what iti is, whereas CM totally overrode policy with his too often wrong assertions of what policy is. I previously said I'd assumed you acted in good faith. Now I'm not so sure, since you are continuing the battle, continuing to attack me (but not CM). Perhaps you had better spell out clearly where you think I was in the wrong, since you are right, I don't get it. But I suggest you take the conversation more privately, perhaps in the talk page of User:Richardb/explanation-12-Jun-2007--Richardb 00:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- If you want me to point out an example, I won't look any further: try rereading this comment you just made. It seems like every comment you make is an ad hominem. Can you not discuss the policy, disagree with someone's reasoning on the policy, without personalizing the issue? Stop calling people "over-the-top autocratic." This response makes no sense: you think that if you say someone else's actions are worse, it makes yours not bad? That is a textbook logical fallacy. Calling someone autocratic and jackbooted is not "calling it what it is," it is intentionally inflammatory language. And now, your response to my honest criticism is not to accept it but instead to accuse me of attacks and question my good faith? I'm sorry, but I came here to contribute to a dictionary, not get involved in your petty flame wars. Dmcdevit·t 01:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- How else would you better describe the style of CM just RFD'ing a policy page that he doesn't agree with ? And is not that action inflammatory ? His actions are far more inflammatory than my comments. But if you care so much for civility of words, but don't give a damn about inappropriate action, then I give up bothering to argue the point with you.--Richardb 08:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- You act as if the only way to address an action that you disagree with is to try to top it in disruptiveness. Neither justifies the other. If you disagree with another person, and even find his actions inflammatory and unproductive or immoral or whatever, you, especially as an administrator, ought to be able to decide how to deal with it. You have options, and starting a civil community discussion on the matter is one of them. None of them needs to include rash and inappropriate reversions or personal attacks. Dmcdevit·t 10:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- How else would you better describe the style of CM just RFD'ing a policy page that he doesn't agree with ? And is not that action inflammatory ? His actions are far more inflammatory than my comments. But if you care so much for civility of words, but don't give a damn about inappropriate action, then I give up bothering to argue the point with you.--Richardb 08:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- If you want me to point out an example, I won't look any further: try rereading this comment you just made. It seems like every comment you make is an ad hominem. Can you not discuss the policy, disagree with someone's reasoning on the policy, without personalizing the issue? Stop calling people "over-the-top autocratic." This response makes no sense: you think that if you say someone else's actions are worse, it makes yours not bad? That is a textbook logical fallacy. Calling someone autocratic and jackbooted is not "calling it what it is," it is intentionally inflammatory language. And now, your response to my honest criticism is not to accept it but instead to accuse me of attacks and question my good faith? I'm sorry, but I came here to contribute to a dictionary, not get involved in your petty flame wars. Dmcdevit·t 01:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Which was the greater wrong. For me to delete an RFD immediately it was placed, before any discussion had taken place. OR CM placing the RFD on a Policy Page without following Voting procedure. I was rectifying CM's blatant abuse of policy by taking the appropriate direct action. As to me stopping battleground tactics, bear mind that it was CM who attacked my good faith work first, completely unprovoked. Always is. And as to my "rash of personal attacks", please point out any instance when it has not been in repsonse to overzealous administration by CM. I find it hard not to retaliate to CMs continuous over-the-top autocratic administration. Whereas you seem to think the greater offence is for me to have accused him of a "jackboot" approach. "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me". All I did was call C<s action for what iti is, whereas CM totally overrode policy with his too often wrong assertions of what policy is. I previously said I'd assumed you acted in good faith. Now I'm not so sure, since you are continuing the battle, continuing to attack me (but not CM). Perhaps you had better spell out clearly where you think I was in the wrong, since you are right, I don't get it. But I suggest you take the conversation more privately, perhaps in the talk page of User:Richardb/explanation-12-Jun-2007--Richardb 00:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not talking about needing formalities, I'm just talking about how this vote doesn't convey the message the he was still in the wrong, and Richard clearly still doesn't get it, so it would be nice if the message was somehow communicated to him to stop the battleground tactics. Dmcdevit·t 21:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Seeing as, at the time that he deleted the nomination, no had commented yet, and it really looked like the nomination was just Connel MacKenzie's attempt to escalate the situation, I think it's understandable. Not 100% acceptable, but understandable. As for "doing something about it": I don't see what we can do besides censure him, and I don't see what censuring would accomplish that the existence of this vote and the accompanying discussions won't. —RuakhTALK 21:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment to all opposers so far: In what way is his explanation of the accident acceptable? Why should any of us find it acceptable that an administrator of the site, who ought to have better judgment, was intending to delete the nomination for deletion of his own page. Obviously, while it is a bad idea to revert good faith deletion nominations in general, it is not acceptable to revert ones in which you are involved, instead of discussing. Treading the "explanation", can anyone find an explanation for his rash of personal attacks? They seem to make up the majority of his edits now, and, in fact, the "explanation" itself was laced with them (th whole thing is a sustained ad hominem, like "And now I can see Connel’s even immediately called for de-sysoping me ! (Wouldn’t be surprised if he’s already done it, without waiting for a vote !)" and even going so far as "I suggest we log CM's bowdlerisations at Wiktionary:Monitoring CM"). In fact, rather than addressing the issue, it seems that he has accused myself of assuming bad faith as well. Desysopping or not (it was not my proposal, but I am concerned about the consequences of a free pass if a failed proposal means we drop the issue), can we, as a community, do something about this? Dmcdevit·t 19:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose DAVilla 05:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC) My opinion seems to be a summary of what everyone is thinking. I do not doubt that Richardb was frustrated, or that he rarely deletes material. Being frustrated is not an excuse for removing a deletions nomination, and this requires a warning at the very least, but not de-sysopping, as others have said. I will also add a note to Connel that there are more diplomatic ways to disagree with someone, but that should be obvious. DAVilla 05:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Robert Ullmann 12:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Coffee2theorems 16:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC) Agree completely with DAVilla.
Abstain edit
Abstain --Richardb 12:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- If other people don't want to bother supporting me, then why worry about retaining sysop responsibilities and privileges.
- Comment: I started a a thread at WT:BP#Richardb at roughly the same time this was written. A community discussion might be better before jumping headlong into a vote. Dmcdevit·t 22:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: A vote may be needed, but I agree with Dmcdevit that a discussion is needed first. Deleting WT:RFDO with an edit summary that clarifies that your action was intentional and eliminates the possibility that you had a lapsus muris (slip of the mouse) is, of course, a disruptive action, and revoking User:Richardb's sysop status may be necessary, but only after discussion. — Beobach972 22:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: I have now read Richardb's response, and find it plausible; I had not considered that scenario when I made the comment above this one. — Beobach972 18:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: A vote may be needed, but I agree with Dmcdevit that a discussion is needed first. Deleting WT:RFDO with an edit summary that clarifies that your action was intentional and eliminates the possibility that you had a lapsus muris (slip of the mouse) is, of course, a disruptive action, and revoking User:Richardb's sysop status may be necessary, but only after discussion. — Beobach972 22:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Decision edit
- Seeing the universal opposition, I'd like to withdraw this vote, particularly on the principle of w:WP:SNOW. --Connel MacKenzie 17:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)