Wiktionary

Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2023-02/Desysop Theknightwho

< Wiktionary:Votes

Desysop Theknightwho edit

Nomination: I propose to remove the admin role from User:Theknightwho.

Rationale: Theknightwho has given a ban of one month to Dan Polansky, who has this month taken up the rather perplexing hobby of listing his grievances about other users on his own talk page. Much can be said about this activity, I shall merely note that these sections are not very nice and generally unconvincing. Yesterday (in my time zone) Dan created another such section. This formed the rationale for Theknightwho to ban him: "Continued engaging in personal attacks, despite numerous prior warnings and blocks." I observe the following:

  • The statements in Dan's talk page section objectively do not rise to the level of a personal attack, even if you try to make the most out of spinning "it feels like living on a planet with semi-intelligent aliens" to the point of even surpassing Tony Blair. It is not clear that this conduct, whilst undesirable, ought to be sanctioned.
  • Even for a repeat offence that would be a mild personal attack. The length of the ban is therefore truly excessive. This may be regarded an abuse of administrator privileges.
  • Admins should ideally be uninvolved with the dispute. Although that is, strictly interpreted, an impossible condition with Dan whose rankling of the staff is notorious, Theknightwho is clearly very involved; the two have long-standing hostilities, including on the very subject of Dan's conduct.
  • Theknightwho has been asked and has commented about the block, where he fails to substantiate the import of Dan's recent "transgression", even admits he finds it "amusing", and instead invokes a pattern of previous misbehaviour and "a level of hostility that is fundamentally at odds with a collaborative project". These are insufficient cause for a ban, which should be reserved for more serious actions.
  • (Furthermore, such a nebulous standard for sanction risks creating Kafkaesque conditions.)
  • In his subsequent response in the same talk page section, he has referred to three specific incidents and again a "wider context" and "continuation". Of his particular examples only the first (alleged shaming) bears prima facie merit, but it again turns out to be vastly too mild for any sanction.
  • Therefore an excessively long ban has been given for undesirable but rather frivolous actions by an involved sysop, who when pressed refers to context and patterns rather than genuinely ban-worthy instances.

I conclude that the above constitute an abuse of admin powers, that render Theknightwho unfit for continued exercise of the admin role, and that we best remove him from this role.

I also doubt that Theknightwho's course of action regarding a person who does not seem to be in the best mental state is prudent, but that is not remiss and as a result not a valid reason for a sanction.

Note: The vote is on the proposal, not the rationale.

Schedule:

Support edit

  1.   Support ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 20:50, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Weak support As said on his admin vote, Knight should have let others handle Dan. While I still think that Knight is an awesome editor and would make a great admin one day, I'm not sure that day is now, since he seems to not know when to stop and distance himself from a fight. Thadh (talk) 23:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support. DonnanZ (talk) 23:37, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to see your reasoning, since your RFV/RFD reasoning on SoP terms generally seems to be "I just like it". Equinox ◑ 02:37, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not required to give any reasoning about that anything here. All I will say is that this request doesn't surprise me. DonnanZ (talk) 12:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support. Since I think admins are not needed, I vote this way. Losing one admin is better than nothing. This does not apply to the conflict, but it gives a different opportunity. Gnosandes 💜 (talk) 11:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Support Amicus Theknight, sed magis amica veritas. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 13:23, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose edit

  1.   Oppose. If anything, TKW's action didn't go far enough. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 20:58, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Oppose This is sad 'cause I like both Knight and Lingo and have talked with both of them a lot. I am apparently more on Dan's side, or more sympathetic with him, than most people (as suggested in my own "school report" on his talk page!); I did shorten a previous Dan block that struck me as excessive. OTOH I rarely interact with him much because we do not edit in the same areas. I am, however, a person with strong opinions who tends to express them bluntly, and so is Dan. (See Marmite.) I think I can see a bit of both sides here. In any case, Knight is (in my experience) a generally reasonable and reliable person whom I don't want to desysop over one decision, even if it's one bad one. To paraphrase Lingo above, I think there is "insufficient cause for a ban, which should be reserved for more serious actions". Equinox ◑ 22:36, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The knightwho does need a dose of his own medicine though. DonnanZ (talk) 13:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please keep your petty grievances out of this. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 16:58, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    An opinion, not a grievance. DonnanZ (talk) 17:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no need for sadness, I begrudge neither you nor Theknightwho. However, he does not seem to think that he did anything wrong with the ban. What is your suggestion to proceed with Dan's block? ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 16:58, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for asking. There are certain topics I just give up and allow the wiki to take it course (such as LGBT on Wikipedia); this is one. Equinox ◑ 23:02, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Oppose —Fish bowl (talk) 00:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Oppose The wider context exists and all parties ware it, it’s not that Dan Polansky did not know why he was banned; if Theknightwho has not provided sufficient verbalization of the reasoning, others did, which from my understanding largely concerns Dan’s perversely eliciting our precious verbalization. People not in the best mental state seek action, too, and the place would be woebegone if administration forwent to set conditions for it not to become a madhouse. Fay Freak (talk) 06:31, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please translate this into modern English, for Brits like me? Thanks. Equinox ◑ 11:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Equinox Fay's idiom is not "non-modern English", it's just not English. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 13:27, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is that "semi-intelligent aliens" is ridiculous as a trigger and falls short of justifying the length of the ban. Everything else that you wrote is honestly irrelevant to the discussion. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 16:58, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    One thing that hasn't been referred to anywhere in this discussion is WT:Blocking policy, which states ">1 month" for "Third blocks for persistent or repeat offenders." Note that this was Dan's fourth block, and that this explicitly requires the blocking admin to take past transgressions into account. Theknightwho (talk) 21:51, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Oppose. Maybe Knight should have asked a more impartial admin to look at Dan's behavior and decide whether a long-term block was justified, but IMO the former didn't do anything worthy of deadminning. —Mahāgaja · talk 11:53, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you make of the fact that he does not seem to think that he did anything wrong? ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 16:58, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Oppose, broadly per Mahagaja. In contrast to the proposer I don't think anything was obviously wrong with Knight's decision, given that this is in the context of judging whether a user will act appropriately given an existing block record and not just punishing a specific action, but I think Knight should obviously have recused himself from admin tools in this case. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 14:45, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7.   Oppose. TKW has done some things in interacting with Dan which I think were not ideal, e.g. on RFD some of Dan's closures have been badly/POV-ly motivated but some of TKW's reversals of them have also come across as POINTy or argumentative about specific rationales, since some of those discussions were subsequently reclosed with the same keep/delete outcome as Dan closed them with, and only different technical justification thereof. I think it might've been better if TKW let other people deal with some of Dan's activities. But I'm also tolerant of an admin who blocks a bad editor for bad behaviour having been "involved", because one thing bad editors do, and which Dan does, is make themselves "involved" with everyone who might block them (and rules-lawyer), so people hesitate to act and the editor can keep disrupting because no one wants to bite the bullet and catch this kind of debate over whether a specific comment, if isolated from and pointedly not considered in its context of an entire decade-plus editing pattern, would technically break the letter of the law or whether the admin is actually the one to punish for enforcing the spirit of the project.
    As discussed on TKW's talk page, my talk page, and the November 2022 Beer Parlour, Dan has been disruptive for over over a decade, both before and after a long break in editing, so to take only one recent comment in isolation from everything else and try to discuss whether it by itself would merit a block, as if a new user with no edit history did it, is... surprising (inadvisable); Dan isn't blocked for saying an a-word, as if "aliens" were a swear, he's blocked because (to borrow Wikipedia parlance) he's NOTHERE to collaboratively build a dictionary; his long-time MO is disrupting if things aren't done the way he thinks is best (if reference templates aren't formatted the "right" way, etc, etc), it's clear he still thinks everyone who disagrees with his is wrong, his talk page and recent comments make clear that he has only become more hardened in this attitude, and unfortunately at this point I think it's unreasonable to expect change, not only because people don't typically abruptly change personality, but also because it's clear he (and a few other people in this discussion!) feel the blocks were unjustified and it seems unlikely that a person whose talk-page reports on various editors makes his grudginess clear would abruptly become collaborative. - -sche (discuss) 20:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been reluctant to bring up WP:NOTHERE, as we aren't Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean we can't take it under advisement. The unambiguously relevant ones are:
    • Treating editing as a battleground: Excessive soapboxing, escalation of disputes, repeated hostile aggressiveness, and the like, may suggest a user is here to fight rather than here to build an encyclopedia. If a user has a dispute, then they are expected to place the benefit of the project at a high priority and seek dispute resolution. A user whose anger causes them to obsess may find the fight has become their focus, not encyclopedia writing.
    • Little or no interest in working collaboratively: Extreme lack of interest in working constructively and cooperatively with the community where the views of other users may differ; extreme lack of interest in heeding others' legitimate concerns; interest in furthering rather than mitigating conflict like disregarding polite behavior for baiting, blocking as a means of disagreeing, diverting dispute resolutions from objectives, driving away productive editors, or ownership of articles.
    Some of the others arguably also apply, but I don't want to muddy the waters. Theknightwho (talk) 21:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering that you and Dan have had long-standing disputes (perhaps for over a decade, about the period that you have considered him disruptive) that go beyond mere disagreements and dislikes, this was basically expected/10. So no, I do not consider you uninvolved nor an unbiased source on Dan. The fact that you have bizarrely blamed him for "driving off" Speednat and Razorflame (two highly dubious claims about two mediocre users) speaks for itself.
    Can Dan be a proper arse if he wants to? Yes. Does he have an obstructionist tendency? Absolutely, but I am unsure to which extent your characterisation of his disruptiveness relates to your substantive disagreements with Dan. Is he about a decade behind on anything involving gender or sexuality? Sure. Is he a newbie biter? Incarnate. But he has also displayed a certain skill in sniffing out problem users like PaM and PaulBustion. If he actually did discourage Razorflame from editing, that was manna from heaven to us conlang editors. And his contributions to policy pages has been invaluable.
    Anyhow, I feel that the selection of facts in your post is rather one-sided. And yes, I did notice that you failed to disclose your long-term issues with Dan yourself. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 21:38, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Tbf this is a vote, I'd expect everyone to be biased, nor is sche claiming that they're unbiased or uninvolved. Also, it feels like there's even more history and context that needs to be given as someone who hasn't been as involved, it feels especially pointed. AG202 (talk) 21:57, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that you can acknowledge all of his obnoxious misbehavior and still insist that he get more second chances tells me that there is no point in trying to have a conversation with you about this. Replying to the candidate’s well reasoned argument with an immediate request for desysop was inappropriate enough, but this takes the cake. —(((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 23:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8.   Oppose. If anything, Theknightwho (talk • contribs) is being really too gentle with these suspensions; they are all far, far shorter than they should be. —(((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 23:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9.   Oppose. Some users are problematic in unique ways. (Just thinking of Fumiko Take, for example.) Maybe Knight is a hothead, maybe Knight broke the rules, but after browsing through Dan’s talk page I do not see any way to keep the peace and have a healthy editing community but by removing Dan from it. Rules should be ignored when necessary, as they cannot cover all possible bad behaviours. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 02:35, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  10.   Oppose I have my issues with User:Theknightwho (e.g. over his code changes), and I agree with the statement that he's a hothead and argues way too much, but I think this vote is incredibly misguided. Voting to desysop someone over a single situation like this seems wrong even if the blocks were clearly unjustified. (I have seen unjustified or overly long blocks in the past, and the correct response is simply to shorten or remove the block, not to try to desysop the blocker.) And yet it's far from obvious that these blocks are unjustified, given the ample evidence of how harmful and disruptive Dan's behavior is to the project and how long this has been going on. Benwing2 (talk) 03:05, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To me, this isn't about one situation, but rather about Knight continuing to do this one thing he was told would end badly five months ago, without any change in his behaviour. I don't think not learning from one's mistakes is a positive character trait for an admin. Thadh (talk) 11:32, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t think it’s fair to assume that I did this because of a grudge, and not for all of the extensive reasons I’ve given as to why his block was justified. Theknightwho (talk) 14:46, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't assume anything, but you're obviously involved and should just stay out of fights with Dan altogether. Thadh (talk) 14:50, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This was not, by any stretch of the imagination, a fight. It was not retaliatory, and I was not involved. What you are effectively saying is that I should never take action to stop Dan’s repeated misbehaviour, and that it doesn’t matter that it was the right thing to do. That’s just false balance. Theknightwho (talk) 15:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  11.   Weak oppose Voted changed from abstain to oppose. The recent revelations and racist comments from Dan Polansky makes me align much more with those who take punitive action against him. The fact that he's been allowed back into the project time and time again says more about our lack of action against problematic users, something that I've mentioned in prior discussions (we take to long to block and when we do, it's too short). He should be indefinitely blocked. AG202 (talk) 17:05, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  12.   Oppose. Based on reviewing the available evidence, if anything, the admin in question was actually very lenient. From looking at the blocklog and beer parlor discussion, the user has now been indefinitely banned for racism as well, so yeah. I'd also like to note that the mischaracterization of the situation does not reflect well on the initiator of this vote, and neither does their apparent use of this vote as a weapon against the admin. It's pretty sus, as the kids say. --Veikk0.ma (talk) 16:38, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain edit

  1.   Abstain PUC – 11:54, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Abstain I think eq raises some good points, and I also think knight has a tendency to fixate on Dan in a bad way, but I also think Dan is incredibly problematic on the whole. Vininn126 (talk) 13:14, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    #   Abstain Agree with Vininn. AG202 (talk) 14:36, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Abstain per above. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 14:52, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Abstain Theknightwho's approach reminds me of a bull in a china shop one too many times often, but then again this entire debacle is entirely Dan's own comeuppance. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 22:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Abstain I really don't think that Theknightwho should be desysoped. However, I've had my fair share of run-ins with Dan, so I don't want to risk being accused of bias. With that said, I second Surjection – Dan pretty much brought it on himself. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

  • Obviously I cannot vote in this. However, I believe the premise of this vote to be fundamentally misleading, given the significant background that led to this:
  1. Dan was given an indefinite block back in November, which was remitted to 1 month. Following this, he made absolutely no effort to improve in his behaviour. Examples:
    1. Shortly after returning, he started an edit war with 2 other editors over moving his personal essay into Wiktionary space: 1, 2. I had already suggested he move it prior to this (without forcing the issue), but Dan not only reverted 2 moves by other editors, but started a highly argumentative thread about it, in which he attempted to argue that "Lack of consensus" is not an argument and said I was engaging in "stupidity or dishonesty". Not a great start.
    2. In several places, he started engaging in lots of obstructionist rules lawyering.
    3. He became very belligerent in response to requests to read policy.
    4. He stated that his prior indefinite block was for "fabricated reasons", which clearly shows a lack of willingness to learn from his past mistakes.
    5. He decided to start discounting votes from new contributors in order to get the results he wants in RFD.
    6. Started being generally rude.
    This all took place in the space of 3 weeks, so as a result I gave him a 1 week block.
  2. Dan's reaction to this was to write thousands of words of personal attacks against 8 other users: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. This is obviously unacceptable, so I revoked his talk page permissions.
  3. On returning, Dan started doing the same things even more. Describing other users as "inferior", "stupid", "dishonest" etc is not something that we, as a community, are generally alright with, so I reinstated his block for 2 weeks.
  4. After Dan's return (during which he showed absolutely no remorse: translation here), it was disappointing to see him start insulting yet another user. And to be honest, I simply don't agree it wasn't a personal attack: strongly implying that someone is a "semi-intelligent alien" is quite obviously unnecessary, provocative and rude. It doesn't matter that it was comparatively mild, because there is absolutely no reason to give him the benefit of the doubt, and there is every reason to think he is going to start doing the more serious stuff again at a moment's notice.

As for the length, I was merely following the recommendation given here by Equinox to double it each time. Theknightwho (talk) 01:47, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; the block seems perfectly justified to me (edit: ...and so does the indefinite block DP is now under - good grief!). Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 12:12, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I shall say from the outset that I would not mind if you voted. It concerns you after all and I would rather that the vote fails resoundingly than passes with the narrowest margin and the greatest controversy.
The wider context is relevant in justifying a longer ban, but the point of a ban is that you do not re-ban for old trangressions after the end of it unless there are new and worse facts. So you cannot let the "wider context" do most of the work in justifying the block. And a new ban ought to be triggered to be something that is bad enough for a block on its own merits. Everyone with a semblance of emotional detachment can see that this is not that.
The strong implication was that several members of the Wiktionary editor base are "like semi-intelligent aliens". I cannot believe anybody could spontaneous take offence from that, like you said, you were amused by it. I have heard far worse from users in good standing here, myself I have written worse on a rare occasion. It is a vast expansion of the limits that politeness place on discussions and that is not the kind of change to be introduced by an inexperienced admin acting alone.
That "there is absolutely no reason to give him the benefit of the doubt" is a worryingly dogmatic statement, that risks closing oneself off from input from the outside world and suggests that involvement has indeed gone too far.
Dan should be mindful that he is on this ice, but that does not justify this "offence" triggering this block length. Likewise felons on probation should know that they are on thin ice, but one should not want the police to beat up a felon on probation for picking his nose in public.
I'll put it like this: does "semi-intelligent aliens" + "wider context" = one-month ban? No, it needs something else, a factor X. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 16:58, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that we can’t take previous transgressions into account. The point of a block is to prevent harm to the project (not to punish), and when somebody is known to engage in bad behaviour, there is no reason to stand idly by while they do yet more of the same things which harmed the project in the first place. I’m sure it’s true that we’ve both done worse things ourselves than say users are like semi-intelligent aliens, but it’s the wider context which tells us whether it was a moment of anger or part of a sustained pattern of disruptive and harmful behaviour. I am clearly not alone in thinking Dan should be blocked; this is very clearly an ongoing problem, and one which has been happening for a very long time. If Dan professes not to know why this has happened, then I really don’t know what to say. He’s had so many second chances at this point.
You may not believe me, but I promise you now that if Dan were to come back and start engaging in good faith, I would be delighted. That doesn’t mean he has to agree with me on anything, and it doesn’t mean that we have to like each other. It just means that he needs to start being more considerate and mindful of his actions, and to stop making everything about himself. I am sceptical that he will ever do that, but maybe he will. However, that is unlikely to happen if we simply let him carry on as before; nevermind the fact that what he does creates an incredibly unwelcoming environment for newcomers. I can’t speak for anyone else, but I doubt I would have stayed had I joined when he was active.
At the end of the day, neither of us want Wiktionary to have a toxic culture, because it’s exhausting and draining for everyone. There needs to be an open and frank community discussion over what we should do re Dan, I think. That should hopefully give us a way forward. Theknightwho (talk) 17:39, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this case Theknightwho should have recognised the conflict of interest and left admin action to someone else, possibly by request. However since no warning has been issued to Theknightwho, that should be the first step rather than a desysop. But I will also say that over-reacting to a problem adds to the toxic culture, and that is also why I don't support a desysop. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:04, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that the vote is over and the nominator failed is it going to be like in broken arrow with the comanches and cochise or whatever he wanted the other chiefs to abandon the head chief and they had a vote and it was one guy short and he kept shouting who else who else but no one would go with him and he had to leave the camp and his men and he was exiled forever? I hope the wiktionary people can get along after this and there are no hard feelings Technicalrestrictions01 (talk) 14:03, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There are no hard feelings. Theknightwho (talk) 15:56, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decision edit

Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2023-02/Desysop_Theknightwho&oldid=71239472"