User:Purplebackpack89/Wiktionary:Votes/2015-01/De-sysoping Kephir

I believe this user lacks the competence to adequately serve as an administrator. He clearly holds a grudge against a number of editors (User:Purplebackpack89 being chief among them, and User:Dan Polansky to a lesser extent). That grudge manifests itself in the HOUNDing of those users' edits, a form of harassment that gets in the way of their right to edit. He has misused his administrator privileges on a number of occasions; other times he has edited in ways that would have gotten other editors blocked. There are several ways that Kephir's actions are particularly inappropriate:

1. Using his administrator tools against edits with whom he disagree (particularly blocking those editors without giving them talk page access, generally a no-no on most unilateral blocks, but a particular issue with people he disagrees with).
2. Taking excessive administrative actions that have to be undone by other administrators.
3. Having inappropriate rationale he uses for taking admin actions (for example, deleting a talk page edit using an mainspace rationale), or trumped-up (for example, claiming a user was edit-warring with a single edit, deleting good-faith edits as vandalism, or claiming a clearly-labelled non-secure connection alternate account as sockpuppetry).
4. Making excessive and controversial changes to protected and high-profile pages
5. Failure to be responsive to criticisms on talk pages

(Sign here when posting)

Here are a number of edits I believe to be inappropriate and/or misuse of tools.

• May 20, 2015 Blocking an editor for six months without talk page access on the slimmest of pretenses
  • The block was undone within five minutes with the rationale "making up imaginary rules to ban people you don't like? seriously?"
• • When undone an hour later, another admin called it One of the most abusive blocks I've seen on Wiktionary."
• Then blocking that user's non-secure alt acct, which was clearly labelled as such, indefinitely
  • Was undone by another admin
• Edit-warring over collapsing a Beer parlour discussion about himself
• Closing a discussion that he himself was the subject of
• Controversial indef-block without talk page access of an editor with whom he had quarrelled
  • The block was reduced to one month within 24 hours
• Mis-tagging of a Wiktionary-space page that could have had cataclysmic results (diff provided by User:Dan Polansky)
  • Was undone by another admin within a few hours.
• Removal of another editor's comments on a community noticeboard
• Removing another editor's good-faith edits to a community noticeboard
• Removing another editor's talk page edits on a third editor's page
• 06:29, November 28, 2014: Inappropriate deletion rationale
• 10:12, November 28, 2014: Inappropriate deletion rationale
• 14:08, November 18, 2014: Inappropriate deletion rationale
• Inappropriate deletion rationale: Claiming a good-faith edit was vandalism
• Calling another editor a "lying, illiterate troll
• Taking away the whitelist rights of an editor with whom he quarrelled
  • This occurred in violation of a consensus not to remove the rights
  • The rights were restored within two hours.

I also believe the user does not listen to other editors. As noted, a number of inappropriate comments were deletion of talk page threads as vandalism. Other times, he has deleted talk page comments using rationale that are supposed to be only used for entries. If this user considers talk page comments vandalism, it's clear he is not listening to concerns of other editors. This is not appropriate. He has deleted everything one user has posted on his talk since August, while leaving things other users say intact. While deleting comments is technically not a policy violation, it is highly discouraged, particularly since admins are supposed to listen. (Sign here)

1. Support Purplebackpack89 16:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
2. Support. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)