Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2016-08/User:Dan Polansky for admin

User:Dan Polansky for admin

Nomination:

I hereby nominate Dan Polansky (talk • contribs) as a local English Wiktionary Administrator. Projects in which he has been active include Czech entries and Wikisaurus. He often engages in policy making, discussion and votes.

Dan Polansky started editing in 2006. Numbers according to the Wikimedia stats page, as of July 2016: main namespace edits = 83,314; other namespace edits = 25,816.

He has chosen to decline previous nominations to become an administrator, in past years. This appears to be the full list of nominations:

In the nomination discussions, some people appeared to be looking forward to see him as an administrator. This is one of those cases when you might be surprised to learn that the person is not an administrator already. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Vote starts: as soon as the nomination is accepted
Vote ends: 23:59, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Acceptance: I accept. I pledge to give up my admin rights in future if there is no longer consensus to support continuing adminship; thus, if a future vote to confirm my adminship yields no consensus, I shall cease to be an admin.
- Languages: cs-N, en-3, de-2, sk-1, ru-1
- Timezone: UTC+1, in Summer UTC+2.
Dan Polansky (talk) 12:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Support

Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 13:02, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Support "This is one of those cases when you might be surprised to learn that the person is not an administrator already" — totally. I think Dan is sometimes a little inflammatory but he makes good decisions and isn't as awful as me. Equinox ◑ 13:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Support I often disagree with Dan, and often find him to be unreasonably scared of change, but I see no reason whatever not to trust him with the tools. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Support Daniel is like a Czechoslovak robot who doesn't understand that the rules can sometimes be bent, but we need his stickler attitude to counterbalance more unruly Wiktionarians. --Vahag (talk) 16:04, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. My support of keeping translation target entries despite CFI shed some doubt on the above diagnosis but I sure am pretty adamant when it comes to consensus and modifying policy pages only via votes. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:13, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
I support modifying policy pages only via votes. Last year, I tried editing WT:EL by myself, and Dan Polansky asked the policy to be reverted to the previous version. After that, I created most policy votes in the last year, and was able to get a good chunk of WT:EL voted and approved in the meantime. It takes much more work, and time, to create votes for policy changes than simply editing the policy with abandon or with a small discussion, and policy votes fail more often than I would be comfortable with. But when a vote passes above the 2/3 threshold, then we have a clear consensus. In other words, the voted and approved rules are more reliable, lessening the danger of the policy being malleable and changing whenever a given person wants. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:15, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Support ~~(though partly because I thought he was already an admin, not because I have a strong opinion either way--in other words, count my vote as an abstension if the vote barely passes).~~ per Equinox and Angr. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Support per Angr and Equinox —suzukaze (t・c) 05:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Support To counterbalance Lenka64's vote. (For the record, Dan Polansky is definitely not a troll nor has he ever been. His discussion contributions to Czech and Slovak Wiktionaries are substantial. Lenka and her friends managed to delete all images from Czech and Slovak Wiktionaries without never having reached any consensus for that. The leader of this clique, Danny B. has been recently desysoped on Czech Wiktionary. Lenka is just trying to take revenge here. Other members of this clique are likely to follow...) --Auvajs (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
User:Auvajs is multisuckpuppet from cs wiki supported by Dan Polansky. --Lenka64 (talk) 06:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
For the reader: Yes, but in 2006 and on a different project (cs.wp). As a sidenote, cs.wp ArbCom decided (2013) Lenka64 was a "notorious, verbally aggressive editor" --Auvajs (talk) 20:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
User:Lexiq was your suckpuppet 2014/2015 on cs wikt.... --Lenka64 (talk) 05:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
So can you link to any edits where I used this account to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, evade blocks, or otherwise violate community standards and policies and not to have a clean start under a new name? ;) Again, as a sidenote, you are using several accounts too. Better speaking, you are being verbally aggressive on several accounts at the same time. --Auvajs (talk) 08:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Your answers are manipulative ....and Dan Polansky is probably out.... --Lenka64 (talk) 08:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
No links? No evidence? So you are just lying. User Lexiq was not a sockpuppet. For the record the actual reason I used a new account was to avoid harassment from you and your friends. You and your friends are harassing users who oppose you on several projects. Dan Polansky is one of your victims.--Auvajs (talk) 09:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
rofl.... --Lenka64 (talk) 09:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

This is irrelevant to this vote, but anyway: Auvajs is an interesting editor. In his youth, he engaged in massive sockpupetting and disruptive behavior in the Czech Wikipedia. However, he ceased and, in recent time, he did excellent work in bringing consensus-based voting processes into the Czech Wiktionary. Just recently, he nearly made it to be elected as an admin: cs:Wikislovník:Správci/Žádost o práva správce Auvajs. In that vote, the opposing voter Dubicko is Lenka64. --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:08, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Re: "To counterbalance Lenka64's vote". If it's true that some opposing votes were unfair for one reason or another, bear in mind that the vote needs a 2/3 majority to pass, so 2 support votes are needed to counterbalance 1 oppose vote. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Support Dan gets a lot of flak for things which I don't think he deserves. He is possibly the best force for good on this project that I have seen yet, and I'm amazed that nobody's thought to help improve that before. — ObſequiousNewt — Geſpꝛaͤch — Beÿtraͤge 05:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
To clarify: I think there's a recurring pattern of people (and not just on enwikt) who make edits that run afoul of the consensus, and often the rules, and get into conflicts with people who can't be bothered to be polite about it, and then the former goes off and complains about how the latter was rude to them. The word 'harassment' is often used. I don't interact with a lot of people here, it is true, but it seems evident that DP belongs to the latter group, and a lot of the flak he gets comes from the former, and while I can't condone rudeness I also can't condemn it in the face of certain behavior. I did oppose Romanophile's nomination largely on the grounds of 'causticity', but I also said that causticity wasn't enough for me to clearly object to adminship, and I stand by both of these statements. Looking at Romanophile's contribs page I didn't see many positive and useful contributions. DP I am much more inclined to support. For example:

JohnC5 mentioned below one time in which DP challenged our orthographic standards for Ancient Greek. I distinctly remember this incident (link) and I rememember my initial knee-jerk reaction of "how dare you, you come into our Houſe, you ſhit on our orthographick Conſenſus, you ſhit on everything we ſtand for" but then eventually realized that, no, he did have some good points. He told us that we were doing it poorly, and could do it better, and I think he was right at least in some areas, and I'm thankful to him for that. I only wish the vote was better designed (because, honestly, that was not a good way to design a vote, and I wish people in general would stop doing it like that.) Anyone who is inclined to poke about with a stick may well have a better stick for poking with, in my view. — ObſequiousNewt — Geſpꝛaͤch — Beÿtraͤge 17:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Also: I don't know where the idea that he disregards the rules came from at all. Rather the converse, I find he is too tied to the rules, although that's largely just me hating the concept of votes, which I feel are honestly a terrible way to run things. — ObſequiousNewt — Geſpꝛaͤch — Beÿtraͤge 18:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Support, precisely per Aɴɢʀ. At the end of the day this discussion is about whether to give a very active editor a mop with which to do more work. bd2412 T 19:31, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Support.—msh210℠ (talk) 20:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose —CodeCa t 13:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Oppose, because he has a history of driving productive users off the project for good. With admin rights, he will be able to do this even more effectively, which is very worrying. I trust him not to do anything worse than bite the newbies, but he bites hard, and we need newbies rather badly. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:03, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Oppose. As Meta notes, Dan has driven off some prolific editors (Speednat comes to mind), and this community has had several discussions about how biteyness leads to us having a small editor base; we even just had two different BP discussions about admins whose attitudes have led to editors leaving. (Conversely, he opposed blocks of some not-so-active but persistently-problematic editors — the paranoiac Srebrenica POV-pusher comes to mind.)
I also find Dan to be obstructionist; his efforts to insist on votes for things like improvements to template functions are, as one of our more colourful editors said in the past, bureaucratic masturbation, and the tendency to switch to votes when discussion is moving towards a result he dislikes is an effort to move the goalposts and subject changes which may have majority support to higher thresholds and procedural hurdles in an effort not dissimilar to the way a filibuster vs cloture works. I don't think such a bitey and obstructionist person should be in charge of issuing blocks and page protection.
- -sche (discuss) 19:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to see some evidence of the "the tendency to switch to votes when discussion is moving towards a result he dislikes is an effort to move the goalposts and subject changes which may have majority support to higher thresholds and procedural hurdles". Specifically, I'd like to see specific examples and to know what he should have done differently in your opinion.

There are a few ongoing votes right now that were created by Dan Polansky, about using {{l}} and {{def}} in basically all entries, and a vote concerning the exact name of {{ux}}/{{usex}}. I'm glad he created those, otherwise some major changes could have been done after mere quick discussions with few people. But if you are thinking of other examples that I didn't mention, we can discuss those too. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

For the reader: Wiktionary talk:Votes/sy-2016-08/User:Dan Polansky for admin#Driving away Speednat. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
And Dan played a large part in driving away Kephir, among others (but I'm sure he'll come up with reasons for being rude to everybody). —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
For the reader: Wiktionary talk:Votes/sy-2016-08/User:Dan Polansky for admin#Driving away Kephir. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Oppose: diff. Wyang (talk) 05:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Lenka64 (talk) 11:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)... bad experience with his trolling on sk wikt... --Lenka64 (talk) 12:12, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
The reader will be probably interested in some background. I contributed a bit to removal of the rule of a very iron fist clique of Czech Wiktionary admins most conspicuously noted for wholesale removal of images from the Czech Wiktionary. The non-consensual wholesale removal of images from the Czech Wiktionary was led by the above Lenka64. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:45, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

The indef on Slovak Wiktionary was given by JAn Dudík, for "intimidating behavior/harassment". JAn Dudík is part of the said clique. I tried to prevent non-consensual removal of images also from Slovak Wiktionary, but that did not work well. Slovak contributors are now protesting the image removals but to no avail. I cannot do anyting to help them; I am indefinitely blocked and I have blocked access to my talk page there. Incidentally, this relates to the conversation I was having on the talk page of this vote with Vahag about different cultures and their attitude to proper government and free speech. The English Wiktionary is extremely tolerant of a great variety of speech, as far as I can judge and compare. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Slovak contributors are now protesting.. = 1 or 2 contributors... --Lenka64 (talk) 12:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
To be fair, the Slovak Wiktionary does not appear to have a lot of contributors. -Xbony2 (talk) 23:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
yes.. but majority is against "wild" pictures.... --Lenka64 (talk) 06:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Links to past discussion would be appreciated ^_^ -Xbony2 (talk) 11:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Oppose - He makes great contributions, I will say. But he has a history of flaming and offending users inappropriately. I totally get it, everybody has bad days. But I feel like I couldn't trust him with the admin tools; what if one of those bad days led to the deletion of the main page again, for instance, or some other misuse of the tools as a personal attack method? Now, I'm not saying I'm the perfect person here; I'm certainly not. I've made many mistakes myself, and my lack of maturity shows pretty clearly at times. That's why I haven't even asked to be admin. It's because I'm much more prone to mistakes with the admin tools than other editors here. I'd rather just stay a regular user. I certainly can't say I haven't trolled here myself, but I believe I tend to stay away from personal attacks. Anyway, anyway, I got off-topic here. Dan Polansky doesn't personal attack here that often as it seems, but he's done it to me once, and as it seems Romanophile and other users. I will say this; I think most of the time his admin powers will be used for good, but on one of those bad days I speak of...I fear it. Philmonte101 (talk) 14:10, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Also, I forgot to mention that during discussions, I've seen him saying somewhat derogatory things about other people's ideas in a quite unprofessional manner. Such as "that's just complete rubbish" or saying other things that makes it clear that he thinks that the user's well thought idea is idiotic, even when other people support the idea or at least partially support it. This is another thing that, as said by other users above, has the potential of driving newbies and active users away. Philmonte101 (talk) 14:13, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
I find the above concern with deleting the main page really far fetched; and even if that happened, the main page would get quickly restored, right? Also, the above user notified Romanophile who he knew had a conflict with me, in diff, which seems less than proper to me. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:16, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Like I said, this isn't about me! It's about you. And FYI, before Wonderfool went on a vandalism streak, he acted like pretty much all the other admins here. As I've read, nobody had any suspicion whatsoever that he'd go batshit insane like that. My point? The point is, anything could happen. Therefore, I feel like an administrator should be someone who can be completely trusted with the tools to the extent that the majority of the users know. I don't think either you or I should have the tools. Go a couple of years or more without any personal attacks, or a little extent of those, and I'd change my mind about your capability of using the admin tools.

I want to let you know that out of all the things I am saying, I am not trying to give a personal attack myself. I'm just giving my personal opinion; I don't trust you to use the tools properly.
Okay, so you want a ~~concrete~~ better example. Okay, I'll give you one that seems like it could be common here. Okay, so let's say you have a conflict with someone here. So you get mad and want to flame them. Then you block them (for a bad reason, such as, let's say, the fact that you and them have a difference in opinion) Now you may think a bad block would be reverted by an admin quickly. But this doesn't always happen. A block that says something such as "intimidating behavior/harassment", "vandalism", etc. could easily be overlooked, as I feel. Now, I don't know if this is exactly what would happen, but this is one of the things I fear. Philmonte101 (talk) 23:17, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Um, that's still a thing you made up in your head. A "concrete example" is one that actually exists. You don't have to take part in every discussion just because it's there. Equinox ◑ 02:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
There; see the diff, I changed it. Philmonte101 (talk) 03:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

On another note, the reason I don't think I'd be suitable for adminship is because a lot of my edits, I have to admit, are done like ready, fire, aim. So I don't even trust myself to block people properly, or delete pages when they really should be deleted, etc.Philmonte101 (talk) 23:17, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
I am only one person's opinion. Other people may oppose him for different reasons, but I feel I've made my statement. Philmonte101 (talk) 23:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree that that notification was improper. On Wikipedia, selectively notifying users with a particular point of view about a discussion is explicitly prohibited (w:WP:VOTESTACK). We don't seem to have a specific policy about it here, but I don't think it's appropriate. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 23:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Can we please move on from that part now? It's done and over. I only notified one person anyway. This does not have to do with the vote itself. Philmonte101 (talk) 23:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Please deliver all the other comments you have about my "votestacking" to my talkpage or elsewhere. Philmonte101 (talk) 23:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

For the record, Philmonte101 sent my user page to RFDO as per User talk:Dan_Polansky/2014#RFDO discussion: October 2014. She did so using their Ready Steady Yeti user. That was the occasion where Kephir indefinitely blocked me, and Rædi Stædi Yæti was there to add salt to wound, both in that RFDO and on my talk page. I recognize the user for what she is, and am not surprised to find her in the oppose section. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
#adHominemAttackWithIntentToDiscredit —John C5 15:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Why does this all of a sudden have to be about me? We're talking about your adminship here. This has nothing to do with my decisions in the past. What do you think they're gonna do, scratch my vote and not count it? Philmonte101 (talk) 12:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Alright, I better shut up before we start a war here. Seriously, I'm not saying anymore in this discussion. I've said what I was going to say to share my personal opinion on the matter. I don't know how turning this on me and pointing out all my mistakes is appropriate. Do that some other time, like say, in an admin discussion for me if that ever (but very unlikely) comes around. I mean all of us can agree that both me and Dan want what's best for the project, even if we have a difference in opinion sometimes or if one of us or another does something wrong one day. So why not keep it that way, and let's pipe down. And on another note, Dan I apologize for rubbing salt into your wounds years ago. I admit, that wasn't right of me, as I wouldn't want somebody doing that to me either. Philmonte101 (talk) 13:08, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
It is because the above user is giving their "personal opinion on the matter", as they said, with no substantiation, that poiting out who the person is as I did is not the logical fallacy of ad hominem. What is not a fallacy of irrelevance is thereby not the fallacy of ad hominem. The validity of a piece of evidence is usually independent of the supplier but the validity of witness not so. --Dan Polansky (talk) 04:22, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Re: "all of us can agree that both me and Dan want what's best for the project": no, we can't. A person who still creates unattested entries after they've been here for over 2 years (since 9 May 2014) and who is repeatedly creating new accounts because they are bored with the old ones is not here for the best for the project. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:14, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
User Philmonte101 was renamed to PseudoSkull, per "user request, name preference". --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I did not use the pronoun "she"; that was changed by Philmonte. --Dan Polansky (talk) 23:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Oppose strongly. Has no idea when to let go of an old grudge, and misbehaves persistently. --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 17:41, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
On a side note, it seems that not even the supporters are enthusiastic about his adminship. Not a good sign. --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 17:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
I am one of the supporters. I look forward to see Dan Polansky as an administrator. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Oppose It's not personal – I actually have a great amount of respect for Dan and all his contributions, and I truly encourage him to keep up the good work. However, I agree with comments made by other users concerning his at times harsh attitude towards new editors, while he shows far more understanding for problematic editors. Scaring off productive editors and keeping the problematic ones is not the way to go if we want to maintain a high standard around here. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
@Robbie SWE: I would appreciate if you could be specific about the productive contributors that you think I drove away. The problematic contributor that you would probably like to see gone is BAICAN XXX, a Romanian contributor to whom I seem to have successfully explained that only attested entries can be made. I am quite happy with my communication with the Romanian contributor, and actually think it is a good example of my sometimes succeeding in doing the opposite of what I am accused of, in this case explaning our policies to a contributor in a way that makes him to start to adhere to them without losing the ability to contribute by being blocked. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Except that it didn't help. He just recently got back from being blocked for a month for adding bad entries, reference falsification and not communicating with other editors. During his block, Baican moved on to the German, Spanish, Italian and French Wiktionaries, causing just as much havoc – he's currently blocked in the German Wiktionary. Keeping this in mind, how have you been successful in reaching out to Baican? Honestly Dan, I understand your benevolence – if only I could be as benevolent. But reading through comments made here, it raises a lot of questions. As I said in the beginning, I have respect for all your efforts but do they make you worthy of adminship? I'm not convinced and it seems that I'm not alone. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
@Robbie SWE: Now as before, I would appreciate if you could be specific about the productive contributors that you think I drove away. As for BAICAN, I see he was recently blocked by CodeCat without provision of any bad diffs; I do not know what edits he was blocked for. I feel an attempt to explain things to him was worthwhile, and does not suggest I am going to misuse admin tools. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I see you have removed DEX from spionat that BAICAN created, and that could have been the alegged "reference falsification" that is in the block summary by CodeCat. spionat is an inflected form; it seems BAICAN thought reference was good enough as long as it found an entry for "spiona". That was less than perfect from BAICAN but not really reference falsification. If the things just said are examples of my being too benevolent, I guess I am guilty as charged; I do try to assume good faith and explain things to people. In fact, luckily enough, I do not need admin tools to continue doing so until the end. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:03, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
@Dan Polansky: Looking at one (!) edit doesn't prove a point (Baican added an incorrect translation as late as yesterday, only two days after his block was lifted) – I have spent countless hours on several projects correcting his mistakes and trying to make him stop insulting and attacking others (most recently a global sysop). On a side note, I find it kind of amusing that you oppose the use of other languages on Wiktionary (as pointed out by Anatoli T), considering that you had no problems communicating in German with Baican on his talk page who until recently attested to having a level 2 understanding of English (which you took the liberty of downgrading yourself). If they have such a limited understanding of the official project language, why do you still deem them as trustworthy?

This is however neither the time nor the place to discuss Baican's participation – heaven knows he's already taken too much of my time and patience already. We're here to vote and discuss a potential adminship and you asked me to exemplify where your behaviour has driven off contributors. If I set aside Speednat and Kephir discussed previously, I have issues with the way you motivated your opposition to Romanophile's adminship. I'm well aware that Romanophile can fend for himself and that he doesn't need anyone standing up for him, although his sporadic participation lately has indeed worried me. If we disregard the history you two have with each other, would you mind explaining to me and to the community how your " plan is to largely avoid interacting with the user lest I get into trouble" would work in reality? Being an admin implies that you at times have to work with bureaucrats, administrators and users who may strongly disagree with you. Can you allow yourself the luxury of not interacting with participants due to issues you might have with them? I'm worried that you might block someone on a whim and even if you end up regretting it, the damage would already be done. As I said before Dan – and it's worth repeating – I only have respect for everything you've accomplished and I hope we can continue to collaborate peacefully despite us having conflicting views in certain issues. --Robbie SWE (talk) 15:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

(outdent) @Robbie SWE: I responded at Wiktionary talk:Votes/sy-2016-08/User:Dan Polansky for admin#Limiting interaction with some users, to make the discussion easier to follow. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Oppose In many cases, I understand Dan's struggle to fight in a world of madmen trying to trying to destroy the status quo ante. I would like to respond to the claim that he fiercely adheres to the rules. I have found in many instances that his understanding of parliamentary rules is contrary to the common practice and what is even feasible. For instance:
1. Starting (I think) with my nomination and continuing for a couple thereafter, Dan attempted to adjoin a separate requirement on the ensysopment in a manner that was both unfair to the people up for election and impossible to execute from a policy standpoint. Again, I'm not saying term limits or something similar are a bad idea, but the continued insertion of side clauses as a way to sidestep the normal policy voting system represents an imperfect understanding of the rules.
2. On several occasions, Dan has used specious status quo ante arguments born from his aesthetic views or a lack of knowledge concerning the field in question (e.g.). Status quo ante arguments are, of course, a warranted tool with in the structure of our debate, but I find that he often comes into topics that are not his area of expertise, claims that everything is being ruined and made hideous, and then disguises his opinion as tradition.
3. Most troubling I find are the specious ad hominem attacks that sometimes crop up in debate. In a few sentences in this discussion, Dan implied that ISMETA, Newt, and I are attempting to pervert the layout of entries due to our love of typography. I will freely admit to liking different forms of typography, but to use aesthetic views I espouse in my personal pages to discredit the longstanding practice for Latin and Greek entries is inappropriate. On other occasions, I have seen him claim that other users have agendas or biases which make their opinions irrelevant (I can't remember when, which will surely be used against this point, but my recollection stands). Of course everyone has an opinion, agenda, or bias which is why we debate issues. His aesthetic opinions mentioned are above perfectly understandable and legitimate, but they are his opinion. His dismissal of other contributors due to his feeling that they are biased represents a misunderstanding of how debate works.
Dan Polansky is a redoubtable contributor who makes numerous and excellent contributions to this project. I will admit that we have not always seen eye-to-eye on issues under discussion, but I feel that some of the descriptions that he is a “Czechoslovak robot who doesn't understand that the rules can sometimes be bent” misrepresent the many occasions when he has intentionally bent or subverted the rules for his own agenda. I'm not saying that having and agenda is wrong or that rules always bear absolute adherence, but he sometimes disguises his opinion as the spirit or letter of the law. This sort of mercurial interpretation of rules does not become one with the power to block other users. I hope that the above statements do not read as screed, as I do not mean to insult Dan, but I do not support his nomination. —John C5 18:10, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
As for "the many occasions when he has intentionally bent or subverted the rules for his own agenda": I do not know what you mean. Do you mean my support of translation target entries despite CFI? As for "adjoin a separate requirement on the ensysopment", this did not violate any rule that I know of, only a rule that you claim there is, but one that is not a policy of Wiktionary. You seemed to claim conditional votes in a vote are inapropriate, which did not seem right to me, and which I have shown runs counter to Wiktionary practice. Anyway. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

As for "claim that other users have agendas or biases which make their opinions irrelevant": I am not aware of any such thing. I do not remember to have used the word "agenda", but I may be wrong. I do not remember claiming someone's argument should be ignored because of who they are, but I might have made an error there since it is all too easy and tempting; yet I do not remember the error. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:34, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
For reference, the translation targets discussion is one that has never interested me and of which I have little knowledge. For the conditional voting, I misspoke if I implied that conditional voting itself is verboten (though I do think the current system should be either stopped or altered). As in the arguments given previously, I meant that your insertion of conditions that could be used as policy instead of implementing a policy directly is out of order. That is to say, by inserting a clause in someone's nomination that you can later call for reëlection, you would be trying to create a precedent which would either be unfair to that particular admin (as (s)he would have a separate clause applying on only that ensysopment) or would allow you to expand the calls for reëlection generally (which would be a change in policy, which should be executed through a policy vote). The argument here is that you've tried either to impose unfair burdens on specific users or policy changes through the power of conditional voting, which I find to be undesirable (my opinion).

As for the agendas and biases point, we are at somewhat of an impasse of poor recollection. Since you are innocent until proven guilty, I shall let the general point be stricken until more evidence may surface. The specific example in which you spoke against ISMETA, Newt, and me shall remain as an example of (in my opinion) poor judgment and poor tact. —John C5 19:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
@John: Would you admit that you were and are here superimposing a rule on me that I do not recognize to be a rule, one that is nowhere written and that is not part of my awareness of propriety? Do you also admit that the same complaint you made was made by one more editor, maybe two more, but I received no other complaint in that regard? I deliberated on your would-be rule and found it inapplicable and wrong. Therefore, I do not see this as bending and circumventing any policies. I do not know why you have provided so many general accusations without substantiation with examples; it feels really inappropriate. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
No. Just because a rule does not exist explicitly does not mean that parliamentary procedure is being broken. Inserting kill pills in votes is always bad in any circumstance. My issue may appear abstruse until such time as you should try to enforce your condition. I count 4 others (ISMETA, MetaKnowledge, DCDuring, and Angr) who have raised concerns in part or in whole with your tactic. I have also, in each case provided examples, which you may dismiss, but which I feel fully demonstrate my arguments. To be clear, I do not admit to and do furthermore reject both of your above claims. —John C5 19:53, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
My bad; these were more people than I remember. I am certain we had debate on this and I had tried to explain my position and respond to your concerns. By the way, I tried to find google:"kill pills in vote" and did not find anything. It is possible that I have a poor understanding of "parliamentary procedure" but it is also possible for you to be wrong. Be it as it may, I have not violated a written rule of Wiktionary or one supported by demonstrable consensus. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

As for the specific example you mentioned, the first relevant statement is "The templates are not evidence supporting the claim that the macron information is very important; they only show proclivities of those who created and support the templates." The question is whether I have engaged in a fallacy of irrelevance. I am not sure. If I have not engaged in a fallacy of irrelevance, then I have not enganged in a fallacy of ad hominem since that is a fallacy of irrelevance. It still seems to me that the typographic proclivities of the editors under discussion did have bearing on the templates under discussion, and on what these template were evidence of. Here again a link. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, rereading the above, I'd say, indeed: if some editors have a certain proclivity toward typographic ornament beyond the mundane, then these editors' creating templates with macrons is not much of evidence to support the claim that the macron is important. If the very same templates with macrons were created by editors without a proclivity for typographic ornament, than the templates having macron would be more of evidence to support macron being important. No fallacy of irrelevance here, and in fact no personal attack as far as I can see. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Whether comment was irrelevant or not, I feel that it was disrespectful and meant to discredit your opposition. In any case, I have said my piece here. I cannot guarantee that I won't jump back in later, but I see little point in debating these points further. —John C5 19:53, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
But my point was relevant. It was meant to show that using the templates as evidence of macron being important was wrong. I encourage the reader to read the linked discussion if having enough time. The discussion in section Rationale for opposition starts with a listing of specific points and is only later concerned with the templates. I did not mean to wholesale discredit the opposition, but rather to discredit the specific argument that the templates are evidence. I hope that is apparent from the discussion linked. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Echoing what others have said . DonnanZ (talk) 23:52, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
He does use the rhetoric of asking someone to admit things often, doesn't he (going back at least to this discussion)? An interesting linguistic practice. I wonder how often people admit to his suppositions. —John C5 00:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Well yes, Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2014-03/Unified Norwegian endend up 6:6, no consensus. After that, you went and converted single-Norwegian entries to split-Norwegian entries in volumes. If you feel disgruntled about this, I cannot help it. I don't think what you did is anything you can be proud of and my attempt to stop this via discussion anything I should be ashamed of. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

An interesting thing is that Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2014/March#Stop treating Nynorsk and Bokmal as languages separate from Norwegian showed 8.5 for support and 2 for oppose. For some reason, voters weakened their stances in the vote as contrasted to Beer parlour. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
The fact that DP is not an admin already (but acts like one) doesn't justify the pressure he has put on various users, including myself when I was still a relative newbie. Therefore I consider him to be unfit for adminship. DonnanZ (talk) 11:10, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Oppose diff Don't use languages other than English on user talk pages, D.P. will get you, especially if he thinks you're plotting something illegal - e.g. soliciting opinions, LOL. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Quoting Mr. Granger: "On Wikipedia, selectively notifying users with a particular point of view about a discussion is explicitly prohibited (w:WP:VOTESTACK)." I recall you selectively soliciting votes from users supportive of your view, doing so not only in English but also in Russian. I thought it would be only proper if that soliciting was done in English so that everyone could see what it was. If that request made you disgruntled, I will have to learn to live with consequences of my actions, in this case just actions as far as I can tell. I recall you took multiple other things I said to you personally, so you will oppose for other reasons as well; I remember pointing out that taking example sentences from other dictionaries word-for-word was a copyright violation, which you seemed to take as a personal attack, whereas my point was to bring the point across and stop the practice. As for "soliciting opinions, LOL" in relation to votes, that again is not an occasion for LOL. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Examples of what look like soliciting is diff and diff; probably in Ukrainian and not Russian. It is not soliciting for vote but for a Beer parlour discussion, but that discussion alone can lead to people starting to do something, in this case add definitionless Ukrainian entries, which was a subject to controversy. Admittedly, the cited posts have an English title, at least. An example of post that did not have an English title is diff; probably no soliciting here but the problem is that it is not obvious. I think my post to your talk page (diff) was reasonably polite and made a reasonable request in the context of your posting soliciting edits in a language other than English. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:08, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Just to clarify - I didn't take personally your request to not use word-for-word citations, this request is perfectly OK. It's the way you communicate, which pushes away people - very unfriendly, almost hostile. Somehow you're always there if someone "needs" to be punished or bullied. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 09:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Maybe so, but I need examples to learn from. Like, did diff show manner that was "very unfriendly, almost hostile"? Since that is the diff that you supplied as your evidence. Does anyone else find that diff unfriendly or hostile? How would other people formulate that diff to make it more friendly? --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
I have no intention to rub it in. Other editors have already provided some evidence in that respect. I just chose to show the post where you demanded the use of English in a multilingual environment, which nobody mentioned earlier. I still think it was very wrong of you. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 10:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Was the post hostile or was it not? I still don't know. I still do not see why it was wrong; I explained above why I still think the post was a good idea, and you have not explained why posting soliciting posts in Ukrainian when both the poster and the recipient know English is a commendable practice. I don't see you responding to substance, and with argument. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

As for "you demanded": I posted "I would like to ask you to post in English whenever you post to multiple editors something that looks like soliciting opinions or input to a discussion. ..." Does that sound like demanding? Someone please correct me or explain that to me. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Dan Polansky asked specific questions as to whether his post was hostile or not. I can't read Atitarev's mind, but I'll try to formulate a plausible hypothesis. Maybe Atitarev felt, on the grounds of free speech, that it is not in one's place to criticize how another person wants to communicate. Maybe Atitarev felt that one person saying "when communicating with other people, use only the language chosen by me" (even though this is the English Wiktionary) is as silly and inappropriate as saying "I counted the letters in your post, and it was an odd number; that makes me uncomfortable, please only send messages to other people with an even number of letters in the future".

"I would like to ask you" was polite of Dan Polansky. If he said: "Do you think you could?" (I mean: "Do you think you could refrain from posting in English whenever you post to multiple editors something that looks like soliciting opinions or input to a discussion?"), it would be even more polite because that question would actively seek confirmation from Atitarev, the person that would choose to accept or decline the request. But I admit it's a hair-splitting difference, and worrying about it would be walking on eggshells. Dan Polansky actually did not demand the use of English as he was accused of.

At the moment, I seem to be the only other person weighing in against a few bad accusations. (not counting the fact that Dan Polansky is defending himself) @Atitarev, in my opinion, it is unbecoming to oppose a sysop vote while linking to a petty disagreement from 2 years ago as the opposing reason. Suppose we had the rule that any sysop who ever found himself in any form of conflict whatsoever against another user loses their admin rights. Many of us would have to lose the tools. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 13:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
My reason for voting against is not about the "petty disagreement" but inappropriate demand (request, if you wish) and nominee's character. Some editors chose not to give their reasons at all. You don't have to. Echoing other editors' reasons. You don't need to ask me further. I'm not going to search for all discussions where DP gave me or other people hard time or was unfair to people. I've know DP long enough to make an opinion. It's my opinion, right or wrong. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I don't mind that the diff is 2 years old. If two years ago I did something improper, I find it okay to be presented, at least an example of what someone means by "bad behavior". I am just having hard time finding the post under discussion improper; I still think it is soliciting votes in Ukrainian that is improper, and it does not seem that Anatoli sees that. On a related note, the failure to respond to my questions, which I think were reasonable, raises questions as to whether the case is strong, as is the evasive talk about no need to state reasons; since that suggests that articulable reasons are lacking, and that is no good sign for a substance-based conversation, and indeed, substance-based decision making. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

(outdent) Let me make a rather unrelated note: By the pledge to give up my admin rights in future if there is no longer consensus to support continuing adminship, I reduce the risks associated with my being admin since I can then be quite easily desysopped in case some bad behavior develops. And I am the first to admit that putting into power all too often breeds corrupt behaviors. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Oppose — Jberkel (talk) 03:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Oppose When I was newer and just starting to use Wiktionary (this is less than two months ago), but still working my way around figuring out the status quo and thus not making many contributions other than requests, he noted (nicely at first) on my talk page that requests weren't useful (in his opinion). When I responded with an explanation that I was using the information from the requests and intended to make more contributions in the future, and also noted that some requests did get filled rather quickly, he stated "I'm glad you feel you are making a "contribution"". The sudden change in attitude startled me and prompted a rougher response from me, to which he responded "And I don't appreciate editors filling Wiktionary with pointless requests, especially by people who seem to have nothing else to contribute." Those statements made me feel less welcome and I was afraid of starting to make larger edits (such as creating pages) because I felt like I would be scrutinized instead of getting pointers in how to improve. I understand that he has made many contributions to Wiktionary over the years, but I feel that someone who is not welcoming and instead harsh to new editors does indeed drive away people (I was actually going to stop editing altogether, even if it was a small thing, as I get anxiety when in new communities, but an admin stepped in and gave me a few pointers, which, contrary to Dan Polansky's approach, made me feel more confident asking for help and making larger contributions). With the title of admin it would make the driving-away effect even stronger as the weight of his words increase. AtalinaDove (talk) 17:15, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
I guess I was more rude than I needed to be, but it was in response to what I considered to be rude behavior: When someone starts their editing on the project by indiscriminate injection of requests for pronunciation, I find that rude. When that person continues by "contributing" petty manual template replacements that could very easily be done by bots (diff), I actually find my initial guess about the character of the person's contribution confirmed. There's so much reader-visible non-bottable useful work to be done on this project, but some people are happy enough to "make edits". --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
@Dan Polansky: I have something to say in defense of @AtalinaDove: She did her first edit on July 4, and your conversation with her was on July 15. As a new user, she stated that she did not know about {{hu-IPA}}, the template that generates Hungarian pronunciation automatically. There's no reason to assume, either, that she should have known that the template is easilly bottable.

If you already knew of {{hu-IPA}} at the time when you first said "Greetings, I for one do not think they are very helpful." in July 4, then you failed to say: "There is a template named {{hu-IPA}}. It adds the Hungarian pronunciation automatically."

If you, Dan Polansky, did not know of {{hu-IPA}} before, (which is within the realm of possibility) then at least you certainly came to know the template once AtalinaDove started to use it, otherwise you could not have been bothered by her edits. In this case, you failed to say: "Please don't add {{hu-IPA}} to many entries. It is easily bottable." --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
I did not know of {{hu-IPA}}. Changes like diff are obviously bottable: no information is being added to the markup. I don't really find it wrong to add {{hu-IPA}}, though, in contrast to adding IPA requests for Norwegian indiscriminately; it's just that it tells you something about the sort of editing that you can expect. --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

On a related note, would not it be more useful for the reader if {{hu-IPA}} was added where pronunciation is missing rather than being placed to entries that already have pronunciation? That's pretty obvious, isn't it? Now, you might think I should post it to the user talk page. Maybe so, but we have to ask whether contributors should show an elementary capacity to giving thought to what they are doing and why they are doing it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
To my defense on the template replacements (like {{hu-IPA}}), Panda10 actually suggested that I do this on my talk page, as it was a task that needed to be done. Therefore, I have been going through the 32,000+ Hungarian entries with IPA pronunciation and checking them all to see that they have the right template. I am also converting the old Hungarian declension templates to the new one as I go, and expanding and adding information if I can. With my limited knowledge of Hungarian, this is the best I can do right now, but I have made thousands of these edits, and there is currently no bot that seems to be doing this. --AtalinaDove (talk) 00:39, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the Panda10 mention. I apologize for the above unnecessary critical words about bot-like contributions. Sometimes, a human manually doing bot-like edits is better than nothing. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:44, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
You may think that adding {{hu-IPA}} is bottable, but it is not. There are words where a human editor must provide phonetic respelling as an input parameter to make the output look right. As for replacing the existing IPA with the template, it is also very useful and necessary because the template contains several improvements in pronunciation, and as a result, can use instead of //. --Panda10 (talk) 17:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
@Panda10: Okay. How is someone who does not know any Hungarian going to know which already entered pronunciations can be replaced with {{hu-IPA}} and which cannot, as per "there are words where a human editor must provide phonetic respelling as an input parameter to make the output look right"? --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Atalina compares the original IPA and the templated IPA, if the two are different, she leaves a note. Also, as I mentioned on Atalina's talkpage, I patrol her work. --Panda10 (talk) 17:40, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you; makes sense. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:43, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

(outdent) For the record, I rest my case that the diff in question was bottable as long as the diff was part of the process described above, namely, compare the IPA in the entry with the IPA produced by the template and if the two IPAs are same, replace the original template with the new template. Not that it matters, but anyway. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:01, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Oppose — He makes a lot of great contributions to the Czech part of Wiktionary, but he can be hard to deal with. — V-ball (talk) 07:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Oppose — Panda10 (talk) 17:26, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Abstain

Abstain Octahedron80 (talk) 06:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Abstain This is the most votes I've seen in two days :P -Xbony2 (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Abstain I'm unsure. --Wiki Tiki 89 11:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Abstain – I think Dan has good intentions, but he does not phrase things well, so he often causes offense. For instance, when he requested that Atitarev post in English, not Ukrainian or Russian, he said he "opposes" posting in another language. I just don't understand that phrasing: it sounds like he's saying if you're posting in another language, you must be soliciting votes, and therefore it is always wrong. I would prefer to think he meant to say that it was unwise because most people don't speak those languages and they may misinterpret the situation. But the phrasing was so direct that he did not convey that idea. I don't want to vote against his nomination, because I think he has good intentions, but I do not want to vote for it, because he seems to lack diplomacy and I am not sure if that is a good quality in an admin. And I am not very experienced; this is my first admin vote on any Wikimedia project. — Eru·tuon 05:55, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Abstain Dan's mainspace contributions are qualitatively and quantitatively miles ahead of many editors on this project. However, while some of the opposition seems less than fair, others (especially Wyang, AtalinaDove) have made me aware of certain points that are making it difficult for me to support this wholeheartedly. Be that as it may, I would still support giving him rollbacker privileges in a heartbeat, and template editor too if that becomes a thing. — Kleio (t · c) 18:13, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
~~Abstain~~ as I'm not allowed to vote. --Q9ui5ckflash (talk) 10:02, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm not even sure that you're allowed to abstain, I think abstain votes are taken into account. DonnanZ (talk) 10:55, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm striking the vote. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:51, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Abstain My image of almost every editor here is that they are dutiful and businesslike people. I recently learn that Wiktionary is a lot more like a soap opera than I could have imagined. Korn (talk) 22:22, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
I've been discovering the same of late. Guess Wiktionary isn't much unlike other internet communities in that regard. — Kleio (t · c) 22:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
The only difference is that we all care about the same cause, that of building a dictionary. As much as I might disagree with Dan, we both know that we both earnestly want to improve the project. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Decision

Failed: 10-15-6 (40.0%-60.0%) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2016-08/User:Dan Polansky for admin

User:Dan Polansky for admin

Support

Oppose

Abstain

Decision

Wikious

Boobota

Sagapedia