Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Administrator/Dan Koehl 2

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closed as unsuccessful. Lymantria (talk) 06:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Koehl 2

[edit]

Vote

RfP scheduled to end after 3 June 2020 05:55 (UTC)

I was admin from 19 September 2018, after a successful self nomination until 4 July 2019, when my admin rights were removed (See message by @Rschen7754:) due to inactivity per WD:A, when I was very busy working IRL. I have been very active again on various projects since December, and was granted Rollbacker on Wikidata, so I could use Huggle again, being busy the last week protecting Wikidata, but I see a need of being able to stop Vandals faster, and help in other ways. I would be active with anti-vandalism and issuing blocks, like in the past, and also be active at Wikidata:Requests for deletions. Id be happy to increase fighting against vandalism on Wikidata in my native language Swedish, as well as Norwegian, Danish, German and English. I currently have admin access on Wikispecies since 2004, and have experience of adminship from other projects.

Thanks for your consideration.. --Dan Koehl (talk) 05:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

[edit]
  1.  Support - some problems on another project, but previously an admin here and an admin/crat/cu on specieswiki, so can be trusted with the access. Welcome back. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 14:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Support per Ajraddatz --Kostas20142 (talk) 14:17, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Support Ultimately (also from my impressions of svwiki) I think the block says more about svwiki than Dan Koehl. --Rschen7754 18:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
     Oppose Hate to do this, but canvassing is an automatic oppose for me. --Rschen7754 00:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Support —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:37, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Support --Epìdosis 14:41, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Support Wikidata needs more admins.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Support Sure. Mahir256 (talk) 15:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Thank you for helping. --Sotiale (talk) 15:18, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Support. Ivanhercaz (Talk) 23:23, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Support. —Hasley 14:32, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  11.  Support ‐‐1997kB (talk) 15:58, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  12.  Support Thank you for willing to help again. Esteban16 (talk) 21:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  13.  Support no concerns. ミラP 23:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  14.  Support --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 13:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  15.  Support --Minorax (talk) 15:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  16.  Oppose Have demonstrated such behaviour I cannot support adminship on any Wikimedia project. Ainali (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  17.  Support Jianhui67 talk★contribs 05:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  18.  Oppose per the in my opinion very valid concerns raised here and in the previous nomination. Abbe98 (talk) 06:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  19.  Oppose Due to the toxic behaviour on Swedish Wikipedia. Kilobytes of accusations and irrelelvant retorical questions of NPOV. I really hope this will not spread to Wikidata. I am an admin on Swedish Wikipedia and hence part of the cabal, and I can understand if credentials from other projects is not relevant.-LittleGun (talk) 08:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
     Oppose --Lwordish (talk) 17:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Not eligible as this is the user's first edit here. --Rschen7754 18:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  20.  Oppose --Anhn (talk) 17:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC) The discussion before the 2-week block can be found here. Unfortunately in Swedish, but a "clash point" was the seemingly neutral article sv:Koldioxid (Carbon Dioxide) where Koehl made several edits arguing against AGW in a very POV:ish manner referring to cherry-picked non-scientific or non-official sources. When these edits were removed he accused user Adville of POV and even made a formal accusation on svwp KAW (C/Komments on Administration of Wikipedia) which got no support by any kind. These POV accusations where after that reiterated at numerous other places in a divergent and off-topic manner.[reply]
  21.  Oppose --Yger (talk) 18:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC) See comment from LittleGun and Anhn[reply]
  22.  Support -- Nehaoua (talk) 22:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  23.  Oppose --Adville (talk) 22:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC), see bellow[reply]
  24.  Oppose - Premeditated (talk) 11:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  25.  Support -RLJ (talk) 12:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  26.  Support - Orchi (talk) 14:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  27.  Leaning support I'm not trying to convince, but: 1)admin/bubu/CU on another wiki 2)it's not a right on svwiki 3)nothing to blame on wd (at least not that I remember) 4)admin former here. Well, it's simple, but for the reluctant, rights can be removed. —Eihel (talk) 14:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  28.  Support --Pasleim (talk) 15:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  29.  Support I will support this nomination. I note the issues from the Swedish WP raised by others from that project. I am not aware of them myself. However, I have seen Dan's work on Wikispecies and here on Wikidata and it has always been well done. We all get caught up in unfortunate incidents from time to time they should not necessarily become a permanent stain particularly when balanced against other contributions elsewhere. As stated above if the issue repeats the rights can always be removed. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 16:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  30.  Wait leaning  Oppose almost inactive on Wikidata (around 7k edits including 5k in 2018). That and the concern about sv.wp, the timing is not right. This user is revoker and is already doing a lot a counter-vandalism with these rights, does he really need the admin rights right now? I would prefer to wait a bit that things settle down (the discussion below clearly shows that things are still ongoing). Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 16:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  31.  Oppose--Gotogo (talk) 18:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  32.  Support Due to the outstanding work of Dan on Wikispecies.--Hector Bottai (talk) 19:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
There may be different views on that, my view is Im not satisfied with how admins work, and how they respect and protect NPOV on sv.wikipedia, where I am the oldest contributor, was the first admin, and feel responsible about its development, see history of en:Swedish_Wikipedia. I was blocked after I brought the subject of an admin aubusing the Wikipedia Policy and NPOV rules (diff before they removed this) , after this they close that page forany edits by me, and later blocked me for two weeks. A sad story, I can only say it doesnt affect my work on Wikidata, and ~I have no history of problems with users on other wikis, except for this small group of people and admins on svwiki, who have a history of blocking me, and trying to make me look like someone who try to do bad, while im always asking for everyone to follow Policy and rules, abd respect the five pillars, and not abuse "konsensus" as a way to work around the rules. The people who blocked me, gave other official reasons, like I should have broken the rules for en:Wikipedia:Etiquette. Dan Koehl (talk) 08:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As an admin on svwiki I can confirm that the views on this are different. The "other official reasons" are overwhelming in this case and there where serious talk about a permanent block. Ainali (talk) 21:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And the block was unanimous, whereof exactly half recommended permanent block. And NPOV part was not mentioned during the discussion, neither in the summary of block reasons.Yger (talk) 18:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jasper Deng: Abbe98 and me are friends off wiki and talk to each other several times every week. We even just got off camera doing this Wikidata show together. I am also friends with LittleGun, and we do a podcast together about Wikipedia so we also talk regurarly about things happening both on Swedish Wikipedia and international. So that this have come up in conversations this week was unavoidable since the whole incident has been the biggest discussion on the Swedish Wikipedia this year. However, no links have been posted on svwiki as far as I know. Ainali (talk) 20:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: the link here was of course in the Wikidata weekly summary #418 that got posted widely by WMDE staff this afternoon. Ainali (talk) 20:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jasper Deng:, I have not seen a message on Swedish Wikipedia, I'm in fact much more active here on Wikidata. The recent incidents on Swedish Wikipedia hasn't however passed me by and my post here is only as a concerned Wikidata user. Abbe98 (talk) 20:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have so far made 572 edits on WikiData - of course I am a newbie, but anyhow I have reached to make my first report about WD-vandalism, and I am aware of where to find the admin election which is just one mouse click away from the community portal. So far I have not engaged in admin-elections, mostly the candidates have been unknown to me, but this time the candidate was very well known to me and I simply had to participate. / Anhn (talk) 21:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, now there is a link, posted some 10 hours ago [1]. /NH (talk) 19:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was pinged to this discussion by Anhn (talk • contribs • logs), however I think it would have been fair if Dan himself had pinged me when writing and linking to pages about me. I have dona almost 2800 edits on WD, but are not very active. So, although Dan did start a KAW, mentioned by him and Anhn, about me he himself writes on his user page "Likväl ger jag dig respekt, att du för en sansad diskussion med mig i sakfrågan, istället för att masshysteriskt tävla i hat mot min person..." (Anyhow, I give you respect, that you do discuss in a good manner about the subject, instead of a mass hysteric competition in hate aganist my person...". This means he knows I am trying to be neutral and for the best of the wiki-comunities. I know he has done a lot of good contributions here and on svwp and enwp (and other projects too). However, when things are not going his way or someone dares to oppose what he says (like in the above mentioned discussion, which gave me my first blockage ever) he seems to try to scare the opponent instead of showing relevant sources. That is not a good thing to do as an admin. He was not blocked because of the POV he did (explained by Anhn) but his way of discussing. Last time, the one year block, was done after he called an admin on svwp "mentally ill" both on svwp and on facebook. That was totally out of our policies on svwp, and with the new policy from Wikimedia that would giva a blockage on every wiki I know of. I am also concerned about the POV Anhn mentions, and that he might do the same kind of pov here on wikidata, which will affect som many more wikipedias than only the Swedish, and then have more "power" as an admin if someone tells him he is wrong. therefor I am strongly opposing this user as an admin. Adville (talk) 22:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

this RfP is not linked anywhere on svwiki.Yger (talk) 05:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Im sorry this conflict is infecting Wikidata, on aplace where it doesnt belong, its of course not my wish. I prefer not to comment personal accusations against me, except for when theres factual errors, above was stated "where Koehl made several edits arguing against AGW in a very POV:ish manner referring to cherry-picked non-scientific or non-official sources." which is not true, what I contributed was not my own opinion of course, but I submitted a sourced opinion from sv:Gösta Walin, one of Swedens best known climate experts, and professor in Oceanograpgy, and the admin Advile removed 1, and removed 2 sourced edits, based on his private opinion that the professor is not an expert, although he has been interviewed in climate related issues since over 40 years, and is still on Wikidata referred to as climate expert. The admin Adville also moved the page about Gösta Walin, from having header climate researchers for 13 years!to oceanograph. Being accused of cherry picking, etc, I can only defend myself with the Policy and rules for Wikipedia, which clearly says admins should not act like this, thats why I asked for an investigation, but instead I got blocked, and [I brought the subject of an admin aubusing the Wikipedia Policy and NPOV rules (diff before they removed this) my request was removed]. Dan Koehl (talk) 08:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See also my request on Meta for investigation after I was blocked ONE YEAR in 2017, without a single diff to prove my "crime", only an admin fabricated "consensus" that I had broken rules. The en:Swedish Wikipedia is becoming a forked project, where Policy and rules are not followed, and a group of admins have hijacked the entire process of justice. Even Swedish burocrat user:Ternarius, refer to the present as a modern witch-hunt (modern häxprocess). Dan Koehl (talk) 08:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "mentally ill" you have deleted all diffs, what I actually did, was exactly citing what the admin has written on his user page, when I questioned if its really OK for a person who wasnt even admin for a year, to block en:Swedish Wikipedia longest time user. For this I was blocked a year.Dan Koehl (talk) 08:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In our discussion this year we were very careful not to mention or bring upp this incident. And feedback with diffs were given~back then. Yger (talk) 08:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DK:s use of sources in "Koldioxid" has been discussed here and here, but obviously this has not convinced DK.
Any user may happen to make edits that have various problems, but these edits have been discussed in length and the problem is that the discussion never stops, but continues here. / Anhn (talk) 08:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Admins breaking the rules of rollbacking, when removing my request of following NPOV in a climate related project, or removing my sourced edit, motivated only by his personal opinion (is an admins personalopinion a stronger argument on svwiki, than a sourced, verified edit?), is not very convincing. Wikipedia is not about convince anyone, its about follow the NPOV and in articles supplying different opinions, in controversial issues. I am convinced that Swedish Wikipedia is becoming a fork, where admins bias articles according to their political view, and block users who try to keep NPOV. This is a against the Wikipedia Policy. Dan Koehl (talk) 08:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I want to to make it clear, that I have not brought any discussions here, as was claimed by @Anhn:. I have just reapplied for adminship, and I have truthfully answered @Rschen7754:, question above, thats all. But I guess I have the right to defend myself against different kind of very personal accusations? Dan Koehl (talk) 10:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is good that the problems we have had on svwp is shown here, because what happens here will affect svwp and other projects too. About my reverting Gösta Wallin and what he said: as you see here did delete two sources Dan used. Skeptical science and klimatsans. both are bloggs... that is not good sources in sinetific articles. klimatsans is a political sceptical page. I Also moved Göstas page to what is his main reason for having an article: He is a professor. That he has a private interest in climate is not the reason he got an article, I guess. I also told Dan that he is fine to use as a source, if Dan could find a peer-reviewd article about the subject. Instead he adrgued he had to use this kind of articles. Here I see a danger on wikidata: Will he use this kind of articles as sources here?

And about Ygers rollback of Dan: That happened when he posted that text on several pages, spreading the discussion everywhere. That is not the correct way of doing it, it more looked like a way to get diffs to be able to use for example here (if someone swollowed the bate and reverted him). He succeeded with that and was able to show "svwp dös everything to hunt him". That is not true. Now I hope to not write any more here. Adville (talk) 12:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can not find one single example or diff, mentioned above, on how I should have abused my admin rights, or as user, have acted with a bias on Wikidata. Would it be too much to ask, to give some examples as to what negative impact my Adminship on Wikidata has been in the past? Or, at least one single example? Dan Koehl (talk) 12:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am horrified of how Dan Koehl is portraying Yger and Adville. I guess I haven't been active enough on this Wiki-project to cast a vote, but I want to state that I think Dan Koehl would be inappropriate as an administrator. Based on my experience, I would never be able to trust the user with using the tools accordingly. The user has an aggressive style of conducting discussion, where consensus is cast aside for conflict and confrontation, and doing so with a strong inclination for a bullying/mastering attitude. Dnm (talk) 18:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can only repeat: Even Swedish Burocrat User:Ternarius, refer to the present as a modern witch-hunt (modern häxprocess). And after I wrote that above, the Crat was challenged by one of the users above, but confirmed here. I wish my Swedish fellow users would give the en:Swedish Wikipedia a better reputation than exposing how its working over there. BTW, since this application is destroyed, and has become a a modern witch-hunt, if anyone is interested WHY I was blocked in 2017, it was because I marked files which lacked a factbox with this template, so I could submit factbox later (which I did), something I had done (and many other users) for several years before... Its a normal template corresponding to sv:Faktamall saknas which is presently used on thousand of pages by users who, for some reason hasnt been blocked for this. So reading the text "using the tools accordingly, when admins on the Swedish wiki are using their very personal interpretation of how to use the tools "accordingly", like when sv wikis longest serving user asked for an investigation of eventual admin abuse on the proper place, this request (which Ahn above refer to as which got no support by any kind) was removed (how can a removed request get support?), and I got blocked, by another admin, who was directly involved in the articles that I argue are POV and APOV, Dan Koehl (talk) 19:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This appeal for authority (being the first, and therefore longest, user on svwiki - used already 3 times only on this page) giving him exclusive rights on how to interpret the policies, is a repeating pattern from svwiki, and why I am afraid giving him more powers. If he do get the rights we need to keep an extra eye for him deleting items, claims or sources related to the United Nations (Q1065) or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Q171183) which he claims to both be spreading propaganda (or for that matter in any other way hindering Wikidatians from adding verifiable information to the project). Ainali (talk) 19:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "request for investigation of eventual admin abuse" can be found here at WP:KAW (now archived). Duplicated entries at other places have been removed. It can be clearly seen in the final conclusion part that the claims that Adville should have acted "POV-ish" got no support by any kind. The discussion was initiated 2020-05-16. Last edit was 2020-05-20, and the thread was archived by a robot 2020-05-27. The page WP:KAW got 4 940 views during these 5 days which can be compared with e.g. 2 062 views for the preceding 15 days. This shows that the WP:KAW-request has been well exposed to a large audience. The WP:KAW-request was _NOT_ removed, but duplicated postings at other places were removed. Here I have told DK _not_ to duplicate discussions which creates fatigue and confusion among other wikipedians. / Anhn (talk) 20:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Koehl recently announced this nomination on Wikispecies where he accuses users from Swedish Wikipedia of a "solicited attack". Abbe98 (talk) 20:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes he did and it did concern me this may be construed as canvassing, and I have commented there that I found it a little strange that suddenly people from the SW WP are attempting to vote here who do not have voting rights here, it has been mentioned here and their that there may be some canvasing going on, I leave it to admins here to make that decision. However, I did try to be clear that I was basing my support vote only on what I have seen at Wikispecies and Wikidata. I acknowledged the reports from SW WP noting I was previously unaware of them. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 20:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Faendalimas:, They communicate with IRC, and will send another one with a no-vote, in order to secure lass than 75% votes for yes. See also the previous successful nomination Dan Koehl (talk) 00:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

[edit]

This RfP has been disturbed by canvassing as well as importing issues from sister projects. This is not an example on how RfP's here should be done. Having said that, with 9 oppose votes plus 1 "wait leaning to oppose" vote out of 32 votes, we cannot conclude different from this RfP being unsuccessful. Lymantria (talk) 06:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Requests_for_permissions/Administrator/Dan_Koehl_2&oldid=1957355317"