Wiktionary

Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2010-05/User:Logomaniac for desysopsing

< Wiktionary:Votes

User:Logomaniac for desysopsing edit

  • Nomination: I hereby nominate Logomaniac (talk • contribs) without malice for desysopsing. Reason, according to her own user page she's left Wiktionary for good and as blocked herself with an expiry of infinite. Doesn't look to me like she wants to continue, eh? Mglovesfun (talk) 09:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vote starts: Now
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Support desysopsing edit

  1.   Support Mglovesfun (talk) 09:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support Conrad.Irwin 22:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
    Logomaniac has asked me to request that she is desysopped. Whether her wishes can be respected without proof (and I have none to offer beyond [1]), I leave as an exercise in bureaucracy. Conrad.Irwin 22:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at comments below, I should clarify that she wishes to remain blocked. Conrad.Irwin 22:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support per Conrad.Irwin. (But if and when she's desysopped, I have no intention of respecting her wish to remain blocked.) —RuakhTALK 00:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support It's a pity she's gone. We have no girls left among active admins. Now all of us are male and white and straight and American movies have taught me that is bad, for some reason. --Vahagn Petrosyan 00:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    We have at least one rather active and non-straight admin. lol — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 16:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    At least two.​—msh210℠ 20:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    *Cough*. Three. ---> Tooironic 01:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of your comment depends on how you define "active admins" (does Dvortygirl (talk • contribs) count?), some depends on how you define "white" (do Jews count?), and some is simply wrong. But, um, thanks for your assumptions? —RuakhTALK 00:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, Dvortygirl isn't active. Yes, Jews count. Sure, you're a little brown, but so are we. --Vahagn Petrosyan 00:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Great, so you've chosen definitions that maximize the chance that the maximum possible amount of your comment is accurate. But some of your comment was still certainly wrong (we definitely have non-straight active admins), and some was only quite likely to be wrong (I, for one, haven't been going around asking admins if they're men or women, white or non-white). —RuakhTALK 00:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Depends. If you choose definitions that maximize the chance that the maximum amount possible of his comment is accurate, then straight can refer to, for example, honesty rather than heterosexuality.  :-) ​—msh210℠ 20:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I am under the impression that Neskaya and Carolina wren are female, but may well be wrong. Both are admins. Both have edited within the past month, and Carolina wren did an admin action within that month also. Not that any of this matters.​—msh210℠ 20:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Carolina is female. I am not. --Neskaya contribs – talk? 04:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Support —Stephen 00:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC) If that’s her wish, it’s okay with me. —Stephen 00:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Support Dan Polansky 12:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC). Per Conrad Irwin, meaning that the action happens upon a request from Logomaniac. --Dan Polansky 12:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7.   Support H. (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC) I trust Conrad.[reply]

Oppose desysopsing edit

#   Oppose She's been gone for less than two months. If she had wanted to be de-sysopped, she could have requested that; instead, she chose a route that she can reverse. If she continues to stay away, then I'd advocate eventual de-sysopping and unblocking, but this seems premature. —RuakhTALK 13:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

#   What Ruakh said. If this passes and she is desysopped, she should be unblocked simultaneously.​—msh210℠ 16:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Abstaining per the link Conrad's posted.​—msh210℠ 16:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  1.   Oppose per above. Other desysopings have generally occurred only after two or three years of no edits. --Yair rand 18:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Oppose per all of the above.   AugPi 18:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Oppose —Stephen 22:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Left in good standing for understandable reasons, occasionally looks in. She deserves the regular process, which is two or three years on no edits. —Stephen 22:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Oppose -- Prince Kassad 12:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain edit

  1. She's briefly come back before, so I don't think she should be both blocked and desysoped, but I don't have preference over unblock+desysop or doing neither. Thryduulf (talk) 13:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I oppose her block, but she blocked herself! I don't feel comfortable unblocking her, when she can do it herself. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Abstain Equinox ◑ 22:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC) Despite saying she has left, she seems to pop up now and again. Equinox ◑ 22:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that some of you are misinterpreting her autoblock. She didn’t block herself as a sort of snub at the project. It seems to me she blocked herself because she won’t be around here on a regular basis and it’s a way to ensure that nobody hacks her username and uses it for evildoing. It’s no different from setting the parking brake on your car when you put it in storage, or adding mothballs to your winter clothes when you put them away. —Stephen 22:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Or maybe to discourage herself from coming here again. If someone hacks her username, they could just unblock it anyway. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    She can unblock herself in a moment, it does not discourage her in any way. Someone who hacks it probably wouldn’t know that the name needed to be unblocked (if they don’t read this), and wouldn’t know how to unblock it once they found it blocked. Blocking the unused name is simply good housekeeping. —Stephen 23:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Abstain per latest general momentum, or per C-Irwin. If she comes back (perhaps after requesting an unblock? and how?), she can eventually be resysopped.   AugPi 05:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decision edit

It is done. —Stephen 12:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2010-05/User:Logomaniac_for_desysopsing&oldid=53532694"