Wiktionary

Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2017-11/Desysopping CodeCat aka Rua

< Wiktionary:Votes

Desysopping CodeCat aka Rua edit

Let us remove admin rights from Rua (talk • contribs), formerly known as CodeCat.

Rationale: see Wiktionary talk:Votes/sy-2017-11/Desysopping CodeCat aka Rua#Rationale. The voters only vote on the proposed action, not on the rationale.

Schedule:

Support edit

  1.   Support per my rationale on the talk page. Let me emphasize that it should be reasonably easy to let the nominee edit templates and modules by lowering their protection or by adding the nominee to the template editor group. During the approximately last year during which the nomineed was temporarily desysopped, they were able to request lowering of protection for particular templates or modules, from what I remember. Dan Polansky (talk) 10:13, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: My rationale does not include "incivility" or "cold persona". Issues I raise include repeated non-consensual volume changes, use of admin tools to gain an upper hand in a dispute, high-rate wheel warring showing lack of self-control, and a dictatorial position taken in a discussion about re-sysopping. Details are on the vote talk page. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:14, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support. Ignorant, yet disdainful and imperious. Just have a read of the conversations on her talkpage and her posts in various discussions (e.g. search for 'Rua' on Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2017/August) ― there is no warmth whatsoever, only the exhibition of a rather cold persona. Wyang (talk) 12:16, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Warmth comes when warmth is offered. If I appear cold, it's because all the hassle and coldness people have given me has destroyed whatever warmth was inside me. Wiktionary is a cold and harsh place, if I open up emotionally I'll just get hurt more. Case in point: this very vote. —Rua (mew) 12:37, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not agree that Wiktionary is a cold and harsh place; if it were true, most people would have turned similarly apathetic via this devolution. If anything, warmth in interpersonal interactions is highly infectious, and being on the receiving end of reciprocated warmth (and consequently feeling respected as a person) is arguably the most fulfilling and addictive outcome of it. This vote exists because some people, me included, felt you were unempathetic, and that you had not respected them as equal human beings with opinions worth paying attention to. It's an unfortunate outcome. You sound discontented, dejected, and burnt out. It may be worthwhile to take a break. Wyang (talk) 14:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's how I perceive Wiktionary to be. It's not a matter of fact. I'm definitely burnt out, but I also feel better when I can do the Wiktionary work I enjoy, without having to endure social interactions. So it's a double-edged sword for me. Wiktionary drives me insane at times, but I also need it for sanity. —Rua (mew) 16:23, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice quote, CC! I'm gonna use it in my autobiography. --Lirafafrod (talk) 17:32, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry! I forgot I'm not allowed to talk on Vote pages. I struck it out --Lirafafrod (talk) 17:33, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support if includes template editor access Callous, condescending, and spiteful -- her woefully poor interpersonal skills require mediation between herself and other users, arbitration she is able to skirt as an admin by locking and deleting entries without discussion. A new wheel war between another admin is all but inevitable, because to her, being right is more important than the project, which she blatantly illustrates in this discussion. I really and truly appreciate the exceptional work she does and value her knowledgeable opinions, but CodeCat needs to be desysopped to save her from herself. --Victar (talk) 18:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support Consistently exhibits the kind of behavior I don't like to see an admin. Chiefly incivility and coding without consensus. Purplebackpack89 23:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Weak support if includes template editor access I don't like the way the discussion is playing out here at all, but I have been convinced. I think future readminship should be allowed though. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 16:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose edit

  1.   Oppose I agree that Rua needs to work on her civility and consensus-building skills, but at this point I don't think desysopping is a necessary step. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Angr, what do you see as a next step in correcting a behavioral issue? --Victar (talk) 20:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know yet. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Oppose Per Angr. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Oppose I don't think this vote is the way forward, and I echo Angr's feelings, particularly re consensus-building. She does a number of daft things which get up my nose, most recently adding USA to States in the USA (the only one I agree with is Georgia), clogging up Category:Candidates for speedy deletion in the process, and changing "Municipalities in" to "Municipalities of", I'm not sure what the logic behind that was. Another thing: if DP can vote for the proposal, surely Rua can vote against it. Fair's fair. DonnanZ (talk) 15:15, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "USA" → WT:RFM#Categories about country subdivisions to include the country name
    "of" → WT:RFM#Standardising "of" vs "in" in place-name categories
    --Daniel Carrero (talk) 16:02, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I missed the first discussion, more time should have been allowed, and took part in the second although I was late on the scene. Municipalities shouldn't be treated any differently from cities in my opinion. DonnanZ (talk) 16:17, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Almost 1 month passed in the first discussion, with no oppose votes. That is, 100% support. How much time did you want? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 16:58, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    On principle, I'm pretty sure I agree with you that municipalities shouldn't be treated any differently from cities. But nobody has said otherwise, did they? Let me know if you found any proposal to treat them differently. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:02, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been busy doing etyl clean-ups, something else I didn't vote for or on. But OK, I should make time to read the more obscure discussions. DonnanZ (talk) 17:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Really, how much time did you want? Give a number and that probably can be arranged. The intro of WT:RFM does not mention any time limit. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:55, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, a difficult question. There was only one vote in support (yours) on one of them, so I think more time should have been given. On the other hand, I pushed Category:Toiletries through pretty quickly. I don't want to be accused of using double standards. DonnanZ (talk) 20:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It can be pretty frustrating when you're waiting for support and nobody cares enough to post anything, in support or in opposition. The current BP post for adopting the new revised/improved WT:ACCEL suffers from the same problem, nobody has responded to it at all yet. —Rua (mew) 20:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there some reason why they weren't made into votes? That certainly given it more eyes, and potentially more votes. Would that have been an incorrect use of the voting system, or is it an issue of unwieldiness? --Victar (talk) 21:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to note, the reason that the speedy deletion category is so full is because a bot can't move pages without leaving a redirect, unless it has admin rights. So I did the next best thing and programmed it to place {{delete}} on the leftover redirects. I'm not sure how to actually delete them. —Rua (mew) 17:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You can always rerun your bot and revert them (wish, wish). DonnanZ (talk) 17:55, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Turn them back into redirects? Why? We don't want those redirects... What we really need is someone who can run a bot to delete them all. —Rua (mew) 18:00, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It could have been done, I was able to cancel a redirect I did last night. But it's too late now. DonnanZ (talk) 09:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Oppose DTLHS (talk) 16:24, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Oppose. I'm grateful to Rua for cleaning up some of our otherwise random mess of categories. If she weren't an admin already, I'd nominate her. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Becoming an admin isn't just some award you get after x amount of edits -- it's a job you're entrusted with and if you can't do your job responsibly, that job is taken away from you. --Victar (talk) 18:34, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Victar. This is why we have rollbacker and template editor privileges now, and if this vote were to pass, Rua could do fine with those. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 21:34, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I also edit JavaScript, though not very often. —Rua (mew) 21:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Becoming an admin is, partially, some award you get after x amount of edits. No one gets to be an admin without doing x amount of edits. It is also a job you're entrusted with, yes. The criteria for becoming an admin may be subjective, but the 100% approval in Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2010-03/User:CodeCat for admin indicates that she does some of that subjective stuff right. If the current vote fails, it will confirm that it is still the case. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 16:13, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That's absolutely not true. There are probably thousands of basic users with more edits than the admins on this page, and conversely plenty of admins with low edit counts. And to argue that she has 100% approval from 8 people 7 years ago is also completely irrelevant. That's like arguing "I was hired 7 years ago with no issues, why am I being fired now"? Also, I think it needs to be made clear, we're not voting to ban CodeCat -- I would not vote yes on such a ballot -- we're voting desysop her, which had been working out fine for that past year, and if she need some extra tools here and there, why can try and provide them. --Victar (talk) 16:43, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    To repeat, becoming an admin is, partially, some award you get after x amount of edits. x may be the low. No one gets to be an admin after only 0 edits. I said "partially" because there are other factors involved, like quality of the edits. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:40, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And what I'm saying is having high edit counts is a causality, not a causation. --Victar (talk) 18:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: You broke my message in pieces. I'm OK with that, I'm not complaining at all. I added my signature in all pieces now.
    I guess I kinda understand what you mean, but you know I was already disagreeing with you in the first place and you didn't explain it much better now. Your last message is cryptic. I could try and explain your point, but to do that I would almost have try to read your mind. It's your job to make your point (if you are interested, of course) and I couldn't guarantee I'd do it well for you. Let's put it this way: everything is a causality and a causation to something. What is your point? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This is what I'm trying to say: w:Correlation does not imply causation. If edit counts were the basis of adminship, it would be automatically granted, sans voting, which it is not. --Victar (talk) 19:12, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. One more time, I agree with everything you are saying now. Nice. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This can be fact-checked, and shown not to be the case: "There are probably thousands of basic users with more edits than the admins on this page". Currently the admin in this page with most mainspace edits is Saltmarsh with 108,177 as per the most recent report.[1] Almost all the 11 other non-bots with more edits than him/her are admins too. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:40, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No, what I said was there are non-admins with higher edit counts that admins on this page, not higher than the admin with the highest edit count. You have not disproven that. --Victar (talk) 18:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough: There are non-admins with higher edit counts than admins on this page. I completely agree with you. That can be fact-checked and proved to be true. This is different than your previous claim ("There are probably thousands of basic users with more edits than the admins on this page"). We can write it off as, maybe that's what you were thinking the whole time and now you made yourself clearer -- if that's fine with you. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, my mistake for not explaining my point clearly at first. --Victar (talk) 19:12, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Rua's first edit was in 2007 and she became an admin in 2010. That is, her work was known for 3 years before she became an admin. In my experience, apparently people often get hired in the real world without their work necessarily being known to all the other employees for 3 years. That's why in real life, apparently you often wouldn't be able to check for work issues before hiring someone.
    The 2010 admin vote has no bearing over whether the current vote passes or fails. You said "And to argue that she has 100% approval from 8 people 7 years ago is also completely irrelevant", but what do you think I'm arguing? I merely pointed out that if the current vote fails, it will confirm the 2010 decision that it's OK to let her be an admin. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:40, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I beg to differ. We have degrees, CVs, references, accolades for citing previous work. Also, just because you're a good employee 3 years in, doesn't mean you still are 7 years in, so my anecdote still stands. A decision fire some presently does not made a decision 7 years earlier to hire them wrong. --Victar (talk) 18:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with everything you are saying now. Still, I merely pointed out that if the current vote fails, it will confirm the 2010 decision that it's OK to let her be an admin. I mean, confirm as of 2017. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Let us bask in the rare occasion that we both agree on something. Thanks for working through it with me. --Victar (talk) 19:12, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, thank you. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Oppose Per Angr and Donnanz. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:41, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7.   Oppose. — Kleio (t · c) 23:39, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  8.   Oppose — Saltmarsh. 07:33, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  9.   Oppose Ƿidsiþ 07:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC) I was asked to add a justification. Rua can be curt, but I don't see anything worse than that. Ƿidsiþ 15:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  10.   Oppose A difficult person for sure, but also an immensely valuable editor. Crom daba (talk) 19:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Crom daba I think it's certainly possible to still be a valuable and productive editor while not being an admin. In fact, I think most of CodeCat's value lies within the boundary of those tasks. --Victar (talk) 20:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I admit I do not understand clearly what privileges admins are granted, but I thought they were needed for most technical jobs where Rua contributes a lot. Crom daba (talk) 20:35, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Only template editorship is needed to edit most modules and templates, but adminship is needed to edit JavaScript gadgets and other things in the MediaWiki namespace. — Eru·tuon 20:43, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  11.   Oppose —JohnC5 12:45, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  12.   Oppose Way too severe a sanction. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  13.   Oppose Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 12:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  14.   Oppose -Xbony2 (talk) 02:52, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @JohnC5, Kaixinguo~enwiktionary, Xbony2 Can you provide your thoughts behind your votes, and perhaps recommend an alternative solution to the issue? --Victar (talk) 17:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps this drama is enough to force her to be careful about her future actions. -Xbony2 (talk) 23:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Xbony2: I wish I could say might be the case, but even after a year of being desysopped and a stern warning from Chuck to keep her nose clean, she isn't altered her behavior in the slightest. --Victar (talk) 17:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps I believe in second chances and you are cynical, or perhaps you are right and I am naïve. But I suppose we'll find out. -Xbony2 (talk) 03:07, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Xbony2: Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice... --Victar (talk) 04:20, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  15.   Oppose — Isomorphyc (talk) 23:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  16.   Oppose PseudoSkull (talk) 18:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  17.   Oppose difficult but valuable contributor.Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 20:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  18.   Oppose. —RuakhTALK 06:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain edit

  Abstain On one hand, contributes a lot of good stuff, especially in modules. On the other hand, does so without proper consensus. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 16:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  1.   Abstain. Honestly, I don't really want Rua to lose her admin bit, because it comes in handy now and again. But the issues are real, and the unfortunate flip side of not having an overbearing bureaucracy like 'pedia means that we don't really have any punishments to hand out besides desysopping. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:14, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Metaknowledge, I don't think it should be really framed as a "punishment", but rather limiting someone's privileges to deter future conflicts. --Victar (talk) 21:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't that the definition of a punishment? —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 12:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Is enforcing a no-fly-zone for commercial planes a punishment to airline companies? --Victar (talk) 16:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Abstain I see definite issues on both sides of this argument -- Rua has been prone to unilateral moves to reworking infrastructure that we all depend on, without doing enough consensus-building. And she has also been instrumental in a number of significant improvements.
    I'm on the fence here. If I lean either way, it's slightly towards not sysop: much of what she's done can be implemented by an editor without the sysop bit, and others have noted that her not being a sysop could help avoid certain kinds of conflict in future.
    I see several users who have voted without listing any reasons. Request: @DTLHS, Kleio, Saltmarsh, Widsith, would you be willing to add a rationale to your vote?
    Also, for @Rua herself, would you be willing to explain what you do that would require sysop privileges? Even a simple bulleted list would help.
    ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I voted against more or less per Angr. There are some things she could improve, but her behavior to me does not warrant sysopping at this time and I think she could do her work better with admin privileges. — Kleio (t · c) 01:41, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Some people seem to have said quite enough already :) — Saltmarsh. 07:37, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Abstain Equinox ◑ 22:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Abstain I have no horse in this race but I am surprised that I don't see much serious discussion of de-sysopping + Template Editor privileges. Either way, I am grateful for Rua's contributions and I dislike the off-putting atmosphere here (By "here" I mean at en.wikt in general, not on this particular discussion). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "I dislike the off-putting atmosphere here" -- I feel you. The anonymity of the internet can make people respond quite harshly and cynically to even minor mistakes made in good faith by otherwise valuable editors. It's unfortunate. — Kleio (t · c) 01:41, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Abstain As I am finally in long-winded enough mood to answer this vote, I drop what I think on the matter: I have mostly not been around when the contested “uncivilities” took place to perceive them to their full extent, but I am quite confident that the litigant people make mountains out of molehills. I do not see substantial evidence to back up a withdrawal of administrative rights, even if older corpus delicti is admissible I would suggest dismissal of the case in application of the de minimis rule, and it is rather striking how people rely on sentiments like “unemphaticness” and “disdainfulness” and “imperiousness”, all accidentialia. That seem to be real old-school typical qualities of a genial scientist, and the tact in applying the intellect is always more valuable than the amenity of the features of the behavior that expresses the intellect’s conclusions (this is not a matrimonial proceeding and you are not on a date with Rua to partake in her warmth). Such way the behavior of Rua fulfills the highest requirements of predictability – she is a handsome personality of one piece that services the claims brought upon her. I am more worried by what Wyang may commit in the future than by what Rua could commit. It is disgusting how much he sticks to trifles and courtesies like when I superficially appeared to side with Rua (which wasn’t even a trap) or he is “pissed” when a user obviously only very objectively referring to the objects of his address spoke of a stupid idea executed by Wyang and simply said “Stop.”. Some people, all of us sometimes, make mistakes by the attention not being sharpened, but Wyang indulges in being superficial. As seen in that long post where I appeared to side with Rua: Who has not treated the other as equal human being with opinions worth paying attention to? He leaves the ship when it burns instead of confronting the discontent. Granted, I would disprefer either as judge, but as for the standards needed for this project, Rua exceeds them fairly well, while Wyang should invest a bit more willpower to satisfy the expectations. Palaestrator verborum (loquier) 00:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    diff. I definitely agree. Wyang (talk) 02:45, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This comment by Wyang only confirms the observation that Wyang acts completely arbitrarily and disregards arguments independently of how much reason there is in them. Also Stephen is a candidate for the same judgment as he abuses words for his pure comfort and calls texts nonsense that aren’t such. Or does he lack words to point out the lacunae in my argumentation strains because he is a child (it cannot be true biologically, considering the date he has already worked for Wiktionary)? There is no essential difference between children and adults in what relates to arguments, and it is obviously impossible that I am a child, just considering the times I write here in my approximate altitude, or the count of languages I know, or the style which is never seen on childs (you might argue on insanes, but that is also nothing in rem and not even necessarily bad in effect). What’s true is that how I talk has nothing to do with how they chatter on the streets, and elsewhere these days, but that is the worse for the current language and those who think they should speak modern, as dead languages like literary English are advantageous by being free of the recent prejudices of the unenlightened majority.
    Obviously Wyang cannot think how I do, for in that case memorizing all those Chinese tones &c. were not so much bearable. But this capacity is begotten by the very same trait which I have poked. The reluctance to do anything than to repeat what other people have recited, the expectation that everything can be cut into atoms of ideas conveyed instead of being a twisted hypotaxis, which is why in that post where I appeared to side with Rua he does nothing than to repeat the things which I and others already have said instead of treating the truth behind the words. A useful quality to pass school, eminence in being a normie, but of course completely dishonest.
    Alas, what do I talk so much? How can someone not be dishonest that posts a diff of an argumentless rant and “agrees”? That is below 4channers. Palaestrator verborum (loquier) 04:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Palaestrator, the more you write, the more naïve you look. If you are unable to express yourself clearly and concisely, the consequence is simply that your posts will be ignored. Not everyone has time for your ridiculously long passages. It just comes across as pretentious. Wyang (talk) 05:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This is honestly disappointing to read. I really shouldn't have bothered. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 16:00, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're trying to say civility and cordiality are irrelevant to one's role as an admin, I completely disagree. This project is built upon community and cooperation -- building on the foundation of others. I also want to stress that this vote should not be made into a Wyang v. CodeCat issue, because it is not. --Victar (talk) 07:38, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's "Wyang". "Wang" is something rather different... —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Victar, are you implying that Wyang is a d*ck? If yes, I disagree, I find him very nice. --2A02:2788:A4:F44:20C7:30E9:F585:19D6 10:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks to be an honest (but unfortunate) typo to me. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 16:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh no, I rather point out the weighting. Civility and cordiality are nice to have. But I imagine community and cooperation in a cold way, i.e. cold reason, which is hard to fit into the crude manners of the everyday language. It reminds me of that post of Linus Torvalds from July 15th, 2013. Better be a bit more pretentious, i.e. have pretensions, than simplifying all indiscriminately by the superficiality of being “clear and concise”. Possibly I am going a bit into the other extreme (opposite to posting votes without explanations). But sadly Wyang is habitually neither cordial nor intellectual. That’s why I say he should invest more willpower, and why I find it comparatively displaced to reprove Rua who tries hard to expound her solutions rather than trying to swim below the radar. There is nothing naïve in exerting oneself. Palaestrator verborum (loquier) 14:38, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe some of us are trying to say that CodeCat doesn't need her admin status to continue her work, particularly if you give her template editor access. That would prevent her from deleting and locking articles, and require her to use consensus gathering and communication, something she otherwise tries to avoid, from my experience. It's worked out well the past year, in my opinion. --Victar (talk) 15:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Abstain Leasnam (talk) 02:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7.   Abstain Dghmonwiskos (talk) 14:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  8.   Abstain Having to dodge emotionally-charged bullets here already... people getting triggered to literal "did you just assume my gender?" levels sealed my deal. I'm out. mellohi! (僕の乖離) 04:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  9.   Abstain --WikiTiki89 17:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decision edit

Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2017-11/Desysopping_CodeCat_aka_Rua&oldid=48257297"