Wiktionary talk:Votes/sy-2012-09/User:Vahagn Petrosyan for de-sysop

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

Can anyone of you please give every example of vandalism (mainspace or otherwise) he's done? Without evidence, a vote like this will hardly succeed. -- Liliana 12:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. You'll never get an exhaustive list. Look at the links provided in the BP and on his talkpage and its archives, and you'll have enough evidence to make your decision. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 13:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Not every: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]Ungoliant (Falai) 13:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

-[12] —This unsigned comment was added by 81.9.217.33 (talk).

  • [13][14][15][16][17][18] (“Go, kill some Turks!”). — Ungoliant (Falai) 00:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
    My faulty assumption that Wiktionarians could not or would not collect so much evidence has been refuted. Thanks, Ungoliant. (Although I don't agree that all of these are vandalistic... but that's a wholly different issue.) --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Me neither. The only one I consider vandalistic enough to influence my vote is the double click thing. I must admit I had quite a laugh reading these diffs; but still, he really should have cleaned up the shit he added SOON after adding it. — Ungoliant (Falai) 01:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, they were a lot of fun. Dick Laurent used to write those sorts of usage examples too, and they always give me a kick (anons tend to remove them on sight, so they're slowly disappearing). --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Don't forget these: [19], [20], [21] (last section, yyyy), [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]. --Vahag (talk) 13:04, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
By way of comparison, I made a few joke entries in the main namespace but nobody was actually bothering to check my edits so they got left and I had to revert them myself. So I started logging out and then the edits get reverted in minutes. Examples: I'm a cat and pedophile were both mine. For the records, it's just supposed to make people laugh and then get reverted. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Did you apologize to James Jiao and the other poor Wiktionarians who had to revert the edits? --BB12 (talk) 17:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Official warning[edit]

Whether or not this vote actually ends up running, I'd prefer if there were a sister vote (or sister option within the vote) to the effect that it would be an official warning, and that any bureaucrat could desysop him immediately for any vandalism that is left (i.e., not reverted by himself) in the mainspace again. I'm sure there's a better way to phrase that, though. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 13:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Banning[edit]

Just out of curiosity - why isn't banning an option one can vote for? ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Firstly — because this vote, like many or most votes, was the outcome of a discussion, and no one in the discussion seemed to advocate banning. Secondly — because that's kind of an extreme jump, from sysop to banned editor, for something that many editors clearly don't even find worthy of de-sysopping. Thirdly — if he were not a sysop, and these edits persisted, they would result in blocks anyway. (Not bans, I guess, but still.) —RuakhTALK 01:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
@Tooironic. Why have you changed your mind? Weren't you saying that editors should be assessed by their contributions, first of all? --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 02:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Like I said, I was only curious. I find this whole process complicated and mystifying. I'm not even sure I'll vote. Wiktionary politics is not really my thing. I'd rather get on with making contributions to the project. ---> Tooironic (talk) 07:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Wiktionary needs you to decide the future. Cast your vote today!
Even if you're not into politics, voting is important, because this directly affects articles. I cannot force you, but please think about it. -- Liliana 18:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)