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

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. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/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.) --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/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). --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget these: [19], [20], [21] (last section, yyyy), [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]. --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

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. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 13:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• @:רן Excellent. תודה. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Banning

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.) —Ruakh_TALK 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)

Incident

diff. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I have a first First Amendment right to be a jerk. But you wouldn't understand with your communist background. --Vahag (talk) 16:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Tell that to your employer (if any) when you break their anti-harassment policies. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Wiktionary-editors are not my employers, readers are. And to them I serve high-quality content without being a jerk. --Vahag (talk) 17:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

If you read my note multiple times, chances are you will be able to extract from it the message that First Amendment protects you against government, but not against organizations. If an organization decides to part with you for incivility, the first amendment won't protect you, AFAIK. But you probably already know that, and your response is part of your being, as you put it, a "jerk". --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)