Wiktionary:Votes/bc-2018-01/User:Dvortygirl for debureaucrating

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

User:Dvortygirl for debureaucrating[edit]

Nomination: Removing bureaucrat powers from Dvortygirl (talkcontribs). Practically inactive.


  • Vote starts: 12:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Vote extended to 23:59, 25 February 2018 (UTC), a month after a notification was posted to the talk page of Dvortygirl. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:07, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Vote created: Rerum scriptor (talk) 12:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support 4 edits in 2017, 4 edits in 2016, and so on. Marginally active, but this user would have no need for the 'crat tools. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support - While I would much prefer she return to the project, and I would much prefer we simply had a policy for removal after a period of inactivity, I think it is best that we not have inactive bureaucrats. - TheDaveRoss 15:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support: I agree with Dave above. --Victar (talk) 01:30, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg SupportInternoob 04:26, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support Last edit is from 28 August 2017; last admin action is from 9 February 2013, nearly 5 years ago. (Special:Contributions/Dvortygirl, Special:Log/Dvortygirl). This does seem worthy of debureucrating to me per no admin action for nearly 5 years, and such a policy was proposed in Wiktionary:Votes/2017-05/Removing bureaucrat and checkuser rights for inactivity. While that policy had no consensus, the reasons for opposition varied: two opposers wanted the inactivity be specified in terms of editing, not admin actions; one opposer of that policy said that 5 years was too long, and two opposers did not state their reasons.

    I would like to encourage voters in the present vote to state their reasons so that we can see what sort of policy has the best chance of passing. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:34, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

  6. Symbol support vote.svg Conditional support if Dvortygirl hasn't used admin or bureaucrat tools (analogous to "Desysopping for inactivity") when this vote ends on 25 February 2018. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:05, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svg Conditional support same as Lingo Bingo Dingo above Finsternish (talk) 21:15, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  8. Symbol support vote.svg Conditional support same as Lingo Bingo Dingo and Finsternish. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 13:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  9. Symbol support vote.svg SupportSaltmarsh. 05:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  10. Symbol support vote.svg Support -Xbony2 (talk) 16:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  11. Symbol support vote.svg Support Well, it's been a month. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 23:49, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose At least Dvortygirl has a user page. DonnanZ (talk) 14:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, but only marginally. I think she should be notified of an impending removal of powers with about a month response time, so she can decide whether she wants to keep them or not. My understanding is that supporting this vote would permit immediate removal of bureaucrat rights. Her last admin action was in February 2013 however, so that was almost 5 years ago. I think 5 years of non-use is in principle a good criterion for debureaucratting as well. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
    Yes, this is rather bad form to do this in her back. I've left a message on her talkpage. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 18:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
    Changed vote to "conditional support". ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:05, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Same reason as above. Finsternish (talk) 13:08, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
    @Finsternish: Which reasons? Those of Donnanz or those of Lingo Bingo Dingo? --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
    Lingo Bingo Dingo. Finsternish (talk) 11:16, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
    @Finsternish. Thank you. Lingo Bingo Dingo says: " I think 5 years of non-use is in principle a good criterion for debureaucratting as well". And that criterion is now nearly met, per my comment: just a couple of days are missing to make up 5 years since last admin action. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:25, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
    It looks to me like what they meant by "in principle" was that it made sense to simply try to inform her, give it a month, and then do it, but that otherwise 5 years was plenty of time. Finsternish (talk) 11:59, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
    @Finsternish: There is now a notification at User_talk:Dvortygirl#Transparency, from 24 January 2018. Would you be okay with debureaucratting on 25 February 2018 if we do not hear from Dvortygirl until then? --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:06, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
    Of course. Finsternish (talk) 12:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
    @Dan Polansky, Finsternish Finsternish's reading of "in principle" is correct, my opposition depended on the lack of in-built response time. So removing bureaucrat privileges on 25 February would be all right in my book. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:48, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
    @Lingo Bingo Dingo: Since Dvortygirl was notified and since I extended the vote to Feb 25, what would you think about a conditional support, like "Conditional support if Dvortygirl does not oppose until Feb 25", "Conditional support if, by February 25, Dvortygirl does not express a wish to keep the flag" or whatever wording you prefer? --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:52, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
    Yes check.svg Done ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:05, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
    also Yes check.svg Done Finsternish (talk) 21:15, 3 February 2018 (UTC)


# Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain for now. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 18:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  1. I think we should follow the principle of least privilege, and not have inactive bureaucrats, but I also think that since she has still been around the site, editing within the last six months, it would be better to reach out and see if she wants to try to be more active, or conversely would give up her bureaucrat rights since she is not using them. - -sche (discuss) 23:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  2. I agree with -sche. I'm not on Twitter, but via Google, I see Dvortygirl (or at least, someone with the same real-world name she used to have, looking similar and having similar interests) is, as @Dvortygirl, if anyone wants to contact her. --Enginear 17:57, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  3. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain for now. Agree with -sche --Geographyinitiative (talk) 15:59, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


What's the rush? DonnanZ (talk) 17:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
I've filed a steward request. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:46, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
meta:Steward_requests/Permissions/2018-03#Dvortygirl@en.wiktionary. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 12:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)